Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Apr 1965

Vol. 215 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Local Government.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £4,633,600 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government, including Grants to Local Authorities, Grants and other expenses in connection with Housing and Miscellaneous Grants including a Grant-in-Aid.

The total estimate for my Department for the year 1965-66 is £7,821,700. The net increase on the provision made in the last financial year is £738,800. There is an increase of £240,000 in the contributions to loan charges on local authority housing and an increase of £150,000 in the corresponding provision for public water supply and sewerage schemes, swimming pools and other sanitary services loans. The provision for private housing, water supply and sewerage grants shows an increase of £385,000.

The total number of houses completed by local authorities during the year 1964-65 was 2,359. Although this represents a substantial increase it should be regarded only as a trend in the right direction. I look forward to a much greater increase in housing output in the present year. The outlook as regards work in progress and in tender is greatly improved. At the 31st March, 1965, over 6,000 houses were in progress or at tender stage. The value of tenders and direct labour estimates sanctioned during the last financial year also shows a substantial increase at £7.7 million as compared with £6.25 million in the previous financial year.

Last November, the White Paper on housing was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and copies were circulated to public representatives throughout the country. The paper outlines the Government's proposals to replace all existing Housing Acts with a legislative code suitable to modern conditions and its wide circulation has resulted in our obtaining many useful suggestions which are being considered in the preparation of the Bill which is now in its final stages preparatory to introduction to this new Dáil. The paper also defines the level of house building which the Government have in mind within the context of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

The policy outlined in the White Paper aims at the assessment of housing needs on the basis of re-housing families in unfit and overcrowded conditions, and also providing against the deterioration of the existing housing stock and for growth in demand arising from increased family formation. This will involve a housing output of between 12,000 and 14,000 dwellings each year as indicated in the White Paper, which will require a vigorous, positive approach and the ready co-operation of all concerned. Many practical steps have already been taken by me to facilitate this expansion. I have greatly reduced the details which local authorities were required to submit to the Department before proceeding with schemes.

A detailed review of existing housing standards and procedure was put in hands. Pending completion of this review, existing standards which had been suggested to local authorities over a period of years were re-issued in a comprehensive memorandum designed to obviate delay and unnecessary correspondence in regard to the production of acceptable housing proposals. The first part of the review of housing standards has now been completed and I am having up-to-date and detailed guidance on the selection of housing sites and the procedure to be followed in the submission of housing proposals conveyed to housing authorities. The acquisition of suitable sites is a prerequisite to the provision of good housing.

In the past, complexities of site acquisition have caused delays in housing projects. Now, with firm guide lines for housing authorities available, I have decided that where proposals for site acquisition by agreement comply generally with the Department's recommendations it will no longer be necessary to submit them to me for prior approval. In future the final responsibility for selecting suitable sites will be placed on the local housing authorities.

Local officers will have to measure up fully to that responsibility. They will need to see to those requisites in site acquisition policy for which the Department's officers have heretofore taken responsibility. They must also have due regard to planning objectives in consultation with local planning officers. I also propose to issue to housing authorities revised instructions designed to reduce documentation of housing schemes to the essential minimum. As the review of housing standards and procedure develops, I shall give further guidance on similar lines in regard to open spaces, densities, layout, house plans and so on. I intend that these various recommendations will be co-ordinated later into a housing manual which will include sample plans for the layout of schemes and the design of houses.

With the majority of housing authorities the present increased housing output is based simply on individual applications for rehousing. Now, in anticipation of the proposed new housing legislation, they will have to make a fresh assessment of housing needs on a broad basis covering unfit houses, overcrowded families, obsolescence and growth of population. This assessment must be made quickly, on the basis of information already available to the local authority in their own records, in census figures and in consultation with local industrial and other interests.

Further detailed surveys would only entail delay. The immediate aim of the new assessment will be a reasonably firm figure on which both short and long-term programmes can be based. The short-term programme, to be carried out over a period of from three to five years, according to local circumstances, should be sufficient to eliminate all arrears of housing demand and cater for the expected growth of demand within the period of the programme.

The long-term programme should aim at keeping pace with growth of demand so as to ensure that there will be no new accumulation of unsatisfied housing requirements in future years. The advice and guidance of my Department will be freely available to housing authorities in assessing their needs and developing their programmes. I urge the maximum use of personal contact between departmental and local officers so as to eliminate unnecessary correspondence and any vestiges of bureaucratic inertia which may survive the really zealous efforts of those central and local teams, the most of whom I can testify to be dedicated to a great and worthy mission.

This vigorous new approach to the assessment of needs, acquisition of sites and planning of new programmes will not, however, of itself be sufficient to assure the projected annual output. There is some doubt as to the capacity of the building industry to meet the increased output by traditional methods and procedures. I have had this matter under close examination and I have initiated further measures including the introduction of system building at Ballymun, the invitation to building interests to submit details of new systems which might be used in speeding up housing programmes and the encouragement of local authorities to investigate the question of grouping needs so that large-scale or long-term contracts can be offered. Contractors will be thus encouraged to engage in local authority work and afforded an opportunity of adopting new systems or rationalised traditional methods. A large number of specific proposals have been received from building interests and detailed examination of these proposals is well advanced.

The rise in housing costs has continued and the general increase in wages, the introduction of the shorter working week and the additional benefits which were the subject of the agreement following the trades dispute last autumn will contribute to a degree which has not yet been fully felt. While every effort will be made by the various methods to which I have already referred to keep down these costs to a minimum, it is nonetheless clear that they will provide a serious problem for housing authorities generally in the financing of their housing schemes.

Nevertheless, they must face up to their obligation to rehouse families living in unfit housing in overcrowded conditions, and other categories in need of rehousing who cannot because of their circumstances provide houses for themselves. These people cannot be left in bad housing conditions because they cannot afford to pay the rents which would in the normal way result from the increased costs. A generous level of State assistance in the form of subsidy is already available and the level of this subsidy is under continuous review in relation to prevailing circumstances. The share of the burden which can be assumed by the taxpayer is, however, limited. Having regard to the increasing burden of rates all over the country, the share of the ratepayer must also be subject to limit.

The problem therefore of providing housing accommodation for the poorer families at rents which they can afford must be solved in the main by the adoption by housing authorities generally of rational rent policies. Very few authorities have yet made serious attempts in this direction. Some 60,000 houses were built by urban housing authorities prior to 1950. In the great majority of cases, the rents still current were fixed when the houses were built. In some cases, they are insufficient to meet present day costs of repair and maintenance, notwithstanding the fact that many of the occupiers are in very good financial circumstances.

A reasonable increase in the rental of these houses related to the ability of the tenant to pay would go a long way towards solving the financial problem of providing houses for the poorer families at rents they can afford. I stress this point because otherwise housing authorities will not be in a position to provide houses for such families, some of whom may not be in a position to pay any rent.

While concentrating on their primary responsibility of providing houses for families who cannot help themselves, housing authorities should not overlook the need to encourage as many people as possible to provide their own homes. Such people are also experiencing the impact of the serious increases in house building costs. Local authorities can help to reduce this impact by a vigorous and progressive policy in regard to the provision of developed sites for private housing.

I regret that, generally, housing authorities have so far failed to do this on anything like an adequate scale. They should not wait until a clamant demand forces them to act. They should institute orderly planned programmes in anticipation of demand. The amount of expenditure involved is very small in comparison with the cost of direct building by them. Families who seek developed sites from local authorities display initiative and self-reliance which is worthy of all the support the local authority can give. By providing such sites on a generous basis and supplementary grants to go with them in appropriate cases, housing authorities will in the long run be working to their own advantage.

An aspect of housing to which I have given special attention is the provision of adequate housing for small farmers. I hope that response to the new scheme under which the State pays a specially favourable rate of subsidy for the housing of farmers with valuations of £5 or less will result in a substantial reduction of unfit housing in rural areas. If enthusiastically operated by housing authorities, it will offer the prospect of a solution to a long-standing housing problem which was ignored in the past. Even if many of those concerned were unable or unwilling to take the initiative, there is an onus on the public authorities to create a new atmosphere now, in which these people will realise public policy stands for the elimination of unfit housing conditions in rural as well as urban areas.

Steady progress has been maintained by county councils generally during the year with the vesting of labourers cottages, over 72 per cent of which have been vested in the tenants. The percentage was less than 50 in only three areas. While most urban housing authorities have formulated schemes under which tenants may purchase their houses at attractive terms, the number purchasing is still rather low. This position is being reviewed in conjunction with the proposed new housing legislation.

It is estimated that total issues from the Local Loans Fund to local authorities for housing purposes in the year 1964-65 exceeded £11 million. The comparative figure for 1963-64 was just under £8 million. Over £3 million was issued from the Local Loans Fund for loans for house purchase, as compared with a little over £2¾ million in 1963-64. I referred last year to a welcome trend which has developed in the past few years towards increased borrowing from commercial sources by individuals who are providing their own houses. I am glad to say that in the year 1964 about £12 million was advanced by these commercial bodies for house purchase. It is gratifying to note that these agencies have financed by far the greater part of the increase in private housing output since 1962.

By this heavy investment, the building societies and insurance companies have assumed an important role in housing progress, and it is desirable that they maintain close liaison with my Department. Local authorities were notified during the year that it is open to them to raise a loan from an outside source for lending to persons with annual incomes over £1,040 for the provision of houses. A number of local authorities have, in fact, raised such loans, and it is expected that the facilities will be extended in the current financial year.

A total of 40 housing authorities have had schemes for the making of loans for reconstruction or repair of houses approved. This total comprises 24 county councils, three county boroughs and 13 urban district councils and borough corporations.

Housing loans sanctioned during 1964-65 for issue from sources other than the Local Loans Fund amounted to approximately £440,000. The loans were mainly for the purpose of financing repairs to cottages prior to vesting and for supplementary grants.

A concession was given to rural authorities during the year in regard to the application of the higher rate of subsidy for the rehousing of subtenants from council houses where the sub-tenancy was created before 1st June, 1964. This concession is intended to enable them to clear up any backlog of sub-tenancies giving rise to overcrowding in their houses and was given on the understanding that action would henceforth be taken to prevent the recurrence of further sub-lettings. The problem of sub-tenancies is referred to in the White Paper on Housing and it is the intention to review the whole field of policy in this matter in conjunction with the new housing legislation.

I have kept the housing position in Dublin city under constant review and close contact has been maintained with members of the City Council, and between officers of the Department and the Corporation. The most-up-to-date figures show that the Corporation have applications for rehousing on hands from over 8,200 people. Of these, 3,760 have been recommended by the medical officer for rehousing on statutory grounds. The number of additional cases in unfit houses and other dwellings being cleared at present by statutory operations of the housing authority is somewhat less than 500. A detailed survey of dangerous buildings has been carried out and it is estimated that approximately 3,500 families will be affected by dangerous building procedures, and by obsolescence, in the relatively near future. The rate of obsolescence in Dublin city is high and is related to the substantial number of dwellings in the city which were built over 100 years ago.

Last December, Dublin City Council decided to revert to normal priorities in the re-housing of families subject to certain conditions. Applications for re-housing have doubled since January last when a public announcement of the easement in the housing situation was made. Seventy per cent of the new applications were of the three-in-one-room category or less. The Corporation have 1,200 current housing applications from newly-weds. They recently resumed dealing with these cases. Because of the dangerous buildings emergency, there is still a substantial number of newly-weds from the 1963 list to be dealt with.

In the light of the foregoing, it is evident that the present housing needs of Dublin city amount, in round figures, to not less than 10,000 dwellings, with the prospect of a continued high level of building to meet additional needs, which will arise from further obsolescence and the natural growth in demand. The Corporation's programme, while geared to produce the maximum number of dwellings by conventional means as fast as practicable, still leaves a serious gap which is now being filled by the scheme at Ballymun. Apart from this project, the Corporation have some 1,800 dwellings in progress or at tender stage and have sites in course of development or ready to be developed for another 2,100 dwellings. In addition, sites are being cleared which will accommodate some 500 flat dwellings. There has been a substantial improvement recently in the number of completions. New dwelling completions last year totalled 791 not counting the 175 chalet caravans provided as temporary accommodation for the one and two-person families displaced from dangerous buildings. It is estimated that up to 2,000 dwellings will be available in the current year for re-housing. I am glad to note that the Corporation are taking positive steps also to deal with the demand for developed sites and for tenant-purchase houses.

I have also had the general housing position in Cork, Limerick and Waterford cities under review during the year and have visited Cork and Limerick for discussions with the city councils. An expanded programme of housing activity is required in all three areas to eliminate the persistent backlog of needs. I have asked these authorities to proceed on the basis of the broad assessment of housing needs to which I have already referred, and to prepare expanded programmes designed to eliminate arrears and to make provision for expected growth in housing demand. I made it clear to the councils concerned that if traditional methods were not sufficient to enable them to eliminate the whole of the backlog with the expedition which this objective warrants and if they gave me particulars of the amount of arrears which they were unable thus to tackle, I would be prepared to advise them about special methods to deal with any such surplus above their own capacity to undertake, provided one or more such authorities had a demand in this category of 2,000 or more dwellings.

I have already indicated the housing position in Dublin which moved me early in 1964 to discuss with the Corporation its housing programme over the years to 1970. From these discussions, it emerged that a radical departure from the normal procedure of initiating housing schemes was justified by the urgency of the situation. I reached agreement with the city representatives on a new procedure under which I, as Minister for Local Government, would take the initiative.

On the 1st July, 1964, the city council by resolution asked me to arrange, through an agency to be nominated by me, for the provision of 3,000 dwellings on lands which, through negotiations initiated by me, had become available from the authorities of University College, Dublin. It was emphasised that these 3,000 dwellings were in addition to the maximum potential of the expanding programme which the Corporation had then undertaken, and is now pursuing, through the normal contracting and building procedures.

In initiating this project, we set before us certain well defined priorities. We wanted a large volume of housing constructed to acceptable standards and to acceptable costs within a relatively short period, a high standard of planning, including play spaces, car parking and landscaping, so as to achieve the optimum integration of this new residential area with the existing city. We wanted planning to have shops, schools and other amenities also provided pari passu with the establishment of the new community. We saw that new building methods were needed so as not to interfere with the existing structure of the industry by increasing the pressure on and competition for labour otherwise engaged on the expansion of housing output.

The response of building interests to the advertisements we issued was immediate, widespread and imaginative. I authorised the National Building Agency, Ltd., with the approval of the Government, to enter into and to manage this contract and the Agency has been augmented by engaging, for the period of the contract, the services of leading Dublin professional consultants.

Since the housing contract was signed on 2nd February, there has been continuous activity on planning, design and organisation. The association, at contract stage of the processes of planning, design and construction will enable the project to get under way with the minimum of delay. The factory for the flat units has commenced simultaneously with site works. The development of such a large site is a formidable task but the first area will be ready to enable housing to commence within a few months. The programming calls for an increase in the rate of production to 1,000 units next year. This output will be a worthwhile supplement to the Corporation's own expanding programme in the years immediately ahead.

The increase in the amount provided for private housing water supply and sewerage grants is necessitated by the high level of demand for these grants. Allocations of all grants in 1964-65 reached the new record level of 27,960, which represents an increase of about 13 per cent on the figure for 1963-64. Allocations of new house grants at 7,868 exceeded all previous figures and the indications are that we are well on the way to the achievement in the private sector of the output of new houses forecast in the White Paper and in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. The special increased rates of new house grants for farmers and certain other classes in rural areas are being widely availed of and it seems clear that these grants will make a substantial improvement in the housing conditions of the rural community. Since the scheme was put in hands at the end of 1963, the total number of new grants in this category allocated up to the end of March last was 758. In addition, many normal new house grants, which though made some years ago were not availed of on account of financial difficulties, are now being revised upwards to the new levels to enable the applicants to go ahead with their plans. Up to March last there were 393 such revisions bringing the total number in this group to over 1,100 new houses,

The less spectacular, though equally useful, work of reconstruction and conservation of the existing stock of housing continues at the steady rate of about 12,000 grant cases a year. The total number of grants for private water supply and sewerage facilities for 1964-65 was 8,397 which is more than double the figure for two years ago. Steady progress is being made all over the country in the development and execution of co-operative group water supply schemes.

Interest in the grants available for the provision of accommodation for the housing of elderly persons is developing steadily. The most significant move during the past year was made by a number of conferences of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul who have embarked on the provision of dwellings in this field. The State and local authority grants aggregating up to £600 per unit are also encouraging various other philanthropic bodies to take a hand in the solving of this problem of elderly persons. This is work in which the local authorities could also usefully engage to a greater extent than they are doing at present.

I am glad to report steady progress in the past year in the drive for the provision and improvement by local authorities of public water supply and sewerage schemes. On the 31st March, 1965, 242 schemes, comprising 162 water supply and 80 sewerage schemes, were in progress at an estimated aggregate value of £9.75 million, as compared with schemes costing £7.32 million in progress in March, 1964. Continued progress is assured by the volume of works at the various stages of planning which shows £8.67 million worth of schemes at the tender stage with another £12.85 million at contract document stage and schemes to the value of £1.3 million are scheduled to start at an early date. The volume of schemes at the various preliminary stages will ensure the consistent maintenance of optimum rates of progress.

Issues from the Local Loans Fund for the year 1964-65 were £3.1 million as compared with £2.5 million in the previous year. The importance of adequate supplies of pure water to the home, to agriculture, to industry and to tourism is being increasingly recognised. It is not enough, however, to plan and provide these schemes as efficiently as possible. We must also see to it that the schemes when provided are properly maintained and operated and we must, on the national plane, ensure that our vital water resources are conserved to meet the ever increasing demands and protected from the ever-growing danger of pollution.

During the year it was my pleasure to appoint a National Committee for Ireland for the purposes of UNESCO's Hydrological Decade, 1965 to 1975. The Committee comprises representatives of various Departments, semi-State bodies and the Universities. The overall objectives of the programme are to accelerate the study of water resources, to make known the need for hydrological research and education in all countries and to improve each country's ability to evaluate its resources and use them to the best advantage. While the main focus of the programme will be scientific, considerable emphasis will be given to utilitarian factors.

I have been very much concerned at the high annual toll of young lives from drowning and in order to bring home to the public, particularly to parents, the vital urgency of proper training in the art of life saving I have sponsored a 15-minute colour film on Water Safety. The premiére of the film was held recently and it will be shown in public cinemas commencing from the end of this month. Sixteen-millimetre copies will also be available for showing by voluntary groups who are interested. Cautionary publicity of this kind is useful and will be continued but the real answer to the danger of death in the water is the provision of an adequate number of swimming pools. In order to overcome the major financial objections to accepted ideas of pool design, I recently arranged for the invitation of tenders for a prototype pool or approved variations thereon. The plan provides for a covered and heated pool with all the basic elements, without any frills, and the structure is so designed that extra amenities may be added at additional cost. Tenders are at present being examined and I hope that it will emerge that these pools can be provided at an average cost of about £16,000. This will give the people and, in particular, the young people, safe places in which to bathe and, more important still, to learn to swim.

Following decisions taken by the Government last October on the principal recommendations of the Commission on Itinerancy, local authorities have been asked to provide camping sites with the aid of State subsidy. Complex social issues are involved in tackling the itinerant problem, but it is evident that special measures are needed to rehabilitate this section of the community. I have recently appointed an advisory committee to advise on these measures. I would earnestly appeal to all Deputies to lend their support to the steps being taken which are designed to secure the integration of itinerants into the community.

Measurements of air pollution continued in six areas throughout the country and the stage has now been reached where there are 45 sets of apparatus in 32 stations involving three different measuring techniques. In order to strengthen existing controls on emissions of noxious or offensive gases from certain industrialised works, the preparation of interim regulations under the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962, is proceeding, with a view to the imposition of control on the emission of dark smoke from premises other than private dwelling-houses and the regulation of nuisance arising from industrial air pollution.

I am still concerned at the number of fires which result in loss of life and which, in the majority of cases, could have been prevented by the observance of proper fire precautions. Up-to-date surveys of potentially dangerous buildings are being made by fire brigade authorities in their areas. The draft code of standards recommended by the Fire Standards Committee has been under examination by the State Departments concerned and by the Chief Fire Officers of local authorities. When these have been considered I shall have a revised set of standards issued. My Department is preparing a set of fire standards specifically for hotels and these will also be published. I would bespeak the co-operation of the general public in preventing loss of life and property through fire. A serious responsibility rests on those in charge of buildings which house large numbers of people, particularly the young, the sick, the aged and the infirm. Local fire brigade authorities will be more than willing to give advice as to how regular fire and evacuation drills in such buildings should be carried out and also as to what other precautions should be taken.

As a result of discussions between my Department and the Fire Offices Committee of the insurance companies operating in this country, I have now set up a body linked with my Department to be known as the Fire Protection Association of Ireland to deal with the dissemination of propaganda in regard to fire prevention and control.

In many places there is a lack of public sanitary conveniences and in others the condition of existing conveniences is unsatisfactory. The lack, or the inadequacy, of such facilities is experienced not only at beaches, recreation grounds or places of scenic attraction, but also in country towns, particularly on bus routes which have considerable through traffic. I have once again drawn the attention of sanitary authorities to the need for providing adequate facilities and improving the standard of cleanliness of their existing conveniences. Financial assistance in the form of subsidy towards annual loan charges on borrowing to meet the cost of providing conveniences is available to local authorities from my Department. I would urge local authorities to give this matter serious consideration.

I am disappointed at the failure of some local authorities to respond to my request to take immediate protective action in regard to quarries in their areas which are known to be dangerous. The enabling legislation in this matter was promoted in response to what seemed a general and urgent demand. I hope that the poor response of some local authorities may be due merely to the fact that they did not have sufficient opportunity to provide in their estimates for the year 1964-65 for meeting their share of the cost of protective works. Financial assistance is available to local authorities from my Department in the form of grants at the rate of 50 per cent of the cost of approved works. The maximum of 50 per cent is subject to review in appropriate cases where special difficulties arise. Now that they have had ample notice of the scheme, I would urge local authorities to use their powers under the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1964, to deal with dangerous places in their areas.

As a major step in the modernising of our road system, I had a study made by my Department, with the help of the principal road authorities, of the more important of the country's main roads, and a few weeks ago I was able to announce to county councils that a number of the principal routes linking all parts of the country by a major network of approximately 1,500 miles had been designated as arterial routes to which an urgent programme of improvement is to be related over the remainder of the term of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

My Department is at present engaged in the preparation of details of the financial programme involved over this period, but in the meantime each county council has been allocated a substantial sum to be applied to work of improvement on these roads in the current year, an amount which in the aggregate is roughly 25 per cent higher than that of the previous year. Some local authorities may feel that there are other roads in their areas which merit a high classification in the national system, but the current designation of the arterial routes is only the first step in the reclassification of the whole road system, which I forecast last year. There are several roads of considerable local importance which, although they could not be fitted into this network, may be included in the next highest category of road which we shall soon be in the process of reclassifying.

