(Motions Nos. 28 and 59 are being discussed with the Supplementary Estimate.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Local Government (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
"That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration."— (Deputy Jones.)
Speaking before the adjournment, I quoted the figure of 9,000 as the housing needs for Kerry. I wish to correct that. The housing needs there are in the region of 980. As I said at the outset, the need for housing, whether rural or otherwise, is apparent and I do not intend to labour that any further beyond saying I am glad to see that the figures for this year have picked up and that more houses are being built than in the previous years. But we have quite a backlog to make up to get back to the 1960 figure, not to mention the years previous to that, when there was a vast increase in the number of houses being built.
In conjunction with housing we must consider the matter of water and sewerage. I listened with interest to the Minister's address to the representatives of Muintir na Tíre in Tipperary when he stressed the great importance of rural water supplies. I was glad to hear that there was further encouragement for this type of scheme in rural areas.
Since the end of June this year the Department of Local Government have taken over from the Department of Agriculture the direction of schemes of concern to the farming community. Is the Minister satisfied that the number of inspectors available to him to inspect these schemes and approve grants is sufficient to enable the work to go on expeditiously? People have approached me in regard to this matter. I know some of the delay has been due to the change over. People applied in the first instance to the Department of Agriculture and got a letter back saying this matter was now the responsibility of the Department of Local Government. Does the Minister think that the present inspectorial system is sufficient to deal with the need and get the work going at an accelerated rate? If inspectors have to deal with a large area and a scattered rural population and if they have to inspect the ground, you are going to have a slowing down of the process.
In this country the weather is an important factor in these matters. If people are going to sink wells and provide sewerage facilities, they do not care to start such work in the winter months. I suggest it is necessary to arrange for a more expeditious inspection of these sites. Certainly, the group schemes could be of great advantage in rural areas, but there again a difficulty has arisen in regard to pumping tests. Where the well has been sunk the people concerned in the scheme are awaiting a trial pumping test to be carried out by the ESB. It was an improvement in the contract document to find that the contractors sinking such wells have to submit the wells to a pumping test. If the ESB have not adequate facilities to arrange for the carrying out of these tests expeditiously, it results in the type of delay which can be frustrating for whoever promotes the scheme on behalf of the group and who has to deal with the provision of materials and the financing of it. It is discouraging if the tests cannot be expeditiously carried out and the work put in hand. Perhaps the Minister would use his good offices with the ESB to ensure that if sufficient testing units are not available, the Board, who are supplying the current and who will gain from the operation of the scheme in the long run, will increase the number of their testing staff to deal more expeditiously with this matter?
Is there a minimum number of householders in regard to a group scheme? Does everybody within the ambit of the scheme have to be in at that stage in order to ensure the success of the scheme? Undoubtedly local co-operation is important in cases like that. It is important that people co-operate to secure the advantages of piped water for all. I know the grant has now been increased to £60 per house and that the local authority can make a grant in this matter. I think the Minister has had the experience in Tipperary of hearing about group water schemes and the amount one might be called on to bear and he would know whether there was any such scheme where the figure turned out very different from the amount budgeted for in the first instance. This is something which it is not easy to get around.
The Minister and his advisory staff are being as helpful as possible but any assistance which will enable the individual organising a group scheme to make an accurate estimate so that the participating householders can have a fairly accurate account of what they are expected to contribute would lead to more harmony in regard to these schemes. Perhaps we might evolve a standard pattern for such cases. On one occasion the Minister gave an example of I think £150 per house connected. Has he revised that figure or does it still stand? Perhaps he would let us know about that when he comes to reply.
The next big item the Minister mentioned in his speech was roads expenditure, road traffic and so on. Everybody in the country has been extremely shocked by the appalling death and accident rates on the roads. It is not the roads that are the cause of the accidents and it is not the cars. In some cases it is the drivers. I am sure that the Minister for Justice and the Garda authorities have investigated these instances and obtained reports in regard to inquests on the victims, so that he should be able to arrive at some conclusion as to whether something could be done physically which would help. The Minister has admonished people, and so have the safety first associations and the newspapers.Civics instruction may also help, but despite all these it seems that we have come to regard these figures as inevitable. We are horrified when we read of six or seven people being killed suddenly in an air accident or of deaths in a fire but we seem to have reached a stage where a pile up of cars on the road resulting in the deaths of four or five people makes headlines just for half a day. Appeals from this House and elsewhere do not seem to have had effect. On occasions the religious communities have been addressed in that respect by church leaders. I wonder if there is any grain of truth to be found in the investigation of these accidents which would point to something which might help. I would be glad if the Minister has any information on it which he could publicise. I know that he has been giving the matter thought.
Driving a car as I do myself I have been not alone shocked but terrified at times on the road particularly at night when facing oncoming traffic. The first driver coming towards you dims in response to your dimming but the line of traffic following him does not do that. Somebody somewhere in the line keeps his headlights on. In the new regulations the Minister has adverted to this and it is something which should be sternly dealt with. If we can use Garda patrols on the road in the ordinary way in speed traps to use a device to catch the individual who is breaking the speed limits it should not be beyond our capacity to enforce dimming so that the individual who deliberately and flagrantly refuses to dim should be visited with the penalty a careless driver deserves, because this is carelessness and absolute discourtesy by individuals.
We still find pedestrians who do not face oncoming traffic. A motorist approaching such a pedestrian has no way of picking him out against the headlights of an oncoming driver. Such a pedestrian stands a grave risk of serious injury if not death. It would be advisable for pedestrians always to walk on the side of traffic approaching them.
That brings me to the question of damage to signs on the road. It is very regrettable that we have this damage and the fact that there is a certain amount of vandalism is very hard to explain. It is hard to understand how anybody could want to feel a responsibility on his conscience for an accident caused if he disturbs or wantonly removes signs put on the road for the guidance of traffic. In that regard the local authority or anybody in charge of a roads programme where work is in progress and signs are temporarily removed should be impressed very strongly with the absolute necessity of ensuring that those signs or signs of a like character even of a temporary nature are placed there to avoid accidents.I am afraid it is going to take a long time for us to grow up from the attitude of regarding interference with signs as being merely harmless antics or pranks. A more responsible approach to public property is badly needed. How it is to be got or enforced is hard to see because evidently people do not like civics being preached at them. This is something on which the Press of the country should use its great power of persuasion. When an accident happens its results are felt by the individual and the family affected by such a tragedy and it is brought home very forcibly in the area, but we are inclined in the national conscience to sleep on the matter until the next time it happens. Very often, I am afraid, this is not a question of damage being caused by young people, because the damage is of such a character that the signs are incapable of suffering such damage from youthful hands.
The speed limits imposed, particularly in built up areas, have given a certain measure of confidence to people living in such areas and traffic is slowing down, but I wonder if we ought not to review these limits more quickly and more often in places. The signs in some places are not well sited. We have sometimes signs erected quite a long distance outside the built-up area of a town, imposing a speed limit of 30 miles an hour, where perhaps 40 would do until such time as one came into the more built-up portion of the town.
It is very difficult to understand why those who advise on this matter do not introduce speed limits in certain places. I am surprised that some villages in my constituency have no speed limits. Speed limits are very necessary particularly in areas where schools are sited on the outskirts. The siting need not be very far away. Sometimes the distance is quite long and a speed limit over that long distance can actually impede traffic. In the same way, a speed limit in very narrow streets can slow up traffic considerably and create more snags than were intended. Presumably the review of the operation of the regulations will supply a solution to some of these problems.
To whom should people make representations when they want speed limits imposed? To whom can they comment, should they wish to do so, on existing speed limits and the siting of them?
The Minister referred to the fact that newer methods are being adopted in regard to road building. That is apparent to all who travel the roads. I mentioned on the last occasion that there is need for investigation and research not alone by local engineers but by independent examiners. We ought to try to arrive at what is best. Our roads are costing a great deal of money. It is fortunate the Road Fund is so large. Our roads are good roads. In my experience, they compare favourably with roads abroad.
With regard to modernising reconstruction, why is there so little re-routing?Is the idea to take the traffic over the road so that it will act as a steamroller more or less and bed the material down? Would it not be better to have re-routing to enable the surface to be put down in the ordinary way instead of having it churned up by passing traffic, very often to the grave detriment of the cars? Surely the county engineers could time and devise their schemes to allow re-routing.
With regard to parking regulations, the Minister has power to make these regulations. Perhaps the Minister would tell us if he has collected much revenue from fines on the spot. How is that operating? Has the public taken to the idea? Sometimes traders object to parking regulations. The traders in William Street in Limerick complained bitterly to the Corporation because of the losses sustained by them as a result of parking regulations.
With regard to pedestrian crossings, we have not the advantage here of underground crossings. Presumably the subsoil in Dublin will not permit of such crossings. Of course, pedestrians often do things they should not do. On a recent Parliamentary mission abroad I saw a pedestrian step out on the road when he should not: he was pursued by a policeman and fined on the spot. I am not suggesting we should adopt that policy here.
The Minister referred to the findings of the commission appointed to inquire into drunken driving. Apparently the Minister has not been able to adopt in full the recommendations of the commission. The type of test has given rise to a good deal of argument. However, I suppose it will be a matter of scientific research. One thing is readily admitted by all: anybody who drinks should not drive and those who drive should not drink. The slaughter is bad enough but it would be quite horrible if a person put himself in the position, because of drink, of maiming or killing a fellow-citizen on the roads.
