Were it not for the fact that one of the newspapers yesterday classified me as one of the "old hands" in the House, I would have regarded myself as a comparative junior, but, in whatever category I may be, may I take this opportunity to congratulate Deputy Mrs. Desmond on a very fine maiden speech? She spoke from an obvious fund of knowledge and experience, with sincerity and conviction, and we wish her well in her future here in this House. Listening to her, one could not but recall that her late husband, held in high esteem by us, never spoke in this House except with the same fund of knowledge, conviction and sincerity. It is very pleasant to have that type of contribution made here.
The question of housing very rightly looms large in this debate. The lack of housing is one of the most grievous evils in our society. I recall words which were welcomed some few years ago; it was said that every man has the right to life, to bodily integrity and to the means necessary and suitable for the proper development of life. Those are primarily food, clothing and housing. Our society has long accepted the obligation to provide food and clothing. Where the State is wanting in the provision of these things, private charity steps in. It is appalling that we, as a society, have not yet properly recognised the fundamental obligation to provide proper housing for every citizen. This nation, led as it has been by Fianna Fáil for the past seven years, has forgotten the fundamenal obligation to provide housing for all our citizens, with the result that we have the appalling human misery which is daily increasing in our midst.
The words I have quoted are the words of good Pope John who underlined, in Pacem in Terris, the obligation that lies on society to provide housing for its citizens. The tragic thing is that this nation, led by a Government who have neglected housing, failed as a society the tens of thousands of miserable husbands, wives and children without homes today because the Fianna Fáil Government failed to build for them. The reason that Government are now back there, smug and indifferent, is that the majority of our people are apparently comfortably housed and could not care less about the tens of thousands awaiting houses. We now have with us the vagabonds' night shelter in Griffith Barracks, housing young families, not families that are destitute, not impossible families, not families that are handicapped for lack of resources from making a reasonable contribution to housing accommodation but families which are there because the Fianna Fáil Party have made the people of Ireland indifferent to the social and moral obligation on society to provide people with houses.
What has happened in Griffith Barracks? We have spent on that abominable institution £20,000 in maintaining over 30 families. We have spent that for nothing except the imposition of human misery. That £20,000 would have built more than ten houses if those houses had been built at the time they should have been built at half the cost at which they can now be built. What do the families in this abominable institution get there? What is being provided there for this £20,000? Accommodation for the mothers and children, with a prohibition on the presence of the husbands and fathers except during the hours of 6.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and, as a special concession, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. But they may not use the lavatories in this institution because they are not regarded as having either the need or the right to answer the calls of nature.
That is what is being provided in this city for families, the fathers of which are employed. That is what is being provided for families prepared to pay the same as anyone else for a home, if they can get it. Every time there is a protest from the fathers or mothers, every time they act as their natural impulses compel them to act, every time they cry out for some help, the rumour is put abroad: we are told these are impossible families, people who will not help themselves. These are people who are there because the housing output of Dublin Corporation was cut from 1,600 per year to 270 houses per year. These people are there not because of any dangerous buildings situation. There have never been fewer than 3,500 families on the waiting list in Dublin.
Deputy Burke, in his usual complacent way—entertaining enough but not very helpful towards a proper outlook on policy or conscientious approach—says that at one time there were 1,800 houses vacant in the Dublin Corporation housing estates in one year. That is quite true. That happened under a Fianna Fáil administration. That happened when Fianna Fáil had been nearly three years in office. It was then the figure grew to 1,800 vacancies. Notwithstanding that there were never fewer than 3,500 applicants for these vacancies and, instead of building houses in anticipation of the need, instead of taking the steps that should have been taken over the years to replace the dangerous buildings in the city, the housing output was cut from 1,600 houses, when we were in office, to 1,000 the following year, to 800 the year after that, to 700 the next year, to 500 the next, and then to 270.
These are the realities. There are in our midst the smug, complacent and indifferent, who have not had to suffer the misery of homelessness or overcrowding, who say that, when we were in office, there was not enough money to buy a bag of cement. If the nation had to go into financial difficulties to meet human and moral obligations, then it is infinitely preferable that we should take that risk rather than tolerate the human misery that has existed now for the past seven or eight years. We make no apology for doing what we did. We were not prepared to tolerate the misery that exists today. We devoted one-third of our annual resources towards housing our people. We do not deny that there were sections in our community who felt we were overdoing it, that we were doing too much good, that there was not sufficient profit to be made out of it. That was the criticism of those whose god is money. Those were the people who complained too much was being spent on social investment. Today, when only one-sixth of our annual resources is being spent on social investment, we hear no crib about it.
Again, we are having credit tied up. Again, people cannot get money for houses. At a time of dear money, of scarce money, of profiteering in property, of an understaffed building industry, we have the Minister coming in here accompanied by his minions making pious promises about what they are going to do in the future. They have been tested over the past seven years and they have failed. The tragedy is that this nation have failed the needy because they have not rejected from office those who have ignored the needy in such an appalling way.
In this Fianna Fáil ghetto in Griffith Barracks we still have some 30 families, many of which are not going to get out of that den for the next couple of years because they have not got the number of children necessary to qualify them. When we say there are 10,000 applicants for Corporation houses, we are told there are only 5,000 of those qualified. Many of those in Griffith Barracks would not qualify. Why are their numbers not within the qualifying figure? Because the husbands and wives cannot live together. If the rest of the world knew the Fianna Fáil method for birth control, there would not be a need for all the solutions suggested elsewhere. It is to keep the husband and wife living apart. If any politician protests about it, he is told he is unscrupulous. If the husband and wife protest about it, they say they are difficult and should not be listened to. That is the kind of appalling mockery of Government we have had over the past seven years.
