Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 Oct 1963

Vol. 205 No. 5

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

"That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration."

—(Deputy Jones.)

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): Before the House adjourned on Tuesday evening, I was dealing, among other things, with the question of the transfer of portion of a rate collector's district in Fethard to the district of another rate collector and was taking the Minister to task for sanctioning that transfer. I found it necessary to criticise the Minister's action for sanctioning the transfer of a collection area from the district of one rate collector who was paid on a salary basis to another rate collector who was paid on a poundage basis and allowing the former rate collector the same salary as he had been enjoying, thus imposing an extra burden of £120 on the local authority rates.

The matter is rendered more objectionable when one beneficiary of that transfer was appointed by the Fianna Fáil Party and one was a son of a Fianna Fáil councillor. I think the Minister departed from the high principles of his office in being so weak and supine as to yield to pressure from the Fianna Fáil hierarchy in South Tipperary in sanctioning that transfer.

I dealt at the same time on Tuesday evening with the question of two gentlemen employees of ours in South Tipperary, two relieving officers, one of whom has been with us for ten years and the other about five years. Both were appointed on the basis that when a vacancy for a cottage rent collector occurred in their districts, they would secure the appointment. These two gentlemen have been deprived of what I believe is morally their rightful due during the past 12 months. The Minister has now had some months to consider the matter, and I submit he is thinking out some new technique to deprive those men of their rights. I think it would be of interest to the House to learn the terms of appointment, the advertised terms, of those two men:

The duties shall be those of Assistance Officer and of Rent Collector as provided for in the regulations made from time to time by the appropriate Minister, and such other duties as they may be instructed to carry out from time to time, or such duties as the County Manager or the Council shall instruct from time to time to be carried out. Initially the post will be that of Assistance Officer only, but the person appointed will on the occurrence of a vacancy for cottage rent collector within the Assistance district take over the duties of rent collector in addition to those of Assistance Officer.

Those were the terms of appointment of the two men and they have been so far deprived of what is lawfully theirs.

On Tuesday I also dealt with the question of conciliation and arbitration.This is a matter we can approach with a greater degree of unanimity on all sides of the House because it is a matter of particular importance to every Deputy and every Minister. I will not cover again the general observations I made on the last occasion, but I will say that there is substantial objection to the conciliation and arbitration scheme as shown in the booklet circulated by the County Managers' Association. These objections stem largely from the professional organisations whose members are employed by county councils up and down the country. The first suggestion of the county managers is that only staff associations recognised by the County Managers' Association should be eligible to take part in the scheme. They also state that all associations who wish to participate must make application to the County Managers' Association. I would have thought that the recognised unions or associations would, ipso facto, receive adequate recognition without having to go through this procedure of making application to the County Managers' Association.

They also state that any staff association representative of not fewer than 25 local authority officers to whom the scheme applies should be eligible for recognition. It is feared that some professional organisations with only small numbers but of some importance might not qualify. The staff panel drawn up by the County Managers' Association is from named trade unions. The majority of professional people are not members of these unions. They are catered for by their own associations or unions to whom they are amenable and they feel that their problems could be best presented by the unions and associations to which they belong.

The county managers also wish to exclude all civil servants from the arbitration board. I cannot profess to be a lover of civil servants, I do not know who is, but no adequate reason has been advanced as to why civil servants should be excluded from this machinery by the County Managers' Association. It is suggested that the County Managers' Association wish to exercise exclusive control over the machinery.

Regarding the format of the arbitration board, the professional organisations think that the chairman and secretary of that board should be appointed by the three employment interests concerned. They regard these as the Minister for Local Government, the General Council of County Councils or, in the case of borough corporations, the Municipal Authorities Association, and the County Managers' Association. I think that is fair enough. The County Managers' Association say that they alone should make these appointments. I think you will agree that this is an endeavour on the part of the County Managers' Association to exercise absolute control.

There is fairly general agreement between the two bodies as regards the conciliation procedure but as regards the arbitration procedure there is a wide difference of opinion. The professional bodies believe that at arbitration hearings the interests of the employer should be presented by three advocates, one for the Minister, one for the General Council of County Councils and one for the County Managers' Association. The County Managers' Association want the employers' interests to be presented solely by two local authority officers to be appointed by the county managers themselves. They could be two county managers.

Here, again, it is felt that there is an effort by the county managers to ensure that the advocates of the employers' interests should be nominated by them to the exclusion of the Minister and the General Council of County Councils, and thereby to the exclusion of the public representatives. Here, again, there is a wide divergence of opinion and my view would be on the side of the professional organisations.Their approach is better and more democratic and the approach of the County Managers' Association is more dictatorial and tends to take absolute power for themselves.

There is a further objection which I have heard to this arbitration and conciliation scheme, that is, that in Dublin and Cork we have a large number of people employed in our voluntary hospitals, nurses and such people, who, under the arbitration and conciliation scheme as drawn up by the County Managers' Association, would be excluded from staff panel membership or representation.

There is a final criticism to be made of the county managers' plan. As far as one can judge, the arbitration procedure as envisaged by them would, apart from the submission of a report to the appropriate Minister, stop there. The professional bodies advocate that the findings of the arbitration board should be submitted to the Minister, to the Government and to the Dáil so that they might be treated at the highest level and thereby command the highest respect and the highest observance.I believe that unless from the beginning you can secure the confidence of the people participating in any conciliation and arbitration machinery, it will not work. I may say that this system as advocated by the professional bodies is similar to what is already available to the vocational teachers. They are asking for nothing more than what, practically, is already available to vocational teachers.

When this matter was being discussed by our local county council, it was explained to us by the manager when he was looking for money to finance it that he looked for £200 this year. I expect a similar figure, in proportion to the rateable valuation, is being discussed at every county council in the country. It was explained to us that this machinery would have to be financed and that secretarial help would have to be provided. On discussion, it transpired that what is meant by secretarial help was a highly-qualified, experienced negotiator commanding a salary of perhaps £1,500 or £2,000 a year and, as I have mentioned already, this particular secretary to this new arbitration board that was envisaged would be appointed by the county manager. If you have a high-powered secretary like that, an experienced man, he, naturally, will have to have staff and if he has to have staff, he will have to have a building; and he will be appointed by the County Managers' Association. Have we here now the beginning of a Kildare Street Club for county managers and have we here a new job being created admirably suited and admirably tailored for retired county managers?

There is only one other small matter that I wish to deal with but it is a matter of some importance, again, to every public representative. Some months ago at one of our county council meetings, there was an item on the agenda and there was some doubt in the official view as to whether this item was in order or not. It was deemed expedient, and the council agreed, that a barrister's opinion should be sought. Opinion was secured from Mr. Rory O'Hanrahan. Subsequently that legal opinion on the matter which was still on our agenda was read for us at a county council meeting.

Our particular manager sticks to the letter of the law as he interprets it, that no information is given to a county councillor, except to the county council as a whole and to the chairman.But, this being a matter which had been dealt with publicly and in the presence of the Press. I asked could I have a copy of this counsel's opinion which was contained in a lengthy, involved document which, naturally, I could not assimilate at one meeting and I considered it desirable that I should have a copy of it. The manager refused to give me a copy. I then wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Local Government explaining the situation to him. It was quite a nice, polite letter asking could he help or advise me or give me any guidance as to what to do as I felt I was entitled to this copy and wished to know my position. I thought he was the appropriate man to write to. I regard him, so to speak, as the county manager's senior executive officer. I received no reply whatsoever from the Secretary of the Department of Local Government. I wrote a second time to the Secretary, giving, again, a summary of the position. Again, I received no reply whatsoever.

I do not expect that a particular Civil Service official can answer every question I may choose to ask him but I do claim, and insist on, the right of any public representative at least to receive an acknowledgment of his letter. I do not know whether the Secretary of the Department of Local Government was alone responsible for this but I have no evidence to the contrary. If I find it necessary to stand up in this Dáil and publicly rebuke him, I am doing so subject to the reservation that he may not be entirely responsible for this grave discourtesy to me.

I am not personally troubled about a personal discourtesy. I can take it. But I am very seriously disturbed by the fact that any bureaucrat anywhere in this State should see fit to deny simple guidance or information— reasonable information and reasonable guidance—to any public representative. The whole essence of democracy is based upon that right of public representatives and if that is once allowed to pass, unchallenged, then the very foundations of the liberty which we enjoy here are placed in jeopardy.

Mr. Treacy

It is fitting that I should follow Deputy Hogan because my primary purpose in speaking on this Estimate today is to draw to the attention of the Minister and the House the most unsatisfactory state of affairs which prevails in South Tipperary in respect to the housing of the people there. Before dealing with the local aspects of the problem, I want to say that I was deeply interested in the debate which has gone on here for the past few days in respect to housing generally in the country.

In my contribution to the debate on the Estimate for Local Government 12 months ago, I stated that there were thousands of families in this country living in condemned, squalid, rat-infested tenements and hovels and that that was a serious indictment of the Minister and his Department as well as of the local authorities concerned.Many people may have felt that that statement was, perhaps, an exaggeration. Indeed, my political opponents would seek to infer that it was an irresponsible statement. The evidence revealed here on information from the Minister himself has proved conclusively that that statement was only too true.

The Minister, in his statement to the House, has admitted that there are 25,000 unfit dwellings in this country. The figures have been gleaned as a result of a housing survey that has been carried out. Of the 25,000 unfit dwellings, 20,000 are in rural areas. In this city alone there are at least 5,000 persons crying out for immediate rehousing and deemed to be in urgent need of rehousing. It is not an easy matter to be deemed to be in need of rehousing. There is a detailed examination by the county medical officer of health and his staff and there is a decision of the county manager who has the sole responsibility for housing. A person must be in a very bad way before being deemed to be in urgent need of rehousing and declared by the housing authority to be an approved applicant.

The people who get priority in that regard are people who are living in overcrowded circumstances with very large families, whose homes are in many instances bereft of proper sanitation and running water, whose homes are damp, dark and dilapidated and, as has been borne out by the tragedy in this city, whose homes are in real danger of falling down, with resultant loss of life. This then is the criterion by which one is deemed to be in need of rehousing. There is, of course, too, the overriding factor of the health background of the family concerned. There was a time when TB-affected families got preferential treatment in this regard.

The plight of the homeless is not confined to Dublin, Cork, Limerick or other cities. It is evident in practically every small town and village. Certainly it is true of the constituency I have the honour to represent. There is, too, resulting from the inability, it would seem, of the Minister's Department to grapple effectively with the housing problem of the nation, a problem to contend with which is tantamount to the exploitation of these unfortunate people by slum landlords in this city and in many other towns and cities throughout the country. There is rearing its head a type of Rachmanism, the activities of the slum landlord who battens on the unfortunate people who cannot get homes. This is done by the exorbitant rent charged for flats which could not be called homes in anything like the real sense of the word, tenement flats, lacking the ordinary amenities, many of them in a crumbling condition dangerous to the tenants.

People are so desperate that they will take anything offering nowadays and accordingly, by reason of the demand, they are exploited by unscrupulous slum landlords, owners of the slum tenements in every part of this country. I do not know what the Minister can do to arrest this sorry situation where young people about to get married are obliged to pay £1, £2 or £3 a week rent for such wretched accommodation as is being offered to them today and where young married couples are condemned to a long purgatory in these appalling housing conditions before the local authority sets about rehousing them.

