With the exception of the last speaker those who contributed to this interesting debate referred mainly to the problems of Dublin. The picture is very much the same in my own city of Waterford. Some Deputies have been trying to place the blame for our not having sufficient houses, and I think the best thing I can do is to say what I think we should do about the problem.
Some local authorities did not build houses in 1959, 1960 and 1961. It has been said here that people were offered houses and did not take them, but nobody told us why they did not take them. The reason in my area was that the houses were too dear. Housing costs were too high. We operated a scheme whereby people living in low rented council houses, built 30 or 40 years ago, were asked to swop and go into highly rented houses. We allowed them swop even though there might be only one person in the house. The Department agreed with that and I commend them for it.
The 1950 Housing Act gave permission to local authorities to give a grant of £275 in addition to the Government grant. In 1952 this was amended to operate on a means test basis. To get a full supplementary grant an applicant could not have more than £8 per week in family income. This meant that any person in an urban area borrowing under an SDA loan could not qualify for the additional grant. He could get half the Government grant from the local authority if he qualified for a house of the working class type. From 1952 on the income figures were scaled upwards with the cost of living. Now a full supplementary grant may be given by the local authority, but to a person with family income of £832 only. That is £16 a week. There are many people in urban areas with members of their families working in factories. They themselves, the fathers, would be working and bringing in much more than that. If they wanted to build under an SDA loan, they would not qualify.
I submit to the Minister that in cases like that he should allow these people to qualify. They have improved their position and are now able to repay the loan. They would be in a position to build good houses if the Minister would qualify them. In 1948 there were reconstruction grants from the State and the local authority of £80 each. The figure is now £140 for each, or one-third of the approved cost, whichever is the lesser. Pre-war, the subsidy for working class houses was two-thirds of the loan charges up to £400 of the capital cost of rehousing or one-third of £450 for direct housing. After the war, the same subsidy obtained until 1950, with the addition of a subvention to bring the rate of interest on borrowing from 3¾ per cent to 2½ per cent subsidy on a capital basis of £750. After 1950 the subsidy basis was increased to £900, then £1,000 and it is now £1,500.
In other words, the subsidy granted in relation to working class housing has been doubled since 1948 but the grant for private construction remains the same. In 1950 local authorities were permitted to give £275 without any conditions. Now it is limited to those with £16 a week. I particularly direct the Minister's attention to this because in many areas there are many people who could build houses under the Small Dwellings Act and are debarred by what might be called this means test.
Subsidising of housing and reconstruction causes extraordinary expenditure in the Department and local authorities and, obviously, the subsidy should be frozen. All this is tied up in a jumble of red tape between the Department and the local authority and the Minister should try to simplify the procedure.
The employment of State engineers and architects for the checking of local authority schemes should be dispensed with and let local authorities and their officials conduct their own affairs. I put this very seriously. This is one of the things that are slowing down housing. Local authorities or their officials get out plans and specifications for a housing scheme. These are brought before the council and examined and the engineers are asked questions about them and eventually the council comes to a conclusion that everything is in order. That is all done in one evening. A great deal of trouble is undertaken by the council; they go to see the site and what is being done. They approve of it, the engineers appointed by the Local Appointments Commission approve of it and eventually the city manager approves of it and the auditors, but goodness knows how long it will be before the Department inspector arrives.
This has been the experience of practically every Deputy. The engineer from the Department comes along and makes some change or turns down a scheme on some footling excuse. I do not know what the position is with regard to Waterford city's housing scheme that has been sent in. In the course of construction we have 28 houses, tenders sought for 90 houses at Kingsmeadow and 54 at Hennessy's Road. I do not know about these. They are with the Department but we have had so much delay and it is so hard to get things back from the Department that it is difficult to get contractors to tender for houses. We have a very good direct labour scheme and without it we should have hardly built any houses in Waterford in the past seven or eight years.
