Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Nov 1963

Vol. 205 No. 8

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"

—(Deputy Jones).

Mr. Dillon

There are three or four matters to which I wish to direct the attention of the House in connection with this Estimate. One is the deplorable situation that has arisen in connection with housing. About that, there has been much talk and discussion, but the fundamental fact to which this House should have regard is contained in the Statistical Abstract, 1962 in which on page 204 is set out that between the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, there were 31,326 new houses built with State aid, with the result that we were told there were too many houses in Dublin and not sufficient tenants to fill them. That is a fact which I recall with pride. There are those who have sought to make it a reproof of the Government of which I was a member, but I accept it as our principal glory and I put that in comparison with the record over the past three years of the performance of the Government, for 1960, 1961 and 1962, in which 17,416 houses were built, a little more than half the number built in the corresponding three years.

That is the reason the houses fell down on the people in Dublin, some of whom were killed and others of whom experienced the indignity of having their families broken up and placed in institutions because we had not roofs to put over their heads. I approve of any measure that is being taken by housing authorities to remedy that detestable situation but I cannot help wondering what the members of the Government Party would have said if in our time we had been reduced to installing families in the city of Dublin in caravans rather than leave them sitting in the streets. This I declare to the House is the result of the considered policy of the Fianna Fáil Government.

It was an economist's illusion that the national investment programme should be diverted from housing to other ends which were described as economic and self-liquidating. It is an economist's illusion that you can have the right kind of progress in this or in any other country by leaving some of your neighbours in virtual destitution, and a family without a roof is destitute. It is a shocking thing that as of today there are thousands of families in this city living in condemned dwellings, which frequently consist of one room, because they have been waiting for years to get accommodation from the local authority, for which they are prepared to pay.

Mr. Sherwin

They will not go into them.

Mr. Dillon

And in many cases their applications are refused on the ground that they have not got a large enough family to come within the category of persons worthy of immediate consideration. That is a shameful record and it is one for which this Government should hang their head in shame before the people.

I am convinced that there can be no enduring or desirable progress in this country based on the failure to house our people. I am certain that we were right to make that a first charge upon our resources. I am certain that we enjoyed a unique distinction in Europe and the world in 1957 when there were people found to say that we had built too many houses. I wish we had the same boast to make to-day. But we have joined the ranks of some other European countries who prefer skyscrapers to homes for their people. We preferred homes for our people.

I remember when the Minister for Local Government was first adumbrating the scheme for the 30 mile per hour limit, he said that in the initial stages, it was inevitable that errors of judgment would be made in the placing of the signs. I do not think any reasonable member of the House would seek to charge him with laches in that matter because I think it is true to say it had to be settled by a process of trial and error. I would suggest to him now that the time is overdue for some even ad interim review, even if he cannot yet undertake a comprehensive review of all the signs.

A very understandable thing has happened. There was consultation between the local authority officers, the Garda Síochána and probably representative people in particular areas, small towns and villages throughout rural Ireland and that has resulted in some cases in the 30 mile per hour limit sign being put at a distance quite unreasonably far out the road. I think I know how that happened. When they went to determine the site it was first put at the end of the village and then somebody said that there was a woman living there, that she had seven children and that it would be better to put the sign a little farther out the road. Then someone else might have said that there were two families living on the other side of the road, that there were six children in one and eight in the other, and if those houses were not included in the speed limit area, there would be a row. Eventually, the sign was erected at a distance of another perch out the road. That process went on until in some cases there is a sign a quarter or half a mile outside a relatively traffic-free village or town.

That is an inconvenience that reasonable people would bear with for a reasonable time, understanding that to get uniformity in the initial stages was virtually impossible, but it has given rise to this evil, that in many cases the signs are so irrationally placed that people are getting into the habit of ignoring them. If they start ignoring them in any irrational location, the tendency develops to ignore them pretty generally. If that should be allowed to continue unremedied, great harm will be done to the whole attempt to limit speed in built-up areas and an early opportunity should be taken to remedy obvious anomalies.

The Minister may ask me how is he to determine what are obvious anomalies.He could make it known that anyone who took the view that there were obvious anomalies should communicate with his Department and he would have these investigated and he could invest somebody with the authority to make ad interim adjustments of the placing of these signs. Otherwise, damage may be done to the whole concept of the speed limit and it may be very difficult to recover the general atmosphere of popular approval which this 30 mile per hour limit in towns and cities evoked.

I know some Deputies have said that in the city of Dublin the 30 mile an hour limit has given rise to a sense of frustration and that has resulted perhaps in making people more accident-prone than they would otherwise be. I am not qualified to speak with the same authority of conditions in Dublin as I am of conditions in rural Ireland because all the driving I do in Dublin is done in a very restricted area in the centre of the city. I imagine there may be some sense of frustration during rush hours on parts of the Stillorgan Road, the Dalkey Road and the main arteries leaving the city but I have no doubt whatever that in general the speed limitation restrictions are a good thing and, provided we can avoid their becoming generally disregarded, they will make some contribution to a reduction in the number of road accidents.

