Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Nov 1962

Vol. 197 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy Jones.)

Mr. Jones

I was referring last night to housing and the fact that there were delays in this regard. I suggested to the Minister that there should be more man-to-man talks on this matter rather than correspondence. I believe that the local authority, advised competently by their advisers in regard to housing, should be allowed, and certainly they are entitled to, discretion in regard to the siting of houses, provided they comply with the regulations in regard to the size of rooms, density of houses and so on. In regard to the actual siting of houses, the local authorities are entitled to their opinion and should be able to implement that opinion. If a local authority should make a mistake, it is entitled to make it. If the mistake is made once, I do not think it will happen again because members of local authorities are subject more to public opinion than to the Department. In regard to lack of rural housing and the delays which have been experienced in overcoming it, it might help if, when cottages are being advertised, they are advertised in groups in particular areas to enable contractors to be obtained.

Nowadays the pattern is to take one here and one there through the county area and the local authority might find itself advertising 25 or 30 houses but these are scattered because of priorities in regard to building needs. If the cottages were grouped in threes or fours in a particular area, the local authority might more readily find a contractor to carry out the work. In that regard, now that the provision of serviced houses in the country areas is envisaged, I wonder if we ought not to consider this matter in conjunction with what is likely to happen. Is it reasonable to suggest that such houses erected in remote rural areas ought to carry provision for servicing when in the far foreseeable future there is no possibility of such a type of service? It is something which requires very close attention to determine whether that is what we need.

We will always need rural housing if the needs of the rural community are to be served. It is not much use to bring them into centres, although it may be more convenient administratively and may lend itself more readily to servicing. But in our circumstances here, with scattered rural populations, we will always need that type of rural house which is not readily serviced. For those houses which are to be serviced, naturally the cost element will be increased, and the grants payable from central funds to local authorities will need to be revised so as to bring them more in line with the requirements to be imposed on local authorities.

I notice in subhead E. 4—the National Building Agency—that no provision was made during the year for this service. In the previous year, there was a token sum, but I did not notice in the Minister's speech—may be I overlooked it—any reference to the National Building Agency and what progress has been achieved with this idea of providing housing for what has been referred to as the white-collar worker. There are types of people who are unable to build for themselves and are neglected by the local authority because they do not fall to be housed by them. Certainly, these people need housing in certain areas. Under the schemes of grants and loans which are available many of these needs are being met by the type of private building to which the Minister referred. However, there still remains a residue of applicants in that category who ought to be considered from the point of view that they are people who would be desirable tenants of local authorities but are unable to provide housing on their own account.

I wonder if the Minister and his Department have made any survey of unoccupied houses? If such a survey has been made, perhaps the Minister might be able to give us some indication of the number of houses which are unoccupied and which could be made available for occupation by people still awaiting rehousing.

The Minister gave a good deal of attention in his brief to roads. The measure which he has introduced in regard to town planning and which will fall to be discussed at a later stage, will provide an opportunity for perhaps a wider discussion on this matter. Again, I should like to refer to this from the point of view of our present policy in regard to roads. The Minister referred to the traffic problem. It is becoming a nightmare in the built-up areas, particularly Dublin, Cork, Limerick and the large towns. The provision of parking space is a problem which urgently needs attention. The incidence of accidents on the roads and the loss of life are most deplorable. It is a problem to which the community as a whole will need to pay a good deal of attention, both from the point of view of the administrator and that of the general public.

The lack of courtesy, and particularly at night time, is really appalling. The growth of modern traffic and the coming on to the roads of heavier traffic because of the closure of railways must give pause to anyone looking at this problem. It is clear it is a growing problem and that the roads of the future will be very much different from what they are at present. Anybody driving out of Dublin at present can see the attempts being made to deal with this problem in the environs and within a 30-mile radius of Dublin. We hope this will lead to an easing of the problem within the area immediately contiguous to Dublin and that there will be a decrease in the fatal accidents rate because of the efforts now being made to make traffic flow more freely and safely.

When we move further out into the country, we find a different problem facing us. Whether the realignment taking place in regard to roads is a proper solution or whether widening or strengthening of roads might give equally good results is something to be considered. All this question is bound up with costs. It is good therefore to find that tests are taking place in regard to reducing the cost of roadmaking. There is a need for more experimental tests. They should, however, be made by the local authority engineers as well as by independent assessment. There ought to be a determination of the type of roads needed for the different types of traffic. With the type of traffic on rural roads, there is not the same necessity for the kind of road necessary for trunk road traffic and traffic near the large centres of population. Too often these roads are constructed to speed requirements rather than to safety regulations. It is a matter to which serious attention should be paid.

In regard to road grants, the Minister referred to the fact that more money is being made available to the local authorities. If we compare the Road Fund of 1956-57 with the Road Fund of 1961-62, we see that, with the growth of traffic and the increased usage of motor transport, it is now easier to make grants available than it was previously. The Road Fund for 1956-57 amounted to £4,850,000 odd. For 1961-62, the Road Fund was £7,696,000 odd. In that respect, the usage of roads is likely to grow with the types of conditions now inherent in our transport problem.

It has often struck me that, in the repair of roads, we sometimes rip up more road than we can readily deal with at a time. It strikes one that rerouting in these cases would be a solution to perhaps part of the problem of a road which is being cut up by traffic passing over it at the same time as repairs are being effected. A plan to re-route traffic, or sections of it, while repair work is taking place is something that might be considered.

On the subject of roads generally and what is likely to happen, I am sure a further opportunity to examine the matter will present itself on a measure which will come before the House in a short time. We can then discuss more fully what the future is likely to hold in regard to the problems of roads, land requirements and costs in that respect, as well as in other ways.

I am glad to note that the Minister is not rigid in regard to water schemes. On a previous occasion, I had understood that he was leaning more to one type of scheme rather than another. I am glad to note that I misunderstood what he said. I am afraid it was widely misunderstood throughout the country. Many people thought that the Minister was thinking in terms of regional schemes and the extension of existing schemes widely throughout the country. I am glad that that is not so. I am glad that the group rural schemes are equally as valuable in the Minister's mind as the regional schemes.

Regional schemes have been in operation in places such as Tipperary and Cork for a certain length of time. There is no doubt that a gravity rural scheme is less costly and has been widely used in those areas. The type of scheme that would envisage pumping instead of gravity is far more expensive.

I have seen figures in relation to rural water supplies in my area. The county engineer made his estimate in that respect and the council, in principle, have agreed to the programme, spread over an eight- or ten-year period. The provision of water for villages and towns is an extension of what has been going on and whether that is done by way of independent scheme or by way of regional scheme is a matter that falls within the technical ambit of the authorities concerned.

As far as the ratepaying community are concerned, the problem is much the same. There is one thing that needs to be guarded against. The Limerick county engineer, in his examination of the problem, looked at the cost in question. It is something that needs to be carefully watched. I am very suspicious of the figure the Minister mentions of 2/- in the £ as being the maximum amount that might fall to be met by rates in relation to water. I feel that it can be only an estimate.

Most members of local authorities will remember that on a previous occasion an estimate was made in regard to another service—health— which fell to be met by the local authorities. It proved a complete under-estimate of what is now a local charge for health services. One of the big burdens of local authorities at present is the demand they have to meet from health authorities who are operating these services and who now find that they must ask county rates to provide anything from 11/-, 13/- or 14/- in the £ of rateable valuation.

I would hope that the Minister's estimate of 2/- in the £ is firm but I would say it is suspect, considering the burden which would fall on a particular local authority area. I think I remember seeing that in Kerry they envisage a problem of about £5,000,000. I think the Minister attempted to correct that somewhat for them. In my county, the figure is over £1,000,000. Naturally, these sums of money, over a number of years, do not look much but the service of these moneys by way of repayment of interest and capital sums, allied to what is being paid at present, would prove a large commitment for the rate-paying community.

The determination of what water schemes shall be extended, where they shall be put and their priority in any county should, I think, depend to a greater degree on the canvass which is being or which should be carried out of the number of possible users. This method has very successfully been used by the ESB in their determination as to service and as to the areas and the priority in which it shall be given. I think it might be used, indeed, to good effect in local authority areas as well. The amount of service which can reasonably be forecast ought to determine some priority in regard to the extension of these schemes.

The Minister mentioned that rents would be forthcoming from these schemes. We must remember, equally, that extensions from these schemes or the provision of new schemes must always envisage somebody to look after them. They must envisage a maintenance charge and they must envisage a replacement charge. These are matters that must be borne in mind in connection with the provision of water schemes. The high cost involved in isolated cases could not be justified by any stretch of the imagination.

Equally, sanitary services must remain a town or village project. There is need for such services in many districts. Sanitary services depend on water supply. It is regrettable that very often sanitary services are not provided at the time a water scheme is being installed. This means that roads have to be ripped up again for the purpose of installing the sanitary service, which could have been avoided had that service been provided in conjunction with the water scheme.

The provision of water schemes helps to make life in rural Ireland more attractive. Such services are not merely an amenity but a necessity. These services should be extended and priority should be based on the probable user of a scheme.

With regard to the fire survey, I notice the Minister is awaiting the report of the commission which he set up in 1960. In reply to a Question which I asked in regard to this matter, the Minister informed me in March of this year that the report was not yet available and would not be available until later in the year. I assume from the Minister's reference today that it is not yet available. The incidence of fire is a disturbing feature and immediately poses the question as to whether or not we should proceed more quickly with the question of protection against fire and regulations governing the matter generally.

There is no reference in the Minister's speech, of course, to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I know that the Minister can tell me the Act is still in existence and that funds can be made available locally from the rates for works which the local authority consider desirable. Last winter, the flooding which occurred and the damage caused to bridges highlighted the necessity of having some means of dealing urgently with such emergencies. The intermediate drainage which was promised in 1960, when the responsibility passed to the Board of Works, is still very far from realisation.

I cannot understand how it is that doubts can be cast on the utility of works which were carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The works were doubly approved at the time. They were approved by the local authority and their advisers. They were of a design which met the requirements of the technical experts. They were approved by Departmental officials. They were regarded as works of merit at the time and that must still hold good with regard to them. There has been a steep decline in the amount made available for works of that character. In a great many rural areas there is no ready way of dealing locally and urgently with problems such as arose last winter as a result of the inclemency of the weather and flooding.

I am glad to see that there is an increase in the grant for An Comhairle Leabharlann. The library service provides a very useful amenity at a small cost and is of great value, particularly in rural areas. The modest increase in the provision will enable the library services in rural areas to be extended. I should like to pay tribute to our own librarian who has devised, with the local authority, a travelling library to serve the more remote areas. In rural Ireland, where there is a lack of organised entertainment, reading is not only a healthy but a relaxing occupation. Any increase in the estimate for the library service is very praiseworthy indeed.

In conclusion, I should like to comment on the fact that while the schemes envisaged in the Minister's speech are very praiseworthy, they all envisage the spending of more money. Local authorities are spending a large amount of money. The rating authorities, last year, faced a problem with regard to the matter of rates. The proposed programme would involve a continuation of that problem. This matter must be seriously considered. Priorities should be determined and dealt with, regard being had always to the capacity of the citizen, whether as taxpayer or as ratepayer, to pay for services.

Indeed, the use of phrases like "the State" and "amounts provided by the State", tends to create the impression that these sums come from some source other than the pockets of the public, either locally or nationally. It is all very well to envisage these schemes, but we must have regard to reality, the reality of the economy of the country as it is. When I speak of ratepayers in a rural community, I am not speaking solely of the farming element in that community. The farmers have their problems. They have large problems because of vagaries of weather or because of circumstances brought about by the steps now being taken to improve the livestock position, for instance, the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme. Under that scheme large capital sums have to be provided by the farmers to meet the challenge of the future.

