This is the seventh day on which this Vote for the Department of Local Government has been before the House. That indicates the interest taken in the debate and also the importance attached to this Department which covers a very wide field. I do not propose to go into every facet of it but I should like to comment on the activities of the Department during the past few years and particularly on the efforts made by the present Minister to activate housing authorities all over Ireland to come to him with plans and get the building programme going. Unfortunately, it would appear that there must have been bundles of red tape at county council level and they did not seem to get it unravelled until 1966-67 and then they all came in together, which is neither helpful nor progressive.
The housing programme for this year will again be as large as last year's and last year 11,000 houses were built, a substantial increase on the previous year. I have no doubt the number built this year will be as great. There is, of course, more money provided this year. Despite all the clamour for money and all the allegations made to county councils and county borough councils, I hope they will have spent it all and that it will not be lying in their respective accounts at the end of the year as money not absorbed. That had become a feature in the past, that allocations had always been taken up but had not always been spent. I hope that the allocation of £25.5 million this year will be well and fully spent at the end of the year. The Minister's plans and the Government's plans give a target figure of 14,000 houses by 1970 to fit in with the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. That appears to me to be fairly adequate, having regard to renewals and some expansion in the stock of houses.
I have heard it said that we have something like 600,000 family units. At 10,000 a year, this would give the life of a house as about 60 years, but at 14,000 houses a year this would bring the life of a house closer to 40 years. In the past, houses probably gave a lifetime of about 100 years, with due allowance for proper maintenance. With a target of 14,000 houses, one could reasonably hope that the housing problem would ultimately be solved as far as possible. It is sheer nonsense to think that any problem will ever be finally solved because we are planning and changing every day. Human nature itself is changing and development taking place daily. Movement of population is taking place, and in all these circumstances, it cannot be said that any particular plan can ever be finally battened down and finished with. The problem of housing will be just as great, I am sure, 100 or 1,000 years from now as it is today. It is a pity we could not make a perfect man and woman and have them all absolutely equal. We might then approach a Shangri-La of some kind but I am afraid we shall never succeed in doing that.
A tremendous fillip was given to housing by the passing into law on 12th July of the new Housing Bill. I hope the Minister will shortly issue the order making it effective. One of the good features of the Bill was section 5. I can see the benefit of this very clearly, especially in Counties Sligo and Leitrim, where the county councils are adopting this scheme and have made it work. Up to date I think some thousands of houses have been repaired under the scheme and I know that hundreds—even up to 1,000—are being prepared under the scheme.
It is a good scheme in so far as it provides minimum accommodation for old couples living in backward areas or in small holdings where there is little likelihood of succession by way of family or children afterwards. Ultimately, such a holding would pass away. This legislation was necessary because the particular type of people covered could not be catered for even by reconstruction grants. Sometimes they did not have the wherewithal to provide the money required in addition to the grant for reconstruction. Section 5 caters for them very well.
I should like the Minister to consider giving a slight increase and also urging the county councils to give a little more. At present the Minister gives £80 and Sligo County Council £120, as does Leitrim County Council. I should like a little more, because in most cases work should be done to give a more homely atmosphere. Standards are at a minimum and though some of the old houses have the roofs taken off, the ceilings are already there and all the houses need is an asbestos covering. I should like to see the Minister extending this work as far as possible.
Progress made in housing throughout the country since 1932 has brought about a transformation. Here and there one can see the passing away of the old thatched houses and the slated houses which up to recently had no plumbing or drainage are being replaced by modern new homes. Anybody associated with the building industry knows that large numbers of our people are making every effort to instal the most up-to-date amenities, including central heating.
All this in the years ahead will put tremendous pressure on the Department because as the standard of living rises, people will either want to renew their homes by building new ones or to modernise them by the installation of plumbing, drainage and in many cases central heating. Therefore, in the future there will be heavy demands on the Minister and the Department as the standard continues to rise. It is a sign of the times that these vast changes are taking place. Our desire to raise the standard of living has come to reality. This will not decrease as the years go by. It will become more and more a part of our lives and this demand for higher standards will react on the Department of Local Government who will need to be particularly vigilant in their reviews of the whole housing programme.
There are approximately 600,000 family units in the country. During the next 40 or 60 years, the programmes set by the Department must include provision for an increasing population because the family unit pool will change radically. During that period also, many of the 600,000 homes now in existence will become obsolete. Indeed many of them are already so. There will, therefore, be an increased urgency to replace homes quickly. This will apply particularly to small towns and cities because in the hearts of our cities already there is a high proportion of obsolete houses which must be replaced in the very near future.