The Minister stated that 50 per cent of the 25,000 unfit dwellings to which I have adverted are occupied by one or two persons. It would seem then, in the main, that it is the young married people who are being exploited most. It is no wonder that there is evidence of these young married people being so utterly frustrated in the matter of getting a decent house that they are, in conjunction with the contemplation of marriage, deciding to emigrate, and many of them have emigrated because of the insecurity in regard to work and also the major factor of the inability to secure a decent flat or house in their native town.

If a house does become available, there is evidence everywhere of exorbitant amounts being demanded for the sale of that house and, more than that, by way of what is known as key money. Key money is bedevilling the housing situation. There is evidence of key money, counted in hundreds of pounds, being demanded for houses that should be scheduled, and are in many instances scheduled, for demolition.I know perhaps there is legislation whereby one can go to the courts to have a fair rent determined. The vast majority of these people are in such a bad way for houses that they have no time to consider their rights in this regard.

I must place the full blame for this sorry state of affairs on the Minister and his Department. We seem to have housing authorities, managers, officials and members of housing authorities, who are indifferent to the needs of our people, who may be said to be reeking with indolence and inertia in relation to this serious problem, and it is high time the Minister stepped in and made them aware of their responsibilities.

I have always felt that newlyweds were entitled to some consideration in respect of rehousing. Some housing authorities have been considerate in this regard and in every new scheme of houses they have made a percentage available to newlyweds. That is a very laudable idea, a very humane and Christian attitude, but the vast majority of our housing authorities simply do not entertain that humanitarian ideal. They are preoccupied with rehousing those most in need and the most in need to whom I have referred are those whose houses are crumbling about them or likely to fall down or who live in shockingly overcrowded and insanitary conditions, rat-infested and vermininfested in many instances. I appreciate the prior obligation of the local authority to rehouse these people in the first instance but, at the same time, we should do something to ensure that the purgatory which is inflicted on newlyweds in this regard is ended.

I said that my primary purpose in rising here was to draw the attention of the Minister to the most unsatisfactory state of affairs which exists in South Tipperary in regard to the rehousing of our people. In a recent survey, it has been found that there are over 1,000 unfit dwellings in South Tipperary. The indolence and inertia of that housing authority are such that those of us who feel we have an obligation to our people in respect of homes are becoming completely and utterly frustrated by the interminable delay in having houses built.

In reply to a question about housing in South Tipperary, the Minister informed us yesterday of the number of tenders for the erection of cottages there and the number of houses submitted to him for approval over the past 12 months. I can count only 37 submissions made to the Minister in the past 12 months in respect of new cottages in South Tipperary, at a time when there are over 1,000 people deemed to be in unsatisfactory houses. We are experiencing tremendous difficulty in the county in relation to the building of cottages. The officials are relying solely on the present system of carrying out a survey to ascertain whether these people are in need of rehousing and having satisfied themselves that they are, of going through the process of acquiring sites; the sites are submitted to the Minister for approval but may very well be objected to and then there is an inquiry. Naturally, that takes time. Even when the site is approved, we must advertise for tenders. Time and time again we have advertised for tenders and have got no response, or if there was a response, the contractor was deemed to be unsatisfactory. We have had also the frustrating experience, having accepted a tender from a contractor, of finding after a lapse of months, sometimes 12 months, that he was no longer interested in building the cottages and defaulted.

In such a case we must then go through the whole process of advertising the houses for tender in the hope that a suitable contractor will be forthcoming.We have advertised cottages in the Clonmel area not once or twice but four times before a suitable contract was forthcoming. Indeed, it may be true to say there is still grave doubt whether the present contractor will do the building. I submit to the Minister that it is making an absolute mockery of the people of my constituency to go through this kind of farcical red tape. There is an obligation on the Minister to step in and decide for the local authority what they should do in such circumstances. How long is this farce to continue? How long are we to have the farce of advertising over and over again and getting nowhere?

I see that on 24th November, 1962, the Minister's approval was sought for tenders for four cottages in Fethard town in South Tipperary. There was a dire need for these cottages. There is a considerable number of people in that town living in appalling conditions.I submitted notice of motion to South Tipperary County Council drawing attention to this sorry state of affairs and to the need to rehouse these people and asking that a survey be carried out, that sites be acquired and homes be built as a matter of urgency for those people. The Minister approved the contract in November 1962. The unfortunate people involved had high hopes of being in new homes within a few months, but what happened?After six or eight months, when not a sod had been turned on the site, it was revealed that the contractor was no longer interested and had thrown up the contract.

On 21st of this month, a new tender for these four cottages was submitted to the Minister. I can only hope and trust that this contract will be carried out and that these four houses will be built very soon. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Labour members of our council brought forward what they considered to be a solution to this problem. We asked that these cottages be built by direct labour under the supervision of the county engineer. We should no longer be placed in the predicament of being dependent on these contractors who seemingly have an abundance of work. The evidence is there that they are not interested in building for our local authority, despite the fact that we increased the price of our cottages to over £1,700. The House will agree that over £1,700 is a reasonable price for the erection of a utilitarian type of house composed of four walls and a roof, three rooms and a kitchen.

Despite that, we have not had the response we desire. The motion to have the cottages built by direct labour was defeated by reason of a long and detailed argument made by the county engineer. In an epistle-like address, he pointed out the virtual impossibility for him and his Department of building cottages by direct labour. In essence, as far as I was concerned, it merely meant that the county engineer and his staff did not want to be bothered with the additional responsibility of building houses. Some county engineers regard it as their primary responsibility to build roads, perhaps to install water and sewerage facilities, but they do not want to be troubled with building houses. They seem to have no social conscience in regard to the importance of rehousing our people, or the terrible evils inherent in bad housing and the dangers to the health of the inhabitants.

As I say, the motion was defeated and the sorry situation continued. A short time ago, we again brought forward the motion and the council, conservative though it may be, saw the need for the acceptance of our motion and by a majority passed it. Up to today, that motion has not been acted upon. It has been deliberately circumvented by the officials. They have no intention of acceding to the requests of the council to build the houses by direct labour.

We have now resorted to a device of building homes for our people by the new industrial unit method of construction with which I am sure the Minister is conversant. We had a simple house of this type built in South Tipperary. We visited it as a county council, together with our officials, when it was completed. We examined it in minute detail. We were all extremely pleased with the type of house it turned out to be. It was pleasing in design and was durable. It provided all the modern amenities which a family requires nowadays. It was a modern home in every sense of the word.

We decided, then, that at least in those isolated areas where cottages are scheduled to be built and where we have experienced the greatest difficulty in getting contractors, we would build this prototype, this type of unit construction.I do not know if it is permissible for me to mention the actual brand of cottage but if the Minister is interested, I can let him have the name.

We desired very much to build this type of house and we communicated with the firm concerned. I very much regret to say that the firm concerned seems to be very interested in substantial orders for this cottage and it is difficult to ascertain what price they require. The fact is that we have been unable to do any business with those people, despite many letters to them, in connection with the proposal. We are still left with this stalemate of inability to build cottages. In that kind of situation, I should be failing in my duty as a public representative if I did not say, as indeed I have said many times in the council of which I have the honour to be the chairman, that that council were guilty of utter dereliction of duty in respect of the housing of our people. They have failed miserably to grapple with this problem.

It is futile and useless to tell us that the procedure of red tape and the present system are responsible. We want to see houses built in bricks and mortar and people domiciled in them. It is an indication of the inability of the Minister's Department and of the laziness of the housing authorities that the only solution we can offer today is the provision of caravans for those people.

Houses fall down in more places than Dublin city. I have witnessed it in Tipperary—at Hollyford, County Tipperary, to be precise. A house there fell down on a wife, a husband and their children. The county council came to the aid of that family by the provision of a county council van and that is where they are living at present. It is a serious indictment of the Minister, his Department and all concerned that that is the only solution we can offer to the rehousing of our people— providing them with something which the itinerants and tinkers enjoy today who pay no rates and are responsible to nobody. They are far better and more adequately cared for than the decent workingclass citizens of our towns and cities. I suppose the next offer we shall be making to people in such a predicament is to give them some kinds of tents and seal their fate altogether.

I want to ask the Minister to cause an investigation to be held into the housing situation in South Tipperary as a matter of grave urgency. I, as the council chairman, regret to say that they are guilty of clear dereliction of duty in respect of their inability or unwillingness to tackle this problem and to build houses for our people. If the Minister does not cause an inquiry to be held, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall call for a public inquiry at a council meeting. I am sure the Minister will do us the courtesy of holding that inquiry—and let it be a sworn inquiry, if necessary—into the action of the county manager and the officials responsible for their clear dereliction of duty in respect of housing.

We cannot tolerate any longer this absolute farce, this mockery of the sufferings of our people, this pretence at an attempt to rehouse them—and getting nowhere. The people I speak for are not people who were deemed to be in need of rehousing last year or the year before. I speak for people deemed to be in need of rehousing six, seven, eight and ten years ago and who are not yet rehoused: not a sod is turned on the site in respect of their needs.

The very same situation appertains with regard to the maintenance of council property, especially the non-vested homes of our people. I appreciate that, first, it is a matter of providing a sufficiency of money in the estimates each year for the repair and maintenance of council houses. That is a primary factor in this regard. But, when the officials concerned do not include a sufficiency of money for that purpose, they must accept the responsibility.

I think it is true to say that the council has on every occasion given to the manager the sufficiency of money required for the repair and maintenance of the houses of our people. At the estimates meeting this year, we provided some £16,000 and when that proved inadequate, then, by way of further motion, we provided some £6,000 or £7,000 extra. But that, in itself, is proving inadequate to grapple with the problem of repairs.

There is a backlog of arrears of repairs to cottages going back a long number of years. In the meantime, the houses have rapidly deteriorated. The minor repairs which were scheduled five or six years ago have now become a major problem of repair as a result of the inactivity and inaction of the local authority in the matter of the repair of these houses within a reasonable time. In other words, the ship is being lost for the sake of the proverbial halfpennyworth of tar.

The Minister should see to it that housing authorities carry out their obligation to keep the homes of their people in adequate repair. The Minister should ensure that an inspection is carried out of all council property, with particular reference to houses, perhaps annually. The councils concerned should be obliged—by law, if necessary—to maintain them adequately. It is surely unwise and uneconomic that houses should be allowed to deteriorate to the extent that the original estimate is increased out of all proportion as a result of the flagrant neglect of the housing authority to do the repairs within a reasonable time.

I do not want to exaggerate on this matter of repairs to houses but it is true to say that there are houses, cottages in particular, where the rain pours through the roof, where the timber is absolutely rotting, with doors falling down, acute dampness and kitchens filled with smoke. The general living conditions in these homes are appalling, and county councils seem to be doing little or nothing to resolve the problem. The tendency seems to be that if you vest your house, you get priority for repairs. In his speech, the Minister expressed regret that more people are not purchasing their homes. I have always maintained it is a very laudable and desirable thing that people should be the owners of their property. I believe in this kind of diffusion of private property. However, I deplore the dictatorial tendency of county councils to foist ownership of homes on people reluctant to accept the responsibility involved. As I said, preference for repairs is given to those who yest their cottages. People are in a state of utter frustration and are compelled, therefore, to vest in order to have repairs carried out. They become unwilling owners of their property.

That is neither just nor moral. Let them become willing owners, by all means. Let us facilitate them in every way, but let us not foist ownership on them. Let them not be forced to become owners of property which they feel they cannot maintain in adequate repair in after years. The wheel has turned a full circle in this respect. By reason of the stupid policy of the county managers, many cottages vested in the past are now showing serious signs of acute disrepair. The tenants are clearly unable to keep them in a proper state of repair and unable to avail of the various grants for this purpose.When the matter is reported to the county council, the only satisfaction they get is a warning that they signed an agreement to keep the cottages in repair and they are threatened with the law, if they do not do so. The overall result is that many vested cottages in my county—and in others as well, I am sure — have deteriorated to such an extent that they are virtually uninhabitable again and the county council will have to rehouse those people once more. To allow such a situation to develop is the height of folly.