The towns and villages dependent upon the rural community are equally a community of ratepayers. There, again, both sections are facing a time of change, a time when there will be need to conserve the efforts they can make in order to enable them to bear the burden which will fall upon them and which they will have to meet. I wonder if the time has not arrived when we ought to pause rather than continue devising ways of spending money. I wonder if the time has not arrived when we ought to give thought to the question whether we should allow a breathing space to the community to enable the community to recover from its efforts and, having done that, to see in what priority it ought to tackle some of the problems mentioned in the Minister's speech.

Mr. Treacy

In my opinion, one of the most important, if not the most important works which any Minister for Local Government performs is that of rehousing the people. I was pleased at the Minister's concern because we have not been making the progress we all desire to make in that regard. It is still true that there are thousands of people in this country living in condemned, overcrowded, dark, dilapidated, sometimes ratinfested hovels. The local authority are finding it very difficult to make the desired progress in rehousing these people.

There are many difficulties. The Minister indicated that the majority of the people who he thinks are still in need of rehousing are people who are either unwilling or unable to take a new house. To some extent, he is right in that regard. Many people, especially in the lower income group, suffering privation, sickness and unemployment, trying to maintain large families, are living in fear and trembling of getting a new house because of the high rents in this country today. They cannot meet the kind of rents the local authority are obliged to charge, having regard to family income.

In my own town, in a recent housing scheme, we were obliged to fix a fixed rent of 10/- plus rates and 17/- plus rates, in the first instance. The Minister did not think fit to approve of that particular rent proposal and the corporation were obliged to fix a differential rent system to be imposed on these tenants, tenants who, in the main, come from a slum clearance area. The differential rent we were obliged to fix was 11/- minimum and £2 16/- maximum. I ask any member of this House if he regards a rent of £2 16/- a week as reasonable, just, or proper for an ordinary council house, consisting of three rooms, bathroom, toilet and kitchenette.

One can imagine the reluctance of families to take houses under such circumstances. In my opinion, the differential rent system is not an answer to reducing rents or to the problem of making it possible for people to be rehoused. According as incomes increase in the household, at some stage they can and will be charged a rent of upwards of £2 16s. per week. It would be a far better thing for that family, if they could, to build a house of their own.

The differential rent system, which is good in itself, and which is implemented for very noble motives, as I know, was designed to ensure that any person in need of rehousing would be housed, irrespective of income, irrespective of whether or not that person could afford the economic rent the local authority would be obliged to charge. It is a very nice principle, but it has serious defects. It involves, in its administration, a paying and a probing into the intimate affairs of family life. It involves an annual means test of family income, an odious system in itself. It makes for class distinction in a housing scheme. It gives rise to the inference that one man is paying the rent for another. It causes dissension of every kind.

It is a good thing that in sickness, old age, or unemployment, one should have a rent at a price one can afford to pay. That is a very desirable situation. On the other hand, when family income increases, one is scourged with an economic rent which, under the circumstances, would seem to be unjust.

We believe that this high rent problem today can be, and should be, tackled by the Minister for Local Government in order to find a solution to it. We believe that one of the real reason why rents are so high is the high interest rate charged for money borrowed for house building by the local authority. It is true to say, I think, that in respect of the amount of money borrowed by a local authority for the rehousing of the working classes, over the period of years that money can be borrowed— 35, 40 or 50 years—one pays back to the banks or to the Local Loans Fund, wherever the money comes from, two and a half times the amount of money borrowed.

Speaking from the Labour benches, I say that we regard that as a kind of extortion by the glorified moneylenders of the country. We know of no reason why the Minister should not make money available at reduced rates of interest for this national scheme of rehousing our people. Many other countries make money available at two per cent., three per cent., and so forth. The Minister should reduce the rents of the houses by half, and should make money available at reduced rates of interest, such as perhaps two per cent. or 2½ per cent., rather than the extortionate rate of interest which has prevailed for such a long number of years. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to reducing the rates of interest for this national service. The rehousing of our people is of primary importance.

In my opinion, the next most important work being undertaken by the Minister is the extension of a piped water supply to every house, every cottage and every farm in the country. I believe that money expanded on the extension of a piped water supply is money well spent. Criticism of the expenditure of this money is unjustified and I personally wish the Minister all good luck in proceeding with all speed with the implementation of a period water supply.

When one considers the sufferings and the hardships endured by thousands of families, and particularly the farming community, because of the lack of piped water, and the drudgery inflicted on families and particularly on housewives, and when one considers also the desirability of piped water in relation, say, to the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and its use generally about the farm, one can readily see that piped water is a necessity. The very same type of arguments about the cost, and about inability to pay, were used when electric light was being installed. Arguments were used that we could not afford the charges laid down by the ESB, but electric light is now regarded as "a must", a necessity, in every household and a piped water supply will be so regarded in a very short time.

It is all very well to talk about group schemes. They are laudable in themselves and they will have to be operated in certain areas where piped water obviously cannot be brought to mountain areas or isolated pockets. There are difficulties in getting group schemes going. It is difficult to get a number of people to agree even on a small proposal such as this, without some kind of dissension. Where group schemes can be got going, they should be got going, but that should not deter the Minister from going ahead with the piped water scheme.

In my county, we are proud of the fact that we have embarked upon a scheme which will probably cost about £3 million. It is the intention of that progressively-minded council to go ahead with a piped water supply scheme and bring it to the towns and villages which are now without it. With that, of course, goes the twin ideal of proper sewerage. The Minister should see to it that, as soon as piped water is installed, proper sewerage is provided with the least possible delay.

The kind of criticism I have heard against extended piped water supplies emanated from those people who marched and waved flags and banners around our counties in recent times. It was made by those we knew to have private supplies of water. It was, in my opinion, an essentially selfish attitude of: "I'm all right, Jack. Why should I pay for the water for my poorer next-door neighbour?" That is an anti-Irish and anti-Christian attitude.

The very same people who pleaded for a reduction in rates were, within a very short time—perhaps a month or two months—the people who led deputations or were on deputations, to the local authorities seeking amenities such as repair of roads, drainage, etc. On the one hand, they wanted to keep down the rates, and on the other, they had no compunction in asking the local authorities to expend extra money to suit themselves.

They seemed to think the councils should be like a Pandora's Box out of which money could be drawn without placing it as a further impost upon the backs of the ratepayers of the country. One would imagine that the word "ratepayers" applied to only one category, the farming community. I was very pleased that the Minister eased the burden of taxation on that community. Agriculture is still our major industry and anything we can do to stimulate agriculture should be done. The relief of rates, therefore, was commendable on the part of the Minister but there are other categories of people.

We are all ratepayers. The shopkeepers, the publicans, the council cottiers, the corporation tenants, the ordinary householders, all pay their due proportion of rates and are entitled in equity and justice to equal consideration with that other section of the community to which I have referred. It is true that the ordinary council house owner pays upwards of 7/- to 10/- per week in rates alone to the local authority. That is a considerable amount of money. It is much more difficult for that person to pay that amount of money than it is perhaps for the large farmer who may be in a much more prosperous position and be able to pay a much greater amount, so we should have more equity and justice in the relief of rates of that kind.

We are all conscious of the heavy impost of rates and we are naturally anxious to reduce them, but if we want the kind of amenities which we believe our people desire, we must be prepared to pay for them. We can never allow ourselves to adopt the attitude which has been suggested of slowing down the progress which is being made in the provision of such amenities as housing and roads. To become static would be a very dangerous thing in a country which is virtually static, anyway, from the point of view that we are losing our population and from the point of view that we have emigration of a very high rate to contend with. Inaction in such circumstances would break down any hope of worthwhile progress.

The Minister will recollect that by way of Question I raised the problem of the delay in payment of grants for repairs and reconstruction. The Minister admitted that there was delay, and there must of necessity be delay until the matter is properly examined, but the kind of delay to which I referred was undue delay. I also raised the matter of the reluctance to make credit available to people embarking upon repair and reconstruction of their own houses, because of the delay in the payment of these grants by the State and the local authority. That is very true. Banks are reluctant to make available money for loans of this kind; so are other private persons and, worse still, builders providers are now becoming wary of making available a period of time for the repayment of such moneys because of the long delay. Anything the Minister can do to remedy that situation would be welcomed by our people.

Another problem which strikes me in regard to repairs is that some persons who embark upon a repair job find that, for one reason or another, they are unable to complete the job in accordance with the engineer's specification. It may be a physical difficulty, a fiscal or some other difficulty, but the hard and fast rule of non-payment of the grant unless the specification is conformed to, can be, and is very often, unfair. I would ask the Minister to give special consideration to any claims he may have for the payment of moneys to help complete the job. That would be the main difficulty. There are times when the builders become tired of waiting for their money and will eventually quit the job. There are other difficulties in relation to repairs of this kind and the Minister should try to help by providing moneys to complete such jobs rather than allow a house to stay in a state of disrepair and cause dissatisfaction to a citizen.

I do not know, Sir, if I am entitled to refer to the Housing (Loans and Grants) Act which we passed recently. It is a very desirable thing in itself and we supported the Bill enthusiastically on that occasion. However, I note that in certain local authorities the situation has been worsened and the Minister may not be aware of it. Hitherto, supplementary grants towards the erection of houses were paid by certain local authorities only to tenants of corporation houses or persons eligible for selection as tenants of such houses, and in this connection a ceiling much higher than the £832 fixed by the Minister was permitted. In some local authorities I know of, £1,000 per annum was fixed as the ceiling income which would qualify an applicant. Now the statutory authority for that has been repealed and supplementary grants for new houses may be paid only where the income of the applicant, together with that of his wife, does not exceed £832.

It has been suggested that it is mandatory on the local authorities to apply that kind of means test, and they would be cutting out sections of the community which they formerly helped to build new houses. I should like the Minister to comment on that and, where he finds a local authority permitted an income ceiling of more than £832, to permit that policy to continue; otherwise, he will have to admit that many local authorities were much more progressive than he was when drafting this measure.

Many local authorities are guilty of absolute dereliction of duty in relation to the repair of their own property. We have instances of county council cottiers waiting years—when I say "years", I mean upwards of seven, ten and sometimes 12 years—before a cottage repair can be effected for them. That is a scandalous state of affairs. I wonder what authority the Minister has to insist that county managers and local authorities will keep their property in a state of reasonable repair and maintenance. Is there no obligation on them to do so?

There is the difficulty, I know, of providing the essential amount of money annually at estimate meetings for this purpose and there is, too, an added difficulty in this regard, that priority for repairs to cottages is given to those who are prepared to purchase their houses. That is held up as a big stick over the heads of people on long waiting lists: unless you vest, you have no chance whatsoever of getting repair work done on your cottage.

I agree as to the desirability of a greater diffusion of private property. It is a good thing for people to own their own homes and that they should have that extra feeling of security and status and something to confer on their children. Nevertheless, I resent deeply this element of compulsion, of forcing people to purchase their cottages in order to have a repair job done after waiting ten years. We are forcing people to purchase their houses because they must keep the roof over their heads and the council are doing that, in the knowledge that these people have not the wherewithal to maintain these houses in after years. We have a situation of more and more vested cottages in existence, many of them falling rapidly into disrepair and, worse still, many of them locked up altogether when we have long lists of people in need of rehousing. If the Minister does not interest himself in this acute problem, the county councils will be obliged to rehouse all over again these people who are in council cottages, cottages provided by the taxpayers' money for rehousing of the working classes which were, by default, allowed to fall into dilapidation and ruin.

In relation to repairs to such cottages, another great difficulty I have come across from time to time in my capacity as a public representative is that many people are unaware of their rights in regard to having a repair job carried out on their houses. It is true that people have the right to appeal to the Minister for Local Government, if they are not satisfied with the kind of repair job carried out. May I say, without casting aspersions on contractors, engineers or anybody else, that the kind of repair jobs which are carried out to cottages is deplorable.

