Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Oct 1963

Vol. 205 No. 2

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"

—(Deputy Jones).

Mr. Sherwin

I spoke last night under great difficulties not because I am afraid of anything or anyone but because I have a throat ailment and there was nothing but shouting and bawling and crosstalk when I was trying to speak. I hope we shall have a little courtesy this morning. I am particularly concerned with two motions, one in the name of Deputy S. Dunne and the other in the name of members of the Fine Gael Party, the substance of which is that the Housing Committee did not do its work and should be dissolved. The Fine Gael motion states we should have a Select Committee to go into the whole thing. Those motions serve no purpose, any more than if the blind tried to lead the blind.

Taking Deputy Dunne's motion first, he is not correct in what he says. He wants to create the picture that 8,748 citizens are on record as wanting houses and should get houses. That is not true. How could it be true when it includes the man who owns a house and perhaps wants to get another? Anybody who writes to the Corporation and fills in an application form although he might have three rooms and be alone in them, has his name put on the list. That means nothing. What has meaning is the number of people the medical officer considers are entitled to dwellings.

When an application is made, an inspector is sent out and a report comes back on the number of rooms, the cubic capacity of the rooms, the number of people there and their sex and the medical officer decides that this person should be considered and perhaps not, as he has enough accommodation but, yet, that other person's name remains on the housing list. It is false to suggest that almost 9,000 people are in need of housing and that the Corporation are doing little or nothing about it. The true picture is that about 4,500 people are at the moment on the waiting list, people the medical officer has recommended for housing.

Deputy Dunne says that only 309 dwellings were built in 1961, another false picture—that we built only 300 dwellings when, say, 4,000 need houses. The Deputy says nothing about the vacant houses. It is like a man saying: "I was not working this week; I am broke", although he has £5 in another pocket which he won on a bet. It is false to ignore the huge vacancy rate which in 1961 was 1,260. Therefore, in that year there were 1,500 dwellings available for those in need. That is the true picture. The Fine Gael members know the truth but they are here to create another picture.

Why was it that only 300 dwellings were built in 1961? It takes approximately two years to build a house and perhaps three or four to build a flat. When you decide to build houses, the site must be prepared, sewerage and water laid on, which may take up to six months. While that goes on, sketch plans go through the Housing Committee and to the Minister and back to the Committee. Various bills of quantities must be prepared. We must know how much we are going to spend, what type of house should be built and what materials used. Then we have to advertise and give builders time to examine tenders. We may have to advertise a second time. All that procedure is necessary and at best only a little time could be saved. Then the builder goes on the site and the actual work begins. That takes two years.

Only 300 dwellings were built in 1961. We must now go back to 1959 when we decided that we should stop building on the perimeter. Nobody objected. No Fine Gael member objected, although there are three of them on the Housing Committee and 11 on the Council and everything that the Committee does is open to discussion and debate. There were no objections in 1959. How could there be when the vacancy rate was mounting? It was 1,600 in 1960; it was 1,400 in 1959. Not only that, but in 1959, and subsequently, there was a reluctance on the part of people to go out to houses on the perimeter. I gave the figures here last night. I cannot falsify figures because there is nothing to stop anyone asking the City Manager, and proving I am a liar, if I falsify figures. I have all the data at the tips of my fingers. In 1959, the big worry was what to do with the empty houses.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sherwin

Deputy Ryan does not attend meetings of the Housing Committee although he is an active man on the Council. Deputy Ryan wanted to know in 1959 how many houses were lying idle. In 1959, there were 1,000 applications from Finglas and Ballyfermot, the perimeter areas, from people who wanted to get back into the city. No one can dispute that. It is on record. There were approximately 1,450 vacancies for the year. On one particular date, there were 117 houses lying idle. Two-thirds of those wanting houses would not take them. They preferred to stay where they were. The ratepayers were moaning about the houses lying idle and being wrecked by children.

Deputy Barron put down a motion not to build any more houses on the perimeter but, instead, to build flats in the city. Everyone agreed. There was not a single objection voiced in relation to the position in 1959, 1960 and 1961. In 1962, the wise guys became active because the position was changing.They were not wise guys earlier. That is the truth. What sane man would build on the perimeter when 117 were lying idle on one day? The Manager suggested to us that we should concentrate on flats in the city. We agreed. The whole Housing Committee agreed, including the 11 members of the Fine Gael Party. There is nothing on record to show they objected.

The position was the same in 1960. There were 1,600 vacancies in 1960. The wise guy asks now: "Why did you not build flats?" That is a different question. We have not enough sites. There are not sites for car parks. The sites for building flats are limited. It is one thing to go out to a green field in Finglas and throw up a house. It is a different matter when it is Wolfe Tone Street. First, there are a great many people living on the site. It has been proved that flats do not solve the shortage. Flats are what the people want, but they do not solve the problem. For example, we demolished all the dwellings in Dominick Street. There were, I think, 1,000 families in Dominick Street. We could house only 600 of them in flats. Flats do not solve the housing problem. You are faced then with delay in getting people out of the houses to be demolished first of all. You have the business interests to contend with; in Church Street, solving that problem took eight or nine years. The business interests hold up everything. Demolition takes time.

Some people, perhaps, understand the problem better now. The people would not go to houses on the perimeter; they wanted flats. We decided to build flats. There is a limit to what one can do by way of flats. One can talk in terms of thousands when it is houses on the perimeter. One can talk in terms of only hundreds when it is a question of flats in the city. Who in 1959 and 1960 would suggest we should go on building houses on the perimeter when there were vacancies everywhere? I searched for minutes this week. There are people, of course, who are anxious to get a vote; they like to appear in the papers. If they thought there was a shortage of demand they would be the first to appear in print.

Deputy Ryan is a good man at asking questions. In fact, we had to change Standing Orders because of Deputy Ryan and the late Deputy Peadar Cowan; they had a habit of filling up the agenda with questions on everything under the sun. There was never a question as to why we were not building houses out on the perimeter. In 1960, Deputy Ryan was worrying about the empty houses. I asked a question in 1960 which had occurred in Corporation minutes of the Municipal Council with regard to the number of vacancies which have occurred in Corporation dwellings during the past 12 months and the numbers for the previous three years. Up to 31/12/59 there were 1,821. Would anyone of any intelligence suggest that we should go on building on the perimeter when that was the situation?

People can talk, but no one knows the future. If a man has his shop half full of beans and he has no sale for them, he will not fill the other half of his shop with beans. Let there be no nonsense about it. In 1961, there was a drop in vacancies, not a very big drop; the number dropped from 1,660 to 1,250. Immediately we saw that, we started the housing drive again on the perimeter which proves that there was no slowing up. We acted as good judges would act. We were watching the market.

I shall prove that. I have the material and anyone who wants to challenge me can do so. I will not be challenged because politicians are cute. If one says a thing which is true, one is not challenged because it would result in adverse publicity for the challenger. I am not like the lawyer who meets his client and has to depend completely on what the client tells him. I said here last night that I have the highest attendance record on the Housing Committee. Except on a couple or three occasions, when I was either engaged on other Corporation work or ill, I have not missed a meeting in the eight years I have been a member of the Corporation.

Therefore, I am in a position to say that there was no justification whatever for the suggestion that the Corporation were asleep in 1959 and 1960. If they were, so were the critics. I saw no letters in the newspapers at that time saying we were not building houses. I did see letters asking what we were building the houses for, saying that it was costing up to £700 to repair some of the houses we had built. But let us get away from this political business. There was a drop in 1961, before we got cracking. We must remember that 1961 is only two years ago and that we cannot overnight solve all those problems and jump from 300 new houses to 1,000. It is not done that way, because, first of all, we have not got the organisation. We have to build dwellings, but we have also to build something else.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sherwin

What was that for?

Mr. Dillon

They are building something else and not houses for the people.

Mr. Sherwin

The Deputy is trying to be clever now.

Mr. Dillon

That is the answer.

Mr. Sherwin

You are all beat to a frazzle. When I stop speaking, you can try to pull a few rabbits out of the hat, but I defy you to answer me.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy has answered himself.

Mr. Sherwin

Their job is to prove the other fellow wrong all the time, to ask: "How can he be right when we are?" I know this game perhaps a little better than they do. There are, at the moment, 1,400 houses under construction. What more can anyone do? That is a jump from 400 to 1,400. For argument's sake, say 1,000 extra people want dwellings in a given year. How could we provide 1,000 more dwellings over and above what we are doing in a given year? Wise guys will say it can be done, but will they tell us how?

The city manager is a straight-forward fellow, not a politician, and he has put forward this suggestion: "Let anyone who can suggest how we can get extra houses tell me. Let us give up all this talk about increasing our efforts and all that; let us not waste the time of the officials and of the other people who are on the job. Tell us how to get one extra dwelling built." Of course there were no answers because most of the people who were talking did not know what they were talking about. There are 11 members of Fine Gael on the City Council and they, with all the other 45 members of the Council, may at any time attend meetings of the Housing Committee. Although the Housing Committee have only 18 members, all the other Corporation members are entitled to attend. They may participate in debates and make any other efforts they think are necessary, except vote.

If any of those people have any suggestions, let them tell us. Recently we sent a deputation to the Minister which lasted for three hours during which we discussed, as experts, the entire housing situation. We were talking on a subject about which we knew something. We had the assistance of officials, so all the brains on the subject were there. Where, then, would be the wisdom in appointing a Select Committee of members who know nothing about the subject, and who would be unable to do anything except yap and keep on yapping? I shall say no more on that subject.