These figures either mean something or not. There are some members of the Corporation Housing Committee, some of them now no longer with us—some people saw through it at last—who have said and will say that the situation in Dublin was dictated by the circumstances there and nothing else. I ask them to wake up and look at the figures and not be like Deputy Burke, who has been making the same trite speech for seven years and has never stayed to listen to the real story. One hesitates to accuse him of culpably lying—in any event Parliamentary rules do not permit it—but when you have a person, year in and year out, making the same trite speech about housing and pretending the housing rot existed in 1956 and 1957 and all has been well since, it is time to cry halt to that kind of hypocrisy. Either we as a society concern ourselves with housing our people or let the present mess continue, where office and luxury building takes precedence over the housing of the people.
What is the situation in the country like? Does it bear any relation to the situation in Dublin? In Dublin housing output reduced from 1,600 to 270. Output of similar local authority houses in rural areas was cut down from 4,700 to 1,600. You have the same reduction. You have a two-thirds cut in the number of local authority houses built today in any city or any town. Compare it with any rural area and you have the same degree of butchery of local authority housing output throughout the length and breadth of the land. You have the whole social investment of this country halved in a matter of a few years.
That is the situation that has continued over the past seven years under the Fianna Fáil Party. This was the direct step they took to cut down on social investment. The indirect step they took was to leave housing grants, loans and subsidies, and all the other techniques available to encourage housing, at the same level as they stood in 1948. In 1948 this country had barely begun to experience post-war inflation. We were then at a stage when the prices of houses and other things were dictated by the standstill in costs that had operated over the previous seven or eight years. At that time certain figures were set for grants, loans and subsidies. Instead of increasing those to meet the increases in costs and the devaluation in money, Fianna Fáil left them at that figure and did not move them at all. That was another way of discouraging people from buying their own houses or taking steps to get speculative builders to build houses to answer a possible need.
In case anybody doubts whether or not the Fianna Fáil Government were right to cut down local authority housing, I would ask them to look at the total housing output. They will find that, while the Fianna Fáil Government through the various machinations a Minister may use to control local bodies were cutting down on the number of local authority houses being built, and successfully cut that down by two-thirds, the number of private houses being built remained more or less constant. That indicated there was still a demand for houses, that there was a constant demand there. Are we to understand that the economy has been so disorganised under Fianna Fáil that there has been only one-third the need for local authority houses but that the well-to-do people have continued building houses at the same rate as before?
Again, we have another test to see what is the truth in this matter. I would ask Deputies and the public to test any remarks in relation to housing by looking at the figures and not by listening to the Fianna Fáil record of the past seven years, comparing a myth of difficulties in 1956 with a haven of blessings in 1965. In Dublin city instead of 3,500 people on the waiting list, who would have been housed within two and a half years if the Fine Gael housing programme had continued, there are now 10,000 families on the waiting list. In the whole country there are some 60,000 dwellings which the Minister, on his own conservative assessment in the White Paper last year, says need replacement. Notwithstanding that fact and notwithstanding that 10,000 families in Dublin urgently need houses, we had the impossible situation in which the number of houses was deliberately cut down and remained at that low figure until four innocent people had to die in Dublin.
Some people think it is unfair of us to make any reference to the old houses which collapsed in Dublin. We are not supposed to mention it. Every time Fine Gael have a crack at Fianna Fáil it is rude. We should not be disturbing the Members opposite. We would not have to do it if they had any conscience at all. We remind the people of this unfortunate incident, not because we put all the blame on the Government for it, but because they were not in the least disturbed about the housing situation until two old people died at Bolton Street and two children died at Fenian Street. Suddenly they started talking about the crash housing drive they were going to launch. That was two years ago and we are still waiting for any crash except the crash of old houses.
We still have not got the so-called crash housing drive but we have cocktail parties, receptions, Ministerial openings, Ministerial banquets, press conferences and ballyhoo of one kind or another in connection with the housing project at Ballymun. We are told that this is going to be an everlasting monument to the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Neil Blaney. Fianna Fáil canvassers went around before the election telling people that they were going to be housed before the end of the year because of the "Blaney housing programme". It shows that some people know no shame at all.
In Ballymun, housing units are to be erected and we are told it will take four years to erect them. The number to be erected in the four years will be the equivalent of what was being built in any two years when Fine Gael were in Government. These are the realities of the situation. There would be no need for all this nonsense, or for the bringing in of consortiums— whatever they may be—for the building of houses if the rate of building had been kept at the rate of 1,600 per year. Because that was not done, we are in the appalling situation in which we have to take desperate remedies. One hopes that all will go well with this project and that it will be finished in the promised time. We have yet to see whether that will be so.
Nobody yet knows, and as far as we know nobody has bothered to assess, what rents are to be paid for these pieces of living accommodation in Ballymun. It is time the people were told precisely what they are to be charged. This housing accommodation is to be of an unorthodox type, without the ordinary fireplaces or other amenities to which generations of our people have become accustomed. It is about time the Government who have already led Dublin Corporation to accept this programme carrot-like in a desperate situation, told the 3,000 odd people who will have to live in this accommodation what precisely they will have to pay for this peculiar type of accommodation. If they do not do that soon, they will not be keeping faith with the people.