The contract usually goes to the man submitting the lowest tender. He may not be a bona fide tradesman at all; he may be merely a jerrybuilder. This kind of repair work is foisted on tenants who do not know of their right of appeal to the Minister. They have only 30 days in which to appeal and if they do not do so within that period of time, they have no redress whatsoever. I would ask the Minister to ensure that people who vest their houses are shown clearly their right of appeal to him in this regard. That is the only chance they have to appeal to him in crystal clear terms.

I am not suggesting the local authority do not do so but there is something fundamentally wrong when so many people are not aware of this right. I would now urge the Minister to ensure that the local authorities are obliged to notify the applicant for vesting that he or she has this fundamental right of appeal. It is pleasing to note that when an engineer from the Department carries out such an investigation, by and large, the tenant is satisfied and justice is done. If the Minister could see his way to extend the appeal period of one month, I would welcome it very much. It is a reasonable request.

I listened to the Minister's opening statement and I am pleased about many things he is doing but regret very much he did not lay greater emphasis on the desirability of providing more amenities in rural areas. We have a drift from the rural areas to the bigger towns and cities and to places abroad and I believe that, apart from economic reasons, which are of paramount importance, one of the factors contributing to this drift is the lack of proper amenities— proper halls or meeting places, proper recreation facilities. We do not have in our smaller villages the amenities to which our people are entitled. Sometimes they lack piped water and sewerage, and in very many cases they lack footpaths, adequate lighting, civic halls and such things, and anything the Minister can do to assist the voluntary organisations who are interested in this work would be very desirable and laudable.

The fact that so many of our villages present a derelict and desolate appearance must make it evident to the Minister that he is not giving these people the encouragement of which they are so obviously in need. If we are to maintain our rural population, we must give them these modern amenities which they demand. If they do not get them, they will continue to leave. The days when they could meet at the crossroads are gone. Some speed-hog coming down at 60 or 70 miles an hour ensures that they are dispersed. The days of the old dance stage are over and something must be done by the Minister and the Department to provide modern substitutes in order to keep the people in the country.

Deputy Jones paid a high tribute to the work of the county librarian in his county. I realise that the Minister has in this Estimate provided for a slight increase in the allocation to An Comhairle Leabharlanna. The amount, £2,000, seems an infinitesimal figure when dispersed over the numerous county library authorities but nevertheless it is a step in the right direction as an increase in any sense would be.

I want to avail of this opportunity of saying how deeply we appreciate the work of the county librarians in County Tipperary—North and South. At the opening of a new branch library recently, there were approximately 800 children lined up to receive their books and we have an adult membership in that town of something like 1,000. That is very creditable and it is due to the great work of our county librarians who have created such an avid readership in our towns and villages. Anything more the Minister can do to assist such desirable schemes of reading promotion would be very welcome. In such places, the adult population are unable to have recourse to film shows or other such educational facilities, so the Minister will realise the importance of fostering the growth of public libraries —the workers' universities.

I note that some county managers have been adopting a "get-tough" attitude on this problem of sub-tenants in council houses. This attitude on the part of some county managers is not justified. Newly-married sons and daughters do not wish to remain in residence in their parents' homes and to rear their families in such accommodation. All young married people want, more than anything else, homes of their own away from their parents, no matter how attached they may be to them. They become sub-tenants of their parents, due to the neglect of the local authority in failing to provide them with new homes of their own and, accordingly, this "get-tough" attitude of certain county managers in ejecting such couples is to be deplored. Where does such a county manager suggest they should find alternative accommodation—in the county home?

Mr. T. Lynch

That is the idea.

Mr. Treacy

What can we do for such sub-tenants if we are to show Christian charity? Our alternative is to provide proper homes for them and, until we are in a position to do this, the Minister should see that county managers in general drop this attitude.

In relation to roads, it would seem that much progress has been made on our main and county road programmes. Many of these roads are now in very good condition but there is still the problem of providing better by-roads or culs-de-sac. These by-roads and culs-de-sac are being used more and more every day. Cars, farm machinery and various supply vehicles are obliged to use these backward roads and the more the Minister assists local authorities to repair these roads, the better.

Our main roads are becoming less main in the real sense of the word as our county by-roads are becoming more and more important from the point of view of public transport. I regret very much that there are so many of these small roads in such a bad state of repair, and that the main allocation in respect of such roads still rests on the local rates. In that respect, I very deeply regret the shelving of the Local Authorities (Works) Act which provided for such work. The provision in relation to the repair of such roads, bridges and drainage was very important. I have still to see any substitute for it. The Minister may point to various schemes and grants but I do not know of any worthwhile scheme which can be said to substitute fully for the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

In this regard in particular, I should mention the drainage of small rivers and tributaries of our main rivers. Clearly, we must wait for the implementation of the arterial drainage system when it comes to our particular rivers. I am concerned with the river Suir. It will be a long number of years before that river is reached. In the meantime, the local authorities are unable to provide the necessary moneys for the drainage of its tributaries or any part of the main artery which causes flooding.

The matter is one of very great annoyance and hardship. There is a loss of countless acres of arable land to many of our farmers. In the meantime, we can do nothing to obviate flooding in certain bad pockets of that river or its tributaries. The Local Authorities (Works) Act would have been of immense value in doing that kind of work. Without it, we are helpless, until such time as the Minister for Finance implements arterial drainage in our particular region.

When speaking on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government on the last occasion, I felt constrained to bring to the notice of the Minister the fact that so much high-powered machinery was being used in council work at the present time. As I said, I was not to be considered as advocating that the clock should be put back in this regard. One is appalled at times by the amount of heavy machinery used on road works and widening jobs while so few human being are engaged on the work. I maintain that human being are assets worth cherishing. They should be permitted to do anything that they can do reasonably well. They should be permitted to earn a livelihood in their own county and rear their families in reasonable comfort. No county engineer, county manager or Minister should replace them by the indiscriminate use of machinery of this kind. I was appalled at the small number of people engaged on work schemes and the vast amount of machinery which is employed. One could count on the fingers of one's hands the employees engaged on these schemes.

I know that the Minister may not be able to intervene directly in this regard but there is the unemployment relief scheme which usually comes into operation around Christmas time each year for the relief of the unemployed. Reference is made in that scheme to the desirability of giving employment and of ensuring that as many as possible are engaged on that type of work and that work must be created which would have a high labour content. That is a very desirable thing. I know of no good reason why that should not apply to county council work. I am not suggesting that the routine vehicles which one regards as essential, such as trucks and other slightly heavier vehicles, should not be used. I suggest, however, that it is somewhat absurd to introduce hedge-cutters and similar implements to do work which can be done just as successfully and as economically by council workers.

Our people are entiled to a decent standard of life. They are entitled to modern amenities and to that happiness and security we can confer on them. Anything the Minister can do in his Department to make life happier for our people will be warmly welcomed by us. We are as concerned about the rates as anybody else. The expenditure of money to provide amenities for our people, whether in the form of housing, water, roads or anything else, is very desirable. We support that kind of idea enthusiastically. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate to me, publicly or privately, how he feels on these specific questions.

In connection with new house-building, there is concern throughout the country that the work performed at times is not satisfactory. There is an element of jerrybuilding in our towns and cities and the unfortunate people who are erecting new houses are not getting value for their money. Having saved up at great sacrifice, having provided a deposit and having had a very high rent foisted on them for 30 or 40 years, they find, having occupied the house for a month or two, that certain serious defects become evident —defects which point to serious dereliction of duty on the part of the person responsible for the erection of these houses. We feel that such people should have redress, some means whereby this injustice can be undone.

There is another problem, too, but I think this has been largely resolved in the Act in connection with housing which recently passed through this House. I refer to specific grants given to provide such amenities as roads, footpaths and proper sewerage connections. These obligations were not being honoured. Where a house is erected with the aid of a grant from the Minister and the local authority, the Minister must now ensure that the house is built to a minimum standard of durability. He must ensure that proper materials are used and proper workmanship put into it. That is the kind of house that will last and the tenants will not be calling on the State or the local authorities for further grants for the carrying out of repairs. Tenants will not be exploited in relation to house building as they are at the present time.

Mr. Gallagher

Having listened to the Minister's speech and his report on the activities of his Department, one sees their complexity and the farreaching effect which they have on our everyday lives. From the time we get up in the morning until we retire at night, the Minister looks after us—plays nursemaid—in one way or another. He reported considerable progress by his Department during the year.

It is difficult to know where to start on such a complex Department as that of Local Government but, taking essentials first, I shall say something on housing. I am pleased that progress has been recorded for 1961-62. The Minister and the Department are confident that greater progress will be made during the current year. We cannot give too much attention to housing and encouragement of private housing, to which I would give top priority. I know no better citizen than the citizen with a stake in the country, the citizen who owns property, or his own home. The Department should encourage private ownership of homes. They do that, but they should go even further afield in that regard.

I heard Deputy Treacy make a comparison regarding rates and I also would like to see the man who is going to be charged £2 16s. by the local authority, given the opportunity to buy and own his own house. The relief to rates given by private ownership is tremendous. In Dublin, Sligo or Cork, you can find neighbours working at the same job, one owning his own house and contributing, in addition, about £20 to the local authority rates. The other has been lucky enough to have secured 10, 15 or 20 years ago a council house in which he lives at a subsidised rent. Then we can see who is making the greater contribution to society. There is hardly any doubt that the private owner is the best hope of this country because, in addition to owning his house, he will maintain it in good order and condition because it is his own. As he approaches old age, instead of owning a key, he owns a home that he can pass on to his children as a start for them.

I wonder if we realise the efforts that must be made to keep up with wastage in this country. I do not know the total number of homes in the country but at a guess, I should say something like 600,000. Somebody said there was wastage at the rate of one per cent. and that would mean 6,000 homes per year would be required to compensate for that. I am satisfied the wastage is greater than one per cent. but even if it were one per cent., it means that large sums of money must be spent on reconstruction for the last 20, 30 or 50 years of the life of a house. The Department must, as it were, visualise a figure of 6,000 homes per year being built by private people and public authorities to keep up the standard and also allow for an equal number or more being reconditioned or reconstructed.

This is the sort of pattern I think we must follow if we are to maintain our present standard of housing, but we must do even more if we are to improve it. Tremendous strides have been made since this Government first took notice of housing in 1932 and successful and progressive efforts have been made by all Governments who have interested themselves in this vital social need, good homes. I know the Minister needs no urging but I urge him and the Department to strain every effort so far as capital can be stretched to provide the people with homes.

Local authorities sometimes seem to be slow in moving and I would encourage members of the House who are members of such authorities to be more active. In County Sligo and also in Leitrim, a big number need houses but it is nearly impossible to get the local authorities to supply the need. From past experience, I know that unless you house the people in hovels, even create some hovels, local authorities will not take any risk at all. I should like them to show more enlightenment and take some element of risk that one or two houses may be vacant in a town for a short time rather than try to ensure absolute safety.

Sometimes people who need houses do not volunteer for a new house when a housing survey is being carried out because they are afraid of the new rent. I do not think they are sufficiently enlightened by the interviewing officer as to the possible rent of the new house and greater efforts should be made by the local authorities and their officers who visit the people to ascertain housing needs. They should tell the people that there is a differential rating and that the rent will be generally kept within their capacity to pay. There is no sense in any public authority rackrenting the people and, generally, the rents are fair and reasonable and related to the capacity of the tenants to pay. Any other suggestion is false. From time to time, cases of hardship occur where people are unemployed, but even in those circumstances there are subventions and aids available.

We cannot continue for ever to legislate for the weaker section of the community and make them our standard. We must take reasonable incomes and apply these as standards. We cannot be eternally worrying about the underdog and saying: "That is our standard." In the case of housing, we must either maintain our present system and pursue it vigorously, or turn over housing completely to the State as something that should be provided free for everybody. I do not think that is desirable here or in any other state.