There was one point raised during the debate with which I feel I must deal. Deputy Dunne said we should rub out the Housing Committee. I am damn certain that if he were a member of that committee, he would not make a suggestion like that. That committee are the bulwark between the people and officialdom. They are the protectors of the people, as I shall illustrate in a moment. There is a point of view rampant that all tenants should pay a rent of £2 a week and we have been putting up an annual fight to prevent it happening. The only thing that prevents it is the stand being made by the members of the Housing Committee.

Still on this subject, I must say that almost half the members of the City Council want to put up the rents and the other half have to wage a continuing fight to prevent it. Only six months ago, there was a suggestion that all SDA houses should have the rents raised by 5/- but it was defeated by the casting vote of the chairman. Thanks to my being wideawake at the time, these tenants did not have their rents raised by 5/- a week. As I have said, not only the officials but 50 per cent of the council members want to raise the rents by 5/- per week. There is also a proposal to increase all flat rents to the SDA rate. Therefore, I say Deputy Dunne knows nothing about it. He is not, however, any worse than the others.

Mr. S. Dunne

Thanks very much.

Mr. Sherwin

He is entitled to look for a few votes like the others. I do not blame him. I blame the people because if they only considered what politicians say before believing them, then the politicians would not be able to pull their legs. You cannot tell the truth to people because, as Mr. George Browne, the Deputy Leader of the British Labour Party, said on television recently, you must be diplomatic or you will not get elected. President Kennedy said the same thing. So long as the people want lies, they will get them.

As I said earlier, there is no case to be made for a Select Committee. What we want are suggestions, constructive and thoughtful, as to how we can add one more house to our stock. I should like to pay a tribute to many of the members of the Housing Committee, though I do not wish to name them. They are the hardest working committee in Ireland. Not only do they meet twice as often as any other committee, but they sit from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock when other committees finish in half an hour. We have the entire administration of the section to deal with. Quite a lot of our time is taken up dealing with deputations.

Let us give up this nonsense, these empty words. We saw in England the passing in 1960 of a Rent Restriction Act which gave the landlords power to increase rents to any level they liked. That happened and many poor people were asked to pay £5 a week for a single room and they were thrown out on the street if they looked crooked. I have been in England once or twice every year since 1960 and I know what the position is. The result has been that our people have been drifting back home. In the past two years, approximately 900 families have come back. How could we have foreseen that? Of course we could not, any more than Fine Gael could have been expected to foresee the Suez crisis in 1955, a year before it happened.Because there were no dwellings to be got in England, our people rolled home.

That is what happened at the latter end of 1951 and particularly in 1952. So, the crowd decided not to go. The menfolk went over but the families remained here. We were faced with a declining vacancy rate. The vacancy rate was only 600 last year. In 1960 it was 1,600 and it was 600 in 1962. How are the members of the Corporation to forecast the rate? We have to be sensible.

I do not want to talk politics here but perhaps if there were a change of Government, and a collapse as there was in 1956, people would go over again to England and we would have to stop building again. Of course, when I sit down, others will rise to speak. It is like a debating society where everyone can get one over. They do not consider the poor suckers outside.They will not take action. They may take action when it is too late.

There are one or two other points, apart from housing, I wish to mention. The Minister can help here. The Minister suggested that we ought to build skyscrapers. That is a point, although skyscrapers are very expensive. The Fine Gael Party says: "To hell with the expense." That is all very fine. It could be said that the turnover tax is required, among other things, to provide money for housing but they are not going to give us the money. It is also wanted to subsidise industrial schemes to provide employment. They are not going to use the money. It seems to me that politics is a game. You appear to want something but you block it because if you provide it, it will be something for which you can be blamed. If you appear to want it and block it, you appear to be wanting it to be done; you are all right for votes. If the Government say: "We want £2 million," you block it because it will involve a tax on cigarettes or beer and you say: "We will not have that".

Skyscrapers cost a lot of money. It has been shown that flats are expensive.You can build a house for £2,000 but a flat providing the same accommodation costs very nearly £4,000. As you go up, the price rises because elevators must be provided. I am not objecting to flats but there is one snag. Under the law, there is a density rate laid down which applies to flats and skyscrapers and all the rest. The Minister will have to change the law. The density rate is 100 persons to an acre. In other words, we have to ensure that there are not more than 100 persons living on an acre. In other words, parks and open spaces must be provided. The position is not so difficult in England where they allow 130 or 140 persons to an acre. Until the law is changed, we can do nothing about it. When people have the bright idea of building flats they are not helping because the Corporation must provide larger space because the law prescribes a density rate. The Minister will have to consider that matter. We could easily surmount the problem by putting into the flats only small families or old people. The Minister must look into the question of the density rate because, apart from finance, that is what is holding us up at the moment.

Mr. Belton

And sewerage.

Mr. Sherwin

For some time past, I have been trying to get some form of conveyance across the Liffey. The matter was mentioned last night by Deputy Burke. This is no gimmick. There is a real need for such a service. It should occur to anybody who stands at But Bridge and looks down the Liffey that there are thousands of people on both sides of the Liffey who may have to come all the way up to Butt Bridge, cross the bridge and all the way down on the other side. That is a silly performance at this hour of the day. There is a ferry system that everyone knows about. King Charles allowed the citizens to have a ferry system. It dates back 300 years. It is a silly thing. It operates only at certain hours of the day and provides a service for only a certain number of workers. It shuts down at 7 p.m. and is not available at the week-ends. People who are crippled cannot get down the steps. There is definite need for a ferry service across the Liffey. A bridge would be desirable but the idea of the erection of a bridge is rejected because of the interference with valuable shipping installations and because of the cost. I understand that there is provision for a bridge in the fifth part of the town plan which will not be undertaken for 40 years.

We are losing £5,000 or £6,000 a year on the ferry service. It is a joke. A tunnel should be provided for pedestrians or for traffic. Some people, not having considered the matter, motivated by ignorance or jealousy, oppose the idea. In politics people oppose you through ignorance or jealousy, if you have a good idea for which you may get good publicity. The utility of the idea does not enter their minds. A few people oppose me but the council strongly supports me. A letter appeared in a number of newspapers from a carrier organisation whose business involves crossing the Liffey daily. The letter appeared in yesterday's papers. Replying to the suggestion that the idea was a joke they said the joke was that it was not done 25 years ago and they demanded that it be done immediately in view of all the congestion on Butt Bridge and all the waste of time involved. I have another important letter from another body supporting the idea—the Dublin Port Area Protection and Development Association. This is an organised body. I understand the Minister received a copy of this letter. They demand something like it immediately.These are informed people who know the position just as I know the housing position, unlike some of the fellows who go on the Select Committee, who know nothing, who like to hear themselves talking, who may be jealous of Sherwin who may get his name in the paper.

I would ask the Minister seriously to consider this question. I do not care whether it is a tunnel, a bridge or anything else, but something must be put across the Liffey. There are many other matters that I could raise but other Deputies want to get in and I want to facilitate them.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy S. Dunne.

Mr. T. Lynch

I should like to speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will get his share. Six Deputies have spoken already. Fine Gael is getting its share of the time. Deputy Dunne's motion is being discussed with the Vote.

Mr. S. Dunne

Quite apart from that, the Deputy tabling the motion ought to get an opportunity.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not dealing with Deputy Dunne. I am answering a point put by another Deputy.

Mr. S. Dunne

Having waited some 16 months for this motion to come up, having been attacked before I opened my mouth about it at all, before I advanced any arguments, I should now like to recite the terms of the motion. It reads:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Local Government to take power to abolish the Housing Committees of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council on the grounds:

(1) that, despite the fact that Dublin Corporation officially admits that applications for housing accommodation were received from 8,748 citizens, the record shows that only 309 dwellings were built in 1961, and that present building proposals seem to be based upon a plan to provide dwellings for only one family of every eight who apply;

(2) that Dublin County Council despite its acknowledged waiting list of housing applications of 988, in 1961 erected only 52 houses and appeared to have no immediate plans for the construction of more than 90 odd in 1962, or a ratio of one dwelling for every ten applications received; and

(3) that the housing plans of these bodies do not make sufficient provision for the accommodation demands arising from the annual number of marriages in the city and county;

and that, further, Dáil Éireann considers that, in the light of this obvious neglect of responsibility and disregard for the hardships being suffered by thousands of persons living in overcrowded conditions, particularly as Corporation or County Council subtenants and as occupiers of rat-infested apartments, the Minister for Local Government should set up a Dublin City and County Housing Authority charged with the urgent and essential task of speedily providing a dwelling for all Dublin citizens who are in need of a home.

That was put down 16 months ago and the figures given relate to a situation which has not improved in the meantime. This motion was put down 12 months before any houses collapsed in the city of Dublin, in Fenian Street or anywhere else, and before the present panic measures being undertaken by the Corporation were even thought of. It had reference to the then existing housing situation which has been worsened five-fold by reason of the discovery by the Corporation that there has been existing in the city a problem of which they apparently were ignorant up to now——

Mr. Sherwin

I was not.

Mr. S. Dunne

——that there were people living in tenements which were about to fall. Is it to be thought seriously that these tenements began to decay only within the last few years? I understand the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation are now directing a block by block survey of the city to discover how many people are living in these dangerous buildings or condemnable buildings. Is it suggested that these buildings got into this condition only within the past couple of years? Is it not patently obvious to anybody who wants to be frank and open about the matter that this problem was always there but the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation did not do their job and did not take steps to tackle it? Is it not a sad commentary that they had to wait until the noise of houses falling down woke them out of their slumber?

I have here a document which is the report of the City Manager and town planner dated 24th June, 1962, which I think is the most recent housing report made by him. The City Manager of Dublin is a man who knows more about housing than any other person in this country and who is one of the outstanding figures, as far as housing is concerned, indeed in Europe. I am one who had the honour to be associated with him 15 years ago in tackling what was then a housing problem infinitely greater than that which now confronts the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation.