Apart from the provision for arterial roads, the main feature of the Road Fund grants to local authorities for the current financial year is a minimum increase of ten per cent as compared with last year in the main road improvement grants, the improvement grants to the county boroughs and Dún Laoghaire, and the improvement grants to the other urban authorities. It was also possible to make an increase of ten per cent in the grant for county road improvement in the areas where the half-way stage has not yet been reached with the surfacing of county roads, and to make compensating adjustments in other areas.

On the subject of motor taxation, we are all familiar with the situation that arises at the end of each year when everyone sends in his application to the local motor taxation office for renewal of the licensing of his vehicle. The result is that the offices are under severe pressure, and everybody is held up. I am making arrangements, therefore, whereby, from a date which I shall announce later, but which I hope will be within the next 12 months, it will be possible to license a vehicle for any period of 12 calendar months rather than just the calendar year as at present.

At the same time, I am taking the opportunity to make some ancillary and desirable changes in the licensing arrangements. The principal of these relates to licences for the calendar quarter or shorter period. These short-period licences are necessarily subject to an additional charge, or surcharge, over and above the rate applicable to a full 12 months licence, to cover the extra administrative expenses involved by these arrangements, and loss of income to the Road Fund. This surcharge rate has stood at 20 per cent for over 40 years, and it has been the subject of criticism from time to time, and I am satisfied that it is too high. In conjunction with the new arrangements, therefore, I have decided that the surcharge rate should be reduced to 10 per cent so that after the commencement date for these arrangements, persons who find it necessary to license their vehicles for the shorter periods will benefit by an appreciable saving on the present rate.

Last year I referred to the increasing road safety and traffic movement problems created by the increase in motor traffic, and I outlined the work which my Department had in hands to deal with them. Motor traffic continues to increase, and I intend that my Department will face up to the challenges posed by this inevitable accompaniment to economic expansion and increased prosperity. The process of implementing the Road Traffic Act, 1961, by way of regulations and bye-laws continued. Three sets of regulations, one dealing with public service vehicle control, one dealing with the keeping of petroleum for motor vehicles and one dealing with road signs, were made, and I gave my consent to the Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, which set out the rules of the road, and to ten sets of local traffic and parking bye-laws and rules. Further regulations, relating to the fitting of anchorages for safety belts and the numbering of trailers, have just been made and work is proceeding on the preparation of other regulations—one set relating to the amendment of the Traffic Signs Regulations, and one to the amendment of the speed limit regulations in respect of the most heavily trafficked routes. I hope to make the two sets of regulations in the very near future.

An agreement was signed with the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland providing for the extension of their liability to injury to passengers in certain cases. Other aspects of what I may call the day-to-day work of the Department included the approval of ten off-street car parks, provided with the aid of grants from the Road Fund and the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote, and a number of sets of traffic lights and pedestrian lights.

The traffic signs regulations made in 1964 provided for the introduction of the double-white line system at bends and summits on the most heavily-trafficked routes. This is an important innovation. Coupled with it is a scheme for marking the centres of the full lengths of all such routes; I am sure that when completed it will assist drivers considerably, particularly at night, and help to reduce accidents.

Local authorities were asked to review the system of stop signs on heavily-trafficked routes, to weigh the necessity for them, if necessary to remove that necessity by improving visibility at the junction, and to see where they must be retained, that they are properly located. With the coming into force of the General Bye-Laws, doubts about the legal force of these signs are removed and I trust that they, too, will play their part in reducing accidents.

Representatives of my Department, the Garda and Dublin Corporation, work together as a team on Dublin traffic problems. The one-way streets have undoubtedly improved traffic flow in the central city area. Some further extensions have been introduced fairly recently. When the operation of these has been fully assessed and the temporary rules have been incorporated in bye-laws, the way will then be open to institute a series of systems of pedestrian crossings which could not have been done during the experimental period.

During the year, the Department continued with the production of leaflets and films on road safety education and continued to assist financially and to work closely with the Safety First Association of Ireland. Liaison was also maintained with other voluntary bodies and with Telefís Éireann and cinema managements. The Department also participated in the work of an inter-departmental committee established by the Minister for Education to prepare a programme of road safety instruction for use in the schools, which, I understand, it is hoped to have introduced in the new school year. This is one of the most important steps that can be taken in road safety; it is our earnest hope that it will be reflected in future generations of road users who will know how to protect themselves and save the lives of others.

The major effort in road safety during the year 1964/65 was the December road safety campaign. I was greatly heartened by the enthusiasm displayed by all participants and their willing and generous co-operation. One had only to attend the symposium or any of the many local functions to appreciate this. The campaign highlighted in particular the emergence in very many areas of a sense of community involvement. This work will, of course, continue. We are already planning a large-scale national campaign for next December. At Whit I propose to conduct an interim campaign, mainly at local level. I have already sought and been given the promise of wholehearted support from the local authorities.

I hope soon to be in a position to introduce proposals for further Road Traffic legislation to deal with such important matters as the problem of drink and driving.

Applications for driving tests have been coming in at an ever-increasing rate since the scheme was introduced a year ago. Figures of provisional licences issued to learner drivers indicate that the scope of operations under the scheme will expand rapidly and arrangements for the recruitment of the staff necessary to handle the increased numbers of tests are well advanced.

More than 5,000 tests have been carried out. The test is related to the normal driving manoeuvres which the average motorist would expect to carry out in his every-day driving and a knowledge of the Rules of the Road, yet the rate of failures in the test has reached nearly 40 per cent. Proper driving instruction and a more complete awareness on the part of learner drivers of their responsibilities are needed before we can hope for an improvement in this position. It is my intention in the near future to seek powers to enable my Department to exercise a measure of control over the giving of driving instruction for reward.

Planning of a general scheme for periodic testing of vehicles is proceeding. I am anxious, however, that a general scheme should be preceded by a system of "spot checks" on vehicles in use on the public roads and I shall be seeking powers for this purpose. Such checks would be carried out by technicians employed by my Department, in collaboration with the Garda Síochána. They would serve a useful purpose not only in what they would achieve in discovering defects in vehicles but also by giving experience and information on matters essential to the administration of a general scheme of vehicle testing.

The coming into operation of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, on 1st October, 1964 marks the beginning of a new phase of creative planning. All local planning authorities must now proceed with preparing their development plans for their areas within three years, setting out their development objectives for the years ahead. The main aims of the new planning machinery include the modernisation of cities and towns to meet modern urban needs, the encouragement of balanced economic growth in all areas and the preservation of and improvement of amenities. The groundwork for the making of plans is being laid. This includes investigating existing physical conditions and development patterns in each area as a basis for future projections. The planning authorities are being helped in this in various ways.

An Foras Forbartha is conducting a series of seminars for local officers on the steps to be taken through surveys and other investigations in order to prepare the material on which to base their recomendations and advice to the elected members in regard to the planning objectives to be adopted. Two of these seminars have already been held with marked success. The material presented at the seminars is being worked into a planning manual which will be a valuable guide to local planning officers on both field and office work. A two-day course for local administrative staff was also held during the year and was very well attended and received. It is my intention that these forms of practical assistance for local planning authorities will be continued and will be supplemented in other ways including guidance and advice locally by the Department's planning staff. I have already announced that aerial surveys will be carried out, at State expense, of all built-up areas for which separate development plans must be prepared in order that authorities may be in a position to obtain supplies of up-to-date maps for their planning work.

It is not necessary to await the outcome of the recommended surveys before starting on positive planning. There is in all areas a fund of local knowledge and experience, quite apart from any development planning that may have been done in the past, and these can be put to good use right away. I have advised therefore that provisional plans be prepared forthwith for all built-up areas. This amounts to no more than setting down on paper, in the light of a quick assessment of needs, the best impressions at present available of the shape of future development.

This is a useful first step towards making the statutory plan and one which can be taken right away. The provisional plans will serve as a guide for immediate development and as a basis for discussions and investigations leading to the statutory plans. Sample provisional plans have been prepared by the Department's staff and they have been circulated and explained to local planning officers. It has been established that a provisional plan can be prepared for a town of five thousand population by one man in a week or so and I would urge on all planning authorities to press on with this work as a first priority.

The Second Programme for Economic Expansion provides that regional and national physical planning programmes will be evolved. These will serve to facilitate the implementation of the national economic and social development objectives in the field of planning and community development. To assist in this and to aid planning authorities with their separate plans regional planning studies are proposed in all regions. Nine regions have been tentatively declared. These regions overlap administrative boundaries and consist of groups of counties or parts of counties which have common features and are subject to common influences. Already the planning problems in two of the regions are being examined by independent experts. These are the Dublin region, which includes the area within thirty miles of the city and the Limerick region comprising Counties Limerick, Clare and North Tipperary.

A preliminary report on the Dublin study has now been received and has aroused widespread interest. This report is being studied. In addition, a model amenity development plan is being prepared for the Donegal region by An Foras Forbartha and this will serve as a valuable guide for planning authorities in the fields of amenity and tourist development. Suitable studies for the other regions will be arranged as soon as possible. The purpose of these regional studies, which are being carried out at State expense, is to promote co-ordinated planning on a regional and national scale. They will be of undoubted value to local planning authorities but they are not intended to affect these authorities' functions or to relieve them of their statutory responsibilities as regards the making and administration of their development plans.

The growth of traffic and the prospects of steadily increasing urban populations stress the importance of those features of the new planning legislation which are designed to secure the redevelopment of obsolete areas in cities and towns. Further evidence that the time is ripe to tackle this problem in a comprehensive way is seen in the steady spread of piecemeal redevelopment for offices and commercial buildings, particularly in the centres of the larger urban areas. Dublin Corporation adopted my suggestion to have an investigation made of the possibilities of large-scale commercial redevelopment in the city and have had prepared a pilot scheme for a large central area. The question of proceeding to implement this scheme, in whole or in part or some variation of it on the basis of a phased programme, is under active consideration by the Corporation with their consultant.

Some concern has been expressed on behalf of traders in the area concerned as to the implications of a redevelopment scheme. Full compensation on the basis of market values would, of course, be payable for any public acquisition, by agreement or compulsorily, of properties for the purpose of urban renewal projects, while it is to be expected that provision would be made as far as possible for the relocation of displaced interests within the area. Furthermore, there should be scope for participation by existing interests in the area in a renewal scheme. particularly where there is unified control of extensive pockets of properties. Where such interests are able and willing to participate realistically in the achievement of a balanced and viable overall scheme I am sure that they would be given every opportunity to do so by the planning authority. I believe that there are good prospects that suitable urban renewal projects will attract the necessary financial and technical support to enable them to be put into effect. There is a great deal to be done in this field towards creating improved urban environments in line with national economic advancement and the needs of modern urban communities. This will not be achieved overnight but it is important that urban planning authorities should take a lead from Dublin Corporation and proceed to investigate the need and opportunities for improvements in their own areas.

Some authorities have expressed concern as to the staff and financial implications of development planning. It is recognised that this is largely a new field of operation and that some difficulties arise. There is, for example, a considerable scarcity of trained planning staff. We are trying to overcome this by providing additional training facilities and by making the most of the available skills. I think it will be clear from what I have said that planning authorities are not being left to face these problems alone and that they can rely on a continuous programme of practical help from the Department and An Foras Forbartha. I should say, however, that there seems to be an exaggerated impression in some places of the difficulties and demands arising. I have already said that the first plans, the provisional plans, can be prepared quickly without any detailed surveys or other preparations. Furthermore, it has been established that the surveys which should precede the statutory plans can be got through in a short time using the simple methods detailed in the planning manual. I hope, therefore, that the minority of authorities who have not already done so will proceed without further delay with the organisational arrangements essential to enable them to operate the Act. This can be looked at as simply complying with the statutory requirements; but considering the pace of development nowadays and the changes it is bringing in the countryside self-interest alone makes it imperative to avail fully in all areas of the machinery which the Act provides not only to control new buildings and to preserve amenities, but to support the growth of economic activity and of local employment.

The provision under Subhead I for a grant-in-aid to An Foras Forbartha Teoranta, the National Institute for Physical Planning and Construction Research, shows an increase of £10,000 because the provision last year was for partial operation only since the majority of staff appointments were not made until towards the end of 1964. An Foras has made a most auspicious start, having shown in what amounts to only six months operation, great energy and effectiveness in getting its work programme under way. This was greatly assisted by the presence at the Institute of United Nations experts. Of the total team of twelve specialists who will be provided by the United Nations Special Fund to assist the initial establishment and operation of the Institute, five have already taken up duty and a number of others are expected in the near future. The Institute has now recruited a professional Irish staff of ten and in addition has awarded two whole-time fellowships in Town Planning to geography graduates.

The staff of the Institute are greatly assisted in their tasks by the Consultative Council representing professional, vocational and other interests concerned with its work programme. I am very grateful indeed to all the bodies and individuals who responded so enthusiastically to my invitation to serve on this Consultative Council and on the various committees it has established. The Institute is providing a means whereby all concerned with the work programme of the Institute in planning, building, roads and road traffic can combine together to examine needs and advise on the application of new methods and techniques, all with a view to helping in the building of a modern physical environment responsive to our growing economic and social needs.

The major responsibility of An Foras in planning is to assist the planning staffs of local authorities to prepare the new development plans, by producing a series of manuals on different aspects of a development plan such as land use and building condition, road traffic, amenity and so on. Each of these manuals is the subject of a seminar attended by the planning staffs of local authorities. These manuals and seminars are essential because, with the general shortage of planners, only the major urban areas have qualified planners on their staffs. An Foras has to date held two seminars on land use and building condition surveys and has produced a manual on this subject. Further seminars and manuals are in the course of preparation and it is expected that by the early Autumn the entire process of preparing a development plan will have been covered.

An Foras, in co-operation with the planning authorities concerned, are assisting in the preparation of a model amenity development plan for County Donegal and a model town plan for Galway City. It is also hoped to undertake a model urban renewal scheme in a medium-sized town and also to undertake a model regional plan for one of the nine planning regions. The Institute is organising next month a National Conference on Regional Planning at which it will present a paper on regional planning problems and possibilities in Ireland and introduce a number of international figures in regional planning to describe regional planning practice and achievement elsewhere.

In construction research An Foras has made very rapid progress. A National Conference on the Expansion of the Construction Industry which was held last December, focussed attention on some of the basic problems the industry faces in achieving the expansion targets of the Second Economic Programme which envisage that output per operative in the industry must rise by one-quarter between now and 1970. It is also engaged, at my request and with the assistance of working parties of its Building and Construction Committee, in preparing a draft of a new national code of building regulations, in an examination of the feasibility of introducing dimensional co-ordination in building and in a design-cost study of rural housing. I have also asked the Institute to examine some sixty proposals that I received for industrialised building methods with a view to recommending those which would be most suitable in Irish conditions. The Institute is also examining methods of measuring changes in building cost as, while we have cost indices for most other major price sectors in the economy, we do not have a reliable one for building and construction. I have also asked the Institute to examine the matter of improved organisational and management methods in the construction industry and a United Nations specialist in these matters will take up duty at the Institute shortly.

I have designated An Foras to be the national centre for roads construction research and road traffic research and a roads construction research officer and a road traffic research officer are being appointed. Two United Nations specialists in these fields will also take up duty in the near future. It is my desire that the Institute would, in conjunction with my Department, establish a comprehensive research programme in technical, economic and organisational aspects of expenditure on roads. I have already referred to my expectation that An Foras will develop a research programme in regard to road traffic and road safety. A major matter of research by An Foras will be the possible need for motorway standards on some of our roads and I have asked them to give this matter urgent attention.

The number of planning appeals under consideration on 1st April, 1964, was 490. The number of new appeals lodged during the year 1964/65 was 887, compared with 585 in the preceding year and 457 in the year 1962/63. The increase in the number of new appeals is the direct outcome of increased activity in all sections of the building industry. The number of appeals disposed of during the year 1964/65 was 745, of which 422 were formally determined by me. Of the remaining 323 cases, 173 appeals were withdrawn as a result of agreement between the parties, or for other reasons, and 150 appeals were invalid. Of the appeals formally determined by me during the year 1964/65, 101 were allowed and 95 were allowed subject to conditions. The decision of the planning authority was confirmed in 226 cases.

The new procedure under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, makes provision for the oral hearing of appeals and although the majority of appellants continue to deal with their appeals by way of written representations, some have availed themselves of the new procedure and it has been operating satisfactorily. The procedure for oral hearings is informal and inexpensive and it enables the planning issues in a case to be discussed in an open and frank manner.

The provision in Subhead G for grants for the clearance of derelict sites, for public amenity works and for dangerous quarries at £47,000 shows an increase of £12,000 on the provision in 1964/65. There was a significant increase in the number of grants allocated for derelict sites clearance last year, but a great deal remains to be done in this field to rid the countryside of the unsightly ruins and other disfigurements which catch attention on all sides, in both urban and rural areas. I hope to see a considerably greater use being made of these grants, with a strong lead being given by the local authorities especially where this problem has not so far been tackled in an organised way. During the year, 702 grants totalling £38,089 were allocated.

The scheme of grants for the development of public amenity works has had some notable successes, but here again the response in general to the provision of these grants has been less than enthusiastic. Under the Planning and Development Act, planning authorities generally have now a greatly increased interest and responsibility in this sphere of amenities and must include objectives under this heading in their development plans. The grants scheme is a positive encouragement and incentive to them to face up to these responsibilities. A great deal depends on the success of their efforts both as regards the preservation of natural scenic and recreational amenities and the development of the tourist industry. The scope of the amenity grants scheme is at present being reviewed in the light of the extended amenity responsibilities of the planning authorities under the Act and my Department will be in touch with the local authorities about this in due course. The grants are 50 per cent. of the approved cost of schemes and are available to both local authorities and private associations. In 1964/65, a total of £31,336 was allocated in 29 grants.

Steps were taken during the year to speed up consideration of compulsory acquisition proposals at all stages and practically all cases in which any considerable delays had occurred were cleared. At the beginning of the year 72 proposals in respect of land and water rights were under consideration; during the year 66 cases were finally disposed of and 46 new proposals were received, leaving a total of 52 cases under consideration as at 31st March, 1965.

In the contract year ended 30th June, 1964, the value of commodities purchased by local authorities through the Combined Purchasing Scheme was approximately £4,325,000 which is an increase of approximately £25,000 on purchases made through the scheme in the previous contract period.

The Estimate includes an amount of £12,500 for grants to An Chomhairle Leabharlanna. Of this amount, £2,500 will be for meeting current expenses and £10,000 to enable An Chomhairle to make grants to library authorities of up to 50 per cent of the loan charges incurred on projects designed to improve the local library services. This scheme of grants was introduced under regulations which I made in November, 1961. The response by local library authorities was disappointing at the outset, but I am pleased to say that the scheme now seems to be getting properly under way and projects have been approved by An Chomhairle or are under consideration by that body which should result in fine new branch libraries, modern mobile libraries and major book restockings being provided in a score of areas. I look forward to a big expansion in the scale of these activities in coming years.

I turn now to an aspect of local administration which is of pressing interest to everybody, that is the question of expenditure on local services. In the financial year just ended, the total revenue expenditure of local authorities, excluding vocational educational committees, committees of agriculture and harbour authorities was approximately £77.835 million. The corresponding figure for the current year is estimated to be £85.840 million. In 1964-65, receipts from rates amounted to £26.032 million representing 33.47 per cent of expenditure. State grants and subsidies totalled £38.030 million and met 48.86 per cent of the expenditure, while miscellaneous receipts, such as rents from local authority houses, fees from paying patients in hospitals and repayments of house purchase loans accounted for the remainder. Receipts from rates in the current year will be some £29.114 million and will meet approximately 33.91 per cent of expenditure, and contributions from the Exchequer will account for £43.644 million or 50.84 per cent. For a number of years past State grants and subsidies have been meeting a steadily increasing percentage of local revenue expenditure while the proportion of that expenditure defrayed by the rates has been falling in corresponding degrees.

To illustrate the extent of this trend, let me quote a few examples. In 1938/39 the State met 39.2 per cent of local authorities' revenue expenditure; in 1956/57 the proportion was 42.6 per cent, by 1964/65 it had risen to 48.86 per cent and in the present year the State will, for the first time, meet more than 50 per cent of the expenditure. I should like to emphasise, however, that the most striking feature of local finance in the post-war period, and particularly in recent years, is not the increase in rates but rather the increase in Government grants which now meet more than half of the total expenditure of local authorities. The total rates bill for 1938/39 was 4 per cent of the national income for that year. It was also 4 per cent of the national income for 1960/61 and it was 3.6 per cent of the national income for 1963/64, the latest year for which statistics are so far available.

Capital expenditure of local authorities in 1964/65 is estimated at £17.811 million, an increase of £3.305 million on 1963/64. Local authorities continued to obtain the bulk of their capital requirements from the Local Loans Fund. The total net indebtedness of local authorities at 31st March, 1965, was estimated at £179.037 million.

The Minister opened his survey this year in somewhat the same fashion as last year; in other words, he dealt with the question of housing as one of the main matters with which his Department is concerned. In so far as the House and the country are concerned, housing very rightly figures prominently in the mind of the Minister. The review by the Minister today and the review which takes place periodically in the press reveal that our housing situation calls for much more than lip service, if it is to be solved. The present situation can be described only as an insult to our social conscience.

The Minister has given an estimate in round figures but I am not sure if, at this stage, it is one that can be relied on. I waited all through this document to hear if the housing survey which the Minister asked local authorities to carry out had been completed. There is no evidence in the statement made by the Minister that such is the case. The Minister referred to the fact that in Dublin alone 10,000 houses are needed to meet requirements. If we relate that to the programme for the country at large of approximately 14,000 houses per year, the question is: is the figure realistic and does it take into account the rate of obsolescence which occurs? The latter has been estimated at approximately 1¼ per cent of the total houses in the State. If that figure of one per cent is taken off the figures given in the latest statistics published by the Central Statistics Office, it means that, of the 676,000 odd dwellings, some 60,000 need to be replaced annually in order to keep pace with the rate of obsolescence.

The Minister referred to the tour he made of the country in an effort to speed up the provision of houses. The Minister realises, as does everybody else, that the provision of houses for our people is one of our most urgent social needs, together with the replacement of bad houses and the improvement of conditions generally for our people. In Dublin there is a backlog because of old houses having become uninhabitable and the occupants of these having to be housed ahead of others. That upset the ordinary priorities, with the result that others in need of housing, particularly the younger people and the newly-weds, have had to wait their turn.