Especially in large cities and urban areas, there is now apparent a certain shortage of sites for building purposes. The type of site I am thinking of is one served with sewerage and water, or with these services available close to it. I am sure the Minister's Department are well aware of this problem and are doing everything possible to eliminate it. In some towns, the present sewage disposal facilities are overloaded. A large scheme will require to be undertaken. I know the Minister has this under survey and that he is pushing it, but I would urge him to get his reports from the various county councils with the minimum of delay. He should urge on them that housing is a No. 1 priority and a responsibility of his and that he wants it attended to with expedition. I know that in Dublin city area housing could go forward, and especially private housing, with greater speed, if greater sewage disposal facilities were available, especially main sewers.

There is a lot of land at the entrance to Dublin city which is at a premium and is fetching a very high price because the number of serviced sites in Dublin is diminishing daily. If the Minister could admonish the Dublin Corporation and the county council to speed up this matter they could greatly accelerate the rate of private building and local authority building in Dublin city and county. I want to advert to one particular fact of which I have personal experience, that is, that in the matter of the valuation of houses by one local authority, Dublin County Council to be precise, I was quite surprised to find that their valuation for Small Dwelling Acquisition Act loans was something related to the valuation given about 1952.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I doubt if the Minister for Local Government has any responsibility for valuations.

Mr. Gallagher

I will not refer to it further, beyond saying that it is not a realistic valuation at the present day. I was surprised to hear Deputy Treacy advert to jerrybuilding and badly-built homes. I do not know what is happening in Tipperary but I do know what is happening in Sligo, and I have some knowledge of what is happening in Dublin city area. If the vigilance and care of the local authorities and the Department of Local Government officials in Tipperary is as good as it is here, I do not think there is any need for Deputy Treacy's remarks. The standard of housing provided by private builders throughout Ireland is very high and the Department of Local Government and local authorities deserve every credit for insisting on this high standard.

Mr. Corish

The timber is not so good, is it?

Mr. Gallagher

The timber is excellent.

Mr. Corish

Not at all.

Mr. Gallagher

What is wrong with the timber? You have an even greater use in houses today of home-grown and cured timber and going around Dublin and Sligo, I have not heard one complaint about it.

Mr. Corish

The timber in windows and so on breaks up pretty quickly.

Mr. Gallagher

I do not know about that. The standard of joinery in this country is very high.

Mr. Corish

It is probably the timber they have to put in the houses.

Mr. Allen

Use steel windows.

Mr. Tully

They are out.

Mr. Gallagher

Joinery timber is of the highest quality. I can assure Deputy Treacy that the standard is not as bad in the areas I know of as he seems to have experienced in Tipperary. It is, of course, normal to expect a certain amount of wear and tear in homes and that each year the ordinary house purchaser will contribute a certain amount to the upkeep of his home and, indeed, that after 20 or 30 years, certain major jobs will have to be undertaken. But this is normal, even allowing that our present houses will last probably for 100 years.

To encourage more people to buy homes should be the first consideration of the Minister, but present charges for repayments on loans and the interest thereon are fairly substantial. They are moving out of the capacity of many people to meet them. I would ask the Minister to examine the possibility of encouraging the Minister for Finance to consider the rate of interest charged on loans to people contemplating buying their own homes and people borrowing from the loan funds through local authorities and county councils. This is something which in the long run will pay county councils and the nation handsomely. Rates of interest are tremendously high. We all know that at present there is an upsurge of private building which is going to continue, but in order that people, whose normal desire is to own their own homes, should be able to avail of the facilities, I would recommend that subsidised rates of interest should be introduced, one way or the other, either by the local authority or by the Government.

There is another aspect of housing which I should like to mention. The practice in quite a number of areas in the past was that some speculators, if you like to describe them so, bought up large areas of land, developed them, but did not do the building themselves but let the sites to small builders on the purchase of a site fine and a ground rent. Something will have to be done about this—I do not know how it can be overcome—in order to get the small builder accommodated with housing sites. That speculator is no longer prepared, or able, to face the future on the same basis as in the past because the question of ground rents being under consideration has brought a halt in that matter. It may be that local authorities will now have to replace the speculator, that they will have to acquire large areas of land, have them developed and let them out to these small builders, or go into building houses for payment themselves. The small builder made a large contribution to the housing needs of both the cities and the rural areas.

Our roads are being improved year by year and, over the past 10 or 15 years, the main roads have been improved out of all recognition. I should like to comment, however, that the road on which I most frequently travel, the road to Sligo, has been repaired over the past 10 years by the county councils making sporadic raids on it. I wonder could the Minister devise some scheme whereby the road could be developed, as it were, out of hand? Some of the county councils appear to make greater progress than others. You find long stretches of the road done, but then you move into another county and find the quality of the work is not as good. The Minister should consider the possibility of having work of that nature done by some of our major contractors.

Our country roads continue to be improved, too, and this work should be pushed on with greater vigour. As other Deputies have said, there are a number of cul-de-sac, link roads and other secondary roads which require attention. My constituency is no different from others in that respect. I should like to mention particularly the roads in Monasteraden and Mullaghroe and also the road from Monasteraden to Gurteen, which are very bad indeed. You would want to have no respect for your car to drive on them. That is the best way I can describe them. The approaches to the city of Dublin need attention. Very often it takes a long time to get from the city to the Mullingar road, and in some cases one is lucky to get to Lucan in half an hour. I would ask the Minister to try to improve that situation.

Water supplies and sanitary services are probably two of our most essential needs to-day and every town and village requires expansion of these services. I know local authorities will continue to go ahead with that work. I should like to comment on the provision of rural water schemes. I think the campaign that such schemes would result in an exorbitant charge on the rates is not realistic. In this respect, I would join with Deputy Treacy and say it is high time that those who have no water should get it. We have those in the position of having a water supply for years saying: "I am all right, Jack," I would urge the Minister to encourage the county councils to go ahead with these schemes. I am aware of the fact that there is nothing compulsory about this and that it is up to each county council to make a decision. I very heartily welcome these schemes. I would ask those farmers who have not a water supply to raise a howl and clamour so that they will get something for which they have been paying for many years.

There are sewerage disposal services in most of our towns, but in the extension of these and the connection of houses, I would ask the Minister to ensure that at that stage the connection from the main to the house is made. If it were made at that stage, the cost would be at least half of what it would be otherwise and this would considerably reduce hardship.

During the year, the Minister introduced traffic regulations. Traffic is becoming a problem here, a dangerous problem. Bad driving is also becoming a problem. Human lives are taken on our roads every day and everything should be done to remove this risk to life on the roads. In this respect, I would advocate a driving test and the inculcating of a sense of responsibility in all drivers. It is a serious thing to drive a car dangerously on our roads today. Some of our drivers are well meaning but they become careless. There are people who get driving licences without any test. Until we have a driving test, anybody involved in a traffic accident should be deprived of his licence until such time as he passes a test. This will probably involve the Department in some expense in providing the facilities for a test. I would recommend, however, that this be done to bring home to our drivers that the consequences are serious.

In Dublin and in the big towns throughout the country, parking is becoming a problem. The creation of good parking facilities, where these can be provided economically, is desirable. I also believe that parking should be free. The Minister said he was investigating the possibility of introducing parking meters here. They may be a modern means of providing revenue and probably a good case can be made for them; but if parking can be continued to be provided free, I think that is desirable. The public thoroughfares should not be used as a means of collecting revenue through a machine for measuring the length of time one's car is parked. Any of us who has been in London knows how the people there feel about parking meters and the annoyance they can cause.

The increased grant for the library services is most welcome. I should like to pay a tribute to our librarian in Sligo for the wonderful work she is doing and the contribution she is making to the life of our county.

I wish also to thank the Minister for the expeditious way he has dealt with any queries I have put to him. Above all, I want to say a special word of thanks to the Department of Local Government and all its officials. Since I first had reason to come into contact with them some 14 or 15 years ago, I have found them courteous and helpful, dealing with everything with expedition as far as they possibly could. I want to take this opportunity of saying a simple "Thank you, and keep up the good work."

Mr. S. Dunne

The last speaker mentioned his long connection with officials of the Department of Local Government. I had it in mind to start off my few remarks here to-day in the same way.

Fourteen years ago, there confronted the Minister for Local Government of the day a housing problem in this city alone which was terrifying and which seemed to be utterly incapable of solution because of its magnitude. It was then estimated that, to house those who were looking for accommodation, Dublin Corporation would need to build 30,000 dwellings. It was the post-war period when materials and labour were in short supply. Our craftsmen had gone to Britain and had been there for some years. The city was clamouring for houses.

We had a situation, which was always a permanent feature in this city, that people who had left the rural areas in order to go to Britain stopped in Dublin on their way to Britain and settled down here. The same is true of people who were leaving Britain to return to our rural areas. They would stop in Dublin. Then they would take up residence in single rooms and start families. Then they would require more accommodation and the responsibility was thrust on Dublin Corporation to house these people, quite apart from the native Dubliners.

This problem faced the then Minister for Local Government some 14 years ago and it was tackled with vigour, with energy and with courage. The officials of the Department of Local Government—some of whom are still active in that Department— and the present City Manager of Dublin, who was appointed Housing Director at that time, accomplished what seemed to be a superhuman task. They brought the housing problem, in the space of a few years, within grappling distance. They did not solve it because they did not have time to solve it, but they brought it within sight of the end.

Then misfortune overtook the country. Certain parties became occupants of the ministerial chair in the Custom House who were not imbued with the enthusiasm and fire of their immediate predecessor. As many people well know, that fire and energy and consuming enthusiasm brought him to an untimely grave. But the people who followed him did not care so much how the citizens of this city were housed. In fact, they did not seem to bother to inquire. If anything was said to them, it was brushed aside. The result was that the housing drive became no longer a drive but a drag.

Finally, within recent years, the housing position in Dublin came almost to a complete standstill. In this city, there were 8,784 applications to Dublin Corporation for houses. What is the record in so far as Dublin Corporation is concerned? I urge the Minister to take an interest in this matter. I had not an opportunity last night to listen to his opening remarks but, according to this morning's newspapers, he expressed the view that sufficient progress was not being made in the matter of housing. With that view I entirely agree.

I would ask the Minister to take a special interest in the monumental cemetery-like inactivity of Dublin Corporation and of the so-called Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation. Last year, there were over 8,000 applications for houses. How many houses were built? The answer is 309. With 8,000 people looking for houses, with plenty of money available, by all accounts, from the Department for the building of houses, the Corporation built 309.

With Dublin County Council, the position is even worse. There were almost 1,000 applications—two short of 1,000 applications—for houses to Dublin County Council and last year that body built 52 houses. I hope to have the opportunity to have some legislation effected in the near future —at least, I shall argue therefor—to wipe out these inanimate institutions called the Housing Committees of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council and to have them replaced by a housing authority, representative both of the city and the county, which will, I trust, be imbued with some of the vigour and enthusiasm that was applied to the situation some ten or 14 years ago when the problem was infinitely larger than it is now.

Mr. Corry

Get another Corkman.

Mr. S. Dunne

No matter where he comes from, he will certainly be welcome if he can do something for the countless thousands of people still living in rat-ridden tenements, in Georgian houses which nobody wants to preserve. Certainly, any sign of steps by anybody to remedy that situation would sincerely be welcomed by the many hundreds of sub-tenants, by children who have married and who are now living with their families in the big working-class districts of Ballyfermot, Walkinstown, Finglas or any of these places. They have nowhere else to go and they must needs live with their families. I do not need to draw any pictures of what can happen in a situation like that. Human nature being what it is, we all know very well the friction and unhappiness that inevitably arise from overcrowding. We all know the friction and unhappiness that can arise from the innate antipathy that in-lawism breeds.