I wish to refer now to the manner in which employees of local authorities are treated in respect of their employment.In most county councils, the county council worker is bereft of any worthwhile status, and he certainly has no security of employment. This is a serious matter inasmuch as county council employees are now in a scheme in which they can qualify for a decent pension on retirement, provided they have worked a sufficient number of years. The superannuation scheme ordains that they shall work not less than 200 days in each year in order to qualify. By reason of the inability of county councils to provide employment for their workers, many of them do not get the required 200 days per year and, accordingly, they lose that year for superannuation purposes.

It is desirable that county councils, county managers and the Minister should strive to ensure that county council employees, that is, county council servants as distinct from officers, should be given some semblance of security, some guarantee of employment each year, which will at least ensure they get the required number of days to qualify for superannuation purposes. There is a serious anomaly in the law as between the rich and the poor which is manifest in the regulations applying to the pension rights of county council servants as distinct from officers. The county manager seemingly has power to add years of service in calculating the pension rights of officers of the council but has no right to add even one day to the county council worker for pension purposes.

Surely it is unfair, unjust and extremely inequitable that years of service can be added in respect of a county council official, who most probably will go out on a pension of at least £1,000 a year and probably a lump sum of £1,000 or £2,000—long years of service have been added in the case of such officials—while the poor, unfortunate roadworker, who has given the best years of his life to the council, who cannot qualify because of the council's inability to provide him with work, cannot have even a day added in order to qualify him for pension purposes? Is it not patently unfair that such a worker may have worked 199 days in the year and, because he did not have the extra day to make up the required number, loses that year for pensionable purposes? Although years can be added in respect of officers of the council, not even a day can be added in this case. Evidently, from that kind of thinking, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. I appeal to the Minister to remedy the situation. If a concession can be given to one, I see no reason why it cannot be given to the other. No one will suggest that the county council worker is a second-class citizen or inferior to the officials in the office.

I want to support Deputy Hogan in his contention that it is deplorable that bureaucrats in authority, be they county managers or county secretaries, should have the brazen audacity to ignore the representations made by public representatives. Yet that is happening. As chairman of the council concerned. I regret to say there is a dictatorial, offhand attitude on the part of the manager in regard to members of the local authority making representations.Common courtesy demands that we should receive a reply to every representation and there is something fundamentally wrong where no reply is offered. Is it being done just to be cantankerous or discourteous or to conceal something from the public representative and the public at large?

Mr. S. Dunne

Most of them are just too lazy.

Mr. Treacy

It creates an atmosphere of suspicion in the minds of the public representative and the public generally when their legitimate queries and representations made to public officials are not answered promptly. I deplore the instance to which Deputy Hogan referred. He is not the only one involved. I was chairman of the same local authority and I must say that there were hundreds of representations made by me to that authority to which I have not received a reply. I am chairman of that authority and I know I have power under the law to demand evidence, to see documents, to have information furnished to me. I have not as yet exercised that power. I did not think it would be necessary, but that state of affairs has resulted in an element of disunity, distrust and suspicion entering into the minds of my council vis-à-vis the officials, in that they have failed in this primary responsibility to supply information to members. It has resulted in over-weighty and extremely long agenda which the chairman cannot cope with at any one meeting. Clearly where members are refused or unable to get information, they must put down notices of motion. We have agenda to contend with carrying over 100 and sometimes nearly 200 notices of motions at our monthly meetings.

A strike of engineers' clerks occurred in our county some time ago when these men were obliged to walk the streets to insist on fair conditions. That strike need not and should not have occurred if the officials concerned had the courtesy to reply to the union's representations on behalf of the men involved. Surely it is not maintained that it is on grounds of saving revenue or efficiency that they omit to give the information required to members? That kind of effrontery, discourtesy and secretiveness must end, and I ask the Minister to see that it does end.

Somebody may suggest that it was because of a notice of motion passed at a previous council meeting that the decision was reached not to give an acknowledgment to representations where the information could be furnished to the representatives immediately.As far as I am aware, my council never agreed to any abridging of our rights in respect of information. Indeed the contrary is true and there have been very many motions since then demanding that the county manager take the necessary steps to have all representations replied to promptly, verbally or in writing. One does not wish to tax officials unfairly or unnecessarily but we say representations should be replied to within a reasonable time. We do not even specify a week or a fortnight but it is a serious matter that representations made by me have not been answered after six or even 12 months. It sows seeds of suspicion and destroys the democratic system of local government to which we all strive to adhere. It savours of a tendency to set up an autocratic bureaucracy which will do away with all possibility of co-operation between public representatives and management.

I have often wondered what is the reason for this. Is it perhaps an attempt on the part of some partisan officials to make it as difficult as possible for public representatives to carry out their duties? Are officials not going out of their way to retard the work of public representatives? I question the reasons for it. Is it done on genuine grounds or to discriminate deliberately against some who are not of the same political colour as the officials are known to be?

In speaking of the role of the county council and its employees, I must draw to the Minister's attention the precarious situation of temporary clerks or officials of the county council. I know of instances where temporary employees of a local authority carried out extremely important clerical work just the same as the duties carried out by the appointed officials and bore the same responsibility over a lifetime of 20 or 30 years and who were denied any status or sense of security. Allegedly on managerial or ministerial instruction, they are denied 12 months' work in any year. There is a tendency to lay off those people and they are not given more than nine or ten months' work each year.

Is there any justification for that? I want the Minister to tell me what order, regulation or statute ordains that the temporary employee of the local authority must be kicked out of his job for two or three months each year? I know, and I can prove conclusively, that there is abundance of work and that a considerable amount of overtime is being worked by other officials in various departments and yet, perhaps to distinguish the men from the boys, these temporary men are laid off for a number of months. It is deplorable, it is despicable, that that should happen.

These temporary clerks are to my knowledge as intelligent and as well qualified as many of the appointed officers. They work for 30 or 40 years for the local authority. At the end of that time, they are thrown on the unemployment scrapheap, with no prospects other than the old age pension. It is bad enough that they should be discriminated against in that way but it is even worse they should be laid off for a few months in every year. That is unfair. It is unjust. I appeal to the Minister on behalf of these loyal and devoted temporary servants of the local authority to give them the same conditions and the same wages as appointed officers.

I have said that these are without status. That is clearly indicated by the fact that the wage structure of these temporary clerks is related to the lowest possible common denominator. In some cases it is related to the wage of ordinary county council workers. These temporary clerks have the same duties, the same responsibilities, and do the same work as appointed officers. Yet their wages are grossly inferior. They have no pension rights and they are kicked out for a few months every year—for what reason I do not know. I submit it is utterly disgraceful to make such class discrimination.

With regard to the appointment of two rent collectors, I tabled a question yesterday to the Minister expressing my concern about the long delay in his giving his approval to the appointment of these two rent collectors in the Tipperary area. The Minister's reply was vague in the extreme. He merely said that the submission of the South Tipperary County Council was receiving attention and, when a decision had been made, it would be conveyed to the local authority. We are very suspicious of the undue delay involved in approving the appointment of these two rent collectors.

The submission was made to the Minister some time in May. Up to now he has not been able to make up his mind as to what to do. We are bound to ask the reasons why. The Minister has knowledge that the appointment of these two men was a source of great political controversy in South Tipperary, a political controversy which lasted for a very long time. The Minister will have knowledge, too, that pressure is being brought to bear by members of one political Party, the Minister's Party, to have the man who is now carrying out these duties appointed or, if not appointed, kept there indefinitely to the exclusion of the men concerned.

Morally, in equity and in justice, the position is wrong. These posts were included in the terms of appointment accepted by these two men. It is only right and just that these terms should be honoured and these men given that which was enshrined in their terms of appointment to our council. If we destroy that fundamental principle between master and man, worker and employer, where will it lead to? It is very serious that a man should act in a temporary capacity for such a long period. Apparently the Minister cannot make up his mind what to do. We are bringing the matter to his attention again today and asking him, without any further delay, to approve the appointment of these two men. If approval is not given, there will be serious repercussions, not the least being that these men have a very strong case in law. Litigation is most likely. That will prove costly. We have had senior counsel's advice and we know for a fact that these men will be upheld in law. Someone will have to pay.

I appeal to the Minister not to allow himself to be influenced by political pressure in this matter. I appeal to him to do that which is right and appoint these two men to the posts to which they are legitimately entitled. Some sought to discriminate against these two men because of the other positions they occupy, the positions of home assistance officers. Home assistance officer is not an enviable post perhaps; one may incur the disfavour of many people. It is nevertheless shallow, false and grossly unfair that men should be discriminated against because of the positions they hold or because they do have these other jobs. I have always believed in the principle of one man one job but I also believe in the principle of honouring the terms and conditions of appointment, whatever they are, and I will not see that principle compromised for political purposes.

I am concerned with the creation of a board of conciliation and arbitration for servants of local authorities. As Deputy Hogan has said, this is a bone of contention in South Tipperary. I strenuously oppose the idea that the local authority should be asked to subscribe financially to the creation of this board. I occupied the position of chairman of a national board of conciliation and arbitration and I am at present vice-president of the board. I can speak, I think, with reasonable authority as to the manner in which these boards are founded, how they operate, how they are financed, and their purpose generally. I do not know of any joint industrial council which went to the ratepayers for a subscription towards its initiation and maintenance.It was brazen audacity on the part of the County Managers' Association to ask the local authority to come in and finance a board of arbitration for them and some other employees who decided they would join.

I have another basic and fundamental objection to the creation of this kind of board. This kind of board is not representative. It does not purport to represent more than 50 per cent. It is not, therefore, representative.Many of the categories involved, such as engineers, members of the medical profession, and others, have to a very large extent opted out; they will have no hand, act or part in it because of its present set-up. That is their own business, but I do not want to see a small clique, or a junta, impose their will upon the other servants of local authorities. I do not want to see a junta of 30 county managers created for that purpose.

Moreover, the fundamental right to strike, which is enshrined in our Constitution, is, in my opinion, denied to the categories of persons under this joint board of conciliation and arbitration for county council servants. The right to go to the Labour Court is, I feel, also denied to these people. They are confined to an autocratic junta which seems to be dominated in the main by the County Managers' Association. I do not think that kind of set-up can mete out justice to the employees concerned. Indeed, I am convinced in that regard that the joint board has got off to a very bad start by reason of the fact that one of its first acts has been to discriminate against the women in the service.

Up to now the female staff officers attached to county councils enjoyed the same status and salary scales as the male staffs. A precedent has been created by this board in that they have now made a recommendation on salary scales and the offer to the women is less than that to the men. For the first time, women in the local government service have lost their status, have lost the equality they enjoyed with the men. That is a disgraceful situation and I hope that the board which discriminates against women to that extent and which seeks to deny them that which the trade union movement has agitated for at all times—equal pay for equal work, and equality between the sexes—and which seeks to override that at a time when there was, in fact, equality, does not deserve to flourish.

I am extremely pleased, therefore, that I opposed the establishment of such a board and I will continue to do so until such time as I am satisfied that it is so organised and constituted as to give fair play to all categories of persons in the local authority service.At present it does not do that. It is the negation of equality and representation and seeks to set up this very dangerous and distasteful precedent of denying women the status and equality they enjoyed heretofore.