A feature which disturbs me is the position of the elderly and the poorer sections in our community. Not alone has one to deal with the situation of these people needing houses but, equally, one has to deal with people in poor financial circumstances whose housing needs have to be met outside of the rigid economic standard normally set in regard to rents. This is a matter to which the Minister and his Department will have to give their attention if the deplorable conditions in which these sections of our people live are to be improved at an early date.

Speaking of a housing programme extending to 1970 is certainly planning ahead. Speaking of a housing programme under which those who require houses at the moment may hope to obtain them by 1970 is certainly no great consolation; these people can have very little hope of any amelioration of their conditions at an early date.

I should have liked some information from the Minister in relation to helping local authorities to provide houses. I believe there are delays. The Minister adverted to these in his brief. He stated that he has tried to streamline the process in order to cut out some of the paper work. I trust his objective in this regard will be realised and that there will be a prompt speeding up in the procedure.

The Minister referred to the new Housing Bill. That is a Bill we had hoped to see before this. It will be interesting to discover what steps the Minister proposes to take to improve the situation both in regard to local authorities, who have to provide houses for those who cannot provide them for themselves, and also in regard to those intending to provide houses out of their own resources. The Minister referred to the fact that private housing has now outstripped by a long way traditional housing up to this, namely, the provision of houses by the local authorities.

One fact that strikes anybody dealing with housing is the question of subsidy. The Minister referred to the generous subsidy which is available and is kept under review. I speak subject to correction, but I believe the figures for the subsidy at present relate to a house costing £1,650. It has been the experience of the Minister and of local authorities that houses of the type we have been wont to build, particularly in rural areas, cannot be built at this figure. This figure is rarely found in the tenders reaching the Department at present. Undoubtedly, the cost of building has gone up, and that cost is reflected in local authority housing just as in other types of building.

I thought the Minister might have referred to this matter. Perhaps he will refer to it when he brings in his new Housing Bill. I should like the Minister to tell us, when concluding, when the House may expect this new Bill. The Minister says the surveys which have been made and the type of advice he sought have helped him, and that the preparation of the measure is now in its final stages. Before the House rises for the summer, I hope it will have seen this Bill and will know exactly what is in mind for people who are going to build their homes in the immediate future.

I want to digress for a moment to refer to a matter to which the Minister referred—the provision of houses for members of the farming community. The Minister says there has been an increase in the rate of applications for this type of house. I agree there has been an increase. It was in October, 1963, that the Minister first mentioned this scheme. I should like to know how many of these applications have reached fruition and how many applicants have been paid the full amounts the Minister said were available at that time. I should also like to ask him whether the question of the bona fides of applicants is the subject of quite a deal of investigation. I want to know whether it is the Minister's mind on this matter that a home and holding will be subject to a type of means test as to whether the applicant derives his livelihood more from agriculture than from any other type of avocation. This is an important matter, particularly in regard to small holdings.

The Minister spoke in terms of a £5 valuation. I should have thought in regard to small holdings that we would not have limited ourselves to a £5 valuation. Certainly, a £5 holding in this country does not mean that a person can be classed as a small farmer. We certainly could have raised our standards in regard to the valuation at which these new grants would be applicable.

In regard to the housing situation in Dublin, the Minister referred to the steps he has taken to assist Dublin Corporation through the Ballymun scheme. We were given to understand this scheme would speed up the provision of houses in Dublin. If I understand the terms of progress rightly, it will take from four to five years for the completion of this scheme. I want to know what great advantage it has over the traditional methods by which Dublin Corporation up to now have fulfilled their housing requirements. If the provision of 3,000 houses will take that length of time, along with the amenities attached, and if Dublin Corporation could provide themselves close on 1,000 houses per year by the traditional methods, I wonder what advantage is there in regard to the time factor?

I should also like to ask the Minister what advantage there is in regard to cost. Is there a saving in regard to cost? Taking the figures as they stand, roughly £9½ million to £10 million was given as the cost of this estate of 3,000 houses. Therefore, it would seem that the average cost of a house is £3,000. I wonder how that compares with the conventional type of building that has been going on? These are important matters for the country. If the Minister in his talks with Cork Corporation and Limerick Corporation envisages the spread of this type of building, he will have to justify the procedure whereby the traditional builders are being by-passed for a combination of builders. The country will need to know what the advantage is, first, for the people waiting for houses and, secondly, for the people who will have to pay for them.

Here in Dublin, where there is a concentrated population of over 600,000 people, one can see the necessity for the type of approach the Minister has made to this problem. But I wonder how this fits in with the second portion of the Minister's brief, in which he dealt with town planning and spoke of the obsolescence of the centre of Dublin. At present most modern cities—certainly the capitals of Europe—tend to the system of building whereby they go upwards rather than out. Here at present we seem to tend to go out rather than up. This is a matter which concerns not alone the people who have to work in the centre of the city but the business community who have their business premises there and who feel their business interests would be vitally affected by this movement of population from the traditional places they have lived.

Reference was made to the availability of amenities such as schools. These are the things which would figure largely in the thinking of any individual who finds himself moving into a new housing scheme on the outskirts of a growing city. The question of costs, at all stages, is important. Whether a family man has to send his children to school in the centre of the city or whether we will allow these schools to go and build new ones on the outskirts of the city is a matter to which the planners would need to give heed.

In regard to rural housing, I notice that the Minister has mentioned the question of developed sites and the provision of these types of sites for people who wish to build homes of their own. I can speak only from experience of my own area. There, I think, the local authority are finding it difficult, in some cases extremely difficult, to find sites close to centres of population. I referred to this matter before. It would be very desirable if developed sites could be made available. The Minister might take counsel with the Minister for Finance and the Emergency Employment Schemes Office so that, when grants are available for special employment work, around Christmas, particularly, some would be allowed for development work on sites, when available.

Compulsory acquisition is, of course, a slow process. I am glad the Minister is giving more discretion to the local authorities where they can reach agreement in regard to the taking over of sites. I am pleased that the local authority will have a say in the ordinary development work of their planning sites. I have always thought that there should be a greater measure of local government for the local authorities and that they should be allowed this type of discretion. I have always felt that the officers who advise them on these matters are skilled enough to do so and I am glad that, on this occasion, the Minister is going part of the way to meet this point by allowing more freedom to the local authorities.

A very large number of houses have been reconstructed. The Minister pays tribute to the type of work that has gone on. I think we might have done more for the people who reconstruct homes. A great many of the people who reconstruct homes are unable to provide themselves with new homes. When they set out to undertake this type of reconstruction, I wonder if the Minister considers he is helping them a lot or encouraging them a lot by a grant of £140. No home can be considered a suitable place to live in nowadays unless it contains at least the minimum of sanitary facilities and no worthwhile improvement of living conditions can be effected under a considerable sum of money. I think the officers of the Department who have visited houses to make these types of estimates on which they base their figures have, in the main, erred on the low side. Their estimates are very far from realistic and are certainly a great brake on people trying to do the job themselves.

The person who intends to reconstruct his home and who has not the necessary capital — and, in the main, the people who do this type of work have not — has to approach the local authority for a loan. That loan is based on the estimate prepared by the inspectors of the Department. If these inspectors make an estimate that is low, then the individual concerned cannot obtain any worthwhile help from the local authority by way of loan. In this case, he is not getting a free grant. He is applying for a loan: he will get a supplementary grant from the local authority. Indeed, some local authorities measure the amount of their grant from the 100 per cent grant downwards.

In my local authority area, the figure of supplementary grant is 10/- to every £1 provided from the Central Fund. When the individual concerned gets, say, £140, if he is lucky enough, plus £70, he finds himself with £210 and then he must take that from the estimated cost of improvements to the building and he can obtain a loan only on the balance. In most cases, this loan is based on 90 per cent of the balance and it is a short-term loan carrying a fairly high rate of interest.

The Minister ought to increase the amount available for the reconstruction of homes and ought to go much further than the figure in operation at the present time. I believe, equally so, that the inspectors of the Department who visit homes to measure this type of improvement ought to be realistic about modern costings so as to enable the applicant to get a reasonable advance from the local authority, an advance which will be repaid in a short term of years.

One of the things that strike a person dealing with housing at the present time, particularly in towns, small towns and even in the rural villages, is the number of unfit dwellings which still exist. This state of affairs is due to the historical reason, of course, of the old landlord type of town where the property was owned by an individual. In the main, these houses are poor property and certainly, by modern standards, are subject to being condemned once they are visited by a health inspector. Because of present regulations, a great difficulty arises in relation to a person who is taken out of one of these homes to be housed by a local authority. A notice is served on the owner of the property that he is no longer to allow a person to occupy it. If he does, the rate of subsidy to the local authority providing the home will not be payable in the second instance.

We have a problem, which is grave in a good many cases, of people who have shocking standards of housing moving from the poor type of quarters which they inhabit to a poor quarter which is being vacated, or who wish to move to that type of quarter. This is something which I am sure other Deputies have met just as I have. I know the answer which the local manager will give: he cannot relax the regulations. I want to put their problem here this evening as one which needs to be studied and as one which certainly requires a very speedy solution if this section of the community are not to be left in the hopelessly inadequate and health-killing conditions in which they now live. If something could be done for that section of the community, it would be well worth the effort, even if it were by way of some lessening of the regulations to allow these to be used for a certain length of time within the ambit of the Minister's programme for housing.

I noticed during the week—and perhaps the Minister would comment on this; I had hoped he would—that the building societies have had so many applications that they have had to refuse applications and are unable to provide the finance which would enable them to expand their activities. It is a pity that this should happen and I invite the Minister to comment on this situation in which some of these recognised building societies find that they are not able to advance money to people who need houses. This, of course, is all part of the general housing problem which, as I said last year, is going to remain with us not merely in the lifetime of this Minister or this Dáil but for many years and for many Ministers for Local Government before they find the solution to this problem.

The rate of building has not reached the stage it should have reached. The Minister has not told us the reasons for that. Certainly so far as the local authorities are concerned, the building position is very much behind time and a great deal of increased effort will be required to ensure that not alone will we meet the requirements of those who need homes by 1970, but that we will actually catch up on the backlog from previous years. I hope this will engage the very earnest attention of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, whom I am glad to congratulate on his appointment. I hope this is an indication of a realisation on the Government's part that the Department of Local Government does require a fillip in order to get on with the programme which is so necessary for the welfare of so many people.

In the next portion of his brief, the Minister refers to water and sewerage schemes and the need to conserve water supplies. It is almost two years since this question came up and reference was made then to a committee which had been set up to deal with it. I notice that a new committee has been set up and I wonder what became of the old one. Did that committee issue a report and, if so, is it available? The growth of schemes to provide water and sewerage facilities is one of the very desirable amenities of modern life—not alone desirable but essential. The drudgery in the home involved in drawing water from a distance, and where there are no sanitary facilities, particularly with a growing family, is one we could not hope to contemplate for any length of time without feeling guilty of neglect. The group water schemes have not been the success we all thought they would be and I wonder if the Minister and his advisers have considered why, in rural areas, these schemes have not been the success they ought to have been?

One thing which has militated against them is that where bores have been made for water supplies, facilities for the testing of the output by a recognised testing association have not been available and consequently some of these bores have failed. I know that at present the FSB are providing a pumping service at a fee to test out newly-bored wells. The Department ought to insist that this should be done in all cases so that the people who invest their money in what they think will provide water for their homes will have some kind of cover to ensure that when the well has been completed, it will maintain its output, an agreed output which is necessary for the number of people taking part in the scheme. I do not want to be facetious but in regard to the pipelines being laid along the roadways to serve homes, I should like to ask the Minister whether, under the new regulations in relation to town planning, these pipes are to be subject to an annual charge?

In regard to the conservation of water, I think we could all do much more because there is a great deal of waste and we might all become more conscious of the fact that the provision of piped water costs money. Everybody could, with advantage to the community, help in this matter by not being wasteful or extravagant in the use of water, particularly where it is provided from public sources.

Drownings are also referred to in the Minister's statement. Unfortunately we still have this tragic problem with us. The Minister refers to the need for swimming pools. Where the type of swimming pool he has in mind can be constructed at a cost of £16,000, it will be a pool in which one can bathe with safety, but in the ordinary way people in the country, particularly young people, will bathe in the rivers or at the seaside and what is very essential is more instruction in swimming. If the Minister could, by way of amenity contribution, help swimming clubs to provide the type of facilities which they are prepared to provide if they receive some encouragement and some financial help, it would go a long way towards getting young people to learn to swim at an earlier age and perhaps bring about a welcome reduction in the number of tragedies which take place each year. The need for people skilled in lifesaving comes to mind when tragedies occur. One hears of young people falling into rivers on the banks of which nobody is available with the necessary skills to bring them out. One would hope that more people, particularly those who are able to swim, would take these courses in lifesaving made available by the Irish Red Cross Society and the swimming clubs.

The problem of itinerants will be with us for some time. The provision of parking sites is a matter which has come up for consideration during the past couple of years—the question of providing places for them to park if they are prepared to stay in them. A problem even bigger than the provision of sites is whether these people are prepared to stay on sites provided by the local authorities. I do not see any hope that it will happen. These people now move about the country as freely as they ever did. Therefore, it is a problem whether we shall ever be able to integrate them into community life as regards homes, et cetera.

People who are experts, who have studied this type of social problem, will scarcely venture an opinion on this. To my mind, we must first of all be prepared to provide the facilities so that basic amenities will be available for itinerants where they normally congregate. Then comes the problem of encouraging them to go to these places provided for them by local authorities who will then have some sort of check on the types of nuisances that occur throughout the country from time to time.

On the question of roads, the Minister has decided to grade some roads as arterial and says he intends to proceed with the grading of other roads in the foreseeable future. This is vitally necessary now for the safety and comfort of the community as a whole. We must reach a stage where arterial roads become the responsibility of the central authority which will then have to deal with the question of the provision and maintenance of these roads.

The increased grants are very welcome. I take it these increased grants stem from an increase in the Road Fund. The growth of the Road Fund has been remarkable, side by side with the growth in the number of mechanical vehicles during the past ten years. We can expect a further increase in the number of all types of vehicles. Not alone will they add to the Road Fund, to the moneys available for the improvement of roads, but also to the problems of the provision and maintenance of roads and of safety on these roads. There will be a greater number of headaches for those associated with our roads.

The lining of roads, which has been going on to a considerable extent recently, has been a help, particularly the double lining at bends which has helped considerably when people are prepared to observe the ordinary courtesies. One of the greatest faults of motorists at the moment is that many of them have no courtesy.

Hear, hear.

The oncoming driver speeds towards you and refuses to dip his lights. He is a menace not only to himself but to the public at large. He has been the cause of innumerable tragic accidents involving loss of life, and some way will have to be found to deal with that type of individual who thinks that because he has a fast car and powerful lights, he can proceed at his own pace to the discomfiture and even the destruction of many others. I would suggest to the Minister that, if possible, in co-operation with the Minister for Justice, he might organise some type of patrol system to catch up with this type of individual who, if caught, should not only be given an exemplary fine but should be disqualified from driving for a long term. The roads are for the use of all and if we intend to make them safer in the future we must be prepared sternly to face the fact that people who are not prepared to observe the ordinary courtesies must have no place on the roads in ordinary modern conditions.

The parking problem in Dublin remains and, I am afraid, will remain for some time. The re-routing of traffic and the use of one-way streets has tended to speed up traffic. I am glad the Minister referred to pedestrian crossings because pedestrians at the moment must take their lives in their hands. Were it not for the good offices of the Garda Síochána, at times pedestrians would be unable to cross the streets. I hope there will be no delay in the provision of many more pedestrian crossings, particularly in busier parts of the city. This is particularly desirable in view of the oncoming summer, the influx, we hope, of many visitors and the fact that a larger number of young people will have the opportunity of moving about more freely during the summer holidays. We cannot afford any further loss of life through negligence. It would be a blot on us if we were to postpone any longer the provision of more pedestrian crossings. I urge that very strongly on the Minister.

It is remarkable how many have failed the driving test. I did not think the figure would be so high. A 40 per cent failure rate means that we must count ourselves lucky up to now in view of the obvious conclusion that a great number of people on the roads were incompetent. In view of the number of people who now have failed the driving test, it is remarkable that our casualty figures in the past have not been much higher. It goes to show that one of the things that have contributed to road hazards has been the number of unskilled people who have been allowed to drive cars, particularly hire-drive cars during weekends. Up to now the ease with which individuals might obtain driving licences created hazards for the public at large as well as for the individuals concerned.

The Minister referred to town planning. The Town Planning Act provides for the appointment of planners. The country has been divided into regional areas and the Minister has told us that each local authority will go ahead to prepare a plan in the next three years. I presume they are to plan within the ambit of any plans for the regional areas by the regional planners. I should like to hear from the Minister how this activity is to be dovetailed into local planning work—how the local plan will work into the regional plan for the area concerned. In my area we have a regional planner for Limerick, Tipperary and Clare, including Shannon Airport. I take it the local authorities in Tipperary, North and South, in Limerick, in Clare and Shannon Airport will have to co-ordinate their plans with the regional plan being devised for the area.

The question of cost has come up, not for the first time. When the Town Planning Bill was before the House, the question of cost arose and we mentioned the fears we had in regard to cost. It will be a continuing fear on the part of the local authorities as to what the cost involved will be so far as town planning is concerned.

On the question of control, I wonder when the Bill was going through the House, how many Deputies thought the control that would be used is the type which is now being used. People are now finding that if they want to replace an ordinary stone fence with a concrete wall, they have to apply for permission to do so to the planning authority. They must insert a notice, and so on, in the papers. Certainly I, for one, did not think we would be as meticulous as we now seem to be. In the rural areas in particular, the ordinary individual who wants to do a particular piece of work, finds himself in the dilemma that he does not know whether he requires permission. Of course he does require permission, and consequently if he does something which he feels entitled to do, he is served with a notice by the local authority that he has not got permission and that the structure must come down.

We suggested that perhaps we should proceed with town planning in so far as Dublin was concerned, then move on to the other larger centres of population and, in due course, at a later stage, to the rural areas. However, all the regulations were brought in at the one time, and the same code of regulations is in force for the country at large. A farmer who wants to erect a byre, or a hay barn, or any type of farm building requires permission to do so. I should like the Minister to refer to this matter when he is replying to the debate, and to tell us whether the local authorities have got instructions in regard to the regulations which they are trying to implement under that Act.

I want to refer now to the licensing regulations which were discussed during a previous debate, and which were the subject of a motion which we put down. Statutory Instrument No. 76 of 1965 which was laid on the Table of the House today brings these regulations back into force again. I think that when we were discussing them before, the Minister said he would amend these regulations, but I find, in the main, they remain as they were. I find the charges which the Minister was imposing on that occasion, and to which we took exception, are again being imposed, with slight variations. We again take exception to them. We take exception to the fact that the basic principle underlying these regulations is not a question of control but finance.

I cannot understand why a service providing piped air for a motorist or water for his radiator should be subject to an annual charge. The garage which provides these services does not obtain any fee from the motorist for them. Consequently it is completely unfair, and completely wrong, for the Minister to impose this type of regulation on people who are providing a voluntary service. On the question of petrol pumps, a distinction is made between urban areas and county boroughs. One wonders is it because there is more space in the country that there is a lesser charge, or what is the basic principle on which this distinction is made, Is it that space in the city is more valuable?

Coming to "Other Appliances", on a previous occasion I mentioned vending machines. Again I find the same fees being imposed as were imposed in the original regulations. I can only conclude that originally the Minister made a firm decision and has not changed his mind. He has not been influenced in any way by the debate in the House. He has not been influenced in any way by public opinion in this matter. He continues to impose these annual fees.

I said previously that I regarded this matter as a basic fundamental freedom of the individual, and these regulations an imposition on him which is unjustified. On the previous occasion, many questions were asked as to what these regulations covered, and we did not get a full explanation from the Minister in that regard. I find that the licence for "a case, rack, shelf or other appliance or structure for displaying articles for the purpose of advertisement or sale in or in connection any adjacent business premises" is £4. I want to know specifically and categorically from the Minister does he mean that people in country towns who display their wares for sale outside their shops on market day, will have to pay a licence fee of £4 for the privilege of trading with their neighbours.

We raised another matter during the previous debate which will be well remembered by the Minister, in regard to a hoarding, fence or scaffold, not being a hoarding, fence or scaffold bounding a public road, carrying an annual fee of £4. What is meant by fencing? Will the Minister define what is meant by fencing along a public road? Will he define what is meant by scaffolding along a public road? Does the Minister wish to convey that if a scaffold is erected on a site on which building construction is taking place, it will carry a fee of £4?

The fee for a weighing machine is down to £1. A weighing machine is a common feature of Irish life. If the owner collects 240 pence for weighing 240 people, he will have his licence fee for one year. If he does not, he had better take the machine indoors, because it will not pay him to keep it outside.

The fee for an advertisement structure on a public road is £4. That refers to the type of firm who go in for advertising and do it as a business but does it mean that an ordinary individual who erects a structure to carry an advertisement for a hotel, or a sign which says: "Petrol: 100 yards ahead", or a sign which refers to a particular amenity, will have to pay an annual licensing fee? I wish the Minister would clearly and specifically tell us what is meant by this type of regulation; why he thinks it essential for the control of this type of unsightly development—which we thought we were dealing with in the Planning Act—to impose this type of financial stricture on those who are trying to earn a living.

On a previous occasion the Minister referred to individuals wanting to use space provided for the public, and said that they should be made pay for it. On that occasion I said the public and individuals are the same people: the public are no more than the people and the people no more than the public. The occupants of the town are the public and they are equally the inhabitants and individuals who make up the town. They live and earn their living there. There is no point in introducing verbiage which will mislead by speaking of the public and individuals.

I note the lamp posts will get an impost of £2. Of course, a bridge, an arch or a tunnel is to carry £4. Will the individual who thinks that the entrance to his premises is not well lighted and decides to put up a lamp on the edge of the road to provide an amenity for people visiting his premises, have to pay an annual fee of £2? I am disappointed with these regulations and disappointed that the Minister should have brought them back again. On the previous occasion, he said that he was going to talk to the Motor Traders Association and that after these conversations, he would come back with some amendments. These are some amendments: that is all that can be said of them. They are disappointing, and this is a further incursion on the rights of individuals and of the people and is certainly an instance of the bureaucracy which is growing up. It is the worst type of regulation, I think, the type which will beget disrespect for planning institutions in this country. I believe that it will do no service where we hoped it would be useful. I hope I am wrong. I shall expect the Minister to refer to this when replying.

