Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Local Government (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (18th Dáil) – Thursday, 6 Oct 1966

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £8,581,450 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, 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 certain Grants-in-Aid—(Minister for Local Government.)

Mr. S. Collins

Last evening I appealed to the Minister for Local Government to maintain the maximum possible impetus, in present financial circumstances, in the drive for house reconstruction and grants for repairs to rural properties. While one is inclined to lay a lot of blame at Ministerial feet, it is not always fundamentally the fault of the Minister and it has been generally accepted by the people that if the Minister were frank about the difficulties he has run into because of present circumstances of lack of finance, there would now be more healthy co-operation between those engaged in the housing drive and more concentration on the priority needs of the Department.

I shall digress from housing needs and the lack of money in that sphere to deal with other facets of the Department of Local Government and say in a very blunt and deliberate way that there is a growing feeling that the administration of that Department is becoming a stultifying and a seriously malignant influence on the country generally. We have evidence of the ever-increasing anxiety of Departments to interfere down to the very fundamental liberties of the individual. There is growing concern about the general administration of this Department and I shall deal with it as I develop my argument.

There are very sharp tentacles of bureaucracy probing further and further into wider fields of endeavour, not only in the local authority sphere but down to the individual when it comes to the operation not only of town planning but of various other types of activity for which the Department are responsible. Apart from the unrest that has been created by the political manoeuvring of the Government Party in postponing the local elections and denying the people the right, limited though it is, to give expression to their opinions, there is growing unrest in the country at the complete nonchalance with which the rating problem has been allowed to escalate into the tremendous penal hardship it now has become.

There is only scepticism and cynicism in relation to the bogus promises made that there would be a transfer to the Exchequer of charges now impinging on local authorities in their rates estimates. I have a feeling that there is some political significance in many of the delays for which the Department are responsible. One hates to feel that we are reaching the stage in Irish politics where administrative capacity is being used to check and thwart individual effort for purposes that may not be worthy and which may have the twisted tinge of political patronage.

We must face the realities of the situation that the public mind will have to be disabused of this. It can be done only by a tremendous change in the system of administration and by a frank, factual and deliberate answer by the Department showing the reasons and the justifications for delays. It has been said, whether true or false, that through the channels of subscription to a political Party one can obviate difficulties that arise. That would be a very bad and unhealthy atmosphere to get into the administration. I am not saying it is true: I sincerely hope it is not. However, if that kind of statement and suggestion is becoming prevalent, then it is the duty of the Minister with the assistance of his Department, to give cogent evidence that it is not true and dispel, if they can, the queer atmosphere that has been created and the rising belief that to get your normal need of justice in this country, you must become not only a sycophant to government but a substantial subscriber.

There is a good deal of complaint about the manner in which driving tests are being carried out. I know it is very hard to get uniformity but, again, even into the simple matter of a driving licence is coming the question of whom you know, not what you know about the job. I was amused last night when I heard Deputy Burke talking about keeping his eye on people. I was tempted to ask him, if one of the people whom he had eyed disfavourably came and told him, he was a strong supporter and a good subscriber to the Party, whether his jaundiced tears would not dry rather quickly and the suggested witch-hunt be suspended.

As I say, even the simple matter of passing a driving test or arranging it is becoming a question of politics. As far as I am concerned, it is the capacity of the person to drive which must justify passing or failing a driving test. While it is impossible to get a rigid standard, the question of the type of tester should be examined. I cannot understand why a very wide range of people have not been included in the scope of testers. I cannot understand why there cannot be a more reasonable time in which people can be tested. Some people, apparently, can manoeuvre them quickly; other people seem to suffer from indeterminate delays as to when they will be tested. However, there is one thing certain in regard to licences, the sooner people can be tested and, where necessary, apprised of the fact that they are not likely to become successful drivers, the better. We are running rapidly into a very serious road safety problem and I am completely behind any effort that will serve to decrease the shocking toll of accidents we are experiencing on the roads.

Most of us by now have experience of road traffic conditions in more countries than one. The thing that gives me tremendous cause for unrest is that, despite the fact that our roads are not in a high bracket from the point of view of traffic density we seem to be in a very high bracket from the point of view of accidents. Compared with American highways, and English and continental main roads, our main roads are comparatively free of traffic, and still we have an extraordinary incidence of accidents, and, as somebody correctly said last night, accidents in circumstances of wide open main roads with tremendous visibility both ways.

There has been a great deal of condemnation over the years of the person who drives and drinks. Undoubtedly, that is a source of danger, but is it a substantial factor in many of the road accidents we experience? Are we inclined to heap too big a proportion of the blame on a very limited section? Have we ever tackled the problem that most of us know to be a very serious cause of accidents, that is the problem of the inept, ambling driver? The slow driver can be a greater menace on the road than the very fast driver, particularly the slow driver who refuses to take his correct position on the road.

If we are to get the co-operation and understanding of the motorist, we must also get the co-operation and understanding of the cyclist and of the pedestrian. Indeed, much requires to be done where cyclists and pedestrians are concerned. We are all inclined to hammer the motorist. Many of us watch pedestrians stepping out willy nilly into the path of oncoming traffic and cyclists veering across the road without a signal of any kind, creating emergency situations that are, by popular will, thrown on the motorist, when in many cases it is not his responsibility at all. I should like to see, and I am perfectly willing to co-operate to the full in developing, more co-operation and goodwill between the different sections using our roads, so that there will not be criticism of some while a very large proportion of the community avoid the responsibility which is theirs.

I know this is a subject very dear to the Parliamentary Secretary's heart and I know he has made tremendous efforts to get the road safety campaign into proper focus. However, we want more than lining of roads. We want, above all, to learn some of the courtesies of the road and some of the patience and goodwill that are necessary where we are driving in fairly tough traffic conditions. I have never known traffic in any country to be less inclined to give way than the streams of Irish traffic. We all know the frustrations and difficulties that build up as a result of this continued lack of courtesy that leads to cutting out, cutting across or cutting in, that causes emergency situations, as a result of which we see too often accidents headlines in our daily newspapers involving the untimely death of young people or the multilation of persons whose lives are thus impaired. There must be developed understanding and appreciation of the fact that it is better to be two minutes late for an appointment than to be many years early in eternity.

Reference has been made to other facets of the Department of Local Government. The Department have wide powers in relation to licensing and to safety belts and various other devices in cars. The administration of the Department of Local Government should get out of the suspect atmosphere and any of the regulations that have to be enforced should be enforced with a rigidity and impartiality that will defy the sinister criticisms as to arrangements that can be made outside the knowledge of people for certain things to be done.

A great deal has been said about swimming pools. I was rather amused by some of the remarks that have been made because it was in 1948, when I was a raw recruit to this House, that I proposed the first motion in connection with swimming pools and suggested that grants should be made available for such pools. I know that swimming pools are not now a priority in time of financial difficulties. I feel we are pushing an open door where the Department of Local Government are concerned in asking them to give their blessing to plans being submitted so that when the circumstances alter—and alter they will; we are not going to be afflicted by bad Governments for ever and we will be able to correct the financial situation in due course—these plans can be implemented. I should like to see these plans dealt with on merit and approved so that when the opportunity presents itself, there will be no delay and so no backward and forward tally between the Department and the local authority as to whether a certain type of material or colour should be incorporated in the pool.

I think Deputy Burke is right in suggesting that persons who are now contemplating the provision of worthwhile utility swimming pools in their areas should be encouraged to insist on the pools being of a type that can be heated.

A great deal of the trouble that has arisen in relation to administration in local Government has been caused by the atmosphere of suspicion. Delay in holding local elections is a bad thing per se because people should have the right to re-assess the merit of their local representatives within the normal statutory period. In the case of central administration, a general election may arise in circumstances of difficulty or the defeat of a Government on a financial motion, and it does seem unreasonable that there should be continued delay in giving the ordinary people who have to find the money for much of local administration an opportunity to assess the value of the contribution made by their local representatives. That delay becomes all the more nauseating when it is realised that the reason local elections are not being held is purely to avoid the embarrassment the Government might suffer because of their chaotic handling of the nation's affairs and to avoid answering for the paramount causes of the shortage of money now affecting the big tasks the Department of Local Government have to undertake.

There is no good in talking here of the various difficulties that now exist without letting the people know what the reality of the situation is. The Government, in their present difficulties, mainly of their own making, are afraid to give an opportunity to public opinion to express itself on their policies. That reluctance is becoming more marked since the Government got the shock they did get in the Presidential election. Indeed, while I do not want to cavil, there was much in the administration by the Department of Local Government of that election that calls for very serious investigation, particularly the bizarre way in which people who over the years had been worthy of jobs of returning officer and poll clerk, were overlooked or ignominiously sacked in case of any miscalculation.

Mr. P. Brennan

Surely that was a local matter for the local registrar?

Mr. S. Collins

It is the responsibility of the Department of Local Government to control, run and manage the elections. So the statutory regulations of this State say. If it pinches a little, I cannot help it. I have to say that there is a growing cynicism about the honesty and capacity of the Department of Local Government, a cynicism which I hope is not well-founded but which is certainly nurtured by the queer reluctance of the Government to allow the public to express their opinion and to show their lack of confidence in the megalomaniac muddling of an inept, inefficient, cynical, useless Government.

Mr. Wyse

I intend to be very brief because anything I might say would be a repetition of what has been said already. We all agree that housing is one of our greatest needs and I do not think there is anyone more aware of this fact than the Minister. The Minister has done an excellent job in maintaining house building at its present rate, having regard to the limited amount of money we made available to him for that purpose.

Wherever the standard of living improves, it is natural to expect an increased demand for improved housing. That is the answer to all the criticism we have heard. There is an improved standard of living in the country and that is creating a demand on the part of the people for better housing.

As representing the city of Cork, I would ask that special consideration be given to the housing needs there. The population has increased and the city is becoming more and more industrialised. Our borough boundary has recently been extended. These three factors must give priority to the housing needs of the city.

When the Minister is replying, I should like to have his views on the terrace type house. This house is most economical and suitable for the small adult family. Permission should be given to local authorities to build a certain number of these houses so as to cater for the kind of family I have mentioned. I would ask the Minister also to try to encourage managers of local authorities to make available some system whereby tenants could purchase their own homes. We in Cork have been advocating this down through the years. Such a system must be within the reach of the tenants. There is no use providing a system they are unable to avail of.

Last night we heard a lot of talk about Cork's housing needs over the years. It is extraordinary that we were not told that in 1962 and 1963, when sufficient money was available for the building of houses, we in Cork could not exceed a maximum of 200 houses built in any one year. There were reasons for this. First, we had not sufficient ground to build on, which means we had to go into built-up areas and acquire compulsorily. We had to go through the long legal procedure of clearing title. Sites had to be cleared and prepared for building. Then we came up against another problem: we had not sufficient labour. This was the position in Cork during the years when sufficient money was available to us.