Mention was made of fire hazards. The Minister said he has the report of the commision. Is the report available? Does he intend to make regulations based on this review? We had a big fire in Limerick during the summer. A great deal of damage was done. There was, too, a tragic accident in Dublin. These things will happen but, if there is omission or inadvertence, it ought not to be allowed to continue.
I regret the Minister did not refer to libraries this year. The library service has paid a real dividend in Irish life. Libraries nowadays fulfil a more useful function in Irish life other than merely the supply of books. In rural areas rooms in libraries are being used by secondary schools and it would be a great pity if such educational facilities were lost to prospective pupils because of the taking over of these rooms for some other purpose. When grants are being made available by An Comhairle Leabharlanna, I hope that aspect will not be lost sight of and that this amenity will be preserved in the rural areas. Wherever the library is in part used as a secondary school, it should continue to be so used. It would not please the public to find out that the library could not be used as a secondary school. They are synonomous with each other and help the work of each other.
With regard to Subhead L, for the provision of money for seeds and fertilisers, last year it filled a need in the lives of the people who had suffered storm damage to their holdings.It enabled money to be provided for the rehabilitation of such holdings at two per cent, and that is something which we need to have at all times in this country. All rural Deputies will have experience of land being flooded when river banks have burst. We have had the experience in Limerick where a large tract of land is still under water because of the collapse of the river bank. It will take a couple of years to rehabilitate this land and people with 17 or 18 acres of land, and having to face this problem, have already had a grave impost put upon them in the loss of livestock and crops.
The Minister would be doing a good service to the rural community if he kept that subhead there and made any money which may be necessary available through any council to assist people in such circumstances. This would be particularly useful in the case of the banks of rivers which have not yet come under the scope of the Office of Public Works and Buildings.
The Minister dealt with the question of local authority expenditure and the indebtedness of local authorities. The position in regard to that is very easily stated. At any time, the collection of rates is not an easy proposition. It is not a difficult proposition, either. I believe that in the long run our people are quite willing to play their part in paying for what they are getting in the way of services but these services are continuing to grow. A large amount of money is being collected for these services, the cost of which, despite pruning, continues to rise and represents a continuing burden on the rates.
It might well be said that the people are receiving services for the money they pay but it is not so easy to say that in cases where you have provided a road or a water scheme, or a certain number of houses and find that your costs in regard to these are continually increasing. The position is that the provision of services in any particular county does not increase but the expenditure on them continues to rise. A large proportion of the amount that must be provided from the rates goes to the health services, over which the Minister has no control, but which takes the form of a mandatory demand on the local authority. Very often, this is not adverted to. The expenditure on these services is continuing to rise and are we ever going to reach the stage when such expenses will level off, when the rising costs will begin to go down?
The State provides a large proportion of these expenses at the present time but it does not matter from which pocket you take the money—it is still the taxpayer who is paying it, whether he pays it in local rates or in general taxation. It all comes from the same source. I mentioned last year that there should be some system of priorities in regard to this matter, that we should lay down some sort of programme to which we would adhere in an effort to deal with this problem. One thing that would help in this respect would be the completion of the national survey of housing needs. If that were done, a housing programme could be devised which would meet the national need. One should also expect that now that our roads are dust-free and steamrolled to a large extent, that expenditure in that respect would taper off somewhat.
There is also that unknown factor that will come into play as soon as the Minister makes regulation under the Town Planning Act recently passed through this House. That will mean an increase in expenditure in various parts of the country and we should try to keep that expenditure within the capacity of the people to pay. At present the people are meeting their obligations fairly. There is seldom anyone who wilfully defaults but it would be a bad thing if the public were not to be made aware of the programme they have to meet and if they could not look forward with confidence to a time when there would be a decrease in the burden of rates. It would be a welcome thing if some county manager, at an estimates meeting, could announce that he was recommending a decrease of even a small amount in the rates. It would have an encouraging effect on the public generally.
This Department for which the Minister is responsible is one of the very important Departments of State. It touches the people in a great many aspects of their life. It is the one to which the people mainly look for help. Most Deputies know that many of their duties in making requests on behalf of their constituents are centred in the Department of Local Government.If there is anything the Minister can do to expedite the dealings of his Department with the public, he should do it in order to maintain the good relations that obtain.
Local government in this country is not a matter of government but rather of administration. The members of local authorities generally, and I am not one of them, have no power to regard themselves as in the category of dealing with local government. They are dealing rather with local administration because local government is centralised in the long run. I have said here before that I do not blame the Government for that because there is such a large amount of money being provided centrally that the Government say: "We must keep an eye on these things." I do, however, say that the Government could relax a little in this matter by allowing more liberty and discretion to local officials. It is a point on which I feel most strongly. We have capable officials, engineers and accountants, at local level and I cannot see why the Department, with their system of local government auditing, are not able to keep a sufficient hand on the pulse of local authorities to ensure that a good job is done, while at the same time leaving to the locally elected representatives more administrative freedom.
I shall begin where Deputy Jones left off and mention the problem of the rates. I would say, however, that there is an angle to this that we should not forget. A Parliamentary question was answered here today as to the value of the pound in 1938 as against the present time and the reply was that the pound today is comparatively about 6/6d to 6/8d. In South Cork, for instance, the rates are 47/- in the £. We should all like to see them lower, but we must not forget the fact that if we were at the stage of being able to get as much value for 47/- as was got in 1938, or if we had progressed very well in the period up to 1938, perhaps rates might not then have been as clear an indication of a comparison against us now.
Taking the pre-war value of the pound, I think it is true to say that if we consider the amount of work done by local authorities pre-war as against the present time, we can truly say we are getting as much value at the present time as we were pre-war when the rates were approximately 15/- in the £ and more in some instances. I mention that to make it clear that we in the Labour Party, although we should like to see lower rates, do not lose sight of the fact that because of the change of money values, we must pay extra for the necessary improvements in local authority areas.
There is a touch of past history about this Estimate. It is very difficult to speak on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government in the month of October, going into November, when in actual fact, we should have been doing so many months ago. We clearly realise that the Minister's speech has been interspersed with statistical returns based on a period up to the end of August and that we shall therefore be going over the same ground in a few months when we are presented with the new Estimate which must include a number of the statistical returns before us tonight. It is therefore somewhat a waste of time discussing it at great length now and I am accordingly limiting myself as much as possible.
The Minister gave us many figures on house building and naturally I am not in a position to say whether the figures he gave are correct or not. I am not, of course, questioning them, but, and I shall try to elaborate later on, it is strange that while the figures show an uplift in building operations during that period, those of us who are members of local authorities can say that many difficulties have been encountered in our dealings with the Department.
One instance of this, to which I should like to draw particular attention has to do with private housebuilding.I am referring to the unsatisfactory system in regard to inspections by Departmental inspectors, whether it is where a person applies for a grant before work has commenced or otherwise. In many cases, the person must wait very many months for an inspector to come along, even in the case of reconstruction work. Then when the work is completed, the same procedure is encountered again—there are all these trappings and trimmings before the person concerned receives his grant.
I do not wish to go into this problem in detail, but I would instance the case of a man in Innishannon, near Bandon. The inspector called on him before Christmas and became apparently so fond of the place that he or some other inspector paid several calls since. However, the unfortunate person still has not got his grant. Yet, we are now told of the enormous amount spent within the past six or eight months as compared with previous years. I could bring many other cases to light in that area alone to prove how unsatisfactory the present system is.
I suggest it is essential that the Department should have an inspector attached to each centre. I do not want an inspector in every provincial town but I submit there should be one in each area so that the local people could contact him if necessary, and a Deputy could call at his office the same as at employment exchanges or other Departmental offices in the country. In the case of the Department of Local Government, we do not know who the inspector is or with whom we should get in touch. We have to go all the way to the Custom House and then back again in a roundabout fashion to get in touch with the inspector. I am not blaming the officials in the Custom House. My experience of them is that they do their work well. However, I am complaining about these deplorable waiting periods between the time of application, the time of inspection and the time of receipt of grants.
In the matter of reconstruction grants, my remarks are certainly not directed against the Minister in present circumstances. However, the situation is continuing to become more acrimonious because of the length of time involved and the costs, whether material or labour costs. They are increasing all the time. For many years back, the system operated by the Department, and which the inspector must carry out, is that the allocation of grants for reconstruction is based on pricing that is completely outdated. I am speaking as one who has had fairly long experience of the building industry. It is time that the Minister had the system thoroughly investigated.In respect of work that may cost £700 the Department's inspector will have to put down a cost of £450 or £500, not through any fault of the inspector but because of the rules laid down for him by the Department governing measurements and costs. The figures are outdated and it is time to bring them up to more realistic figures having regard to present day costs of building and reconstruction work.
I do not wish unnecessarily to castigate the Minister for some of his statements castigating local authorities for their failure in regard to housing programmes but I will say in passing that it was unnecessary, undesirable and unjust of the Minister to blame someone else for faults that very often can be laid at his feet and at the feet of his Department. If the Minister had shown a greater sense of co-operation in dealing with requests coming from local authorities instead of attacking them for some things which were not their fault there might be greater satisfaction and co-operation in local administration.