As I have said, the problem will not get easier with the passing years and in this connection there have been complaints about the red tape at Departmental level and the consequential delays in approving housing schemes. Anyone with any idea of the planning of housing schemes or their design, even in the case of private enterprise, knows that the Department must be satisfied at all times that the standards are good and that the plans are good and that irrespective of the time it takes, Departmental officials must insist on certain standards being maintained. I must concur in this. It is necessary that care is taken in the field of local authority housing as well as in the private sphere and any Minister who, to satisfy demands by Deputies, tends to be less careful in the matter of either local authority housing or private housing would be very foolish because he would be laying himself open ultimately to accusations that he did not do his job.
On the suggestion that the Minister should intervene in the matter of tenancies, I should like to point out that this is purely a function of local councils. Though I do not like red tape, I am afraid that in future years we shall get more instead of less of it. In spite of red tape and the complaints about it, last year we built 11,000 houses and that is quite a good record. We have not got a pool of labour in this country to build many more houses in a year. In the category of skilled labour particularly there are shortages everywhere, not in the Gaeltacht alone.
Against that background, it is important that before releasing housing schemes for public tender, the Minister and the Department should satisfy themselves that they will not throw a glut of work on the market, thereby causing an escalation of prices. The Department must ensure that the volume of building at any stage will not be allowed to cause a glut and a consequential escalation in prices. There is always a danger of this in a rising economy where people want homes quickly. As well as in the field of local authority and private development programmes, the Minister must keep an eye on office and hospital building. He must, in conjunction with the other Departments, keep a wary eye on the pool of skilled labour available so that prices can be maintained at a competitive level.
On the question of finance, as I pointed out in my opening remarks a sum of £25.5 million is being provided this year. Of this, local authorities will get £11.75 million. In 1964-65, the allocation to local authorities was £6.8 million. Last year it was increased to £9.9 million and this has been increased this year to £11.75 million. Still we hear the clamour that there is no money for housing.
For private housing, including SDA schemes, the allocation in 1964/65 was £4.6 million. In 1965-66, it was increased to £6 million and in the current year, the allocation is £7 million. That is in addition to the funds available from building societies, insurance companies and other lending bodies. More money, of course, is being allocated for reconstruction and repairs of old houses. When the year has finished, I doubt if any local authority will be inclined to say it was a period in which they were held up for lack of money. I submit that if any complaint arises, it will be primarily attributable to the fact that the money available will not be fully spent. I believe that some schemes will be held up because of a shortage of skilled workers. Because of this, I foresee that many of the schemes will not be completed within the contract period.
I am glad to see the Minister is asking for a housing survey. I heard him mention this on many occasions, that every local authority should set down its needs in the short term and in the long term. I would like to see the Minister pursuing this vigorously because if he does not the local authorities will blame him for not doing their work. When this information is available what is needed is a phased plan for the building of houses in every county. These things cannot be done tomorrow or in a couple of years. The public are well aware of what can or cannot be done. If they show any anxiety it is to get somewhere in the queue. If every county council put forward a plan of development for housing requirements people would be satisfied. We all know people who are living in bad conditions. We also know people who are living in even worse conditions and who have a higher priority than others. The local authorities in letting houses must have regard to the worst cases. The people living in poor conditions would be well satisfied if they knew that in two, three or even five years' time they would become entitled to a house.
It has occurred to me for a good number of years now that the Minister ought to examine whether or not the building of houses at county council level is the best way of doing the work. It is an expensive business involving the engagement of architects and quantity surveyors by all of these bodies. The Minister set up the National Building Agency, and I believe this organisation should be developed to take over all housing from local authorities. I would not wish to see it done half and half; either do it 100 per cent or not at all, or maintain it on a limited basis for certain cases in respect of which it has proved useful up to now.