It is in regard to that problem that I want to make another observation. I read recently the report prepared by the commission set up to study driving under the influence of drink. I have said in this House repeatedly, and I reiterate, that if we really mean to make an effective impact on the road accident record we have got to face the problem, not of the drunken driver —he is not the real problem. The fellow who is footless and gets into a car and usually moves off at about five miles an hour is very quickly detected swerving all over the road and can be readily apprehended and brought to book. The danger is the man who is convinced that he is not under the influence of drink. He is the man who has taken just enough to persuade himself that he is the best driver in Ireland and he proceeds to show off, not only to his neighbours, but to himself, how good he is and at high speed meets with an accident that is lethal in many cases to himself, in which event the fact that he has had four or five whiskeys before he started on his journey is rarely if ever referred to; or else the accident may be lethal or gravely injurious to a second party. The problem is how to deal with him.

I see it suggested that we should have blood tests. Here again I want to speak a word of moderate counsel. I am all in favour of what is popularly known as the breathaliser, if that is a reasonably efficient test. It does not seem to me to be any unreasonable intrusion—unreasonable intrusion—on a citizen's rights if he is arrested and charged with dangerous driving to ask him to breathe into a mouthpiece, but, when we come to the stage of authorising any garda in the country to arrange to have blood samples taken, then I think we are going pretty far. Where taking blood samples simply involved pricking the top of a person's finger and drawing a drop of blood, I could conceive that being defended as being of so trivial a nature as not to constitute real trespass on a citizen's person but when you think of inserting a needle into a person's vein and drawing out a syringeful of blood, the plain fact is that one-third of the people asked to undergo that experience will faint. You may think it is very unreasonable for them to faint. Whether it should be the law of this country that if you are apprehended on suspicion of dangerous driving, you must face a minor surgical operation, simply because you have been charged, is open to question.

I know the argument can be made that the evil it is sought to remedy is very grave. I agree. I think the road accidents situation here is very grave. But I would urge on the Minister that the breathaliser test is in every sense a preferable one. We should not allow ourselves to be driven to the point of introducing blood tests of the kind envisaged, unless there is no other device available to us to segregate the driver who has too much alcohol from the driver whose judgement is not affected by drink at all.

The last aspect of that question I want to touch on is this. The case is made very energetically by well-intentioned people that there is not any standard quantity of alcohol which you can say specifically must affect the judgement of a driver, that one man can take two glasses of whiskey and drive without his judgement being abridged, whereas another man might be materially affected by one glass. I think we have to take up the position in that regard that that is admitted, and that the breathaliser test, or whatever test is ultimately adopted, will not be a test of drunkenness but a test of consumption, and that people who drive cars must make up their minds that no one must consume more than a certain amount of alcohol. While we freely acknowledge there is a large number of people who could take that amount of alcohol and be in no sense drunk, for the common good, it has been determined there are so many people who would be affected by that minimum quantity of alcohol that nobody is to drive a car if he has taken it.

There are many sensible people here who make it a rule that if they are driving, they do not drink, and if they drink, they do not drive. I know from my own personal experience, even when I was a student, if four or five of us were going on a night's outing, one of us would "go on the wagon". The rest of us would regard ourselves as free to enjoy any of the entertainment going. The next night we went out some other fellow would "go on the wagon" and the first fellow would join the company free to make merry to his heart's content. I do not think it is an unreasonable stipulation in the present state of traffic on Irish roads to require that people who drive cars will accept that restriction of their freedom to drink. With the present state of our roads, I think it is reasonable to say to people who drive cars: "Do not drink until you get home", or "If you want to drink, get somebody else to drive." Even for those who do not accept that prudent advice, it is reasonable for the Legislature to say: "We are going to fix an arbitrary level of alcohol consumption." It is not an unreasonable limitation on people's freedom to require that they will observe it if they drive a car on the roads of Ireland.

My last point is this. I never tire of congratulating the Minister's staff in the Custom House for their willing readiness to help us all in overcoming difficulties experienced by our constituents in availing of the grants and other facilities in the Department. But it sometimes occurs to me, when I see the number of letters I have to write to the Department about housing grants and the number which, I find on inquiry, to have been held up as a result of the failure by the grantee to carry out the stipulations required in the notification of approval of his applications, is the grantee sufficiently forewarned of the necessary conditions of a grant being made?

I find two things coming up continually. One concerns a nine-inch wall. You find fellows using seven-inch blocks. That is a usual error. The difference between a nine-inch block and a seven-inch block cannot be very material in cost. Yet you continually find country people with reconstruction work done and the grant blocked because they have used a seven-inch block instead of a nine-inch block. The second problem I continually find is that they build a room on to a house or make some improvement and use either corrugated iron or corrugated asbestos for the roof. You are obliged to go to the unfortunate man, who has spent all the money he had and is now in debt to the builders' supplier or the contractor, and inform him that he will not get any grant if he does not take off the corrugated roof and put on slates or felt.

If my experience is the experience of many other rural Deputies, I can fairly say to the Minister that there should be some special sticker or something put on the general conditions sent out, which are pretty long and involved, directing the attention of the grantee especially to the fact that there is a minimum size of concrete block which may be used and, secondly, that the material used in the roof must be strictly in accordance with specification and that the pitch of the roof must be in accordance with specification as well. I believe if the attention of grantees were sufficiently and emphatically directed towards these two stipulations, there would be much less holding up of grants and much less unnecessary correspondence with the Department of Local Government in that respect.