The City Manager gives a resume of the history of housing over the years and of the extent of housing provided by public authorities in Dublin. In 1948, the housing deficiency was estimated at 20,000 houses. The housing deficiency at the present time, according to the apologists for the Housing Committee, is only a fraction of that. They say it is something like 5,000. My contention is that it is in the neighbourhood of 10,000. Whatever way you take it, the problem today is as nothing compared with the problem which faced the present City Manager when he was Housing Director in 1948. It was possibly by the application of the energy which the City Manager brought into play and the energy displayed by the public representatives of the day, the members of all Parties of both the Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council who were vitally concerned with this problem, which resulted in over 19,000 houses being built in the seven years from 1948 to 1955.

There was in that, of course, the fundamental element that must be in any housing drive which is to achieve anything, that is, a fanatical zeal to get a result, a fanatical zeal to solve the problem, a sympathy with the sufferers, not a contempt for them; not a love of abusing them but a fellow-feeling for them and a knowledge of how they are living. There was all that there in those years and it was there in abundance. I want to pay publicly a tribute to the present City Manager, and although his health suffered as a result, he has the great satisfaction of knowing that there exist in Dublin many thousands of families who would be without houses, were it not for his energy and application.

Time passes, and there came on the Corporation other representatives or perhaps the same people who became a little tired, I do not know, but in any event the housing drive slackened down. Vacancies, as has been described by the previous speaker, began to be more plentiful and many people seemed to get the notion: "The housing problem is solved; we have enough houses now."

Mr. Sherwin

That is what everyone said.

Mr. S. Dunne

That is the point I am making.

Mr. Sherwin

The Deputy said it, too.

Mr. S. Dunne

I said nothing of the kind. I am not so foolish or so blind as to think that housing is a static problem.

Mr. Sherwin

The Deputy should not have opened his mouth.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Sherwin should allow Deputy Dunne to speak.

Mr. Sherwin

He said he did not mind my interrupting him.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is I who will decide that, not Deputy Dunne.

Mr. Sherwin

Supposing he says something that is the reverse of the actual situation?

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no excuse for interrupting.

Mr. Sherwin

Even if Deputy Dunne says it is all right, I may not speak.

Mr. S. Dunne

I want to draw your attention to the fact, as was mentioned here, that Dublin Corporation diminish the number of applications by referring to the applicants who have been passed as being qualified for rehousing by the medical officer and the medical officer has to work in conjunction with the section which deals with overcrowding or work independently on considerations of health. What are the considerations of overcrowding? In the report to which I have referred, the manager states that to some extent the inspectors worked to a standard of two persons per room maximum, ruling out infants and reckoning a child of from one to ten years as half an adult. That was the yardstick used by the inspectors in regard to overcrowding. It does not seem to conform to any decent civilised modern standards, that infants should be regarded as not taking up any space, or air, or that a child should be regarded as half an adult and took half the space of a grown person. Surely these standards are outmoded and belong to an age we thought was happily past?

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to this because it is a survival of a time when the public authorities thought they had no obligations in regard to housing except to keep the rates down, when in fact they were just ratepayers themselves and had little or no other interest than this. My complaint about the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation is that they became completely inactive some five years ago, that they should have been alive to the situation and known that even if there were houses vacant, that was a temporary phase. It should have been obvious to them that the marriage rate, the decay of old houses, the dissatisfaction of people with their existing accommodation and the demand for a higher standard of living will always create a condition wherein housing will never be solved in the fullest and absolute sense of the word. Therefore, they were neglectful of their duty and they deserve to be abolished because they did not plan for the future. The City Manager indicates in this report, and I agree with him, that from the moment of the inquiry into the need for housing in a particular local authority area until the family goes into the house, flat or cottage, a period of five years on average will elapse because of the various snags that may arise from time to time. That particular statement underlines all the more clearly the responsibility which every local authority has to plan ahead and to be alive so far as they can be to the situation that may develop in the future. No such efforts were made, as far as I can discover, by the Dublin Corporation Housing Committee. Even at present, we find that the Corporation are trying to obtain land for house building on the outskirts of the city. They are meeting with opposition and——

Mr. Sherwin

We have accommodation for 6,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. S. Dunne

Dublin Corporation at this late stage are trying to acquire land and there is an objection by residents in a particular area and nobody knows what the delay will be. My point is that the time when housing committees such as that of Dublin Corporation could have been of any use has long since departed. It may be that the continued existence of a housing sub-committee may be of some slight use but in the context of the modern world and in the context of the development of this metropolis the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation having proved themselves to be somnambulistic—if you will forgive the word—have outlived their usefulness and should be abolished.

Mr. Sherwin

God help the tenants.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am particularly concerned, not with conditions in the centre of the city but with Ballyfermot and the problems of subtenants in that area, which is a colossal problem. The Corporation, because of their own lack of planning over the years and a lack of foresight, have now been forced to undertake a detailed examination of the city to discover further people in need of houses, people who are living in dangerous buildings, and the prospect of people in Ballyfermot being rehoused has receded into the remote future.

Mr. Sherwin

It is to be discussed at the next meeting.

Mr. S. Dunne

It is to be discussed in a very limited way.

Mr. Sherwin

It is a start.

Mr. S. Dunne

Anybody with experience of housing will agree that no more difficult situation can exist than to have two families on the one floor. The traditional and age-old difficulty of in-laws springs up and makes life intolerable for both parties. One case which I have in Ballyfermot may be of interest. One of the tenants has five children and there are seventeen altogether in the four-roomed house.

Mr. Sherwin

He must only have gone there recently.

Mr. S. Dunne

Whether he did or not, he is there now. If the Deputy likes, I will bring him out there.

Mr. Sherwin

They were housing families of five three months ago.

Mr. S. Dunne

I leave it to people to think out for themselves what sort of situation that creates and how undesirable it is. I believe that hundreds of these subtenants in Ballyfermot and other suburban areas are much worse off than many being housed by the Corporation. Not all of the houses out of which they are being taken are genuinely capable of being described as dangerous. The measures being taken now are to some extent panic measures, locking the stable door when the horse has gone. It is very unfair to people who have had their names on the housing lists for some years and had been confidently anticipating that they would be housed by Dublin Corporation to be told now: "We do not know when you will be housed; whether you will be housed this year, next year or the year after." They are going to examine the city to find out every last single person and give them houses before the others. In my view, it is just another indication of how the Housing Committee have allowed the situation to develop by their lack of planning and foresight. I maintain, have maintained and will continue to maintain that they should be abolished.

I want to turn, by way of relief from this very sordid and depressing subject, to the county council which I find even more sordid and more depressing. Dublin County Council share with the Corporation the tremendous upgrowth in building for which the present City Manager was responsible in the years 1948 to 1956, roughly. There was a great flowering of building in the administrative area of the county during those years. By some extraordinary coincidence, there arrived on the county council, at exactly the same time as the present members of the Corporation arrived on the Corporation, gentlemen who also took the view, apparently, that the housing problem was solved and that we would have no more housing problems in County Dublin.

When I put down this motion, the most recent information I could obtain at the time was that the number of applications for houses lodged with the county council stood at 988. A total of 90 odd houses were erected last year and in the previous year only 52 houses were built. In a report in the Evening Herald of Wednesday, 30th January of this year, we read of an interview with the Chairman of the Dublin County Council in the course of which it is stated:

Just under 1,000 County Dublin families are urgently in need of new houses but at the present rate of council house building—67 last year and 59 in the previous year—many may have to wait up to six or seven years living in overcrowded or condemned houses.

Official figures in the County Council files show that to-day there are exactly 917 applicants for rehousing, but it is generally accepted that the actual number of families who need new homes may even be twice that number.

Dublin County Council have been criminally lazy in this matter. I regret to have to say it because most of the members are personal friends of mine but somebody has to say it.

There are hundreds of families throughout County Dublin for whom no hope whatever is extended of being rehoused. Efforts have been made and will continue to be made to blame the Government for this. I do not think that this Government, this Minister, or the previous Government or the Ministers attached thereto are responsible. I think it is gross dereliction of duty, and let us be quite honest about it, by the people who were elected to the local authorities to do a certain job. I have spoken to many of them and I have expressed this view. On occasion the answer given to me has been: "We have tried to do this but the County Manager will not let us." The answer to that is: "Why not suspend the County Manager?" That is not done although the power is there to do it. There is also power in the County Management Act to compel the Manager to do a specific thing if the council feel it should be done. As far as I can see, Dublin County Council have just gone quietly off to sleep. The content of my argument is that here in the city and county we have a unique and evergrowing problem. Dublin city and county is the place towards which the entire population of Ireland seems to be hell bent. It seems to be the highest ambition of everybody in the country to get to Dublin. Some go to the extremes of getting themselves elected. However, the ambition is to get to Dublin and if they cannot get accommodation in the city they are looking for it in the county. It is a bad thing, socially. The city and county are far too heavily populated. The country is being denuded of its population, as we all know, but this is the problem and it is there. It is the problem that has to be grappled with.

I consider that the methods available to grapple with the housing problem are out of date. At the time when there was that tremendous spurt of housing which brought the housing problem within measurable distance of solution, in so far as it can ever be said to be at such a stage, the present City Manager was appointed Housing Director. His sole responsibility was to look after housing.

In my motion I ask that there should now be set up one authority with as much fanatical zeal as applied in other years to bring the housing problem within handling distance. There still must be officials in the public service with a social conscience who would be prepared to undertake this task. When I point out the faults of local authorities I do not wish to include everybody. There are always exceptions. There certainly are members who would be anxious, I am sure, to participate in such an authority and to make it work.