The Minister brought about the creation of a building advisory body some months ago. I understand their job is to examine the building industry, to establish continuity, as far as possible, to assess the needs of the industry and to consider methods of construction. This is welcomed. Any new method that can reduce the cost of building or advance the prefabrication of components is all to the good. The only difficulty I see in this kind of mechanical building is that it can take place only in respect of large groups of houses. From conversations I have had about this I understand these groups range from 100 up to 5,000 houses, in order to make it economic. This makes the position most difficult because in Ireland, with few exceptions, we do not build even 100 houses at one time but a much smaller number and the popular method of building at the moment is the traditional one. Whether people in need of houses are too conservative or builders are too conservative it is hard to say. I expect the builders are supplying the demands of their customers and probably the customers are reluctant to accept something they know nothing about. However, I wish the bodies I have mentioned success and I hope they will soon bring to the Minister and his Department their schemes and plans for building houses as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
There is a need even in traditional housing for improved design. There is a need for improved layout of estates. Sometimes I feel this improvement may be inhibited by the rather strict regulations laid down in the Housing Acts, but I am assured by some people this is not the position, that a lot can be done. I wonder what is the case for sticking to rigid room sizes. In some countries I have been in, particularly Germany, the main accent in homes is on living space, a good-sized kitchen, a good-sized sittingroom and diningroom, and less accent on sleeping apartments. When I asked them why they said: "One only sleeps there. One does not live there." Perhaps we could look at this matter again. In regard to the forthcoming standard building bye-laws, I hope these are advanced to the stage that the Minister can tell us something about them.
One hears much criticism these days in regard to the question of estates not being taken over by local authorities, and I understand this is the subject of an amendment to a Bill at the present time. It is most unfair to blame the Department of Local Government or the Minister for the situation in regard to these estates. Local authorities have all the power they need under section 35 of the Town Planning Act to ensure that developers hand over estates in proper condition. This is nothing more than the developer contracts for and undertakes to do. If this is not done, then it is for some other reason, and I suggest the reason is probably that the developer or the builder has no money to do it, or else he has died or has disposed of his interest. However, if local authorities sit back and do nothing about it, they are neglecting their responsibility.
Members of local authorities who may care to acquaint themselves with the requirements will see that there are no further laws that can be passed to improve the position. All that can be done at present is to push things as far as possible in order to get the job done. There is no point in pushing a person who has no money to get him to spend money. To leave estates in an unfinished condition for 50 years is a disgrace. I do not think the Minister can strengthen the hand of the local authority more than has already been done under the section of the Town Planning Act. However, I am satisfied that responsible builders and developers in the city of Dublin do finish estates and hand them over.
I know from personal experience that the difficulty is very often in getting local authorities to take over estates. Even when the work which they stipulate must be done has been carried out it is difficult to get them to take over the estates. They like to leave the matter for another couple of years to see if anything else might require to be done. The local authorities do not show any sense of urgency even where the developer is willing and anxious to hand over an estate. I would ask the Minister to see if he can do anything to ensure that estates are quickly finished and handed over.
Now I come to the matter of estate planning, having regard to the high price of land at the present time. It can be said that any kind of approved building land in Dublin today will command a price in the region of £3,000, if not more. The density figure of six houses to the acre tends to increase the cost of houses. Under the town planning regulations of Dublin Corporation, a builder can build 20 houses to the acre in zone A and 80 houses to the acre in zone B but, when one carries out all the bye-laws, one is lucky if one can get eight or nine houses to the acre. This problem, as many Members of the House know, is tied up with the front building line, the minimum size of back gardens and so on. It is most difficult to get the density up. The Minister and the Department could usefully consider this matter. There is also the question of the rigidly enforced 20 feet frontage for a building. The only way in which this can be got over is by special permission of the Minister. There should be some flexibility in regard to this rule so that the density may be increased. This can be done without cluttering an area. It is done successfully in other countries whose standards are fairly high and I cannot see why it cannot be done here. I should like to see more flexibility in regard to the density regulations.
One meets county engineers who take their office very seriously but without utilising their powers. There is only one county engineer who insists that every road in an estate shall be 24 feet wide. I agree that 24 feet would be necessary for a road that is carrying buses and lorries. For a road carrying residential traffic on which a couple of houses would have a car on each side of the road I suggest that 16 feet, the width adopted in other places, would be adequate. In some cases there is a 30 foot building line, a 24 foot wide road, two paths of six feet wide and grass margins six feet wide and 30 feet on the far side. There can be a distance of 90 to over 100 feet between the houses on either side of the road. Having regard to the pool of land available for housing, this means an escalation in price.
An Foras Forbartha comes under the Minister for Local Government. As far as I know, this body is responsible for physical planning, which I understand to mean physical planning and development in the country generally. At present An Foras Forbartha is working on schemes for Waterford and Galway. I hope its activities will extend further west, into Sligo. There is a great deal of responsibility resting on the officers of the Institute. Their task will not be an easy one. There are many towns and villages which are not in a position to accept or to accommodate an industry, because of lack of services. That is why I welcome the activities of An Foras Forbartha. It will be able to pinpoint the areas that can with safety be developed immediately and, also, the areas that are inhibited because they have not the necessary services for development. There is a small town in my constituency where the county manager threatened to cut off a water supply from an industry on the grounds that it was taking all the water. Notice was served on them to the effect that they must have their own water supply. An Foras Forbartha is in an ideal position to deal with such problems.