We have had a long debate on this Estimate. That is as it should be. It is an Estimate which affects the livelihood of our people in every part of the country. If it serves, as I hope it may serve, to make the Government wake up to the disgraceful failure of which they have been guilty in respect of housing, no time spent upon it will have been wasted.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I am glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words on this Estimate. I made a number of unsuccessful efforts over the past couple of weeks to get in, and I must take this opportunity of thanking Deputy Carroll, who by his change of mind and unforgettable action last Wednesday, helped to prolong the temporary life of the Government.

This debate so far has been more or less concentrated on housing, and the greatest part of the debate on housing was concentrated on housing in Dublin city. I agree that housing in Dublin city is not alone a matter of major importance but a matter of major urgency. Deputy Declan Costello stated here that there were over 10,000 families in need of housing in Dublin alone. I can assure the House that since he made that statement and at the present time that number has gone up to 10,500 by reason of the fact that day after day buildings are being declared dangerous and police orders are being sought for the eviction of families from such houses. In Dublin Corporation we have some of the finest architects in Europe. We have some of the finest housing engineers in Europe and we have a town planning officer the equal of whom is not in Europe but notwithstanding all their efficiency and qualifications they are hindered in their efforts to build houses by the go-slow policy introduced by Fianna Fáil in 1957.

When speaking here some weeks ago, Deputy Sherwin gave the impression that he had housed everybody who had been in dangerous buildings. While I appreciate that Deputy Sherwin is a very sincere man who believes everything he says to be true, I often wonder does he know what he is speaking about. I think there are more families now in dangerous buildings than have got accommodation out of them.

Mr. Sherwin

I said that I had housed the people who were put out on the streets.

Mr. O'Keeffe

They are still out on the streets.

Mr. Sherwin

They are not.

Mr. O'Keeffe

While I do not expect that houses can be built overnight, we should see that small single-roomed flats or two-roomed flats are built so that old age pensioners will have some kind of proper flat offered to them when the homes which they have occupied all their lives are declared dangerous. I would implore the Minister to do all he possibly can to see that people in that category are provided with proper accommodation in the later years of their lives. It is not necessary to repeat all that has been said with regard to housing. That subject has been well covered by Deputies from this side of the House.

I would ask the Minister to look into the question of providing more traffic lights. I live in the Crumlin area and I have been trying for some years to have lights erected at the junction of Clogher Road and Sundrive Road. Lights are more urgently needed there than at many of the places where they have been erected. I would ask the Minister to look into the question of providing more traffic lights, particularly on the outskirts of the city.

I would also ask him to have the number of school wardens increased. The money for their payment comes from his Department and, to that extent he has responsibility. There is a number of schools where wardens would be most useful and many accidents to children would be avoided if they were appointed.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Since this debate opened, emphasis has been laid by speakers from the opposite benches on the terrible housing conditions in Dublin. They have adopted an offensive attitude in an effort to put the Minister and the Government on the defensive. It is time we all grew up and admitted the facts that are well recorded. The last speaker mentioned the go-slow policy of 1957 but surely he does not want to underestimate the intelligence of the people? It is quite evident that you cannot build houses overnight. You have to plan for the building of them.

I have been associated with housing in rural Ireland since 1932 and I am chairman of a utility society that went into operation on their own when the first Housing Act was introduced here in 1932 by the former President, Mr. O'Kelly, who was then Minister for Local Government. The Fine Gael Party would like to forget that they were the Cumann na nGaedheal Party up to 1932 and that in that time never a house was built in any part of Ireland, except in Dublin and Cork. Not a single house was built in rural Ireland. Now they try to claim credit for all the building that has gone on since 1932 and they claim that Fianna Fáil did nothing.

However, it does not serve the best interests of the people for either side to be looking for excuses. We have a problem here and the people are not fools. You cannot go on creating hysteria all the time. That has often been tried before but eventually the bubble bursts. The Minister has stated that a housing survey to date has indicated that 25,000 houses are required and that out of that number, 20,000 are needed in rural Ireland. With that problem facing us in rural Ireland, I think we should let the Dublin people fight out their own battle as to the pros and cons of their own problem.

Housing in Dublin is a special problem and we should tackle the question of rural housing. It was very encouraging to hear the Minister state last week that housing grants are to be increased by 50 per cent for farmers whose valuation does not exceed £25. For the first time ever, local authorities will now have power to build houses for small farmers whose valuation does not exceed £5. That move was received with satisfaction in every part of rural Ireland.

I heard a Deputy from the Opposition benches castigate the Government and condemn county managers. Councillors get what they deserve from managers and vice versa. I have had some years of experience. As Chairman of the Limerick County Council for 14 years, I know the ups and downs of housing. I know exactly what happened in the time of the Coalition Government when the managers went up to the Custom House and were brainwashed and were told to slow up housing. That cannot be denied, Deputy Rooney looks at me and says it is not correct.

Mr. Rooney

That was 1957.

Mr. J.J. Collins

It happened. You wanted money but you could not get it. That was proved by the failure of your loans.

The Minister has instructed county managers to prepare a survey of rural housing. That survey has been prepared but I think it is not as comprehensive as the Minister might like it to be. Some counties have gone ahead with it, while others have done so only partially.