The housing situation we have at present is attributable in the main to three causes. One is the deliberate cutting down of houses built since 1957 to which I have referred; the second is the neglect by local authorities of their duties to deal with decaying property; and the third is the removal of rent restriction by Fianna Fáil in 1960. There are many families in this city at the moment who are saving themselves from the misery of the Fianna Fáil ghetto in Griffith Barracks only because they are paying rents of £4, £5 or £6 a week out of incomes which are only twice the amount they are paying. They are paying half their incomes to provide the necessary housing accommodation for their families. Because they are paying these rents for two rooms, or two rooms and a kitchenette, or perhaps three rooms, they will not be considered by Dublin Corporation for houses. They are disqualified because under the existing terms of reference, they are not eligible. Therefore children are going without the necessary medical attention, the necessary clothing or other necessary amenities which in our standard of living should be available to them.
There is no counting the number of families in such a situation. There is no effort on the part of the Government, the Fianna Fáil Party, or Fianna Fáil councillors to count those people; they do not want them on their consciences, or whatever little conscience they may have after they have blunted them as Deputy Burke and his colleagues have done so successfully over the years. I do not think that the Fianna Fáil crash programme —whatever it is crashing into I do not know—is going to deal with this problem. They say in the latest White Paper that the housing needs are 12,000 to 14,000 per annum. As their contribution towards this, they are producing at the moment 2,359 houses. We have a long way to go before this programme crashes into whatever it is supposed to crash. We are only producing one-sixth of the number of houses they say is necessary. This is the great new social revolution, the social programme about which the Taoiseach spoke in Tullamore. I wonder what is necessary to disturb Fianna Fáil? I suppose a defeat would, but the people have not yet given them that defeat. It may well be that the Fine Gael Party may in the future as in the past correct the Fianna Fáil Party. If they had not corrected them so often they might not be in office to-day. These things are above Party loyalties. These are needs concerning human beings and we do not like to trifle with human happiness or suffering and we only hope that we may bring Fianna Fáil to some realisation of their obligations in relation to housing.
There have been two White Papers on housing since the War. One was published in 1948 and the extraordinary thing is that it was not until 1964 that there was another housing White Paper. In the interval, in 1958, the Fianna Fáil Party produced a White Paper which was called a programme of expansion, no less. In this programme they promised a contraction in social investment because they said the need for housing would soon be overtaken. Those were the words printed in black and white on the first page of the First Programme for Economic Expansion. They said the need for houses would soon be overtaken and accordingly there would be a decline in social investment in accordance with that belief. Whether it was a Party belief or something they accepted from their advisers in the Civil Service, we do not know, but they adopted it and propounded it as their own policy and they deliberately set about doing something which, to give them their due, they did entirely successfully—they cut down the number of houses built not alone in Dublin but throughout the length and breadth of the country.
The extraordinary thing is that although they were so convinced about housing needs in 1958 as to announce they were going to cut down the number of houses being built, in 1960, as a result of persistent questions and criticism from the Fine Gael benches, the Minister decided to set on foot a housing survey. One would have thought that before cutting down on housing the Government would have carried out a survey. Two years later the Minister announced that the survey had not yet been completed. I wonder what kind of inspectors we have in the Department or what kind of incompetence is being tolerated in the Custom House or at local level that it takes five years, half a decade, to carry out a housing survey of the country.
We were warned in the figures set out that they are probably on the conservative side. These figures show that 160,000 houses are already over 100 years of age. Apparently no steps have been taken to ascertain whether or not these houses are structurally sound. There has been a scare in Dublin, but throughout the remainder of the country, no proper steps have been taken to ensure that the type of tragedy we experienced in Dublin will not be experienced there. That is why we in Fine Gael say we are not at all satisfied with the Government's programme.
We feel that the realistic figure of our housing needs is probably in the region of 16,000 to 18,000 a year. It is certainly 4,000 more than the Government have in mind, that is, if you are concerned with human beings and are convinced that it is wrong to compel people to live in the miserable hovels in which they are now living. If you are indifferent, then it does not matter to you if they have to go on so living there for another ten or 20 years as long as you can remain in Government. Whether the present Government discharge their obligations or not, we will have to wait and see, but what they have done in the past seven or eight years gives us no hope that they will now do what is necessary.
I had a question on the Order Paper today regarding the availability of loans from building societies. The Minister, in an extremely guarded reply, told me that six months ago he made inquiries and found that the position was not too bad but that he had been keeping the matter under review since and that he is now investigating certain press reports. The inference is that the Minister would not be bothered to investigate these reports if I had not put down the question. That shows the value of parliamentary questions. But the press reports come after an event and the event that has been happening for the past few months is that several building societies have been slowing down the issue of loans. It now takes much longer to get approval in principle for the granting of a loan and it is now rare to get the amount of loan for which a person applies. Where they were formerly granting 90 or 95 per cent of the value of the house, they are now cutting it down to 70 or 75 per cent and therefore making it impossible for people to purchase their houses. The remaining 25 per cent, due to the inflation which has taken place, is putting out of the reach of people with average incomes any chance of buying an average house.
The Minister and his colleagues in Fianna Fáil went to the most unconscionable lengths in 1956 and 1957 to embarrass the then Fine Gael Minister for Local Government when there were restrictions on credit. We in Fine Gael are concerned with human beings and not with partisan gain but when we see before us a Minister for Local Government who is quite casual about the restrictions on credit, when we see him denying that there is a restriction on credit, then we say that there is an obligation on us which we will discharge to challenge him and his colleagues in the Government on their indifference, an obligation to see that radical steps are taken in time to prevent a worsening of the situation.