There was reference in this debate to the inter-Party Government period and it was said sufficient houses were available in Cork at that time. I remember in 1950 and 1951 under the inter-Party Government we had houses vacant in Cork. We may ask ourselves why. In Cork at that time we had widespread unemployment. Sunbeam Wolsey, one of our biggest factories, Irish Dunlop, the Lee Boot Factory, the Hanover Shoe Company—all were on short time. I remember during that period visiting a tenement in Cork. To my amazement I found two families living in one room with a canvas bag used as a partition. I asked them why they did not make application for re-housing and I was told they would not be able to pay the rents. That is why we had so many unoccupied houses. Thank heavens, today that position no longer exists in Cork.

Mr. O'Hara

Surely that was an isolated case?

Mr. Wyse

Unfortunately, it was one of many in the city of Cork at the time. I have no wish to hark back to that tragic period, but listening to what was said last night. I feel compelled to comment on it. We were not told the number of people who built their own homes during that period. It would be interesting to make a comparison between then and now of the number of people who built their own homes. I wish to compliment the Minister on making available to people who have the initiative to go ahead and build their own homes loans and supplementary grants. That has been one of his greatest achievements. For years I have been advocating the importance of encouraging people to build their own homes. That is why I say the Minister should give special consideration to tenants of local authority houses to purchase their own homes. It is the trend at the moment. People want to own their own homes.

We should have less talk and less criticism. Criticism is a good thing when it is constructive, but, as a new Deputy, having listened to the contributions to this debate from the benches opposite, I cannot honestly say they have been constructive. There are difficulties in this country. We have only to look across the water to see the steps taken by the British Government to overcome their difficulties. The Irish Government have not placed similar restrictions on our people. Nevertheless, it is to be expected that in a period of difficulty there would be a community effort with everyone playing a part to try to solve the problems.

Naturally, the present difficulties have had their effect on housing, but not to the extent expected a year or two ago. The Minister has dealt with the problem in a way which places little or no burden on local authorities. That is why I say that the Minister has kept in mind the problems that exist, especially in cities such as Limerick, Cork, Dublin, and so on, and has given us money to enable the continuation of building without unemployment in the building trade. Thank God, we have survived so far in Cork city, anyway, in that respect. There is no unemployment to any extent in the building trade in Cork city.

I say that local authorities should settle down to the work and make the best of the money available to them. We in Cork are gearing ourselves so that, when the money is available, we shall have ample ground for the building of houses.

As I said at the outset. I have no intention of speaking at length. I should like the Minister to give further consideration to the points I have mentioned and especially to consider the position in regard to the building of a terrace-type house. Many of our local authority houses have rather large gardens back and front. Sometimes— and to many, I think, of our tenants— it is a burden to try to maintain them in good order. I often wonder if we should have gardens back and front in Corporation houses. I see no reason for not giving sufficient ground at the back rather than space in the front also which may be left derelict not necessarily due to any carelessness by the tenants, many of whom, I suppose, would not have the qualifications to keep a good garden. In some cases, old age may be the reason why they cannot manage the garden. Then, again, this would give space for the building of an extra house on any one plot of ground. I do not know the Minister's views on it but certainly, in my experience in Cork, I feel we should do without that kind of front to the houses.

In conclusion, I should like to compliment the Minister on doing a good job. He has gone through a hard time. He has dedicated himself to his work and I am sure that, in the very near future, house building will be put at full steam ahead again.

Mr. Jones

The Department of Local Government is complex. It has a very large place in the lives of the people and concerns them intimately in some of the matters mentioned during this debate—housing, water and sanitary services, roads, the library service, and many others. I was interested in the content of the Minister's review of his Department and should like to hear from him, when he is replying, what he had in mind when he mentioned "an over-optimistic basis in relation to available resources" in regard to housing and the words "continuing tendency to submit proposals for house types which are too large or too elaborate to be economic for local authority housing." This was in the context of the moneys being provided by central funds for the assistance of housing.

The Minister pointed out that the proportion of moneys made available from central funds is higher at present than the proportion contributed from the rates and in my view it is logical that that should be so. We continue to pass on to local authorities the impact of various provisions of this House and the responsibility of providing a certain proportion of the moneys for the implementation of schemes. These are administrative problems which are created by this House for the local authorities and, of themselves, they are not problems created by the local authorities or sought, in a good many cases, by the local authorities.

One could argue that the fact that the moneys are emanating from central funds as against local funds makes no difference since, in the long run, it is the taxpayer who will pay either by way of rates or by may of central taxation. We are inclined to speak loosely of the provision of money for local authorities as if it were a gift from some source other than from the Minister's Department.

I should like the Minister to elaborate on this point in regard to the continuing tendency to submit proposals for house types which are too large or too elaborate. What has the Minister in mind in regard to this matter? Does he mean that the houses which are being planned-according, indeed, to specific sets of proposals which are communicated from time to time by the Department of Local Government to the local authorities— are not of a type we ought to construct? Does he intend the houses to become smaller or what does he mean by their being too elaborate? Does he intend them to be more commonplace? Does he want more of a sameness introduced into the type of housing which has been developed through the country for quiet some time now-indeed, with great advantage to the locality and to the tourist potential which rather attractive-looking housing schemes throughout the country can be?

Mr. O'Hara

Hear, hear.

Mr. Jones

This is a factor we should not lose sight of. We ought to try to get away from the drab. While maintaining the utility value of housing, we should not insist on a sameness in design.

Mr. O'Hara

Hear, hear.

Mr. Jones

Deputy Wyse spoke of the density of housing and mentioned that perhaps more houses could be erected on the space available for housing. We could do that but I do not think it is a valid arguments that because there are some instances of carelessness in the maintanance of plots attached to houses we ought to agree to increase the density of housing beyond the tolerable rate which it is felt in the Department and elsewhere ought to be imposed.

It is important that a person should feel that there is a certain amount of privacy attached to this home. It should be possible to build terraces closer together without intruding on privacy. Nobody wants his neighbour looking into his back garden all the time. We should continue the standards that have been maintained in that regard up to the present.

Efforts are being made to solve this problem of housing in different ways here and elsewhere. We have had here for some years now a good deal of ribbon building. There has been a change in that pattern recently in that these large blocks of flats, and office buildings too, are now reaching for the sky rather than spreading tentacles along the ground. In other countries there has been a development in what is called satellite buildings; a satellite of the parent city or large town is created and that is supplied with all the amenities as an independent unit. The development of Ballymun is the first example of satellite buildings here. In Sweden recently, I saw a rather striking type of development. It has, in my opinion, many advantages where a good deal of building is necessary to provide for an overflow running into thousands. That is not our problem here except, perhaps, in the larger cities. When new housing is being planned, there should be concentration on building in a particular area which would be provided with all modern amenities. In doing that, regards should be had to the needs of children. There should be a public park or playground with swings and slides and a sand pit. These amenities would keep the children off the roads and provide them with recreational facilities close to their own homes. In all housing schemes a playground area should be included.

Mr. O'Hara

Some place for a helicopter to land.

Mr. Jones

If necessary, yes, but one would hope the occasion for such a landing would not arise.

I wonder if the Minister would tell us what progress there has been with regard to the housing survey. In how many areas has it been completed and has the Department now got an overall picture of the housing needs of each local authority? I mentioned on an earlier occasion that the method of conducting the survey has a certain weakness in that portion of the work falls on the health officers who are expected to inspect the conditions in which people live. The health officer has other problems to deal with and, this represents extra work on him and, at the same time, a certain division of the labour involved in making the survey. I trust the Minister will tell us what the overall position is. Are there surveys still to be completed? Naturally the Minister cannot plan housing requirements if he does not know what the overall position is. If he had that information, he might be in a better position from the point of view of financing housing.

The Minister referred to rising costs. I am afraid these are things over which we have no control either in relation to materials or in relation to labour, but I would hope that we would not allow this to slow down housing, particularly in those areas where the need is acute. It would be a mistake to condemn people to spend longer than is absolutely necessary in unsatisfactory conditions.

I referred earlier to the Ballymun project. When the project is completed, everybody will be in a better position to judge whether this method has more advantages than the traditional method of building houses. Will we get the same measurable output in the same measurable space of time within the same measurable cost? Only when the project is completed will we have the answer to that question and no comparisons can validly be made until the project is completed.

I come now to regionalism. It is something considered worthwhile today. We have it in tourism, we have it in hospitals. It is mooted as a possible solution to certain problems. We have people like Roadstone taking over quarries in the different local authority areas and one is forced now to conclude that regionalism is here to stay. I wonder has the Department given this development sufficient thought. What advantages can regionalisation offer in regard to local authority work? What benefit can be conferred, for instance, in regard to the processes of roadmaking if you plan on a regional rather than a purely county basis?

Anybody who comes to Dublin will notice the diversity in roadmaking— roads which are not all the same width, for instance," or not of the same standard of construction. Have we yet reached the stage at which we could more beneficially, and perhaps more scientifically and economically, deal with our problems on a regional basis? I have felt that in a regard to the use of machinery which is expensive we should be able to use it for the whole year rather than just for stated periods. Everybody knows that the complex types of machinery, such as large rollers and so on, are imposing an undue burden on the authorities and on the people themselves in regard to their purchase and operation.

In my county the council have concluded negotiations with Roadstone to take over their quarries and the company have guaranteed the employment of the people in the quarries. Beyond the financial aspect of the situation, whereby they paid for the quarries, they have also guaranteed to deliver stone at a lesser price than it could be produced locally in the quarries. If that is true in one instance, it could surely be made true in other instances. Here you have private contractors able to supply commodities such as gravel and sand, and even the larger type sandstone that comes from these pits, and to deliver it to the site at a lesser price than the local authorities could do it. These are the kinds of problems we are facing in which co-operation on a regional basis could help. As I say, if it has proved successful in other spheres and activities, there is no reason why it should not be made to work in regard to local authorities.

One weakness which I deplore is that in local government today we are really only concerned with local administration. Nowadays, with the operation of the County Management Acts, local government is somewhat of a misnomer. I do not think there is any such thing as local government at present inasmuch as the elected representatives do not have a say except in regard to striking a rate or appointing rate collectors. Therefore, we are dealing just with administration. If there are advantages from combined purchasing, from centralisation—and centralisation seems to be very much in the air in this country at present—then these things should be tried in a region to see the results.

Our roads are good by any standards but I should be interested to hear from the Minister the results of the survey carried out in regard to dust-free roads. What is the position now? What is the position in regard to the country and what percentage of the mad mileage has a dust-free surface? What are the advantages of the cold tar spray compared with the process which we are using, the heated tar process? Is there any advantage to be gained from the use of more modern methods like this? I am sure the Minister has the results of experiments carried out in this regard and that he will be able to give the House some information.

Again, in regard to roads, it has always surprised me that traffic should be allowed to pass over roads which are being constructed or reconstructed. Perhaps competent people like the engineers say that it does not matter, but to a layman like myself, it seems strange that while work is being done, traffic should still be passing over the roads. I do not understand why there is not a re-routing of traffic while the work is being done. There would be inconvenience for a while but in the long run there would be a benefit to be derived in regard to the sections being relaid or repaired. It is rather frustrating at times to drive over one of these roads which has been freshly done and to hear the constant clatter of chippings hitting the underside of the car. The chippings are thus thrown to the side of the road and it means that there has been a waste of effort. If they were left to settle for a short period, it would be to the advantage of the road user as well as the local authority.