I want to add my voice in support of the Minister in respect of all he is doing to make our roads safe. Anything the Minister can do in respect of road safety will receive the support and the plaudits of every member in this House. His ideas for implementing speed limits, driving tests, proper lighting and equipping of vehicles, and all these things, are very laudable and indeed long overdue. It is, at the same time, alarming that despite all these attempts by the Minister and his colleague in the Department of Justice to restrain irresponsible drivers of vehicles, the death rate on the roads is still rising and has increased in recent months. It should be brought home to those people in charge of vehicles, be they lorries or cars especially, that they operate a lethal weapon, a weapon which can and does too often destroy human life. Accordingly, when such irresponsibility, especially in the form of drunkenness, is brought to our courts, it should be dealt with in a very severe manner. We extend to the Minister our best wishes and give him an assurance of all the assistance we can render in grappling with this sad situation of slaughter on our roads.

One of the contributory factors to the increase in injuries and deaths on our roads has been the confusion which exists for some months past about the legality of the "Stop" signs. It is to be greatly deplored that the Ministers concerned did not ascertain and prove conclusively the legality of this "Stop" sign. It was revealed quite recently that it did not, in fact, have any legal basis. The result has been, according to a reply by the Minister for Justice to a question some time ago, that since the "Stop" sign has been invalidated from the legal point of view, many irresponsible users of our roads are now showing a complete and utter disregard for such signs and, in fact, crashing through them—that is quite evident—thereby creating a very grave danger for people in the area.

It is of vital importance that the confusion which now exists with regard to these signs be cleared up. If the Minister intends to have them removed, what kind of sign is to replace them? Would he regard it as of extreme urgency that this be done at the earliest possible opportunity? The flagrant disregard of such signs at present constitutes a greater hazard on the roads than ever before. I do not know what it would cost to replace it by a more suitable sign, such as "Extreme caution" or "Yield right-of-way". At all events, the Minister has probably made up his mind on that matter by now. Whatever the substitute sign is to be, let it be erected very soon.

The fact that no adequate safeguards were taken to ascertain the legality of the "Stop" sign in the first instance is going to prove a very costly matter for the public and the ratepayers. I think it is fair to ask what it cost to design, manufacture and erect the countless thousands of such signs throughout our country, and what it will cost to remove them and replace them by a more suitable sign. I am not concerned about the cost to that extent, but I am vitally concerned to see them replaced by a sign which has a legal basis and which will restrain those irresponsibles who are now treating them with contempt, thereby endangering the lives of others.

I wish to avail of this opportunity to advert to grants as administered by the Minister's Department. I join with the Minister in deploring the fact that so many local authorities find it difficult, for one reason or another, to pay grants, whether they be new housing grants or repair grants. I appreciate the difficulty, with limited financial resources, of the small urban councils in paying grants £1 for £1, with what grants are made available by the Minister. At the same time, it is a grievous disservice to the citizens in these urban and some borough areas that some form of grant is not paid to those people who repair their houses or build new houses. Some local authorities are extremely generous in this regard and for a long number of years, without any admonition from the Minister, out of the money allocated by him, the borough corporation, which I represent, has been paying repair grants to all applicants, £1 for £1, with what the Department has paid. We have been paying pro rata for house repair grants for a long number of years.

We believe that is a good policy. In the first instance, by assisting our people to keep their houses in adequate repair, we are not merely helping them to have a more confortable home but we are, to a very large extent, obviating the real possibility of having to rehouse these people in later years, if the repairs are allowed to go by default. We are thereby helping ourselves. In that regard we are assisting—and every local authority is doing the same—in improving the appearance of our streets and our towns by making it possible for people to avail of such grants for the repair, maintenance and improvement of their property. Many of our towns would present a far more sorry picture in unsightliness, ugliness and derelict sites, were it not for these grants.

Every possible enticement and encouragement should be given to the local authorities, who, up to now, are not paying grants, to encourage them to do so. It is not good enough that some local authorities pay £1 for £1 while other authorities apply a means test on the basis of income or rateable valuation and urban authorities just pay no grant at all. They ignore altogether the fundamental principle involved in grants for repair and improvement and grants for new house building. If it is true to say that the revenue of local authorities is so small as to make it impossible for them to provide money for grants of this kind, then I would ask the Minister to see what he can do by way of making extra grants in these instances or by way of reimbursement or assisting these poor local authorities in respect of any moneys they may make available for this very laudable purpose.

This time 12 months, in my remarks on the Estimate, I brought to the Minister's attention an anomaly which exists in respect of recent legislation concerning grants. I refer to the Loans and Grants Act passed here some 12 months ago. The Minister, in respect of this Act, which has to do with supplementary grants for the erection of new houses, fixed an income of £832. In other words, he would not make a grant available to an applicant towards the erection of his new house, if the income of the applicant, together with that of his wife, exceeded £832. I said at that time, and I repeat it here again today, that that income ceiling is much too low. Having regard, first of all, to the fall in the value of money and to the fact that the skilled industrial worker, tradesman and artisan nowadays has an income of more than £832 a year why fix such a low ceiling? It precludes a number of people from building new homes. The kind of means test which the Minister stipulates is rather niggardly.

Moreover, the Minister did very many local authorities a great disservice in deciding on such a figure. He ought to have taken the precaution of consulting the local authorities and ascertaining what kind of test they applied before putting this figure on the Statute Book. If he did, he would have found out that the borough corporation which I represent, Clonmel Corporation, were in fact making available loans for new house building— and were proud of it—to people, whose incomes did not exceed £1,000, many years ago. It can clearly be seen then that the Minister in this Act, worsened, out of all proportion, the facilities which some urban councils and corporations were making available to the public. It has caused a lot of annoyance, first of all, in that down the years people with an income up to £1,000 have got the grants and have built their homes but now, despite the fall in the value of money, we are precluded from giving these grants to people with more than £832 a year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Might I point out to the Deputy if this change would require the revision of legislation, it is not in order to discuss it on the Estimate.

Mr. Treacy

I do not know if the legislation requires revision. I was about to ask if the Minister agrees with me that the ceiling in question is rather low, especially where local authorities were giving grants in respect of the higher figure and if he would indicate by way of circular to these local authorities that they are still permitted to make grants available up to the higher figure where family circumstances allow it. I would appreciate in respect of my own local authority if the Minister could convey to them that, despite anything to the contrary in the Act, they have power to make grants available for new house building on the basis of the old means test or any new means test. I feel it is no skin off the Minister's nose if a local authority decides to be generous with its own money. I do not see any reason why the Minister should object, if we decide of our own volition, to pay out of the ratepayers' money by way of grants of this kind at the higher rate. I would appeal to the Minister not to raise any objection to it.

The complaints in respect of delay in the payment of house repair grants still come to the notice of public representatives, but, I am pleased to say, not so much as in past years. There appears to have been an improvement in the whole question of inspection, estimation and approval for the purpose of paying grants in respect of repairs, but there are still a number of difficulties to which I should like to advert. The Departmental engineers and officials concerned with the examination and inspection of houses for repairs are perhaps too stringent in their requirements. Indeed, many of them are very exacting in laying down the type of repairs they require to be carried out. I know of instances where tenants with positive ideas of the type of improvements they need to their houses have been unable to carry them out. A tenant may want an additional room or the provision of a toilet with running water. In a particular instance, a tenant required a porch as a protection against the weather but when the Departmental official came along, he required that the house should have overall repairs and presented the applicant for the grant with a bill of costs out of all proportion to his requirements.

I appreciate the necessity for the Department to ensure that when a grant is being paid, the house will be left in a good habitable state of repair, but where the tenant expresses a desire to have a certain type of repair carried out, I would ask the Minister to prevail on the engineers to meet the tenants' wishes, if at all possible. Many people have failed to secure grants because of the requirements of the Department's engineers. Specifications laid down in many instances presented impossible problems for the tenants concerned.

I remember a Departmental stipulation that a dormer window be included in the gable end of a house. There were, however, objections by the next-door neighbour and the applicant was involved in litigation and prevented by law from putting in the dormer window in accordance with the stipulation of the engineer. The Department insisted that the window go in or the grant would not be paid and I do not think the grant was ever paid in that case.

In another case, a difficulty arose over an applicant's inability to gain access to a yard adjoining his property for the purpose of roughcasting the gable of his house. Again, there was an objection by the adjoining owner who placed a large amount of material against the gable, making it impossible for the applicant to get near it or carry out the work stipulated by the Department.Because the gable was not repaired according to the specification, a grant was not paid, though all the other repairs were done at a cost of a considerable amount of money to the applicant.

In exceptional cases of that kind, I think there should be some understanding between the Minister's officials and the people concerned. Many people get into difficulties through lack of understanding of the Department's requirements.They proceed with the repairs and when the job is virtually a fait accompli, they call on the Department's engineers who sometimes condemn the work, perhaps because a ceiling is not the required height or perhaps because the entrance to the bathroom or the toilet is via a livingroom such as a kitchen. I know that is perhaps a mortal sin in the eyes of the engineers, but I submit that where the work has been completed at very great cost to the applicant, the engineers should make allowances. Perhaps the cases I have mentioned are exceptions, but as I have said they occur quite frequently.

I should like to deal briefly with the question of accelerating the provision of piped water supplies and sewerage facilities. I have been a great enthusiast for the extension of such worthwhile amenities and am proud of the progress we have made in my county in that respect. There, we have embarked on a scheme of piped water which will cost something like £4 million and we shall not stop until every farm, every cottage, every home in that county is provided with piped water, with the exception, of course, of those areas to which it is impossible to extend piped water supplies.

In such areas we hope to embark on group schemes. I submit that these group schemes should be restricted to areas where piped water can never be made available and the Minister should see to it that where local authorities have positive plans for piped water supplies, they should not be allowed to proceed with group schemes for those areas because that has caused a lot of annoyance and frustration from time to time. It is frustrating to find demands for group schemes in areas in respect of which the local authority had plans, some of them in the final stages of preparation and implementation, for piped water supplies.That type of overlapping should be avoided.

We are concerned also about delays in implementing planned sewerage facilities. Water supplies and sewerage systems are twins and I would urge that as soon as possible after an area has been supplied with piped water, a sewerage system should be provided. We know there are difficulties in the way; we know that tenants will be required to indicate whether they are prepared to accept the water supplies and the sewerage system and to pay whatever the costs may be, but the two schemes should be synchronised as far as possible.

I should like to refer again to problems in regard to vested cottages in many countries. I have already adverted to the problem of vesting generally and have deplored the fact that there is an element of compulsion, that many people are unwilling owners of vested cottages, who vest only because of the provision in respect of repairs. If a person vests he can get the repairs done; if he does not vest, there may be interminable delays. The result is that many people are unwilling owners of these cottages, many of which are locked up, the people having gone away, some of them to England.

I do not suggest that the houses should be taken from such people. I presume their absence in England is of a temporary nature, that they may be able to return later, find suitable remunerative and secure employment and re-occupy the cottage, but the problem is there of vested cottages being locked up and falling into disrepair. There is the still more deplorable situation of these houses appearing daily in auctioneers' advertisements, being offered for sale, and in most instances it is not the type of people for whom these houses were built who secure them. It is not the working classes to whom they are sold at exorbitant prices; it is professional people and large farmers who secure them. It is the height of folly, that local authorities should build houses at great cost and then allow them to fall into the hands of people for whom they were never intended. I would ask the Minister to have regard to this.