I ask the Minister and his officials to cut through the jungle of red tape regarding the submission of plans and specifications and their sanctioning. The same applies to reconstruction. A person applies to the local authority, submits a plan and specification. The authority sends an engineer to look at the house and he reports on it. He ensures that the standards laid down by the Department in regard to such things as the type of concrete blocks to be used and the kind of roof to be provided are complied with. That must be sent to the Department and there is an interval. After a long time the Department's officer appears and this harassed man goes around and covers a small number of the applicants. The others with whom he does not deal are frantic. Then there is another long silence.
Eventually, say, permission is granted and a small contractor does the job and it is finished. Then the local official inspects it. That is not enough. It must be inspected again by the Department's inspector before the grant is given. The result is that small contractors are tearing out their hair trying to get their money. I find that not only in my own constituency but in others. I respectfully submit that this is the most important factor in housing, that employment of State engineers and architects to check local authority schemes should be dispensed with. If that is done, housing will be speeded up, giving the Minister what he wants.
I know the Minister wants houses but there is no use in blaming local authorities who have been getting out plans and specifications and sending them to the Department and having them turned down because the Department say the house is too expensive. It is expensive because costings have gone up. They are continually going up. The average cost of building per square foot of working class houses in 1948 was 30/-. In 1963 it is 55/-.
The Department did not come to the rescue of local authorities in the matter of the grant. When the costs went up so quickly I did not expect the Minister to have made the grants climb at the same rate but they should have increased with the cost. The result is that we go to the trouble of preparing a scheme and it is turned down because it is too expensive. The Minister told Deputy Kyne and myself that a tender for houses in County Waterford was £200 per house more than it would cost in other areas. The fact is we find it difficult to get tenders on local authority houses. The time lag is too great. A man puts in his tender and it goes to the council. The council must send it to the Department and God knows how long it takes to come back. Costs are probably going up and the contractor thinks he is going to be "stuck".
I have heard members of this House talk about the pursuit of votes, and so on. I believe we are faced with a thankless task where housing is concerned; but it is our intention to face the task at all times. When you give a man the key of a house you are not necessarily conferring a favour on him; he will show no gratitude for the rent collector's visit every Monday morning.It is our duty, however, to house our people and it is our intention at all times to press on with housing.
I know that flats are very expensive. They are not an economic proposition. Neither is housing. It must be remembered, too, that flats can be erected more conveniently to work and business.Dublin Deputies have referred to flats. There is a great demand for flats. I believe bigger subsidies will have to be given to enable the erection of more flats in central positions in the various urban areas. Flats would provide a solution to the housing problem not alone in Dublin but in Waterford, Cork and Limerick as well. It is difficult to get sites in Waterford, I know, but I believe we could get one or two sites if we had sufficient assistance from the Minister and his Department in the erection of such flats.
The Minister said in his opening statement that the survey which the housing authorities commenced in 1960 to ascertain the extent of unfit housing which now remains has not been completed in detail for all areas. He also said that what the local authorities regard as being in need of replacement is in the order of 25,000 dwellings, of which 20,000 are in rural areas; 50 per cent of unfit dwellings are occupied by one or two persons. I submit we do not need very big houses to rehouse that 50 per cent. There is too much insistence on the standard house. Surely a lesser standard of housing would meet the needs of these very small families. If, in time, these families outgrew the accommodation, then the local authorities could rehouse them in larger houses, using those vacated in the process for small families again. There could even be provision for an addition to these small houses should the need arise. I believe that approach is worthy of consideration. Small houses for newlyweds proved very popular at one stage. The rents were low. Newlyweds started their married lives in them and when the time came that they required more accommodation they were transferred to larger houses. In turn, the local authority was glad to have the small house available for other tenants.
I commend the Fine Gael motion to the Minister. There are more people with good ideas about housing than those specially delegated to that task. A Select Committee, judging by the tone of the speeches here, would be an excellent idea. I appeal to the Minister to consider the idea very carefully and to accept it.