One matter mentioned by Deputy Jones to which I should like briefly to refer is the question of vested cottages or cottages in respect of which tenants have applied for vesting. As I have said here very frequently, the procedure is unsatisfactory. A tenant who is not satisfied with the amount of repairs being carried out by the local authority has the right of appeal, within 30 days, to the Minister. The snag is that very often the tenant will write a letter to the Department of Local Government drawing attention to the unsatisfactory state of the cottage after the repairs have been carried out but the inspector, according to the rule of thumb laid down for him by the Department, can deal only with the complaints specified in the letter by the tenant. There should be a broader view taken of this matter. If a tenant forgets, when writing to the Department, to include some item, the inspector should not be debarred from dealing with the matter merely because it was not included in the tenant's list of objections. I know of cases where tenants were told that the inspector is so debarred. That is unnecessarily restrictive. The Department should be less rigid in dealing with the general public.
Frequently we are faced with the problem of building costs. The Minister has drawn attention to that problem.Some of our problems in that connection date from some years back before the present Minister became Minister for Local Government. I have in mind a time when a Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government insisted that on all possible occasions the contract system should be considered as against the direct labour system. In very many instances a direct labour system was being built up by a local authority. As a result, a certain degree of competition was created between the direct labour system and the contract system. That form of competition was killed by a certain Minister for Local Government during the 1950s. We have not got over that yet in South Cork.
I give credit to the Minister for two parts of his speech here. In speaking of Dublin Corporation's proposals he stated that additional schemes had been agreed to save the time normally given to contract documents, advertising, and so on. That is one important part of the Minister's speech. It is a question of eliminating red tape. The Minister apparently agrees with the line Dublin Corporation are taking. Certainly, if they are successful, there is great credit due to them.
On page 4 of the Minister's speech, in a very long paragraph, the Minister refers to a housing survey and the difficulty experienced by local authorities in getting contractors. That applies also in rural areas. The Minister is right in speaking of the difficulty in getting contractors. As I have already said, that was brought about to a large degree by the actions of a Minister in the past. I wonder if the Minister is sincere when he refers to the difficulties in getting contractors? May I ask what is happening in his Department?
In dealing with local government we must draw attention to the problems affecting our constituencies. May I ask the Minister what has happened in the case of the many requests sent up, with the unanimous approval of all the members—Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Farmers and Independents— from South Cork, for instance? We did not have such difficulty in getting contracts in some areas. Perhaps the prices were considered rather high. They may have been, but they were the lowest we could get. In the case of an area — Blackrock-Ballinlough-Ballintemple—there was a request from the county council in connection with the building of 20 houses. It is true that sanction was received in respect of the site but then the trouble started. It went on for a long time. In August or September a reply came from the Department pointing out that there were certain objections, querying the lay-out. That was dealt with, the last letter being of 28th September. Surely we are entitled to a small amount of freedom locally? When the Cork County Council, southern area, have the advantage of the services of a fully qualified architect appointed by the Local Appointments Commission, surely the Department of Local Government and the Minister should not be hanging on so long with the question of layout of 20 houses for 20 families?
That is only one case. There are two areas where 28 houses are involved, 24 houses in Carrigtuohill and four houses in Dripsey. A compulsory purchase order was made on 7th June, 1962. Confirmation was sought from the Department of Local Government. An inquiry was held on 18th December, 1962. When nothing was happening, a reminder was sent to the Departments last June and still nothing is happening. Deputy Corry will support me, as Carrigtuohill is in east Cork. We are still awaiting sanction in this case. What is wrong there?
There was another case where a site was selected for 20 houses. I know all the fault is not that of the Minister and his Department but we had the extraordinarily sad experience of the Department of Agriculture stepping in and buying the land over our heads in spite of the fact that a portion of the land had been acquired by the council. The Departments of Local Government and Agriculture are still arguing over alternative sites and still denying the Cork County Council the right to build 20 houses there.
There is also the case of an attempt to build 20 houses in Passage West. I admit no Minister could be expected to know the position exactly himself but it would be no harm for him to look at the glaring injustice in the town of Passage West in connection with a housing scheme. We got an excellent site there for 20 houses. The compulsory purchase order was carried out. There was no objection by the ground landlords. The legal responsibility of advertising in the papers was carried out in order to give the specified period to any genuine objector. Nobody objected. The proposal was sent to the Minister for sanction so that building could proceed.What happened? Some people behind the scenes interfered. I am not saying that they got at the Minister but they got at somebody because the proposal was salted away in the Custom House until August or early September because eventually we got the complete sanction which we should have got long before.
There are ten houses held up, in another area around a part of County Cork that has a proud connection with the year 1920. I am speaking about the Upton Cross area, famous as one of the parts of County Cork connected with the struggles of that time. I know one family there and there is no family in this city of Dublin living in worse circumstances. We got a site by agreement and there are other sites involved there as well. Tenders were sent up but they were too high and we had to advertise again. Then we were told to get tenders for serviced cottages. Tenders were again sent in and are being dealt with but 12 months have elapsed, leaving a family living in the most disgraceful type of house I have ever gone into. Does that show a sense of co-operation between the Department of Local Government and the local authority?
Then, there was another compulsory purchase order, No. 3 of 1962, which was made on 31st December, 1962, and sent to the Department for confirmation on 8th January, 1963. What has happened to it? When will we get confirmation of it? I get no pleasure from putting these points forward. I cannot expect the Minister to answer every one of them. We all have to depend on someone to advise us but it would be well for the Minister, should he doubt my word, to consult Deputy Corry or Deputy MacCarthy. I do not mind whom he consults. I want to get results. In South Cork we sent in tenders which were rejected by the Department as being too high. We were forced to advertise again and we got tenders that were higher still because naturally the cost of materials and other things involved went up in the meantime.
It is no use saying this is a problem for the local authority and that the onus for the failure to build houses is on the local authority when these facts can be given. I would suggest the Minister, before making any of these speeches, should have known from Deputies of his own Party, the exact position in relation to these problems. There was a similar situation in the town of Kinsale. The urban council was clamouring to have houses built there. There was more correspondence between the Department and the urban council in question but that does not build houses.
The important question is: are we in local authorities to get any degree of true local autonomy? While it is essential that local authorities should get the grants they are getting from the Exchequer, the trouble is that, irrespective of who may be in Government, the local authorities seem to be completely sold to the Custom House. Why should the situation not be the same in regard to house building as in regard to the allocation of road grants? Every county gets its allocation from the Road Fund on the basis of mileage. That system should be put into operation in connection with housing.
The Minister has spoken of the nation-wide survey that is taking place. The Minister has at his disposal in his Department all the necessary information and data in connection with the housing needs of each local authority area. Why not depart from the system which has not been satisfactory in the past? Why not adopt the same method as in the allocation of road grants? Allocate so much per year to each council for housing and if a council fails to build a number of houses, then it loses that money at the end of the year. Then let it be said that it is the fault of the local authority. But be fair to them: tell them at the start of the year how much money is being put at their disposal. Trust the local authority and their officials to try to get the best bargain they can in tenders for these houses. Local authority members are not a group of country boys, not a group which a Minister or Government cannot trust. Down the years, we have had experience of the solid work done by the officials and members of local authorities as a whole. Therefore, if they can be trusted in every other way, why can they not be trusted now to adopt a new system? Then they cannot blame the Minister if, at the end of their financial year, they cannot show that all the money has been spent in a proper way. That is my suggestion for getting out of the impasse created by the hold-ups, the red tape and legal formalities in rural areas as well as in towns and cities.
I should like to congratulate the Commission who have done very good work in connection with studying the problem of driving motor cars under the influence of drink. These people, brought together by the Minister from various walks of life, have by their ability given us a solution which is well worth bringing into operation. Deputy Jones referred to speed limits, as did the Minister. We hope that, at the end of 12 months, the matter will be reviewed. It is quite right to say that at the approaches to some cities and towns the 30 mile an hour sign is too far out. In some cases, too, some changes may be made. At least an attempt is being made and I must leave it to another Estimate to protest against the breaking of this law. It is not the fault of the Minister for Local Government. It must come up under Justice. Some people seem to find a delight in driving faster inside the 30 mile an hour speed limit than they do outside it. All the Minister can do is prepare and put into operation the necessary measures which will give the officers of another Department a responsibility to which I hope they will live up.
On the question of roads, the old problem of the advantages of the Local Authorities (Works) Act arises. It gave employment and, as Deputy Corry said, it produced very good results.While much good work is being done on the road system at present, we find an enormous amount of machinery being used. I agree with the use of machinery but I believe there is a point beyond which we should not be prepared to go. I see tractors going along the roads cutting the brows of the dykes and the drivers are getting £5 a day, but a man doing the job would get £6 odd a week. Would it not be better to have a man doing the job? Where machinery is essential, by all means make the fullest use of it, but we have lost our sense of proportion as regards the amount of money we are spending on machinery to replace human beings. I would rather see a man who is keeping his wife and children getting £6 a week. Much machinery is being used in this useless manner. I suggest the county managers knew the path to the Custom House, even before the Minister went there. The advice and co-operation they get there is nobody's business but perhaps the Minister might have a word with them and with the Parliamentary Secretary from his own county, and ask them how much machinery they are using and what labour has been replaced by the introduction of that machinery.