My primary purpose in speaking to-day was to draw the attention of the Minister to the sad and sorry state of affairs in respect of housing in South Tipperary. What I have said has not been said with any ulterior motive, in any seeking for notoriety or for political purposes but as one who is genuinely anxious to see our people rehoused and to overcome the formidable difficulties with which our local authorities are confronted. If private enterprise cannot assist in the building of houses, if the local authorities refuse to accept the responsibility of building them by direct labour, then the Minister must intervene and set up the machinery to provide the houses in the shortest possible time.

It is not good enough that so many people should be left in such awful conditions for a quarter of their lifetimes without hope of a home. The number of houses our council have scheduled for erection is only a fraction of the number required. There is something fundamentally wrong in the system we are trying to operate. I am condemning that system and I am asking the Minister to indicate whether he has a solution to the problem. I would ask him to have an investigation into the clear dereliction of duty on the part of the South Tipperary officials in failing to provide houses.

Mr. Corry

May I express my pleasure at seeing the Dáil get down to work again? Deputies have a job to do for the next three or four years and they should do it. It is a pity the Minister was not present for all of Deputy Treacy's speech for if one-third of the allegations made by him about his local authority are true, it is the Minister's duty to abolish that body forthwith.

Of course Deputy Treacy is an ambitious young man. I like to see ambitious young men, provided they straighten out some time, but when he comes along here and shows such a lamentable lack of knowledge of the powers of local authorities and of the elected representatives, I feel pity for the local authority of which he is chairman. I suggest that he drop down to his own Party Room and go to school to Deputy Desmond, or Deputy McAuliffe, or Deputy M.P. Murphy.

Any one of these Deputies would save us from the lamentable tale of woe we heard from him today. I like to be reasonable but when a Deputy comes in here and says he is chairman of a local authority and does not know the powers of that local authority about managers, all I can do is tell him to drop down to Deputy Desmond who will only be too happy to give him the necessary tips.

Mr. Treacy

It is not to the like of you I would go.

Mr. Corry

Before the Deputy comes into this House, he should learn his job. He told us that there are from 100 to 200 items on the agenda of his council, the council of which he is chairman. Do they meet every day of the week and work overtime at night to get through it?

I would like to deal with the position of housing in Cork and to say to the Minister that if an official is not doing his job, he should get rid of him. Last December, a sworn inquiry was held in South Cork in connection with the erection of 24 houses in Carrigtwohill. These houses were wanted and we are now coming to the November following the holding of that inquiry and we have not yet found out what was the decision of the gentleman who held it. If I were in the Minister's boots, I would wear the toe of my shoe on that gentleman going out of the Custom House door. An official is there to do his job and if he does not do it, he should go out just as the people over there will go out when the people get at them if they do not do their jobs.

It is three or four years from the day on which a council decides to get local Government sanction for the building of 15 or 20 houses to the time these houses are built for the people who want them. It is not for their sons or daughters they want them. They want them for themselves and the sooner the officials of the Department learn that, the better it will be for everyone.

Then, there is the question of the powers of the managers. Some time ago, the Department washed their hands of some of that power in connection with the sanctioning of grants to individuals who were entitled to get houses from local authorities. Having done that, I would suggest to the Department that they keep their noses out of the whole business. Having handed that power to the managers, let them leave it to the managers and not come along now and say that such and such a person is not entitled to the full subsidy. Down comes a letter from the Department and the whole business is held up. They should either do the thing themselves or leave it alone and not be turning the manager into some kind of rat who is afraid to do anything for fear of the big stick from the Department. Let us get down to the job. We shall be here for the next three or four years and the officials concerned would need to do the job or I shall keep belting them here until they do it.

There is a regulation preventing the tenant of a local authority house allowing a married son or daughter to live in the house. If a married son or daughter lives with the parents in a local authority house and afterwards applies for a house, the conditions in regard to subsidy are such that no local authority can build a house for them. I ask the Minister where should these people go. There is a regulation that no local authority can give a house to a single man. Thanks be to God, as a result of the development in the country at the moment, there are plenty of young men in decent employment who want to get married and rear families, and who must be housed. If a boy gets married in the morning, where is he to take his wife? Is it out under a bush? According to the Department of Local Government, that is the only place he can take her.

When a house is condemned and the tenant is moved out of it into a local authority house, the old dwelling must be demolished. Nobody else can go into it; it is not available for the young fellow. The young married man cannot go in with the father or mother or, if he does, he will never get a house out of it. We all know what people-in-law are. Living with in-laws is not a very happy situation. Surely, there should be some regulation in regard to that matter? If the father and mother are decent enough to allow the married son or daughter to live in the house, the young married couple should not be penalised in the matter of getting a house afterwards.

There will be a by-election soon in Cork. I suggest to the Minister that after six or seven years, it is time he let us country boys know the compensation we are to get for the last extension of the borough boundary in Cork. We want the cash for ourselves, not for our grandchildren. It is seven years since that borough boundary was extended. It is seven years since there was a disagreement and the Minister's Department were to say the amount of money we were to get for the rates we were losing. I have asked about 15 questions here about it and have not got an answer yet. That decision should have been made before any further extension of the borough boundaries in Cork was proposed. Perhaps tomorrow or the next day some Pooh-Bah out of the Department of Local Government will say that it is a case of our owing money for having the area taken off our hands. I would not be at all surprised.

On a previous occasion, I drew attention to the anomalies that exist in respect of the purchase of local authority houses. When the Fianna Fáil Government came into office in 1932, one of the first things they decided was that the worker would be as free and should have the same rights in regard to his own house as the farmer had in regard to his farm. For that reason, legislation was passed giving power to the ordinary labourer to become the owner of his house. I have come across most extraordinary anomalies in respect of purchase schemes, for instance, in the town of Cobh.

The county council had to step in and carry out a lot of building just on the borough boundary of Cobh because the bulk of employment in Cobh is on the island of Haulbowline which is in the rural area and workers in Haulbowline are entitled to be housed, not by the urban authority, but by the county council. For that reason, starting in 1947, we had succeeded in building some 180 houses outside the borough boundary of Cobh. The road represents the urban boundary. The county council built houses on one side of the road; the urban council built houses on the other side.

There were two groups of houses built in the same year, opened on the same day by the Minister for Agriculture who was then Minister for Local Government. The houses were identical. The rents were the same. There is a purchase scheme in operation for both groups of houses which cater for the same class of tenant. The tenants may be working side by side on the same job. Under the county council purchase scheme, a man paying 11/- a week, on purchase of his house had the weekly payment reduced to 9/-. On the other side of the road, under the urban council, if a man wants to purchase, he can do so but his 11/- a week rent goes up to 32/6d. Not alone is it good socially that a man should own his own house but it is good for the local authority concerned inasmuch as they have not to carry the burden of maintenance, which can be a very heavy item, especially for a small local authority.

One lot was built under the Labourers Act and the other lot under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. Under the Labourers Act, a subsidy continues on the houses after purchase.Under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, that subsidy ceases. If all the houses that are the property of the Cobh urban council were purchased, the State would not be paying the £1,800 a year it is at present paying in subsidy for those houses. That is the difference. Surely the Minister's Department is not so busy altogether. I hear they are bringing in new legislation. I shall look for something in the new legislation to deal with that matter. That is one of the things we set out to do when we came in here first. I remember I gave evidence before the commission of inquiry set up to consider the ways and means by which the ordinary labourer in the country became the owner of his own house. It is time the Government brought in legislation to remedy that defect.

There is a bigger problem still. If the Department of Local Government are lunatics enough—and they are capable of anything—to extend further the borough boundary in Cork, according to the proposals sent in by the Cork Corporation, there are 700 odd tenants living outside that boundary who will be placed in the unenviable position that, on the day they become Corporation tenants, if they want to purchase their houses, the rents will go up from 11/- to 32/6d. and if those tenants are to be placed in as good a position by the Cork Corporation when they take them over, then it will cost the citizens of Cork 11d. extra on their rates to pay the difference in the rents for those tenants.

Those are the difficulties we are meeting day by day. Now that it is definite we are to be here for our full term, I suggest the Minister should get to work and clear up these things. I think Deputies opposite are satisfied. They are sadder and wiser than they were yesterday morning. However, we have six more jokers to pull out of the bag before we will ask them to pull straws to know which of them will be missing to keep the Government in office.

Mr. Jones

I am glad the Deputy recognises they are jokers.

Mr. Corry

They should settle down and do something for the people who sent them here. From about halfpast six yesterday evening——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not interested in that. The Deputy should deal with the Estimate before the House.

Mr. Corry

It would have been great to have a camera to record the smiles on their faces when they knew they were safe.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will deal with the Estimate.

Mr. Corry

I merely wish to ask the Minister to deal as quickly as possible with the matter to which I have referred.

Mr. Clinton

At this stage when so much has been said and contradicted about local government affairs and after the strange happenings of yesterday, when the Government's life and the people's agony have been prolonged by two fresh turnovers, I suppose one might be forgiven for feeling a little frustrated. However, my recollection of the Minister's speech in introducing the token Estimate for his Department is that he went straight in to deal with housing and devoted the major portion of his speech to this important problem. If this indicates the Minister's order of priority in dealing with Local Government matters we in County Dublin will certainly find ourselves in wholehearted agreement with it.

It is a great pity that the sudden interest and enthusiasm which are now evident were absent for the greater part of the past six or seven years. I know the facts about this because I have been a member of the Dublin County Council for the past eight or nine years and I know that, when the Government came back to power in 1957 every county manager and every Government official in this country was just told to go slow. The Minister in the course of his speech referred to the most recent Programme for Economic Expansion in relation to its future demands on local authority services.I think he could have appropriately referred also to the first Programme for Economic Expansion wherein it was specifically stated that it was not sufficient for investment to be necessary, that it must be productive as well. The Government when they came back in 1957 decided that the building of local authority houses was not productive investment and I hold that because of their influence and intimidation all the housing officers in the local authority had to determine that they would do nothing.

I have always found the county managers and responsible officials in the local authority to be good sound civil servants. If the Minister wants something done they will do it. If he does not want something done they will do everything in their power to meet with his wishes. It is all very fine to blame the county councils. A good deal of confusion has been created between the anxiety of the members to get on with the job and the performance of the officials and the various other frustrations that come from the Department holding up schemes. Without going into detail about our experience, I can say that I know no member of the Dublin County Council who was not extremely anxious to provide for the housing needs of our people. That goes for all Parties in the House. The Minister's representatives on the council did not spearhead this but at all times they supported it. It has taken us over eight years to get sanction from the Department of Local Government for the building of certain rural houses in north County Dublin and in the time that has elapsed, the cost of providing those houses has almost doubled. That is the contribution the Department of Local Government have made to our effort.

There was no question that I ever heard of at any time that money was not available. Our credit in Dublin County Council was always good and the Minister or his officials never wrote to the county council to my knowledge to say that money was not available but they did everything else. The first thing they required was that a survey should be made of the urgent housing needs in a particular area. The county medical officer in a very safe and conservative way assessed the needs. I can give the Minister examples of how he subsequently sent out his assessors and the needs as indicated by our doctor were cut in half. A couple of years later, we had to struggle on to build the remainder and there is still a need for houses.

I cannot see that this interference and this obstruction was due to anything other than a wish on the part of the Government and the Minister not to provide the people with the necessary houses. The change has come only under the pressure of public opinion and unfortunately as a result of several tragedies. The possibility of a general election might have had something to do with the speed at which certain housing announcements were made recently. I hope the interest and enthusiasm now apparent will not lapse and that we will not find ourselves again in the position in which we have been for the past six or seven years. I believe that if the Minister were interested, and if he frequently inquired as to what was happening, what were our requirements and how we were meeting those requirements, we would get a response that otherwise the members of the council will never be able to get.

