Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Mar 1970

Vol. 245 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26: Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy Hogan).

Mr. Bruton

One of the big problems facing ratepayers in Meath is the burden of payment of compensation for malicious damage. The burden is particularly high at the moment due to an organised series of malicious attacks on property in the county. It is certain that the overwhelming majority of Meath ratepayers not only had nothing to do with them but abhor them. It has not been proved that Meath people were involved at all and a strong sense of injustice is felt because Meath people have to bear the burden.

A solution advocated is the introduction of a Bill similar to the one whereby the State relieved Dublin Corporation of the burden of paying compensation to the Trustees of Nelson Pillar for damage done to that pillar, a substantial portion of which was malicious damage committed by lawbreakers. The Army subsequently finished off the job but that does not take away from the fact that the initial damage was malicious and illegal and the State paid compensation for that damage as well as for the damage done by the Army. Why cannot the same thing be done in Meath? Has the Minister any more reason to believe that the people of Meath are responsible for the burnings than he has that the people of Dublin were responsible for the blowing-up of Nelson Pillar? Why should Dublin Corporation have an immunity which is denied to Meath County Council?

It must be realised that the introduction of such a Bill would merely be a stop-gap measure. The whole system of payment of compensation for malicious damage needs to be overhauled. Another solution which has been advocated is that insurance companies should pay the whole cost. This may seem an attractive solution at first sight but it would involve a big increase in the insurance premiums for insurance on property which might be susceptible to malicious attack. Farmers and people with property in isolated areas, which could not be easily policed, would have to pay particularly high insurance premiums because of the greater vulnerability of their property to malicious attack. Furthermore, people who are locally unpopular, and are known to be such by insurance companies, regardless of whether or not this unpopularity was justified, would find they would have to pay higher insurance premiums because they would be a greater malicious damage risk than people who were locally popular. The insurance companies would have no interest in the rights or wrongs of the situation. If a person was thought to be a malicious damage risk then his premium would go up. I do not think handing the matter over holus bolus to the insurance companies will solve the problem. It would merely lead to the creation of still further injustice.

If malicious damage claims were handed over completely to insurance companies they would look for a profit on the deal and this would also lead to an increase in the premiums. At present the county councils administer what is effectively a mutual insurance scheme for all ratepayers, who are, by definition, property holders, against malicious damage to their property. It may be unpalatable when one has to pay up for what one might call an insurance scheme but at least one knows that no third party, such as the shareholders of an insurance company, are making a profit on the deal because, apart from administration costs, all the money goes back in compensation.

What is really unjust about the present system is that one county has to pay for all the malicious damage committed within its boundaries. The original idea behind the scheme was not the idea of mutual insurance against malicious damage but the idea of punishing local residents for damage committed in their area on the presumption that they were likely to be directly or indirectly responsible for these damages. This was extremely rough justice at the best of times, but in modern times with motor cars and good roads it is very doubtful that a major act of malicious damage would be committed by residents of an area. It is very simple to cross county boundaries nowadays and such acts can readily be committed by residents of other counties.

This is particularly so in the case of organised acts of malicious damage. In such cases it is of positive advantage to have people not resident in the county committing malicious attacks for the simple reason that strangers are less likely to be detected and I think this was definitely the case in relation to the recent burnings in County Meath. Therefore, it is highly unjust to ask the people of Meath to bear the burden of compensation for this damage.

The present code also has another complication in that it—marginally, I agree—encourages people to cross county boundaries to commit acts of malicious damage. If they do damage in another county, they know that, even if they are ratepayers, they will not have to pay any part of the compensation for that damage, because it is the ratepayers in the other county who have to pay it. If compensation for malicious damage had to be borne on a national basis at least they would have to pay some share of it. Outsiders who go into another county to commit acts of malicious damage at the moment know it is the ratepayers of that county and not themselves who will have to pay compensation. This is unjust.

If the responsibility for paying compensation were a national charge everyone, including outsiders who cross county boundaries, would have to pay their share. It is also worth noting that the responsibility for preventing malicious damage rests with the Garda who are controlled on a national basis. If they fail to prevent malicious damage, the cost of their failure should surely be borne, logically, on a national basis also.

The processing of claims for malicious damage is also a complicated business. In many cases it involves abstruse points of law in the contesting of claims. If the responsibility for contesting and processing these claims were centralised in a national office instead of being duplicated in every local authority as it is at present, this would lead to greater efficiency and lower costs because officials would be able to specialise in malicious damage claims and would come to know all the tricks involved in dealing with such claims.