I think all the arguments are overwhelmingly in favour of the creation of such an authority. It is completely unreal to have Dublin Corporation operating in respect of housing and indeed drainage and water services, which are inherent in the housing problem, independent of the county council. I am sure the Minister is well aware that because of this separation of city and county officials in the matter of housing and services there often arise conflicts which occasion delay, the net result being that the people in the county suffer all the more for lack of the particular matters which are the subject of such contention.

Every argument is in favour of modernisation and rationalisation to regard the city and county as one unit for the purpose of housing so as to bring impetus and drive towards the solution of this problem. I should like to instance one particular and peculiar aspect of the housing problem as it is affected by this separation of the city and county. There are portions of what appear to be the physical city of Dublin in the administrative county of Dublin. Take Walkinstown, for instance. Any person not knowing the city would readily and instantly imagine he was in the city because it is a highly built-up and urbanised area—but he is not in the city: he is in the administrative county of Dublin.

Suppose you have there a family urgently in need of rehousing. Suppose, for instance, at the present time there is a family living in a dangerous building which is about to fall down on them. If that family were in the city, there would be a prospect of being offered a dwelling within a measurable time. But they are not in the city; they are in the county and by virtue of that there is no possibility for several years to come, because of the inactivity of the Housing Committee of the County Council, that they will be offered alternative accommodation.

That is an extreme case, but there are very many cases of overcrowding of families—husband, wife and, say, 2, 3, 4 or five children—living in these perimeter areas and enjoying the very scant benefits of city residents and enduring all the disadvantages of county residents. These people pinpoint the need for some cohesion, or somebody who will bring about cohesion, in this vital matter. To my mind, the matter of housing is at the present time the one great social problem facing us. Nearly every other social problem, which confronts every society, has been tackled by one Government or another. Some little progress has been made towards raising the standard of living of our people. It must be said that for almost the past 40 years or so the question of housing remains the fundamental problem. No matter what we may do in the matter of increasing production or raising wages, or of what we may do to make people wealthy in the financial sense, it is all of no avail if we do not provide the very fundamental need of the family, that is, the home.

It is all very well to say that there are loans, and so on, available and people can avail of them if they want to build their own houses. Not all, and certainly not the workers, particularly the workers in my area in Ballyfermot, are so well paid that they can put aside sufficient every week over a period of years in order to assemble a deposit to put down on a house. In that matter, I may say that deposits in the Dublin perimeter area, for houses which are being built under the Small Dwellings Acts, have now increased to £300. That is a lot of money to get together. The suggestion that people could help themselves more by buying houses may appear laudable on the face but it is not very practicable because of the present high costs of houses.

In that regard I saw recently where the Minister indicated that he would be prepared to make additional grants available to people who want to build under the Small Dwellings Acts. In doing these things—which I know are being put forward with the best intentions—I wish the Minister would take some steps to ensure that these housing grants do not just become additional profit for the builder. In many cases, and with the passage of time, housing grants which are made by the Government just become additional profit for the builder without in any way helping the purchaser for whom they are originally intended. Some steps should be taken to avoid profiteering. At the same time, I do not suggest that builders should be discouraged from that kind of work.

I want to impress on the Minister consideration of this motion. I think he is a forward-looking Minister so far as housing is concerned. If he examines the position in relation to Dublin city and county he must feel, as I do, complete dissatisfaction with the present set-up. It is very hard and very distressing on the many thousands of people who are sub-tenants and living in overcrowded conditions to now be told by Dublin Corporation that nobody can foresee when they will be housed. It is a most appalling thing. I meet these people every week in Ballyfermot, which is the largest working-class area in Ireland. I go there every Sunday, and I am sure my colleagues go there, and I meet the people and I find a lot of them are moving to England because of inability to get houses. Housing then is urgent and is associated with every single aspect of our economic life. It is also an important factor in emigration. I want to appeal most strongly to the Minister to accept my motion, consider it, and abolish these two committees.If they ever had any use, and it may well be argued that they had, they have lost it and, in my view, they have proved they have passed their time. Certain of the gentlemen who are members of them, or who got into control of them, did not measure up to the job, and I would press my motion on the Minister.

So far as the Fine Gael motion is concerned, I mentioned that in my view the housing committees of the Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council are somnambulists. Perhaps I will be excused for using that polysyllabic word, but I would describe the Fine Gael motion as a sleeping draught for somnambulists and, therefore, not worthy of support.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I shall not hold up the House very long. I should like to congratulate the Minister on his achievements during the year and, in deference to his expressed wish, I do not propose to say very much about the recent changes in the road traffic code, especially about the establishment of the 30 to 40 miles per hour speed limits, beyond saying that the people of two areas in Mayo—Kilkelly and Ballindine—have suggested to me that the speed signs should be put up in both of those towns. From what I know of them, I would say that they have a good case.

I should like, in particular, to congratulate the Minister on the announcement recently of special proposals to deal with housing in rural areas for old people. I have been for many years—I think since I came into the House— trying to urge on the Mayo County Council the desirability of allocating houses to old people in rural areas. They have consistently refused to do anything about it. I think it is inhuman to ask a person who has been born and bred on the land to move into a town at the end of his days. That person does not wish to move into town and wishes to die in the place where he was born. I think that a county or a local authority which cannot offer such people even a reasonable two-roomed house in which to spend their latter days do not deserve to be given responsibility for local government. The Mayo County Council have failed in this regard over the years. I am glad they have now been given a further opportunity, by means of the Minister's recent proposals, to show at least some common humanity. I challenge them and demand that they should do so.

I am afraid also that Mayo is one of the counties where little use is being made of the grants available for the removal of eyesores, otherwise known as derelict sites. Here again, the Government, and the Minister in particular, have given the lead to us and to others who have the local responsibility to accept it.

With regard to road policy generally, I think the Minister is probably aware that there are misgivings in counties like Mayo about the provision of enormously wide tourist roads in certain areas while minor roads are being neglected. If the evidence of one's eyes is accurate, it would appear that it is the intention to construct an enormously wide roadway between Kilmovee and Kilkelly in County Mayo. The people of this area do not see any reason why such a road is necessary. The condition of the road at the present time is not good. Indeed, it is poor and the road is too narrow but the fact that this is so does not mean that the remedy is to create a highway such as one would see from New York to Yonkers. The local people feel that until such time as many essential minor by-roads are developed the cart is being put before the horse.

In connection with the latter type of road, I recently made representations to the local authority in Mayo regarding the road in the Doocastle area which must be developed if a huge strip of bog is to be capable of being put into production. The reply I got from the county engineer was to the effect that he has no say in the matter and that he can do this road only if some individual county councillor chooses to have it put on the next five-year plan. It seems utterly incredible to me that a county engineer can properly be described as such if he has no authority to do something which he agrees should be done for the benefit of the people in the area. In this case it would enormously benefit the people locally, not merely by making work available to them but having a whole strip of bog available for development and sale.

I do not know whether the Minister can do anything about that matter. I have written to him about it already. I suggest to him that it places representatives and others in an invidious position if they have to hawk themselves about to every county councillor in the county before a particular road, which should obviously be done, can, in fact, be constructed. It is ludicrous to suggest that county councillors can take an interest as against pressing problems which are local to them. To suggest to a county councillor that he should devote any money available to him to something at the far end of his area is not a very practicable proposition. He would be very bad news in his own immediate area if he diverted money for work at the far end of his area for which he does not see any urgency.

There have been serious complaints over the years about the condition of the Charlestown-Ballyhaunis road, which at a recent meeting was described as being the worst road in Mayo. Indeed, somebody described it as the worst in Ireland. It is the trunk road between Galway and Sligo. It certainly appears to me to be a curious policy which ordains that the Kilmovee-Kilkelly road should be an enormously wide turnpike while the Ballyhaunis-Charlestown road should be left aside. Of course, it is not the entire road between Ballyhaunis and Charlestown but only a particular stretch of some seven or eight miles which, in fact, is dreadfully bad and dangerous.

I have some misgivings, too, about the money spent on the main road between here and the west of Ireland. I do not know whose corns I will be treading on now. I do not intend to hurt anybody personally, but I go through Maynooth every week and I honestly fail to see the great advantage to be derived by road users and the public generally from the enormous amount of money spent on changing the junction opposite the church. I think it is monstrous as it is now. While there was a sharp bend before that it was not dangerous.

I also notice that huge sums of money are being spent in removing "S" bends over railways and rivers. I wonder, again, if the spending of that money is justified. Experience in America has proved that if you put down a perfectly straight road for 100 or 150 miles people will kill one another out of sheer boredom. Experience in this country and in England has proved if you have a very long stretch of highway the average speed goes up according to the perfection of the road. When there is a slight mistake or a blowout instead of having one car in an accident you have 20. The Americans have gone so far now as to put deliberate twists and bumps on the roads so as to keep the attention of the driver focused on his job and not induce him into that state of somnambulism which Deputy Dunne was talking about a few minutes ago.

This is an important matter because we are spending vast sums of money. I think we are spending a vast sum of money in removing the bridge outside Edgeworthstown. I think it was perfectly all right as it was. I know there was an "S" bend but it came at the end of a very long stretch of road when it was impossible to do any speeding. If it is adequately signposted or sufficient warning is put up, then the motorist will be forced (a) to come down from the high speed, (b) to negotiate this difficult "S" bend, and (c) to set off again. All of these things help to focus the attention and keep the reflexes going.