Another matter with which I want to deal is salary increases. This is a very sore point with the people concerned, the officials and the members of local authorities. There is too great a time-lag between all the negotiations between the representatives of the workers, whether they are staff officers or clerk-typists, and the county manager, and then with the Minister and the Department. Ultimately, they have to come back again to the county manager. The trouble is that finally when the Minister agrees, or when they agree, and the matter comes before the local council, there is an outcry from the members. Naturally, the Minister and the staff are justified in expecting that the agreement will be retrospective to the time the negotiations started but because it is, an extra sum of money is involved and the members see red when they hear about this and say: "They are doing very well if we give them an increase from next week or the week after." I never agree with that. I suggest that in future these negotiations should be simplified and that no time-lag should be involved, so that when these people are awarded an increase, it will come automatically to the council for sanction in the shortest period.
Another point is that about which Deputy Jones spoke, that is, night driving and the fact that our roads are tarred. As they are black, we cannot see any pedestrian in front of us when driving. Would the Minister inquire if anything could be done in this regard? We find fault with our public lighting system and there may be justification where there are pools of light, but you have to consider the country roads as well. I believe that a frequent cause of accidents is the fact that at night people are not easily discernible on the roads. Does tar have to be black in colour? Could we have it in some other colour? We have luminous signs which we can see some hundreds of yards away. I do not suggest we should have roads that will dazzle us but it would be a wonderful help if our roads could be of a colour other than black so as to assist a motorist to see pedestrians at night.
This is a very important Estimate. I am very happy to note that plenty of money is available for housing. It is the means by which we can expedite our programme. I am a member of the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation. Some time ago, the Minister received a deputation from that committee and he offered all the co-operation of his Department to expedite by every means the building of houses in the Corporation area.
The housing problem in Dublin was aggravated some months ago because of all the houses which had to be condemned as a result of the fatal accidents that occurred in Bolton Street and Fenian Street. No member of the Housing Committee and no member of the Corporation wants to see anybody displaced without having a house to go to. The system now adopted by the Minister to expedite sanction and to allow the same contractor to continue without advertising the houses has definitely short-circuited the length of time involved in building houses and will expedite the programme.As a result of the work now on hands we feel that within a very short period Dublin Corporation will surmount the housing crisis.
It is too bad that it never rains but it pours. Not alone had we to cope with the collapse of some buildings but almost a thousand families were displaced because it was considered that they were living in dangerous buildings. Approximately six hundred of these people have been re-housed but at a very serious cost to the unfortunate people already on the waiting list for houses. I understand that the officials of Dublin Corporation and of the Department of Local Government are in consultation with a view to seeing how they can increase the erection of houses. The members of the Dublin Corporation Housing Committee are most anxious that, if possible, the rate of erection will be trebled.
Dublin is bursting at the seams as far as sites are concerned. It is not so very long ago since Dublin city took over a lot of County Dublin. Now we have almost gone short of main drainage schemes. The south part of the city and the borders of the county are crying out for a south Dublin drainage scheme. Such a scheme might encourage further private building which would greatly alleviate the present demand for houses. Our drainage scheme in Dublin, both north and south, is not adequate to cope with requirements.
Speculative builders try to buy up sites and the Corporation are taking over, or are trying to take over, some sites because of the crisis which has arisen. An inquiry has been held and the matter is awaiting the decision of the Minister and his Department. No matter how we like it, people will ask why we do not build up the centre of the city. It takes time to acquire property in the centre of the city. We have had the experience of Church Street where it took about seven years and the property has not yet been finally acquired. The recent Town Planning legislation will short-circuit that procedure considerably.
Unless the corporations or the county councils have sites and are allowed to go ahead with development, it takes from two to three years to get on with building. The Minister has long ago given the green light to Dublin Corporation officials and to the Housing Committee to go ahead with their job and he has adopted a very liberal view in that connection.
I hope he will not need the green light in connection with the covering of the canal.
We do not want Corkmen interfering in Dublin affairs. We shall look after our own affairs.
Look after the Road Fund. You are losing on that.
Deputy P.J. Burke.
I do not mind. I might gain something from the interruptions.
That is the truest thing the Deputy has ever said.
Another point the Minister raised this evening was the possibility of local authorities making sites available for people who would like to build their own houses. The price of land in Dublin city and county, especially where the services can be provided, is very dear. Sometimes people from other countries come in and buy the land and develop it. Some of our people find that, because of competition, the price of land is very high. I do not seek to cut down the price of land. It is an opportunity for anybody who has land to get the highest price possible for it but, on the other hand, it means that the price of houses has gone very high. It is very hard for the lower middle class group who are buying houses to pay for them and I have received quite a number of complaints in that connection.
Money is being made available through SDA loans. The banks are giving money and there are other ways of raising money. Tonight, the Minister spoke of an increase in private building and, especially last year, the money given for SDA loans and grants increased considerably. These are some of the problems we face.
Land is going very scarce in the city due to the great prosperity we have experienced in the past four or five years of Fianna Fáil administration. With the continuance of that prosperity, there will be no unemployment and there will be plenty of speculative builders.
Mr. Ryan
But fewer houses built.
There were not very many houses built in 1956 and 1957.
Mr. Ryan
There were 5,000 more houses built.
When you left office, there was not the price of a bag of cement left.
Mr. Ryan
There was a sum of £2 million given back by Deputy Burke and his pals.
I intended to leave that hare alone, but, now that the Deputy has raised it, I shall have to chase it around the field. In County Dublin, which I have the honour to represent for the past 20 years, over 500 SDA houses were left for the crows to build in because there were no SDA loans, no loans from banks, from building societies, from insurance companies or anybody else.
Mr. Ryan
5,647 houses were built in 1956——
The first thing the then Minister for Local Government had to do was pay £2 million of the debts contracted by the inter-Party Government. Now you have the cheek to tell me that everything in the garden was lovely.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy should be allowed to make his contribution to the debate without interruption.
He is fishing for interruptions.
The Deputy can fish, too, when he gets up.
You went out of your way to make me fish.
The Deputy should address his remarks to me and not to the opposite side of the House.
You went out of away from the bad times and come back to the good times again, I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister——
He needs a lot of them.
Would Deputy Coogan bear with me for a few moments? He can get up and speak until morning and I shall be silent while he is speaking. I am on the Housing Committee for County Dublin. One of the problems we have in County Dublin is——
Widowed women.
The one you have in Galway, is that right? The day has come when the Department of Local Government should allow the county engineer and the county medical officer to make a decision on sites. I admit that for a certain type of local authority house the Department give a two-third subsidy. In County Dublin, we require about 1,200 houses as soon as possible and we have decided to build 1,000 within the next three years. There is an outlook in the Department of Local Government—it was there even before the present Minister took office—which is detrimental to the interests of a number of my constituents.The position is that a number of nominee sites, especially in NorthWest County Dublin, have been turned down. It is frustrating for public men trying to get houses built to be told that they must wait for sewerage and water. This has been going on in the Department for a long time. I am sorry I have to speak so strongly on it, but it is affecting a number of people I know to be living in shocking housing conditions. If the county engineer and county medical officer select a nominee site without sewerage and water, they are told it cannot be built on, although we know sewerage and water will probably not be available in the area for nine or ten years.
Some decision will have to be arrived at by the Department to deal with this problem. Many of the sites are being turned down and we are getting abuse from the people who want houses. I put this to the Minister and his Department: is it not better to give people a house without water or sewerage than have them living in a house where they are losing their health, a house which is falling down on top of them? We should try to evolve some scheme whereby a pump might be sunk or a group scheme and septic tanks provided.
I wish to deal now with making sites available for private houses. I welcome the statement in the Minister's speech advising local authorities to make sites available for people who wish to build their own houses. We have an example of that in Dublin, where people have availed of sites to build their own houses and are doing so still. It is a great encouragement to people to get a site at the nominal cost of the ground rent. If that were the case in every area, it would mean the people in the lower income group, who cannot get a house, who have not sufficient money to purchase a site or who live in small towns where there are no speculative builders, would be facilitated. It is all right in the cities where speculative builders have a chance of selling their houses, but that opportunity is not available to people in small towns or even in the suburbs of Dublin. I am delighted the Minister has given his blessing to this scheme and I hope local authorities will make more use of it.
Any place we have tried to get group schemes going—and we have succeeded in a few places—they have been warmly welcomed. The people have appreciated having piped water supplies to their homes. It has taken a lot of the drudgery out of the work of the housewife. The inspectors and engineers in charge of the group scheme are excellent officials who have done a fine job.
With reference to reconstruction grants, it is very hard for certain people to get work done by these grants because it is very hard to get a contractor to do the job. One of the problems affecting the contractors I have known who are anxious to do this work is that they find they are quite a long time out of their money. While I have been dealing with the Department and getting nothing but co-operation from the inspectors dealing with the reconstruction of houses, both in the Department and in the local authority, I feel nevertheless that some method of short-circuiting the inspection should be brought in, because I believe the work would progress more rapidly, if that were the case. People are left a long time out of their money where there are a number of grants and a number of inspections to be carried out. If there were some way by which that could be expedited, it would be most helpful.
Another point I want to make is that in quite a number of cases I have been dealing with over the years, but for the liberal outlook of the reconstruction grant inspectors, a number of people would be deprived of their grants. Even where the Department of Local Government have decided that the grant applies, I have found on a few occasions Dublin County Council officials who differed completely and wanted the grant cut down. I had one particular case and only because I kept the pressure up did we succeed in getting the grant for the person I was interested in.