Following the establishment of the need, we go out and look for sites. We have certain difficulties, as every area has, but there are sites available. We experience difficulties and delays in regard to compulsory purchase, delays which I think could be overcome by the Minister. It is ridiculous that compulsory purchase should take two or three years. It is a Minister's responsibility.When we get sites, the experience has been that the sites are turned down by the Department for all sorts of frivolous reasons. These sites have been examined from the various points of view by the responsible people in the county council, with all the local knowledge they have. When somebody comes from the Department, he feels that it is his responsibility, and almost his duty, to find fault and turn down sites.

Having got a site sanctioned, we start to prepare plans and working drawings and specifications and it is here, in my opinion, that the Department have really "gone to town". Over all those years, we could not produce a plan that was not too good or too expensive. Eventually when our excellent, but I would say, innocent, architect thought he had reached an all-time low in housing quality and design, we got a communication from the Department to examine a house which some crackpot architect had designed in Ringaskiddy costing in the region of £800. This house had a corrugated asbestos roof; it was not plastered and as far as I can recollect, there were concrete floors in the bedrooms.That was the Department's idea of what was good enough for the people at a time when we are talking about progress and economic expansion.Naturally we drew the line at this and we refused to build that sort of house. I think we were right to refuse.

Having indicated the various matters which have held up the provision of houses and which were entirely outside the control of the elected representatives of the council, naturally I will be expected to say how this situation could be improved. There are at the moment certain areas which are recognised as problem areas from the point of view of housing. I fail to see why officials in the Department who are there to criticise and find fault with the plans and efforts of the local authorities are not seconded to these problem areas to work with and not against the officials of the county council who are endeavouring to prepare plans and decide on sites and designs. They can find fault as a job is being done.

This idea of one Department being there to knock down the plans of another will never achieve anything. These officials could move around and visit the various local authorities and watch the progress and not wait until things are finalised to find fault and perhaps cause delay of months or years while all the time costs are rising. Because of unnecessary delays and a close-down on housing, at least 50 per cent of our skilled workers left the country and, in my view, they have no intention of returning because they have no faith even now in the Government's building programme.

I should like to refer to a speech made by the Minister some three weeks ago. He was referring to cottages and applications for cottages and he said that the future basis of eligibility for local authority houses will be need. He expanded that later on. If he had stopped there, I would agree 100 per cent with him, but he went on to say that in future vocation would not come into the picture. I want to say as a member of a local authority in County Dublin that vocation never really got a weighted preference and that that does not indicate any new departure in allocating houses. I said that we agreed with the Minister on his order of priority but we still disagree with certain aspects of his policy.

Deputy Corry referred to the problems of sub-tenants, or illegal tenants, as they are described. In County Dublin, we have over 300 such tenants. We have over 300 such tenants because we fail to provide housing accommodation for them when they badly need it. The Minister still holds that we have pressed him, time and again, that these people are criminals: that they are outlaws and not to be considered as a housing problem of the local authority. So long as he persists in this attitude, I do not believe he is trying to get the housing problem in County Dublin solved. If he wants to get it solved, he will say: "Provide houses for those needing houses. Let need be the basis. No matter where a man finds himself badly in need of housing, that man should be housed."

The difficulties that members have in county councils arise in various ways. We have no authority as members to direct the manager to employ certain staff. We have no authority to direct the manager that certain staff be paid certain salaries. If the salaries are inadequate, we may get staff temporarily but they will not stay with us, and I believe that has been happening.

If the manager himself, for his own reasons, refuses to employ this staff, I think the Minister should step in and say: "This job must be done. We want the people housed and you have the responsibility", I believe we would get the houses built in that way.

I put in a supplementary the other day to a question about the building of houses on plots of vested tenants. I know the Minister has indicated that such houses could be built. This is the sort of thing we meet with. This is from the Law Agent of the Dublin County Council:

The Minister's power of suspending for a time the operation of the statutory conditions relating to vested cottages is expressly confined to the statutory conditions as to user. Statutory conditions as to user are set out in Section 17 (2)... The proposal to build a second cottage on the vested cottage plot appears to me to involve a breach of the statutory conditions as to sub-division set out in Section... The Minister has no power to dispense from the operation of that condition.

That is the information of our Law Agent.

When we drew the attention of the manager to the fact that the Minister had stated this was in order, the manager insisted that we could not compel him to commit an illegal act. It may be said that the Minister indicated more or less that we could do it. We have brought in a section before and it is possible that that may do it. But that is all a very unpleasant business. The members of a county council do not like doing that sort of thing. They will do it and do it again but if the Minister used his undoubted influence with the county managers this sort of situation would not arise. It is not for one or two that we need houses and, therefore, it is not a serious situation with us because we need 1,000 at present.

Deputy Dunne's solution to that is to abolish the county council and the corporation. That sort of thing gets the headlines but I do not think it gets anything else done. I was glad to see at least that he paid the tribute to the city and county manager that he is one of the best men the country has ever had to build houses. I believe that if the influence were there still, he would build the houses. But certainly the abolition of the county council or the corporation will not lead to anything.

The point, I think, that Deputy Dunne seemed to me to make was that so long as he was a member of these bodies first-class work was done but the minute he left everybody fell asleep: some extraordinary change came over them and they were no longer effective and could no longer be effective. He now wants to set up a regional board to deal with the urgent housing needs of the area. I do not think that will achieve anything. In fact, far from having this regional set-up, I think we could have in the county a separate county manager and that there should be a separate city manager. The present position is that the man who is acting county manager has to look three ways before he can make any decision. He has to look first to the City Hall, then to the Minister and then back home. It is an inefficient and ineffective way and the sooner we change it the better. Having regard to the growing demands for the local authority services, I think there is more than a job and more than sufficient responsibility in County Dublin for any manager no matter how good his capacity.

Another thing that I think is wrong and that impedes progress is the position of the professional people and the relationship with the administrative people in local authorities. I do not think professional people employed by local authorities get nearly sufficient recognition. One would think they were writing to each other in different countries. The county engineer writes to the county manager or the county secretary and he writes back, and so on. There are files. It makes work but it does not make progress. I think that that is something that certainly should be looked into.

From time to time, we have had a lot of exhortation from other Government Departments about bringing in efficiency experts. I think there is quite a scope for such efficiency experts, if it is possible to get experts experienced in local authority administration. There must be a fantastic amount of nonsensical overlapping and records so that nobody can ever be said to have said or done anything that he cannot contradict or for which he cannot produce documentary evidence.

I want to emphasise again that we have in County Dublin this problem: about 1,000 houses are needed. We have been pressing the county manager very hard to provide us with a programme to meet these needs within what we consider is a reasonable period. We thought that three years should be a reasonable period in view of the fact that we have quite a number of sites secured or on the way to being secured at the moment. But he protests very strongly that that is much too short a time. Some of these people are long-suffering.

In my memory, there are people who have been waiting for a house eight and nine years and still have not been provided with one. I think the Minister is still wrong in insisting on that in a rural area where it is impossible and perhaps too expensive to provide laid-on water and sewerage facilities. He should allow the house to be built now and follow it up later on, and as soon as the opportunity presents itself, by providing these people with the services. The main thing is that there is a roof over their heads.

Various derogatory remarks were made about the provision as an emergency measure of caravans for these people who find themselves on the roadside. I disagree with that sort of sentiment. It is always necessary to have limited emergency accommodation available. We all know what the caravans we see on the roads to-day are like. They can make excellent emergency accommodation—comfortable, happy homes. We have only to compare them with the type of night shelter accommodation that has been available in Dublin. There was nothing more unchristian than the type of night shelter accommodation we have had. I have seen families with children of tender age being put out on the roadside at 9.30 in the morning and left there until 6 p.m. It was a miracle no serious accident occurred, and I was indeed even pleased to hear that the gable end had fallen out of the Mendicity Institute last week. I was glad to hear that that sort of accommodation was gone forever.

In view of Deputy Dunne's criticism I should like to give the position in regard to County Dublin at present. The members of the council want greater speed in the provision of houses and we believe that greater speed is possible. We have a new county engineer and I hope progress is being made at a rate not achieved for some time. Tenders have been accepted for 132 cottages. That is what we were informed in a report. Sites have been or are in course of being acquired for 537 houses. We have 1,006 applicants, 429 of whom are in unfit or overcrowded conditions. Then we have over 300 whom the Minister has outlawed. I would appeal to the Minister to look at this again in a common-sense way and regard these people as human beings in need of houses. He said that in future need would be the yardstick. I hope he meant what he said. Unfortunately, he qualified that very much later on in his speech.

I was pleased to see that the Minister appears anxious that serviced sites be made available to people who wish to build their own houses. I come across many cases of young men, perhaps with good jobs in industry, and intending to get married who cannot get a local authority house. Such a man sees a bare prospect of being able to build his own house. But because he is looking for only one site, it will cost him the earth. No landowner wants to break up a field for one site. If an effort were made to buy a whole field and provide sites for a number of houses many more people would build their own houses. I often feel sorry for these people when I see the way they are exploited. They are exploited in the cost of sites, by certain builders profiteering and by the very poor quality of some of the SDA houses being erected at present. It is a sad reflection that this sort of profiteering is allowed to continue. Many people in SDA houses have called me in to look at defects and have asked me if I could do anything to have the grant stopped until the contractor came to some sense of his responsibility and put these defects right. These people are entitled to anything we can give them, and I am glad to see that the Minister appears anxious to help them.

I wish to pass now to roads. I regret very much the Minister's decision in the present year to cut the grant for county roads in County Dublin by over £40,000. The result is that no member of the county council can go to a meeting and say: "Here is a dangerous bend on a county road that should be attended to" because the answer is: "You know the reduction that has taken place in the county road grant. You cannot get any important work done on county roads". That reduction should be returned to us as soon as possible. The decision to reduce the grant was wrong and should never have been made.

It is all wrong to penalise a county for having brought their roads up to standard and having the major portion of them what are called dust-free roads. It is because we have dust-free roads that this decision appears to have been made. I do not think they will be dust-free for long if the Minister persists in withholding such a substantial portion of the grant. An enormous amount of work requires to be done on main road development in County Dublin. It has imposed an enormous strain on the engineering services. Our position in relation to the engineering staff has not been particularly happy over the past eight or nine years. We have county engineers coming and going. I have always felt that the staff should have been considerably augmented to deal with that problem. Staffing is a manager's problem, but I feel a separate staff should have been brought in to deal with these main arteries because they are a national requirement. The roads in County Dublin are more than sufficient for the people of County Dublin, but the nation requires these main arteries north, south, east and west. Therefore, they should be the responsibility of the State and not of the local authority. It is all right to say that a 100 per cent grant is payable for the provision of these roads, but three times the normal surface of a road has to be maintained. That imposes an extra strain on the local authority.

The Minister said he was advancing towards the position where roads could be classified. This is something I raised when I first came into the House two years ago. I hold very strongly that a very much greater proportion of the mileage of the roads of County Dublin are entitled to be classified as main roads and so qualify for the main road maintenance grant. The sooner that is done, the better. We should not wait until all the roads in the country are classified before classifying any of them. That is merely a delaying tactic. A start must be made somewhere. Obvious areas carry the heavy traffic of the country and they are entitled to first consideration. I should like to hear the Minister say what sort of yardstick he intends to use, on what traffic densities he will base it and what will guide him in his decision as to what are main roads and what are county roads in the future.