At the present time several builders have suspended operations because they are unable to obtain additional credit from the banks. Most builders have to obtain short-term credit from the banks in the course of their house building operations and they repay the banks as soon as the purchasers of their houses pay over the money. If the purchasers cannot get their money from the building societies and the insurance companies, they cannot pay the builders and the builders cannot pay the banks. The Minister does not have to rely on the slow process of Custom House inquiry or local authority inquiry to find out this. There are plenty of solicitors and auctioneers in the Fianna Fáil Party or supporting it, and a few phone calls to these people will confirm the truth of what I say, that there has been a dangerous slowing down of the whole machinery of house purchase in the past few months and that the situation is getting worse and worse.
I am told by a person in close association with banking interests that a certain amount of money drifted out of this country recently in pursuit of the hot rates of interest in operation in Britain. If this is so, then firm steps should be taken to stop it and any money available in this country should be invested in the Irish people and in building houses for them. We in Fine Gael believe that social investment in housing is part of and is essential to our economic expansion and that we cannot have economic expansion unless we have expansion in social investment. The two go together.
The effort of the Fianna Fáil Party and Government to run the national motor car on two wheels around all corners is resulting in very dangerous driving. Unless steps are immediately taken to put four wheels under the car and to provide the famous fifth wheel to guide it, there will be a serious crash. That is the reason there is a grave necessity to jog the Government out of their Micawber-like attitude of believing that something will turn up in the nick of time to save them. That smug indifference will not save the Irish people from the grave difficulties facing them at the moment and which will come to a crisis unless something is done immediately.
It is commonplace that when credit restrictions operate, the building industry is the first to suffer. The building industry in this country is already suffering, and if the Government do not take radical steps immediately, and we will not attack them for any reasonable steps they may take, the whole national machinery will foul up. The Government need not say then that we did not warn them and warn them in plenty of time.
It is some time since the question of the provision of drainage for South-West Dublin was raised in this House. When it was raised, we appreciated that it was associated with the future of the Grand Canal. I should like the Minister to tell the House the present position regarding additional drainage for South-West Dublin and the future of the Grand Canal. On 6th May, 1964, the Minister told us that the Grand Canal drainage project had been referred back to Dublin Corporation for investigation. When the matter was first raised with Dublin Corporation, some of us were the subject of vehement attacks from the Establishment in the Corporation and from those who support the Establishment. The most vicious attacks were made on people for having the audacity to suggest that something should be done about it. We have been given every reason to fear official and administrative decision. Some years ago there was a great deal of public interest— in fact, last year—in the question of whether or not the ESB should be permitted to demolish some fine specimens of Irish 18th century architecture. Instead of doing a manly thing about it, the Minister waited for the summer recess and when Deputies were enjoying a hard-earned rest, he made the decision to allow the ESB to go ahead with their plans.
The question of the Grand Canal has fallen into the limbo of apparently forgotten things, things that some people would like to be forgotten. There was on the Order Paper of the 17th Dáil a resolution relating to this matter and I have no doubt the proposers will retable it. I am surprised that on a matter of such great importance we have not yet heard a word from these extraordinary institutions in recent times and I should be glad if the Minister would refer to the matter when replying as many people are interested in it.
On the question of houses which become vacant, there is considerable and justifiable annoyance on the part of many of the 10,000 families seeking housing accommodation at the delay which occurs in the reletting of vacant Corporation houses. I have raised this matter in the Corporation and here and, apparently, it is not sufficient just to raise it with the Minister. Just as on other occasions, it must reach a crescendo of protest before there is an improvement in the situation. Some years ago such a crescendo did occur when a resolution was tabled and passed at the appropriate meeting of the City Council. Once again when there is such an appalling and desperate need to provide housing in the shortest possible time, it is unpardonable to leave any unit of housing accommodation vacant for any more than the minimum time. Whatever it may cost to redecorate or repair these houses or even if they are never redecorated or repaired, they should be relet immediately they become vacant.
I appreciate that part of the difficulty arises out of the long delays which are imposed on the Corporation in obtaining legal possession of some of these houses but it occurs to me that in this matter the Minister should consider if some steps could be taken to alleviate these delays in future and to empower local authorities to obtain immediate possession without having to resort to long processes which in the wisdom of the lawyers might need to exist for private housing but which I think are unnecessary in the case of local authorities. Certainly it would probably assist anything up to 50 or 100 families in being housed anything from two to three months earlier than they can be at present. That amount of happiness which could be brought about and that reduction in unnecessary administration which could be caused would be a very great advantage.
The problem of polluted rivers is one which concerns fishing and other interests and nature lovers but in large urban areas such as Dublin it has become an acute problem. There is one such river and no matter how much one complains about it, it seems next to impossible to get the powers that be to do anything about it. I have raised it before here and I am doing so again now. I am referring to the Camac River which must be one of the most foul-smelling, unpleasant-looking and repulsive streams passing through any town or city. Some effective steps should be taken to cover in this stream once and for all. Part of the problem, we are told, arises out of the fact that it is used for industrial purposes. One does not wish to curtail industrial processes but the division of responsibility which would seem to be occurring in relation to this river, part of which is in the urban area and part in the county, causes great difficulty. I should like to see the Minister taking his part in an effort to expedite the necessary covering-in of this stream.
I am glad that at long, long last we are given some reason to hope from the Minister's statement that we shall have an improvement in the motor vehicle licensing system. It is unbelievable that it has taken so long to get the powers that be to move in the simple matter of introducing a licensing system which would allow people to license their cars at any time of the year for a period of 12 months. It is unbelievable that it has taken well- nigh 40 years, I think, since it was first proposed on this side that this should be done. You can license your dog for a year at any time during the year, your radio, your television and, I suppose, your gun—I do not know, not being a supporter of these cruel sports—and you can take out these and many other licences but it has taken the Department of Finance, the Department of Local Government and the other fine administrative authorities that we are supposed to respect and not to criticise, years to decide to adopt a system here that has been generally adopted, the system of annual licensing of motor cars. Thank God, after all this time, that reasonable proposal is to be adopted, or so we are assured, within the next 12 months. Perhaps we shall get a free licence to celebrate but I think that would be too much to expect.