I feel that one inspection should suffice. There should be more liaison between the local authorities and the Department of Local Government. If the inspector for the Department is satisfied that the work is well done, a second inspection should not be carried out by the local authority, because sometimes they come along and raise a number of objections, which I think should not be done. Again, I want to say how grateful I was to inspectors for getting over the difficulties we have had in County Dublin in dealing with reconstruction grants.
We have another headache in County Dublin, that is, the number of small farmers who are living in mudwalled cabins and are not in a position to purchase or build their own houses and have just a small amount of land. They are nobody's children. While Dublin County Council, as I have been told by the Department of Local Government, can build houses for them, and I have tried it out on a few occasions, in only one extreme case where the people were living in shocking circumstances on a five-acre farm did we succeed in having one house built. I should like the Minister and his officials to look at this matter again because there are a number of cases of people in a very bad way who are in no position to build houses themselves and the houses are too bad to get reconstruction grants or for anything to be done with them. In the particular case of a man and his young family, the house is falling down on them and he has no money to buy another house. I appealed to the local authority on his behalf but nothing has been done about it since. I see that the Minister made reference to it. I welcome his reference to this problem and hope that he will be able to look after it, provided, as I have no doubt, he will be allowed during the next three years until his term of office is over.
Having dealt with the small farmers, we have another problem here in Dublin which we have discussed on numerous occasions in Dublin Corporation. My old friend, Deputy Sherwin has often raised it——
The more we are together.
——that is, the traffic in Dublin at present. Suggestions have been made about building a tunnel under the city, and while I know the Minister is engaged in trying to drive forward housing in the city, this traffic congestion in Dublin is a very serious matter. While the Minister has concerned himself with the improvement of roads generally, I feel that a co-ordinating committee between the Department of Local Government and Dublin Corporation is very essential. They will have to get down to it, provided, of course, we are left there long enough to do the job we would like to do for the people of the city of Dublin and the remainder of the country.
I make the suggestion that we should have an overhead bridge very possibly from Amiens Street across the Liffey to Westland Row. That would at least relieve a lot of the congestion caused by traffic going north and south. There are overhead bridges in other cities. The day is coming when they will be essential here. Going from the south to the north side of the city, especially during the peak period, there is constant congestion. Not long ago, I timed it and it took half an hour to get from here to Butt Bridge. This shows that the problem is getting out of hand. There is more traffic coming on the roads and streets every day. The people have got so prosperous in the past four or five years that they can buy more cars all the time. This is a problem which the engineers of the Local Government Department and of Dublin Corporation will have to consider seriously. We have been discussing for too long the problem of building a tunnel under the Liffey. The position has definitely got out of hand, especially at the point I have referred to.
With reference to roads leaving the city of Dublin, I want to say again that I am very grateful to the Minister for his enlightened views in trying to have a four-lane traffic route on roads out of the city. This is long overdue. We are definitely far behind, both in Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council, in this matter. I must admit that I and other members should have done a lot more some years ago. Now, the Naas road is a great improvement and will be a great asset to the people going south when it is finally reconstructed.
When we have battled over the Long Mile.
The Bray road was raised some time ago and Deputy Lynch's Party voted against it in Dublin County Council.
It was to cost £500,000.
We have got back to it again and I am sure that a number of improvements I have referred to will be carried out in the very near future. I hope the Minister will be left there for at least another three years.
I know you do.
If he is, everything will go well.
My motion reads:
That Dáil Éireann, viewing with great concern the appalling housing conditions which exist at present in the City of Dublin and the country generally, and believing that urgent and drastic measures are necessary to alleviate the present situation, resolves to establish a Select Committee of Dáil Éireann of fifteen persons for the purpose of:
(a) investigating the causes of the present housing shortage,
(b) evaluating the future housing needs for the city and the country generally,
(c) examining the present legislation relating to housing and its administration, and
(d) considering the steps necessary to deal with the present situation,
which Committee would be required to report to Dáil Éireann within three months of its appointment and would have power to send for persons, papers and documents.
I wish to speak, Sir, on this motion and to relate my remarks solely to it, particularly in its applicability to the city of Dublin. The motion describes the housing conditions in Dublin as "appalling". That word was chosen carefully. It is not an exaggeration. Anybody who is conversant with social conditions here in Dublin—social conditions which did not start this year as a result of a crisis which developed because of houses falling in Fenian Street and Bolton Street, but which have been with us for many years— must know that what is suggested in this motion is vitally necessary.
This subject of housing is, of course, a political subject. It is a subject on which political considerations arise. But we are dealing with the lives of people, with the happiness and health of people, of thousands of people, old people and young people, and it is with those we are concerned in this motion. We believe urgent steps are necessary to tackle a situation which has been for many years and still is critical in the extreme. We suggest that a way of taking such steps would be to establish a Select Committee, which would not dawdle along for years, which would not be used as a means of shelving a difficult problem which could conveniently be put away in the care of a Select Committee, but which would be required to report to this House within three months.
There are at present in the city of Dublin nearly 10,000 applicants for houses. There are 5,209 families certified as being in need of houses. There are 3,466 families in overcrowded conditions in immediate need of housing. It is against the background of these appalling figures that this debate takes place. Remember, we are dealing in families and not just with individuals and, when we give a figure of 3,466 families in urgent need of immediate housing, we are talking about husbands and fathers, wives and mothers, and children, and we are talking about their mothers and fathers in whose houses they are living, and very frequently with their brothers and sisters, and their children, too.
Anybody conversant with social conditions in the city of Dublin knows what is happening in our housing estates. The young people have grown up and got married. We see the pitiable spectacle every year of the young married couples waiting to see if Lady Luck is on their side, because that is all that this society will give them in the way of new housing accommodation.The lucky ones may draw housing accommodation but, for every one that draws a house, there are hundreds who do not and these go back very frequently to their mothers and fathers in the Corporation housing schemes and they raise their children there. Brothers come in with their wives and sisters with their husbands and they, too, raise their children there. I am not exaggerating when I say I know of one family of 19 people — old people, middle-aged people, and children—living in a two-room corporation house. I suggest there is not a Deputy, a councillor in the city of Dublin, or in the county council who cannot match me with similar stories and who cannot tell this House of similar cases of dreadful overcrowding throughout the whole of this city, where homes are being split up, where all sorts of moral problems arise, and where inevitably ill-health follows.
Apart from that problem, we have the problem of the old people, the people whom, it is admitted, have never been catered for in the past, the people who are living in houses which have not actually been condemned but from whom the families have been taken away to be rehoused; one old person has been left, or perhaps two, and these old people are here in this city, hundreds of them not very far from this House, living in one room in a derelict house which has not yet been condemned but which to all intents and purposes should be.
These are the sort of conditions with which we are dealing and I think these facts should be given as wide publicity as possible. We should get into perspective what the situation really is in this country because we are all too inclined to juggle around with figures; we are all too inclined to say there have been so many pounds spent last year on different services, and this is an increase on the year before, and therefore things are going all right.
There was published in The Times on Monday, 5th August last a report of the Housing League, an international body which obtains information from all the countries of Europe concerning the annual average number of houses built per 1,000 inhabitants. For 1961/62, there were 23 countries whose returns were given in this report, 23 countries from Eastern Europe and Western Europe. The country that had the lowest return of houses built per 1,000 of the inhabitants was Ireland. It was the lowest by many points. Countries that we are inclined to regard as socially backward, such as for example, Portugal, were a good deal higher than us. Again, countries which we are inclined to regard as not looking after their social problems adequately, such as Spain, perhaps, or Greece, are away ahead of this country in the number of houses built per 1,000 of the population; and all the countries east of the Iron Curtain were building more houses than we were per 1,000 of the population. A poor country that could be compared to ours in regard to its national income and population, Norway, was building three times as many houses per 1,000 of the population than we were.
We should note these facts. We should realise that this country is called on to make a superhuman effort in relation to its housing drive. I assert that the present programme for building in the city of Dublin is entirely inadequate. I shall deal later with the suggestion that part of the problem that has arisen here recently was because net vacancies declined suddenly and created this problem. I shall deal with that later.
Dealing with net vacancies for last year and the estimated number for the current year, it would appear that the proposals for our building in the city of Dublin are based on a net vacancy rate of about 900 per year. On that basis, on the Minister's figure of 846 for this year, and with the net vacancies of 900, we will have available for letting in the current year 1,746 houses. Again, on the basis of net vacancies of 900 in the coming year and on the building programme of 950 in the coming year, we will have lettings available to the number of 1,850. That figure is, in fact, only a very little higher than the number of lettings made in the past two years when, it is admitted by everyone, there was an inadequate number of lettings and the number in need of accommodation was increasing.
Looking further into the future, it is quite clear that on the housing programme of the Corporation and on the assumption that net vacancies will remain at 900 a year, that programme is not going to provide, either from old dwellings taken over or from new dwellings built, a sufficient number of houses to deal with the number on the waiting list and the number that come annually on to it. Of course, it will be expensive to knock down the old buildings and put up modern flats but I would suggest that not one Deputy would vote against it, if it were suggested by the Minister that he was going to build houses and flats for the people, that they were going to be uneconomic with regard to the rent, that it was going to cost money to acquire the sites and compensate the people in the putting up of these flats.