I want to refer briefly to a subject for which the Minister has responsibility, electoral law and electoral law reform. When the Committee on Electoral Law Reform was set up, it consisted of members of the Dáil and Seanad who spent over a year discussing this question. An Act was brought in as a result and my recollection in regard to the question of inmates of homes, is that the Committee was concerned very much with the question of elderly people in, as they were known, county homes and the fact that these people should have an opportunity of voting in elections. I certainly did not, nor did many of my colleagues and quite a number of other Deputies, I am sure, advert to the fact that in the repeals which would follow on the adoption of a recommendation like that, we would find that the new regulations applied to inmates of mental institutions.

Anybody can sympathise with and understand the position of the person who goes to a mental institution for treatment of short duration and certainly there is no reason why an appropriate regulation should deprive such an individual of the right to vote, but I do not think anybody contemplated that the passage of this legislation would have actually brought into being the position we now have of having voting centres up in the mental institutions. I put it to the House that if an individual happens to be a long-term inmate of such an institution and if he were to make his will at present and devise his property, if it came before the courts, the first objection that would be made is that the person was of unsound mind. Yet, in a deliberative assembly like this, by default—to which I myself plead guilty with everybody else—we allowed an Act to pass with the result that at present inmates of such institutions can be imposed on in regard to voting. It is unfair and it is something we should never have allowed to happen. It is something we should immediately rectify and I hope the Minister will give it his early consideration and amend the Electoral Act so as to ensure that people who are defenceless in the matter cannot be imposed on. If they are defenceless in regard to bequeathing their property, if it can be held they are incapable of dealing with ordinary daily affairs concerning their own property, how can we say from this House that they could intelligently take part in the election of a Government here?

As this change would require legislation, it does not arise on the Estimate.

I just wished to refer to it and bring it to the Minister's attention as something to which he should advert.

The Minister mentioned libraries and the increase in grants to Comhairle na Leabharlanna. That is welcome. The growth in the use of libraries is very commendable. People derive great benefit from reading and I should like to see more mobile libraries in country areas. They have brought many hours of pleasure to people living in remote districts and the local authority who subsidise such a service are giving a worthwhile benefit to the community, which affects adults and children alike, in making our people more conscious of the value of reading as against other forms of entertainment and also in providing them with a source of knowledge which of itself is commendable. I am glad the Minister has made more money available for this service.

I shall conclude, as the Minister did, by referring to the question of finance in local authorities. In a brief running to 32 pages, the Minister devoted one page to the question of local authority finance. I think it is a fair inference that the Minister is trying to convey that local authorities are lucky at present that the central authority is bearing, or will bear in the coming year, 50 per cent of the cost. Why should the central authority not bear it? It is the central authority that is imposing on local authorities this burden in regard to the amount of expenditure they must carry out by the passage of legislation in this House. When the legislation is passed here, the burden of its implementation is passed to the local authorities.

Why should the central authority not contribute? It is the body which has imposed this type of responsibility on them. The Minister mentions that in 1964/65 receipts from rates were £26 million, odd, and there was a further £38 million from State grants and subsidies. The balance of the money was met from fees from paying patients, and so on. If he adds these figures, he will find that they come to £64 million, £26 million from the rates and £38 million from other sources. The Minister's figures do not look so well in relation to the central authority, which comprises the taxpayer and the ratepayer.

There is not much use in putting forward figures like this, conveying an impression and calling them Government grants. These are grants provided by the Oireachtas administered by the Government of the day. They are collected from the people in the ordinary way in rates and taxes. The important thing to remember is that the amount of expenditure which we encourage in the local authorities is growing. We do not seem to be able to halt it, or to want to halt it. We keep on devising schemes and spending money and we rarely think of saving any. We can go on spending and providing various amenities, which I agree are all desirable, but I believe we ought to have priorities in regard to what the local authorities should do, and what the central authority will do. The Minister ought to have regard to this question of the financing of local authorities. It is something which is looming up and it was in the Taoiseach's mind during the recent election campaign when he referred to the necessity for a study of this matter.

The Minister and his Department will need to pay more attention to the growing expenditure of the local authorities. I expect their financing is a matter which will of course come up for review; but, whether they will be financed from central funds, through taxation, or from local funds by way of rates is something which will have to be determined. In the long run, it is the taxpayer, the householder and the property-owner of this country who will pay for the services. I believe we ought to have some system of priorities determined, by which we may measure the needs of the public in this matter.

In conclusion, I should like to think that the local authorities had more control over their own affairs. I shall not labour this point. Many members of this House are members of local authorities whom the electorate of this country have sent here time and time again, believing in their wisdom in regard to financial or other administration at national level. I cannot understand how they lose their sense of proportion when they find themselves at local level. I believe the officials who have been given to the local authorities, through the operation of the Local Appointments Commission, are people of high calibre who are capable of managing the affairs of a regional area. Technically then, the authorities should be able to exist on their own.

It would be a good thing for democracy in this country if the locally-elected representatives had that amount of power which would leave them free to make decisions of a purely local character. I believe we have reached that stage in this country. We have grown up enough to be able to use a system of local government here, so liberalised that the elected representatives of the people are really answerable to the people. At the present time they are not, because they have not got the power to get things done on their own, and, consequently, should not be asked to stand at the bar of judgment for it.

The Minister in introducing his estimate this afternoon referred to the new housing legislation. I think "new" is a misnomer now because it has been mentioned at least 20 times in the House by the Minister during the past two years. I wonder whether "old" housing legislation is now the appropriate word for it. The legislation the Minister referred to is, in fact, that under which grants have been paid since October, 1963. The Department of Local Government can straighten out their own housing grants but I am sure the Minister appreciates the awkward position in which a number of local authorities find themselves when, having paid their supplementary grants, they find there is no legislation to back them. Some local authorities have refused to pay the grants on the ground that their auditor would not pass the amounts because the legislation was not there.

I would appeal to the Minister at this stage to introduce legislation without further delay. His colleagues and officials of the local authorities suffer embarrassment because of this particular situation. Increased grants have been paid under this legislation to certain people, including farmers and people in condemned and over-crowded houses in the local authority areas in rural districts. I am sure everybody knows, with the increased housing costs, the amount of the increased grants only barely makes it possible for people to meet their commitments in this regard.

The Minister should be careful about the administration of these grants. Only today I came across a most extraordinary twist, which I am sure was introduced by somebody without consultation with the Minister because I have discussed one or two of these points with him and I know his attitude. I found today that somebody who was building a house and entitled to a higher grant in a rural area, was ruled out. There was a water and sewerage scheme close by of which he was availing and the official concerned ruled that this man was not in a rural area. There are only two types of area in this country, rural and urban. Nobody can say that a man building a house in a field a few miles from a town is in an urban area. He is in a rural area but the official ruled otherwise, and this will cost that man £300. The matter will come before the Minister at a later stage, but I think he should have a ruling made in his Department and so prevent a recurrence of annoying, petty things like this.

Reference was made by the previous speaker to the £5 or under poor law valuation on which people will qualify. The Minister possibly intended it to apply only to the congested areas. A £5 poor law valuation in Donegal or Mayo is one thing but a £5 poor law valuation in County Meath is an entirely different thing. I cannot see many people in my constituency breaking their hearts to avail of that grant because the qualification is far too limited.

Several times in this House the matter of the erection of houses and vested county council cottages was raised by me and others. I want to raise the matter here again because I feel the Minister will have to do something about it. In my own constituency the building of houses has been held up because the sites are on vested cottage plots. If the people buy the vested portion of the plot, they can get the grant from the Department of Local Government and the supplementary grant from the local authorities but they cannot get an allowance. The legal advisers say there cannot be a second mortgage on the same plot. When the question of the Local Loans Fund comes into operation, this deprives the person concerned of the opportunity of building a house. I should be glad if something could be done to straighten the matter out and have the one rule for the whole country. I understand that in other counties a different ruling operates.

The same thing applies when a council wants to build a house on a vested plot. They find they cannot do so. I cannot see any reason why some regulation should not be made by the Department to at least release that portion of the site in order to allow the council to build on much needed sites. The councils have been turning down people who need houses badly and who cannot get sites. They cannot get sites and they have been deprived of the houses which they so badly need.

The grant is very important from the point of view of the building and reconstruction of houses. A very annoying thing, which has been cropping up over the past twelve months and particularly over the past few months is the extreme delay in having the matter of grants dealt with by the Department. There is only one reason I can see for the delay and that is inadequacy of staff. The Department have been trying to deal with a list of applications for grants over the past 12 months with the same staff they had to deal with a trickle of applications a few years ago.

The Minister must face up to this matter. I know it has been difficult for the Department to obtain engineering staff for a number of years. That matter seems to have been rectified during the past six months but the question of clerical staff is still holding up the obtaining of grants. There is no reason why it should not be possible to recruit clerical staff to deal with applications. There is nothing so annoying to the man who is building a house to have to wait for six or seven months to get the last Department grant. This delay also occurs in regard to reconstruction grants. If the man applies for a local authority loan, he cannot get it until the Department pay their share of the grant. It is only then the local authority loan will be paid. The result is that people are very chary about starting work, which they are unable to pay for, until the Department grant is clear. The result is they have to abandon the job altogether.

These are minor matters which could very easily be dealt with if the Minister took an interest in doing so. He should see that people who want to build or reconstruct houses get their grants as quickly as possible. The Minister should ensure that local authorities take over the arrangements about sites. I have stated both inside and outside the House for years that I do not agree with the system where the officials of local authorities, the engineering staff, select sites and approve of them as satisfactory for a local authority housing scheme and the Department of Local Government insists on sending an inspector who might not be nearly as good as the original man. The only thing that happens as a result is that the individual who wants the house is held up very much longer. The Minister should be prepared to lift some of the restrictions and allow local authorities to build houses for the people who are badly in need of them.

The Minister referred in his brief to something with which I heartily disagree, that is, increasing the rents of houses for people who have been in occupation for a great number of years. We all know of houses built for £70 for which the people have been paying rents over a great number of years. The Minister now suggests that those people should be made to pay a higher rent so that the rents of rented houses given to people who are now being housed will be lowered. If the Minister is serious in that, what he is saying is that those people who have been tenants for a great number of years should subsidise the rents of the people now being housed. That is something which I and my Party will fight tooth and nail. We do not agree that the responsibility should be passed from one group to another. Those people who have been tenants of council houses all over the country for a great number of years are paying more than their share in the rents they are being charged and they should not be asked, on foot of that, to pay an extra rent for their houses in order to subsidise the people who are going into much better and dearer houses now. We cannot agree with that at all.

The Minister referred to something of which he is in favour, that is, that local authorities should attempt to acquire sites and make them available at a nominal cost to private individuals who want to build their own houses. If a private individual, who would be entitled to a local authority house if it were built for him, decides to build a house for himself, he is, in fact, saving both the county council and the taxpayer some money. The fact that the Minister suggests that sites should be made available at a nominal cost shows at least that he appreciates what the situation is and that those people should, if they can build their own houses, be able to do so and, by doing so, save the cost to the local authorities of building houses for them. In addition to that, I believe encouragement to improve their housing conditions should be given to as many people as possible. If the local authorities offered sites, as was done in my own county in a number of cases, at an almost nominal cost to people who want to build houses, it would help to build up an area which otherwise would be left with very few houses. Eventually this must recoup in more ways than one both the State and the local authorities.

Reference was made to the sale of urban houses and to the fact that they were not being purchased to the same extent as rural cottages. The reason is that the purchase of rural cottages is based on a scheme which allows the vesting of the houses and their payment over a stated number of years. That does not apply in the urban areas. In most urban areas there is a down payment of quite a substantial sum of money. I know of one case where it was about five times as much as the house cost. The county engineer fixed the value for the house. That does not apply in the case of rural cottages and it should not apply in urban areas. The Minister should make a check on both types of scheme.

Reference was made by the previous speaker to rural water schemes. I stated before, and I repeat now, that the group schemes are not a success. In odd cases they are successful, but, by and large, they are not. There are a number of reasons for that, one of the biggest being that it is almost impossible to find a contractor who is prepared to carry out the work. I went to great trouble along with some other people to start schemes in Meath. One scheme which was started in April, 1964, and which should not have taken more than three or four months is not yet completed. I can give the Minister a number of other examples if he wants them.

In addition, the right effort does not seem to be made by the Department to get schemes under way. I went to considerable trouble to get a group together and when I had all the arrangements made, an official came along and met the persons concerned at night and then said that he could only meet them at 3.30 on Monday. The group concerned were working men. Did he think they were all retired people who were on holidays in the area? That sort of approach does not help at all. While the official may not have understood the position, the net effect was that a very excellent scheme which could possibly have been successful did not get a chance to start.

I suggested here before and I suggest now that the only solution is to put those schemes in the hands of the local authorities, as are so many other schemes carried out in rural areas by various Government Departments. There is no reason why, when a certain stage has been reached, completion of the scheme should not be handed over to the local authority.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that over the years, mainly as a result of mechanisation and for other reasons, the number of persons employed by local authorities have been dropping. Any additional employment that can be made available will be a godsend in country districts. For that reason, the system of allowing local authorities to carry out group water schemes would be a success.

The question of conserving water has been raised. It seems odd, in a country such as ours, with the rainfall we have, that we should talk about conserving water. The biggest trouble is not in regard to the supply of water but the type of water available. Recently we attempted to get a very big regional scheme under way in Meath and found, when all the arrangements were practically completed, that the source was so full of iron that the water could not be used and we had to change the whole scheme. In 1965, there should be some way of eliminating substantial quantities of iron from water. If that could be done, there should be a water supply available in practically any area. To have to change the source of supply when something such as I have indicated occurs involves extra expenditure and means very long delay.

Reference has been made to itinerants. The report of the Commission on itinerants was published recently. Everybody has a solution for the problem of itinerants but wants the itinerants to camp at the other fellow's gate. As long as itinerants are far away from oneself, it is grand. That is true of practically everyone one meets including myself, to be honest about it.

What is the solution? The problem is a pretty difficult one. I believe the matter can be dealt with but it cannot be dealt with piecemeal because the situation can arise that if one local authority proceeds to make reasonable arrangements for an itinerant camp or a tinkers' camp—call it what you like —in a short time the area will be chockfull of people from outside the area. Whatever arrangements are made will have to be made simultaneously in each area. Otherwise, the first county that makes an effort to deal with the problem may find itself with a lot more than it bargained for, literally.

The question of providing public conveniences in small towns and villages has been long-fingered for an awfully long time. The idea seems to be that as long as people talk about it at the local council meetings and so long as they are able to get a report in the local paper that the matter is under consideration, it does not matter if it takes years. The usual practice is to keep changing the site. A site is chosen in one place and within a couple of months is changed to another place and then, on a recommendation from the engineer, to a third place. In a civilised country, it is a shocking state of affairs that, in 1965, in so many towns and villages which are supposed to be tourist centres, no attempt has been made to provide public conveniences. That matter must be attended to. There should be a directive from the Department of Local Government that these matters are to be dealt with as a matter of urgency and not left until the position arises that somebody decides that he has got a place which cannot be used for anything else and which the local authority will buy for this purpose.

The Minister referred to the reclassification of roads and to the fact that, to start off with, they have reclassified some roads as arterial roads. That is grand as far as it goes but I think the Minister is—I nearly said dodging the issue—certainly sidestepping it. He must know that the big problem in rural Ireland is not the question of the arterial road. It does not matter a great deal to the ordinary people in an area where the roads are good and where cars can go at 60 or 70 miles an hour, whether the standard is brought up to the point where they can add ten miles an hour to the speed. What does matter is that there is a volume of traffic now using roads which formerly carried only two or three lorries and a few bikes. There are so-called county roads which, to all intents and purposes, are now main roads. The only difference is that the local authorities are not getting grants for them.

Some years ago the local authority in Meath did something which possibly the Department might consider a bit foolish. Over the years we have attempted to improve the standard of the road surface. In fact, we improved it so much that three years ago we reached the stage where all roads in Meath were black-topped. What thanks did we get? The Department immediately notified us that we were no longer eligible for county road grants. We lost £98,000—that was the sum we had been getting over a number of years— and we have been losing that sum every year under that heading. Other counties, cuter than we were, did not make all the roads black-topped but did alter the alignment and as a result they are still getting their full county road grant. We have good road surface as anybody who travels through Meath will appreciate, but the alignment is pretty bad. On very many roads there are still desperately bad turns and in many places the camber is not what it should be. We cannot do anything about it because we cannot get the necessary grant from the Department.

It was all right a few years ago to refer to these roads as county roads but the volume of traffic on them now would justify their being made main roads and the only way in which they can be improved is by classifying them as main roads. Unfortunately, there is a very high mortality rate on the roads. It is not the Meath people who are killing each other but there are people passing through who, because the surface is so good, do not appreciate that the turns on the roads are so bad. They think everything is all right. The only way in which we can have the roads improved is to have them classified by the Department as main roads. Alternatively, the system of classification should be changed and grants given for altering the alignment of county roads.

The question of a speed limit has been referred to. I do not know what we will do about that because, in April 1963, the Minister gave me an answer here to the effect that he was considering the new siting of speed limit signs, and he still has not reached a decision. Maybe he has a great number of them to change and maybe the job was much bigger than he anticipated. However, the recommendations made, which should have come into effect after April last year, have not yet been notified by the Department. When the scheme was introduced, there were teething troubles, as there are with all these things, but it is time something was done about this matter.

I would ask the Minister to have instructions given to have the speed limit signs altered where necessary. Again it is one of these things I cannot understand. The local engineer, the local committee and the local Garda chief decide whether the signs are properly sited or not. Who finally decides whether it is right or wrong? The Minister for Local Government who might never have seen the place and who has not the foggiest notion in most cases whether the recommendation is right or wrong? Well over a year has elapsed and the Minister, for his own peace of mind, might decide that if the local officials are satisfied that the signs are sited in the wrong place, they should be changed. Whether or not the signs which go up are being obeyed is not a matter for his Department. If it were, I would again have to make the same case as I made before, that speed limits should apply to everybody who drives a car in this country and no person who drives a car with a British registration should be free to drive at 60 miles an hour through a 30-mile zone.

The matter of the rate at which the rates have been going up has been referred to briefly by the Minister and Deputy Jones. This is far too big a matter to discuss at length this evening, but there is one aspect of which the Minister should take cognisance. Quite a number of local authorities find it necessary to obtain a substantial sum of money for a portion of the year when the rates are not in, because the Department of Local Government notify them of grants which they are to receive—and indeed other Departments do the same—and do not pay them when they become due but pay them on 31st March following. During that year the ratepayers and the local authority carry the overdraft in the bank and carry an increased rate which would be entirely unnecessary if the State paid the sum, at the very latest, when it is due. I can see no reason why the situation should not be reversed: if it is not paid when they are entitled to it, the local authority should not be told what the grant is.

The grants are supposed to become available from 1st April next year. I want to know from the Minister whether the grants for 1965 have yet been notified to the local authorities. The employment of a great number of people in rural Ireland depends on whether or not these grants are notified and when they are notified. As far as I am aware, that has not been done yet. It may not be an important matter to the Minister or the senior officials of his Department but it is an important matter to the fellow who is waiting for a week's wages as a road worker to find out whether the money is there to pay him.

Reference has been made to derelict site grants. One thing wrong here is in regard to the examination of the site to find out whether it is derelict or not. Nothing annoys me so much as to hear that when somebody has applied for a derelict site grant, after the site has been cleared away and in some cases the new house built, it is discovered it was not a derelict site at all. The whole thing has been cleared away and the evidence has not been produced; on one occasion it involved the town clerk and on another occasion it was an engineer who had died, and it would be pretty hard to get him to change his mind. There is no reason why the question of fact should not be decided when the application for the grant is made. Somebody, either from the Department or from the local authority, can examine the site and say it is derelict or it is not; the decision is then taken and that settles it. It is unfair to keep somebody hanging on for 12 or 18 months because somebody who cannot be found decided it was not a derelict site, and perhaps deprive him of £100 or so.

There must be some misunderstanding about this question of the amenity grants. When the amenity grant was being introduced, I distinctly remember all the speeches we had, to the effect that we could do things with it particularly in rural Ireland which could not be done up to now. One of the things about which every Deputy spoke here, and I think the Minister will remember, was that outside churches where there is so much congestion on Sundays, car parks could be made available. Will the Minister let me know how many car parks were made available as a result of this or how many applications there were for car parks outside churches? Was the suggestion not made that the parish priest should consult his parishioners and that the hat should be passed around?

There is no use in mincing words about these things. The amenity scheme applies to these things or it does not, and it should be made perfectly clear whether it does or does not apply. From time to time applications are made by seaside resorts for amenity grants. We are usually told that Bord Fáilte is going to do it. Bord Fáilte says that the resort is too small and it will not qualify. Again we cannot find out to which area the amenity grant is supposed to apply or to which type of work. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten us when he is concluding this debate.

I should like to refer briefly to the matter of combined purchasing which was mentioned here. Is it true that Combined Purchasing do not have on their list, for instance, for a water scheme, the same type of fittings as would be available to a contractor who would do the job? A scheme which I thought would be dealt with some time ago was held up, because, I was informed, fittings were not available. I know of two other schemes that were held up for over six months, although they were almost completed, because fittings were not available. That is a matter that should be dealt with quickly. If the local authorities are being confined to the Combined Purchasing Scheme for their requirements, then the things they require should be available for them there.

I am glad the Minister is making more money available for the library service. In many cases the library service is the poor man's university and efforts should be made to make available not alone the books and the necessary staff but some type of reading room which would allow people in the towns to use the library and use it properly.

I raised queries here on a number of occasions about vesting appeals in respect of local authority cottages and objected to this system: a county council engineer inspects a cottage which has been vested and states the cottage is in good repair and the tenant then appeals to the Minister. A Department inspector comes down, looks at the cottage and says £100 or £150 worth of repairs are necessary. Some of the repairs are carried out, and when they are completed, the same engineer who originally said there were no repairs needed to the cottage then reports whether or not the repairs have been properly carried out. The system is completely mad and I would suggest again, as I suggested before, that, no matter what the cost, the cottage should be inspected by a Department inspector.