In that connection, I am afraid the standard of driving in this country is lamentably low. It is lower than in England and infinitely lower than in France and Germany. The standard of courtesy in this country is very low, very much lower than in England, where the standard is almost as high as in France. I do not know what the Minister for Local Government or anybody else can do in regard to that because I believe that the driving test is only a partial answer to the problem involved. I sincerely hope, when the driving test is introduced, that it is not made the sort of laughing stock it is now in England. It seems to me from what is happening, that it is mechanical efficiency, giving signs, putting out flippers, winkers and waving one's arms about like billyoh, which is regarded as the important thing. As a result of the system they operate in England Stirling Moss, the greatest racing driver in the world, failed his driving test. I think it is hardly going to be suggested he is not a good driver.

Mr. Tully

He had a couple of crashes.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I hope, when driving tests are introduced here, that that sort of mechanical efficiency will not be the lodestar. Again, where speed generally is concerned, the biggest element is skill. That appears to me to be forgotten. Therefore, when the driving test is introduced, I hope it is not the waving of arms and the paying of lipservice to the rules of the road that will be taken into account but the skill and reaction of a driver under pressure. I would also recommend to the Minister the American practice of giving a licence to a driver only for a limited area. I read some time ago of a man of 70 whose licence allows him to travel only from his home to the centre of the city and back again and who cannot move at any time outside a radius of three or four miles. A limited licence of that kind, particularly for older people, would be a help.

I am very pleased to notice that the Minister is interested in the provision of swimming facilities throughout the country. It is deplorable that so little swimming is done. I accept there are many places inland where it is not possible for children to swim because they have not the facilities, but even at the seaside it appears to me we are not now a swimming conscious race. We ought to be. There is nothing better for people than swimming. I hope that the local people in small towns will make the necessary effort to provide at least some swimming facilities for youngsters and that they will do this with or without council assistance — although I would hope that in this case the grants would be available from the Department rather than from the council, who would mess them up no matter how simple they were. I hope the leaders of public opinion in small towns and in the counties will encourage the youth to take up swimming, which is surely one of the finest physical exercises anybody can perform. A word of praise is due to those people, some clerical and some lay, who have without help from anybody tried to provide at least minimal swimming facilities for the youth in their areas.

Again, I wish to thank the Minister and ask him to continue the efforts he has been making over the past year or so to speed up the examination of houses for grant allocation and the actual allocation of the grant. The position has improved very much in the course of the past two years or so. I appreciate the Minister is up against considerable difficulty in this matter but the ordinary person, who is probably in need of the money, who owes it to contractors and builders' suppliers, is hardly likely to appreciate the niceties of administrative difficulty. The Minister is to be commended on what he has achieved in the past few years, but I would ask him to press ahead to further improvement in the next.

Mr. T. Lynch

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.

Mr. Mullen

I propose to be brief because I realise that a number of my colleagues who are also members of Dublin Corporation want to defend themselves perhaps. First of all, I want to make myself clear. I do not go along with some of the criticism that has been hurled at Dublin Corporation, in particular the Housing Committee.Some people have criticised the Housing Committee and I regard that criticism as ill-informed. Likewise, I do not agree with the contention made that only one person on the Housing Committee knows everything and does everything. That is also ridiculous.

Having said that, I also believe that the blame should be properly apportioned and I think the Minister's Department is responsible for the situation that has been adverted to in relation to Dublin. I appreciate that the Minister has been endeavouring to improve things in his Department but I have a fear he is hindered by a considerable amount of red tape. My reason for saying that is that some months have passed since the emergency was declared in Dublin in regard to houses falling and the corporation having to cope with what were described as dangerous buildings. Even up to the present time there is no indication as to how long more this emergency will last. All during this emergency there was a marked absence of the interest of the Department of Local Government in this whole matter.

At present there are over a thousand families living in overcrowded conditions and they have been held up waiting for accommodation because of this declared emergency.Some of them have six, seven and eight children and they have been repeatedly told, although they are in that predicament for over 12 months and possibly two years, there is no hope for them, that first preference must be given to the people in dangerous buildings. This is a hard thing to get across to the people and it is left to the public representatives in particular to do this.

Another difficulty we experience is that the Mendicity Institute in Dublin is being utilised to house people who are homeless. People are obliged to go there and there are some of them who have absolutely no hope of getting accommodation. There are husbands separated from their wives and children and nobody is in a position to tell them how long this will continue.The only answer we get is: "We are going to build more and more."

There is also the problem affecting people in dangerous buildings who have been refused accommodation because they are not old enough. Quite a number of young married couples who found ourselves in dangerous buildings have been told: "We cannot house you. You are not old enough. We can only house old couples or single old people." We find ourselves wondering what is an old person. What age does one have to be to be accommodated now? We know that when it comes to obtaining employment from Dublin Corporation you are too old at 40.

One thing that struck me during this emergency, which is still in existence, of course, is that the builders who have made a lot of money out of building houses in the city of Dublin did not offer to do anything to cope with this emergency. There is a situation in Dublin as if a bomb fell but there is no concern for the people who have become the victims of this unfortunate happening.

It is a great pity that there is such an absence of sympathetic consideration on the part of the Department of Local Government. There is abundant evidence that the Department has not done what it should have done. It has been responsible to a great extent for delays in acceding to recommendations or representations made to it by the Dublin Corporation. I have said I am not blaming the Minister for it but some Local Government Department official or officials are responsible for carrying out this work and I would urge the Minister to look into this matter. It is extremely serious and it appears to me that the people who are handling the situation have not got sufficient contact with it or have not set about trying to find out what exactly is wrong.

It cannot be overstressed that no public representative can get a person a house. He can only make representations on behalf of the family that comes along to him for his assistance. It is unfortunate that some people— and I am glad to say they are few in membership of the Dublin Corporation—delude people in that way. Regulations have been made by the Dublin Corporation for the allocation of houses. The allocation officer conforms with those regulations. The regulations are made having regard to what is there and I often wonder how some of these people carry out the job when they know the situation is becoming more hopeless every day.

I would like the Minister to take a greater interest in a section that has been set up in the Dublin Corporation, the Welfare Section. This section is for the purpose of looking after corporation tenants and their needs, not only in an emergency. It is an extraordinary thing that in that welfare section there are not more than six people looking after the whole housing estate in Dublin.

I appeal to the Minister also to try to come to some positive understanding with the Dublin Corporation in respect of the provision of badly needed amenities on housing estates. I see no reason why the Minister should not arrange for amenities to be created when the houses are being built. In a part of the area I represent, Finglas and Finglas west, there are six shops in the estate looking after approximately 15,000 people. Needless to remark the shops open and close when they like. For years now the people in Finglas have been clamouring for more shops. Recently there was an attempt made to introduce supermarkets in Finglas. In one case the plans for the supermarket were rejected because they neglected to provide a car park. The type of people who live in Finglas and Finglas west do not shop in cars. They bring their prams with them to shop. I am making the point that the Minister and his Department should have a closer connection with the people in the Corporation in the making of these plans.

It is not unreasonable to expect recreation centres to be provided when houses are being built. In many housing estates in Dublin there are open spaces and people are still waiting for something to be done. We are still waiting for something to be done in connection with the itinerants who are at the moment using the open spaces. The result is that the itinerants' horses stray around the locality and are found to be destroying the efforts of people looking after their gardens. To see so many horses roaming about Finglas and Finglas west one would think they were preparing for a western film. That brings me to the question of the pounds in the city. There is a small number of pounds and it is ironical to find that the cost of capturing a horse or horses is greater than the fee charged by the pound keeper.

I should also like to refer to the system of grants and loans for houses. Recently Dublin Corporation made an effort to increase the grant and the loan with a view to encouraging people who could afford to purchase their own houses. It was visualised that if this were done it would ease the problem as far as the waiting list was concerned. At the moment we find that a person who sets out to buy a house in the Dublin Corporation area is faced with having to pay a deposit of £150, £200, £250 and in some cases £300. You might as well ask these people to pay £3,000. The idea in the minds of the members of the Dublin Corporation—all of whom, irrespective of Party, are genuinely interested in the people's needs—is to try to help these people in regard to the deposit. At the back of most people's minds, however, is how to get over the difficulty that will be experienced from the builder. There is no guarantee that the builder will not increase his price if we increase the grant and the loan. Perhaps the Minister could do something about that.

There is little point in increasing loans and grants if the increase is going to go into the pockets of the builders. That will not bring about the position we desire. An effort should also be made to have potential purchasers realise their legal entitlements in this matter. It is generally found in Dublin that people who set out to buy their own houses are people who have not large incomes—if they had they would not qualify—and they are in such a hurry to obtain the house that they will sign anything or do anything. It is often found that the solicitor who acts for the builder will also act for the client. There have been numerous cases in Dublin of people finding that things which should have been done in their houses, to put them in proper condition, were not done and the time within which they could do anything about them has gone by. This needs tightening up. The Minister may tell me that it is a matter for Dublin Corporation but policy should come into it. The Minister is in a position to make recommendations, suggestions and even orders in matters of this kind.

I also feel the time has come for the Minister to consider formulating a policy in connection with rating so far as members of the working classes are concerned. Just as we have differential renting in corporation houses so it would not be a bad thing to consider differential rating. A number of people who are now buying their own houses find themselves eking out an existence. You will find those who will tell you that people in a particular spot are badly off but undoubtedly there is abject poverty in some SDA houses because of the ground rents and rates and because of their hire-purchase payments on furniture and so on. Such people are crying out for some relief and some consideration.

I would also ask the Minister to consider arranging for the Dublin Corporation to concentrate more on the provision of public conveniences. There is a great lack of them not only in the centre of the city but at outlying points of the city also. At the moment the holdup is due to money and that is where the Minister can come in and provide money for such an important project. I would also ask the Minister to endeavour to get his colleague the Minister for Health to arrange for night dispensaries in housing areas. If he does that it will certainly be a boon to the people concerned. I see little point in referring a matter like that to the Dublin Health Authority because in the final analysis the money has to be found.