At present the responsibility for dealing with such claims is a secondary responsibility of some official in each county council who has some other primary job. Therefore, he obviously has not the time or the interest to become fully acquainted with all the complications of the malicious damage law. In short, not only would it be more just but it would also be more economic to pay and administer the compensation for malicious damage claims on a national basis and not on a county basis, as is the case at present.

This could be done in either of two ways. It could be borne by general taxation or, if that were considered undesirable, it could be borne through an agreement between the county councils to pay a fixed share each year into a common fund out of which all malicious damage claims would be met. It is quite possible that the setting up of such a fund would not require legislation. I do not know the legal complexities but it is possible that the county councils could come together and set up such a fund to mutually insure one another against a very high incidence of malicious damage in one year. I have a recollection that in Northern Ireland claims for compensation for malicious damage are met on a mutual basis by all the counties and that they all pay something into a common fund out of which the claims are met.

I should like to pass on now to a more general topic in respect of local government. One of the major ideas in modern social thinking is the idea that the ordinary citizen should have a greater participation in decisions which are taken on his behalf and which affect his livelihood. There is a widespread fear that, as modern society becomes more complex, the ordinary man in the street will have no control whatever over the vast State bureaucracy which invades every aspect of his life. To have a virile local government system is the best possible way of preventing such a development. Ordinary people have a greater ability to participate in decisions at local level than at any other level. The issues involved at local level are usually simple and more familiar and, therefore, they can put forward more coherent views on these issues. If broad concepts of national Government policy arise at local level, they can always be related to immediate experience and to things which are going on in the local area. Therefore they can be made more comprehensible.

Furthermore, the main purpose of the democratic process is the achievement of some form of common purpose among those participating in decisions. It is obviously much easier to achieve a common purpose in a relatively small community than in a large one. A nation of one million people, most of whom are totally unknown to one another cannot develop a common purpose except in emergencies, such as in war-time, or on very simple issues. At the level of a provincial town all the people involved in a local issue are likely to know one another personally and can communicate easily with one another and thereby develop the common purpose which is essential if democracy is to operate properly.

It appears to me that if we develop a new concept of local government we will go a long way towards making this country much more democratic in the real sense than it is at present. The first need in reforming our concept of local government in order to give a more participation-orientated community is a re-definition of what a local issue is and therefore rightly coming within the ambit of local government. These issues should include not just the issues which have been traditionally the responsibility of the county councils but also all Government decisions affecting the local area. Issues like the route of the local school bus, the operation of the local labour exchange, the local postal service and the local Garda are just as much local issues, to my mind, as issues like housing and health which have traditionally come within the ambit of what we call local government.

Obviously one could not give local councils complete control over all these matters just as they have not complete control over all the matters which are at present involved in local government. There must be some national uniformity between one area and the next. It would be inconceivable, for instance, that the postal service in one area would be completely different from and not co-ordinated with the postal service in the neighbouring area. Therefore there is a problem in reconciling local control with national efficiency.

I would suggest this as a possible approach towards reforming local government. A possible way out of this dilemma would be to leave all the actual decisions to a monolithic Civil Service, responsible to a Minister, and to spread the right to question these decisions and publicly to criticise them and demand a public explanation of them. In other words, the actual taking of the decisions would be concentrated in one unitary body, but the right to criticise would be dispersed in the Dáil, the county councils and smaller councils and all would have the right to criticise and demand explanations. This right to question which I am putting forward is similar to the right which all Deputies exercise here in respect of Parliamentary questions and getting Ministerial comments on proposals they might put forward in an Estimate debate.

Nobody really believes that Dáil Deputies in participating in Parliamentary questions or in Estimate debates here have real control over the Minister's decision. Nobody has ever claimed that, although this is probably the basis of the Parliamentary theory which led to the growth of this and other Houses on which it is modelled. Deputies can, however, by demanding explanations and by expressing views make the Minister publicly explain his decisions. They can have an indirect influence on the decisions he takes. This is the essence of what is happening.

I can see no reason why this right to demand public explanations and to have public debate here which the Minister or his officials would have to answer, should not be extended to local councils throughout the country. Local councils should be given the right to have the Government official responsible for, say, the routing of the local school bus come before them and answer any criticisms which arise from this matter. This right to demand explanations on local issues should be vested in local councils in practically every parish. The council would not, as I say, be in the position to force the Minister or the official to take a particular line of action, but they would at least be able, by public debate at local level, to mobilise public opinion to the extent that a full and adequate explanation of a decision would have to be given.