I would urge on the Minister that he has a duty to look into the situation in Dublin because nowhere in Ireland is the problem comparable. This city has often been made the butt of attack by rural and provincial Deputies. This city and the authorities in this city have to provide for the inflow of those who are fleeing from the land. Those who are fleeing from rural Ireland are fleeing in two directions, to England or, preferably, to Dublin, if they can get fixed here at all. The opportunities are becoming fewer and fewer. The Minister has a special duty in regard to our capital city to see that there is put into operation a policy which will mean an immediate effective attack on the housing shortage in order to give some hope to these 8,000 families who are seeking accommodation and to bring within sight the end of this terrible problem.

Deputy Gallagher said many things with which I disagree but he may have touched upon one matter which I have not heard mentioned. I often thought it was very essential to be borne in mind by any Minister and indeed by every local authority that it is not sufficient that the local authority should build on the basis of the figures of immediate needs. Housing is a growing problem. Each year, the figure is added to by marriages and various circumstances. When it is established in any local authority area that there is an immediate demand for X-houses, the authorities should decide that the number to be provided is X plus 20 per cent., because of the fact that this is not a static problem; it is eternally growing. It is not one that we can hope to see solved in our lifetime but let us do everything we can to deal with it.

I ask the Minister when replying to make special reference to the housing situation in Dublin because it affects the whole country. It affects countless people in the city. I urge upon him the need for immediate, dynamic action, to bring into operation the housing drive which died of inanition during the unfortunate tenure of office of a gentleman whom we shall not mention.

Deputy Gallagher discussed the desirability of encouraging people to buy their homes. With this proposition nobody would disagree. I suggested some 12 months ago, by way of motion in this House, that one method of encouraging people to buy their homes would be a more liberal scheme of rates remission. The Minister promised to look at the matter but nothing further has been heard since. This whole business of rates remission needs to be considered sympathetically by the Minister with a view to easing the burden, particularly upon people who have availed af the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. Around the perimeter of this city there are some 11,000 such families.

Dublin Corporation and County Council between them have advanced, in loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, somewhere in the neighbourhood of £12,000,000. There is no such provision elsewhere in Ireland to compare with that in magnitude. The people who availed of these loans, generally, are people of a thrifty nature, artisans, semi-professional or white collar workers. They are literally put to the pin of their white collars to meet the charges of payments of loans and rates which, because of the inevitability of rising costs, increase from one year to another.

I suggested to the Minister at that time and I suggest to him now, that he might, in turn, suggest to Dublin Corporation and County Council that the time of greatest difficulty for persons who are purchasing their houses is when the children are most expensive from the point of view of education, the period from, say, the age of 10 years up to 16 or 18 years, before they take up employment. One could reasonably say that the most difficult time for people purchasing houses is from the 10th to the 16th year of occupation. Some special consideration in the matter of rates remission should be afforded to people over that period. In other words, the present 10 year period of remission might well be extended to 18 years, with no great harm—in fact no harm at all—being done to the finances of the local authorities concerned. I urge that suggestion upon the Minister. I am sorry he has not taken steps along that line. I ask him to consider it seriously and to let us know what, if anything, he thinks he can do about it.

I want now to turn to this question of differential rents, which the Minister has supported and which in other years I supported in theory until, of course, I discovered that the actual working out meant not an easement of the position of the working classes at all, but a device by corporations and county councils to keep rates and housing charges down, which was not at all the original intention behind differential rents. I recall that the idea of differential rents was promoted here by the late James Larkin. Nobody could accuse him of having any other interests at heart than the real, true interests of the workers.

From hearing him talking about it, I visualised a system whereby the unemployed, the sick, the elderly and more helpless in our community would be provided with dwellings without the worry of having to find exorbitant rents. As the system has developed, this purpose is not being served.

I instance, once more, the district of Ballyfermot, where there are more people on the differential rent system than in any other city or, possibly two cities. Take a family comprising a man, wife, and four children. The husband earns perhaps £10 to £11 a week. He has to pay the very high bus fares inflicted upon him by CIE. They know he has to pay, that he has no choice and so they will make him pay. That is the policy of Dr. Andrews. In most cases he has to pay the maximum rent of 36/-. To pay a rent of 36/- a week and to feed six persons out of £8 or £9 a week takes a bit of management. I wonder how many members of the House would like to essay it. I certainly would not like to essay it. I know I would fall down on it. It is a continual source of wonder to me that so many people living in Ballyfermot and around the city generally are able to live at all considering the problems they have to face. They are embattled on all sides with the demand for money and the excessive demand of the cost of living.

Let us look now at this suggestion that we hear so often that the weak are protected by the differential rent schemes operated by the Dublin Corporation. I have a case here I should like to quote. I shall give it to the Minister later. It is a case in Ballyfermot. The man is totally disabled. He is certified as such by the Dublin Health Authority. He is suffering from Parkinson's disease. The certificate is signed by the doctor. His wife is an ex-TB patient. They are no longer in the summer of their lives.

I am a tenant in Ballyfermot and, as you will see by the doctor's note attached, I am disabled. I am in receipt of £2 7s. 6d. home assistance and £1 5s. 0d. disability allowance, which has to keep my wife and myself, £3 12s. 6d. The disability allowance was £1 2s. 6d. and last August they gave me 2/6 extra and last week they increased my rent by 1/- a week and debited my account to the total of £2 13s. 9d. When I went to pay my rent last Monday, the collector told me that I owed him £3 17s. 9d. I have to pay 5/- with my weekly rent which I could not possibly pay out of £3 12s. 6d. and support the two of us.

This man has £3 12s. 6d. and he is asked to pay a rent of 9/6 plus 5/-, or 14/6 altogether. This is the differential rent scheme. What I say here now is not in denigration of the officials of the Corporation. Public officials have to do their job. But it is in denigration of the members of the Corporation who permit this to happen. It is scandalous that such people should be asked to pay anything at all, let alone, as has been suggested, a minimum of 6/6. They should not be asked to pay one halfpenny. We should be ashamed that in this day and age, when there is so much talk about prosperity, there are two people in this city living on £3 12s. 6d. a week.

What a luxurious life it must be for them? One is completely incapacitated. The other is not much better. I want the Minister to look into this. I know he will because I know he is just as humane as I am, or anybody else here. I want him to consider it sympathetically. An insistence on principle is causing grave hardship. This is but one example of the hardship created under this glorified differential rent scheme. I have attacked this scheme and, if it cannot be extinguished altogether, I plead with the Minister to impress upon the Dublin Corporation Housing Committee the need for easement in the position of people of Ballyfermot who are, as I said, suffering greatly under the scheme.

I should like now to bring to the Minister's attention one aspect of the operation of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts by Dublin County Council. I raised this matter recently by way of question. I should like to take this opportunity of giving a little more information. I always understood that moneys provided through the instrumentality of the State to local authorities in order to enable people to buy their own houses under the SDA Acts were provided with the greatest possible freedom. The State did not desire—indeed the practice would have been frowned on—to make it difficult for applicants for loans to receive such loans from the local authorities.

Some years ago the Dublin County Council, probably with the best intentions in the world, usurped the functions of this House. They decided they would not give loans to any applicant where the ground rent was in excess of £10 per year. The idea was, I suppose, to compel builders to arrange with the land owners not to impose excessive ground rents in respect of these houses, or ground rents in excess of £10, because of the natural dislike and disgust that every decent man has with the whole concept of ground rents. In this instance, however, the idea has turned back on us. It is now preventing the building of houses. In a number of cases the ground rents are £12 10s. per annum and the applicants are being refused loans by the local authority.

What is the result? The result is that the applicant must go to the building societies and pay a higher rate of interest. His yearly outlay then in repayment of loan, plus interest, plus ground rent, is greater than it would have been had the local authority agreed to accommodate him. I am openly opposed to the whole idea of ground rents. I hope to see the day when the reconquest will be completed and ground rents abolished altogether. In the meantime, I urge on the Minister—quite obviously the ground rent system is going—that there should be an easement where it can be shown that hardship is being caused through the implementation of this decision by the local authority.

Reference has been made to water supplies. Could the Minister tell me when the North County Dublin regional water supply will come into existence? I was a very young man, possibly a very innocent one, when I first heard mention of this water supply. I remember campaigning in elections. I remember that, whenever my good friend, Deputy Burke, was asked when water was coming to Loughshinny, Donabate, or somewhere else many, many years ago, in his urbane fashion, Deputy Burke would reply that the North County Dublin regional water supply was in train.

Mr. T. Lynch

On the way.

Mr. S. Dunne

My hair was black then—that is an indication of how long ago it was. I ask the Minister to tell us when it will come into existence. In its absence, he should try to give us something that will alleviate the very grave water shortage which hits those areas in north county Dublin, particularly in the summer.

I want to bring to his attention one instance of the need for sanitation. The village of Loughshinny is a picturesque fishing village which may be known to members of the House who have been around the district. It has become quite a popular seaside resort and bus loads of people come there from holiday camps such as Red Island and so on, in the summer. That village is remarkable for three things: its picturesqueness, the hospitality and decency of its residents and its complete and utter lack of sanitation of any kind.

I do not have to go into details to describe the recourse that must be had in such a situation by people who come there, but they are unpleasant in the extreme. A remedy has been suggested but I will not bore the House with the details. It has been suggested—and I would ask the Minister to look into the suggestion—that at least a temporary remedy should be instituted in Loughshinny and other various places, but particularly in Loughshinny, because it has become something of a public scandal. Perhaps that temporary remedy which has been suggested could be put into has been suggested could be put into operation until the fabled and legendary North County Dublin regional water scheme comes into existence.

I was sorry I was not in the House on a recent occasion when the Minister was introducing his Bill dealing with grants for the repair of houses. I had hoped that he would have done something in connection with the problem which has arisen regarding the purchase of cottages. As we all know, and as Deputy Treacy pointed out in his eloquent speech this morning, county council tenants are being compelled to purchase their cottages. Particularly in cases where the cottages are in need of repair, they are being told that it is a matter of policy, that: "The council and the manager have decided that if you want to get your cottage repaired and have the repairs regarded as priority cases, you must apply for purchase."

That has been happening, and the result is that many thousand, I am sure, throughout the country, and certainly something like two-thirds of the council's cottage population in County Dublin, have purchased their cottages. Most of them are people with whom we are all familiar, who have not a sufficient weekly income to enable them to put money away into the Post Office, the banks or anywhere else. Eventually, after several years, the cottages they live in fall due for repairs and the council is in a position to send the engineer in and say to the tenants: "You must do such and such repairs." That is the position of the council under the purchase agreement.

The people concerned have no means of doing these repairs. They are the people to whom I have referred: the old age pensioners, farm workers, road workers and, generally speaking, people living at that level of existence. I expected that the Minister would have done something to make grants available to such people. I urge on him in strong terms the need for making grants available in such cases at a level of, say, £10 to £20 for minor repairs. That would not represent a very great charge on the Exchequer but it would represent a very desirable development for those people.

Deputy Gallagher made one remark which suggested to me that he might well be sitting beside Deputy Jones. In the course of his remarks, Deputy Jones, who moved the motion to refer the Estimate back, emphasised that he was for a pause in expenditure, having another look at things, stalling to enable us to get our breath back. He suggested that the moneys we are spending on these issues affect the lives of every person in the country, that the moneys are very large and should be handled very carefully. In other words, he spoke with the authentic voice of the conservative, that deadly idea which has wrought more misery in this country than any other political concept.