Some months ago, Limerick County was selected for a rural survey which was carried out by Dr. Noonan of Maynooth. In its analysis of the position in County Limerick, and it applies to any county in Ireland, that comprehensive survey points to the drift of the rural population to the big centres and how it might be arrested. The thesis is called the Fourth Interim Report on Social Provision and Rural Centrality in County Limerick. Dr. Noonan suggests that two very important factors should not be ignored. The first is not to denude the countryside of our rural inhabitants. Where houses are bad, the people who are deep-rooted there should be rehoused under proper conditions. Dr. Noonan's second point is to arrest the drift of young people who eventually get married and drift towards the city. That is the great danger threatening rural Ireland at the moment.

After putting the position as he found it, so to speak, on the dissecting table, Dr. Noonan tried to find a cure or a remedy for what he discovered. In his analysis of the position, he stated his opinion, which I think will be backed very much by sociologists and others who have an interest in this matter that our population must in the future be centralised in and around large towns. He outlined in his thesis County Limerick with its main towns and suggests what should be done.

Dr. Noonan further suggests that in order to keep the people in rural Ireland, even in the centres he has outlined, we must industrialise those places, at the same time keeping the people as close as possible to their natural home surroundings. The Minister and his officials in the Custom House may possibly have studied the report by Dr. Noonan. Limerick County Council held a special meeting to discuss it and we agreed with it in principle. We believe that in practice it will solve a problem which not alone is a Limerick problem but is one for every county in Ireland. Therefore, when we erect more houses near those centres I am sure the Minister and his officials will understand what we have in mind.

Apart from the increased housing grants that he has announced for farmers under £25 valuation, with a sliding scale for people up to £40 valuation, I should like the Minister to clarify this point. Take people, other than farmers, under the £25 valuation—say, artisans or tradesmen who would like to build their own homes. Would they equally qualify for an increased grant like the farmers? It would be wrong to discriminate against sections of our people.

It was also very important to hear the Minister state that where you have an acute situation in any part of Ireland where it is hard to get a site for a rural cottage a second cottage may be erected. That problem is fairly common. The value of land has increased. Every acre is valuable to people with small holdings. Even when a good price is offered, it is often very hard to induce them to sell. We had several cases in the county of making application by resolution to the county manager to have an extra cottage built on an existing cottage site but we were told by our legal adviser that we could not do so. I understand that other counties were doing so and that when such proposals came before the Minister he had no objection and did not refuse the sanction. That is good news to us in Limerick.

At a very rough calculation made since I heard the announcement, I believe that between 40 and 50 such applications have been deferred in the Limerick County Council. The news, in itself, is very encouraging. Whether Dáil representatives or members of local bodies, we are all the time blaming the local authority or the central authority in the Custom House because the housing programme does not meet the demands of people who are getting impatient.

Many people are looking to the local authority to build houses who could do so themselves if they had just that little bit of initiative. I have been chairman of a utility society since 1932. Notwithstanding the fact that our activities were interrupted during World War II we built 487 houses in West Limerick. Those houses were for people the majority of whom would have had to be housed by a local authority if they had not had that little local initiative backed by the help and co-operation they got from the utility society.

Let us remember, notwithstanding anything that has happened, that the whole economic climate in this country has changed. There is a breeze of buoyancy and hope and determination blowing in the hearts and minds of our people. That breeze is very invigorating at the moment. Notwithstanding an odd thunderburst, such as occurred last week to try to put people into a state of hysteria, we shall go forward in our housing endeavours. Naturally, people will get a fright because of a thunderburst but that has passed away now and we look forward to a period of solid achievement.

The people are regrouping and rearranging themselves to carry on as they are satisfied they should, due to the success of the first five year economic plan. The people expect good leadership where they believe there is security. Let us forget what Fine Gael did in Coalition and what Fianna Fáil failed to do when they took over. We have a problem. It is the problem of harnessing the new buoyancy, hope and confidence in the country springing from the new political structure. We should try to get the people to do something for themselves instead of asking the local authority or the Department to do it for them.

As a result of the success of the first economic plan, there is no town of any size anywhere in the country without a development association which is issuing brochures and advertising in foreign papers and generally trying to attract industry to their part of the country. That is commendable and something of which we are proud. What we should do with these associations is try to harness their activities and form, inside their own parochial boundaries, utility societies.

We have many farmers under £5 valuation who will qualify for houses but will have to wait a considerable time for the local authorities to provide them. If there was a utility society— we now have two in Limerick where we had only one—it would do for them what the council should do, help them to get the increased grants and the extended loan from the Land Commission, which is now £500. This may not be the place or time to congratulate the Minister responsible but this was something I have always fought for: I always thought the loan was too low.

What have we to offer the £5 to £25 man? An absolute gift of £1,400 to start to provide himself with a home. We have produced four-room serviced houses in County Limerick, through our utility society, for much less than £1,400. Contractors may not like to hear that but we can supply proof. I do not want to enter into the discussion that we had about Dublin houses. I took a neutral attitude and listened carefully to the points made. I have no reputation for throwing bouquets but I am convinced by Deputy Sherwin's argument as against those of other members of Dublin Corporation Housing Committee. I accept what he said as a true picture of the position and that is as far as my interest goes in the matter.

I was glad to get an opportunity to intervene in this debate, although I had to wait a couple of days for it because I would not be happy if I did not mention certain things. When the Minister is replying, I should like to know whether people under £25, valuation, other than farmers, will qualify for the full, maximum grant. It is not part of the Minister's function to suggest to county managers that they should encourage the creation of utility societies in large towns and villages. That can be done. We were doing so well in County Limerick that the manager of the Shannon Development Company wrote to me for particulars about our utility society.