Again, he should consider the enormous rise in the cost of housing. Local authorities will have to get more generous help to enable them to provide housing.
With regard to road safety, a national campaign should be launched. My heart is with the Minister in his crusade. There is too much reckless driving, too much thoughtless driving. Of course, it is not always the motorists who are guilty. Pedestrians can behave badly too. They breast their way out into oncoming traffic, without looking right or left. If a motorist manages to avoid them, they will tell him something; if he does not manage to avoid them, of course, they cannot tell him anything. He is a murderer then.
There are safety associations but a nation-wide campaign will have to be launched, with the assistance of the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Education. Lectures are given in the schools. Films are shown. More will have to be done. The children will have to be taught to interpret the signs and signals. The hazards will have to be brought home to them. Proper conduct on the road for children, whether on foot or on bicycles, should be brought home strongly so that these appalling tragedies will not continue, so that every time we pick up a paper we will not read of the awful grief suffered by Irish families every morning.
Of course the Department of Justice must come into this and must see to it that the most severe penalties are imposed for interference with traffic warning signs on roadsides or streets. A life was lost on an Irish road last year because some vandal had reversed a traffic sign. The programmes on television are a step in the right direction. I shall leave the rest to the Minister because I know he is as deeply concerned about this as any Deputy. It is up to us to give a lead to the people to make the roads safer.
I do not like to intrude on the Dublin bailiwick but several Deputies mentioned the great difficulties experienced in the city because of parking and general traffic problems. Nowadays, they are putting up large skyscraper office blocks in the city centre. These will bring enormous communities of workers into the busiest areas and chaos will be the result. Those who have been putting up office blocks outside the city—and I refer particularly to the skyscraper being developed on the canal banks— are looking to the future. They are helping out the efforts to relieve traffic in the city and their workers will have to travel far shorter distances than those who will be employed in the new offices at O'Connell Bridge and Eden Quay. I understand that the great business barons who have been occupying skyscrapers in the centre of New York are now moving into the green belt outside the city where access is easier both for workers and business people. The Minister must give his permission to those proposing to build such blocks in Dublin and I trust he will consider what I have said when future applications are received.
The Minister has made regulations for noise abatement. Anyone who stands outside Dáil Éireann at 10.30 any night can see and hear young men on motor bicycles without silencers creating such a clatter. I have had complaints from my own constituents, particularly those living in built-up areas with young children, about the noise made by motorcycles and by cars. Owners of small cars take the silencers off and put on fishtail racing silencers which make a real clatter. I would urge the Minister to draw public attention to the fact that this regulation exists and that it will be strictly enforced.
While on this subject of nuisance, I would draw attention also to the fumes pouring from diesel lorries. We are told these fumes are highly dangerous to public health; yet we do not seem to be doing anything about them. I travelled on the Naas Road yesterday and was in a real fog for quite a distance.I eventually overtook the culprit.I thought he was the only one but there was another boyo in front also pouring out these fumes. If those drivers had been stopped and warned that they would be prosecuted, I think it would have had a salutary effect.
I come now to the question of road grants. Deputy Seán Flanagan said he was appalled at the money being spent on road widening in his own consituency and on a corner at Maynooth which he said did not need widening. I have not seen any of these schemes but I know Deputy Seán Flanagan to be highly reliable. What I have to say about road grants is in connection with my own constituency. My constituents pay more in rates per head of the population than any other constituency in Ireland; yet they get practically the lowest Road Fund allocations.I can quote figures for past years to show that ducks and drakes are being played with the millions in the Road Fund. Waterford county received £142,000 in 1953, £141,000 in 1954, £137,000 in 1955, and £127,000 in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and so on, until this year when we got a small increase.