This system would ensure that Government activity in all fields would be fully responsive to local needs. The Government could also have the benefit of useful suggestions from local people which they do not have at the moment. People would find there would be less occasion to form protest groups, which can often be disruptive, than they do at the moment. The major reason for the formation of such protest groups is that there is a feeling that no one can get at the official responsible for a particular administrative decision other than by taking to the streets.

A network of councils not only at county level but, perhaps, parish level, covering the whole range of Government activity, not just local issues, would provide ample opportunity for the discussion of all reasonable points of view and Government decisions in so far as they affect local areas. Councils at these lower levels would be more effective in that you would know personally the people affected by these decisions and there would be more likelihood that at such local level you would achieve a greater sense of community than at a county level where people do not know one another from one end of the county to the other. Councils set up at least at electoral area level would make a very significant contribution to making this country a more democratic one than it is at present.

These councils could also have the effect of relieving Deputies of the burden of constituency work which in some cases prevents them from playing an effective part in the deliberations here in the Dáil. Many local issues come before Deputies because the ordinary people feel that they cannot get at the Civil Service or at the decision-makers other than through the help of a Deputy. People would be able to do this through local councils such as I am suggesting without going to their Deputies and this would free Deputies to do the research which would enable them to compete adequately with Ministers on national issues and would ensure that the Minister does not get away with anything.

Passing from that, I should like to refer to the question of the publication of annual reports by county councils. Subsidiary bodies in the county council, the county committees of agriculture and the vocational education committees, do publish annual reports. Why therefore does the housing section or the engineering section not publish annual reports as well? Very often the work of these councils involves the expenditure of large amounts of money and it would appear to me to be very sensible that they should publish annual reports so that their work could be scrutinised not only by councillors but by any member of the public who chooses to buy the annual report.

There is a feeling that the amount of money allocated for sanitary services by the Department has been somewhat phased down by comparison with other forms of local government expenditure. There may be some reason for this. There may be more desirable matters on which money could be spent, like housing; but sanitary services should not be allowed to lag completely behind, which they are in danger of doing at the moment.

The Mornington sewerage scheme, as far as I know, has been with the Department for the past nine months, and there is a great need to have this scheme implemented as soon as possible in the area of east Meath covered by it. I would urge the Minister to do all he can to expedite consideration of this scheme to ensure that people are not, through bureaucratic delay, deprived of this essential service.

In order to qualify for a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts the income limit is £1,200 or £50 rateable valuation. This income limit and valuation limit have not been revised upwards since 1962. The value of money and the value of an income of £1,200 has fallen rapidly since 1962. Therefore the revision upwards of the income limit is now long overdue. This also applies to the rateable valuation limit. The earning capacity of a farm of £50 valuation has also fallen considerably since 1962 and there is a need to revise upwards the valuation limit.

I understand there is a rather anomalous situation obtaining in regard to the valuation limit. The valuation limit for qualification for most forms of health service is £60 but in respect of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts it is, for some odd reason, £50. Why have a lower valuation here for loans under the Small Dwellings Act? Surely this is anomalous.

I want to make passing reference to the question of regionalisation which seems to be broadly envisaged in Government policy in regard to local government. The Devlin Report envisages giving greater freedom of initiative to local authorities but there is a danger that the good effects of such a proposal would be removed by excessive regionalisation of local government and that the local authority would be getting further away from the ordinary people. It is far enough away at county level at present; most people can have little understanding or opportunity, as I was explaining earlier, of participating in the decisions at county level. Regionalisation may be very efficient but it is likely to be considerably less democratic. This is something that must be watched. Possibly a way of reconciling the idea of efficiency in regard to decision-making with the idea of having greater local participation could be found in my suggestion earlier about local councils which would have the right to question but not necessarily to decide.

There is also a slight danger that may occur as regionalisation progresses in respect of local government. This is in regard to the choice of administrative centre for the region. I believe that there have been certain difficulties under the regionalisation policy being put into effect in respect of health. There is, first, the grave wrangling between the various counties as to where the centre should be sited and if this is going to operate over the whole field of local government and if local government is to be concentrated there will be even more wrangling because employment given by local government is very important in the county where it is based and if a county is to be deprived of this and all local government centred in one regional centre it will create serious local opposition.

A big problem, I understand, which has come up in respect of health matters is that while, admittedly, they were given certain time to come to a decision on which county town would be the centre for the region, apparently they were not given enough time to make the necessary arrangements in regard to the services and their transfer from the county town to the regional centre. I am not sure the Minister should do so, but if he is proceeding with regionalisation I hope he will give adequate time to local authorities to enable them to make all necessary arrangements so that there will be a smooth transfer and that we will not have some services left behind in the county town and not transferred in time to the regional centre.