People may ask what value is the society when one can get the application forms himself. The type of people we were dealing with had not sufficient capital available to put into the building of a house. They were not creditworthy as individuals and could not go to a hardware merchant with a specification of materials needed to start building. As a utility society, we were able to act as guarantors for them. We encouraged such people and helped them to get loans. Their grants were increased by £10 because they built through a utility society and by £10 by way of supplementary grant. We were getting them £20 extra grants, in other words, and doing the work for them and all they did was to pay £1 membership fee. It was a philanthropic work, if you like, and I would like to commend it generally. I grew up with it myself. I have a housing mentality and I understand the delays that crop up, no matter how well-intentioned a council or corporation may be. From the plan to the material execution of it takes at least 1½ years. You meet difficulties of title and other legal difficulties and a local authority must be particularly careful to make no false step. They cannot go into a man's land to develop it as a building site without perfect title.

If I had thought I would be given an opportunity to speak this afternoon, I might possibly have studied the Estimate more comprehensively. In any case, let us forget what either side did in regard to housing: there should be a common platform between us. I advise Fine Gael to be honest in their motives and attacks; these will not pay dividends otherwise. Politically, our people are mature and there is no use trying to confuse them with figures. As sure as you do, that bubble will burst as the bubble that was created in Dublin North-East burst.

Mr. Rooney

It did not. There is a bubble coming in Cork.

General MacEoin

It is amazing that Deputy Collins can address himself to this Estimate in such a way. I am very grateful to him for the advice he gave. He knows perfectly well that, whatever advice he gives, it is not just for our advantage. Once before I heard him give advice and I know exactly what it was worth. What amazes me, above all, is the way he calmly, and with cool deliberation, advises us to forget the faults of Fianna Fáil, the faults of Fine Gael and of the inter-Party Government—forget all the faults—and, then, immediately he goes on to say that from 1922 to 1932 Cumann na nGaedheal never built a house.

Mr. Rooney

But they re-built the bridges.

General MacEoin

He starts blaming them right off the reel. If we did not build them, we certainly did not burn them.

Mr. J.J. Collins

That has whiskers on it.

General MacEoin

Does the Deputy think he can get away with this sort of talk and that nobody is to say a word in reply, to ignore it completely, thereby enabling him to say that he made the statement and there was neither a word in explanation or contradiction of it? Of course, that has been Deputy Collins's technique for the past 15 or 20 years but, prior to that, it was not exactly his technique. In 1932, it was not his technique. I listened to Deputy Collins then when he came into this House and his tongue could be very bitter. I am glad that he has mellowed, like a great many of us, and I hope that he will go on mellowing.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I never got the example from the Deputy, though.

General MacEoin

I will not follow the Deputy in that because, if I did, I might be tempted to say things that are better left unsaid. We are now dealing with the problem of housing and the administration of local government.It is now 40 years since I was a member of a local authority. I parted company with it at a very early stage and it is true to say, therefore, that I have not full knowledge of the activities of local authorities. Neither am I able to distinguish who is right and who is wrong in relation to the planning and building of houses. It is quite clear that headway has been made. Houses have improved, but there are still a great number requiring attention. It is to these that we must now address ourselves.

I regret to say that I have once more to come back to my old complaint but, before I utter the words of complaint, I want to say that I have always found the officials of the Department of Local Government, and the Minister himself, whoever he may be, both anxious and willing to help and very considerate. They do everything within their power to expedite matters. Now, while the complaint I am about to make might be regarded as a reflection on them, it is really only an assertion of the fact that sufficient staff is not available to carry out the work requiring to be done.

There is still undue delay in paying the first part of the grant either for reconstruction or for the building of a new house. When one inquires as to the reason for the delay, or makes representations, one finds that the file is out with the inspector, or that he has not reported, or that it has not yet come in. I have come to the conclusion that there are insufficient inspectors to carry out the work required. Secondly, when the work is completed, there is again undue delay. The point I want to impress upon the Minister is that the local trader—I have said all this before—and the local shopkeeper are still the bankers in 80 per cent of our housing. They are 80 per cent the bankers for the farmers. They are carrying far too heavy a load. It is amazing the number of times traders, and not the applicants, have asked to have representations made to expedite payment. The position is that the applicant has got the work done, but the trader who supplied the material and the man who did the work are not paid. I think that could be expedited a bit, if not a great deal.

I was struck by the case made by Deputy Dillon. There should be some method of drawing the applicant's attention to the special requirements, especially those relating to roofing and the pitch of the roof. Sometimes contractors or builders tell the applicant a particular kind of roof will pass: "It passed in such a place. It was all right on such a house. I carried out that work for such a person, and it was passed." It is most exasperating then when the applicant finds that the work does not meet the requirements and will not be passed. I think that there should be a red tag on the specification emphasising the work that must be done and stipulating the minimum requirements.

I agree with Deputy Dillon that the size of the block, whether it be the seven inch block or the nine inch block, should be carefully set out. When I ask applicants why they did not comply with the specifications and point out the work the inspector said should be done, it is amazing the number of times one gets the answer that the contractor did the work like this in such and such a place and it was passed. Generally speaking, when one inquires, one finds that the work did not pass in the other case either. Indeed, if it passed in one place and was not passed in another, that would be a reflection on the whole inspection staff. It is not, therefore, a correct presentation.