There is another aspect of local government which needs to be mentioned here. Just as in the case of the annual licensing of motor vehicles which has been brought up for the past 40 years and which has finally brought about the necessary reform, so also I am again raising the question of the ESB furniture, as the former Deputy Anthony Barry called it, the perpendicular ugliness that is unnecessarily foisted on our citizens. I was glad to see a photograph recently in the Press and to find that some enterprising local development body or tourise association were arranging with the ESB for the removal of an ESB pole which was spoiling the main street of the town. It really amazes me that in the older parts of Dublin and the older suburbs you have not got this succession of ESB wooden poles, with horizontal lines flowing from one to another. If you move out from the centre of Dublin as far as Sundrive Road, you do not find that, but from there on as far as Tallaght, there is that succession of wooden poles. You could take several other arterial routes out of Dublin city and in the older parts of the city, you do not find this, but in the modern parts, in the modern age when the ESB took over the electrification of the city, you have all this unnecessary ugliness foisted on the citizens.
This is not a new problem. In a famous Act which has been quoted and referred to a great deal over the past year or so, the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890, the Act which was invoked to deal with the so-called emergency of dangerous buildings, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers in their wisdom gave powers to the Dublin Corporation to prevent the destruction of amenities and the appearance of this city by the erection of perpendicular poles and horizontal lines but it appears that the later ESB Acts deprived the Corporation of any powers they had in that connection for the protection of the city. The way in which many of our schemes are being developed is unpardonable. Great care and attention are given to the lay-out of housing schemes. Beautiful roads are laid; magnificent grass margins are then put down and each detail of perspective and each detail of height and breadth and length are carefully gone into to provide a most attractive appearance to the eye. If one sees architects' models of the proposed schemes, they all look magnificent. As soon as they are put down, the only thing that offends is the long miserable succession of ESB poles and horizontal wires on one side and on the other side, the equally dreary march of Department of Posts and Telegraphs poles and the adjoining lines.
A great deal of consideration is now being given, certainly more than ever before, to having municipal and local authority development of housing estates, the preparation of sites for housing and the laying down of roads and other amenities. If this is to be done, and there is a great deal to be said for it, I would earnestly appeal to the Department of Local Government to see to it that these services are all put underground. I do not believe it will cost any more to service them later on because they are underground. It might, indeed, cost a great deal less. But, in relation to the total cost of housing and other projects at the present time, the installation of the services underground at the time the estates are being built and developed would be negligible and would certainly add greatly to the amenity value.
This is real town planning, worth-while town planning, easy town planning. It is the kind of thing that can be done without having to pay millions and millions in compensation. These are the things that would make our cities and suburbs more pleasant. I would earnestly hope that the simple step of digging one trench and putting all services into that trench would be adopted.
The Minister made reference in his introductory statement to tenant purchase schemes for local authority tenants and in the White Paper on housing published last year we were told that 80 per cent of rural occupiers of local authority houses are buying out their houses. The Minister has expressed annoyance and disappointment that so few of the cities have a tenant purchase scheme for their tenants but it is quite clear that the real reason for this is that successive Ministers for Local Government here have refused to continue payment of the interest subsidy on urban houses. It is extraordinary. In fact, there is a statutory obligation on rural local authorities to have a tenant purchase scheme. There is no such statutory obligation on urban authorities to have such a scheme and any time Dublin Corporation have sought Minister approval for a tenant purchase scheme the Minister has indicated that his approval would be forthcoming only if he were to be permitted to withdraw the housing subsidy. In effect, that was a negative to the Corporation proposal because to withdraw the housing subsidy would make the cost of any tenant purchase scheme so unattractive that tenants would not avail of it.
In Dublin there are some 45,000 families in Corporation houses. I am using a round figure. That is a vast estate and it brings with it all the human problems that are bound to arise where you have such a vast estate being administered by an administrative monster on one side and on the other, you have that administration being experienced by individuals and human beings with all the domestic variations that can occur within so many families. The relationship between the Corporation and their tenants is not an entirely happy one and it could not be. I do not believe that it would be possible to establish the correct friendly relationship between a landlord of 45,000 tenants and any individual tenant and the multitude of human problems that are bound to exist among such a vast number of people cannot be appreciated by or allowed for in the day to day operations of the officials who administer such a vast estate.
The officials who administer this vast estate are human beings. They are extremely charitable. I know from personal knowledge of them that they are very fine individuals. But, where you administer such a vast estate, you have to apply hard and fast rules and that has created all kinds of problems and situations in this huge housing estate. This could be to a great extent relieved if ownership of a large proportion of these houses could pass out of the hands of the impersonal monster of the Corporation into the hands of individual tenants themselves.
At the present time the contribution which the State pays towards these houses is substantial and it would, if continued, make it possible for Dublin Corporation and other urban authorities to institute an acceptable scheme of tenant purchase. I strongly press upon the Minister that he would introduce such a scheme or allow such a scheme to be introduced at an early date by continuing payment of the necessary subsidies.
This, again, is a matter which has had the consideration of the Dáil. Before the dissolution of the Dáil, we had a motion on the Order Paper calling for the continuance of these housing subsidies and we will have to think about it again, unless the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking that he will see to it that these subsidies continue to be paid.