If regionalisation is to be introduced it should be done very slowly and after full consideration of all the implications, not merely economic ones. Implementation of regionalisation should proceed at a pace that will ensure that changes can be made in time.

Mr. Keating

First, I want to talk about a matter that is exercising people's minds all over the country at present, differential rents. I cannot speak on the system as it operates anywhere from direct knowledge except in my own constituency and specifically in Ballymun and what I have to say will be based on that direct experience. In my opinion and that of those with whom I have been discussing this recently the basic idea of differential rents is perfectly proper. That people should pay at a different level in relation to their means and the number of those dependent on them is a decent, humane and honourable point of view that I think would find very wide acceptance on all sides of the House.

When one hears complaints, as one frequently does, of the present differential rents scheme as operated in Dublin the answer is often given that the concept of differential rents was a Labour concept introduced by the late James Larkin. I am not certain of this but if it is true it was a perfectly proper and progressive thing to do and it is something of which the Labour Party are in no way ashamed. I want to assure the Minister that we are not pressing on this side of the House for the abolition of differential rents but we are profoundly concerned—for myself I must say, deeply moved and disturbed—by the effects of the scheme as it operates at present. I can well believe that this is a situation that has grown, as a result of a series of improvisations and difficulties, to its present enormity. I use the word "enormity" advisedly because although I have given approval to the basic idea of a differential rents scheme, it seems to me that the B scheme as operated by Dublin Corporation has grown away from its original form to something that is not just lacking in basic justice but something that is bad for the psychology, the actual character and development and personality of the people who try to live under it.

Before trying to pinpoint the defects and urge the Minister in the light of experience that he must share with me and with everybody else who has to deal with tenants living under this scheme, I want to make the basic point that the provision of accommodation for working people in our present economic structure is profoundly difficult and in criticising what the Minister has done I want to take a little time to outline from my point of view the basis of the difficulties. These are difficulties that would face any Minister for Local Government unless we took it into our heads nationally to make fairly fundamental alterations in the basic structure of our financial institutions. We are paying a very high price—I do not propose to discuss how high on this Estimate—for the exorbitant and extortionate rates of interest which now prevail over much of the world including Ireland.

I may be told that this is irrelevant to the problem of local government housing and B scale rents and that there is nothing we can do about it. I suggest it is not irrelevant and that the problem is not insoluble but it is the basis of many of our difficulties. Mistakenly, in my opinion, we have not chosen during the life of this State to establish monetary or fiscal independence.

In the circumstances of the last few years when there were simultaneously a boom and rapid inflation in the United States and in parts of western Europe money was bid for in economic centres where the rate of profit was high, where the economy was extremely dynamic and where people believed they could afford to pay 10 per cent for what they borrowed and still carry on their economy successfully. However, because we were a part of the sterling area and because the natural capital accumulation occurring as a result of the labour of the Irish people was not held inside Ireland our capital went up for bids on this international market and if we want to borrow, whether it be for houses, for a small shopkeeper or a small farmer, we must pay this rate of interest also.

This means that what is an economic rent, so-called, is fundamentally and inescapably an injust rent and a very simple arithmetical exercise will indicate this. If the cost of a new dwelling unit, whether in terms of houses or high-rise buildings, is £3,000, and if the money has to be borrowed, then the annual repayment of interest before any repayment of the capital comes about, is £300 a year or almost £6 a week; repayment and various other charges must be added to this. The net result of our participation in world interest rates as a tiny, weak and relatively non-dynamic economy— while admitting the progress that has been made—is that the cost of a unit of dwelling for a working person in Dublin is prohibitively high and an enormous and increasing section of total income has to be devoted simply to providing accommodation for himself and his family. I freely admit this situation is not of the Minister's making, nor of any other Minister's making, but any discussion of rents must ultimately come back to the fact that the working people are being beggared by the existing interest rates, as indeed are small farmers and shopkeepers and those who purchase articles under hire purchase who must borrow at this level of interest rate.

I suggest in passing—I shall not develop it in speaking on this Estimate —that this situation could be remedied were we to have control over the outflow and exchange of our currency with sterling. I know that certain disadvantages——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the Estimate.

Mr. Keating

It is reasonably relevant. The point is, had we so decided we could have made the task of any Minister for Local Government a great deal easier by establishing the sort of exchange control which would remove our surplus capital from the position where it was bid for by people whose rate of growth and profit were much greater than ours. There are countries in Europe where the cost of money for housing is much lower than ours precisely because they have an independent financial unit and where the cost of credit is determined by internal demand and not by the demand that might be generated in the extremely dynamic and rapidly inflating economy of the United States.