I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to one thing that struck me forcibly again this week on my way to Dublin, that is, deep excavations at the side of the road. Are we inviting trouble by leaving this type of thing rather poorly protected at night time? It is not good enough to place the odd barrel or a red light alongside the excavation to show that there is danger there. We ought to do something more than that to bring the presence of danger more forcibly to the notice of people using the road. There is real danger excavations which are six or eight feet deep at the side of the road and if a car which was travelling fast left the road and entered one of these excavations, the results could be tragic. As I say, we should do something more in regard to this matter. People seeing a red light are not aware of the extent of the danger they are facing. Anybody can have a skid and can be forced more to the side of the road than he would care to be.

The accident rate has been mentioned and the Minister and his Department are doing a lot of good; yet we still continue to have tragic deaths on the roads and appalling types of accidents. It is difficult to understand why, with all that has been published by the newspapers, all the pleas made in the churches and by the Minister and his Department, the accident rate should be as it is. The causes of accidents are never determined untill the tragedy has occurred. One thing which seems apparent, and which was touched upon by Deputy Collins, is that road courtesy is not what it ought to be. Most accidents seem to happen to people who are overtaking. Anybody using the roads can see for himself that people are prepared to overtake and pass out even against oncoming traffic. We have succeeded, through the introduction of speed limits, in averting accidents in towns and villages, and in this regard I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the Garda authorities who have been co-operating. I wonder if mobile patrols could be used to apprehend people who do not obey the ordinary safety rules and pass out against approaching traffic. There might be a slight diminution of the accident rate if we could devise a system whereby offenders would be brought to book rather speedily.

It is tragic still to find that children are killed. Of course, a child is liable to do things that the ordinary individual would not do. When motorists, particularly near built-up areas, are approaching schools, they should exercise the same discretion as they would in the case of animals which are liable to do anything. A very great amount of discretion should be used particularly where children are leaving school. Some speed limit signs are located too close to the schools. When the motorist approaches the school, he is travelling rather fast and he just slows down to pass it. I know efforts have been made to deal with this matter, but if there is anything else which the Department and their advisers could think of which would save the life of a child, it would be well worth trying.

I heard criticism of the Planning Act here. I experienced such difficulties as well. I am sure that when the Act was going through the House, the Minister did not contemplate the kind of delays which now occur. Those delays are very frustrating for the public. The number of appeals and the number allowed point to some weakness. Of course, in this matter the local authority are the planning authority for their own area. It is their engineer and their people who administer the Act. One wonders then how it is that when they refuse applications those applications are allowed later. At this stage, one tends to question the wisdom of the original inspector who looks at the building scheme, improvement scheme, or whatever it is, and the reason for turning down the application in the first instance. No reason is given to the applicant locally: he does not know why he has been turned down. The only thing he known is that his application has been turned down. It is only at a later stage that the reason is given as to why his application has been refused.

When the Planning Act was going through the House, nobody could contemplate, at that stage, for instance, in regard to buildings deep in the heart of the country, particularly those which are deep in farm land, that applications would have to be made for work, particularly reconstruction work. If the Department could get published in the local papers a list of exempted developments, many needless applications would be ruled out. A great many people apply to the local authority. The applications are dealt with by an individual or two. The office becomes cluttered up with such applications. If the exempted developments, were more widely known, it would relieve people from frustration in regard to this matter. With regard to reconstruction work, is it necessary in an existing building, particularly in rural areas, that we should rigidly require applications for permission to carry out reconstruction work, particularly if the reconstruction is internal? You do not change the face of the building. You do not change it in any way. Should a person then have to make an application in regard to reconstruction?

Mr. P. Brennan

I do not think so.

Mr. Jones

A great many people are making applications in regard to reconstruction work. If such applications could be dealt with locally, a lot of the paper work in county council offices would be obviated. In regard to reconstruction work, people are certainly requested to submit site plans. I would be very grateful, if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform me if people have to submit site plans where reconstructions are concerned? People making applications for grants to the Minister's Department must submit from the local authority a certificate of rating, particularly in the case of a farm holding. When those people make an application to the local authority, they have to submit a site plan. It would cut out a lot of frustration if that were not necessary. I do not see why it is necessary at all.

Every rateable authority possess information as to the location of all buildings in their area. They have a rating list and on local maps the sites of all buildings. When a person makes an application, very often for minor work, he has to get somebody to draw up a site plan and submit this to the local authority. This has to be submitted in duplicate and in some cases it is required in triplicate. This is needed for the engineer who will inspect the site.

I hope that the Department and the Minister, in regard to the appeals still remaining to be determined, will take some steps to deal more expeditiously with this matter. There is no reason why why the number of appeals should keep on growing. There is no reason why they should accumulate in the Department. I cannot see any valid reason why the Department and the Minister should not employ, even in a temporary capacity, some extra staff to dispose of this backlog and after that to try to keep the list up to date. It is very frustrating for a person who proposes to do certain development work to find it has been turned down locally. He then makes an appeal and he has got to wait for a long time before his appeal is determined. This means, very often, financial loss to the person, particularly if the construction work is of a business nature. In this case somebody else may get in and reap whatever financial gain is to be had from the proposed work. This is particularly true of tourist areas or of the larger towns where it is a question of business. The Minister would be doing great service by ensuring that the potential in this regard is improved. When I say "potential" I mean the output or clearing off of these appeals.

I should like to comment on another facet of Department of Local Government administration, litter and refuse collection. In referring to Dublin in particular, I do not mean to be disparaging when I say it is known as dear, old and dirty. This is something which people are not as responsible for as we might think. I think we might with great advantage to every part of the countryside adopt a better type of refuse container. On looking at these containers here in Dublin, and in other towns, I notice they are the open type. We seem to have forgotten that we have an Irish wind that can whip the litter out of these containers and scatter it around the streets again with malicious pleasure.

I noticed when I was in Holland during the summer the type of litter bin in use there. It is foot-operated, with a lid. When you put your foot on the pedal, it veers towards you, you drop in the litter and the lid closes. The wind cannot scatter the litter. I wonder whether, with the combined purchasing facilities of the Department and the local authorities, we could not have a type of litter container that might add to the amenities and pleasure of our countryside. I notice in the newspapers from time to time that visitors who come here are impressed by many things—the generosity of the people, their good nature and good humour. But, invariably, one finds that visitors refer to the litter on our streets.

Our tourist potential is something we are trying to develop in various parts of the country. We could now make a start in the newly built-up areas with the provision of litter receptacles of a modern type to contain the litter securely. The work of those who collect the contents of those litter containers on a windy day is made difficult by the type of vehicle in use. I do not know whether these things have been thought about or whether the cost is a determining factor. The modern type of container used in France and elsewhere on the Continent is the vacuum type and once the litter is put in, there is no danger of its escaping again. Containers of this type might cost more but in the long run they might pay for themselves in the sense that our countryside and towns and cities would present a more litter-free appearance.

I wonder whether the Minister has noticed on the outskirts of our towns in recent times the serious growth of graveyards of old cars. This gives our towns a disreputable appearance. These old cars are not the nicest introduction to any town. There should be some other way of disposing of them. I am sure that people could buy them and use some of their parts. If the metal is scrap, surely there should be some way of disposing of it? In other countries these cars are pressed down and can be disposed of in re-manufacture. This sort of eyesore on the outskirts of our towns does not add to our amenities.

Dumps of various kinds have also become a problem in our various towns. The proper disposal of litter and refuse will become a major problem if we allow it to continue to grow as it is inclined to grow at the present time. Not alone are these dumps unsightly in themselves, but they are a menace to health and a breeding ground for hordes of rats. We ought to try to dispose of refuse in a more acceptable form. This is particularly true of what we can burn and greater use ought to be made of incinerators for the disposal of refuse. I should like the Minister to comment on this matter.

The water and sewerage facilities available at present are inadequate and many local authorities are finding it difficult to provide these facilities in the newly built-up areas of towns and villages because original plans were designed to deal only with the capacity of the place as it originally was; they were intended only to deal with a smaller population. The tendency nowadays is for people to move into the villages and towns. Because of that we have the problem of water and sewerage facilities. This is one of the things to which the local authorities, in co-operation with the Department of Local Government, should give thought. I know of places where water cannot be got because facilities cannot be obtained from existing supplies, which are not capable of providing the amount required. Because of predetermined priorities, we meet with this kind of argument: "We cannot incur further expenditure in this area until such time as we have done something for other areas where facilities have not been provided". Where there are existing facilities, there is no reason why they should not be extended by the use of booster pumps, by the use of alternative supply or by a type of twin tower, where it is a tower that provides the water supply in the area.

I should like the Minister to comment on the progress of the group water schemes. What is the position in regard to them? I should also like to know from him the up-to-date position in regard to the financing of these schemes. Does the grant still stand at £60? What proportion may applicants expect to get from the local authority? Where there are ten to 12 houses, the encouragement of a good water supply might be of great advantage. On that matter, I should like to ask the Minister what facilities his Department have at the present time in regard to the supervision or direction of this scheme and whether the personnel available to him is sufficient to deal with the number of applications for this type of scheme. If there are delays, could the Minister say that these could be obviated by the provision of extra staff?

I come now to the question of rates. I think it was the Taoiseach who mentioned that a survey was to be made in this matter. Could the Minister tell me if this survey is under way or what progress has been made in regard to the examination of this matter of the financing of local authority work? The problem of the rates vis-á-vis the amount which has to be expended locally is one which, of course, is growing. We impose the obligation on local authorities of carrying out schemes under the legislation proposed but the amount or availability of money at local sources in this matter is causing anxiety locally. I wonder whether this survey team has made any report in regard to this matter: whether we ought to provide more or a greater proportion from central sources.

One of the things circulated was the Report on Valuations and I think the Minister expressed disappointment that he had not got very many communications in regard to it. Naturally, this is a complex matter and one about which he will not get too many communications. Nobody wants to advocate any increase, for instance, in valuations, which would increase the rates. This is something I am sure the Minister would accept, but, at the same time, the people who have been examining the problem have been more dispassionate in their approach to it and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether or not he has had any interim report in regard to this.

There is a small section in the Minister's statement in regard to libraries, and the amount which has been made available from the Central Fund for libraries is not large. This is the kind of development on which we ought to expend a little more money. The amount of good work which has been done by librarians throughout the country cannot be measured in terms of money alone. There has been a large measure of success in the provision throughout the country of the type of improved knowledge which people have nowadays with regard to many matters. Libraries are being used extensively. The mobile library is something which is an innovation; in our county we have had it for some years now and our county librarian has certainly brought the facility of the library even to the people in remote areas by means of the travelling library van.

This is a very welcome development and certainly we are fortunate in our county, where the local librarian has been working in co-operation with the schools there in the provision of a school library service. Much valuable work has been done and the benefits of this have yet to be seen because it is only in its infancy. Improved education of children will result from books and a love of reading because, in time, even the attractions of television will pall and people will again fall back on the book as a source of both leisure and knowledge. I would commend this aspect of the work to the Minister and ask him to encourage the provision of better library facilities in areas where these are needed. Some of the old libraries came down from the Carnegie Trust, and are antiquated. In the provision of new libraries we should not be lagging too much and we ought to provide these where they are needed.