Mr. Cummins

Nobody denies that a serious housing problem faces the citizens of Dublin following the tragic collapse of old houses some time ago. Dáil Éireann is doing no more than its duty in devoting time to a full scale discussion of the problem and one hopes that out of such a discussion some reasonable suggestions towards its solution will come. To my mind nothing will be gained by pandering to the popular pastime of scapegoat hunting and suggesting the Dublin Corporation or the Government precipitated a crisis by deliberately neglecting their duty. Such charges are not true. An examination of the workings of Dublin Corporation over the past few years proves that. As was pointed out in the City Manager's report which was circulated earlier in the year the Corporation found itself in a serious and unprecedented position in 1958 and 1959.

It discovered that the number of vacancies were increasing at an alarming rate and a pause had to be made while the authority took time to consider this amazing position. Perhaps here was where the first mistake was made but who is to apportion the blame? Here there was a group of men faced with a tendency which they had no reason to believe would not continue, so that fresh acquisitions and preparation for future housing development were delayed. But the trend did not continue. Over the following two years it was found that the number of families leaving Corporation dwellings actually decreased and continued to decrease at a phenomenal rate until the Corporation found itself with an ever decreasing number of vacancies on existing housing estates. An all out housing drive had to be initiated with all the inevitable frustrations and delays. Property had to be acquired, compulsory purchase orders had to be taken out and confirmed, long legal processes had to be faced and all the time the demand for accommodation was increasing. I should like to remind the House that this increase was due to a fallen emigration rate and an increase in the numbers returning from abroad. Proof of this latter trend can be seen in the fact that it was found necessary to reduce the prescribed residential qualification of six months to three months in order to allow those returned emigrants to have their names placed on the waiting lists.

The terms of Deputy Dunne's motion, to my mind, are unrealistic. The figure of 8,784 includes applications in respect of which it is doubtful if the Corporation have a responsibility —large numbers of able-bodied single men and women, for instance, and old people who do not wish to live with their families. There may come a time when the authority can help such people and, to my mind, they are at present doing tremendous work in that direction. However, the main efforts must be directed towards housing families of three, four, five and upwards.

It is not true that present building proposals are based upon a plan to provide a dwelling for one in every eight who apply. The plan is to provide a dwelling for every family who need it and who cannot provide one for themselves. There are in construction at the moment in Dublin city, according to the latest available figures, 772 houses and 617 flats, making a total of 1,389 dwellings. In addition, site development is in progress at Bonnybrook, Coolock, for the immediate construction of 700 houses to be followed by another 500, making 1,200 in all in this Bonnybrook, Coolock, scheme.

Very recently, the builders moved into Macken Street and are preparing to erect 54 flats. There are many other schemes in the city where the builder is about to move on to the sites. It is worth mentioning that from the date the housing crisis started in June until the end of September almost 600 families in, I think, those four months have been rehoused. Add to that the fact that the building trade is working to full capacity and it must be admitted that there is no evidence of irresponsibility there.

Certain other factors over the years have had the effect of obstructing the Dublin Corporation's efforts to build flats in the city centre. One of them was the old town planning legislation which earmarked certain areas as industrial zones. This may have appeared at the time as an excellent use to which all property in the city centre could be put. For instance, it must have seemed practical and practicable and necessary to transform almost all of the south quays into an area of industry and transit sheds and warehouses. It seemed an ideal location, close to the docks and shipping. But the human element was forgotten.

A sturdy historic parish complete with church, schools and all their social implications cannot simply be wiped off the map even at the behest of industry. However, this mistake has now been rectified with the passing of the new Regional and Town Planning Act. The Corporation will now have power to proceed with flat development in this area and so allay the anxiety felt by the clergy and laity at the depopulation of their parish.

Not the least of the obstructions the Corporation had to meet during its efforts to clean up the Dublin slums was the attitude of bad landlords. These people allowed their property to deteriorate despite the efforts of the authority to persuade them to make their dwellings habitable. These people had certain rights, no doubt, and our courts—framed, as they are, within a democratic system—must be careful to respect them. However, certain submissions have been made by the Corporation to the Minister which will result in legislation designed to curb the activities of these very bad and unscrupulous landlords.

No fact of the problem is being overlooked or neglected and the formation of some new body to replace existing committees would bring us no nearer, to my mind, to the solution of the problem. The Dublin City Council is there and it includes men and women of all shades of political opinion. Any indictment of it must include every Party in this House. Under Fianna Fáil Government, money has never been spared for housing. This Party's name has become, I think, synonymous with our housing drive. Even the houses built during the last period of the Coalition were built as a result of the preparation and financing done by the outgoing Fianna Fáil Government.

Apart altogether from the deterioration in old dwellings the real cause of the housing problem has been the tremendous resurgence in the national economy. Fewer people are leaving the country so that more people need houses and more people can afford new accommodation. This tremendous demand for housing of every type, public and private, has not been caused by irresponsibility or lack of interest but, in the final analysis, is a tribute to the drive and energy which to my mind has brought good government and prosperity to every one of our people.

Lastly I should like to say that this prosperity has brought its problems and they are problems which we are facing and taking steps to solve. This Government who have shown such a realisation of the country's needs in every respect will not in my view fail the people of Dublin or of our country.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I rise in support of the motion in the names of a number of Fine Gael Deputies and on which Deputy D. Costello spoke last night. Speaking for Limerick, I believe that the suggestions contained in this motion represent the only approach to the solution of the awful housing problem which presents itself at present. On a number of occasions over the past 18 months, I have referred in this House to the appalling housing situation in the city of Limerick. I recall, when speaking on the debate on last year's Estimate for the Department of Local Government, that I dealt at length with the problem of the acute housing shortage in Limerick and the hardships being imposed on so many families there. At that time, I was relying on facts based on my own observations and investigations and I think there was a suspicion in some quarters that I was perhaps exaggerating the situation.Since last year, however, new and more accurate evidence has come to light which proves beyond all doubt that the housing situation in Limerick is, if anything, even worse than what we thought it was a year ago.

Shortly after last year's debate on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government, one of our national newspapers conducted an inquiry into the Limerick housing situation and the findings of that inquiry were published in two articles last December. I am quite sure the Minister will have read those articles and most Deputies, also, will have read them. I have no doubt that they were shocked and amazed that such a situation has existed in Limerick and should have been allowed to develop.

On 9th March of this year, the Limerick City Manager called a conference of his officials in the Town Hall. The City Manager issued a directive to the officers present to examine the position of the housing of the working classes in Limerick and to advise him on the findings. In particular, he asked them to inquire into the following: how many families in the city of Limerick are in need of rehousing and how many families would be in need of rehousing when the present schemes are completed. The report of that investigation was published in a booklet Report on the Housing of the Working Classes in Limerick City, a copy of which I have before me. These officers reported to the City Manager at page 4 of this Report:

We have assessed from the applications on hands and from an examination of the private housing stock that there are at present 1,335 families in the city in need of rehousing.

They also found there were 900 occupied unfit dwellings in the city. This clearly proves the situation is very bad. While this survey presents a clear statistical picture of the housing situation in Limerick, it does not tell the full story of the misery and hardship resulting from this acute housing shortage. It does not tell the story of the inhuman living conditions which almost 1,400 families in our city have to endure. It does not tell the story of the families living in single rooms in dangerous, rat-infested, rain-soaked buildings. It does not tell the story of the plight of the newly-weds who are forced to pay exorbitant rents for single rooms in condemned buildings.

The situation in Limerick is absolutely dreadful and every day it is becoming more serious. In case the Minister might think I am exaggerating, I should like to draw his attention to a news item in last Tuesday's Evening Press under the headings “Families Facing Mass Eviction—A Grim Situation in Limerick”. This report says:

Seventeen families living in a 250-years-old house at Nicholas Street, Limerick, are facing the prospect of being put out on the street. They are under eviction notice from Limerick Corporation, and so far have received no offer of other homes. There are no sanitary facilities in the house, which is one of a number rebuilt after the siege of Limerick in 1691. Each family occupies one room and buckets of water are carried up from the one available tap.

On Tuesday evening last I visited those families. I have never witnessed such a sorrowful, heart-rending scene. There are 17 families, each living in one room in this huge building. There is one tap at the front to supply water for the 17 families and there is one toilet at the back. I have seen the broken stairway, the rotten floorboards, the leaking roof and the 101 other sidelights of this awful situation.

In this newspaper report also the comments by the occupants, who were interviewed by the reporter, are worthy of note. Mr. Thomas Twomey, aged 39, a building worker, who has been living in the house for the past two years, said he had applied to the Corporation on a number of occasions to get alternative accommodation but had no success. Mr. Twomey is quoted as saying:

When it rains heavily we are flooded out and most of us have no electricity or heat except for the occasional fire.

Mr. Thomas Griffin, who, according to the newspaper report, has two children under 10 years of age, said:

Since 1960 I have applied three times for a house. I will take anywhere that is suitable. If we continue living here the whole place will eventually fall down around our ears.

But the saddest story of all is that of Mrs. Marie McNamara, aged 27, who said:

My husband Gerard has a very bad asthmatic condition, and we have lost three children as a result of the terrible conditions we are living under.