A great deal of expense is caused in every county, but I think mainly in the counties verging on Dublin city, because we have allowed on to the roads lorries capable of carrying enormous loads. They are simply pulverising the roads which were never made for such loads, loads which should have been kept on the railways until the roads were brought up to an adequate quality and standard. I see them all over County Dublin in the summer and sometimes in winter carrying such fantastic weights that they pulverise the roads and there is little opportunity of putting them right because of the continuous traffic on all our roads at present.

Every member of the House regrets the enormous number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, occurring on our roads and we should all be extremely anxious to do everything possible to obviate this slaughter. I was extremely disappointed during the year when I made one or two requests to the Minister to have a speed limit imposed where the people badly needed it and the Minister refused and assumed responsibility for not allowing a speed limit. That is a fantastic thing for a Minister to do. He says there is full consultation with the local authority committee at all times. I question that. I raised the case of Castleknock and explained why they should have a speed limit because there you have two schools on either side of a busy, narrow road. The school boundaries are not solid and children can dash through them at any time and we have quite a history of accidents. I know, because I inquired, that the local Garda were never consulted as to what was the position on this stretch of road. Yet, we are told there is adequate consultation.

Surely this responsibility should not lie with somebody from the Department going out to an area and meeting some official of the county council. Surely the local authority engineering staff should be able to say where there is a danger and their opinion should be accepted and the Minister should not have to wait until the end of the year, until he has an accident history and substantial evidence to indicate that a speed limit should or should not be imposed, increased or decreased. That responsibility could well be borne at local authority level in conjunction with the local Garda.

In the case of Palmerstown, which is a main artery to the west, there is a 40 m.p.h. speed limit but we have other areas where there is a 30 m.p.h. limit with not a fraction of the traffic in Palmerstown, so that somebody must be wrong. When these matters are brought to the Minister's attention, they should be attended to. Part of this traffic danger is school children. I cannot see why the protection of school children should be the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government: it would be quite normal to have that responsibility transferred to the Minister for Justice. It is a normal traffic hazard and local authorities have been put to the expense of dealing with it and yet we are not allowed to decide where a pedestrian crossing should exist. We must wait until the Garda, through the Department of Justice, tell us that a crossing may or may not be provided. This is something the Minister may well discuss with the Minister for Justice and make it one responsibility and not a joint responsibility.Traffic problems should not be subdivided.

I have always felt that recreation centres and playing fields are nearly as much a priority matter as housing. It is dreadful to build housing schemes throughout the country with no recreation facilities for children because that is the start of vandalism. Greater effort and enthusiasm should go into the provision of recreation centres in built-up areas. While housing needs are as acute as they are, I am not terribly anxious about promoting swimming pools because talk about swimming pools and things like that, which to some extent are regarded as luxuries, certainly by people living in night shelters and badly in need of houses, distracts attention from the main problem, which is housing.

We have the enormous task of extending sanitary services in County Dublin and it is enormously expensive. It may be said this problem should have been tackled more vigorously years ago. I agree, but it has not been tackled seriously until now and it imposes and continues to impose very heavy cost on the ratepayers. I want the Minister, looking at the overall picture, to accept that we have a special problem in County Dublin because people are moving, and will continue, I believe, to do so, into County Dublin. We have the sites but not a sufficient area is serviced as it should be and the sooner this is done, the better for the county and the country. You may say the county is top-heavy but if we are bringing industry to County Dublin, we are benefiting the country. Many industrialists will not come to the country if they cannot get into County Dublin. Local authorities generally are not making nearly sufficient provision to promote the establishment of industry in their areas. That calls for an extra housing effort also. In their long distance planning, I think sites should be provided adjacent to what are likely to be the housing areas of the county.

With regard to quarries, we had a deputation to the Minister some time ago. He undertook to see if anything could be done within the existing law, or if legislation, which he intends to bring before this House, could be anticipated to enable local authorities to move in and take over dangerous quarries. On that particular occasion, we were concerned with the quarries in County Dublin. When the Minister comes to reply, I should like him to tell us if he has been able to examine into the possibilities because, while the most dangerous quarry in the county has been taken care of, there are many other such quarries throughout the area.

Like the majority of speakers here, the aspect of local government which causes me most concern is the provision of housing. I appeal to the Minister now not to fall back into a sense of false security and decide to carry on in a lackadaisical fashion where housing is concerned. Housing must be pressed forward with and every local authority, in conjunction with the Department, must do everything possible to provide the maximum number of houses for our people.

Mr. P. Brennan

Most of the speakers here so far have referred to the housing problem, either particularly or in the country as a whole. The fact that the Minister tells us that we need something in the region of 25,000 houses gives those of us who are members of local authorities, and who are vitally interested in this problem, an idea of the task before us. I understand that some 20,000 of the 25,000 houses required relate to rural areas. The Minister, his Department and those of us who are members of local authorities have a man-sized job before us if we intend to bring about an improvement in the present position.

The problem we have now was, I think, brought about to a great extent by the inactivity, if I may so describe it, of the Coalition Government during the middle Fifties. Not alone did they fail to provide money for housing here in the city of Dublin but, in conferences held in the Department of Local Government, they succeeded in brainwashing local authority officials into going slow on housing. I should not make this statement if I did not know it to be true.

I shall relate a little experience now that I had in an attempt to relieve the housing position in my county around that time. I succeeded in getting the council to agree—I might say that there was no trouble at all in getting the elected representatives to agree—to advertise for applicants for a housing scheme. The only stipulation we put in was that applicants should be in a position to provide sites. We had some 50, or 55, applicants. As a result of inspections, reports, and so on, by officials, that figure was reduced by two-thirds. As a result of further delay, with more reports, and one thing and another, in the end some eight or ten of the original applicants were rehoused in the ordinary course of events. Eventually, it was decided we had two people in need of rehousing.

I happened to be particularly interested in one of them and a member on the other side of this House was particularly interested in the other. In the Wicklow County Council, we passed resolution after resolution, until eventually we had to implement Section 4 of the County and City Management Act in order to get the county manager to submit a proposal to the Department to provide these two houses. It was quite obvious to me that he had his instructions. The unfortunate thing was that they did not seem to have been withdrawn. Something should be done now, I think, in that regard because there is no doubt that local authorities are anxious to do the job; they are, however, stymied in their efforts by the action of officials, who put every obstacle in the way when it comes to building houses in the rural areas.

Coming back to the two houses, we eventually succeeded in getting approval; the Department agreed we should build these. Plans had then to be submitted. They were. The Department promptly asked us to consider providing an extra room so that a bathroom and sanitary conveniences could be installed later, if necessary. Sooner than hold up the building of the houses, we immediately decided we would do that. We sent the plans back to the Department. They were returned "O.K." but "You have agreed to provide the extra accommodation.Why do you not go the whole way and provide more accommodation for these people."

Mr. Crotty

All delay all the time.

Mr. P. Brennan

The county council decided to advertise for a fullyserviced house. That decision was unanimous. It proves that local authority representatives are anxious to build. Eventually, the Department accepted our proposal. We advertised and I am glad to be able to report that we are building these houses now, after eight years.

Mr. Tully

Was that all during the Coalition?

Mr. P. Brennan

There is no doubt whatever that the delay was due to the instructions our officials got in the Custom House in the autumn and winter of 1956.

Mr. Donegan

Are these instructions still extant?

Mr. P. Brennan

There is no doubt brainwashing took place in the Custom House and we, as members of local authorities, were unfortunately compelled to put up with it. We succeeded in getting the houses built. We let the officials know we were serious. There is no doubt officials can hold things up. There is no doubt officials are holding up the building of houses in both urban and rural areas.

I had another experience within the past few years. I wanted houses built for small farmers. Here, again, we had difficulty with the officials. They did not want to build houses on isolated sites, or for one reason or another. We believed there was a problem to be solved. No one had catered for the small farmer and the county council could come to his assistance. As far as the members of the local authority were concerned—representation is diversified—all were agreed that the small farmer could be provided with housing.

After all the reports and inspections, the officials found that there were eight or nine people in need of houses. I put down a notice of motion asking the council to provide houses for those people. It was carried, but again the officials went on their merry way. An architect was sent to report on the sites, and he was what I might call a wet day as far as the county is concerned.He suggested we should not build houses on these people's lands, that we should cart them into villages where they would have the benefits of water and sewerage services. That gives the House an idea of the mentality of some of those officials. Of course, we in the local authority did not take any notice of him. We came to the conclusion that he was not interested in the provision of houses in rural Ireland.

The same situation arises in connection with the urban areas in Wicklow, some of which are still in a bad way for housing. It has been suggested to me that the Minister himself, not his officials, is deliberately holding up a scheme of ten houses in Arklow. I hope the Minister will be in a position, when replying, to clear that matter up. I should mention here that since 1960, two or three small schemes in villages in County Wicklow have been approved by the Department, tenders have been invited and accepted and it is now only a question of getting the contractors to get on with the job.

My personal experience as far as Wicklow is concerned has been that it is not the Department, or the Minister, who are holding up the building of houses. That is why I should like the Minister to state what the position is in regard to Arklow, because Coalition members of the Bray and Arklow urban councils have been saying that the Minister is responsible for the delays. I know that we had an inquiry early this year in Bray for the compulsory acquisition of sites and I should be grateful if the Minister would expedite the issuing of the report because then the council would be in a position to go ahead and build on the sites concerned or seek alternative sites.

Dealing with housing generally, I take it the Minister's figure of 25,000 houses was arrived at as a result of a survey. He is the first Minister for Local Government who has taken such a step to ascertain what our present and future needs in housing are, and he is to be congratulated. In the survey, I wonder did he seek to find out the number of existing houses throughout the country unfit for habitation, and did he go further and find out the likely cost of replacement in the years to come?

Due to the operation of the grant schemes by councils, we have succeeded in extending the life of many existing houses. However, they will come for replacement in the next 20 or 30 years. I am convinced we will have an annual wastage of houses and that the 25,000 house target of the Minister will not solve our problems in this respect for all time. Houses which are 100 to 150 years old, even if reconstructed and repaired at regular intervals, will reach a stage where they will be beyond repair. Therefore, both the Government and the local authorities will have a recurring problem on their hands.

In urban areas throughout the country this problem is likely to arise sooner because, for instance, in my county the urban authorities do not operate either a reconstruction grant scheme or a supplementary housing grant scheme. That is unfortunate because I am convinced that the supplementary grant schemes help to make up people's minds to reconstruct their houses. The Minister might accordingly endeavour to get all local authorities to contribute to these schemes. It may be difficult, because I know an urban authority which can raise only £50 on a penny in the £ on the rates and they do not feel they can afford a supplementary grant scheme. Perhaps they could be helped by being provided with cheaper money. If they were enabled to provide a scheme such as that, it would ultimately be to the benefit both of the local authority concerned and of the families.

Our efforts should now be concentrated on solving our immediate housing problems. Indeed, we could look ahead to providing a surplus of houses in some areas. In Arklow, Bray and Wicklow, where there are few unemployment problems, I feel sure many young people would get married earlier if they had prospects of getting housed.

I should like, again, to congratulate the Minister on his new scheme of grants for the provision of houses for the farming community. He has decided to increase the State grant by 50 per cent in respect of farmers with valuations up to £25 and I understand there are graded scales after that up to a maximum of £40. I do not know whether it is the Minister's intention to allow local authorities to supplement such grants pound for pound but I would ask him seriously to consider giving local authorities such permission.