While congratulating the Minister on the efforts being made in housing reconstruction and in the installation of water, I should like to urge that advance advice should be given to all applicants, particularly in the matter of the installation of water, as to the probable cost. People may have to sink a well and many still rely on the diviner's estimate of the depth of the bore. They estimate that it would cost £1 a foot, so that if they had to go down 250 feet the cost will be £250. I submit that engineers or inspectors should advise applicants for water supplies as to whether it would be less costly to instal a tank system rather than bore a well. That would be of great help to many people.

I should like to deal briefly with the question of traffic lights. Within the past week, there have been two or three instances of traffic jams in the city of Dublin caused by the failure of traffic lights. There should be some method of notifying the Garda when such failures occur. Yesterday an instance of this occurred at Haddington Road and I was amazed that several serious crashes did not occur. The red light remained on one side and the green on the other for at least 15 minutes. As a result, traffic was held up on one side. It is only human nature that some of those held up should try to move through, but the cars from the other direction continued to go through the crossing at such a rate that the heart nearly went crossways in me. Of course, I turned back and went the other way, but I was amazed that there was no method by which the matter could be rectified speedily. Traffic lights, generally, are a great success and I agree with the proposition that more should be erected.

I agree also that the "Stop" signs should be taken down. They remind me of an occasion when troops were confined to barracks for a period but the date on which they might leave barracks was not specified. As far as that order was concerned, they are still confined to barracks because though they were told they were confined to barracks they were not informed of the date on which they could leave again. It is the same with the "Stop" signs: there is nothing to tell one when to go. Of course, most people know what is meant but it can be very embarrassing to visitors to the country. When they see the "Stop" sign, they do not know what it means and they have been most critical of it.

Notwithstanding the increased value of land and the difficulty local authorities have in finding sites for rural houses, I think local authorities should be permitted to proceed with acquisition of land despite the higher costs. Land will not get cheaper because, unfortunately, the purchasing power of money is depreciating and it is that depreciation that is causing the value of land to increase. I submit that local authorities should be authorised, when land becomes available or when a farm is being divided by the Land Commission, to acquire areas and have them available later for the housing of people in rural areas.

Generally speaking, our roads are improving. I presume the local authorities are working to a plan and I do not know enough about it to be able to criticise it. However, I believe the straight roads now being built are not bringing about the safety that was hoped. I should like at this stage to suggest that more work be done in the provision of proper roads to farmers' houses. Many of these are done through unemployment relief schemes, but in areas where there is no unemployment or where such a scheme would serve only one farmer, the work is not being done. Proper roads to their houses would put the finishing touches to the amenities of farmers who have reconstructed their homes and who have had, among other things, water supplies installed. One has to wear waders to get into some of those houses and that is a pity, seeing that so much trouble has been taken to put the houses themselves into proper condition.

Mr. Rooney

I notice from the Minister's statement that he devoted a considerable amount of his speech to the housing position. It is a very welcome portion of his speech because we have seen in recent times that there is a very urgent need for the improvement of our housing conditions here in Dublin. A survey has indicated that nearly 10,000 Dublin families are waiting to be rehoused. Those people must be very disappointed with the rate of Corporation house building over the past six or seven years. In 1957, the year when the inter-Party Government handed over to this Government, over 1,500 Corporation houses were built and in the previous years, that was more or less the rate which resulted from the housing programmes.That figure of 1,500 Corporation houses dropped in 1958 and 1959 and eventually in 1960, only 277 such houses were built; in 1961, 392 houses and in 1962, 643 houses. In other words, in the past three years, there were fewer Corporation houses built than in the year 1957 alone.

Having regard to the population of this city and the large number of families pressing to be rehoused, we must face the fact that it is necessary to have at least 1,000 houses provided each year for tenancy by the working-class families who are not in a position to provide housing accommodation for themselves. If a programme of 1,000 houses per year is embarked on by Dublin Corporation, aided, of course, by the Department of Local Government, it means that the 10,000 families now waiting cannot hope to be rehoused for at least another nine years, but, in the meantime, the position will be further aggravated by an increase in the population of Dublin and an increase in the number of families needing houses.

I blame the Dublin Corporation, and indeed the Department of Local Government, for not waking up to the fact that Dublin city's population is increasing at the rate of almost 25 per day, approximately 7,000 people per year swelling the population of Dublin city and county. It seems evident that the rise in population in Dublin city and county will continue at that rate and, if it does, the Corporation and the Department of Local Government must face up to the fact that a housing problem will be created by that increase in population. Therefore, a minimum of 1,000 houses should be built by the Corporation for the housing of working-class families.

If we take the life of a Corporation house at 70 years, by a mathematical calculation, it can be seen exactly the number of Corporation houses that must be replaced per annum in addition to the new houses provided which it is hoped will last a further 70 or 80 years. In addition to that problem of replacement of Corporation dwellings as well as the provision of extra houses, there is the work of maintenance of the existing Corporation dwellings which in the normal way must be kept in repair because they are the property of Dublin Corporation.