The extraordinary thing is that it will not cost the State any more to continue to pay these subsidies. In fact, if a tenant scheme is introduced and the State continues to pay the subsidies, the day will come when the former tenant will become owner of the house and the subsidy will cease. So, in the long run, it will be to the nation's and the city's advantage and we believe that there will always be a sufficient pool of rented accommodation available to cater for the needs of people who wish to rent houses rather than buy them. Because we are convinced that it would answer many human problems and would create a better feeling of citizenship amongst the people concerned, we recommend this scheme to the Minister. Again, we do not recommend anything revolutionary or anything that is not respectable.
I quoted earlier one Papal Encyclical by Pope John. I may be forgiven if I make reference to another. Where, in Mater et Magistra, he referred to the right to private property, he said:
Now, if ever, is the time to insist on a more widespread distribution of property, in view of the rapid economic development of an increasing number of States. It will not be difficult for the body politic, by the adoption of various techniques of proved efficiency, to pursue an economic and sound policy which facilitates the widest possible distribution of private property in terms of durable consumer goods, houses, lands, tools and equipment (in the case of craftsmen and owners of family farms), the shares in medium and large business concerns. This policy is in fact being pursued with considerable success by several of the socially and economically advanced nations.
We in Fine Gael are pressing that we would take a step which is being carried out successfully by several of the socially and economically advanced nations. We in Fine Gael are asking for a wider distribution of houses which, we are told by such a good authority as Pope John, follows as of right on the right to private property. There is no excuse in this day and age for continuing to deny that right to almost half of the families in Dublin and other urban areas. On that account we think it would be a great step forward in our social and economic planning if we were to have a wider distribution of house ownership. We have acknowledged already long since the wisdom of house ownership in our Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, in the various housing subsidies and housing grants we give to people who are directly buying their own property. Here we have an opportunity to take a similar step forward in relation to a large section of our community.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not yet taken the necessary steps under the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962, to have vehicles, particularly buses and other heavy vehicles tested for air pollution. This is a serious and a growing problem. I am not going to pronounce on any matter on which a medical man might more properly comment but I think I can safely say that there are indications that cancer may be attributable to air pollution. Certain surveys carried out in England and in America indicate that cancer occurs more frequently in urban areas and I understand the greater the pollution of the air the greater is the incidence of cancer.
One of the most considerable causes of air pollution is undoubtedly the diesel bus. It is disgraceful that CIE have failed to tackle this problem. One can go through other cities in the world without finding the discharge of filthy smoke that is expelled from buses here, clearly because the Government or the local authority in these areas do not allow such buses to be out on the street. CIE have failed to deal with this problem. These people may think this is a trivial matter which should not be raised in a national Parliament. I make no apology for doing it here and elsewhere. It is utterly deplorable that a national concern with the resources of CIE continues to pollute indiscriminately the cities of this country and the sooner the Minister steps in to put an end to this the better. It is common knowledge that heavy trucks and, indeed, motor cars are equally bad, and every day that continues is a blemish on the people who have power to stop this unnecessary pollution occurring. It imposes a fraction of a penny a day on anybody to have proper equipment and, in fact, all the experts will tell you it will even save money because less fuel is consumed.
Listening to Deputy Michael O'Higgins last night complaining about the continuous white lines and the necessity to cross these white lines when cars are parked along narrow roads reminded me of a church in the suburbs of Dublin, between Church- town and Dundrum, outside of which church is a very narrow road and two very sharp bends. During Divine Service in this church on Sunday mornings and other days of the week cars are parked bumper to bumper and any person wishing to traverse this road must either wait for the conclusion of the service, which might be an hour or more, in order to have these vehicles move along to permit him to stay on the right side of the white line, or else he must cross the white line and in doing so break the law and, I suppose, in the event of a collision the person would find himself entirely in the wrong for crossing the white line.
I have no desire to persecute the churchgoers of this particular church but I just quoted this as an instance of regular parking which obliges thousands of people to break the law. If there is an obligation on a person not to cross a continuous white line, an obligation lies on the Minister to see to it that parking does not occur along such a stretch of road which obliges people to break the law in order to pass along that road. I have seen this type of thing occurring on many roads. I am not aware that there is a regulation prohibiting the parking of such cars but steps should be taken by the Minister to make the necessary regulations to prevent that kind of thing happening.
There is another scourge afflicting our towns and cities which must be tackled in a more practical and deliberate way than it has been up to now. I refer to the menace of the dumping of disused or unusable motor cars. I would have no difficulty in naming 12 roadways in my own constituency where such cars have been parked for several months past. Other councillors and myself have brought this to the notice of Dublin Corporation and these obstacles have also been brought to the notice of the Garda Síochána but it takes several months to have them removed. These are serious traffic hazards in many cases and they are unsightly, but in addition to their being traffic hazards and unsightly they are invitations to danger for children and the most shocking injuries have been caused to children through playing around these abandoned cars. I understand that the Corporation of Bristol tackled this problem within the past few years by purchasing gear for the demolition of these cars for converting them into scrap metal and that they have since, within a matter of three years or so, recovered the total capital cost of the equipment they purchased in the sale of the scrap which they were able to produce and sell. I should like to see the Minister for Local Government and local authorities, certainly in the larger areas, adopting a similar scheme.