Another thing for which the Department must take responsibility is that when the appeal comes in to the Department, in many cases it is quite a long time before the house is inspected and it is a longer time still before the list of repairs needed is sent to the local authority. I know of some houses that were not repaired four years after the appeal was determined. One can imagine the deterioration that occurs when a roof is leaking and is left for four years longer than it should be without being repaired. One can imagine the result when woodwork, in windows and doors, is rotting and is left for four years without being repaired. It is most unfair, I think, for the local authority to come along then and carry out the repairs stipulated in the Department's circular, repairs which, at that point of time, will constitute only a very small fraction of the repairs needed because of the neglect by both the local authority and the Department. Something should be done to speed up repairs. If something is done, then you will not have so many people coming along afterwards looking for grants to carry out repairs which should have been carried out by the local authority when vesting the cottages.

The Minister referred to the increased cost of housing. I do not know whether it was deliberately or by accident the Minister suggested that the increased cost was due to the cost of labour. If he believes that, he is more than a little naive. I am sure the Minister has heard of the increase in the price of building sites. I am sure he knows that, if someone wants to buy a house, the cost of the site in some cases takes the entire Government and local authority grants. Sites which could have been purchased for £100 a couple of years ago are now costing £600. The position has not been helped by the fact that under the new Planning Act, certain areas are being designated as housing areas. The result is certain people are cashing in and fields which were of very little use are no longer fields; they are building sites. They are marked out in yards, not in half acres or acres. Fancy prices are asked for them and those fancy prices have to be paid because these are designated housing areas. The Government will have to make up their mind whether they will control the cost of building sites or introduce some kind of tax which will take away the colossal profits now being picked up by some of these people.

Reference was made also to driving tests and to the fact that 40 per cent failed the driving test. It was said we should be thankful that there are not more people killed. I think we should be thankful for something else. If 40 per cent are now failing, we should be thankful we got our licences before tests were obligatory. It would seem as if the tests are very severe. I do not think that is a good thing. I agree people should be taught to drive properly but if 40 per cent are rejected on test, I think there should be an inquiry. Neither do I accept that accidents are caused by people who come in here and hire cars. Most of the bad driving is, in my opinion, done by people who have been driving for years and who think they know all the answers. They do all the things they should not do, in the mistaken idea that, since they have been driving for years, it is quite all right for them to do these things.

Parking in towns and villages has got completely out of hand. In some towns there are pedestrian crossings. What is happening? Either motorists drive blindly through them or, on occasion, they are held up for an hour, or more, while people are going to a football match, or to church perhaps, moving across in ones and twos. Sometimes a garda stands a couple of yards away from the crossing, apparently waiting to see if the motorist will break the law. He will not stand at the crossing and sort out the traffic. These matters require just as much attention as anything else. The one-way streets in Dublin, though I do not really know much about the city, seem to be working excellently. Possibly a few more pedestrian crossings are needed, but, on the whole, traffic seems to be moving pretty well.

The local elections regulation is coming up for sanction. There is an interesting reference; officials who do not do their work properly can be fined a sum not exceeding £100. It is a pity that did not operate in the recent general election. Had it done so, we might have had better results from some of the people working on that election. I presume this applies to people who are supposed to stamp ballot papers before they are issued to voters. I hope the people who will preside at these local elections—they will be under the jurisdiction of the Minister's Department—will know what they are doing and that nobody will be engaged who cannot read the instructions. The booths, incidentally, should not be placed in such a way that the presiding officer can see how electors are voting. Furthermore, he should ensure that when someone comes in to vote, he votes only in his own name. I know someone who voted in someone else's name. There was a clerical error. Either one is on the register or one is not. A person not on the register should not be allowed to vote in any circumstances.

Deputy Jones referred to inmates of mental homes being allowed to vote. I believe there must have been a mistake somewhere when it was agreed that long-term inmates should be allowed to vote. I know one town in which there is a mental hospital and I am reliably informed that, if the patients in that hospital voted, they could elect six out of nine candidates in the local election. I doubt if it was the intention of this House, when that legislation was passed, that that should be the position.

Was the Deputy on the Committee?

Mr. Tully

No.

The Committee put that to the House. I merely passed it on to the House.

Mr. Tully

If the Minister had spotted it, he should have drawn attention to the fact that it was there.

The position is not quite so bad as has been made out.

Mr. Tully

If patients in a mental hospital can elect six out of nine urban councillors, I should be very interested to hear what the Minister would describe as bad.

They might have more sense than some of the people outside.

Mr. Tully

Judging by the latest results, yes. With regard to the compilation of the register, this is generally done by the rate collectors. It is done pretty well, I think, in the city.

The Deputy should find out how well it is done here in Dublin and then he would be proud of himself down the country.

Mr. Tully

I know of whole families who were on the register for years and who were suddenly omitted. They did not vote the right way.

Someone must be slipping up.

Mr. Tully

I can assure the Minister it will not happen again. I maintain some penalty should be imposed on those responsible for compiling the register in order to ensure that everyone who has a vote appears on the register. I am sure the Minister will approve of these sentiments.

First, I want to complain that we did not get a tip. I wonder if the Minister has seen the report of the manner in which the Cork Corporation rate has been made this year? They have borrowed over £100,000 and reduced their rate by 7/- in the £. I wonder if other local authorities would have been given the opportunity of reducing their rates in like manner and staving off the evil day?

Next, I want to deal with the provisional order in relation to the Cork city boundary made by the Minister during the past few months. According to what we can see now, the application was definitely made for the purpose of collecting tribute by the city from the county. As an instance of that, we had a statement by the city manager in Cork that the rate in the £ would have to go up by 7/- if the boundary was not extended. I have weighed this matter up very carefully. I find that the people in the area to be taken, in addition to paying for all their own services, would be paying a tribute amounting to 17/- in the £ for the pleasure of being called citizens of Cork.

When I discussed this matter with the Minister previously on a deputation in regard to the ten year period of compensation, he said: "If you could only agree between yourselves." I pointed out that in the extension in Dublin the compensation period was 15 years instead of ten. He said: "Yes, but there was agreement there." I did a little research since and I found that the then manager for Dublin city was also the manager for the county. He agreed with himself. Undoubtedly, here was an impartial man as between city and county deciding that a 15-year period of compensation was proper in a case like that. The Minister should withdraw his provisional order and allow the 15 years.

The Minister should also take into account that the plucking of this goose being handed over to the city means a relief to the city ratepayer of 7/- in the £ because the people being taken in will be mulcted to the extent of 17/- in the £.

Does this matter require legislation?

Then the Deputy is anticipating legislation.

We will have great pleasure in dealing with it when it comes.

We will postpone it until then.

I am expecting great fun here when that legislation comes in. I would appeal to the Minister before he brings in that legislation——

The Deputy might drop the matter now. It would require legislation. The Deputy is endeavouring to anticipate that legislation by making a statement now contrary to Standing Orders.

All right, Sir. We will have another day on that.

I am glad Deputy Jones is here. He complained that the reconstruction grants from the State were not large enough. I agree with him, but I suggest he put his own house in order first. He says that Limerick County Council are giving 10/- for every £1 of grant from the Department. In Cork County, we give £1 for £1, but I still find that the man reconstructing the house has nothing like two-thirds of the money, which was the object of the grants in the first place. I would urge the Minister to improve that a little. Before Deputy Jones pleads the case, he should first increase the grants in Limerick to the same level as in every other county, £1 for £1.

Deputy Tully talked about the vesting of cottages. I have been rather amazed at the number of applications I have dealt with for reconstruction grants for labourers' cottages purchased only a couple of years ago. Local authorities are supposed to put those cottages into good repair before handing them over. The tenant has a right of appeal to the Department, who send down an inspector. I will give the Minister a very definite instance—the house of a Mrs. Healy, Bweeng, County Cork. I want the Minister to investigate the inspector who went from his Department to inspect that house. It is a labourer's cottage built 40 years ago and occupied to his death last year by an old IRA man. I had to visit that house six months ago. A new roof had been put on and a wormeaten, rotten wallplate. I actually went upstairs, and you could catch the wallplate and break lumps off it. I reported it to our own local authority at the time and I told the woman to appeal to the Minister for Local Government, which she did. Inspectors went down and sanctioned that—the putting up of a new roof on a rotten wall. I am giving the name and the particulars so that the Minister may have it investigated. There is very little use in passing legislation to enable such people to put their homes into a proper condition of repair if there is some collusion between the inspectors from the Department and the local inspector no matter who he may be.

I want to deal now with people who have purchased labourers' cottages and who are willing to give up portion of that acre for the erection of a house or bungalow for a son or a daughter. I know that consent has been forthcoming but I do not know under what regulation the local authority are prevented in such cases from giving the type of loan available to any ordinary individual endeavouring to build his own house. Cork county have given out some £3 million in that respect already by way of loan to people who want to build their own houses but I find this most deserving section of the community are deprived of that by some rule or regulation in the Department of Local Government. I would ask the Minister to investigate the matter and to have it rectified. Deputy Tully remarked that it is very difficult to get sites and if the parents are willing to give a son or a daughter a site out of the labourer's cottage acre, I see no reason why such a son or a daughter should not be entitled to the same facilities as other people enjoy.

I come now to the question of valuations. In order to remove a very grave injustice, the Department should take power to order the revaluation of any town or city, particularly where the city is being thrown in with a county for the purpose of joint services. Under what is known as the Cork Health Authority Act, Cork county is amalgamated with Cork city. As far as I can discover, there has been no revaluation of Cork city for the past 200 years. Ordinary small shops in the area now proposed to be taken over have higher valuations than shops in the principal streets of Cork city. It is completely unjust that that advantage should be enjoyed by the city in order to save the merchants there from paying their share of the rates and any particular item where there is joint rating. In particular, it is unfair to proposed extensions — an area that is proposed to be taken in. The valuation of that particular area in two years between the sworn inquiry and the provisional order went up by £20,000. There is an absolute necessity to revalue Cork city, unless that grave injustice is to be continued. The county has to put up with it.

Since the Cork Health Authority Act was passed, no attempt has been made to have that injustice rectified. Where such a condition of affairs prevails, it is the duty of the Minister for Local Government to order a revaluation and to see that it is carried out. There are shops in the town of Cobh, which is practically a rural town, whose valuations, per sq. foot of shop space, are three times those of large shops in Patrick Street, Cork, but those people, on such valuations, have to pay their share of the health authority demand which is high enough as everybody knows. They have to pay that, whereas the gentleman in the city gets away with one third of it, on the valuation paid. It is time that that injustice to the people in our rural towns and the villages in the county ended and high time the Minister gave his attention to that particular aspect of affairs.

Deputy Tully mentioned road grants and the time they are paid. I think we considered our estimates last week and struck our rate. We had been notified of the amount of road grants that would be made to the county. I well remember a period when we had to go to the bank—it was after 31st March for the following year—to borrow money because apparently the then Government had not got it.

There is undoubtedly a very grave delay in sanctioning the building of houses by the Department of Local Government. I do not think that the new practice of having what we call managerial consultations and bringing up staff officers to Dublin is having a good effect. What they are learning here, apparently, is how to dodge the issue and apply extra red tape. I suggest that that particular practice should stop. I found that we have had to wait seven, eight or even, in some instances, ten months for housing schemes to be sanctioned and there is no justification for that. I would urge the Minister to look to that particular aspect of the question. Finally, I would urge the Minister, in justice to the general ratepayer, that, if necessary, he should bring in legislation so that he would have power to order re-valuations in the cases I mentioned.

I carefully scanned the Minister's brief and I was present while he was reading the latter part of it and I was very disappointed because I fully expected that in it I would find a proposed attempt at a breakthrough as far as housing was concerned. As housing is the most important matter for which the Minister has responsibility I will start on housing and it will be my main theme. I should like to congratulate the new Parliamentary Secretary and wish him well. I hope he will be able to make a great success of the Department and I say that sincerely, because we do hope that there will be a breakthrough in housing. I do not see how we are to do anything about this because there is nothing in the Minister's brief that has made any change, nothing that will be an incentive to local authorities to get on with housing, nothing that will be an incentive to the many young people who want to build houses under the Small Dwellings Act.

The Housing Act, 1948, gave a grant for a five-roomed house of £275 and today we have the same grant. There has been no increase in it. There is no relationship between the cost of houses in 1943 and the cost of houses today. In our local authorities we are all bedevilled by this matter. A few years ago the Waterford County Council sent up tenders to the Department of Local Government and they turned down these tenders because they said they were in excess, by about £200, on an average, of the same house in other local authorities all over the country. The Waterford local authority would not be able to get the same house built today for £700 or £800 more and the local authority finds themselves in the dreadful position of having young men and women coming to them looking for houses but there does not seem to be any hope of them getting out of the frightful flats in which they are living or putting an end to the high rents they have to pay. This is all due to the Government's neglect for the past five or six years. That is the answer and the figures are there.

The houses will not be built with that brief or with that policy. Last year there was some hope. My colleague, Deputy Jones, and I exhorted the Minister in regard to small dwellings and the people who would qualify. The figure was fixed at £832 a year and a man earning more than that could not get a loan. The Minister made a clear statement, and many local authorities acted on it, that if a man had children an allowance could be made for each one and the figure could be brought up to £1,040. That was done and it was a good thing but since then prices have been galloping away all the time. Wages and the price of houses have increased and the young man in the factory or the office who has got a rise or promotion has dealt himself out of being qualified to build a house for himself and his wife and the family he hopes to have because of the ridiculous figure the Minister has put as the ceiling.

I was sure that I would hear today that the Minister was prepared to increase that figure. That would not interfere with the Government's outlay or the Government's spending. It would only bring in more people to qualify for houses. This is a very serious state of affairs and I exhort the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Secretary of the Department who is listening, to convey this to the Minister. The Minister should make a statement about this figure and he should increase it and increase it substantially. He could do it by his own order and direction.

That is what is troubling me, can he?

He did it before and he can do it again.

Is legislation necessary?

If the Minister stands up and mentions a figure, every local authority and every county engineer and every county treasurer or borough treasurer will accept it and act accordingly.

That is not the point I am making.

In pre-war days, the subsidy was two-thirds of the loan charges up to £400 of the cost for slum clearance, and one-third up to £450 for direct housing. After the war, the same subsidy obtained, with the addition of a subvention to bring the rate of interest to borrowers from 3¾ per cent down to 2½ per cent on a capital basis of, say, £750. After 1950, the subsidy was increased to £900. I have done some research on this in the Library. It went to £1,000 and now it is £1,500 but this figure of £1,500 bears no relationship to the cost of building a three-bedroomed house with a bathroom and dining room or, we could say, a big livingroom or a kitchen. I would exhort the Minister to examine this whole business. If we are to make a breakthrough, the grants will have to be increased from the State to the local authorities, from the State to private individuals building houses under the Small Dwellings Acts.

The all-in building cost was 30/- per sq. foot in 1948. In 1963, it had risen to 55/- per sq. foot and it is now something between 65/- and 70/-. I would again urge the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to take these figures into account. Any study we make of the housing of the working classes shows the extraordinary expenditure involved for local authorities. We have inspectors trotting up and down the country, as Deputy Tully told us, many of them not as well qualified as the men on local authority staffs, none of them as well qualified from the point of view of local knowledge. They trot up and down the country from Dublin, hordes of them. They are the men with the delaying action. Theirs is the inspection that counts.

The men in local authority, from the manager and the county engineer down through the ranks of the engineering staff, have all been recruited through the Local Appointments Commission. Not alone are they very well qualified professionally but they are equipped with local knowledge as well. I seriously suggest that we should reach a stage where the local officials will be permitted to put a scheme before the local council, where the local council composed of laymen will decide in favour of a scheme by a two-thirds majority and send it to the Department, where it will be left with the Depart-Government, and this was the hangment, but if, after six weeks, a reply has not been received from the Department, the local authority will be empowered to advertise that scheme and to go ahead with it, in the name of God.

If we cannot get down to something like that, we shall have the houses still falling down and our young people living in dreadful flats at exorbitant rents. We should dispense with the comings and going of Departmental architects and engineers. They are only causing chaos. Let the local authorities conduct their own affairs on a block grant system. I repeat that for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary: let the local authorities conduct their own affairs on a block grant system. The man responsible will make history.

In Waterford we could not care less about the valuation qualification of £5 or less. In Waterford our valuations are very high, as is reflected in the rates paid. Waterford ratepayers pay more per head of the population than any other local authority area. However, there is a need for more sub-standard houses. I use this unfortunate phrase again and I should like now to withdraw it. I made this suggestion last year, the year before and the year before, and I always used that phrase. The Department insist on a house of so much sq. foot capacity in each room. I have nothing to say against that— bathroom, three bedrooms, a kitchen and so on—but we must be prepared to build less ambitious houses.

I remember that we built houses in Waterford for newly-weds. We did not build enough of them. We were able to provide a house with a porch, livingroom, two bedrooms, a small kitchen and a bathroom and believe it or not, they were let in the 1950s at 10/- a week. We were not able to sell the idea to the Department, according to whom, they were sub-standard. I wish we had built thousands of them and let the Department surcharge us and send us to jail. It would have been something worth going to jail for. The people living in the houses then built are delighted with them. The rents may have gone up since the rates increased but they were the right houses for the people for whom we built them. My point is that we must consider building a smaller type house wherever we have the land available and leave room for extensions afterwards. I must hand it to our younger people, and in many case to our older tenants throughout the country. As my colleagues in local authorities will tell you, some of the most ingenious and wonderful additions have been made to houses by our tenants.

There is too much bureaucracy preventing us from catering properly for those people. We are damned by regulations, damned by faint praise, damned by bureaucracy. I again appeal to the new Parliamentary Secretary to permit us to build a smaller type house, particularly in the country areas. As the price of building has gone up, such houses must be let at what would be deemed reasonable rents to people newly married and people about to be married.

On the question of roads, I should like to dwell briefly on the question of the amenity grants. The sums involved are small. For instance, 700 grants amounted to only £38,000. What local authorities are really concerned with, what all of us in the House are concerned with, is the provision for car parks, whether it be in this, the capital city of the country, or in our villages. This will have to be tackled and the Road Fund will have to be looked at with new eyes and new ideas. We must not just pump this money into favoured counties. We must not continue to give some counties as much as £500,000 to pump tarmacadam on to the roads. We must not, because we make out there is a Gaeltacht in a county, give it £55,000 a year over and above counties which have not got Gaeltachtaí.

I investigated this and discovered that one of the counties getting what is called favoured tourist road treatment did not have a Gaeltacht. From that county, however, came a man who happened to have been a member of the Cabinet, a Minister for Local over. We must get away from that fooling. The Road Fund is up to £7 million and instead of pumping it out on unwanted roads, we should consult with the local authorities in the different countries and give them substantial grants for secondary roads. I do not see anything wrong with our main roads. There is a different story to tell about our secondary roads which have to carry big beet lorries and other heavy transport to and from farms. In relation to secondary roads, I should like to say that we all went down to Roscommon and Leitrim. I must say, mea culpa——

Mea maxima culpa.

—— I have been some time in this House and once or twice I may have found fault with money going to some counties like that. I do not know. I think it is a shame that those secondary roads should be in such a state, and also the boreens leading up to farmers' houses. I am not just saying that. There is no vote-catching in this for me. I am saying it in all sincerity. We should stop this nonsense of pumping money into favoured constituencies, and look to the constituencies that are not favoured. It was terrible to see those boreens. A common car or, indeed, a tank could not go up them.

The Road Fund will have to be used, and used properly, on the secondary roads and the boreens leading up to farms. It may be said that city people might ask: "Why should we pay for the boreens?", but 80 per cent of the men in the city want to visit their fathers' farms, and they would be glad to be able to drive up on tarmac, so they will not kick up about it.

Dublin has never got a break from the Road Fund. It got £200,000 last year and £90,000 the year before, but Dublin is putting £2 million into the Road Fund. A substantial amount of the Road Fund will have to be provided in order that Dublin Corporation will be able to provide parking spaces for people coming up from the country to Dublin, and for Dublin people themselves. There is no use in putting up a notice: "No Parking Here". You must put up another notice saying: "Parking Around the Corner." in such a place.

I do not think we should allow a scheme such as the scheme at Ballymun to be used as a smoke screen with everyone looking towards the sun of Ballymun, and away from the chaos of O'Connell Street.

It is not too bad since the new regulations came into operation.

What will happen when all the skyscrapers are built and the new staffs bring in their cars and want to park them? Some people are building their offices outside the centre of the city. They are doing the right thing. They are doing what all the forward-looking cities in the world are doing. Some of the greatest firms that have skyscrapers on Broadway are going 15 miles outside the green belt of New York, and building homes for their office staff and workers. The staffs can walk to work and do not have to commute 30 miles into the jungle. We have a chance now, because we have not yet ruined Dublin. The Minister and his officials should get down to it with members of Dublin Corporation, examine suggestions, and plan ahead for car parking in Dublin city.

There is one matter mentioned by Deputy Jones which I have been on to for a long time. Some local authorities, especially local authorities in built-up areas, are asked to submit schemes for grants for the relief of unemployment. Some schemes are useless and just put forward to use up the money. They take up a good footpath and put down one which is not so good. This matter must be examined by the Minister. When an unemployment grant is offered to a local authority, the local authority should be given an opportunity of sending up a development scheme for some piece of land they may have. Foundations might be dug and drainage and water put in for a future housing scheme. That would give employment. It might put some yellow monsters out of work, but it would give work to men, take them off the labour exchange and reduce the price of the houses. It would be a great thing to have a local authority site already developed at a reasonable cost or at a cost subsidised out of an unemployment grant.

I have been asking parliamentary questions for a long time about the kind of vehicles we have on our roads. I asked questions of the Minister for Transport and Power, and Deputies all know the answer I got. He is in a constant state of incommunicado.

Which does not arise on this Estimate.

When I came in here today, I found a Deputy had put down a question, and he was told: "No dice."

That was a funny thing to say about the Minister for Transport and Power—that he was The Mikado.

I said he was incommunicado. The Minister has the last word on measurement and specifications of vehicles used on the roads. It was laid down that they could not be longer than 32 feet. That was increased to 35 feet by order of the Minister, without anyone being told. I do not think those orders should be made. I may have the footage wrong but it was increased by three feet so that the Minister for Transport and Power would have an opportunity of buying buses that would not qualify in Ulster. This is the Parliament of Ireland, and we should be told when this kind of thing is being done.

I welcome the Minister's statement that he is making arrangements to have on-the-spot inspections of these vehicles. I am convinced many of them are too wide, too long, and too dangerous. I am convinced many of them are overloaded, and carrying more than they should be carrying. They do irreparable damage to our roads, which are costing so much money. The day has come when we must say: "Thus far shalt thou go and no further. These vehicles must not be any longer and they must not be any wider." As a matter of fact, I think it would be revolutionary and right to stop the sale of those vehicles, let those that are in the country run themselves out in the next five years, and be finished with them. Instead of having long articulated small trains on our roads, we should go back to the lorries. If a manufacturer or an oil company says: "I want to send a bigger load", we can revert to our old friend the Minister for Transport and Power, and say he would be glad to carry it on CIE.