The council of which I am a member is most progressive in that respect as far as reconstruction grants and repair grants are concerned. At present we are operating a scheme under which anybody with a valuation of up to £40 qualifies for the maximum grant for a new house and we would look favourably on a suggestion that we should contribute pound for pound with the Department under this new scheme under which it would then be possible for a farmer to get grants amounting to £900. That would encourage many farmers to build new houses and would contribute considerably to easing the housing shortage in rural Ireland. The increase in loans from the Land Commission will also be a tremendous fillip to the farmer who wants to build his own house.

From housing, I want to go to the question of water and sewerage. My county has been a pioneer in the group water scheme. I am a great believer in it because it brings about a wonderful community spirit and there is a wide sense of co-operation amongst the people when they get together to provide such a scheme for themselves. A number of these schemes have been done in County Wicklow.

There are times when the full co-operation of the Department does not seem to be forthcoming but the position in that respect has improved somewhat recently. Deputy Treacy seemed to think that the Department should not allow a group scheme if the local authority had a scheme in mind for that area in the future. I do not agree with that. A group scheme can be so designed that it can be incorporated in a regional scheme when that is promoted.The laying of the pipes and the servicing of the houses can be designed to that effect. The only thing that is lost is the source of the water and the building of the reservoir.

These group schemes can mean to the people who take part in them that they may have water in their homes five or ten years before the local authority could provide it for them. The local authority can spend only so much money in a year and it might be 10 or 12 years before they could complete any particular scheme so there is no reason why a group scheme should be stymied by the Department at this stage. I think the Department should encourage them as much as they can.

Sewerage is a different problem altogether and we have to depend to a great extent on private sewerage schemes for each house. Here we have come up against a problem in which a cottier provided a sanitary service for his own house. He was living on an elevated site and he installed a septic tank as laid down by the regulations of the local authority. When he applied for the grant he was turned down because the tank was nearer than 60 feet to his dwelling.

This problem is likely to arise in the case of a number of cottages in County Wicklow and I feel that if a man goes to the trouble of providing himself with a sanitary service he is making an improvement on existing conditions and we should be prepared to meet him in regard to the grant. Our county manager would not agree to give the grant in this case because the septic tank was within 60 feet of the house but we cannot expect a cottier, whose cottage is so placed that he may not have the 60 feet, to go out and try to get a site from his neighbour for a septic tank or to go out on the public road. If a man can put the septic tank as far away as possible from his own house or any other house it should be sufficient and I hope the Minister will do something about it. Recently we passed a resolution at the county council asking that that decision should be reconsidered and I hope that resolution will receive sympathetic consideration.

On the question of roads, like every other member of a local authority, I was disappointed when the Minister decided to transfer some of the money from the county to the main roads last year. However, I realise that we have a problem in this question of main roads but the Minister has been lacking in not letting local authorities know exactly what the Department hopes to achieve in five or ten years with the main roads. An amount of work has been carried out in my constituency on the Dublin-Wexford road, and, while I think a good job of work was done, I do not know what the plans for the future are.

Some of the engineers tell me that the proposal is to have a dual carriageway for 30 miles outside Dublin. I do not know whether we will or not but, as a member of the local authority in whose area this road runs, I should know what the ideas of the Department are with regard to the improvement of this main road. We are charged with the responsibility of doing the work and although the money comes from the Department on the basis of 100 per cent grant we should know what the proposals are for our own areas. I hope we will have some statement on road policy from the Minister in the near future.

One of the big problems that will face local authorities in the future is the maintenance of the county roads. We have some 900 miles of county roads in my county and about 80 per cent of them are now dust free. We will be increasing that percentage in the next five or six years so that they will be all dust free. That means that 900 miles of county roads will have to be maintained and the Wicklow ratepayers will have to pay about £100,000 annually for that maintenance.I understand that the cost of resurfacing a county road, taking in the cutting and trimming of hedges and everything else, is about £100 a mile which amounts to about £100,000 as far as we are concerned. That is a colossal amount of money and I should like to bring it to the Minister's notice that it is a bit much to expect the ratepayers to raise it.

Mr. Corish

You will have the turnover tax.

Mr. P. Brennan

That could happen but I am getting a word in. Of course, it is a problem you would not have in Wexford.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy is quite right. It is no problem there. There is plenty of money in the Road Fund but it does not make its way to the east of the country.

Mr. P. Brennan

We have been progressive in that regard and we feel now that we are being victimised because if we had only 40 per cent of our country roads with tarred surfaces, we would be getting more towards the cost of reconstruction than we are now. However, this maintenance problem is one that will face local authorities in the future and it will be quite a problem for my local authority.

Another matter to which I wish to refer is snow clearance. There was a lot of ballyhoo in this House last year about the snow in Wicklow. In fairness to the local authority officials, let me say they did a good job of work. This situation arose overnight and we were not prepared for it in any way but we succeeded in getting a reasonable number of the roads open within the course of a few days. The problem was that as fast as we were opening the roads, they were filling in again and it caused an acute problem for the officials and workers in County Wicklow. I wonder if anything has been done since about it.

In June and July this year when the sun was shining, the matter came up again by way of report to the county council and I suggested our engineer should be able to prepare some kind of scheme. We knew exactly the areas in the county likely to be affected and I thought it would be a good idea if the engineer prepared some plan of campaign that would be available for his successor—because our experience is that engineers come and go and some of them would not be there for 12 months. I did not get a great deal of encouragement and I wonder would the Department insist on some type of plan being prepared so that we could get on with the job even more quickly than we did last year? I hope there will not be a recurrence of last year's snowstorm but it is quite possible that in the course of the next ten or 12 years we shall have another. The trouble is that the people have reached the stage where they want the snow gone the next morning. I remember snowfalls in County Wicklow on previous occasions when people were able to cope with the situation. For instance, in 1933 and 1947, a great deal was done through co-operation. Last year, however, there was such a campaign carried on by politicians and others that the people now want the snow gone the next day.

Mr. Harte

Is it not a fact that last year during the snowstorm, the authorities were dreaming up the turnover tax?

Mr. P. Brennan

Those who were responsible for dealing with the snow dealt with it very effectively. I say that in fairness to the officials of the Wicklow County Council who could not have done more.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Army was not allowed out. They were ready and "rearing" to go but the Minister for Defence locked them up.

Mr. P. Brennan

I remember going from my own village in Carnew and I reached Blessington and went up into Valleymount. At the time there were reports from Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann and in the newspapers that you could not get into Blessington, not to talk about Valleymount.

Mr. Corish

You have the right Minister.

Mr. P. Brennan

I told him off, too.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy should know that he is not responsible for these things any more than he is responsible for the "buck" who was interviewed on Telefís Éireann.

Mr. Tully

He was just a Party hack trying to be good.

Mr. P. Brennan

I hope the Minister will take note and ask the Minister for Local Government to get the local authorities to prepare some plan of campaign in the event of another snowstorm in the years to come.

There is an absence of speed limits in many built-up areas. As a matter of fact, at a meeting of the Wicklow County Council, I said I wanted to see a speed limit in every built-up area in the county. I found that a technical committee was set up and there was criticism of this technical committee here today by the members on the far side. I do not know what the position was in Dublin County Council.

At a meeting of my county council, having been informed of the areas where it was intended to apply these speed limits, I noticed that some villages in my part of the county which I thought should have been included were not included and I succeeded in having them included before the thing was finalised. Therefore, if there are areas in some Deputies' constituencies that are not covered by a speed limit, those Deputies are as much responsible as anybody else. I believe there should be a speed limit in every built-up area in the county of Wicklow and indeed in every other such area in the country.

I want now to deal with a matter which came before a meeting of the Wicklow County Council, namely, a proposal to by-pass the village of Newtownmountkennedy. I was hoping that this was merely an effort on the part of the local officials and not Custom House policy. In the county council, we felt that the by-passing of this village would not be desirable. What I am afraid of is that the approaches to this village will be so designed that in five or ten years time we shall have no option but to by-pass it. I should like that to be clarified. Personally, I think it was a local effort, and, if so, we in the county council have killed it. However, if it is Custom House policy, I want to tell them that we in the Wicklow County Council will fight it tooth and nail.

Mr. Harte

Most of the speakers who contributed to this debate have referred to housing and I propose also to deal with the problem as I see it in Donegal. You may remember, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that some months ago I tabled a motion that a sub-committee should be set up in County Donegal to deal with housing. I put down this motion having studied the report of the county medical officer of health in which he stated that 5,000 houses were needed to rehouse people in the county medical health district of Donegal. Deputy Brennan mentioned that the Minister claims that there are 20,000 houses needed for rural Ireland. If we take the figures of the Donegal county medical officer of health and the Minister's figures for the whole country, then Donegal requires one-quarter of the total number of houses which the Minister estimates are needed. I could not emphasise enough the need for more houses in County Donegal. We are not a rich county, by any means. Geographically, it could be said that we are isolated from the rest of the 26 Counties. It has often been remarked that the Dublin Government think that Donegal is in the Six Counties and the Stormont Government know that it is not.

We are neglected in different ways. The net result of the half-hearted approach of the Minister and his staff has been that during 1962 we built 73 houses. Twenty-five of these were SI cottages and the other 48 were scheme houses. I know that if the Minister wishes to argue in support of his position he can say that the SDA cottages were built to supplement the 73 houses but there is an obligation on the local authority to rehouse the people and they have failed to do so. My proposal in the county council was to set up a sub-committee which could examine the efforts being made by urban councils and by the different local authorities in the Six Counties who are making far better efforts to rehouse their people than we are on this side of the Border and I say that deliberately. Such a sub-committee could examine the efforts being made in Coleraine, Belfast, Portadown, Lurgan and the rural districts in the Six Counties.

However, because this proposal was made by a Fine Gael councillor, the members did not accept it. Bearing in mind that Fianna Fáil councillors are in the majority, if they accepted it, they would have been admitting that the Minister for Local Government had failed in his first responsibility. For that reason, the motion was rejected and the alternative was to put me in a spot and to say: "We will have a full council meeting to discuss this and try to make some headway." I agreed that as an alternative the full council should meet in committee, where each member could express his views and the Press would be present. I was prepared to accept that as a step towards getting something concrete done to rehouse the people who were in dire need of rehousing. That meeting was held some two or three months ago and I have yet to get a report of the meeting. The tendency seems to be to hedge.

I find that when the county medical officer of health takes a census of a particular area to establish how many houses are required for rehousing and recommends, say 20, an inspector from the Department arrives, goes through the files, goes out to inspect the site, visits some of the homes of people recommended for rehousing, and then, after all this extra expenditure, the officials of the county council are told: "Build ten of those houses. When you have the ten built and let, you can build the other ten." If this is not putting on the brake, I do not know what it is.

In Donegal, we have a type of cottage known as a specific instance cottage. To my mind, this meets the demands and requirements of the rural dweller in County Donegal. It is a scheme whereby an applicant, provided he has a family and is living in bad housing conditions and needs rehousing and comes within a certain group, will have a cottage built. This scheme was introduced some time around 1953. It is a good scheme and irrespective of politics, every councillor in the local authority agrees that it is ideal to meet the housing requirements of the people living outside the villages and towns in County Donegal. But it takes almost two and half years to build a cottage for a person who applies for one of them. That is ridiculous.

After he submits his application form, he is visited by the rent collector, the sanitary inspector and the rate collector and forms are filled in. This proceeds at a very slow pace and when the county manager is satisfied that the person is entitled to a house, by virtue of the fact that he has been recommended by the county medical officer, the county engineer and two or three of his assistants, and a site is offered by the applicant it is very common in Donegal that the person who owns the site has not got proper title and there is a delay in the Department of Local Government which neither I nor anyone else can understand.It can take up to 12 months to get that title put in order.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.