I doubt if there will be a Deputy who will vote against such a proposal, even though the cost of building is going to be uneconomic. This is the only solution to our housing problem and we have got to face up to meeting this problem. If we regard ourselves as Christians, surely it is our Christian duty to build these houses and flats now when they are so badly wanted and not leave the building of them to the years ahead. Surely we ought not to allow these people, who are in such urgent need of immediate housing, to wait in the appalling conditions in which they find themselves because we will not spend the money for housing? If this committee which I suggest were set up, I should like that to be one of the things it would recommend but I understand that that committee is not going to be set up. I believe the proposal is to be voted against. If the Minister and his officials bring forward proposals to build flats and houses for our people, even though they are going to cost the community a large sum of money, I do not think anybody will vote against it. It should be done immediately.
This crisis is not one that developed in the past few months, a crisis that suddenly developed because a couple of houses fell in Fenian Street and in Bolton Street. An attempt is being made to suggest that it developed due to the unfortunate and unforeseen weather conditions and that the Dublin Corporation then found themselves in a crisis. In fact, this crisis has been with us for years and it is well to explain to the House how it came about. I wish to quote some figures which have been given before but which, I think, will bear reiteration.
In 1956-57, the number of new dwellings supplied by Dublin Corporation was 1,564. In 1957-58, that number fell to 1,021 and in 1958-59, it fell to 460. In 1959-60, it rose slightly to 505 but in 1960-61, it fell to 227. In 1961-62, it rose again to 392 and last year, the number was 643. From 1956-57, a figure of 1,564 houses fell to 227 in 1960-61, a drastic and catastrophic decline in the building programme of the city of Dublin. This matter of housing in Dublin is not something that has been discussed here for the first time within the past few months. I think it is desirable to state that these matters have been before the House regularly and have been discussed in the House regularly.
I should like to quote what the Minister had to say in June, 1959, with regard to the then position of housing in the city of Dublin. I quote from column 1383 of volume 175 in which the Minister said:
The building of approximately 500 houses is in progress, tenders have been approved for a further 450 houses and the Corporation estimate that approval to tenders for about 800 dwellings will be sought this year. The current programme, therefore, shows an upward trend on last year.
That was true at the time. The current programme for June, 1959, showed an upward trend but in the following year it declined again. The Minister went on to say:
The reassessment of housing needs in the city has received close consideration. It was intimated by the Corporation in March last that a new panel of approximately 6,000 families was being compiled following the invitation of applications for tenancy of houses and flats. Analysis of the new list, however, shows that the maximum net need was in the region of 4,300 families, including families of two persons only. There are about 3,000 unfit houses to be closed, demolished or cleared within the next three to five years. The Corporation expect to displace 2,700 families from unfit dwellings this year, which figure, added to the new panel, brings the current housing need to approximately 7,000 families.The elimination of all unfit dwellings would add to this total. It is expected that at least 1,200 vacancies a year will continue to arise in Corporation dwellings representing 3 per cent of the housing estate. This vacancy rate is not high having regard to the size of the estate.
In 1959, it was anticipated that the need then for immediate housing was for 7,000 persons. Notwithstanding that the decline in housing was permitted to continue and in the following year there was a further decline to 277. In the following year, there was a small increase, to 392. In the following July, July, 1960, there was a further discussion and the view was expressed by the Minister that the situation was satisfactory. In July, 1961, there was a further discussion and on that occasion there was a type of argument which we have heard frequently reiterated in a rather jocose manner by Deputy P.J. Burke that the problem of housing was really the fault of the previous Government and that the fault lay with what had happened in 1956. That is the type of excuse we heard given here only a few minutes ago and it is worth quoting again from what the Minister said on that occasion.
In volume 191, column 478, the Minister said:
The last four years have made a radical change in the situation, and the serious situation in which we found ourselves in the later part of 1956 and the beginning of 1957 is now gone.
In the Minister's view, the effects of the mismanagement by the previous Government had gone by July, 1961. If that view is correct, there was certainly nothing to stop the Minister, or to stop his colleagues, or to stop the corporation expending further sums from the Development Fund on the building programme if it were felt it was inadequate. I think the point is clear from the quotations I have given that it was considered all the time from 1959 onwards that in fact there was to be a slowing down in the building programme here in the city and that that slowing down was something which was being accepted and that this situation was not being regarded in any way as being a crisis one, and nowhere in the debates or in statements from official sources is it said that the corporation were not doing their job or that the housing drive was inadequate. On the contrary, figures were produced to show that the housing drive was continuing adequately.
The situation, of course, changed. The situation changed dramatically, and later in 1962, when the pressure was developing from many sources for action to be taken, the matter was discussed on many occasions in the Dáil. Again, I wish to refer to the Official Report of the debate on 31st October, 1962, in volume 197, column 329. The Minister was being asked, at Question Time, about the position of corporation housing. He was being asked about the needs that remained to be satisfied, and he said:
I do not think it is just a question of its being an appalling situation that this should be so. It is apparent that there may be this long delay. I do not think the city council of Dublin, the City Manager, the Department of Local Government, the Minister for Local Government or the Government are to be blamed for this situation, for the reason that from the Department we are and have been prepared to provide all that is essential and necessary so far as house building for Dublin Corporation and any other corporation is concerned by way of finances and what have you.
You had, in October of last year, the Minister admitting the situation was grave but saying nobody was to blame —that it was not the fault of the city manager, that it was not the fault of the Department of Local Government or of the Minister or the Government that you had a situation that had developed and which he apparently accepted when he used the word "appalling".
That was last year, before the terrible occurrences earlier this year. In March of this year the matter was again discussed in the Dáil, as reported at column 915 of volume 200 of the Official Report. The Minister gave the figures which I have given this evening for the rate of building by the corporation, the figures which showed the tremendous decline in the number of houses built by the corporation, and said:
I would much prefer if the figures were double what they are, but there is nothing I can do. I have helped in every way possible, but Dublin Corporation and other corporations have had difficulty in framing their programmes. We all know it is impossible to turn around, change your organisation and get into the production of houses when you have been practically out of production.That is the position. I cannot do anything further about it. We provide every assistance. I have appealed for more houses. Further than that I cannot go.
That was a cri de coeur from the Minister—that he had done everything he could. I do not accept that situation. If the Minister has not power to make a local authority build houses which he thinks they should build, then he should take that power. If the statute law in this matter is defective, then the law can be amended. If he were not satisfied with what had been going on in Dublin since 1956 and he had not the power to alter it, then he should have taken that power, and he would not have found any opposition from these benches to making recalcitrant local authorities, if that is the case that is being made, do their jobs.
Of course, I do not think that is really the situation. I do not think the situation is really that the Corporation had dropped their housing drive and that the Minister had been trying to get the Corporation to increase their housing programme because the records do not show, until the past year, that the Minister had been endeavouring to get the Corporation to increase their housing drive and that he had failed. On the contrary, the records show the Minister appeared to have been quite satisfied with what was happening in Dublin.
Who is to blame for what has happened, who is to blame for this tragic decline in the house building programme in the city of Dublin? There is one matter to which I must refer in answer to that question, just to get it out of the way. It has been suggested, but nowhere officially, that there was a great flow of emigrants back from England and that these have swollen the numbers here in the housing lists and that this came as a complete surprise to the housing authorities, that it brought about a situation which could not have been forseen.
In fact, the official figures which have been given by the corporation indicate that between October, 1958, and September, 1962, there were 549 returned families housed by the corporation—an average return of a little more than 100 a year. It is quite clear that the idea of our emigrants flowing back in unexpected numbers is not the explanation for the crisis which developed, or is it the explanation given by the city manager in his report to the corporation in September, 1962, because at page 479 of the report, referring to pressure on new housing, he says:
As I have already indicated, this was essentially due to the substantial drop in net vacancies and in the number of new houses becoming available.
The city manager stated there were two causes for the pressure on housing in the city of Dublin: first, there was a substantial drop in the net vacancies, and secondly, a drop in the number of new houses becoming available. That, of course, is what caused the crisis. If you drop building from the rate of 1,500 houses to 277, there is bound to be a crisis in a city like Dublin.
It is suggested that a contributory cause of this crisis was the drop in the net vacancies. Let us be clear— because this is another excuse that is given from time to time—what is involved in the question of net vacancies. These are the houses and the flats which come back to the possession of the Corporation by reason of the death of the tenants, by reason of their emigration and for one reason or another, sometimes through their getting better accommodation. In a vast housing estate such as one has in the city of Dublin, it is of course to be expected that this vacancy rate will be at a certain level, roughly several hundred every year.
I wish to remind Deputies of what the Minister said in 1957 when he referred to the net vacancy rate as being round about 1,200. He said that this was three per cent of the total housing estate and that this was not abnormal and it is quite clear that all the planning with regard to housing was based on the fact that there would be coming back to the corporation each year about 1,200 dwellings. In fact, the net vacancy in 1958-59 was 1393—a bit more than what was regarded as normal. The net vacancy in 1959-60 rose to 1,605. The net vacancy in 1960-61—only two years ago—went back to 1,260, which is regarded as the normal figure for a housing estate of this size, and it declined last year to 856. But, the point is that with whatever number of vacancies that are made available each year it is still absolutely necessary to keep up the housing drive because, undoubtedly, the number of these vacancies will change from year to year. It is impossible to get any accurate forecast of what they are going to be and if you budget for a figure of around 1,200 a year you do not then start declining building because you are going to get that number.