In conclusion, I would ask the Minister, particularly in regard to the Planning Act—of which we expected a lot when it was going through the House— though it is still in its infancy in the country, and mention has now been made of the necessity for proper development plans in each county area, that nothing should happen centrally here in Dublin which would in any way leave distaste in local people's minds in regard to the Planning Act. The Planning Act can confer great benefit on the countryside; it can provide for the type of development the countryside ought to have in the future; it can provide the planned development of tourist areas and, perhaps, bring to places more potential in this matter. Therefore, I would ask the Minister, particularly in regard to the appeals section to try, in so far as is possible within his Department, to get rid of the backlog of appeals and in future to maintain such staff as will clear this backlog within the period envisaged in the Act.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. P. Brennan)

I want to deal with some of the unfair criticism of the Minister during the course of this debate. First of all, I should like to deal with two points raised by Deputy Jones. He asked the Minister to give him the figures for the dust-free roads—I think he means county roads—and I am glad to be able to inform him that up to the present date we have about 70 per cent. We had a very definite figure up to 31st March, 1965, of 64.6 per cent, so he can take it that we are somewhere around 70 per cent to date. Quite a number of counties are, of course, more advanced than others in this regard and some of the western counties are somewhat backward.

Deputy Jones also raised the question of planning appeals in relation to the Planning Act. He, Deputy Jones, if I remember correctly, was shadow Minister for Local Government at the time that Bill was going through the House. Everyone, I think, was agreed that there should be the right of appeal, although, if one were to take seriously some of the other speakers during the course of this debate, they would want to deny the people this right. However, Deputy Jones is more conscientious and serious about these things and he agreed with the Minister that this was as it should be. There are a number of appeals coming into the Department, of which about 50 per cent are upheld.

Mr. Jones

Fifty per cent upheld?

Mr. P. Brennan

Yes, 50 per cent upheld, and there has, no doubt, accumulated in the Department a fairly substantial number of appeals. It is no easy matter to deal with this because, first of all, there is the question of staff and getting planning officials to deal with them. If we want to recruit staff, we can recruit them only from the local authority services. This would probably make the position far worse than it is at present. Being conscious of this, the Minister is trying to deal with the backlog and it will disappear, we hope, in the course of the next 12 months or so. We can anticipate a falling off in the number of appeals when development plans come into being because the local authority will have responsibility for them and they and the public will know what is allowed, and I imagine will apply only when they are reasonably satisfied that they will succeed. This will reduce the number of appeals coming to the Department.

On the question of appeals, I think it was Deputy Clinton who referred to an application for a petrol filling station. He made the point that he did not think any filling station appeals were turned down. If he only knew how many such appeals are turned down! Probably more appeals of that nature are turned down than any other appeals, simply and solely because they are more numerous.

I want to speak in a general way about the unfounded charges made against the Minister over the past two weeks regarding the financing of housing. Almost every Deputy from the Opposition benches made the point that the Minister had been dishonest with this House and with the people. They suggested that he should come clean, so to speak, and that if he did, they would say: "You are a great fellow; we will accept that." They were trying to suggest that the Minister should tell the public there was no money available for housing or sanitary services.

The Minister could not be honest and do that, because in the present financial year, £25½ million is being spent under those headings. That is not as much as we would like, but we have that and we are going to spend it, I hope. When I say "I hope", I mean that the expenditure of this money within the financial year will depend entirely on the local authorities. When these people talk about being dishonest, they should remember the Minister took the unpredecented step of informing each local authority of the exact amount of money that would be available to them under three different headings for their housing programme during the present year. He told them the amount of money that would be available to them for local authority housing, for house-purchase loans and for supplementary grants. He went even further in relation to local authority housing programmes. In a case where a local authority had more proposals at the tender stage than we had money to give them, he gave them the opportunity of deciding on their priorities. They could decide on one or two schemes or on part of a scheme, and he left them free in that regard. That is something which had never happened before so far as the local authorities were concerned.

To suggest that the Minister has been dishonest is very unfair, to say the least of it. Several times during the course of the debate, listening to Opposition speakers, I asked myself: "How dishonest can we be? How dishonest can we get?" Whatever else they can charge the Minister with, they cannot charge him with being dishonest in that regard. If Members of this House who are members of local authorities did not know these things, it was because they were not as keen as they should have been in relation to their local authorities. It may be unfair of me to say they did not know because during the months of May, June and July, the Minister answered hundreds of questions. He did not give an inch on any one of them and that is probably the reason why they are now suggesting that the Minister was dishonest.

Listening to some speakers, and particularly Labour speakers, one would think that we never had a housing problem before. We had, and we will continue to have a housing problem. It was solved to some extent perhaps in 1956 and 1957. Deputy Dillon and others boasted of the fact that we had more houses than we had people to occupy them. They can have that if they like. They can solve the housing problem in that way if they like, but we have no intention of solving it in that manner. If we did, it could only be done by bringing about a drop in the general economy and we would have hundreds or thousands of people leaving the country and emigrating.

Deputy Larkin told us that in 1950 there were something like 50,000 houses needed in the city of Dublin. He then went on to tell us about the activities of the then Minister for Local Government, the late Deputy Murphy, and his successor the late Deputy Keyes. We will give them the credit that is due to them for their activities during their short terms in office. Nevertheless, when Fianna Fáil came back into office in 1951, there was a big backlog of houses needed. Credit must also be given to Deputy Smith who provided as many houses in his three years as his predecessors.

We come then to the second inter-Party Government, when Deputy O'Donnell was Minister. I was a Member of the House at that time and I possibly know a little more about it than people who were not in the Dáil then. As I said, Deputy Dillon said there were thousands of houses idle in Dublin, and he suggested that was brought about by the activities of the Government in their housing programme. If that was their way of solving the housing problem in Dublin, they can have it. We believe that we will have a housing problem in Dublin for a long, long, long time, due to the activities of the Government in other fields. Over the past five, six or seven years, there has been a steady improvement in the economy: more people have been employed, and have more security in their employment. Therefore there have been more marriages at earlier ages.

Mr. Coogan

And less homes.

Mr. P. Brennan

Deputy Cluskey told us that the housing list in Dublin will be added to annually by a figure of 3,000 or 4,000. I wish I could accept that figure as being true but I do not think I can. The figure will not be so high. If it is true, it is because the economy is so good, because so many people are satisfied with their jobs and with their security, that they are getting married at an earlier age and going on the housing list. Perhaps the Deputy gets that figure as a result of the last draw for newly-weds in Dublin. Possibly that was not an accurate figure because at least one of those annual draws was postponed and, if my memory serves me, people who would have qualified in the year in which the draw was postponed were allowed to compete the following year.

We hope to have the housing problem with us for all time because it can only arise when you have improvement in your economy and an increase in population. It is most unlikely that we shall solve it in a few years. Judging by their speeches this is what one would gather the Labour Party seem to think could be achieved. I have no doubt that in the course of two or three years people now in bad housing conditions in Dublin will get new houses from the corporation. This will be brought about by the activity of the corporation, on the one hand, and the foresight and activity of the Minister on the other in relation to the Ballymun scheme.

While on that subject, I want to say how pleased we are that the Labour Party are now converted to accepting the Ballymun scheme as something worth while. I suppose in another year or two they will tell us that it was their idea. Deputy Cluskey was able to give the Minister credit for only a small share in this effort although during the months of May, June and July they endeavoured, week in week out, to put the Minister in the dock regarding that scheme. I am glad they are now converted to it. No doubt, in the general election of 1970, when Ballymun is fully occupied, Labour candidates will go out there and take full credit for the scheme. They may have it because what we are interested in is getting the scheme completed and occupied, and we wish the Labour candidates well in their efforts to win the support of the people.

A number of Deputies referred to the delay in payment of moneys. I think Deputy Donegan was one who tried to suggest that there is some collusion between the local authorities and the Department of Local Government to go slow on spending money. Deputy Fitzpatrick suggested that there was conspiracy between the Department and the county managers. The last time the County Managers Association was seen by the Minister was in 1956 and I would nearly venture to bet that it was the first and last time.

The House must know by now that the Minister's policy in relation to differential rents and to rents generally is to bring about a situation in which no individual will be asked to pay more than he can afford. If that is nothing, fair enough. There are people in our society who are not in a position to pay even sixpence but they are deprived of houses at the moment because of the system of rents obtaining. It came to my notice in my constituency recently—a differential rents system was introduced there covering a small scheme of houses—that the first four qualified applicants had to refuse tenancies because they were not able to pay the rents. This should not happen in 1966, and if we had a proper system of differential rents covering all houses in local authority estates, it would not happen.

Deputy S. Dunne, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, was against differential rents. He suggested that people in Ballymun will be asked to pay increases of 15/- a week. I can assure him that will not happen under Dublin Corporation's differential rents scheme. Deputy Dunne was against the principle altogether. Deputy Treacy was the only one from those benches to make a real contribution. He has been converted because he told us it is now Labour Party policy. He said it had been for a long time.

Deputy Fitzpatrick also raised the question of the issue of provisional driving licences to people who drive motor cycles and who, perhaps a month or so later, due to the increased prosperity in the country, are able to buy a car but could not get a new licence until the provisional licence had expired The regulation governing this matter was changed some months ago. I told Deputy Fitzpatrick this, but in case the other Deputies may not be aware of it, I wish to assure them now that there is no such problem. I should like also to tell Deputies that a new Bill will be introduced shortly dealing with other aspects of the traffic regulations.

Mr. James Tully

What will that Bill be called?

Mr. Blaney

It will be called the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. It should have been circulated by now. I promised to do so but was not able because of circumstances beyond my control.

Mr. James Tully

I through the Minister might have forgotten it.

Mr. P. Brennan

Deputy Dunne mentioned the North Dublin regional water supply scheme. He spent three-quarters of an hour telling us a fairly tale but conveniently forgot to tell us that £580,000 has been spent on that scheme in the past couple of years. He also exaggerated slightly when he said it had been started five years ago. It was in 1964 that we had this bit of a do out in Lucan when the Minister launched the scheme. That is a fair bit of money and it is no fairly tale. I would be more inclined to describe as a fairy tale the building figure the Deputy suggested as being achieved by the Coalition Government in 1950-51. I do not think anything like that number was provided. I am not suggesting they should have been provided. I was giving credit to the Minister of the day for doing what he could to deal with the housing situation. It is unfair of people like Deputy Dunne to make accusations against Minister here, on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, to take credit for something that was not achieved.

Deputy M.J.O'Higgins referred yesterday evening to the Dargle flooding in Bray and the application in Arklow by the Arklow Tenants' Association for a house purchase scheme. The Dargle flooding was an unfortunate business. Some time after the flooding, when the Little Bray Residents' Association was set up, they sought a meeting with the Minister. The Minister met them and told them how far he was prepared to go to help. This problem has been there for many years. Deputy O'Higgins must know that it is a matter for the Bray Urban Council. The urban council has been informed of the Minister's views on it and they have set about solving it. They appointed a consultant engineer and, as far as I know, they have heard nothing from the consultant yet. Naturally I am personally interested and I would be anxious to see something concrete done about it. The Minister is not in a position to go any further than he has gone, but he will assist the local authority by way of grant.