This is not an isolated case. If it were so, the problem would not be so acute. As I have already pointed out, the survey conducted by the Limerick Corporation shows there are almost 1,000 unfit buildings. Over the past one and a half years I have visited many families in other buildings. While I do not think I have seen anything to equal the deplorable conditions in which the 17 families in Nicholas Street are living, I have seen cases which are almost as bad. As I said, we have almost 1,000 inhabited unfit buildings. In the Parnell Street area there are 59; Edward Street area, 48; Vizes Field area, 78; Windmill Street area, 55; Gerard Griffin Street area, 76; Denmark Street area, 31; Watergate area, 60; Johnsgate area, 131; Abbey area, 55; Island Road area, 72; Thomondgate area, 134; Garryowen area, 61. For other areas the number is 122, giving a total of 990 buildings which have been certified as being unfit for human habitation.

That is the situation in Limerick. Words are not adequate to describe it, but I have tried to be as factual as possible and to produce evidence to highlight this situation. One cannot help asking the obvious question: How did this situation come about? I have given a good deal of thought and study to this and the only place I can find the answer is in the official figures given in reply to a question I tabled on 9th May, 1962. The Minister gave me the figures for house building by Limerick Corporation from 1956 to 1962. Those figures show that in the financial year 1956-57, 200 houses were built; in 1958-59 no house was built; in 1959-60, 175 houses were built; in 1960-61, 108 houses; and in 1961-62 no house was built.

The present housing shortage in Limerick is therefore due to the fact that since the present Government took office there has been a drastic decline in house building. The figures for Dublin quoted last night by Deputy Declan Costello prove that. The figures for Limerick prove, and the figures for the entire country prove that there has been a drastic decline since 1957. This decline, as Deputy Costello pointed out, is the logical result of deliberate Government policy, a policy which has diverted the resources of the building industry from the provision of houses for the workers to the erection of luxury hotels, palatial public buildings and so on. These facts speak for themselves.Speaking for Limerick, the present housing situation there is certainly due to the drastic decline in housebuilding since 1957. Between 1957 and 1962, there were two financial years during which not a single house was built in Limerick city. But for that, we would not have the present deplorable situation.

The housing report, in addition to stating the present situation, attempts to forecast future needs and on page 3 the total number of families in need of rehousing on 31 March 1956 is estimated at 830. Taking into account the average annual increase in applications, that will mean—and it is a conservative estimate—that by 1965 we shall still have 1,000 families needing houses. Obviously if we continue the average annual output of the past few years, the situation will never be solved and we will be faced with a repetition of what has happened within the past few days.

A colossal task faces Limerick Corporation, and I believe the Corporation are facing up to their responsibilities but I am not at all satisfied that the co-operation forthcoming from the Department of Local Government has been adequate. My reason for saying that is that there has been a lot of controversy over the past two months in Limerick concerning the proposals in regard to the Watergate housing scheme. At a meeting of the Corporation in September, several members expressed their dissatisfaction with the delay of this scheme and it was agreed that a deputation should go to the Minister for Local Government, the deputation to consist of some members of the Council, plus the Dáil Deputies. That was six weeks ago and up to the present we have not received any indication from the Minister as to whether or when he is prepared to receive that deputation. We are beginning to surmise all sorts of reasons for the Minister's attitude which is certainly questionable. Why did he not receive the deputation? What is the position now regarding the Watergate scheme? I ask the Minister when he is replying to state the present position in regard to this scheme which will not solve all our housing problems but will at least relieve the urgency of the situation.

I have been wondering if it is possible to provide some temporary accommodation in Limerick for families who have to be removed from dangerous buildings. I have read with considerable interest of new developments in prefabrication and wondered if it was possible to erect quickly, say, 200 prefabricated buildings in Limerick to accommodate those removed from dangerous buildings. The Minister said that some steps had been taken in that direction in Dublin and that temporary accommodation which he described as of a caravan type was being provided. There is urgent need for some such provision in Limerick city.

I have said what I wanted to say about Limerick housing. It is a disgraceful state of affairs. It gives me no pleasure to retail what I have seen and heard. I appealed to the Minister last year to do something about it but I think the motion under discussion now suggests the best solution:

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 earnestly ask the Minister to accept this motion. It would enable us to get down to the task and make life something easier for many families in Dublin, Limerick and other areas.

Mr. Blaney

Might I point out that the Deputy said that a request for a deputation had been made six weeks ago and that no reply had been received by Limerick Corporation? That is entirely wrong. Not only was a reply sent to the Corporation but it was before a meeting of the Corporation and since then, we have had a reply to our reply.

Mr. Carroll

I do not stand up in defence of Dublin Corporation, even if I speak as senior alderman and a member of the Housing Committee. I have listened to those who know all and I am satisfied that nothing I heard requires me to defend the Housing Committee of the Corporation. Each year over the past three or four years, I have suggested to the Minister that the Government should set up a Ministry of Works, having in mind this housing situation, a situation I have recognised for many years. While the Fine Gael motion is on the right lines, I do not think it is a solution to the problem. We all know that a committee is the quickest way of burying a problem.

It was stated here this morning that, in 1948, 20,000 houses were needed by Dublin Corporation. Indeed, that body advertised in all the English newspapers asking for tenders for prefabricated houses. A deputation was sent over to study the different houses to find out the type most suitable for our needs here. There were certain difficulties.

We have to face the fact now that housing constitutes a national crisis. Deputy T. O'Donnell referred to the position in Limerick. I am aware of it. I spent last month down there. The Housing Committee of the Dublin Corporation are not completely free agents; they have upon them the check of the Allocations Officer. He, in turn, is subject to the Minister and his Department by reason of the subsidy. There are certain circumstances in which the Minister will withdraw the subsidy. If all the conditions are not complied with, the subsidy will not be paid.

I am sure every effort is being made by the Department of Local Government, the local authorities and everybody concerned to alleviate the appalling situation. I believe the setting-up of the suggested Committee would not prove as decisive or as successful in solving the problem as the suggestion I have made that we should adopt the same approach as has been adopted across the Irish Sea. There there is a problem of 50,000,000. We have roughly 3,500,000. They can cope with the problem. They can build new towns almost overnight.

Last year we gave the Corporation greater powers in regard to acquisition.Why not multi-storey flats on the sites acquired? No question of too deep density can arise. We are blessed with one of the finest parks in the world almost within the city centre, now that so much building is taking place outside the city proper.

Deputy Sherwin spoke at length this morning. I do not believe Deputy Sherwin was ever on a building site in his life. We have built beautiful flats. The ones at Dolphin's Barn are a credit to the city of Dublin. They are four-storey flats. Think of the cost of acquiring that site, the cost of supplying the various services, the compensation paid to those dispossessed, and all that cost for four storeys when we could just as easily have made them 16 storeys. There is no reason why we should not build on that scale. There is nothing to deter such building. The only objection was apparently on aesthetic grounds, that the skyline might be interfered with. It is not being interfered with now at Butt Bridge or O'Connell Bridge. We seem to have got over the aesthetic difficulty.

The Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, do not need any convincing of the appalling conditions in Ballyfermot and elsewhere in the south city. There is a house in Ballyfermot in which there is a married daughter, her husband and her child; there is also a married son, with his wife and child; both are sharing a small room in a Corporation house. The Corporation cannot house these people because of the crisis. There is no hope for them. There was talk this morning of what we will do in Raheny and Edenmore. If people have to wait much longer, accommodation will not be needed: they will be dead. There is no reason for appointing a Select Committee. The decision should be taken now.

According to Mr. O'Mahony's report — he was Housing Director — we needed 30,000 houses in 1948. We did not build any pre-fabs. In one year we built over 2,000 houses; in another year, we went down to 200 houses. Obviously there is something wrong. When Mr. O'Mahony expressed the fear that we would have too many houses, I reminded him that the Government had appealed to our own people to come back to Erin; our craftsmen and skilled workers would gladly come back if they had a hope of getting a house. They have not a hope in the world.

If one inquires about housing now one gets the stereotyped reply that all applications will have to wait until those removed from dangerous buildings have been housed. That is the situation confronting the Minister, the Corporation and prospective applicants.There should be more cohesion between the Department and the local authorities. I am not suggesting that the Department are to blame for the absence of cohesion; I am not being partisan because of the emergency that undoubtedly exists.

I should like here to draw the Minister's attention to the plight of families who have been in occupation of corporation houses for the past 20 to 30 years. Numerically their families may not have increased, but as they grow, the sex element enters the matter and though those people have come to care for their houses, they have become inadequate as the families grew. Many of them would therefore like to build some addition at the back, say, a kitchen or an additional bedroom. They do not own their houses because the Corporation will not sell. I submit these people should be eligible for grants to help in the provision of such additions. It need not cost the Corporation anything and it would enhance the value of those houses. It might also have the effect of easing somewhat the present housing pressure. The Department could also help by having plans and drawings made for the help of those people, and made available at a nominal price of, say, sixpence.

I have spoken already of the system of inspection and have criticised the method of recruitment of inspectors. At the moment the position is pathetic. In Section 12 of the relevant Housing Act, the Minister introduced a provision which at the time was aimed at alleviation of unemployment. In that, it has failed utterly. The Deputy from Waterford who spoke earlier to-day went into detail on the method of inspection of work in order to qualify for grants for reconstruction. I am aware that the applicant submits the plans, starts the work and that eventually, on approval locally, an independent inspector comes from the Department. Perhaps he sees a slate fillet near the chimney which has been there for a hundred years. He says the work does not comply with the regulations, that the slate must be taken off.

That is the type of situation being created under the present inspection system and it again raises this question of the qualification of inspectors. I hope the Minister will use that analytical mind of his to remedy this situation about which I have been speaking for the past three years. I have not the temerity to suggest that the Fine Gael Party withdraw their motion in favour of ours.

Mr. Timmons

First of all, I wish to congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has introduced this Estimate and on the progressive trend it suggests in relation to local government generally and to his Department.As is quite natural, the debate has hinged quite a lot on housing, not alone in Dublin but throughout the country. I should like to say a few words on that subject, but first I want to criticise and to protest against the motion of the Party opposite in regard to housing in Dublin to-day.