There is another aspect of the problem of vehicles. The other day, there was a motor cycle in Kildare Street. A young man came out; he started it up and he shattered Kildare Street with sound. He went across the street and when he did not break the windows of the Royal Hiberian Hotel, it was a miracle. There are many young bucks going about taking the silencers off hotted-up motor bikes and scooters and the sooner the Minister does something about it the better. Complaints are made to me by many of my constituents living in newly-completed built-up areas. They find it very hard, when the children have gone to sleep, to keep them asleep, because of the thunder of these bikes and the thunder of some of these cars the young fellows have at present.

It is evident to me that there has been no direction from the Department to the Garda authorities, or what is happening could not happen. It is only necessary to go out to Kildare Street to hear them roaring past: they are not so much in evidence now because of the one-way street but when they could run the whole way down, you really got it worst at about one o'clock in the day. That is something that should be seen to.

I should like on-the-spot inspection to go further than commercial vehicles and ensure that the Gardaí will inspect many of these jalopies and see that they have at least brakes and steering that is functional. I do not know what will happen about drunken drivers but I shall stick my neck out and say again that I wish the courts would take some notice of this problem and be a little stiffer.

The Minister for Local Government has no responsibility for court sentences.

Somebody else mentioned them and that confused me: I am very sorry.

I shall close with a reference to the Electoral Act. Nobody in the House or in the country, when the Act was going through, had any idea that mental hospital patients would be involved. I am very glad to say advantage of this was not taken in my constituency; I gladly pay that compliment to my colleagues: I shall not call them opponents. This thing should never have happened and it must never happen again. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey that to the Minister and, even if it is necessary to bring in legislation, it should be brought in. It was shameful.

Speaking here for the first time, I shall be brief, but I feel that in any discussion relating to local government, I should give my point of view. I believe our greatest social necessity is still housing and it is still a great national problem. I speak as a member of a local authority and I have an idea of the position existing between the local authority and the Department. The Department must take some of the blame for the appallingly slow rate of progress in housing generally. That slow progress is more pronounced in isolated rural areas. It was recently pointed out to us by the county manager of Laois-Offaly that this slow progress with rural houses is mainly due to the fact that the Department are not prepared to take the word of the local engineer as to whether a site is suitable or not, and that delay has been caused by the local authorities having to wait for an inspector to come from the Department.

This is bad for many reasons, the main one being that it impedes housing progress, but it also casts the reflection on professional people employed by local authorities that they are not sufficiently qualified to decide what is a suitable housing site. It is appalling to think that the Department should suggest that the county engineer or assistant engineer is not qualified to decide such a matter. The Department would be well advised to give the local authority the right to decide whether a site is suitable or not. I should like more co-operation and understanding between local authorities and the Department so as to expedite the provision of housing.

It must be conceded by all sides that there has been very substantial progress in the provision and improvement of roads. There is, however, a particular group of people who I feel have been the victims of bad legislation in the past. I refer to people living in culs-de-sac and on non-scheduled roads and boreens. These people live in lanes and narrow roads which, to my mind, are the life-lines of the country. It is appalling that such people, having paid their rates in the same way as their neighbours who live, shall we say in more civilised places, when they want to get these roads improved, in addition to the rates they have already paid when they seek the grant from the Special Employment Schemes Office, must give a local contribution also. That constitutes an injustice on people who are the backbone of the nation, living on roads leading to fields from which come the beef and the wheat and the barley and everything the nation depends on. The situation is unrealistic and unfair. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind so that at some stage he will be able to effect a cure where I believe a cure is necessary.

I should like to refer to the report on itinerancy. I think I can state that there will never be a cure for itinerancy and that we can never persuade this type of people to live in any prescribed area. It is the nature of these people to wander and wander they will. The call of the road will come to them, no matter where you put them, and in the final analysis, it will prove to be a waste of money and I would not advise the Minister to undertake large expenditure in that respect. I may be wrong but that is my personal feeling.

In reference to the provision whereby long term inmates of mental hospitals were allowed to vote in the recent election. I am not saying to what extent it affected the final result or whether it affected it at all, but, again, as a personal opinion. I feel that people who suffer some mental instability and are not fit to take their place in society should not have the right, by voting, to decide for society.

Previously, when I contributed to this debate on local government, I have spoken at considerable length but on this occasion I prefer to be rather brief. I want to refer first to some remarks of Deputy Lynch when he spoke about the situation in New York where offices and factories are moving into the suburbs and housing is made available for workers so that there will not be congestion in the centre of the city. I should like to assure the Deputy that the very same thing is taking place here. Dublin Corporation have provided sites for factories at Ballyfermot, Finglas, Walkinstown, and other such places. Most of these sites on the south side are now taken up and the factories will be built in order to make work available to the people of Ballyfermot, Finglas, Walkinstown and Crumlin districts. I understand allocation of similar sites on the north side is taking place.

What Deputy Lynch missed is that in New York, in particular, everybody who drives a motor car is very conscious of traffic problems and road safety and every motorist drives in one lane. In the case of four-lane traffic, he drives on the left unless he is overtaking, and it is only with the maximum care, observation and look-over his shoulder that he will venture out on to a faster lane.

Here in Ireland where we had two-lane traffic, in opposite directions, we have now changed it to one-way traffic. There is only one lane but instead of improving the amount of street available to the motorist, in many cases we have worsened the position. The Irish motorist likes to drive in the middle of the road, once it is a one-way lane. If somebody passes on the left-hand side, there is a declaration of war, loss of temper and blowing of horns. Leaving out other questions of traffic, I think if money were made available for buckets of paint so that lines could be put down indicating the traffic lanes, and if, in particular, motor-cycle gardai were to prosecute on the spot anybody who did not observe his proper lane or who changed his traffic lane without properly signalling, in a very short space of time we would speed up the traffic which this one-way street system was designed to create.

In this connection, too, I have taken up the matter of horse traffic with the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Justice over the years. I have been assured by both Ministers in reply to Parliamentary Questions that horse traffic does not slow up the movement of traffic unless somebody has parked where he should not park. Some regulation will have to be made under which horse traffic is forbidden in the city centre of Dublin during peak hours. I am agreeable that some years' notice of this intention should be given so that people who have invested in horses for drawing their goods can recoup themselves. But there is no doubt that all horse traffic should be banned from the centre of the city fairly quickly, with the exception of the cabbies who operate from Store Street bus depot. The cabbies are an exception. They are a tourist attraction and, anyway, they move briskly.

There is one other point on this question of traffic movement to which I should like to refer, that is, the question of the loading and unloading of commercial vehicles. There are certain supermarkets in Dublin which will not accept deliveries from manufacturers except at prescribed hours, and if the lorry or van should arrive to deliver goods outside these prescribed hours, the goods are not accepted. If one or two groups of supermarkets can enforce manufacturers to deliver at particular times, how much more can a Government make similar regulations to decide that one side of the street will be free on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the other side on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, and only between specified hours.

It is absolutely unnecessary to have one-way streets and have cars parked under "No Parking" signs. This happens until the gárda on patrol realises there is a hold up of traffic and comes along with his tickets and fines everybody £1 who has committed the offence. It is not the amount of the fine that is at fault. Strange as it may seem, I agree with Deputy Lynch that car parking facilities in the city of Dublin are inadequate, but only in so far as traders in the centre of the city insist on parking their cars as near as possible to their places of business. As a result, customers are prevented from parking their cars. Within a half-mile or three-quarters of a mile of Nelson Pillar, there are adequate car parking facilities for anybody prepared to walk the distance or use the public transport available.

The main thing I want to talk about is town planning. Not so long ago in this House we discussed and passed a very comprehensive Town Planning Bill. This Bill was not only discussed by members of this House but memoranda were sent to local authorities and to all bodies interested and comments, criticisms. advice and suggestions were invited. The Minister with great patience and deliberation eventually provided a Bill which, I recollect, was passed without any opposition at all. If there was opposition it was only of a minor nature. I certainly felt that here we had a proper planning Bill capable of achieving all the things which should be achieved in the future. But, unfortunately, it is not working out that way. The Dublin Corporation were bound by High Court Order, as the result of an action taken against them, to a Town Plan that was brought in in 1955 or 1956. They could not deviate from this Plan without committing contempt of court and, therefore, as development took place we found that more and more developers, or prospective developers, were compelled to go through the long process of appealing to the Minister for Local Government to carry out development which the Corporation itself felt was quite justified and good within their own interpretation of town planning.

We brought in this Town Planning Act which released them from this High Court Order. A revision of the inspectors in the Dublin Corporation took place and extra inspectors were made available in the Department of Local Government in order to make sure there was a proper speeding up of planning applications. In fact, we laid down in legislation here that if the local planning authority did not approve of developments planned within one month the developer would have permission to proceed by default. The Minister was so anxious to speed up this development that he included that proviso, so that if the local authority does not come to a decision within one month you have approval by default. Therefore, we see what the Minister's intention was. But, in the meantime, the planning officers in the Dublin Corporation got another big idea. They realised that most of the leases in an area bounded by Bachelor's Walk, Capel Street, Parnell Street and the rear of O'Connell Street were nearing expiration. When these leases were to expire was determined by high-water level in the eighteenth century.

After much complicated legal research they found that for a few million pounds, they could buy up all these leases and proceed to demolish the buildings in that area with a view to re-development.

As a result of that, they brought in the Dublin city centre redevelopment plan. Immediately after that, the big building speculators in England and elsewhere, as well as here, said: "This is too big perhaps for me, but I certainly want part of it." They found, without spending a penny of the local authority funds, that this entire block in the centre of the city could be redeveloped at a very fractional cost to the Corporation. They then worked out what the rateable valuation would be. They calculated that within four years of building being completed, they would recoup their investment and show a profit to the benefit of the ratepayers of Dublin city.

This scheme was acclaimed as, naturally, it should be. As a result of the acclamation it got and of the intelligent thought that was put into it, they now find themselves in the position that the only site in Dublin which would be developed is this one. Many hundreds of new warehouses and new factories in Dublin will not be put up except in this area. The people who want to develop new factories, new warehouses and improve their existing premises are told: "You cannot do so, because this is piecemeal development. We intend to bring in our own development plans for this area and we cannot allow piecemeal development."

So far as I can establish, Dublin Corporation review every development plan submitted for outside this area and refuse it because they say it is piecemeal development and, therefore, cannot be allowed to proceed. Many people who wanted to develop sites outside that area of Dublin city have been stopped as a result. I told many of the people who came to me to say to the Corporation: "Tell us what your development plan is and we will conform with it. We will build to whatever frontage you say and we will build to whatever size you say, whatever bricks or cement front you say. We are prepared to conform to whatever you require." The reply they receive is that this development plan has not yet been completed but that the Corporation contemplate making special plans for this area and they cannot permit others to develop sites. They say if they do that they would have to compensate them for buildings erected for only a few years and they cannot afford to do that. There are many new Deputies here now and I am sure they will come up against the same experience as I have had. The only thing we can do is appeal to the Minister. The Minister has tied his own hands the way he tied the hands of the local authorities.

The Deputy is quite right.

The Minister knows of one case in which I am interested since February, 1964. It is not my desire to mention particular cases but I am quite sure the Minister is fully aware of the case to which I refer. We have the appeal board in the Department of Local Government which consists of many new inspectors who, no doubt, have been adequately trained by the men who were there before them. They come back, on each appeal board, so far as I can establish, not only agreeing with the original point of view expressed by the Corporation officials but by putting in extra objections. Surely the whole purpose of an appeal board is to permit people to take a more liberal view than that of the original judgement. They must be more liberal or else there is no point in having them at all.

I should like to develop this a little further. Dublin Corporation, as I see it, have three years in which to prepare a plan. Until then, they abide by the reservation in the plan they had before, which was based, I think, largely on the Abercrombie Plan of 1934. Surely the Dublin Corporation cannot be allowed, until such time as they wish to complete a plan for that area, to refuse to change the reservation in relation to the previous plan in any circumstances and thereby allow building to take place.

It has now become clear to me, after all these months, that the way the Corporation are operating under the Town Planning Act is completely contrary to the Minister's intentions, as expressed in this House when the Act was being discussed here. I am speaking on this subject in particular tonight because I want the Minister to take note of what I am saying. I want him to amend his Act, if necessary, or to make the regulations necessary, to do what he expressed here it was his intention to do. It is a most disappointing thing for many Deputies, who came in here and made speeches on this matter, who spent much time discussing this matter while the Bill was going through Committee Stage, to discover what exactly is happening. When the Bill was passed, many of us left this House assured as to what the Government's intention was and what our intention was, no matter to what Party we belonged. We now find that the officials who are applying this Act are utilising it in this way, which is contrary to the intentions of the Minister.

I hope I have made my point clear with regard to this matter. Instead of improving the matter of development under the Planning Acts we have ended up disimproving it. We now find that practically every proposal for development, in particular, industrial and commercial development, is almost destined for immediate rejection by the Dublin Corporation, unless it happens to be on one of their own industrial sites. The developer can appeal to the Department of Local Government where his application is not receiving very much sympathetic consideration. As I understand it, appeal boards, whether they are Film Appeal Boards or anything else, are far more liberal than the people who originally considered the matter. The Minister must look into this matter and give instructions accordingly.

A number of Deputies have referred to the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and have conveyed their congratulations to the new Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to join with them in offering congratulations to the new Parliamentary Secretary as well. I take it this appointment has been made for a number of reasons. The first reason that occurs to me is that the work in the Department had become too much for the Minister to carry on his own. The second reason is that he was probably dissatisfied with the speed at which the various services for which the Department is responsible were being dealt with. Perhaps it may also be that he envisaged quite a lot of extra work in the years ahead. Certainly, the appointment is to be welcomed if it can speed up the work of the Department.

I can think of many ways in which the work of the Department of Local Government could be greatly reduced without detriment to the services being provided. In fact, the work could be reduced in such a way that we would have much more satisfactory results both at departmental and local authority level. I am referring now to matters which have been referred to by several Deputies already in this debate and in debates on local government that I have heard since I first came into the House. There is a reluctance on the part of the Minister and of the Department to let the local authorities really do their job and carry out the responsibilities that rightly belong to them. There is no reason why local authorities should not be allowed to do so.

Deputy Lynch spoke about block grants. Is there any reason why most of the frustrating delays could not be overcome by getting from the Department of Local Government an estimate, for instance, of their housing needs and saying: "Here is a block grant and, regardless of the housing conditions of the people whom you have to house, we will give you something in the region of 50 per cent. We will not discriminate between two-thirds and one-third. We will not have a row about that or about sites, services or location. There it is. Get on with the job"?

Having spent years in a local authority, I sometimes get the impression that the Minister and the Department are not really concerned to solve the problem as quickly as it should be and needs to be solved. It is a frustrating experience to be a member of a local authority, such as Dublin County Council, and to have seen over the years so many people in such deplorable housing conditions and so very little being done about it and to know that every member of the county council without exception has been pressing and pushing for years for the purchase of more sites, the building of more houses, and, after all that, to find that we still require 1,000 to 1,200 houses urgently and, according to the Minister's estimate, the present requirement in the city of Dublin is more than 10,000 houses. That is his estimate, not mine. I know that efforts are being made but all the unnecessary duplication and overlapping could be cut out completely and a considerable amount of professional staff would be made available for promoting other necessary work in the Department.

Housing is still, and, obviously, will remain for some time, the most urgent and pressing need in all local authorities, but, of course, it is not the only problem. There is the difficulty in respect of the housing of working class people and the great problem of increased costs, increased rents and the increased share that has to be borne by the rates and the local authority. Upper limits have been fixed on which the Department are prepared to pay the subsidy. The amount over and above the limits is increasing every year and on that the local authority has to bear 100 per cent loan charges and repayment charges. It is discouragement rather than encouragement that that arrangement is persisted in.

There are also the difficulties that have to be faced by all those people who have to provide themselves with houses. Grants are not kept in step with the cost of building. No attempt is made to maintain a relationship there so that the burden on people who have to buy their own houses would not be increased.

Some ten years ago when I first became a member of a local authority, it was not necessary for a person building his own house to have any money in hand. He could go ahead and get a house built. At the present time in most parts of County Dublin, a person wishing to build his own house must have about £700. It is becoming far too great a burden. There is supposed to be a 90 per cent loan but in actual fact it is not a 90 per cent loan at all because the valuation that our valuer is prepared to put on the house and the selling price of the house are two different things altogether. There is a big gap to be made up and there are very few people in a position to meet it. As a result, quite a number of people have to abandon the Local Loans Fund and the local authority and try to get accommodation from building societies and insurance companies and often experience very great difficulty in getting it. Many people are forced to emigrate because of the fact that it is just not possible for them to provide themselves with their own houses.

One factor that has caused the price of houses of that kind to rocket is the speculation in houses. Builders have been accused by various people of being responsible for profiteering and all that sort of thing. There may be an element of that in it but it is not a by speculation in newly built houses. A builder produces reasonable houses and takes a reasonable profit by selling them to persons to live in them but a couple of months later a speculator comes in and gives a price for those houses, if they are in a good position, much in excess of the price the builder charged and they are sold over again to persons here and there who seem to have the money to pay for them. This has the effect of rocketing the price of houses generally.

However, I do not want to speak at too great length on the question of housing. The need for housing and the need to ease the plight of those persons who want to build their own houses have been stressed by other Deputies. I should just like to refer to the provision of serviced sites for people who wish to build their own houses. Since this was made possible by the Minister we have been pressing very hard to have it carried out in Dublin County but the resistance we are meeting with is simply fantastic. It is difficult to know how it is to be overcome. The greatest objection put up by the officials and by the county manager all the time is that the need must be proved first. The need is so obvious to all of us in many areas that we do not have to calculate it and to say: "Here are ten people and here are their names and addresses, who are now waiting to build their own houses." We know that if a site were made available, all these people would turn up overnight and that there are in places two, three or four persons looking for sites which they cannot get simply because the owner of a field is unwilling to split it up and wants to sell the entire field. The opportunity is there for the local authority to go in and do that sort of work but they will not take the chance. Apparently it is necessary before getting permission to do that sort of work to establish a need for sites by a considerable number of people waiting to build their own houses.

I should like the Minister to state categorically whether it is or is not necessary to establish the need for a definite number of housing sites at a particular time. Can the need not be anticipated? It is easy to anticipate it. The areas are few enough in which there are full services. Wherever facilities are provided in County Dublin the people seem to flock into the area but there is this resistance all the time on the part of the officials in the county council.

Deputy Lemass spoke at some length about the difficulties which have arisen in relation to the planning legislation passed in 1963. If they have difficulties in the city, we have many difficulties in the county. If ever there was a piece of legislation which has proved to be a disappointment to me personally as a local representative it is this town planning legislation. It is an amazing thing, as Deputy Lemass says, that we can spend so long in this House and in the Seanad considering legislation of this kind and that, when it is passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas, it does not seem to be automatic or to be possible to implement it. In County Dublin we felt we had the answer to most of our town planning problems. Deputy Lemass says that this legislation went through without any opposition. I can remember the opposition that went on for the best part of 12 months.

I meant serious opposition.

I thought the people on these benches were serious all the time. There were so many assurances about certain matters that I felt nothing could go wrong. The Minister is on record so often as assuring us that once this legislation went through the House these problems would be solved. What happened? The first thing that happened was that when the legislation was passed there was the question of the operative date. That was understandable. Then the Minister announced his intention to bring it in piecemeal, and for some reason best known to himself he suddenly decided to give it blanket application over the whole country. That was a serious error. He made that decision regardless of the effect it would have and regardless of the difficulties it would create in many places. My personal feeling is that there was a need for comprehensive town planning in only a few areas and that the remainder of the country could well have waited.

What effect had this? The first thing it did was to denude us of town planning personnel in Dublin County. The majority of our trained staff were taken by the Department and brought into Local Government. Not only did that happen but the Minister refused to sanction the increased salary which it would be necessary for us to give those people to retain them, and he paid them extra money himself. I say good luck to the people who got it but there was no question of our being able to hold them. We were not allowed to pay them the increased salary that would have held them and this has left us in a serious plight.

Deputy Lemass is quite right in saying there are difficulties arising every day. The most routine things cannot be got through town planning. I am chairman of town planning in the county and I know what it means. I have many people coming to me with the simplest problems which should pass through automatically but, as far as I can see, the staff is not available to do it.

Another thing that has happened to cause frustration is the fact that a regional planner has been brought in, Professor Myles Ryan. He is an expert and apparently no serious policy decision will be allowed to take place until his report on it arrives and is considered. That is holding up planning proposals and development all over County Dublin. This is a serious matter more especially where it is holding up planning proposals for industrial development that would provide badly needed employment.

There is no justification whatever for this. The Minister said today that this type of thing is not meant to interfere at all with the planning legislation which he had introduced and which was passed through the House. The responsibility was still with the members of the local authority to do their own planning. In other words, the experts who were being brought in were only meant to provide guide lines to be followed and to deal with matters that had regional effect only. However, it appears to me to be used as an excuse —I do not like to call it that—for delaying action in regard to many development proposals.

There are many such cases throughout the country but the most recent and the most serious one that has come before me is the question of Potez Aerospace, the aeroplane factory at Baldonnel. That is an industry in which there is what I would describe as heavy State investment. It is an industry with a large potential output and a very large employment content. It is held up there and practically sitting down simply because there is an argument going on between the principals in this industry and the local authority in relation to the discharge of effluents into the local stream.

Everybody with commonsense knows that this is a problem that must be solved and that no Government should allow an investment of this size to be left sitting there while this type of silly argument, in my view, is allowed to proceed. It has been stated that these problems should have been foreseen and should have been tackled much earlier. I understand that all over Great Britain there are certain tolerance standards laid down and certain degrees of pollution that are permitted. Consequently, anybody can come along and work to those standards and the treatment works that are installed are installed to measure up to the requirements of these recognised standards. We have no such set of standards in this country. The members of the local authority are quite powerless. The chief medical officer can say: "I simply will not have that" and apparently he has the last word. It is a deplorable situation that somebody can say that and be responsible for the holding up of enormous development that affects the economy of the country as a whole so seriously.

With the question of this industry we have in the council, at one and the same time, a proposal to develop the adjoining farm to provide a site for sufficient houses for the workers in that industry. It, too, has been turned down by Town Planning for the same reason. It does not make sense to me at all. This should not be allowed to continue. There seems to be no national policy in relation to development on the basis of treatment works.