Problems arise not alone in relation to the placing of industries but, also, in relation to the provision of services of all kinds, including housing. There cannot be industrial development unless the housing needs of the potential workers are met. There must be simultaneous planning of industry and services. It is not enough to provide employment. Amenities must also be developed so that the leisure time of the workers will not become boring. It is as important to cater for leisure as it is to provide employment. There is an increasing demand for amenities at all levels.
The planning of industrial development in certain areas will, I am sure, follow certain lines. For instance, certain areas are more suitable for light engineering than others. There might be a nucleus of a light engineering industry in an area which could be developed. When similar types of industry are developed together, they become complementary to each other and this has the effect of accelerating development in an area. When the pool of knowledge is concentrated in an area, it can be useful all round. I am sure the planners will bear this in mind. The same applies to the textile industry, heavy engineering, cabinet-making, furniture and so on. The grouping of industries tends to make them stronger and give greater hope to the worker. He is no longer isolated. If he becomes redundant, he does not find himself without another job to walk into. He feels freer, less a prisoner, in an industrial zone than an isolated industry. He become a better worker. Any worker who feels free to walk out of one job into another is, by and large, easier to handle; although people may hold the view that if he has no alternative but to work in a particular industry, he will work better. I do not agree. Men work better when they are free in mind and body.
In certain rural areas, the pool of labour may be great but it is not always suitable labour. In many towns and rural areas, you find a percentage of people who say they are available for employment, but if you check their age and background, you find the age level is high and their previous experience is confined to work on small farms, roads and relief schemes. They are not always adaptable to new types of training and work. The idea ought to be to phase-develop and absorb the younger boys and girls coming from the school so that they can be trained for industrial work. Farm work and relief work on the county council is often of a fairly lethargical type—easy come, easy go— and if the worker is friendly with the ganger, he might have his job held open for him. This cannot apply to industrial development. Any well-organised industrial firm either needs you for a job or it does not. If you are going to stay out for the day, you had better arrange a substitute to take up your job while you are away. This is something the planners will have to face up to. Perhaps it is too early yet to expect any report from the county planning teams which were set up some time ago.
The Minister has shown tremendous interest in the need for the provision of swimming pools throughout the country. When the Minister asks for anything to be done, everybody wants to do it at once. Then they complain they do not get the money immediately. Swimming pools can be provided in every area requiring them but it should be a phased development. This should be put to local authorities in concrete terms. To provide amenities of this kind everywhere overnight is impossible. These people should be put in a queue and told: "You will get it such a year" and "You will get it such a year." In that way they could lay their plans accordingly. I welcome the development of these amenities. Not alone should every child be able to swim, but swimming provides healthy exercise for them and helps to develop their minds and bodies.
Somebody mentioned derelict sites. I cannot say I am excited about the use being made of the derelict sites grant and the amenity grant that goes with it. The Minister ought to circularise local authorities again urging them to use their powers of acquisition. If people do not clean up those unsightly ruins quickly, let the council take over the site and clear it. While on the subject of amenity grants, many of our seaside resorts of the west are a disgrace during the summertime. I would ask the Minister to request local authorities to provide at least minimum toilet requirements near bathing places. There are resorts I would be ashamed to go to because they have no toilet facilities whatever. Here is a further point. I have never seen any effort made to provide a simple fresh water shower in which one can wash off the salt water on returning from a swim. This is something which would improve the reputation of any of our seaside resorts.
We welcome the realistic approach of the Minister to the question of rents. We hear complaints in this House day in and day out about the rise in taxation. We hear the general litany of hardship. We are aware of people living in local authority houses for rents as low as 3/6d or 5/- a week. We are aware that many of those tenants have quite large incomes. But nothing has ever been done about it because of a Landlord and Tenant Act passed 20 or 30 years ago. Today their children are getting married and have to face the reality of an economic rent, which could well be £3 or even more. When fixing rents, local authorities have regard to people's means. I do not want to impose on any person of small income or limited means a tremendous rent, but we must be realistic about this. It is disgraceful to find an artisan putting down a deposit of £400 or £500 to buy a house, taking on the responsibility for a mortgage over 30 or 35 years and then being faced with a bill for rates of £40, £50 or £60. That man goes out each morning to his job and may well sit down to work with a man living in a subsidised local authority house who is getting more wages than he gets.