Many families feel that a scheme for the purchase of Corporation houses should be introduced. However, it is a very big question and one that could not be decided without careful consideration of all the problems that such an arrangement would involve. Deputy Collins was most unfair to the Fine Gael Party regarding housing prewar.We are prepared to give Deputy Collins's Party credit for the housing which they did in the seven or eight years before the war, but at the same time as they are taking credit for that housing campaign, they must take the blame for the small amount of local authority housing during the previous ten years.

Looking at the number of Corporation houses and the development which has taken place here, we must admit that those schemes are a monument to the inter-Party Government, having regard to the period during which they were in office, approximately seven years, and the large number of houses provided within that time. The vigorous housing campaign which was operated under the inter-Party Government is one that will not be forgotten by the working-class families of Dublin city and indeed the county, too.

There is considerable hardship in Dublin County at the moment amongst about 1,000 families who are pressing for the provision of county council houses. They are not financially in a position to provide housing accommodation for themselves. There is also great difficulty—and I hope the Minister will find a way out; I believe he did make an announcement in relation to it some time ago—both in the city and county where the children grow up into their early twenties and there is no prospect of getting tenancy of a workingclass house provided by the Corporation or by the Department of Local Government because there are so many persons with a large number of children also pressing for tenancy of houses. The result is that these young people who grow up in a Corporation or Dublin County Council dwelling, when they get married, take up residence in one room of that dwelling.

Of course the official view is that the tenant is committing an offence by permitting a sub-tenancy to develop there but the position becomes still worse when a second member of the same family decides to get married and gets a further allocation of the very limited accommodation in that house. When such a house becomes available, particularly if you take Dublin County and if these conditions exist in a county council house in, say, Balbriggan, it is no consolation to tell those three families that there is a vacant cottage in Tallaght or Stillorgan and that they may be interested in it. The chances are that their employment is near Balbriggan. It is unfair to regard these families as being illegal tenants or sub-tenants in that house which is tenanted by their parents. Those people are not considered for rehousing because there is an arrangement whereby a new county council house will not get the benefit of the State subsidy if a family who were sub-tenants of a council house are rehoused and put into a new county council house.

That problem is growing and is becoming acute in many areas. I know of a cottage in Swords in which 18 people are living. There are three families in that house. There are the parents and their children and two of the children are married and have their own children and there are also unmarried members of the family. They applied for the tenancy of one of the new houses in Swords but the houses were given out to families who had been four or five in a house. They qualified for a new cottage but the other family, where there were 18 people in the house, could not get a new council house and had to continue living in the deplorable conditions which can exist where there are no services and a large number of people living together. It is a problem that will have to be tackled by the county council and the Minister. It is no consolation to tell these people that they are illegal tenants and therefore their claim for a new council house must be disregarded, having regard to the conditions which apply to the payment of a grant in respect of a new council house.

Some time ago, the Minister made an announcement about the possibility of making an alteration in the regulations which prevent these deplorable conditions being solved. The problem is growing because many of these houses have been built for 15 or 30 years and the result is that young families have grown up and cannot get housing accommodation elsewhere. We must have regard not alone to the need for providing new council houses in areas where the population is increasing—it is increasing in Dublin county as well as in Dublin city—but in addition, to the ordinary work of replacing houses which become dangerous buildings.

I notice in the Minister's statement that something like 1,100 people were affected by the collapse of dangerous buildings in Dublin city. There are at least three times that number of people still living in dangerous buildings in the city. That is a problem which the Department and the Corporation will have to face up to sooner than later. We have scaffolding up in many parts of the city where buildings, on examination, have been found to be in a dangerous condition. The people from these buildings will also create a problem in relation to rehousing.Mention was made of prefabricated houses or caravans to accommodate these people but so far the attitude here is that they will keep to the ordinary type of building rather than any kind of prefabrication or temporary dwellings. That is a fair attitude until the merits of any alternative housing system have been examined carefully.

In regard to the payment of grants for private houses, I should like to mention the fact that many people who are providing houses for themselves meet with great financial strain just when the house is being completed, because at that stage it is examined and the inspector finds there have been some omissions, some things left incomplete and which must be completed before the grant can be paid. I feel it is unfair to withhold the full amount of the grant, whether it is the first 50 per cent or the second 50 per cent just because a few small items remain to be completed. I am in favour of holding back a substantial amount of the grant but not the full amount because this causes financial embarrassment to the builder who has been put to the pin of his collar to try to scrape up enough money to go the distance he has gone.

Very often when the house has nearly been completed the builder goes away and starts another job. There is so little to be done that he calculates it would pay him better not to go back and finish the house for the man who is waiting for the grant and instead he proceeds with work elsewhere. I am sure it is quite a common experience for the officials of the Department to find that in spite of their best efforts to try to complete their houses and comply with the regulations in order to qualify for the grant, people are let down by the contractors and in many cases have to go to law.

The Minister mentioned the payment of grants for the repair and reconstruction of dwelling houses. It is very desirable that people should be encouraged to repair and renovate their dwelling houses and keep them in good condition. The Department is making a very valuable contribution towards the maintenance of private houses. The Minister also mentioned that there are more than 25,000 houses in the State which need to be replaced. I assume the replacement of these houses is regarded as of immediate necessity. There are 20,000 of these houses in the rural areas. Unfortunately, a vigorous housing programme has not been embarked upon in the rural areas. If local authorities will not undertake such a programme the Department of Local Government should take the initiative.