The Arklow Tenants' Association problem is another local matter. At a meeting of the urban council as recently as a month ago, it was decided to implement a house purchase scheme that was first brought into being in 1954. In the meantime, they had to ask the Minister some questions regarding the conditions under which houses should now be disposed of, and this is under consideration at the moment. Deputy O'Higgins was under the impression this matter was held up in the Department for an unreasonable length of time. It is with the Department only a little over two weeks and there will be no undue delay in dealing with it.

Deputy Murphy spoke early in the debate and had a great deal to say about a number of housing schemes in West Cork. He tried to suggest that through lack of finance, they could not get on with these schemes. He mentioned schemes in Ring, Timoleague, Dunmanway and Schull, and some rural cottages as well. He informed the House that there was no use in proceeding with the schemes because there was no money. That is not the case at all. There is a great deal of dishonesty about these matters. As far as Ring is concerned, a tender for four houses was received as recently as 15th September and is under consideration. If it is in order, the necessary capital will be made available to them. In regard to Timoleague, the layout plan was approved on 22nd March, 1966, but we have heard nothing since. As regard to Dunmanway, the layout plan was approved on 25th March 1966, and we have heard nothing since. As far as the Schull scheme is concerned, a layout plan has not yet been submitted to the Department. There is no proposal before the Department in relation to the 16 rural cottages. If proposals are not before the Department, how can we deal with them? Listening to Deputy Murphy, one would think all these proposals were up in the Department for years awaiting the approval of the Minister, whereas the only concrete proposal before us is a scheme of four houses at Ring. As I have said, if this is in order, the necessary finance will be made available to get them going this year.

Many queries have been raised and the tone of the debate has been one of condemnation of the Minister for an alleged dishonest approach to the housing problem and the problem of finance. That is most unfair. The Minister has done what no other Minister ever did. He informed the local authorities what money they could expect. It is far better for each local authority to know exactly at the beginning of each year the amount of money that will be available to them for their housing problems. The Minister has a huge problem in trying to deal with the housing needs of the country. It is a great challenge to us. No Government will accept that challenge to a greater degree than we will, and no Minister will be able to meet the challenge better than the present Minister.

Mr. Dillon

There is nothing like tooting your own horn when nobody else will toot it for you.

Mr. P. Brennan

You tooted a lot on your own horn last week about solving the housing problem the way you did, but we do not want to solve it that way.

Mr. Dillon

I was quoting the Deputy's leader, the Taoiseach.

Mr. P. Brennan

The problem will not be solved in a year or two. The immediate problem will be solved. The people who are in bad housing conditions here in the city of Dublin will have their problem solved in two or three years' time.

(Cavan): You got only 12 per cent of the loan floated in England after going to Germany and Novia Scotia.

Mr. P. Brennan

In 1956, a national loan floated by the inter-Party Government failed.

As I said earlier, it will be difficult enough for the Minister to deal with all the points that have been raised and, of course, there will be further points raised now that Deputy James Tully and some of the other Deputies are back from far-off parts. I hope and expect that the standard of the contributions will improve somewhat——

Mr. Cluskey

Compared with yours?

Mr. P. Brennan

——and that next week, when the Minister is replying, he will endeavour, as he has always done, to deal with the many queries raised by Deputies. I have tried to deal with a few points that have been raised in my presence. I hope the Deputies who raised them are satisfied. We will try to get back to Deputies in some way in order to answer their queries.

First and foremost, the reason I offered was to deal with the unfair criticism of the Minister in regard to this whole question. I think the Minister has been very truthful and frank with the House and the local authorities. Last April he took the unprecedented step of letting them know exactly the amount of money available to them under each heading.

Mr. Harte

Did they ask how much or how little?

Mr. P. Brennan

That is not the point. We will not try to suggest that the amount of money available met the needs in all cases. It did not. We know that. But we are working within a budget. There was a limited amount of money available to the Minister and he tried to spread that out and to give every local authority a fair share, particularly local authorities who were anxious to use it. Even at this stage we would hope that each local authority would use the money available between now and 31st March.

Mr. Harte

How will an urban council spend £1,000?

Mr. P. Brennan

We want houses at the end of March, not credit balances. It will be a matter entirely for each local authority. We sincerely hope that they will take this matter seriously. Even at this stage, if they find that a scheme will not be completed within the year when money is provided for it, we hope they will provide an alternative scheme so that the money will be used before the end of March. In that way they will have succeeded, at least, in spending whatever money they got within the financial year. Let there be no carry-over, no credit balances. Houses are what we are interested in.

Mr. James Tully

The thing about the Parliamentary Secretary is that everybody in this House and everybody who meets him outside agrees that he is a very nice little fellow and, for that reason, it is difficult to say some of the things which the so-called facts which he has been putting before the House would tempt one to say. If the Minister said it, we would possibly have a go at him.

Mr. Blaney

Do not be squeamish.

Mr. James Tully

The soft answer turneth away wrath. The Parliamentary Secretary did say something to the effect that now that I was back in the House, the debate would probably drag on until next week. I am sure that is not so. I know the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government must be anxious to get this Estimate out of the House.

Mr. Blaney

We were awaiting the Deputy's return.

Mr. James Tully

I am glad, because there are one or two things that I want to say and it would be just too bad if they did not go on record in this year of 1966.

One of the extraordinary things about the Government is that they are at present making desperate efforts, and have been doing so for many years, to have it both ways. Let us get one fact straight. This year, the Department of Local Government have not got a fraction of the money which is required for local authority housing. They have not got a fraction of the money which is required for SDA housing. Putting these two facts together, it is immediately realised that the housing situation at the end of this year will be very much worse than it should be if there were a good Government in office. These are facts.

The Minister does not have to be reminded of what actually happened with regard to the allocation of money for housing this year. I say this for the Minister: when we interviewed him about money for County Meath and pointed out to him that we were attempting to build houses for nearly 500 people and he had given us sufficient money to start houses for 13, he very rightly agreed that, since there were other things which had priority—I am not sure what they are —we must be content with the widow's mite but he did throw in an extra £10,000.

What does £10,000 represent? It represents less than five houses and we want 500 local authority houses this year. He said: "It is all right. You can start with the money you are getting now. The sum of £33,000 will build, perhaps, 16 or 17 houses but we will allow you to start 28 and if you have not got them finished by the end of the year, you will be getting money next year which will complete them." This will mean we will have no money available for our housing programme next year. In addition, we find the Minister makes it pretty clear that while he has not got the money, and, therefore, cannot give it to us, he is not prepared to agree that even if we could get the money elsewhere, we should be allowed to use it.

I was rather interested in a countyman of mine who does not represent the same constituency, Deputy Crinion, who is pretty good at getting letters from the Minister and publishing them in the local press, whether they affect his area or not. Maybe he is doing his little share for someone who might not be so active in his own constituency. His letter indicated that the Minister had informed him he had given permission to build 28 local authority houses in Meath and that there were no further proposals for housing before the Department. He missed out on two things. One was the Minister did not give us enough money to build the 28 houses. It is quite true he gave us permission. The second was it was not true and is not true there were no further proposals before the Minister's Department.

If the Minister can spare the time when replying, I would like him to explain how such a letter could be written to Deputy Crinion, in view of the fact that the Minister informed Meath County Council, a deputation from Meath County Council and myself personally, he was sorry he was unable to make money available for the erection of 30 local authority houses in Laytown and 20 odd houses in the village of Duleek, apart from all the others. We asked if it would be possible to make something available so that a start could be made on preparation for building. Again, it was to be looked into. We did not hear anything about it, nor did we expect to. We were under the impression that the money was not there. There is an old country saying that you cannot draw blood from a turnip——

Mr. Dillon

Or water from a stone.

Mr. James Tully

Or water from a stone. If the Department have not money they cannot give it to the local authorities. But I am not prepared to accept the continual talk from the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and Government speakers that money is being made available to build houses to any local authority that wants it and that if houses are not being built the responsibility must fall on the shoulders of the members of local authorities. Let us be honest about it. Last year the Minister announced with a fanfare of trumpets that all the duplication carried on for years—the inspection of sites by local authority engineers, the passing of the sites and their inspection again by more or less competent engineers from the Department—that all this, with its resultant hold up of buildings, was going to be done away with. If the local authorities were prepared to pass the sites it was O.K. and the houses could be built. But then there was no money available. I do not want to dwell on this too much. It is only fair to put on record that of the almost 500 local authority houses we need we can build by permission of the Minister only 28. In the towns there are large and small schemes of houses, but no money is available. They just cannot build. That is the honest truth. Let us know where we stand. I do not know whether it is proposed to get more money somewhere for the purpose of building houses.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary trying to explain how it was that there was a surplus of houses in 1956. If he studies the population figures he will find he is not quite as well "on the ball" as he thought he was. A few of his facts are a little bit queer. I heard one Fianna Fáil speaker attempting to explain away the scarcity of houses now by referring to the increase in population revealed by the recent census figures. Now we are apparently considering for a house a baby just born. Some of them would have to have their names down as soon as they were born or otherwise they would have no hope of ever getting a local authority house under the present administration.

I want the truth to be established. We sympathise with the Minister if he has not got the money. If he has not got it, that is all right. Let us leave it at that. But do not let us have the Minister or anybody speaking for him getting up here and saying the money is there and it is some evil genius in the background who is preventing the houses from being built.

There seems to be something wrong at present with regard to our roads system here. We had a review of the traffic census of our roads some time ago. We understood there was to be a reclassification of our main and county roads. We are in a peculiar position in Meath because we put the accent on the improvement of the surface of our roads rather than on the alignment. We had all our roads blacktopped a few years ago. As soon as that was done all our county road grants stopped — almost £100,000 which normally would come to us if we had even one half mile not black-topped. There is so much traffic on many of the county roads at present that they should be classified as main roads. A census was carried out on the instructions of the Department but the Minister, like the changing of the signs, has not yet got round to making the order changing the designation Could I appeal to him to try to do something about this? I consider it most unfair.

Recently the trade union I represent negotiated with the county manager a wage increase in accordance with the recommendations made by the Labour Court and accepted by the Government. That increase was for a £1 per week from the 1st April or the 1st May. The Minister or somebody acting for him changed that date. I want to know from the Minister if it is now going to be Government practice—this is the Government who talk about good labour relations and the necessity for trade unions and employers to negotiate and not to have strikes and stoppages—that when such negotiations do take place and an agreement is reached, the Government without changing legislation can decide without reference to anybody else to alter the date from which a wage increase is granted. I want to accuse the Government in the case of people granted an increase from 1st April this year, which was changed by the Government to 1st June, of stealing £8 from the pockets of unfortunate men who have barely enough to live on. This is a scandal which cannot be allowed to pass.