The blame for what has happened, I think, must rest on the Government. I do not accept the view which is being stated in Deputy Dunne's motion that the Housing Committee is to blame or that any member of the corporation is to blame, because I recall what the whole basis of this Government's economic programme was. The whole basis for the Government's economic programme since November, 1958 was that there would be a decline in social capital investment in the State and there has been—and in paragraph 7 of the White Paper, Programme for Economic Expansion it is stated:
...The social capital investment of past years has given us an "infrastructure" of housing, hospitals, communications, etc., which is equal (in some respects, perhaps, superior) to that of comparable countries. What is now required is a greater emphasis on productive expenditure which, by increasing national output —particularly of goods capable of meeting competition in export markets—will enable full advantage to be taken of that infrastructure and in due course make possible and, indeed, necessitate its further extension.The expected decline in social capital expenditure in the coming years will afford an opportunity— and underlines the necessity—of switching resources to productive purposes.
If Deputies turn to the table at the back of this White Paper Programme for Economic Expansion, they will see that it was anticipated as part of the 1958 economic programme that expenditure on building and construction, including houses, sanitary services and schools, would decline.
I say that the Government set out deliberately to bring about a decline in social capital investment. There may be economic reasons for doing that. Of course, economists can put forward reasons for doing that. I do not acceept it but I do not think it is just a mere coincidence that it was part of the economic programme of this Government that there would be a decline in social capital investment and for those years, from 1958, the Dublin housing programme declined.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the Minister did not want this to happen. I do not know. If he did not want this to happen he should have taken the powers and I feel that the answer lies in the fact that what was happening here in Dublin was part of the Government's economic programme and that the people of this country have been affected by it.
I have stated this, Sir, because it is quite clear that this motion is not going to be accepted by the Minister. The Minister made a public statement which was reported in the Irish Press of October 5th of this year in which he said that the suggestion that a committee of inquiry be established was one that did not appeal to him for the good reason that such a procedure would delay rather than hasten the solution to problems which the Department of Local Government is considering.He has suggested that a committee of this House which would be charged with the task of reporting within three months was going to delay the housing programme, to delay in some way the Department of Local Government. If I am wrong in what I have said and if, in fact, the responsibility for what has happened does not lie on the Minister or the Government but lies on the corporation or if, in fact, the Minister was right when he said a few months ago that it was nobody's fault, that you could not blame the City Manager or the City Council or him or the Government, this committee would be charged with finding out where the truth was. I can be left only with the conclusion that the Minister is afraid to face what would come out of a committee of inquiry if the only reason given is that this committee will hold up the housing drive. That argument does not hold water when it is accepted by the drafters of this motion that the committee must report within three months.
This, as I have said at the outset, is a great human, social problem with which we are dealing. The public that so obviously is adversely affected by what has happened, the people living in these dreadfully overcrowded conditions, are not very much concerned with whether it was Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil or an inter-Party Government or a Fianna Fáil Government that was responsible or whether it was the City Manager or the Housing Committee. All that they know is that they are living in appalling conditions, which is breaking up their families, which is ruining their health. We are all involved in this. Politicians are involved in this as a class because these people do not care who is to blame. All they know is that they are suffering.
We have a duty to try to do something about it. We have a duty to try to see that what has happened in the past will not happen again, that the present situation will be alleviated as quickly and as speedily as possible, without regard to cost. The motion which we have suggested is a way of doing that.
I made a claim here on a former occasion that only three people knew much about the housing position in Dublin Corporation. I said that they were Deputy Barron, Deputy Timmons and myself. I still hold that view because I have here a record of the attendances of members of the Housing Committee for the past eight years. I asked Mr. Molloy, the Principal Officer, for the attendances. I have here for the five years 1955-60 a record of the attendances. They show that Sherwin had 136 attendances. That is the highest number of attendances in that five years; Larkin, 133, he comes next—Moore of Fianna Fáil comes third—128; Lemass, Fianna Fáil, 125; Ellis, Fianna Fáil, 121 and Timmons, Fianna Fáil, 118. There is no Fine Gael member in that list. I am quoting here the official lists and I can be taken up in the Corporation.I cannot make a false statement because what I say will appear in the Dáil Reports and any person who wishes may ask a question and will get an answer.
Will the Deputy give the quotation?
I will. The five years of the life of the Corporation from 1955 to 1960. This is the total: Sherwin, 136 attendances at the Housing Committee.
What were you doing?
That is the point. You should know all. Those of you who are supposed to know all know nothing because you were not there.
Two houses fell down.
I shall deal with that. I have figures here for attendance at meetings of the Housing Committee during the past three years. There was a tie between Deputy Barron and Deputy Sherwin with 71 attendances out of 76; Larkin, 69 attendances; Moore (Fianna Fáil), 63; Timmons (Fianna Fáil), 62; Hughes (Fianna Fáil), 61; Keebles (Fianna Fáil), 58. None of the Deputies over there is in the first six for the past three years. Deputy Ryan is very quick at asking questions. He is a good lawyer but lawyers lie when it suits them. I am fond of biography and I have been reading the life of Father Ronald Knox. He had the facility of a lawyer and he once spoke for his own motion and then against it and did as well on each. It is all right for these lawyers to talk on these matters but when a man like me who lives with the thing day by day——
And did nothing about it.
No; I did everything.
Did the houses not fall?
If the Deputy wants to know anything, there was no shortage of houses. It was the lack of flats that was our trouble, not the lack of houses. I want to quote from page 269 of the municipal minutes for 1960:
The number of transfers demanded by tenants out of houses in Ballyfermot and Finglas was 655 from Ballyfermot and 233 from Finglas.
In spite of that number wanting to get into the city in 1960, we were told we should have been building more houses. In the same year, two-thirds of all the people who were offered houses refused to take them. It was a flat or nothing. They remained in their houses in Dublin.
How many flats were built?
You cannot get flats. Sites have to be acquired. For the Deputy's information, the position would not be improved by building flats because very often twice as many people have to be moved off the site. The real advantage is houses because they are being built on virgin ground but people would not take the houses. In the recent emergency, half of the people who were offered a house said: "No; we will sit in the street" and as regards all the people who were in the newspapers about whom the previous speaker was worrying about, they were people who had been offered houses and would not take them because they wanted flats. The vacancy rate in regard to houses was so heavy that the Committee decided it was unwise to build any more houses. I wish to quote a question asked by Deputy Ryan. Deputy Ryan had no comment to make in 1960 about the shortage of houses. In 1960 and 1961, there were no wise guys asking: Why are you not building houses?
Mr. Ryan
That is not so.
Deputy Ryan's main concern in 1960 was the houses lying idle. What case could you make for building houses in 1960 if Deputy Ryan was crying about all the houses lying idle?
Mr. Ryan
Because they would not be offered.
No. They would not take them. I went through the minutes for 1960 and there is not a question by any member of the Fine Gael Party or any other Party demanding that we should build more houses anywhere. Even Peadar Cowan who invented questions did not ask one. He only got wise in 1962. This is Deputy Ryan's question at page 270 of the 1960 minutes:
To ask the City Manager to state the number of Corporation tenant houses or flats vacant for any reason whatsoever on the first day of each of the past 12 months.
The answer was:
The information requested is not readily available as no records are kept showing the number of houses or flats vacant on any particular day. A count has been made of the number of houses and flats vacant on the 28th September, 1960. The number is 117.
That was the position in 1960: 117 houses lying idle in one day.
Mr. Ryan
Point three of one per cent of the total.
Furthermore, we were faced with demands for the repair of houses which were lying idle and being wrecked. No one said we should build more houses. Deputy Barron put down a motion that we should build no more on the perimeter and that only flats should be built. As I say, there were no wise guys in 1959, 1960 or 1961. They only came along, as they always do, when there was a calamity. Wise guys love calamities. They love a crisis: "Give us houses falling down; give us floods; give us poverty—we will get votes now." These people are only wise guys when something happens but they were not wise at the time they alleged we should have had wisdom. They had no wisdom either.
The fact is that I attended a meeting in 1959 when it was decided, on a recommendation by the City Manager, that we should go slow, that the people were refusing houses and that the houses were lying idle, that we should judge the number of houses needed according to the increase in the vacancy rate because a vacant house is as good as a new house. That was the general feeling in the Corporation Housing Committee at that time. There were no wise guys then. The only concern of Deputy Ryan was that so many houses were lying idle.
Mr. Ryan
Because there were 7,000 people waiting for them and they could not get them.
There were not. I shall deal with that. That is the lawyer's twist.
Mr. Ryan
I know the reason why I asked the question.
Deputy Ryan will have his opportunity to speak.
It is all a question of how you look at this problem. In 1959 and 1960, we were also in the position of being able to house people in two's and three's, families of three, or people in ill-health. It goes to prove that there was no problem. How could there have been a problem when married couples with one child were being housed, or if people were refusing houses, or if there were 1,600 vacancies, vacancies that would continue; when the ratepayers were complaining about vandalism and the cost of maintaining these idle houses of which there were 117?
Mr. Ryan
And 7,000 people wanted to get into them.