Deputy Gallagher ran almost in double harness with Deputy Jones. He deprecated this concentration which he said we have had over the years on the plight of those who are most in need in the community. He suggested that we should get away from that idea and concentrate on the happy medium: the position of the man who is not too badly off; and that we should not concentrate our sights completely and at all times on the neediest section of the community. That is not a very Christian suggestion. I do not claim, as some people in the House do, to be an extraordinarily good Christian, but I remember the words: "What you do unto these My least brethren, you do unto Me." I commend that thought to Deputy Gallagher before he starts talking again on this subject.

Mr. T. Lynch

The ramifications of the Department of Local Government spread into many fields, and the Minister has a great task in trying to coordinate his forces to make an impression on the various fields and to deal with the difficulties he has to meet. It is obvious to those of us who have heard many of the debates on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government that a matter which is always of concern to Deputies, and I am sure the Minister and the Department, is the matter of housing. It is always a problem to get good houses built.

I heard the standard of houses being attacked here—I should not say it was attacked; it was mentioned—and it was suggested that there was a good deal of jerrybuilding. I am glad to say that that has not taken place where I come from and I do not think it is general throughout the country because the regulations are very strict and both the Minister's officers and the officers of the local authorities see that——

Mr. Corish

It might not be absolute jerrybuilding. Would there not be some form of defective material?

Mr. T. Lynch

I was just coming to that.

Mr. Corish

Perhaps jerrybuilding is not the right expression.

Mr. T. Lynch

There have been complaints about the timber that has gone into the houses in many areas, and that even within a period of five, six or seven years, the window joinery has not been satisfactory. I am not putting this in the form of carping criticism. I am just drawing the Minisster's attention to it. There have been complaints of doors warping, and complaints that the timber in floors which was well and tightly laid has shrunk and left very wide cracks and crevices. I know it is very difficult for the engineers and the officials because at the time they see these floors, they are all right. It is only by trial that the defects are discovered but it is obvious that a good deal of inferior timber is being used.

The cost of houses is a great problem with which we are all faced. I have often heard suggestions propounded to Ministers for Local Government which would take years to reach the Department for the simple reason that in the first few years, the attitude would be that it could not be administered; it would not be right; it would be creating a precedent; and eventually it would be adopted and carried out.

The position now with local authorities is that they get their engineers to make out a plan and specification, according to the Department's standards, with the rises in the cost of materials, wages, and so on. Therefore, the estimate for these houses is much higher than heretofore. I suggested to the Minister recently when he brought in his Bill in relation to local government loans that he should increase the grants for the building of houses. Again, I say to him that we should concern ourselves with the question of reducing the cost of housing.

The suggestion I have to make in this regard has been made by people in local authorities all down the years but the Department of Local Government would not adopt it and Ministers do not appear to have taken any notice of it. The suggestion is this: local authorities are given money for unemployment grants and much of that money has to be spent; footpaths are dug up and put down again and a whole lot of amenities or so-called amenities are provided in order that we may employ men who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed and are registered at the labour exchange.

I submit to the Minister that unemployment grants should be used for the development of housing sites. When a local authority has a site on which they intend to build, say, 30, 40 or 100 houses, much of the preliminary work of constructing the roads, putting in the drains or digging foundations could and should be done with the unemployment grants. If that were done, it would reduce the overall cost of the house which is something at which we are all aiming.

There is another suggestion made which might also help the Minister in this problem. Deputy Jones last night said he would like to draw the Department's attention to what we shall call a sub-standard house, that is, a house that would not have as much accommodation as those we have to build now, but which is a very expensive type of house. We could build this smaller type of house and enable an extension to be made to it in time. We have seen what happens in the case of the smaller type of council or corporation house which was built years ago. The people living in them have put extensions on to them, without any reference to the local authority. They went into those houses as newlyweds and as their families came along, they were able to extend their houses, that is, when the head of the house was promoted in his job or improved his income.

I am not suggesting that we should build little shacks but that we build a type of house that would be sub-standard as regards accommodation, and leave a place where a room or two rooms could be added on without much difficulty. That is worth investigating. It would be ideal for newlyweds and I recommend it to the Minister.

This has not happened in my area but I understand that many county managers are getting tough about sub-tenants in council houses. I would ask the Minister to intervene there because the majority of these sub-tenants have nowhere else to go. We have what we call the county home, really the workhouse or the poor house. You will remember "A Christmas Carol" when Scrooge was asked: "Where will these people go?" And he said: "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" Surely the Minister for Local Government will not stand over the writ that has been issued by county managers to put people out of these council houses, where they are lodgers or sub-tenants? They can go only to the county home. I realise there is difficulty there but until such time as the local authorities are able to provide adequate housing for the people, they should not try to enforce that rule.

In the matter of ground rents, I have to take what Deputy Seán Dunne would call a conservative attitude because the local authority of which I am a member, Waterford Corporation, are the landlords or the owners of over 90 per cent. of the land in the city of Waterford. They look like being the owners of much more because they have carried out a progressive policy of buying any land that comes up in the green belt. That has been carried on by the late manager, by the present manager and by successive councils and managers.

The recent purchase by the Waterford council might not seem to involve a lot of land but it was a good deal of land; 164 acres of land were bought recently in the green belt by the council. I have always been interested in this—the advantage of the local authority owning the ground. I can give an instance of how it works out. I have seen good building sites where people were prepared to pay, say, £100 or £200 going in and £10 or £15 a year ground rent. I have also seen building sites put up by the Waterford Corporation for any person qualified to build a house under the Small Dwellings Act and there was no fine or charge or sum asked for the site; it was given to them at £2 a year. It was not a matter of just one or two sites. In one year, 164 of these houses were built, a large number for an area like Waterford. That is a policy I would commend to the Minister. The Minister and the House will understand why we, in Waterford, adopt a different attitude to ground rents. They are very equitable in Waterford and when old leases lapse, they are renewed at reasonably fair rents.

The Minister should investigate the suitability of sub-standard houses so as to bring down the cost of housing. He should also give permission to local authorities to use unemployment grants for development of housing sites. I would even go further and suggest that the Minister should investigate the possibility of allotting moneys out of the Road Fund for roads through new housing sites. People who pay motor taxation are entitled to roads on which they can travel. It is only right that we give them such roads and this becomes more obvious when we remember that, if a gentleman came from China or Czechoslovakia with some industrial proposal, the Minister's Department, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Transport and Power and everybody else would rush to build roads to his factory or to his home. I think we should do a little rushing to bring roads to the homes of our own people, more especially when the intake from road taxation has been increasing extraordinarily.

We have a duty to car owners and I say that, even though I shall have something detrimental to say about them later on. They were paying about £4,000,000 in road taxation a couple of years ago. Now they are paying over £6,000,000. Last year I asked the Minister for Finance a question about the intake of money from motor vehicles and it is extraordinary what they paid. In that year £3,500,000 came in receipts from customs duties and special import levies, £11,000,000 in petrol taxes, £6,409,000 from direct motor taxation — making a total revenue of roughly £20,000,000 leviable directly on motor car owners. The people who drive these cars are entitled to good roads everywhere. They pay for them. The money is going into the Minister's Department; it is being administered by that Department and I would say that there are two ways of reducing the over-all cost of a housing scheme—first, to allow the unemployment grant to be used for development of the scheme and, secondly, to allocate money from the Road Fund for the development of roads in these schemes.

As I have mentioned roads, the administration of the Road Fund is one of the mysteries of Government that I could never understand, even though I have been at it now for eight years. The area I have the honour to represent, Waterford city, always seems to get the thin edge of the wedge from the Road Fund. As long as I am here I shall continue to ask questions about it and endeavour to draw the Minister's attention to it so that it may soften his heart. When I first came into the House as a Deputy, it was the Minister himself who drew my attention to anomalies in the administration of the Road Fund. He was then in Opposition and on 2nd May, 1956, he asked the then Minister for Local Government to give him information about the Road Fund, having complained that his county was doing badly. In my estimation it was not. Since then, in respect of County Donegal, the allocation from the Road Fund has increased each year but the reverse has been the case in respect of my county. In that year we were getting £137,000; the following year the allocation was reduced to £136,000, in the year after that it was £132,000 and in the following years it has been £127,000. The tendency has always been downwards while every other county seems to have its allocation increased.

Another matter to which I want to draw the Minister's attention is the tourist road grants. Some counties are lucky in the allocation of these grants. Some of them get £55,000, others get £35,000, but my county gets a mere £5,000. I tried to probe the reasons for this and all I got was an offhand reply saying that the reason some counties got more than others was that they had Gaeltacht areas. However, when I looked at the figures I found that some of those counties had no Gaeltacht areas.

Deputy O'Malley, before he became Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, asked the Minister why, in respect of Limerick, a grant of £20,000 in 1953-54 had dropped by £5,000 in the following year. The Minister replied:

From the various supplementary replies I have given, and from the official reply itself, it is clear that a number of factors, population, number of vehicles, the needs and so on are all governing factors as well as the availability of money.

To that, Deputy O'Malley observed that the money had dropped anyway. I intervened and asked what would qualify a county or county borough for an increase in the grant, and Deputy O'Malley interrupted me to say it was a separate question.

I suggested that Deputy O'Malley should not be allowed to usurp the functions of the Ceann Comhairle and the Ceann Comhairle observed:

I am afraid I disagree with him—or rather, I agree with him.

I pointed out that the Ceann Comhairle had said the right thing first and went on to say that I had great difficulty in finding out the information. To that, the Ceann Comhairle said:

The Deputy will eventually find it out.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us this time. The Road Fund has increased substantially and even Waterford has got an increase this year. Because of that increase I might now be asked what I am complaining about. I spoke on the Adjournment earlier this year and told the Minister that if a certain railway line were torn up, he would have to pay for it. I suppose that is why we got the increase.

We have got no increased allocation for our secondary roads. We have got no improvements in allocations for roads leading to farmers' houses, and we have got no improved allocations for the main roads through Waterford city. I want to draw the Minister's attention to something else concerning the city of Waterford, where I consider we have a case for a bigger subvention from the Department. On 15th February last I asked the Minister the amount of money paid in road tax by Waterford city from 1950 to 1961. That totalled £528,000. I asked how much did we get back out of the £528,000. We got back £41,000. That is the position.

With regard to the railroad grants, I and many of my colleagues warned the Minister here that he would have to pay for these railways when they were taken up; that CIE were actually avoiding the keeping of a permanent way; that they were going to abandon their own permanent way, tear it up, sell it to the scrap merchants, bring the money in to make the balance sheet look good and pour many lorries out on the roads—roads in respect of which the Minister gives this money. I knew the Minister would have to provide more money. The Minister did not agree with us.

I quoted a figure in this regard last week to the Minister for Transport and Power. I have a more up-to-date figure now. From 1959 up to the present Estimate, the sum is £1,366,500 for special railroad grants.

Mr. Geoghegan

Is that for Waterford?

Mr. T. Lynch

I think the gentleman from Galway should mind his own business. If he has anything to say, he should get up and say it.

Mr. Geoghegan

Let the Deputy not worry. I will say it.

Mr. T. Lynch

We shall be delighted. If we were doing as well from the point of view of milking the Exchequer as you do over there with your hand-outs, we should be all right but we do not ask for it that way. We say we are entitled to it. We pay it. The figure for the railroad grants is something over £1,300,000. That money would be better spent on doing the by-roads, the culs-de-sac and boreens leading to farmers' houses. I would say that nearly every Deputy would agree with me.

Even though I am not a Deputy from Dublin, I recognise that Dublin is the capital of the country and I am proud of it, but I am surprised that Dublin Deputies did not take more interest in this. There is over £2,000,000 yearly paid in road tax by the Dublin people. The approaches to this city for the past six or seven years are a disgrace. That is due to the fact that Dublin was getting about £90,000 out of the Road Fund. Now they are to get £400,000. I am glad that the Minister is thinking of the approaches to the city.