I am telling the Minister here that the influence of my trade union, and the Congress of Irish Trade Unions and, as far as possible, the full brunt of the trade union movement will be brought to bear on him and his Government until they alter that decision. We are not going to take it from him. We are not going to allow anybody, whether the Minister himself —I assume he will take responsibility for it?—or his senior officials, to whom £8 may be a very small sum, to take that money from the pockets of people who require it very badly. As soon as the opportunity arises. I hope the Minister will change that decision. It is a scandalous decision which the Department should never have taken. We hope to have in the near future a Labour Court recommendation which will change it for him, if he is not prepared to change it. We will then know whether the Government accord to the Labour Court the respect they call on others to show to it.

We have not the houses. We need the houses. For goodness sake, let the Government be honest with the people and say that we have not the money and that therefore the houses cannot be built. Do not repeat this old tale that the money is there and that somebody else is responsible.

The Government can change the classification of roads and should do so. They have the information long enough in their possession.

With regard to safety signs, it has become a national scandal that nearly three years ago recommendations were made to the Minister's Department to change the signs, which are not alone unsuitable but dangerous. So far, the Minister can only make the excuse that the whole country must be done at the one time and that the signs in one area cannot be changed without the signs in all the other areas being changed. It is a stupid and silly argument and the sooner the Minister changes his mind about that, the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr. Calleary

I do not intend to delay the House because I am certain that every aspect of the Department of Local Government has been reviewed in this debate. I should like the Minister to get in touch with the Minister for Lands so that permission for people to sell small plots of land for the erection of new houses will be hastened. It is a very slow process and is holding up the building of new houses.

I would urge the Minister to take over all the backward roads leading into the poorer places of the West and the mountains, chiefly. People are not able to bring in their cars on the roads at present. I am aware of a number of young people who have left my area because they are unwilling to walk miles at night to a dance or to cards. The Minister should take over all those backward roads, especially in the western areas. That certainly would mean that the young people would be content and, if they are content, they will be inclined to stay at home.

I urge the Minister to insist on white marks on all the main roads and county roads in Ireland. Such white marks have saved many lives and are of the utmost importance.

I appeal to the Minister to see to it that the extension of water to the Foxford and Bangor Erris districts in County Mayo will be carried out as quickly as possible and will not be delayed any longer.

There is, also, the difficulty that wells in the area of the Moy drainage scheme have been extinguished. I realise that the Minister is doing his best for the people concerned.

I again appeal to him to hasten all steps for the erection of new houses. I am aware that when applications are made for grants for new houses, months elapse before the sites are inspected. The Minister should do his best to ensure that there will be no delay as regards the inspection of sites. I have mentioned some matters affecting my own area and, having done so, I shall conclude.

Mr. Coogan

I join with Deputy Geoghegan in paying tribute to the appointment by the Minister of another young Galway man. He did not attain that position without certain merit and, even though we praise him. we get nothing soft from him any more than any other Deputy.

I do not intend to delay the House at this stage of the debate on the Estimate but I have some comments to make on a reply by the Minister yesterday to a Parliamentary Question as to when private house loans will be freely available from current sources. Part of the Minister's answer was to the effect that in some cases local authorities are adopting an unnecessarily rigid attitude and that he is having the position of these cases specially reviewed. I do not know what that means. I am a member of Galway Corporation and Galway County Council. I know the position in regard to housing grants and loans. I know of the delay that has prevailed for quite a long time. My door is practically knocked down every day by people who want to know when Galway County Council will pay the second part of the grant which has been outstanding for some very considerable time, and yet the Minister says that we have money to throw away. I suggest that the Minister is trying to pass the buck either to Galway County Council or to Galway Corporation.

The position is that Galway Corporation cannot get enough money to meet even the backlog, not to talk of current applications for loans. We provided 50 sites for young men to build their homes in Galway city but they have all thrown up their hands in despair. Considering that we gave sites on one of the main roads into Galway city at a figure of £350 and £400, with water, sewerage services and roads laid on, the House must agree that it was a great effort by Galway Corporation to help people to help themselves. The difficulty is that there is a bottleneck in the Department and a smokescreen has been set up to hide the fact that there is no money. The Minister may fool some of the people some of the time but he cannot fool all of the people all of the time. It is now time to call his bluff. The Minister reminds me of Old Mother Hubbard who went to the cupboard to get her poor doggie a bone. There is not even a bone now for the people to chew as far as housebuilding is concerned.

Mr. Harte

There is not even a cupboard.

Mr. Coogan

Yes, there is not even a cupboard. I was amazed to hear some Fianna Fáil colleagues from my constituency refer to everything else but to the one really important question affecting our constituency. Deputy Geoghegan is pretty well aware of the situation. Deputy Molloy is a bit young and he has a lot to learn but surely he has heard something? Deputy Molloy mentioned the need for toilets in Connemara, a tourist area. I totally agree with him but he suggested that the Minister should tell the local authorities in Galway to build these toilets. Does Deputy Molloy know—or is he trying to fool the people and to save the Minister— that we have been waiting for quite a long time for a loan to build these toilets and that we are waiting for the water supply for the Connemara area for quite a long time and that there is as much hope of getting the necessary grant for that purpose as there is of a snowball surviving in hell? This is part of the game of bluff that is being played — passing the buck from the Minister to Galway County Council.

I should like the Minister to let us know when he will provide the money for the erection of toilets in Salthill. We have been looking for the money for quite a long time now but it is like going to a goat's house looking for wool. The only wool we will get is the wool the Minister is trying to pull over our eyes. At the last election, we had a present Deputy telling the people that all they needed to do was to vote Fianna Fáil and they would have swimming pools. He got a lot of them into the swim with them but, like the Minister, it is off the ground. I am afraid it is up on the shelf. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, he has a few of them "off the ground". I am afraid they are off the ground and put away in pigeonholes. It is no use trying to fool the people all the time.

In relation to town planning. I agree with Deputy Geoghegan that there is too much rigidity with regard to the islands and it is very important, in the interests of those people who are isolated, that planning should not be so rigid.

I suggested on a former occasion, and my suggestion happily bore fruit, that the Garda should try to instil into children in school the importance of being traffic-minded. The impression a garda makes is more lasting in a matter such as this than that of the teacher. I hope these lectures will be continued. Possibly their scope could be broadened to include some instruction on litter. Children cause a good deal of litter with sweet papers and so on. If one wants to build up civicminded citizens, one must start in the schools. The law should be enforced against those who offend in this respect. Meanwhile instruction in the schools could play an important part and help all of us to win the Tidy Towns Competition.

Mr. Harte

We cannot all win.

Mr. Coogan

We won it in Galway last year. Perhaps the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the point I have made?

I have to protest against the closing of a road before any blessing to the closing is imparted by the Minister and his Department. I refer to the Castlegar-Ballybane Road which is used entensively by dairymen and by people going to Mass and to and from Mervue estate. Closing this road will increase the density of traffic nearer to the city and nearer to a point known as Suicide Cross. Is it the intention now to create a second suicide cross in the Mervue-Castlegar area by diverting traffic further in towards the city? I warn the Minister against this move. Officials are riding roughshod over the people. This mooted change could create a grave hazard because of traffic being unnecessarily more centralised and, if this has not already been decided by the Minister and his Department, I should like to take this opportunity now of putting before the Minister the protest made by those affected.

For a long time we have been awaiting the extension of main drainage in Galway. The Department tell us one thing and the local authority something else. It is like playing ping pong. They write to each other and they raise questions, all for the purpose of delaying action. Live horse and you will get grass; wait for the drainage until the Minister gets the money. Putting things on the long finger does not help. The building industry will be affected by delay and unless this main drainage is attended to pretty soon, there will be a standstill on building.

The Minister should take steps to expedite the provision of water and proper toilet accommodation in the tourist areas of Connemara. Tourism is very important in the West and, if there is delay in the provision of these amenities, the tourist industry there will be adversely affected.

Mr. L. Belton

Deputies from the south of Ireland, except Government Deputies, seem to think things are bad; Deputy Corry, however, sees the land flowing with milk and honey. Deputies from the West, including Deputy Calleary, are satisfied that things are not too good in the West. Indeed, the recent census figures indicate that the people are not staying in their little grey homes in the West. I am concerned with neither the South nor the West. I am concerned with the position in Dublin and particularly in the constituency I represent, Dublin North-Central. I do not think that in any constituency in the country, with the possible exception of Dublin South-Central on the other side of the Liffey, the housing position is so critical as it is in Dublin North-Central. At the moment Dublin Corporation have no hope of housing a family within the next 12 months unless there are five in that family— father, mother and three children—all living, sleeping and eating in the one room. That does not mean that there are not cases of six in one room and seven in one room. There are even eight in a room in some cases. There are people who, because of their employment, do not want to move out to the suburbs; they have to be at work at a very early hour when transport is not available and they want to remain within a reasonable distance of their employment.

We must bear in mind, too, the fact that Dublin Corporation have not availed of section 23 or section 25 to condemn houses as unfit for human habitation. They have not exercised that provision, despite the fact that we all know there are hundreds of houses unfit for human habitation. Some of them are rat-infested. Some of the tenants are living in cellars and basements. At the moment the number of families on the approved waiting list for housing is in the region of 5,000. Added to that there are people on the application list, not yet approved, and newly-weds; they account for another 7,000 or 8,000. There are, therefore, 13,000 to 14,000 families waiting for housing. Deputy Moore is a member of Dublin Corporation Housing Committee; when speaking here he said that, while the Minister had not solved the housing problem, he had succeeded in reducing it to a minimum. Remembering that there are 5,000 families living in one room, I leave it to reasonable Deputies to say if they believe our housing problem has been reduced to a minimum.

The National Building Agency is carrying out the housing scheme at Ballymun. That is independent of Dublin Corporation's own housing scheme. We are told that between Ballymun and Dublin Corporation, both working full blast to put up houses as fast as possible, it is hoped to reach a point at which it will be possible to erect 2,000 dwellings per year. If any Deputy looks at the house building figures he will find that ten years ago Dublin Corporation built 2,000 houses in one year and they did not have the assistance of the National Building Agency.

Deputy Moore also said that the Fine Gael and Labour Party members of Dublin Corporation were now applauding the Ballymun scheme and that 12 months ago we had been criticising it. On behalf of the Fine Gael members of Dublin Corporation, and also on behalf of the Labour Party members, I want to point out that any moaning about the Ballymun scheme was in criticism of the delay. We wanted to know why the houses were not coming as promised. Different reasons were advanced for the delay. I agree that the weather was somewhat abnormal and I am glad to hear now that the National Building Agency hope to be on the target very soon and that possibly they will exceed it in the near future. We hope that is correct. Everybody who has an interest in the housing position in Dublin will be glad of that. Recently we carried out an inspection of these houses and flats and I must say that the flats are definitely a credit to Dublin Corporation and the National Building Agency. I am not in any way criticising the houses but certainly I would say the flats are much more attractive.