In the light of that knowledge, anybody who wanted to go on building houses would have needed to get his head examined. With the advice available to us and on the facts I have presented, we decided to build flats and to stop building houses. The people did not want houses; they wanted flats. But it takes up to four years to build flats. You can build houses in two years but flats require four years because you cannot get sites. You have to decide on an area and put a compulsory purchase order on it. There is a vested interest and that will mean compensation. The Minister has to consider the compensation end of it because he does not know whether it will be too expensive or not. Then you have to give the people time to get off the site. When you count the number of tenants, you will probably find, as we usually do, that there are 80 but that you will only be able to build flats for 60 and you end up on the wrong side. You do not solve the housing problem with flats but we had to do what the public demanded. They wanted flats or nothing.
As everyone knows, the man who caused a lot of the publicity in Jervis Street some time ago, was offered a house but he would not take it. Half of the people who were put out would not take houses; they wanted flats. Where was the crisis in 1959 and 1960 when those on the waiting list in two's and three's said: "No, we will stay where we are. We will wait until we get a flat?"
To return to the matter of the houses which collapsed. I will admit there was a problem regarding flats but there was no problem regarding houses. I am the person who constantly agitated on the Housing Committee for the building of flats for old people, singleroom flats. I have been arguing for five years but I had the "housing lobby" against me, as distinct from the "flats lobby". They wanted also, to build big flats, but I was in favour of small flats. Deputy Barron is a witness to that.
It may interest the House to know that on the Friday before the houses fell I spoke for half an hour on the need for housing old, single people who were in the condemned houses. I pointed out that there was grave danger; I explained how the houses came to be there, because the old people could not be housed and could not be thrown out on the street. The manager admitted that I was right and said he would bring in a report. This was before anything happened. I was right, as I believe I am always right. My conscience tells me I am right and I do not give a damn about anybody.That is why I could stand up to all the terrorism of the past few months.
I was the only one who went to the enquiry. It was stated that anyone who wished to do so could give evidence. I was the only public representative who had the nerve to go along. I had the facts and the evidence. It was not like speaking in this House where you can put up any yarn you like. I gave my evidence before the housing authority, represented by senior counsel. They would have crossexamined me but they did not. The case I made was that they were at fault for not building flats for old people. I made the case which I made for five years, that if they had built flats for old people, then those houses would have been empty and could have been demolished. The houses were left there; the years went by and the owners would not spend a nickel on them because they were only getting money from perhaps two or three people in them.
The last speaker wanted to have a crack not at the Corporation but at Local Government. Deputy Dunne wants to have a crack at the Corporation, which is a different thing altogether. An extraordinary thing about Deputy Dunne is that he would like to abolish the Housing Committee. Were it not for the Housing Committee, all the rents of the 40,000 tenants would have jumped in the past few years. It was the Housing Committee which blocked any attempt by the manager to increase the rents. Only by one vote, and again it was my vote, such an attempt was stopped. Half of those present wanted to put up the rents and half of them did not. I was there as usual, always present, and it was my vote——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Sherwin should be allowed to continue without interruption.
If the affairs of the Corporation were run by some officials or by commissioners, the people would have no protection; there would be no Housing Committee and there would be no veto. Deputy Dunne wants to do away with this veto which year after year has prevented the rents of Corporation tenants being increased. Deputy Barron knows that also. If we were not there, every tenant would be paying 5/- to 15/- a week more. As I said, if there was any problem at all, it was really the lack of flat building, especially small flats for old people.
You fell flat.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Sherwin is entitled to make his speech without interrupation just as other speakers who were not interrupted.
Let us bring our minds back to the reasons why we decided to stall on the building of houses on the outskirts of the city. It is only on the outskirts that we have ground. The big moan was that the poor people were stuck out on the outskirts of the city and that they found the bus fares very heavy. Then there were differential rents. There was not a single word throughout the years up to 1962. Everyone got wise in 1962: there was a bit of a crisis and there were votes knocking around. Deputy Costello is a bit cute there. He tried to make little of the point made by me some time ago about the number of people coming back from Britain which was the cause of the crisis. He said that, in all, only 500 came back in the last few years. But he does not give us an up-to-date report. He puts it back a year: that is an old gag. It is quite possible that in the past year the number could have doubled, but, if it did, a cute guy would let a year slip and make the argument nicer for himself.
The truth is that over 900 returned: that is a big difference from 500. In the last year, especially early in the year, scores per week came back. That has a lot to do with it because they were all families and they had to get priority. A very large number of them were Corporation tenants. The vacancy rate has a lot to do with this business. Last year, it was only about 550. Again, Deputy Costello said something wrong there. He quoted the Minister for Local Government—but I do not accept it—that the average vacancy rate in a big estate is about 1,200. No: proof of it is that it was only about 550 last year and only a little more in the previous year. The average is 600 and it is caused through deaths and a certain percentage going to Britain.
However, as I said, there was a trementous drop which was gradual. It took place over two or three years. In 1960, we were faced with an increasing vacancy rate which jumped 200 or 300 from 1959. What person in his senses in 1960 would say; "Now, we shall start building again"? It was going up to 1,000 or 800. Late in 1961, it began to drop a bit. Then, when we saw that happening, in 1962 we decided that as the vacancy rate was dropping, we would immediately get going again. It was like the market— small goods dearer and a big lot of goods cheap.
We did the commonsense thing and what any intelligent person would do. But you cannot just get going from say, 300 or 400 dwellings to 1,000 in a year: how could you? As I said, it takes two years. You must get the site. You must have sketch plans and they must be approved and you must have working plans. The quantity surveyor must come along and estimate what it will cost. You must advertise and do all sorts of things. Then you have to bond people to make certain they will not crash, as happened in 1956, and so on.
It is on record that 1,100 building workers were sacked in 1956 and most of them went to Britain. It takes two or three years and therefore we have jumped 300 or 400 per cent since. We cannot do a lot more than than. In the recent crisis, we did things we do not generally do. We reduced the planning period. We offered contracts to builders who were building a similar type of block without any question of advertising, and so on. We cut the planning period by three or four months. That was an important advance to meet the crisis.
As the House knows, the Minister has approved of 100 caravans to meet this problem which I have in mind and which I agreed to. If the Housing Committee can be charged with anything it is that they did not build for single old people in the past few years. They can be accused of that and they are guilty of that. I challenged them and I gave evidence at the Housing Committee and they did not dispute it. But nobody else gave evidence because they would not know what they were talking about. Deputy Dunne was not there to give evidence—what would he talk about? He would talk through his hat and the wise guys there, with everything at their finger-tips, would immediately ask questions of him and make a fool of him.
Politicians believe there are an awful lot of chumps among the public. Unfortunately, there are. You will always have lies in politics because they are more open to be collared by a lie than by the truth—any lie you like to tell to please them. If you tell them the truth, they will say: "Never again". That is what you get. That is why all this sort of stuff is thrown across the floor of the House—because nobody is crossexamining them. If I had the power to crossexamine people here, I would make monkeys out of them but I will not be allowed to crossexamine.
In this House, you are given freedom to talk tripe, to slander people, and so on, as they slandered me a few months ago but they did not do it outside the House. I watched every newspaper to see if some of those guys were reported as saying one little word —but no. It is safe to say what you like in here. The case I make is that the allegations are groundless, that there was no cause for complaint and therefore the Corporation were not at fault. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the Government. I am not aware that the Government have ever held up any schemes. I am aware that they might hold up a flat scheme because of the cost, and so on. However, flats were not the answer to the problem, although flats were what people wanted.
I am an Independent in this House. I do not like throwing bricks at the Opposition. Do not think that because I vote with the Government, I am necessarily prejudiced against the Opposition—I am not. I believe that I voted for the country when I voted for the Government. The question of prejudice one way or another does not arise at all with me.
Did the country vote for you?
Politicians the world over say: "There is a large percentage of chumps outside who will not ask questions." That is why you shine. You are over there and can tell people they are being robbed by this tax but you are not telling them of how much they will be robbed if you get in. You have an advantage.
Order. Deputy Sherwin will come back to the Estimate.
Yes.
You stand for what the people fall for.
Shut up.
Do not blame me for the interruptions. It is very difficult to speak when interrupted. I have such a mountain of knowledge of this thing that I do not need to think my case out. My case is all in my brain. I do not like throwing bricks but, for my own satisfaction, I asked for the complete attendance at the Housing Committee for the past eight years. I was amazed at the information I received. Here is one for you. If only a few houses were built, as you say, in 1961, do you know that for the first six months of 1960 two of the three Fine Gael representatives on the Housing Committee did not attend any meetings and one attended three out of nine meetings?
If houses were to be built at the tail end of 1961, they would have had to be planned early in 1960. It takes about two years. There was a municipal election in June, 1960. If houses were to be built in 1961 and if we were to meet our housing programme, they would want to have been planned early in 1960. What are you talking about? Two of the three Fine Gael representatives on the Housing Committee did not attend any meeting for the first six months of 1960 and the third person attended three meetings.
If you do not attend a Housing Committee consistently, you lose grasp. You have always to be there in order to know what you are talking about. Let us be candid. The Opposition do not know what they are talking about, any more than does Deputy Dunne who is not a member of the Housing Committee. He seems a bit prejudiced or perhaps he thinks it is popular to say certain things. It is popular: I know the people. Their outlook is: "I am as much entitled to a house as is the man with ten children. Every man for himself." The art of politics is to please everyone.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24th October, 1963.