Complaints were made about detours and the roads being taken up and all the rest of it. I have no complaints to make to the Minister in that respect. I am always glad to see the roads being repaired. When a fine spell of weather comes along, the stretches of road are repaired very quickly.

With regard to work on the roads and the amount of work provided, even if we are spending a lot of money on the roads, we are not employing men but machines. This is something to which I draw the Minister's attention. It is wonderful to see these up-to-date monsters on the roads but they cost fabulous sums of money— £7,000, £8,000 and £15,000. The life of these monsters is not very long. You would employ a tremendous number of men with pick and shovel— they might take a bit longer to do the work—for the big sums of money expended on these machines. That is one of the developments to which we should call a halt and should examine.

Even if the machine is able to beat the man, we should examine the ordinary human proposition that it would be better to employ the man. It is an extraordinary thing that we should have men looking at these machines doing the work and then walking up to the labour exchange and being paid a pittance for doing nothing. We pay for a machine to do those men out of work. We should examine that situation. I know there are arguments in relation to the efficiency and speed of these machines and all the rest of it.

The Minister in his brief mentions the regulations made under the Road Traffic Act of 1961. He went on to talk about parking, bus stops and taxi stands. He is faced with a terrible problem there. There is no doubt that this problem seems to become more confusing every day. It is exasperating the way people park their cars, myself included, because I am not saying that I am not guilty on occasion. They are angered when they are moved on. The Guards are only trying to keep the streets clear. The Minister will have to do something very drastic. I am going to do something which I should not do politically. I would say to the Minister that I will stand behind him even in experiments in traffic in Dublin and various areas where traffic is congested down the country.

The standard of driving here seems to be getting worse and more reckless. I intend to leave this House as early as I can this evening because people will not dim their lights when coming against you. They always seem to like driving over the white line on the road and one is often tempted to drive up on the grass margin because of the fear of being mown down. I know this is a problem for the Minister, who will be in the role of Minister for Education in regard to motorists. It is a problem he proposes to tackle on television, radio and by the booklet issued by his Department some time ago.

All this is commendable and all success to the booklet "Rules of the Road." I know the Gardaí give lectures to children in schools: I wish they would give them to the drivers——

A Deputy

Not every school.

Mr. T. Lynch

I think they should go to every school and I ask the Minister to get in touch with the Minister for Education to ensure that, because I believe it is good.

I did not notice—he may have mentioned it—any indication by the Minister that he intended to take any action about the noise of scooters and high-powered motor cycles. The owners of many of these take the silencers off. One such machine went up Kildare Street this morning and it almost shattered the place. It was worse than a machine gun. That was all right at 10.30 in the morning but perhaps one would not like it at 3 a.m. Owners of these machines go roaring through our towns and cities. People who complain most to me are people with very young children. I could not repeat the forceful language that an irate mother used about a number of fellows coming from dances every night, racing past and awakening her children. I draw the Minister's attention to that. I know it is a problem but we must face these problems.

The majority of cyclists now ride and steer with only one hand. They weave in and out and it is a recurring miracle that they get through Dublin traffic. Perhaps Providence looks after them. The Minister took the motorists to task but they are only one of the classes using the roads. Certainly there is nothing wrong with the nerves of Irish pedestrians. They walk out on the road without looking right or left and it is your business to stop your car because if you do not, they are "for it." I should be afraid to step off the footpath in Dublin without looking both ways but I see people doing it and they do not seem to care. They should take care. Road safety is a matter not only for motorists but also for pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists. Everybody should take more care and have more regard for the rights of other road users.

Horses and carts seem to be somewhat submerged in modern traffic conditions. Our attention is only drawn to them when we are wondering if we are in a funeral and then discover that there is a float half a mile ahead and a procession behind it.

It may be out of order to mention the Minister's new Planning Bill but I have read it very carefully and I commend him for it. The Minister sent a lecturer through the country the other day, Mr. Wade, with a representative of the Tourist Board. That was a good thing. I only mention this en passant because it gives me a little hope. In the outline of the Bill, the Minister says it will be up to the local authorities to do their own job. That is good.

Local government has not existed in Ireland for many years. The managerial system came and we did not like it but we got used to it and when the former Minister asked the local authorities what they wanted, they said that system was all right, that it was the best we could get and that they did not want to change. I think you can get local government from the local council, the manager and his officials. The Minister should give them jointly power and if they, say, produce a scheme which is brought to the council and amended according to the plan that is come to, when that is done, they should be allowed to advertise it. Some people might say there ought to be a check on them but the best check is the people in their own area. Possibly the best thing that could happen is that they should make a mistake because nobody can holler louder than the Irish people if the local authorities make a mistake.

I am disappointed that the Minister has not provided for an increase in housing grants, that he did not provide more money for main roads and secondary roads in my constituency. I am disappointed that he did not increase the Tourist Board grant for Waterford county.

Mr. O'Malley

The supplementary housing grants are allowed to be increased by the local authority.

Mr. T. Lynch

But I want the increase from the State. The local authority is carrying sufficient weight.

Mr. O'Malley

The State provides the funds to finance supplementary grants.

Mr. T. Lynch

The State provides £275 grants in Waterford city and the local authority provides £275. I thought it was not unreasonable to ask the Minister, as costings have gone up so much, to increase the subvention from Local Government.

Mr. O'Malley

The loans have gone up.

Mr. T. Lynch

Yes, but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that we have to face the people seeking houses down the country. In my constituency, there are many young people who, when they find that the costs in new housing schemes are higher than they expected, cannot take on the obligation and are very disappointed. I am sure every Deputy will agree that it is hard not to have sympathy with such people. It is quite a normal thing for me to plead with the Minister for an increase. He was very decent to me in the Bill in regard to loans when I drew attention to the fact that if the Bill went through as it was, persons with an income of £832 could not build a house and get a grant. The Minister made a forthright statement, that any county manager could stand over, explaining what local authorities could do. That statement was necessary because some managers are so cautious that they are afraid to move otherwise. As a result of the statement, many people qualified to get the full grants for building a house under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts.

I say again to the Minister that the tourist road grants to Waterford, the overall road grant to Waterford city, and the overall grant to Waterford county should be increased because the grants to Waterford have been declining over a period of ten years and some restitution should be made now.

Mr. Timmons

I should like to deal with the question raised by Deputy Dunne alleging ineptitude and inactivity on the part of Dublin Corporation in regard to the housing problem. That was a very unfair attack on the Corporation and, particularly, on the Housing Committee on which I have had the honour to serve for many years. It is true that we have a housing shortage but that shortage is outside the control of the Corporation. If we cast our minds back to 1956 and early 1957, we will remember that a situation developed in Dublin where the normal vacancy rate jumped from 200 to 1,500, due to the economic conditions prevailing then, conditions, I might add, from which Deputy Dunne retreated.

I am amazed that a Deputy of long standing like Deputy Dunne should unfairly attack Dublin Corporation for the efforts they tried to make down the years in regard to housing. People abandoned their homes here, threw their keys into the Corporation offices and went to England, America or Canada. Not alone did people leave Corporation rented houses but they left small dwelling houses. There was not a street in our privately-built estates in which there were not empty houses lying idle for months. The Corporation had to re-let the houses to selected applicants after 12 months and it cost the Corporation a considerable amount of money to put these houses into proper repair for reletting. I can recall, as a member of the Housing Committee, when the Corporation had to put threepence or fourpence on the rates to provide for the re-decoration of vacant houses during that period.

At that time, the Corporation, faced with that situation, had to ease off their building programme. Conditions changed and from 1957 onwards people have been returning from England, America and Canada. I have had letters——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Malley

That is right.

Mr. Sherwin

There are a large number on the waiting list, people who have returned from England.

Mr. Timmons

Eight hundred and fifty-four families returned from England, America and Canada, many of them former Corporation tenants.

Mr. T. Lynch

Two hundred and fifty thousand went away.

Mr. Timmons

Faced with this situation of a high vacancy rate, the Corporation had no alternative but to ease off building on the perimeter of the city but they did not ease off building altogether. They concentrated on flat development schemes. A number of flat schemes have been under construction; some have been completed, and 300 odd houses were handed over last year. This year and in ensuing years, the figure will be much higher. At present, there are 1,000 houses and flats being constructed by the Corporation. In addition, site development is in progress for another 600 houses which it is expected will be completed within the next 18 months. All this would help to ease the acute housing situation that exists at present.

It was not very palatable for the Corporation to do that at the time, but having regard to all the circumstances, they adopted the best course. Projected Corporation schemes envisage large-scale development in the Coolock-Santry district and every effort is being made by Corporation officials, in association with the officials of the Department of Local Government, to expedite these schemes.

On the question of housing generaally, I should like to suggest to the Minister that he should again consider the question of tenant-purchase. The Corporation has a number of schemes which enable people who would not normally qualify for Corporation houses to get tenant-purchase houses. At the moment, they cater for about 200 newlyweds per year in a lottery scheme which, in a limited way, satisfies that demand, but some scheme, or some financial trust or other agency should be evolved whereby people who will not normally qualify for corporation houses, and who cannot reach the commitments of SDA houses would be provided for. I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to endeavour to formulate a scheme to deal with that problem.

Dublin Corporation's housing problem is centred on the clearance of obsolete property in the city and will be for many years to come and it cannot reach that section of the community for whom I plead. They are the in-betweens who cannot qualify for Corporation houses and who have not got the financial resources to meet SDA commitments.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the city's traffic problem, which was mentioned last night by the Minister. I welcome his announcement regarding the setting up of a section to deal with the introduction of speed limits and driving tests. I should like to see this section deal with the problem of road accidents which unfortunately are on the increase. It should be their task to study closely the causes of road accidents and, in association with the local authorities, devise ways and means by which they can be minimised. I should also like to record my appreciation of the generous increase in the Road Fund allocation to Dublin from £90,000 to £400,000 which will enable the Corporation to improve their road pattern and bring it up even to the standard of some of the main provincial roads.

I would appeal to the Minister to consider increasing the grants for pedestrian crossings. As he admits himself, there is a serious traffic problem in our city. The Corporation, on the advice of the Traffic Study Group and on representations from various members of the council, have drafted a programme of pedestrian crossings. The Department of Local Government have been in touch with the Corporation, but their limit is 50 per cent. of the cost. Having regard to the tremendous traffic problem in Dublin, I think the Corporation have a good claim for a 100 per cent. grant to improve facilities for pedestrians.

The grant for the traffic warden service could also be increased. This service was introduced by the Corporation some years ago and has since been extended. There are, however, insistent demands from other areas for a further extension. There are complex junctions and busy roads where the provision of a warden to safeguard children going to and coming from school is called for. The Garda have been approached from time to time and they have on occasion provided men during the busy hours; but, with the disposition of their personnel, they find it impossible to meet all the demands for the provision of an efficient warden service. In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his comprehensive outline of the Department's progress during the past year and also for the projects he has outlined to help not alone Dublin, but the entire country throughout the coming year.

Mr. Mullen

Realising the Minister's progressive attitude on local government, there are a few points I should like to put to him for his consideration. First, I should like to draw his attention to a wrong in connection with SDA tenants about to enter into an agreement in respect of the homes they set out to purchase. It has frequently happened that such people have found themselves entering into commitments, the full extent of which was not made known to them. Many SDA tenants are in such a hurry to get fixed up that they sign anything, and it is only when they have been in their homes for a while they find out some of the things which should have been done but which have not been done for them.

When they set about having these things done, the building contractor with whom they have the agreement disclaims responsibility and, when they turn to the Corporation, the Corporation also disclaim responsibility. It happens that a number of roads are left derelict. The Corporation will not take them in charge because the builder did not conform with the proper procedure. Having regard to the fact that this is Corporation money, greater care should be exercised on the part of the people who hand it out. They should ensure that the recipient of the loan knows from the start what he is entitled to.