We have at present on the outskirts of the city a number of graveyards for disused vehicles. These are very unsightly and the danger is that in time land that could be used for building or agriculture will be covered with derelict cars. As the number of motor cars increases on the roads so the number of abandoned vehicles will increase and quite clearly some steps will have to be taken now to cope with that situation. The ordinary municipal and local authority dumps are not suitable for these derelicts. It would, I think, be well worthwhile making inquiries in Bristol to discover how that municipal authority were able to devise this plan and how it has worked. It would, in principle, seem to be the kind of thing that should commend itself. The Bristol Corporation are now making a substantial profit out of their operations and thereby making a contribution towards the relief of rates.
With regard to roads, I must complain about the inadequacy of the warning notices in relation to road repairs as well as the variation in the type of notices used. On main roads, one meets signs warning that road works are in progress. One travels many miles without coming across any such works. At some subsequent point, one meets a similar sign, assumes it carries the same weight as the earlier one, and suddenly finds oneself landed into an extremely extensive area in which road works are actually in operation, without any really proper warning at all. Again, one will meet a sign which says "Dead Slow: Single Lane Traffic". That is followed by the finest stretch of road capable of taking four or five lanes of traffic. Before the journey ends, one meets a similar warning. Once more one assumes it has the same impact as the earlier one and suddenly one finds oneself in almost serious difficulty with single lane traffic and no really adequate warning at all.
There is no excuse for those who permit such inadequate marking and such variations in marking. That would not be tolerated on any railway and, if an accident occurred because of inadequate warning, those responsible would either be dismissed or fined. The consequences would be extremely serious for anyone responsible for puting up improper notices. If necessary, there should be roving inspectors to ensure that there are proper, uniform notices, which mean what they say and are wholly applicable to the circumstances about which they purport to give warning.
Again, in cities and towns, traffic has very often to be diverted when road repairs are being carried out. Instead of diverting that traffic at a sensible point, perhaps a long distance back, it is diverted as closely as possible to where the repairs are being carried out, with the result that the traffic is tangled in a horrible mess in all kinds of alleyways and laneways that were never intended to take such traffic. The Department and the local authorities should get together to work out a proper system of notices to ensure adequate signposting of our roads and to ensure also that the responsible engineers give proper warning according to a uniform standard. Where the engineers fail to do that, they should be personally accountable for any damage that may result because of their neglect.
The present chaos cannot be tolerated any longer. In Northern Ireland and in Britain, the police go around with a warning kit which enables them to divert traffic, as and when occasion necessitates. This may be a matter for the Minister for Justice, perhaps; unfortunately it is one of those problems in which a number of Ministers have partial responsibility and it is difficult therefore to pinpoint the ultimate responsibility. As part of the campaign for road safety, I would ask the Minister for Local Government to ensure that proper road marking is put into operation without delay.
The Minister in his opening statement said a number of new main roads will be provided, together with an improvement in existing arterial roads. In future, I suggest the Minister make it obligatory to provide footpaths for pedestrians on all main roads. The number of pedestrians and cyclists mown down by motorists at night time makes sad reading. In many cases the unfortunate motorists cannot be blamed and many of these tragic accidents are inevitable. The Minister made a regulation some time ago obliging pedestrians to walk on the right hand side of rural roadways. I doubt if there is a member of this House who has not seen time out of number since this regulation was made pedestrians breaking the regulation.
It is imperative that footpaths should be provided to give some protection to pedestrians. If a large lump of metal is hurtling along a road at 70 mph vying with pedestrians for the same space, there are bound to be serious accidents. The only way of avoiding them is by providing footpaths for pedestrians. There are areas in our cities and towns in which footpaths are not as necessary as they are along country roads. As we improve the roads and as traffic inevitably moves faster over them, it will become more and more necessary to provide some protection for pedestrians. I think the provision of footpaths would add only a very small cost to the existing bill for roads. From the point of view of the safety of human beings, it would be a worth-while investment.
The Minister is very properly concerned for the appearance of our cities and towns. There is one little matter in this city which Dublin Corporation are not prepared to put right and I appeal to the Minister to intervene. Every spring the Corporation spend a good deal of the ratepayers' money painting black and white traffic bollards. If the weather is inclement, within a matter of weeks, these become spattered with mud. The Corporation will take no steps to clean them. The number of times these would have to be washed would probably not exceed more than a dozen, even in such busy places as O'Connell Street, College Green and Dame Street.
On 5th April I had a letter from the Corporation telling me there are over 300 bollards and, if weekly washing were undertaken, the cost would amount to several thousand pounds per annum and there is no provision in the estimates for such washing. I was not asking the Corporation to wash 300 bollards every week. It is not necessary to wash them every week. It is not necessary to paint 300 bollards black and white every spring. If they were washed down, there would be no need to do it. It seems to me perfectly daft to go around painting these every spring and then allowing them to become covered with mud, so that for 11 months of the year, you cannot see the black and white stripes, and then wash off the mud in the following spring and put on new black and white stripes. These are not necessary at all because the old ones are preserved by the coat of protective mud thrown over them within a couple of weeks of their being put there. This again is a small matter, but I have not been able to persuade the high and mighty Dublin Corporation to do anything about it. I would hope they might suffer a little embarrassment by seeing it raised in the House and that there might be some improvement in that connection.
Within the past few days, the Minister addressed a letter to Dublin Corporation about the cattle markets. A proposal has been made that Dublin Corporation exercise the powers conferred on them by the Dublin Corporation (Markets) Act, 1899, and erect auction marts. That would appear perfectly reasonable for the Corporation to do. But in the same Act, passed in the days of Victoria, there is a provision that a number of firms would not be permitted to conduct auction marts when the Corporation would itself erect a mart.