The Minister today referred to pollution. He passed over it rather lightly. He spoke of water sources and that sort of thing. This is a field that calls for a great deal of attention, especially from the point of view of industrial development. One would expect County Dublin to be well serviced with water, sewerage and so on. There are about 25,000 acres in North County Dublin that can never be developed unless local treatment works are carried out. These would cost millions but my approach would be to create the problem by allowing development on the basis of these works and if, at a later date, sufficient money was brought in as a result of increased rateable valuations when it becomes absolutely essential. Development is being held up all over the place for all sorts of frivolous reasons.

Coming now to the ordinary dwelling houses, an application goes in to the town planning committee. That application is held for the maximum period. It is then refused for some relatively unimportant reason. If a couple of intelligent questions were asked, any problem that arises could be solved. Instead of that, the application is thrown out. It either comes back in or is appealed. When all that is over, a grant has to be looked for and a few more months elapse before the grant is sanctioned. Then all the inspections take place. People nearly give up the ghost even when they are building their own houses. I can see a big job of work facing the new Parliamentary Secretary if he interests himself in these things. This red tape should be cut out. If it were, a great deal of frustration would be avoided. The situations that arise could easily be handled by some intelligent questioning at the outset.

I pass now to unfinished estates. I remember discussing this in detail with the Minister when the legislation was going through this House. I asked if section 35 and section 89(2) make the provision retrospective and applicable to all unfinished estates. All over the country unfinished estates are an absolute plague. The Minister is on record as saying that, when the legislation passed, if a developer did not finish the job in a reasonable time, the local authority could move in and take over. We are told now by our manager and law agent that that is all nonsense, that the matter must be tested in court. We will now have to bring tests cases. It is hoped that, if we are successful in these, we will be able to proceed in future on the assumption that the developer will decide it is better to let us in than lose money going to court. Now, it takes 12 months or so to prepare a case. It has then to be listed and that is followed with all the tortuous business of going through the court. It baffles me how this House could have passed that legislation without discovering the flaw.

Every week that passes we have residents' associations calling on us and letting us have it because they were promised there would be an immediate take-over and nothing has been done. In some areas where works are unfinished, the people have been living in the houses for as long as 15 years and are still without the services to which they are entitled. They are paying rates but they are denied the services becauses the developer has not done his job. I have had to tell these people that this legislation is as big a disappointment to me as it is to them. We are in a cleft stick. When the Minister replies, I should like him to tell us whether we have power to go in on an open space, level it out, reseed it, and do whatever is needed, subsequently charging the developer with the cost. Have we or have we not that right? It is time we were told. If we have not that right, have we the right to purchase these open spaces by compulsory acquisition? If we have that right, how long will it take to do the work? A solution must be found to this problem and the solution must be a speedy solution.

In a good-class area last Sunday night, I got a phone call from several people in a panic. A circus was coming into the open space. They wanted to know what they could do to stop it. It was coming in on Tuesday. Nobody was in a position to stop it. The developer who finished the estate 15 years ago let the open space to circuses and they have been coming in, with all the attendant noise and disturbance, with no sanitary arrangements, and so on. As circuses will, they naturally mess up the whole place. The residents are powerless. The following night a big protest meeting was called. The residents are upset. We shall have the same situation in another area on Thursday. Public representatives have been invited to attend a meeting. All we will be able to do is to go through the same painful process of telling the same story : we are not in a position to do anything. I should like to hear from the Minister exactly what powers we have and how we should go about implementing the powers we thought we had under town planning. So far the experience is that town planning is holding up development and causing more headaches than it is curing.

To come back for a moment to housing, there is the question of caravan dwellers. The Minister refuses to allow the two-thirds subsidy in relation to these people. For many years he refused the subsidy in relation to those who were described as subtenants. Ultimately he brought in a regulation allowing the two-thirds subsidy where sub-tenancies had been created before last June. He still refuses the subsidy in relation to caravan dwellers. These people are living in caravans because we have no houses for them. That is not their fault. It is the fault of the local authorities and of the Minister. There is no reason why they should be excluded from benefiting from this subsidy. There is no reason why last June should be fixed as the operative date because we will have more of these sub-tenancies created since we are unable to meet the demand for houses. The only way to solve the situation is by expediting the building programme.

An extension of this problem is the problem of itinerants. Nobody seems to want to solve this problem. I have had long discussions and arguments with the Minister in regard to it. This is a big problem in County Dublin. It is one of considerable magnitude in Palmerstown and Ballyfermot. There are enormous itinerant camps there and the people have suffered long. Exhortation on the part of the Minister for local authorities to take this problem off his plate is absolutely useless. Little or nothing will happen.

This is a national problem. Anybody who has seen this itinerant encampment at Ballyfermot during the winter months would not think this was a Christian country. A solution must be found. One local authority should not be called upon to carry the major portion of the difficulty. A solution must be found on a national scale. When every county is made carry its share, there should be certain force to make the itinerants live in an ordered society. That would be good for them and for the rest of the community. We would have done something that long needs to be done and of which, in the long run, we would be proud. I was disappointed to hear Deputy H. Byrne say that this is a problem that can never be solved. It must be solved. It has been solved in other countries. The only hope is to anchor these people in some sort of fixed situation where their children can be educated and brought up to think differently to their parents.

Reference was made to the housing of elderly people. With a little assistance and encouragement local authorities could get outside organisations to undertake the building of a considerable number of houses for elderly people. I am aware of at least one such proposal in County Dublin which is not getting sufficient recommendation and which, I think, would be productive of considerable results. It would be wrong to provide a large number of houses in one situation for elderly people and put them there as a colony. It would be far better to provide a small number of houses for them in every building scheme. They could then live in their native habitat where they would be near their relations and could be looked after and visited frequently. This, in association with some sort of home health service, would bring happiness into the lives of many of our old people.

The need for swimming pools was referred to and related to the number of drowning accidents. I was pleased to hear the Minister say it was possible to provide a covered, heated swimming pool for as little as £16,000. He did say it would have no frills or extras. I think we could do without those until the swimming pool paid for them by its very existence, and I am sure it would do so in a short time. In an area such as Ballyfermot, there are very poor amenities for so large a community of working-class people living a considerable distance from the seaside and not in a position to pay the necessary bus fares. That is the type of place in which we should have swimming pools, because they would mean so much to the community. The Minister would want to take the initiative more frequently in communicating with local authorities indicating where he felt the need for a pool existed and where it should be provided as a matter of urgency.

The Minister referred to arterial roads and the reclassification of roads. Since I came into this House, I have referred to the reclassification of roads on numerous occasions. I felt that in County Dublin, the area I represent, we were carrying the traffic of the country. Practically all our roads are main roads. This is something that does not seem to be recognised. When one considers that in 1964 the Road Fund amounted to about £8¼ million—I think Deputy Lynch underestimated that when he said about £7 million— we are getting a very poor share of the Fund to solve the various problems we have in relation to car parking and improved exits from the city.

A good deal of work is being done at present. But we have now had no county road improvement grants for the last three or four years. We are one of the counties completely deprived. I am not sure it was a good thing to do that. We used to get each year something in the region of from £40,000 to £45,000 county road improvement grant. Overnight that was completely cut off. As a result, many of the roads in County Dublin are really dangerous because we have an immense amount of traffic but there is great resistance on the part of the officials in the county to undertake this work because the cost must be borne 100 per cent by the rates.

The reclassification of roads is overdue. The Minister has said that 1,500 miles of arterial roads have been mapped out and were being dealt with as State money was being allocated. I hope at some stage he will consider the proposition put up on numerous occasions from these benches that both the making and maintenance of arterial roads should be a national charge and taken away completely from the rates. The whole attention and abilities of the engineering staff are concentrated on the arterial roads while their other functions are suffering as a result. The extension of sewerage and water has been cited as an important matter to be attended to by the various local authorities. Matters of this kind are not receiving the attention to which they are entitled because of this concentration of the professional staff on main road improvement and development work. We have the same frustrating experience in relation to the extension of water supplies and sewerage in areas adjacent to the city of Dublin. It is simply amazing that some houses right on the fringe of the city got these amenities only last year and that some have not yet got them. The only reason I can give for it is that we have all this other work distracting our engineering staff. I believe we have a very good engineering staff and the best county engineer in Ireland.

I have referred off and on to the question of the review of speed limits by the Minister. I cannot understand why it is necessary to leave long periods between reviewing speed limits. Experience teaches, and traffic changes so rapidly that I think this decision should be left at local level. I would not say that it should be left to the people locally to decide to lift a speed limit. A recommendation could be made to the Minister, if that is to happen. However, if the proposal is to impose a speed limit, where none exists at present, that is a simple matter which could be decided at local level and should be left to the county councils in the various areas to decide, or a local committee in any case but it certainly should not have to go back to the Minister and to wait for an accident history to have a decision about it.

With regard to the voters' register I think that if the last election indicated anything to me it indicated the deplorable condition of the register throughout the constituency. The number of people who were entitled to votes but who had no votes was simply amazing. It is not because we were working on the old register that caused an immense amount of trouble but people who had been on the voters' register for years had no vote on this occasion. I discussed this with the people who are responsible, that is, the rate collectors, for the compiling of the register. They told me that is is a physical impossibility to do this job perfectly or anywhere near perfectly. Apparently, they get six weeks to compile the register. They told me that in a period of six weeks it is physically impossible to do that job. They have to hire outside help to do it within six weeks and they told me that they cannot be responsible for the quality of the work of those outside helpers. The Minister should seriously consider getting this register compiled in some other way. Personally, I think that it should be the responsibility of the Garda Síochána who would deliver these forms and collect them and make sure they were collected by a certain date. The way it is done at the moment means that the job, in fact, is not done and many people were very annoyed when it came to the day of voting to find they were not on the register.

I should like the Minister, too, to have a look at the various ways in which different presiding officers allocated surpluses. It is amazing to find, say, in the case of one presiding officer that if a candidate had a surplus of 500 votes then he allocated exactly 500 votes while another presiding officer in the next case would distribute one-fifth or one-tenth of that number. If the Minister takes a look at what happened during the election he will see that that has happened. As well as that, I think provision should be made for a better opportunity for the candidates involved in an election to see what is happening. With the present system, it is quite impossible to ensure that the count is taking place as it should take place where most of it is concealed. I think that it is very unsatisfactory, not to one person or to two persons, but, in fact, to all the candidates. For instance, I saw whole blocks of ballot papers stamped on the block and on the ballot paper. They could all have been excluded but, then, that would mean that a whole box, representing practically 500 people, could be disfranchised simply because they had a presiding officer who was either careless or did not know his job. Something should be done to overcome these obvious defects and I think things could be ironed out reasonably easily.

I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary has been appointed and I hope that it will lead to greater speed and efficiency in the work of the Department. I hope he will interest himself particularly in finding ways and means to cut out the unnecessary duplication and overlapping that is causing so much work and so many delays both at Department level and at local authority level.

Reading over the Minister's speech on his Estimate, one would get the impression that the Minister and the Government he represents were, in fact, dealing with the problem of local government and the problem of housing only for the past year or so. The Minister's speech in relation to housing and planning gives the impression that there has been some new discovery in very recent times as to how housing problems should be dealt with—how the shortage of housing accommodation should be dealt with and how the need for planning and development should be tackled. Yet the Minister in question represents a Government who, since 1957, have been uninterruptedly in office. In the first page of his speech the Minister mentions that there has been some increase in housing activity and that more dwellings were constructed by local authorities in 1964-65 than in the previous year. According to the Minister, the total number of houses completed by local authorities in 1964-65 was 2,359. Yet, in Dublin city alone, in 1951-52 more houses were built and completed in that particular year. What have the Government been doing for nearly eight years? Evidently they have not been doing very much if the number of houses constructed last year is to be taken as a criterion.

Deputies welcome the information that more dwellings are under construction and at tender now than previously but, quite clearly, even the indication of the figures on this heading must still leave Members of this House who are concerned for the needs of people in various parts of the country, in the city and in the town, in doubt as to whether the matter is being dealt with as seriously as it should be. The responsibility must lie on the shoulders of the Minister for Local Government and the Government because they are the final authorities in this matter, not some county council or urban council or borough council. Those bodies are mainly instruments in Government policy because at all stages they have been subject to Government sanctions. At all stages they have to submit plans, specifications, and so on, and, except in periods of emergency I think they have to go back as many as six or seven times to get plans and proposals in relation to housing or flat schemes through the Department of Local Government.

We in this House are aware that when there is any form of emergency these particular stages can be telescoped and, in fact, a number of them may be left out altogether but that is when the pressure of publicity gets so great that the Minister concerned decides that red tape has to be cut. It is fair to say of the Minister that on a number of occasions he has been quite willing to cut the red tape.

In the course of his speech he referred to an expansion and review of existing standards. We would be interested to hear the Minister enlarging a little more on that when he is replying and telling us what he intends by this term "of an expansion and review of existing standards". An expansion of housing activities and the provision of dwellings will be welcomed. Certainly a review of existing standards is overdue. I should like to recommend very strongly to the Minister that one thing he should insist upon is that no dwelling will be constructed by a local authority for a married couple which has fewer than two rooms. I am aware that local authorities are providing accommodation consisting of a bed-sitting room. Surely in modern times, if we are to accept that human beings are entitled to a certain degree of comfort and privacy in their own homes—whether a home which they purchased themselves or a home provided with the assistance of State or local authority money—a dwelling for a married couple, or for more than one person, should no longer be recognised as adequate if it has one room, even though there may be provision for toilet and bathroom facilities. I would urge the Minister to examine this suggestion carefully.

The problem of site acquisition is also referred to in the Minister's brief. All Deputies will appreciate that it is intended to reduce the very considerable documentation which has been necessary up to the present. Site acquisition is a very serious problem for most local authorities and private individuals hoping to provide themselves with houses. One problem confronting those anxious to acquire sites is the constant increase in the price of land, an increase which is often mainly due to the fact that public money has been expended in providing roads, water supplies, sewerage, and so on, but yet the owners of land, many of whom may not have spent a penny on its improvement, just wait for the public development and then put out their hands for exorbitant prices for this land. It is time some consideration should be given in both the short-term and long-term development plans of the various authorities to this matter and where such plans envisage the construction of dwelling-houses, either by local authorities or by people anxious to provide their own houses, some form of control on land should be introduced. It is completely unjust that people can exploit the public as a person or the public in the corporate body by reaping unjustified profits through exorbitant prices for building land.

The Minister also mentioned the question of an examination of unfit houses and he went on to mention that local authorities might well think in terms of a short-term programme of three to five years for the purpose of eliminating arrears of housing demand and, parallel with that, a long-term programme. The city of Dublin has an arrears housing demand of 10,000 applicants; to eliminate that demand would require the construction of at least 2,000 dwellings a year for the next five years. If one examines the Minister's statement it will be seen that there is no land available for the construction of any more houses. There is no more land available at the moment to carry out a further long-term plan. It is quite clear from the figures set out in the Minister's speech that a fairly large scale acquisition of land will be required and it is hoped that not too many difficulties will be put in the way of any proposals submitted to his Department in this regard.

Reference was also made to the question of costs. There are two aspects to this matter of the increase in the costs of local authority dwellings which have been rising fairly steadily. The overwhelming majority of local authority dwellings are constructed by private contractors after the submission of tenders. Over the years these tenders have shown a fairly steady increase. Houses of four or five rooms that a few years ago could be built for about £1,500 or £1,600 are paid for by local authorities today at the rate of £2,500 each. In cases of people buying their own houses the situation has become much more difficult. A few years ago, an applicant for an SDA loan had a reasonable hope of buying a house for around £2,200. Today a similar house cannot be obtained for less than £3,500.

While there was a spectacular increase in the price of these houses in 1964, there had been increases in the price of such houses in previous years and the problem of people desirous of providing themselves with such houses has been growing much more difficult each year. It is fair to say that such people have been getting very little help, that they have been exposed completely to the law of supply and demand. Not only in 1964 but in 1963 and 1962 houses were increased in price overnight by £50 or £100 each because in that period speculative builders—not all of them but a sufficient number—found themselves with large numbers of applicants on their books.

When this happened, their action in many cases was to increase prices. We had the situation last year, and we have it today, where hopes of young people obtaining dwellings from local authorities for some years to come are very doubtful, even in cases where they would be in a position to meet normal payments on an ordinary type house. Prices have risen so steadily and demands for deposits are so high that they are not in a position to avail of these facilities. Lip service is paid by Members of this House almost daily to young couples and fathers of young families who are prepared to take on the responsibility of providing themselves with dwellings, yet when it comes to providing any adequate protection for them or any adequate assistance to them nothing is done.

As has been mentioned earlier this evening, the £275 supplementary grant from the State has been in existence for a good many years now. A few months ago on Telefís Éireann a representative of the Department of Local Government was interviewed and asked whether it was proposed to vary the supplementary grant. To the best of my recollection, the answer given was that the £275 grant was originally introduced to encourage speculative builders to provide houses—that it was not introduced to help people to buy houses but to encourage speculative builders to build them. It was also stated that it was not proposed to vary the amount.

If £275 was a reasonable sum in 1950 to help people to buy houses or to make it possible for speculative builders to build houses and sell them at a little less than they normally would charge, surely there is a case for its revision in 1965. Of course, it is fair to say that should it be revised some provision would have to be introduced to ensure that the purchaser would get the benefit of the increase because I am afraid experience of those purchasing houses with the assistance of local authority supplementary grants has been that when those grants were increased there was an automatic overnight increase in the price of the house.

While we are dealing with the question of the straight grant to help house purchasers, I should like to refer to another matter that comes within the scope of this Estimate. It is the level of State and Local Government assistance, of the level of State subsidies to Local Government activity in housing. The present State subsidy in respect of a four-roomed flat is paid up to a maximum of £2,000 for a flat constructed by a local authority.

The average cost of three or four roomed local authority flats is in excess of £3,500, and this means that the difference between that £2,000 and the cost paid by the local authority is placed on the local authority or the tenant, and the State pays not one penny. In the case of houses, a subsidy is paid on a house the maximum price of which is £1,650. On a five-roomed house today, the construction cost is in the neighbourhood of £2,500. This assistance or subsidy was last fixed in 1960, I think. If the Minister holds that the Government have been very generous to local authorities in this matter, he might well think that an upward revision of the subsidy figure would be well justified.

The Minister referred to the White Paper on Housing issued, I think, last October. He said it will be re-issued shortly, and he indicated that there would be some necessity to have rents adjusted. The Minister has lots of power in this regard. No doubt most local authorities who have some concern for the people they are trying to house would be most reluctant to impose any further burden on their tenants. The possibility of getting agreement on the part of the local authorities to impose rent increases would be absolutely nil, to my way of thinking.

Reference was also made to the desirability of local authorities providing developed sites for those desirous of building or buying their houses. This may be quite a simple problem for some local authorities where land may be readily available, but it may be difficult for others. Where local authorities are short of land for their own operations, they may well find themselves facing a difficult problem if they are asked to utilise some of that land for this purpose. Where it is possible I think that suggestion or proposal would be welcome on all sides of the House. Again, in connection with this question of sites there should be some careful examination as to whether individuals would obtain undue profits from land which would have become valuable only because of the activities of the community.

One matter that arises on tenant purchase schemes is not only the question of tenant purchase schemes for new dwellings, but the question of local authority tenants being invited to participate in tenant purchase schemes for existing dwellings. Quite clearly, the reaction of such tenants might well depend on whether the State subsidy, where one exists, would be continued. If the Minister believes it is good to encourage local authority tenants to participate in a purchase scheme for dwellings for which they are paying rent at present, surely it would be only reasonable for him to indicate also that in such an event he would be prepared to continue a subsidy where one exists from State funds, and not expect the tenant or the local authority to bear the additional cost which would arise through the State being relieved of its present commitments.

The Minister referred to the project at Ballymun. There is only one aspect of that project which I should like to mention. I should like to ask if any progress has been made towards the provision of the essential amenities, schools, shops, and other amenities, in that area. This will be, as it was described by the Minister on another occasion, a major departure from normal local authority schemes. It must be very clear to everyone that, if a major scheme of this nature, costing approximately £10 million, is to prove successful, it is essential that when tenants take up residence in houses or flats situated at Ballymun they are assured that there will be schools, churches, shops, and other facilities available to them when they move in, or, if not, as soon after they move in as possible.

One of the problems of estate development throughout the country has been the repeated experience that families, perhaps, in small country towns, move into estates of 50 or 100 houses or even larger units of 200 to 300 houses and, having moved in, are, perhaps, living in their new dwellings for a year or two or even more before essential facilities are provided for them. It would be a pity that an experiment of this nature should be prejudiced substantially by failure to provide facilities pari passu with housing development.

The question of accommodation for elderly persons is not a problem that will be solved in three or five years. In a way, the general housing problem may be easier of solution than this particular one because there is no single way of solving the problem of the elderly. The average age of our population is going up; the percentage of the population over 60 is increasing. Many very elderly people may require to be housed in hospitals and institutions where they can get medical care. Many of them would be quite capable of looking after themselves in their own cottages or flats but there are also very many of them who would be much happier if they were living next door to, or in the same building as, some relatives. Apart from providing special types of dwellings, which has been done in a number of communities, apart from even trying to arrange for home care for the elderly living in such dwellings and apart from the efforts of voluntary associations, religious and otherwise, co-operating in providing homes for the elderly, I suggest the Minister should examine the possibility of a type of dwelling for an ordinary family which would also include a special room for the parents of the husband or wife if they were prepared to go and live there.

Having regard to the fact that if an elderly person is compelled to seek accommodation from the health authority and to be looked after by them, the cost would be not less than £8 or £10 per week, it certainly should be possible to think in terms of a type of accommodation which would require only a nominal payment in respect of that special accommodation. I am sure there are many thousands of families in cities and towns who would be quite willing to have their aged parents live with them if they had adequate accommodation and if the aged persons had their own private accommodation. Certainly, in nearly all housing areas in Dublin at present quite a high proportion of families living in somewhat over-crowded conditions themselves have a father or mother living with them, particularly where it is a widow or where a man's wife has died and he is living with his son or married daughter. One of the problems there is that in present circumstances the family have to to face the difficulty that the parents have to share a bedroom of probably inadequate size with one or two grandchildren. They are compelled—it is not just the question of usage—to share the same table, the same cooking and toilet facilities. If this problem of housing elderly people is becoming more acute all the time, I suggest this idea might be examined I know of a number of families who were able to provide their own accommodation and were anxious to look after their parents and they built on this special room with special conveniences where the parents were able to enjoy privacy and yet were near their married children.