Deputy Dunne referred to rates remission particularly in regard to S.D.A. tenants. I would join with him in appealing to the Minister to endeavour to do something about this. However, the Minister should have regard to incomes and perhaps base a scheme on the differential rent system even though there are opinions for and against that scheme. Very often, the person who occupies an SDA house finds himself in a predicament because of illness. If the illness is of long duration, everything piles up on him and he begins to panic. I know of a number of people in that position, who were forced to sell their interest in their homes.

I should also like the Minister to look into the matter of repair grants. While there is no undue delay in giving the grants, a great deal of difficulty is experienced by the persons receiving them in obtaining builders to do the work. Would the Minister consider an arrangement whereby Dublin Corporation could institute a system of direct labour, so that the work would be done through the Corporation?

Reference has been made to housing in Dublin. I join with Deputy Timmons in defending the Housing Committee of the Corporation. However, some indication should be given to the people seeking housing accommodation at present. Undoubtedly, there are a tremendous number of people on the waiting list and for many of them the hope of obtaining accommodation is very remote. That applies particularly to husbands and wives with one child and, in some cases, those with two children.

We have another problem when a person in an SDA house runs into unemployment or serious illness and has to sell his interest in his house. When such people make application to the corporation for housing accommodation, a very searching inquiry is made into their affairs. The corporation must be satisfied as to how the money they received for their interest in the house was expended. They must be satisfied these people are not in a position to start off again. I have heard of cases where some people, who had either to sell their interest or be put out, had to take their families into institutions like the Mendicity Institute to live. They had to stay there and wait for weeks or months until an inquiry was made as to how the £300 or £400 they obtained for their interest in the house was spent. Yet it is evident they could not buy another house for £400, even if things picked up for them again.

I should also like the Minister to try to eliminate the obvious delay in clearing derelict sites in many parts of Dublin and rebuilding on them.

It is very noticeable in the Dublin North Central area—Smithfield, Queen Street, North King Street, Church Street, and so on—that there are derelict areas. A number of these places are lying in that condition for almost a year—in some cases for years—and no attempt is made to rebuild them. The people who formerly lived in these areas have been sent to Ballyfermot, Finglas, and so on, and in some cases they have left the country. There is a great need for something to be done in those localities. I understand that in some cases there are legal difficulties. When these houses are left derelict, particularly for a long time, they are used by all sorts and types of people and used in the wrong manner. The fact that such places have not been cleared and rebuilt can be considered an important factor in our present difficulties in relation to extending housing accommodation.

I should also like to ask the Minister to check up on the treatment extended by some landlords to their tenants, particularly in the city of Dublin. I have in mind now the maintenance of a room or rooms and the servicing of a room or rooms. I should like the Minister to ensure that landlords who let condemned dwellings —having had them condemned—will be punished very seriously. It would appear that the appropriate punishment at the moment is not sufficient to restrain these vultures.

Deputy Timmons made a very good suggestion in regard to tenant purchase. When I heard him mention it first, I was perturbed lest he should advocate tenant purchase for all existing corporation tenants. Having listened to his explanation, I think there is a very strong case for providing some sort of home for the young man and girl who do not reach the amount to qualify for a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. In that way, they would be able to go to the Corporation and obtain a small flat or a house which they could purchase within their means.

There is another aspect of the housing of people by the Dublin Corporation which warrants investigation and which should be clarified. In that connection, I would point to what appears to be the practice in Dublin Corporation. If a person living in Ballyfermot or Finglas or any such area is forced to give up his accommodation—as, indeed, many of them do—and to go to Britain, then, when such person returns he may have to take one or two rooms in the centre of the city. He may obtain employment in the centre of the city. Some relative of the family—perhaps the mother or father—may be seriously ill and it may be necessary to stay nearby.

Under the regulation, such a person must go back to the Corporation area from whence he came. I know of people who were told: "You must go back. That is where you were before you went to Britain", despite the fact that they were able to prove conclusively that it was necessary for them to live in the centre of the city. For instance, they may be TB patients who must attend Charles Street a few days a week.

Another consideration which arises is that of extending accommodation. The general trend is that it is either overcrowding or TB. It would appear that consideration is not given to any of the other serious diseases. That is wrong. I do not know who is responsible for the position but it is time something were done about it.

I come now to the subject of differential rents. Now and then, we hear of people who complain about the differential rents system. One of the main difficulties which arise in relation to that system in Dublin Corporation is retrospection in the matter of checking up on a person's income and debiting him with certain arrears. A fairly substantial amount of arrears may have accumulated and a demand may be made on the tenant. Many tenants have gone across to Britain on receipt of such a demand. It is something like the situation which existed before the PAYE system became operative in this country. Formerly, people were suddenly confronted with a big income tax bill and they ran away rather than face it. Very often, overtime is taken into consideration as well.

It may happen that the man of the house is an indifferent person. He may feel he knows all the answers. He may feel inclined to say to himself: "The Corporation have no right to make all these searching inquiries" and he may refuse to bring along the necessary document from his employer. Then, eventually, he may do so and the Corporation may go right back. He may not care but his wife and children care. He may be told: "Pay up altogether." It is difficult to get over problems such as that.

I have noticed that, when settlements in that connection are made, one of the directions is to put so much money down, to pay so much off arrears each week and that, on the first Tuesday of every month, so much will have to be given out of the children's allowances. That is the only instance I know of where children's allowances are adverted to. No Government Department refers to them but strangely enough the matter arises in the Corporation.

With regard to the housing of people in outlying areas, all facilities should be provided with the building of houses. Sometimes houses are built and the facilities follow much later. A classic example of that situation exists in Finglas West. Some thousands of people are living there but there are only six shops to serve them. Shops, schools, play centres, recreation halls, and other facilities should be provided simultaneously with the building of the houses. Otherwise, you will have dissatisfaction, discontent, people wanting to leave their homes and to move away to get service, people chasing service. Furthermore, the people who stay are being exploited. The six shopkeepers in Finglas West open and close when they feel like it because the people there are at their mercy.

The situation in Cabra is not exactly the same but it is somewhat similar. A promise was made to the people there in relation to the provision of facilities. Years ago, they were promised a library but it has not come yet. In places such as Ballyfermot and Finglas there are open spaces which were planned as playing parks but which are derelict. There is the temptation to throw refuse on them. They should be put to the use for which they were designed.

Another annoyance to tenants of Corporation houses is the absence of facilities to make complaints in relation to their homes. It is costly and time-consuming for a person to travel from one of the housing areas into the city in order to follow up a complaint made by telephone in relation to accommodation. I do not see why facilities should not be available in the area concerned. There should be an arrangement whereby complaints can be made and attended to in the area concerned.

If anybody pays a visit to the Rents Section of the Dublin Corporation on a Saturday morning he will be amazed at what he sees there. People are practically standing on top of each other. Since the advent of the five-day week, they now pay their rent on a Saturday morning. I would ask the Minister to ascertain if the Office Premises Act is being observed in the Dublin Corporation. We often hear people make fun of the Corporation officials, rent collectors, and so on. They are a harassed and most hardworking group of individuals. Certainly, if you were to go to the rents section of the Corporation on a Saturday morning you would not think you were in a corporation office but, possibly, in a place like St. Brendan's or Portrane.

I should like to ask the Minister to indicate if anything can be done in regard to the creation of factories in residential areas, factories being made out of garages, such factories becoming a nuisance to local residents. When such things happen local residents may complain but they are told in the end that nothing can be done.

I support Deputy Timmons' appeal for more stop signs at pedestrian crossings. Every member of Dublin Corporation has been asked repeatedly to advocate the erection of more stop signs at pedestrian crossings. They are most needed in housing areas. In the absence of play centres, children are out on the roads. These areas are thickly populated. There are cars using the roads all day long. It is imperative that there should be more stop signs at pedestrian crossings. All these matters are referred to the traffic group but in the final analysis we are told it is a matter of money.

Mr. Blowick

The first thing that concerns me, and those who sent me here, in regard to this Estimate, is the question of constantly increasing rates. Would the Minister give the House some indication as to whether he has any intention or has taken any steps to bring the rates within the capacity of the ordinary rated occupier to meet the demands? There is an enormous inequality in the rates levied by local authorities. I am speaking now of county councils. I think it right to bring to the notice of the Minister, if there is any need to do so, that in western counties, which are the farthest from Dublin, the rates are extraordinarily high. I say without bitterness and without attributing blame to the Minister that in some counties, including Mayo, there is a danger that rates will not be paid for the simple reason that they will go beyond the capacity of the average rated occupier to meet. That is a situation we should not allow to continue.

For County Mayo, last year, the rate was 56/8 in the £. We had to sacrifice second and third class roads and to cut health and sanitary services to the very bone, in order to get the rates down to that level. It is becoming apparent that our second and third class roads are in a very bad condition. The principal complaint that a county councillor for the area or Dáil Deputy for the constituency meets at the present time is in regard to the shocking condition of roads that are the responsibility of the Mayo County Council. That should not be the case.

It seems to be the intention of the Minister or the Department to spend enormous sums on trunk roads. The widening and surfacing of a trunk road is a very costly operation. Some time ago, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, the Minister revealed that the cost of widening 1? miles of an existing road ran into £26,000. Let us compare that with an attempt to relieve unemployment during the winter months by the Special Employment Schemes Office, either by Minor Employment Scheme grants or Rural Improvement Scheme grants. We find that in the whole of Mayo, the third largest county in Ireland, there is not a great amount allocated between all kinds of grants for the relief of unemployment.

There is grave discontent on the part of people who have to pay rates just the same as every other ratepayer in the county. I refer to those who are unfortunate enough to live on a boreen and who cannot get a grant for the repair of that road unless they are prepared to contribute a certain amount of the cost. It is manifestly unjust that that system should be continued. It is a cause of the flight from the land. There may be people who always pay their rates and who, when they try to get a road repaired, cannot get it done unless they make a contribution to the cost according to their valuation. Even then, in some cases, people find some crank can refuse to allow the work to proceed. The system of providing access to these houses and farmsteads is lopsided and it is time the Minister took a completely new look at it. I would not expect young people to take over a family holding from the father or mother and to continue living on it while they have to plunge through a dirty rutted byroad where lorries cannot get in, where a threshing machine cannot get in, where beet cannot be removed except by horse and cart.

Expenditure on roads would bear a complete overhaul. I want to see a good system of trunk roads but I submit that it is wasteful to spend £26,000 on one mile of a road while there are thousands of miles of byroads where families cannot get in or out once the weather breaks. I quoted a case here before, and the position is still the same, of a certain townland, where a byroad is so bad that on Sunday morning people going to Mass have to wear Wellingtons and bring boots or shoes with them to change when they get on to the steamrolled road. In 1962, such conditions should not obtain. I would ask the Minister to consider that matter. There is plenty of money available, apparently, for the widening of trunk roads. I agree that it is important that some bends should be removed. On the other hand, we are making life in rural Ireland unattractive to young people by not providing suitable roads into villages where bad roads exist at present.

Even now the Minister should do something to provide accommodation for persons who cannot provide houses for themselves. There are many cases where a young couple got married and were glad to get any kind of roof to shelter themselves and, as a result, there may now be three, four, perhaps eight members of a family huddled together in a room or two, often in houses that have been condemned by the local authority. The Minister might say that it is a matter for legislation. I say "no". I say it is a matter about which the Minister could do something.

I do not want him to adopt the usual policy that Fianna Fáil seem to have adopted down the years, that is, when a problem has to be dealt with, you pass legislation to put a charge on the ratepayers down the country. I want to assure the Minister that the families concerned can be divided into two classes. On the one hand, there is the young couple with a growing family living in a house unfit for human habitation, with no hope in the world of providing a house for themselves. On the other hand, there are old and destitute people who will not leave their homes but who are definitely entitled to have a house provided for them.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.