I should like to say a few words about Small Dwellings Act loans in Dublin Corporation. Last year I remember the Minister announcing vociferously that nothing would halt the housing programme, that Deputies on this side of the House were trying to sabotage his building programme but that despite their efforts, nothing was going to halt it. Very soon we were in for a surprise because shortly after Christmas we were told by Dublin Corporation that all loans had ceased and no loans could be got for any type of house. Later, it is true, they resumed loans for new houses but up to the present no loan can be obtained for a house that has been previously occupied, with one exception, that is, a corporation tenant who is buying a private house and is surrendering a corporation dwelling. No other person can obtain a loan from the corporation for a previously-occupied house.

It is true that they have a limited amount available for new houses but only a very limited amount. Strangely enough, I have been told that there is no great rush of applications for this money. This is due to the fact that for a while people were being refused and told that there was no money available and they more or less gave up the idea of looking for it. Another reason is that the maximum loan Dublin Corporation can give is £2,700. Anybody who tries to buy a threebedroomed house will find that he must pay about £3,500 for it, or even up to £3,900. That means that the person must make a deposit of approximately £1,000 and he must also have money for the legal fees. No person will be granted a corporation loan if he is earning in excess of £20 a week or £1,040 a year. This means that a person must be earning less than £20 a week but yet must have enough cash to produce £1,000 or £1,200 before he can qualify for the loan. There are not many people in Dublin, especially a married man with a family, who can earn less than £20 a week and yet afford to pay a deposit of £1,000——

Mr. P. Brennan

Does the Deputy mean £1,000 to £1,200 of a deposit?

Mr. L. Belton

The house will cost from £3,500 to £3,900 and the most he can get is £2,700.

Mr. P. Brennan

Would that price be net or gross?

Mr. Harte

Any house which is sold at £3,500 would also involve legal and auctioneers' fees.

Mr. L. Belton

Near the Ballymun scheme, people have been complaining that the value of their houses has been reduced, which certainly should not happen. Many new houses are being built for £3,750 net and they are not elaborate at all. Therefore, the purchasers have to find between £1,000 and £1,300, between the deposit and the legal fees and, as I said, it would be rare to find in Dublin a married man with a family who is earning £20 a week and who would have £1,000 to £1,200.

In regard to repair grants, I know of a number of cases of people who applied for these grants and were told by the Department that they were getting these grants; yet the corporation told them that they could not pay them this year, that they would have to wait until next year for them. I urge the Minister to help the corporation in this regard.

I will not go into the very controversial subject of the rent increases by Dublin Corporation. Deputy Larkin, the Chairman of Dublin Corporation Housing Committee, spoke about this. He takes a very keen interest in housing affairs in Dublin and is much more qualified to speak about them than I am. He explained the position in detail.

I also appeal to the Minister to hurry up the sanctioning of planning permission when applications are sent to him. At a recent meeting of private builders in Dublin, it was stated that there were delays of up to six months in granting planning approval. Builders said that only half their machinery was in use and others said some of their machinery was rusting in their yards because they had been held up for upwards of six months awaiting planning approval.

I would also ask the Minister to speed up his decisions on CPO schemes here in Dublin. In a recent case in my constituency a sworn inquiry was held. All the evidence papers completed were submitted to the Minister. It was one and a half years before he could issue his findings. Granted he had quite a number of things to take into consideration but one and a half years was an abnormal delay. I would appeal to the Minister to try to speed up those matters and help Dublin Corporation to carry out the excellent work they are trying to do.

I shall not detain the House much longer. I shall finish on a happier note. I wish to compliment the Minister— I say this sincerely—on his great efforts towards road safety. I shall say that the Minister has never yet missed an appropriate occasion on which to stress the importance of road safety. Unfortunately, the general public have not fully responded to that appeal. If the general public heeded the Minister's warnings and exhortations in this direction the toll on the roads could be reduced very considerably.

Mr. Harte

It could be truthfully said on the sixth day of this long debate that we are now entering the home stretch and that everything that could be said about local government has already been said. However, I should be failing in my duties as a public representative if I allowed the opportunity given to each member of this House to present the facts as he sees them in his own constituency to pass. That is what I propose to do.

If there is one reason why this Government should be defeated, if there is one reason why this Government should seek to examine their conscience, if there is one reason why this Government should honestly ask themselves: "Have we served the people right; have we lived up to the promises made?", it is their deplorable programme in relation to housing. This year we find ourselves faced with the appalling situation in which people in my constituency are living in houses completely unfit for human habitation which would make darkest Africa blush. Any Government who can shun their obligations in this respect to the poorer section in our society should take stock of themselves from a national point of view and forget about who will succeed as head of the Fianna Fáil Party when Deputy Lemass retires.

I am not interested in the domestic affairs of the Fianna Fáil Party. The people in that Party are well able to say who should run it. However, if they paid more attention to the problems which confront the man in the street, the newly-weds, the man with an increasing family, the old-age pensioners and the infirm they would be doing a better service to the community than figuring out who will succeed the great saviour in the slogan of "Let Lemass Lead On."

We know that the Government housing problem is a deliberate problem. You have only to read the Second Programme for Economic Expansion and you will find a certain gentleman recommended to the Government that it was a bad investment to build houses, that it would be better to encourage people to build their own houses. There is some merit in this but it is an economic argument. In public life one cannot devote exclusive attention to economics while ignoring the social and moral obligations relating to it. We know that the Government have postponed the erection of houses to such a degree that even local authorities now find it absolutely impossible to build houses and if people live in county council houses they have to pay a rent which they are not able to pay.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you, as a member of Donegal County Council, can bear witness to what I say because in all probability the same people or people in similar circumstances appeal to you, first of all, to get them a house. God knows if they are lucky to get one they then come back to you and say: "We cannot meet the rent". This is the dilemma now. It is very difficult to get houses but with the new rent system the poor people and those the rehousing of whom is the responsibility of local authorities to rehouse find it impossible to pay rent and live.

This is the direct result of the deliberate policies of the Government. They delayed the building of houses when it was much easier and cheaper to build houses. As a result of increased taxation with a consequent rise in the cost of building materials the price of houses in some cases has gone up more than 25 per cent. One great disadvantage which the Minister for Local Government is at is that the Taoiseach has not seen fit to transfer him from the Department of Local Government to some other Department and thereby relieve him of the obligation to redeem and honour the promises he made both at by-elections, general elections and in this House. During the term of the 17th, and, indeed, this 18th Dáil, the Minister introduced new Bills which were to solve the housing problems, a consolidation of all the promises and speeches which we got through the years. This was now to be the straight and narrow path for better housing.

We heard a lot of hullabaloo about Ballymun. Indeed, a week before the last general election in the town of Milford a notice appeared in the window of a local merchant's shop asking local people to apply for 50 houses which were to be built there. This was brought to my notice on the eve of the general election, while speaking at a public meeting seven miles away in the town of Ramelton. People wanted to know how to go about applying for those houses. Needless to say that sign was removed two days later and there are no houses there at the moment. You, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will know when houses are mentioned it is a sure sign that we will have a general election, a Presidential election or county council election. It seems now that we have a Presidential election nearly as often as county council elections.

The Minister can make all the promises he likes and he can follow that up later and say: "That is not what I said. This is what I said." He will then give a very detailed and lengthy reply and he will tell the House what he said. This is getting to be known as "Blaney's blarney". If you address a question to the Minister he goes to great length to prepare an answer. He will talk at great length and when he sits down, you are just as wise as you were before you asked the question. This is what is now termed "bluffer Blaney's blarney."

The OECD report spotlighted the housing problem in this country when it said that we have the second lowest building rate in Europe, the lowest being Turkey, and one does not have to be told the climate in Turkey is a lot milder than it is in County Donegal and therefore, there is less reason why people should want to live in houses there; the need is not so pressing. I said at the outset, and I repeat, that if there is any reason why this Government should fall, it is because of their bad housing policy. It is a terrible situation. Foreign newspaper correspondents and photographers come to this capital city to photograph conditions in which people live and, indeed, to photograph young couples queuing up over a weekend to purchase a house, having, I suppose, been backed by a more well-off relation. Other people could have joined the same queue but having got there, the local authority would not have the money to help them to buy their home.

It is an appalling situation and surely it cries out for vengeance, that after 40 or 45 years of self-government when natives of that country which suppressed this country for so long come across here to see what progress we have made they are told there are lovely hotels built at a cost of £1½ million or £2 million. But the poor of Dublin, of Donegal and the west of Ireland must tolerate conditions against which the natives of the Congo would march in demonstration and protest. This to me is a situation that only those people living in bad conditions really understand. Human nature being what it is, when people live in good houses, they are inclined to forget the conditions of other people living in worse conditions. It is only those who have no houses or bad houses who really know the problem, or it is only the public representative who makes it his business to try to help these people who knows.

Now, I know there are problems the Minister for Local Government cannot overcome. I know times are difficult. I know that not alone are times difficult in this country but times are difficult in Great Britain and the United States, and in Western Germany, which some two or three years ago we were told was one of the soundest economies in the world. Why has this been brought about? Have we not listened to speakers from this side of the House warning the Government during the last two or three years? I remember one speech, one which I will remember for a long time, by Deputy Dillon when he warned the Government and the Taoiseach that we as a nation, and the Fianna Fáil Party as a Government, were spending beyond our means, that we were living in a fools' paradise inasmuch as economic conditions in Great Britain were then at a boom because the Conservative government were trying to win back the favour of the English people after a situation in that Party which is best forgotten. The Democratic Party under President Johnson were looking forward to a presidential election in the United States and of course Dr. Adenauer was in the twilight of his career in Western Germany. All of these countries can afford to overspend and be careless for one year, two years or three years or, possibly for a longer length of time, but this is a poor country, depending solely and completely on how Great Britain and certain countries in Western Europe keep their own books. If their books are running well, ours will not be so bad, but, if we are careless, then we are asking for trouble.

That is what this Government were doing. This may be a cynical view of mine and, indeed, it may be a prejudiced view, but I do not think it is. I have expressed this view privately and I did not do it out of malice to the Taoiseach but because I solemnly believed it to be the truth. I want to emphasise that; it is not out of malice that I make this statement but I am trying to analyse why the Taoiseach embarked on these shortsighted policies which he described, first of all, as the Five Year Programme and then the First Programme for Economic Expansion and then the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. The Taoiseach referred to these three points when he made his promise of 100,000 new jobs in Clery's Ballroom in September, 1956. This is my analysis of what the Taoiseach was aiming at. When I speak of the Taoiseach, I refer to Deputy Seán Lemass. I believe when the then Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, was elected to Áras an Uachtaráin as President of this country, he was going to stay there seven years and then retire, and that the present Taoiseach was looking with watery eyes to the day when he would contest the Presidential election in 1966.

As a member of Donegal County Council—elected to that authority in 1960—the first problem I recognised, or became conscious of, was the need for rehousing of our people. It is a very frustrating position for a young county councillor to find himself in when he is sent from one office of the local authority to the other, and when he is ultimately told that the decision is not with the county manager but with the Minister. It was so frustrating for me that, having discussed the matter with officials of the county council, I felt the best action for me to take was to table a motion to have a sub-committee set up in Donegal County Council to deal with housing. That was defeated—not openly—but is was shunted on to a siding.