We have CIE road transport. That is something that I warned the Minister would come up if his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, were let loose and the Minister that night told me that I was exaggerating and he told Deputy Kyne, my colleague, that he was exaggerating. The extraordinary thing about it is that at least we made a reasonably good forecast. People talk about what the railways lose, what CIE is losing, what is going to happen about it, and so on. What has not come out is that in one year alone the Minister paid out £397,500 in railway closing grants. I asked the Minister a question on Thursday, 14th March, 1963 about the grants allocated for road works in the financial year 1962-63. The total for railway closing grants is £397,500. We in Waterford got £15,000 to take down the metal bridge going into Tramore. I and my constituents would have liked to see that £15,000 being spent on some county roads but evidently the Department thought otherwise.
I have been appealing to the Minister down through the years about the raw deal my constituency is getting. As I have said to the Minister before, we pay the highest rate per head in this State. I see here a heading "Tourist Road Grants". They are running from the 1953's up to the latest available date. There are favoured counties that get £55,000 a year; others £35,000; others £10,000; others £25,000. Waterford is bringing up the rear with £5,000.
I was told in the House at one time that these were special Gaeltacht grants. Then I was told they were not; that they were given for various other reasons that nobody could ever tell. Cavan is quoted as receiving £10,000; Sligo, £25,000; Roscommon, £25,000. I have not been able to find any Gaeltacht areas in these places and I would remind Deputies that there is a Gaeltacht area in Waterford—Ring— that may not be unknown to them, and that Waterford would qualify. We have been very badly treated in regard to the Road Fund. We were getting more money nine years ago than we were getting up to 1959-60. As far as the city of Waterford is concerned, from memory, I can tell that Waterford city in the 10 years ended 1960 paid over £550,000 into the Road Fund and got back £40,000 in grants. The kind of grant we get is about £8,000. Yesterday, my colleague Deputy Jones said that we had now reached the stage that we had eliminated the old dusty roads. I have to find fault with him because we have not eliminated the old dusty roads. The principal thoroughfare in Waterford city is the quays. The road there was surfaced in the most primitive way. The road was tarred and dusty grit was thrown on it. The shopkeepers in the area protested because their shops were covered with dust and the whole thing had to be swept away. The Minister may say that that is not his responsibility. I say that it is because we get such a parsimonious road grant that we have to do this footling kind of job.
We pay the money but we do not get it back. We get £15,000 for taking down one of the Tramore railway bridges and we would not get enough money to do one of the main thoroughfares that could be classed as a first-class main road having regard to the amount of traffic on it.
I am again appealing to the Minister about this matter. We in Waterford are entitled to and should get a larger road grant. The intake was about £4,000,000 in 1954. It is nearly £7,000,000 now and we are no better off. There are roads being built in favoured counties that are going nowhere.There are roads in my constituency that serve populous areas, such as the road from Fews to Clonea and if Telefís Eireann or any film people want to make a film set in the 1920's for which they require an oldfashioned road they can have that road and several other roads in Waterford. The reason they are not improved is that we do not get the money. Waterford County Council are never afraid of striking rates. As I have pointed out to the Minister, we strike the highest rate per head of the population in the entire country.
I want to suggest to the Minister that "local government" is a misnomer.There is no such thing. It is centralised government in the Custom House. All power is in the Custom House. I put it to the Minister that the real job for a Minister for Local Government to do is to create local government. I shall conclude my remarks by reading this short paragraph —it is not a case of over-simplification —the employment of State engineers and architects for the checking of local authority schemes should be dispensed with and local authorities should be allowed to conduct their own affairs. Give the local authorities the responsibility.The county managers have been appointed by the Local Appointments Commission. The local engineers or borough surveyers have been appointed by the Local Appointments Commission. They bring their plans and specifications and so on to the council. If the council O.K.s them that should be enough. It should be necessary only to notify the Department of what they are doing. It should be necessary for them only to tell the Department that they are building the houses to the Department's standards and of the size laid down by the Department.If the Minister will do this he will do a great job for the country.