I regard the motion as a piece of political window-dressing from a reactionary Party whose past performance was a retreat from their obligations on housing in 1957. In a very detailed fashion, Deputy Sherwin gave the reasons why this Dáil does not need a Select Committee to go into this matter. The issues are quite simply explained by the atmosphere of 1956 when, as Deputy Sherwin explained last night, the Corporation were confronted with a very difficult situation—an increasing vacancy rate and vast emigration. That did not relate only to Corporation tenants but also to people who occupied houses under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, by people who had obtained loans. Keys were handed in, as I explained in previous debates.

Altogether, 600 small dwellings were left empty on the Corporation's hands. It was in that atmosphere and on advice tendered to us by our officials that the Corporation decided to taper off their housing programme in the perimeter areas. At that time it was the best move to have made. It is easy now, when the situation has changed, to hold up hands in horror and blame the Corporation and the Government for the situation that developed. These are facts and they are on record.

Deputy Carroll referred to the appeal sent out to workers in England in 1948 on the accession of the Coalition Government. It is true that a large number of workers come home every year, but unfortunately their stay was short-lived because of the situation that developed in 1956. Then they had to emigrate again and that was one of the contributory factors to the present situation.

The Dublin Corporation Housing Committee have done tremendous work for the housing of Dublin citizens in the past 20 years and my estimate is that in that time they have catered for 50,000 families under their various types of housing programme, in houses and flats. It is true that the policy adopted at the beginning was to house families first. In that process, unfortunately, the situation developed that very small families, mainly families consisting of elderly couples, were left in these decaying, crumbling tenements.The great majority of these tenements are situated in areas scheduled for housing re-development. In June last there was the unfortunate occurrence that highlighted the particular problem. I should like to place on record here my tribute to the housing department officials and the Housing Committee itself for the way in which they have endeavoured to meet that unfortunate situation. They worked night and day, Saturdays and Sundays, into the early hours of the morning. They provided a 24-hour service to deal with the situation. It is by no means controlled because, in the light of what was revealed to the various inspectors in regard to various properties in the city, it has been decided to augment the staff and a survey will be carried out on remaining dwellings in the city. To what extent that survey will accentuate the present position, we do not know. These are factors we must keep in mind in approaching the housing problem.

As a member of the Corporation of some years standing, I was one who was critical of the present housing department organisation. I mentioned that some months ago to the City Manager. I said that the organisation as at present constituted was inadequate. The assistant City Manager has been delegated functions from the City Manager in respect of housing, streets and engineering activities. The housing department is headed by a principal officer, Mr. Molloy, and other officials. They have a large housing estate to administer. There are something in the region of 25,000 corporation tenants. The fact that the Corporation have such a huge estate creates many administrative problems. If I offered that criticism it is not that these men are not doing their job. They are doing it very well.

I should like to see an organisation set up in the Corporation headed, for instance, by Mr. Molloy, which would be solely devoted to the solution of Dublin's housing problem. There is a city architect who has other duties to perform as well as his duties in regard to housing. I should like to see an organisation set up which would be independent and unfettered by other administrative functions, which would be devoted to solving the housing position here.

The present situation has arisen out of changing trends—the return of families from England. A large number of these were successful in being rehoused by the Corporation up to June last. Other families have since returned. Active members of the City Council will testify that their main preoccupation today is dealing with housing cases. We have an insight into the problem and we understand the situation but it certainly calls for a more dynamic approach if the problem is to be solved expeditiously. The Corporation are pushing ahead as fast as possible with their schemes. The Minister for Local Government took the initiative some weeks ago in calling the Corporation officials and councillors together to discuss this matter. I understand that these discussions are not yet concluded but I do hope that something on the lines I have suggested will emerge, that some separate organisation to deal with Dublin's housing situation will result.

The finance is there. The country's confidence is unimpaired. I believe that, given the full co-operation of the Department of Local Government, the Corporation officials and the trade unions themselves—they have a big part to play—a solution will be found to this housing problem.

One of the unfortunate features of the past number of years was that local authorities could never seem to be able to anticipate their housing requirements.When I was elected to the Corporation, our target was 20,000 houses, as a result of a Housing Commission appointed by the Government in 1939, which reported that Dublin city needed 20,000 houses. More than that number of houses have been built, and efforts were made to induce people to build houses for themselves. Yet the situation today is that at least 5,000 houses are urgently required in Dublin.

I would urge upon the Minister for Local Government that in his discussions of the situation with Corporation officials he should look into the question of setting up a separate organisation within the Corporation to deal exclusively with the housing problem.There are associated problems to be solved. There is the question of obtaining additional sites. Sites have become an acute problem. There is also the question of services and the provision of a large-scale drainage scheme to enable further houses to be provided. All these matters require the undivided attention of skilled officials if they are to be solved.

There are some members of the Corporation, including myself, who feel that perhaps the situation might be met by the setting up of a national housing trust. I do not know whether that would appeal to the Minister for Local Government or not but I throw that out as a suggestion—a national housing trust something on the lines of the agency that was created to provide houses for State servants and employees of semi-State bodies. Perhaps that could be examined to see if it would be possible to provide an organisation that would meet the situation on a planned basis.

One other matter that I should like to refer to is the question of traffic in Dublin city. It is a matter that is becoming more urgent as each day passes. The Minister has pointed out that there has been a seven per cent increase in vehicular traffic in the past five years and that is likely to develop. I have had experience of the frustrations and time-consuming delays in trying to get through the centre of the city. The Corporation took the step some time ago of engaging the services of continental consultants and it is a matter of regret that, so far, their report has not been presented. I was given to understand it was to be ready in August and now I have been told it may not be ready until January. The Corporation have one of their officials over in Germany helping the consultants in relation to the survey carried out here. I do hope that when this report comes to hand, the Minister will readily get the funds necessary to ease traffic in Dublin city by the provision of a bridge or a tunnel. Indeed we are years behind other countries in that regard. In proportion to our size, we have a higher ratio of regular traffic than some other cities; yet we have never attempted to provide the facilities for freer movement.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of town planning appeals. I wish to urge the Minister to do all he can to expedite the consideration of these appeals. We had to adopt a plan some years ago and a number of proposals came in from various interests in the city. They had to be turned down and appeals were made to the Minister for Local Government. The consideration of such appeals should be speeded up by the appointment of more staff. I understand there is only one appeals officer operating in the whole of the Twenty-six Counties and it is humanly impossible for him to handle these appeals as quickly as the public would like.

I wish to congratulate the Minister again on his Estimate and I hope that as a result of the discussions here, the problems, particularly in relation to housing, will become easy of solution in the coming year.

Mr. A. Barry

In spite of the fact that the Minister's Department is one of the most important and the largest Department in the State and concerns an enormous variety of activities in connection with the organisation of our society here, it is a remarkable thing that in the annual debate on the Minister's Estimate, the entire discussion seems to centre on the deficiencies in the system of providing houses for our people.

It is, I suppose, evidence of troubled consciences with all of us and there is no doubt that there is a public conscience in this matter which is slowly being awakened. That, of course, is a good thing. I hope that conscience will never be completely satisfied and I must refer to the extraordinary humanity that was embodied in the appeal made by Deputy Declan Costello here last night, a humanity that was wider than any Party divisions and to which I think all of us who heard it responded. I think the speaker who has just finished now, Deputy Timmons, and Deputy Costello are probably completely at one about this matter and the words Deputy Timmons has just used, that a dynamic approach was needed, might have been used last night by Deputy Costello.

Figures have been used—"bandied" is a word I do not want to use—across the House here indicating the increase or the decrease in the amount of activity in house building in the past six or seven years. That does not produce the atmosphere which will enable us all to recognise that the task is a task for all of us. Going back 40 or 50 years in the history of this society we live in, it will be seen that enormous improvements have been made and an enormous amount of building has been done. We did inherit, however, a frightening problem of inadequate housing conditions in Ireland and our task is greater than that in many other countries around us. I would refer particularly to the Scandinavian countries where the problem was not set against the same historical background in which the ordinary Irish were compelled to live on the outskirts of Irish towns and were housed without any great advertence to the conditions under which they lived and brought up their families.

The problem is recognised by all of us as being serious and as being one to which we in our time must attend, but, in the words of Deputy Timmons, we must ensure that a more dynamic approach is made until we get over the hump of the problem that is there. I do not propose to say anything more about our failure or otherwise to deal with this problem.

I want to speak not about what we do in this regard but how we do it. The urgency of the problem should not blind us to the need for dealing with the problem in a way that will not earn the criticism of our successors in regard to aesthetics or the quality or the character of what we provide by way of accommodation for our people. The absolute urgency of our needs in the past made us lose sight of a great deal of desirable detail in the provision of housing. It is all-important that the Minister's Department should now attend to these matters. This need not in any way slow down the essential task of providing houses but it would be necessary to ensure that the places where we ask our people to live will be attractive places.

We have all seen evidence up and down the country of good and bad housing schemes. We have seen the monotonous rows of large blocks of concrete dwellings and then we have seen where imaginative officials in some counties have provided what was graceful to look at and, I am sure, pleasant to live in. This aspect should be very forcibly emphasised by the Minister's officers in respect of schemes submitted to the Department, that cubic capacity is not enough, that graceful building and proper landscaping are matters which will pay dividends to us all. I know of one housing scheme in County Clare to which I have always great pleasure in directing the attention of visitors whenever I pass it. It is a pleasure to look at it. I doubt if in the long run it cost more money to do that job well as to do it within the bare Departmental requirements.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.