All members, particularly Fianna Fáil members of the county council, deplored the idea of Councillor Harte tabling a motion that a sub-committee be set up for housing. They said it was out of spite for the Minister for Local Government, who represents the same constituency, and that it was personal animosity prompted me to do this. That was not the intention; the intention was a sincere effort on my part to establish a committee which could go into the aspects of the housing problem, which could call the engineers responsible for examining the sites and for the whole manoeuvre of building the houses together and ask them what they were doing about it, which could call upon the county manager and ask him to present figures in relation to what is being done, which could ask the Minister for Local Government, through his officials, why delays were being experienced in certain parts.

But the answer I got from these discussions was: "This is not what you are up to at all; what you want to do is to embarrass the Minister for Local Government". I do not think, having spent the past six years in public life, that any young member elected to any local authority would have the ability to embarrass the Minister for Local Government. The Minister, with due credit to him, is one of the most capable Ministers in this House. I do not say it as a compliment to him; I say it because I believe it to be the truth, and if the rumours circulating over the past few days that he is now entering the race for Taoiseach were true—despite all the bickering he and I have had with each other—I would be one of the first to congratulate him, but, mind you, I hope he would live up to his obligations as Taoiseach better than he has as Minister for Local Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not relevant.

Mr. Harte

It is as relevant as Deputy Burke telling about creeping into a pipe in County Dublin.

At county council meetings and when estimates meetings are pressed upon us, I always use the opportunity to express my opinion in relation to the housing needs in County Donegal but this has always been met with stern opposition from members of the Fianna Fáil Party, who, no doubt, wanted to protect the image of the present Minister. But a new trend has entered the council chamber. Now, not alone do we have councillors of the Fine Gael Party and Independents tabling motions about housing but we have a councillor of the Fianna Fáil Party who, on the past six or seven occasions, has tabled a motion that a sub-committee be set up, and talked so much on the lines on which I have been spouting for the past six or seven years, that I am inclined to believe he will stand for Fine Gael at the next local elections, that is, if they are being held at all in the foreseeable future.

I can now make the charge that the reason this, particular councillor is tabling motions in relation to setting up sub-committees is personal spite against the Minister for Local Government. I can make it for the same reason as he made them—not he personally, but his colleagues. I believe this particular councillor is a very sincere person and means well, but he, like myself, is frustrated. The only difference is that he has been a member of Donegal County Council longer than I. He should have more experience and should know the present situation and should not whisper sweet nothings in the Minister's ear in relation to houses in Donegal. He should not seek to make people believe that this is not the Minister's problem but that of some official in the Department of Local Government who has sabotaged this particular scheme and that the Minister will see to it when he gets back to Dublin. We have heard all these things before.

I believe that in all local authorities, as there is in Dublin Corporation, there should be small committees to deal with rehousing. I say this, having given great and lengthy thought to the system of applying for a house, having it passed by the local authority, having the site inspected and passed, or condemned, having a contract signed, having a tender passed by the Department of Local Government, and going through this entire manoeuvre of red tape. I believe that a small committee in every local authority could give a great service to the community, could bring these matters to the Minister's notice and to the over-busy civil servants, who are doing their best in the Department of Local Government but whom these things pass by or fly over, because they have so much to do.

Members may say this is speculative thinking. It is not; it is ordinary commonsense. I know that Deputy Geoghegan could tell the Minister for Local Government of many cases of delays on application for houses in Galway: how they were sent back by the Department of Local Government to the county council, that shuttle service going on for possibly eight, ten or maybe 12 months, and Deputy Geoghegan then going to the Minister and saying: "There is the reason", whereupon the Minister sends for the file and the case is sanctioned. It is impossible for any public representative to be on the ball like that all the time.

Small committees in the local authority, particularly in county council areas, should be set up to examine these aspects. I envisage such a committee in the county of Donegal examining the housing problem there, a problem which is so acute that not one house has been built in the town of Lifford since the inter-Party Government went out of office, the town which is the seat of local government, with council offices, engineering offices and from which full administration of the county is directed. Yet not one house has been built there by the local authority since 1957. I might say that that is not because Donegal County Council did not want to do it.

Early this year, the Minister's now very famous, or infamous, letter went to all local authorities asking them, not how much money they wanted for rehousing but how little could they take. At that time the manager of the county council told the members of the General Purposes Committee, of which, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you are Chairman, that he proposed to spend money in this way: the £36,000 allocated to Donegal County Council by the Department of Local Government for rehousing for the year 1966 would be spent on building 12 houses in Stranorlar, 12 houses in Convoy, or ten—I am not sure—12 houses in Lifford and that there would be 14 cottages embarked upon.

That seemed to be acceptable to all members of the council, except one. That person I do not wish to name at this stage but the people in Donegal know to whom I refer. That councillor was committed to a petty idea of the Minister's that small farmers must get houses. We were all agreed on that, but it was over two years since this scheme was introduced, over two years since the promises of houses for small farmers were made, and not one had been honoured. They would have to wait another 12 months before they could embark upon the first house of the small farmers' scheme. The only way that could be done was for some of the scheme to be shelved. The manager pointed out that only three houses were at the stage that they could be offered for contract, and that it was bad policy to change his ideas or his proposals in relation to the Lifford scheme.

To save the Minister's face, this councillor, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party who is closely connected with the Minister, proposed that the Lifford scheme should be shelved. I opposed that, and opposed it very strongly, because I knew the need for re-housing in Lifford. Any member of the local authority, conscious of the need for re-housing in Lifford, would have taken the same stand, because there is a big floating population, and an increased population there. It transpired that this member said I opposed the building of small farmers' houses. I did not oppose the building of small farmers' houses.

The fact of the matter is that this Government have fallen down in providing small farmers' houses because they did not provide the money to build them. This member of the council who has blackened my name in the rural constituency of North-East Donegal should have second thoughts. I wanted to put that on the records of the House. When it comes to the local elections, I will let the people know why the houses in Lifford were not built and why under the small farmers' scheme only three houses could be built after three years of examining the facts.

This all stems from my submission to the House that sub-committees should be set up in all local authorities controlled by the county councils in the Republic. It is a disgraceful situation, to say the least of it, that a person who applies to a local authority for re-housing, a person who is prepared to provide a site for the local authority to build a house on, a person who is prepared to provide it at a fee of not more than £10, should have to wait from 2½ years to ten years to have a cottage built.

There are many legal problems the Minister or the Department could sort out. There are many legal problems the manager and his officials could sort out. There are many legal problems the members of the council cannot help, but these are minutiae in relation to all the red tape that is involved when people are trying to get re-housing in Donegal.

I understand that when a person applies, he offers a site and the engineer comes out to inspect it. If the site is passed, and if the house he is living in is condemned or if because of overcrowding, it is not suitable for his family—in other words, if he is in need of re-housing—the county council then OK him, or accept him as a potential candidate for re-housing in a house built on that site. At that stage the application goes to the Department for sanction, despite the fact that in the earlier post a similar application had been made at a similar stage, and despite the fact that in a previous post a similar application had been made. That is happening.

The Minister should delegate one official of Donegal County Council to advise him that these things are OK, and cut out this nonsense that exists at the moment in relation to housing. At that stage, after a month or two or three months, we are still at the stage that the Department have given sanction that a house can be built on the site. The county council then advertise and wait for a tender. The tenders are opened by the tenders committee of which the Minister knows I am not a member. A tender is sent to the Department for sanction and at that stage an engineer comes down to examine the site, and to examine the plan of the house, and, indeed, to go right over the ground that was gone over by the county council engineer months, or indeed years previously, and passed. That is what Harold Wilson has described as non-productive effort.

Small committees should be set up so that by agitation and by public opinion, strong arguments can be brought to bear on the officials of the Department. The Minister's supporters should make him realise that there is an easier way of doing these things. After all, it does not matter who builds the house, whether it is a Fianna Fáil Government, a Fine Gael Government or an inter-Party Government. It does not matter whether it is Deputy Neil Blaney as Minister for Local Government. These things do not matter. All that matters is that the houses are built. People want houses to live in and it does not matter who builds them for them.

The Minister should try to help in the specific instance cottages. That scheme is destined to fail in my county because it is being strangled by red tape in the Department. Officials of the county council must toe the line. They have no alternative but to go through these manoeuvres which are described as "official steps" and "under consideration". It is an appalling situation for a member of the county council to go into the housing section to inquire about a particular application and to be given exactly the same information as had been given six months earlier in a letter of which there is a copy on the file. This is disgraceful. The Minister knows as does any engineer or anybody with commonsense that it takes a certain amount of money to build a specific instance cottage, that you can build it on a certain site or you cannot. You know the contractor can build it or he cannot and you know the tenant needs it or does not. With that information, you can go ahead and build the house or you can forget about it and cut out all this red tape and nonsense.

I remember somebody saying that one of the first promises of the Minister for Local Government when he took his present office was that he would buy a pair of scissors to cut through the red tape. I do not know what happened. It appears that the longer he stays in that office, the more red tape there is. It appears in every regulation and not least in the present Planning Act, about which, more later. I think the specific instance scheme meets the wishes of the people in rural areas who are accustomed to living on their own in privacy and who are reluctant to move into a housing scheme. I believe it is a good and simple scheme, if all the red tape attached to it were abolished. The Minister has power to bring in regulations to shortcircuit the procedure. Why has he not done so long ago?

The situation in regard to scheme houses in the country is appalling. In the last fortnight in Stranorlar, tenants were appointed to a new housing scheme. A Fianna Fáil member, of the council who is a member of another House had a motion on the order paper of the county council asking that more houses be built in Stranorlar. That was a spontaneous reaction from this councillor publicly admitting that there is a great need there for rehousing in Stranorlar, and that after appointing tenants to 18 cottages. This is because people in other towns where no houses have been built have begun to tolerate their plight. They have come to accept that their neighbour is living in equally bad housing and they say: "Why should we grumble?" Only when better houses are provided for their neighbours, do they begin to say: "Why should we be living like this?" What is the answer to that question? They are entitled to houses. Society owes that section of the community at least a good house in which to rear a family free of disease. I may say to any of them who are living in bad houses and who find that, because of appalling housing conditions which they must tolerate, one of their children has contracted TB, at least the inter-Party Government played their part and provided sanatoria to cure this great social evil.

It is a remark which I do not wish to pursue. One way in which housing problems could be solved, apart from setting up small committees, is to provide houses for people who are now newly-weds. Every Deputy agrees that today's newly-wed is tomorrow's housing problem. One or two friends of mine came to me for advice on how they should go about applying to the county council for houses. Having heard my story, they decided to build a house themselves. In the first ten years of my married life, I was able to live in a kitchen and two bedrooms and I am blessed with a fairly large family. I advised one young man to build a small house, the plans of which are in the Government Publications Office, consisting of three rooms—a kitchen and two bedrooms. This is a house that could be extended in ten years time. If we made grants available to people such as those, they would be able to live in houses at a cost of £1 per week plus rates, in houses which would be their own, and we would be relieving the local authority of their responsibility to rehouse such people.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 6 Oct 1966

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Local Government (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Oct 1966