Section 3 of the Act states:
For ten years after the passing of this Act and afterwards until the Corporation shall have provided a suitable auction mart for the sale of store cattle the persons named in the Second Schedule hereto their executors administrators and assigns shall be entitled respectively to hold on their premises mentioned in the Second Schedule respectively the sales of the classes of live stock and animals specified in the third column of the said schedule.
In effect, what has happened is this. Since 1899 the Dublin Corporation did not put up an auction mart. Since then a number of reputable firms have conducted auction marts. They have invested their own money in auction marts. They have answered the need of the people wishing to sell cattle over these years. That they have answered this need is proven by the fact that the drift has been from the old type of cattle sale in the Dublin Corporation market to these private firms that have provided the auction mart.
The business carried on by these people is a perfectly legitimate business. Nobody can say otherwise. It has brought a great service to the people of Dublin and to the people who come there for the sale of cattle. It has now been suggested that Dublin Corporation should not permit these people to continue if the Corporation builds their own auction mart, that they should avail of the powers given to them by Victoria's Parliament to put out of business the legitimate traders who have answered the needs of the cattle trade and the people of Dublin for threequarters of a century. This is an intolerable suggestion. I am appalled to think that such a suggestion should be made.
Against that, it is argued that it is open to the people who have had auction marts in the past to come to the Corporation auction mart and trade there, the same as anybody else. I do not think that answers the case. That is like saying to a draper in this city: "You must close your drapery shop. We will not allow you to operate any more in your own drapery shop. Instead, you must come down to the Daisy Market and sell your clothes there." To suggest that that would not be unfair is, I think, to make a ridiculous suggestion.
The Corporation are losing money on the existing cattle market. Quite clearly, it would be entirely wrong for the Corporation to continue to tolerate that loss. I suppose the Corporation as such to-day in the twentieth century have no real obligation to provide facilities for the sale of cattle at all. I imagine the obligation arose out of a form of town planning in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries when steps had to be taken to stop every farmer coming in from the country and dumping his pile of hay or leaving his cattle at any old point of the city, thereby causing all kinds of obstruction, nuisance and offence. Steps had to be taken in those days to restrict the market to particular areas. The result was that originally you had Smithfield as the market for cattle, horses and hay, and other parts of the city designated for farm produce and fish.
To-day, if the Corporation closed their markets altogether, the sales of cattle would probably be successfully carried out by private interests. The Corporation now have sufficient powers in the various Planning Acts to control where those sales would take place, the type of building that would be there and the various facilities that would be provided for bringing cattle to these salesyards. But the Corporation appreciate they have an obligation, which must be discharged fairly to the salesmasters who have operated for generations in the existing Corporation market. We feel the needs of those people could best be answered by the provision within the Corporation market of an auction mart to meet the needs of the farming community—which appears at present to have an inclination to prefer that type of trade—and, at the same time, to conduct on the Corporation property the type of cattle sales the Corporation have facilitated over the years. All this can be done if an amendment is made to the Dublin Corporation (Markets) Act, 1899.
I think that amendment is called for. I should be glad to think that the Minister would see his way to make the necessary amendment in that legislation. Plain justice—something often hard to get—demands no less than that. I do not think it requires any more either. The fair thing to do is to see to it that a legitimate trade, developed over the years because of the failure of the public authority to build an auction mart, will be permitted to continue in the future.
I notice there is another section in the 1899 Act which permits other people to continue in perpetuity selling horses, mules, asses and other animals of that kind. Both of these sections have been trying to make some in- the people mentioned in the Schedule have been carrying on these sales." I have been trying to make some inquiries into the reason for the difference between the treatment given to the cattle men and that given to the horse dealers. It seems the horse dealer was in operation from time immemorial, whereas cattle sales by auction were in operation from only four or five years immediately before the Act. Probably in 1899 the legislators thought they had been doing it for so long that they should be permitted to continue indefinitely. They would not suffer great hardship if they were closed down within ten years, and if they were given adequate warning. It could be done without any injustice whatsoever to people who have traded in the Dublin Corporation mart for many years.
By building an auction mart, they will be providing facilities for those people, and for those salesmasters. It seems to me that Dublin Corporation would be entitled to see to it that Corporation property was not used to the detriment of the Corporation auction mart. At present the Corporation give a facility to one at least of the private interests who use Corporation property for the passage of animals into the yards of the private interests.
I know this matter has been under discussion for a number of years past. In fact, I do not think the interests of any of the parties involved are being served by further procrastination, and it would be of great assistance to the Corporation in their deliberations if the necessary legislation were introduced without further ado. Justice and equity require an amendment of the 1899 Act, and the sooner that amendment is introduce the better.
In dealing with local government, and the jungle of local government law, one could take two years. I do not intend to proceed on that path, because if I started, the Government might be out of office before I finished. I should like to impress upon the Minister the urgency of several matters which I mentioned. I hope that in the matter of housing we will get something more than empty promises, something more than cocktail parties, something more than press conferences, something which will produce homes for our people in the shortest possible time. I hope that immediate steps will be taken to ensure that whatever else may have to wait because of a shortage of money, the provision of homes for our fathers and mothers and children will not have to wait. That is a most fundamental matter.
I shall conclude with the words I quoted at the outset. It has been acknowledged that it is society's obligation to provide food and clothing, but we have not yet convinced all our people that housing must similarly be provided. Unless we do that and, if necessary, sacrifice ourselves in doing it, we will never solve the housing problem in our time. As none of us has too long to spend in this world, and as our children must grow up in a very short space of years, we cannot delay for a single hour in the provision of housing for our people.