I support the view expressed by a previous speaker that the provision of good houses in rural areas is very important from the point of view of the State. It ensures that people will remain in the rural areas. People cannot be blamed for emigrating or leaving an area if housing conditions are bad or if they are unable to house themselves. Every effort should be made to provide houses in suitable locations throughout rural Ireland.

There has been a fair amount of housing development in most villages and towns. Emphasis should now be placed on the provision of houses in rural areas with a view to encouraging people to reside there and to rear their families there and to creating economic activity in the localities. If people cease to reside in rural areas, availability of labour for work on or in connection with the land will decline still further.

During the past 12 months over 10,000 people ceased to work on the land. That trend is continuing and will be aggravated if people can find better housing conditions elsewhere. If comfortable homes are provided in rural areas families can be relied on to remain there if that is economically possible.

Mention has been made of the assistance given by Telefís Éireann in publicising the schemes for the provision of water supplies in rural areas with a view to encouraging people to organise private water supplies. Publicity was also given to the value of providing water supplies where fire hazards exist. Having regard to some of the programmes on Telefís Éireann in recent times, I should like to see the Department of Local Government doing very much more in the way of publicising worthwhile schemes which are of benefit to the community. The organisers of some television programmes broadcast lately should be ashamed when there is so much useful material which could be used by Telefís Éireann for the benefit of viewers.

We can claim that there is a very high standard of building in local authority housing. It is generally agreed that the specifications for these houses are of a far higher standard than those applied in private building. It is very desirable that the specifications for local authority housing should be maintained at a high standard. At least, it is good example. A proof of the high standard required in local authority housing is the difficulty of getting tenders from building contractors who find it more profitable to build private houses for which the specifications are not of such a high standard.

It is regrettable that the present Fianna Fáil Party allowed the housing programme to decline as it has done since 1956. There were 1,500 corporation houses built in 1957. Building costs at that time were much lower than they are at present. A much higher rent must be paid in respect of a house built now than would be payable if the house had been built six or seven years ago. There is much higher bank interest involved. If the tenants do not pay it, the other tenants of corporation houses must pay it and, if they do not pay it, the ordinary taxpayer must pay for the increased cost of building corporation houses now compared with six or seven years ago when the housing programme of Dublin Corporation was well under way.

I should like to comment on the choice of names for paths, roads and streets and so on in Dublin city. Apparently a resolution was passed many years ago to the effect that the Irish language must be used in place-names for corporation housing schemes. Many of the names put up are impracticable. Residents may not have a good command of the Irish language. Many of them do not understand it. They are compelled to use the name that is put on the name-plate. They must have an address which is identifiable for postal purposes.

I have in mind a place which it was decided should be called Craoibhinn Park. The spelling seemed rather odd to persons who did not know Irish. A number of the tenants used the correct spelling but others failed to do so. In some cases tenants wrote "Crubeen Park" on their letters. Others actually wrote "Hyde Park" on their envelopes because the late President Douglas Hyde was known as "An Craoibhinn". I give this as an example of the frustration and confusion caused to tenants by the application of awkward Irish names to these schemes and streets. They get these names, whether they like them or not. They should be given a choice of using an Irish name or an alternative English name. Bilingual methods are used in many instances, and in fairness to these tenants, these roads and schemes should be named bilingually. If there are tenants who wish to use the Irish name, they would then have the choice of doing so. Under the present system, however, tenants are obliged to use a long, awkward Irish name, whether they like it or not.

I should like to mention also the numbering of streets. We have all had the experience of searching for a particular street at night or in bad light and, when we have at last found it, discovering that we cannot read the numbers on the houses. We have to see in what direction the numbers are going. The Corporation could give a lead in this matter by putting the number of the house in large figures on the gate pier outside, so that people on the street can read the numbers of the houses without having to walk right up to the door in darkness and still find they are unable to read the small number. If the numbers were affixed to the gate piers outside, it would be of great assistance to such people as Department inspectors, postmen, gas collectors, ESB collectors and so on.

Private enterprise should be encouraged among working class families, particularly those earning high wages who have been able to save a certain amount of money. The local authority should buy sites and make them available to people who desire to build their own houses with the aid of loans and grants.

Much time is wasted in the preparation of plans for local authority houses. Generally speaking, the type of house to be built is known. The type of house to be erected should be decided on, and we should have done with it, instead of having individual plans prepared for each particular house. It is a dreadful waste of time preparing plans over and over again for the same type of house when we actually know the type of house that will be provided.

Dublin county and city are being treated very unfairly in the matter of road grants. Although our roads are carrying a huge volume of traffic from every direction, we get our grants on a mileage basis rather than on the basis of the volume of traffic carried. Since a census is being taken of road traffic at present, now is the time to consider the claim of Dublin County Council for a much larger road grant. In other counties, there is very little traffic, apart from the traffic within the county itself, because of the location of the county. If a differential were introduced, we in Dublin would get far more in the form of road grants. I think it is fair to say that only one-third of the money subscribed in respect of motor vehicles in Dublin city and county to the Road Fund comes back to be spent on the roads in Dublin. Suppose we are subscribing over £2 million in road tax and getting less than £1 million in return for our roads, it is unfair that the remaining £1 million should be spent in counties which are getting £3 for every £1 they subscribe in motor taxation. They are doing six times better than Dublin city and county.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 12th November, 1963.