Wherein does our responsibility lie? What type of social justice do we seek? Local authorities must look at this realistically. If there is this increase in rates and taxation each year, surely it was brought about because we failed to face up to the responsibilities we are charged with and to meet our problems? In the life of every public man, he can run before the tide for so long but ultimately he must face up one day to his responsibilities, too. There is a day of reckoning coming for a lot of members of county councils and others who come into this House and go to county council meetings and complain about justice, while supporting injustice.
The Minister is now asking and urging local authorities to increase those rents and to help to reduce the new rents for the new home-owners and, indeed, to try to keep taxation down by making those pay who can afford to pay. Anybody who cares to trouble himself to go around some of the old housing estates in Dublin will notice the number of cars parked outside the homes and in the streets and can be in no doubt as to the position. I think, indeed, that local authorities should go farther. They should make it mandatory on the tenant fully to declare his income and, indeed, any changes that might arise in his income, either upwards or downwards. If his income goes up he should notify it and if it goes down he should notify it. We could have the position that when a person became unemployed his rent would immediately be subsidised or reduced by the county council.
This brings me to the point at which I might say that house ownership should be encouraged. The owner of a house has a stake in the land, as the saying goes, and is a much more responsible person. I know that the Department and the county councils have been pushing this for many years now. From the Minister's speech, I gathered that something like 72.5 per cent of the houses are already vested representing something like 63,198 houses. I should like to see vesting accelerated.
The person who owns his house removes even the charge of its maintenance from the county council. Furthermore, he becomes a ratepayer and subscribes to the general rate of the city or of the county. Altogether, he becomes a more responsible and settled citizen. A person who becomes a tenant of a house may not alone not maintain it but it costs the local authority quite a lot each year to maintain it. Furthermore, he does not even tend to be house-proud. It is very important that every person should develop, if he has not already got it, this quality of being house-proud. One factor, above all, which encourages it is ownership in this particular field.
In the matter of road safety, the Minister has been carrying out a campaign of propaganda and indeed has been bringing in new legislation. I shall not say anything more about it except to mention that trends would indicate that strong rules and regulations must be brought in about the mechanical conditions of road vehicles, not alone of cars already on the road but of new cars coming on the road. I think a lot of new cars ought to be brought up to certain standards and that steps should be taken to ensure that these standards are adhered to without any question. One hears a general blaming of inebriated drivers for being the main cause of accidents. I think it is possible that over-tired drivers, people driving cars who have not been to bed the night before, people driving cars who have been working hard all day, contribute to road accidents. I know myself, from experience of driving, the number of times I have had to stop because sleep started to overtake me and I started to nod off, as it were. These are far more dangerous conditions, probably, than a person who might have taken a drink in moderation. However, all of these factors contribute to accidents. It is important to bear in mind the mechanical condition not alone of old cars but of new cars, too.
With regard to planning and urban renewal, I think this problem of urban renewal will have to be tackled and it will be a mansized job. In our major cities, it is already a problem. In Dublin, property will have to be acquired, demolished and rebuilt and that will call for greater planning, imagination and a tremendous amount of money. I have seen what has been done in other countries. I know that in parts of America the city authorities are urged to buy property, where urban renewal is desirable and then to sell the property to a developer and any loss that is suffered between the cost and the selling price is made up by a Federal grant. We may have to do something of that nature in relation to the centre of Dublin city. It may well be necessary to bring in special legislation so as to have a more rapid rate of urban renewal. Most of the grand old streets of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for which Dublin has rightly been famous, are now pretty well worn out and obsolete. Probably they could be preserved for a few more years with the aid of some further money but ultimately they must change and the whole of the centre of Dublin city will have to be renewed. This is a matter that will face the Minister in a few years' time.
I want to compliment the Minister on the legislation he has piloted through this House during the year and on the work he has done in his Department. I want also to say that the recent award to him of membership of the Town Planning Institute is a well-deserved tribute. We know that the Minister has taken a deep interest in town-planning and has gone to great lengths to acquaint himself with all aspects of it. I have a word to say for a former member of the Department who, until recently, was the Secretary, Mr. John Garvin, who has retired. I want to take this opportunity of wishing him success in his retirement and, at the same time, to welcome the new Secretary of the Department and to hope that he will have many years of progress and success.