The problem of water and sewerage services has been mentioned. It is a problem that exists very much in the city of Dublin and it is also a problem for many county areas. Unless the services are considerably expanded here the Minister's proposals for expanding housing activities and providing more accommodation for people in this city and in other cities could be hindered very severely.

The road traffic problem is becoming very difficult and while the one-way streets have eased it considerably from one point of view I agree entirely with the Deputy—I think it was Deputy Lemass—who said that motorists would need a lesson on driving where traffic lanes exist. Certain of Dublin's one-way streets are becoming almost like a race track. Westmoreland Street is a case in point. Cars come around from College Green or College Street and drivers intending to turn into D'Olier Street, no matter on which side of Westmoreland Street they are, whether in the right, the middle or the left-hand lane, are jockeying for position so that they will get over to the right-hand side without regard for their fellow motorists and, worse than that, with very little regard for pedestrians. It may well be said that while the one-way streets have eased the problem from the motorists' point of view they have certainly contributed much more to the danger of pedestrians.

He is a very brave individual who will venture to cross a number of these one-way streets to-day, and whether the motorist likes it or not, we have to realise that the person who is at his mercy, that is the pedestrian, is entitled not only to consideration but to all the protection that can be given by this Assembly, by regulation, by way of Road Traffic Act or anything else. There is one basic difference between the motorist and the pedestrian. The average motorist is in a vehicle weighing from half a ton to over one ton and at best a pedestrian is a human being weighing anything from five to 14 stone; it is a matter of metal against flesh and blood.

Quite clearly, prime consideration should be given in arranging these one-way streets to arrange for proper control. While the matter of penalties is not one for the Minister for Local Government, nevertheless it is ironic to see the number of prosecutions for technical offences and at the same time drivers engaged in what is almost a motor rally in some of the principal streets of Dublin. As regards the other aspect of traffic, there is still a need for an increased number of traffic lights in various parts of the city and suburbs.

Reference has been made to the recent Planning and Development Act. I agree with Deputy Lemass when he said that the previous Planning Act was introduced in a hurry because of a threatened prosecution by certain developers of members of the Dublin Corporation. But the Planning Act introduced and passed in 1955-56 bore little relation to the plans drawn up originally by Professor Abercrombie. It was purely an Act to meet local requirements and anyone who studied the plans at that time would see that the main requirement was the avoidance of committing Dublin Corporation to any major expenditure arising from decisions to introduce the town plan.

The planning legislation possibly was devised to meet weaknesses that existed previously, weaknesses which resulted in individuals defying all forms of planning control because at the time the only control that could be exerted upon them was control arising from breaches of the Sanitary Services Act. Repeatedly the experience was that residential areas were turned into shoping areas against the vehement objections of the residents concerned because there was no effective power to control them. We had the situation in the city of Dublin that areas which were ideal for providing houses and flats for our citizens were acquired by commercial and industrial interests. In the absence of proper planning control, the industrial and commercial development took place and thousands of families were forced to leave the center of the city and find accommodation five or six miles outside.

One particular feature of this legislation, and I think it is no harm to mention it here, is that it does impose on the ordinary elected representatives much more onerous responsibility. Between the planning and Development Act and the other types of legislation which are imposing duties and responsibilities on members of local authorities, we very likely will end up at the stage where a member of a local authority who has to keep in touch with what is happening in his local authority will have to suspend almost every other activity.

I referred earlier to the question of State subsidy for housing purposes. I should also like to refer to the level of State and local authority expenditure. From the figures in the Minister's brief, the local authority expenditure would, in fact, include expenditure falling on local authorities from health authority sources. Consequently, account should be taken of the fact that much of the local authority expenditure could well be borne by the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health. While the transfer of expenditure might well leave ratepayers feeling the pinch as taxpayers, there is this difference, that it is not so evident, I think, in certain areas outside the cities but is very evident in the cities. Where rates are levied in the cities on the valuation of dwellings, they include not only payments in respect of normal municipal services, water, sewerage, cleansing, park development and local amenities, but also social welfare and health services, but the people paying these rates pay them irrespective of the level of their income.

There is an increasing number of cases where families of very moderate income, even low income, find themselves exposed to these increased costs. Many hundreds of these families, with a different system of financing, would be relieved of some of this burden. Possibly somebody else might have to bear the burden but at least in a different from of taxation. They are taxed on the basis that they have an income or that the organisation or the company they are in, or their shareholders, have an income. Many hundreds of people are finding it increasingly difficult to meet this particular problem. Therefore, the suggestion that the State is very generous could possibly be examined.

During the discussion reference was made to the local elections and I think it was at Question Time that Deputy Corish inquired about the date. There is one matter in connection with this question of local elections that I should like to raise with the Minister. He indicated that if the question were put to him next week, he would be in a position to reply. I want to ask the Minister whether any examination has been made of the changes which have taken place in the boundaries in local authorities. I do not know whether there have been any great changes in places such as Cork, Limerick, Wexford, Galway or whether there have been any great changes in the population in those places. Certainly, in the city of Dublin we have, as a result of the change in the population over the past few years, the position where one constituency elects five members, an alderman and four councillors. They elect those from an electorate of around 15,000. Another area may have an electorate of about 20,000. In other areas, particularly in relation to Dublin County Council, the electorate is as high as 40,000.

Quite clearly, if local representatives are to look after the interests of those they represent, circumstances such as these will throw an increasing burden on them. Because of the shifting of the population from the centre of the city of Dublin to the outskirts, the boundaries of the various municipal divisions have not been changed but the electorate within those boundaries varies tremendously. The electorate varies from around 15,000 or 16,000 to about 40,000 to elect respectively an alderman and four councillors.

Reference was made to the recent general election and I join with Deputies in referring again to the necessity of ensuring that those charged with the immediate supervision of the voting should not only know their job but should do their job. I refer initially to the presiding officers because it has been quite clearly demonstrated that there were some presiding officers who apparently did not understand their duties. I find this hard to believe because anyone leaving the primary school should at least know that he is required to put a stamp on the ballot paper before it is issued. Therefore, some presiding officers must have been very careless. I mention this matter only because of the fact that when people take the trouble to exercise their right to vote and their privilege of participating in an election, whether it be an election to Dáil Éireann or an election to a borough or county council, the least they should be assured of is that their vote will not be made invalid by the stupidity or carelessness of somebody appointed to ensure that the ballot paper is issued correctly.

The second matter I want to refer to in relation to this is the question of the register. While I do not think in all constituencies the situation was quite as bad as was suggested, there were some cases where people who had voted for years were not on the register. There was even one case brought to my attention where a two year old child was registered. The Minister might possibly discuss with the Minister for Finance the question of some review from a financial point of view because, first of all, I do not consider the State shares its just burden of the cost of compiling the register. It is usually compiled by the rate collectors in rural or county areas who are compelled to recruit temporary staff, or local authorities recruit temporary staff in the urban areas. The payment of temporary staff leaves much to be desired.

I should like to conclude by expressing the hope that whatever plans there are to expedite housing construction, consideration should be given to the need to assure building workers of continuous employment over a number of years. I stress this because of the fact that if there is any feeling of doubt among the building trade operatives that their employment is likely to be in jeopardy a year or so ahead, it would quite naturally be most difficult to get the co-operation essential to deal with the very serious housing problem.

Most speakers today congratulated Deputy Paudge Brennan on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. I should like to join in the congratulations. I see more in it than the mere appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary. I think it is a mark of the determination of the Minister to perfect a system of local government as it affects our people.

It is only natural in dealing with this Estimate for Local Government that housing should figure so largely because any Deputy here who is also a member of a local authority realises and appreciates the tremendous problem that exists and the effort required to solve once and for all the housing problem.

In the city of Dublin at present there are 8,000 families or individuals seeking houses and the Corporation plan to provide in the next three years 4,000 to 5,000 dwellings for renting. In addition, they will issue loans to people to provide their own houses. In that period also there will be possibly 1,500 casual vacancies, so that we should reach in the three years almost 7,000 dwellings.

It may be pointed out that our progress is slow, that many years ago we built many more dwellings. We have to take each year against its own background and realise now that in the city of Dublin we are building against the background of an emergency. In 1963, when some houses collapsed, the priority list of the Corporation had to be scrapped and emergency measures had to be brought in to deal with the people removed from dangerous buildings and, after that, when we got back to some kind of normality the Minister did think of one new project which will help to influence the housing problem very much for the next few years. That was the Ballymun housing project. Here we had a scheme which in very quick time will provide 3,000 dwellings—2,600 flats and just over 400 houses. On whatever else we may differ in the city and the country, we are all agreed that the housing problem must get priority treatment. Be it said to the credit of the Government and the trade unions, we did get agreement, almost instant agreement, on this scheme—the Government providing the money and the trade unions playing a big part—whereby to hold out some hope for the 8,000 people looking for houses in the city. In the next few years we will probably solve the problem as it stands at the moment but I fear we are only starting to solve the problem of Dublin housing.

The Minister mentioned in the report that we are building now because people are waiting for houses but in future we must plan the city so that we will not make the mistake of other cities and have colossal stretches of concrete jungle. We must have the city properly planned so that our people can live full lives and have proper houses.

We can make money and even provide labour but we cannot create land and a point the Minister must think of is an alteration of the density laws. At the moment in Ireland we are allowed to build only 100 habitable rooms to the acre. Cross-channel authorities almost double that. Perhaps, they have gone too far; they have almost overcrowded their housing schemes. We can have a happy medium and, by proper use of the valuable land we have for housing, provide many more dwellings per acre.

The needs of the people looking for rented houses will be met in the next few years but we must have a planned building programme so that we will not have the old fashioned thing of a boom and a bust, as has happened over the years. We must plan that building workers will be guaranteed plenty of work, that we will plan it out so that we will not have a boom this year and workers emigrating next year. We must guard against that. With proper planning it can be done.

There are many hundreds of young couples in the city who do not qualify for rented dwellings but who are prepared to provide their own dwellings if given facilities. Dublin Corporation do provide loans and grants but the question of sites is again a huge problem and, indeed, within the city area there are practically no sites left. I do not know whether the Minister will extend the city boundary into the county again. I suppose it must happen eventually. It would help the Corporation to provide the sites. It would be a tremendous help.

The third category of persons looking for houses are the old people. In this particular sphere the matter should not be left entirely to the Government or the local authority. There are signs that our society is starting to recognise this problem and there are bodies like the Catholic Housing Aid Society and the Methodist Church both engaging in the housing of old people. The Methodist Church in my constituency provides a wonderful scheme in Sandymount and the Catholic Housing Aid Society are planning a composite scheme of dwellings for old people and newly-weds.

The Government and the local authorities will provide grants of £600 for each dwelling for an old person. Here we could make a great breakthrough so that our old people will not have to live in insanitary hovels or inadequate housing. If we get the proper spirit of co-operation we can in the foreseeable future guarantee for our old people that they will have proper housing.

The question of rates has been mentioned and the heavy burden on young couples and, indeed, on old couples. It has been suggested that the rates system should be displaced by central taxation. Some people maintain that that is the answer to the problem while others argue that it is not so easy as that. The Taoiseach in the general election campaign promised that the system would be examined with a view to lessening the burden on old and young couples who find it hard to pay rates.

One matter mentioned in the report is the fire hazards which cost 20 lives per year and £2 million worth of damage. If there were a disease that cost twenty lives and £2 million per annum the medical profession would be doing something about it. It is tragic to read of some old person living alone being burned to death. The new Fire Protection Association set up by the Minister aims to educate the public in the need for fire protection and in the next few months a big campaign will be launched to make the public aware of their duty and the need to do something about this hazard.

Reference has been made to the provision of swimming pools and the Minister has a scheme whereby a pool can be produced for £16,000, which is very cheap indeed. Again, private organisations can play their part in providing swimming pools, not leaving all to the local authority. Again, there is a pilot scheme going through. There is a college in Balls-bridge providing a very excellent swimming pool costing about £35,000, of which the grant will amount to at least 50 per cent. This pool although it is in the Marian College, will be available to the public through swimming clubs. This is the first pool to be built for public use in this city since the beginning of the century.

The problem of the itinerants was also mentioned here. I agree with one of the speakers who said we all want to see the problem solved as long as it is not solved on our doorstep. Each one of us pays lip service to the solving of the problem but as soon as the attempt is made to do something about it in our area, we are up in arms: "No, not in my area; somebody else's area." There is a duty upon us as a Christian State to solve this problem. It is not right in a city like Dublin that we should have the camp which exists in Cherry Orchard. I do not know how the problem will be solved but I do know we must tackle it without delay.

I think it right that I, as one of his colleagues in the constituency, should extend congratulations to Deputy Paudge Brennan on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary. In doing so, I want to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I am not doing it merely as a formality. Those of us who have had occasion to work either with him or against him as Deputies in the Wicklow constituency have come to know and respect his calibre. I believe I can hold out the hope that Deputy Brennan in his new position will be able to assist actively and energetically in solving many of the problems in that constituency which require solving.

As regards the necessity to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government at all, there would be sufficient work for him in dealing with the problems of the county of Wicklow alone. I want to suggest briefly some of the matters to which Deputy Brennan as Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister might devote some of their attention. I say this not sarcastically but in the belief that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assist in expediting the solution of some of these problems.

As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, one of the matters which cause a great deal of concern in the constituency which he and I represent is the extreme delay in vesting county council cottages under the purchase scheme. On several occasions in this House I have addressed questions to the Minister for Local Government as to the reasons for the delay in vesting these cottages. Explanations were given by the Minister. On one occasion on which I inquired about a particular cottage, the Minister's information, which he gave to me across the floor of the House, was that he was hoping it would be vested shortly. I repeated the question in respect of the same cottage after a lapse of three years and the cottage was not yet vested. I do express the hope, and I express it as a matter of urgent concern, that the Parliamentary Secretary will make it one of his primary tasks to look into the question of the interminable delays occurring in connection with the vesting of cottages in many areas, probably in all areas, in County Wicklow. It is due to these people that some effective action should be taken without delay to have these cottages vested.

In page 16 of his speech, the Minister referred to the provision of public conveniences not only at beaches but also in a number of country towns. The Parliamentary Secretary may be aware that I made a number of representations to the Wicklow County Council for the provision of a public convenience in Newtownmountkennedy. The request was turned down. I am glad that the matter has now been referred to publicly by the Minister in his opening remarks. It is a matter which requires the urgent attention of county councils throughout the country, certainly in county council areas which form part of what might be regarded as tourist counties. It is a matter which should not be overlooked and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary specifically to concern himself with that problem in regard to Newtownmountkennedy and other areas in the county of Wicklow.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary also to interest himself in a very particular way with the problems of the village of Valleymount. He is as fully aware as I am of the problems which concern the people in this parish. He and I have arranged meetings at which these problems were discussed and I feel sure the Parliamentary Secretary in his new position will find that he can give energetic support to the very able parish priest in Valleymount in seeking a solution of the problems which beset the residents there.

As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the creation of the reservoir at Poulaphouca has created many problems for the people in that area, particularly the distance which many of the parishioners there have to travel to the parish church, to the parochial house, to the post office and to the shopping centre. The longer this problem is left undealt with, the harder it is becoming. It was suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary and to myself that steps should be introduced to enable the Dublin Corporation—who, I am quite sure, would view the matter with a sympathetic eye if they were put in a position to do so—to pay some additional generous compensation to the residents of that parish. I confidently leave the matter in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary.

So far I have dealt with what might be regarded as local matters which I am sure are near and dear to the heart of the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to say a few words on some more general topics. There seems to be a regular jungle of white lines on our roads. I am convinced that a great number of motorists do not understand what all these lines are intended to convey. Driving through the country in recent times I have noticed several varieties of white lines. You have the single broken white line, the double broken white line, the single continuous line and the double continuous line. In some places I have even seen treble continuous lines. I have seen continuous white lines with broken white lines, not just on one side but on both sides. I have seen the continuous white line with a broken white line on only one side of it. I am sure these are all of some importance to those who draft our traffic code but, so numerous are they becoming, that they are extremely confusing to the motorist.

Originally, when this system of white lines as a warning or a guide came out, it was comparatively easy to follow what was intended by those concerned with the traffic code. Originally, the idea of the single continuous white line was to indicate to the motorist that under no circumstances was he entitled to cross over that white line. On the other hand, the broken white line was intended to indicate to him that, while it was not desirable that he should cross the broken white line, he could do so if it were safe. That was a simple message. It was a message which most motorists understood. So prolific are these road markings now becoming that it is nearly impossible for a motorist to follow all the varieties of white lines.

Now there is no point in making a rule or laying down a law unless that law or rule can be obeyed. The double white line is now, I understand, supposed to indicate to motorists and other road users that under no circumstances are they to cross from their own side to the wrong side. There are, of course, occasions when it is virtually impossible to adhere strictly to that. I am speaking of comparatively narrow roads where, on occasion, it is quite impossible to adhere to that direction. In such cases it would be better not to put down any lines at all. On some roads on which these lines appear, if there is as much as a pedal cycle parked by the kerb, the motorist must traverse the white line in order to pass. Certainly, he cannot pass a parked car or lorry without traversing the white line. Until our roads are sufficiently wide to enable road users driving vehicles to comply with the rules and regulations we should avoid putting them in the position in which they are compelled to break the law in order to continue their journey.

With regard to speed limits, when these were first introduced the Minister indicated—I am, I think, correct in saying this—that these would be open to review by him after a trial period of about 12 months. I should like to know now from the Minister if that review has taken place and, if it has, what variations it is intended to make in the present speed limit regulations. There are a few recommendations, which I think important, that I should like to put before him for consideration. First of all, I suggest there should be authority vested in someone, be it the Minister, the Garda Síochána or the appropriate local authority, to have periodic speed limits. For instance, in a tourist county like Wicklow there should be speed limits in operation during the peak tourist season. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I know that one can travel from the town of Bray to the town of Wicklow without meeting any speed limit zones. There is no speed limit in operation at Kilmacanogue, at Newtownmountkennedy, at Rathnew, or at Ashford. In all these places, and also at Round-wood, there should be speed limit zones during the peak tourist season. I raised this matter on another occasion and I was given to understand by the Minister then that there was no power to operate speed limits for particular periods. One must either impose a speed limit all the time or impose no speed limit at all. That position should be altered and authority should be vested in someone to impose speed limits for special periods.

I should also like to suggest that in long towns, where there is a long carry between the entrance to the speed limit zone and the exit from it, local authorities should be required to put up some in-between signs to remind motorists that they are still in a speed limit zone. I think most motorists have had the same experience as I have had on several occasions of stopping in a town in which there is a speed limit and starting off and forgetting that one is still in a speed limit zone. It should not be possible for that to happen. It would not happen if there were intermediate small speed limit signs like the ones out on the Stillorgan road in these towns in which there is a long carry between the entrance to the speed limit zone and the exit from it.

I should like now to refer briefly to the traffic conditions in this city. Some people seem to think they are good. Others think they are a bit of a failure. I am afraid I am rather inclined to the latter view. I want to bring one special problem to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a problem which confronts Deputies entering this House from the Wicklow direction. There was a time when one drove from Northumberland Road along Merrion Square into Clare Street and up Kildare Street into the House. Clare Street was made a oneway street and so was Kildare Street. That was bad enough. Following on that one crossed Merrion Square, entered Merrion Row and came into Kildare Street by the Shelbourne Hotel. That has been stopped. One must now traverse all four sides of the St. Stephen's Green and come into Kildare Street by the ESB offices. I want to put it seriously to the Parliamentary Secretary that that might constitute a problem at some time when a Deputy finds it necessary to get here speedily for a Division. It may be Deputies on the other side will appreciate the problem even more than Deputies on this side.

I should like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that special attention should be given by him and by the Minister to the question of speeding up housing grants and inspections for housing grants. Unfortunately, I have not been able to be here for most of this discussion. However, I should imagine that is a question that has been raised already. I will not labour it other than to say that any delays in connection with inspection of premises and other work for housing grants and inspection, for example, for water and sewerage grants are extremely frustrating to the applicants. Particularly where you have the necessity for two inspections —a county council inspection and a Department inspection—every effort should be made to speed those up.

Deputies on all sides will appreciate and applaud efforts made by any Minister to cut down the number of road accidents. The number is still appallingly high. There does not seem to me to be any indication that the publicity which has been directed to the question or the efforts made by the present Minister and by his predecessors have succeeded in reducing the number of road accidents. It is very necessary for all of us, as public representatives, to try to instil in drivers of cars and road users generally a sense of personal responsibility. Unless drivers of motor vehicles particularly have that sense of personal responsibility, I do not think we are going to see any worthwhile reduction in the accident rate.

I should like to finish by throwing out a final suggestion to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not do it in any defeatist spirit. It seems to me that we have road accidents and we have to live with them. It is unlikely we are going to be able to eliminate them completely. Given the facts that there are road accidents, are we satisfied we do enough to provide some kind of accident service for the victims of road accidents? I do not think we do. I would suggest to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that they might consider establishing, either in their Department or in co-operation with other Departments such as that of the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, a road accident service bureau which would work on a round-the-clock basis for the purpose of having some centre which would despatch prompt medical and other necessary assistance to the victims of serious road accidents. I think that could be done. It is a simple matter but a matter which might be of very great importance in saving lives or assisting to save limbs in some of the road accidents which occur here.

The Minister's speech today was extremely disappointing. It gave no hint of fulfilment of the hopes many of us had for a breakthrough in regard to re-housing. If it is any indication of the new housing Bill, to which we look forward with hope and enthusiasm, all I can say is that the future seems very gloomy indeed. The colossal increase in the cost of sites and the construction of houses along with the general increase in the cost of living over the past 12 months would lead one to expect that the Minister would be realistic enough to increase housing grants and grants for the repair and reconstruction of property and to liberalise the archaic and outmoded means test applied to applicants for new house building grants and for loans.

The figure in the 1962 Bill of £832 as the qualifying figure for local authority grants is now completely out of date. Today there are few workers who do not earn more than £832 a year. It is a very serious thing for the married couple embarking on building a house that, because their income is in excess of that small sum, they are debarred from getting a local authority grant. If one's income exceeds £1,040, a figure fixed two years ago, one is precluded from getting a loan from the local authority. Almost any artisan, tradesman or skilled factory worker, not to mention the white collar workers generally, are earning in excess of £1,000 a year today. It is utterly absurd that that figure should still be on the Statute Books today. We expect that these ridiculous figures will be increased so that the so-called grants, aids, and stimulants available from the Minister's Department will be available on a realistic basis. For the past few years the agenda of the conference of the Municipal Authorities of Ireland contained motions asking that these grants be increased and the means test liberalised.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 28th April, 1965.
Top
Share