Having said that, and having agreed that this is to a great extent the heart of the matter in terms of economic rents, then we have to say "Are we correct, are we permitted to allow the poorer and less well-off sections to spend such a high proportion of their total income on accommodation"? I know there are some scattered and relatively narrow, not all-embracing schemes in connection with the reduction of the cost of credit for the building of homes but the transfer of wealth from working people to those who have money to lend will not be halted unless we do something drastic about interest rates in regard to the provision of capital for dwellings. This applies whether it is high-rise buildings or houses built by a local authority, a national agency or private builders.

With that acceptance of a basically difficult situation which the Minister did not create, I wish to refer to the B scale as it exists at the moment. The Minister must know of the sense of despair and of uncertainty the tenants have when they get a big bill and, at times, the sense of fury evident in people living in Ballymun who come under the scope of the B scale rents. That system has grown from what was essentially a good idea into a scheme that puts a premium on dishonesty because people are being encouraged by the existing scheme to deceive the authorities about their incomes. Further, the rent is adjusted in the light of very minor and temporary fluctuations in the family income. It is a scheme that often acts against people striving by their exertions to do some overtime to earn extra money, to better their lot by their own efforts, because they say to themselves "If we do that we will merely have the rent increased". It is a scheme that militates against other members of a household going out to earn because the argument is the same and, since it is extremely difficult to operate, it is a scheme I believe to be very expensive to operate. The situation now exists that everybody knows many of the adjustments being made are catching some, but only a proportion, of those who under the present regulations would have to pay. It is working to produce an inequitable situation where originally the aim of the differential rents was the opposite and when one hears it spoken of in Ballymun one can see that it is producing uncertainty in the minds of the tenants that when they will get a large bill to pay they will be able to meet it. This is leading to nervous depression on the part of young married women, to stresses inside the family and even at times driving people to the brink of suicide.

I accept that this is not the intention but the scheme has grown to a degree of complexity, a degree of unmanageability and of high cost in continuous adjustment and correction that makes it necessary to abandon it. If the Minister finds the word "abandon" too strong in this context I shall not argue the point. The real essential is surely that rents should be assessed on the basis of the basic earnings of the head of the household, not subject to fluctuation if other members of the household go to work for longer or shorter periods and, indeed, not subject to the collection of arrears of rent if the head of the household works overtime. This approach has the effect of filling tenants subjected to this exercise with an appalling sense of insecurity. A return to the basic concept of a differential rent calculated on the basic earnings of the head of the household would be, I think, widely acceptable and would remove a great deal of the impotent fury that I see in my own constituency at the moment. Local authority tenants in other parts of the country are also demonstrating.

These rents have evolved, as I said, as a result of a series of improvisations, which have sometimes produced a good result but, in present circumstances, the result is the opposite of that intended by those who introduced the concept originally. In the long run this scheme is, as I see it, destructive of human personality and of the wellbeing of those whom it was originally designed to help. As a result of my experience and as a result of hearing from those directly concerned what their circumstances are, the feeling has grown upon me that this scheme in its present form has moved out of line with our concepts of social justice, equity and humanity. Before the situation blows up I appeal to the Minister to make such modifications as will remove from those now on the B scale the very sharp sense of injustice under which they suffer.

I want now to take up a matter which has become exceedingly fashionable. It is a matter about which I, as an agricultural and scientific journalist, have been talking for the past ten years, and more. I refer to the problem of pollution. Pollution is now news. Pollution is a bandwagon on which to climb. I shall not refer to the past other than to say that my interest is of long standing. Anyone who cares about the preservation of this planet—that must mean all of us—in a form in which human life can survive, healthily and happily, with some sense of human fulfilment, must be deeply disturbed about the way in which the needs of modern industry and agriculture have been allowed to damage our environment.

I want to say at this stage—I say this as a farmer—that we are now faced with exactly the same problem facing anyone in industry; we are faced with the task of reconciling the perfectly proper, legitimate and necessary needs and demands of those engaged in industry and agriculture on the one hand with the proper, legitimate and necessary demands of conservationists on the other. To think we could put back the clock, to think we could exist in a world in which no chemical methods of aid to agriculture and no chemical pollution by industry would exist at all is to deny to a growing world population the standard of living they have come to expect and the growth in that standard they have come to accept as essential. The problem is a problem of reconciliation; it is not a problem of outlawing. It is a question of humanising the industrial processes which threaten our planet. As I say, it is a question of reconciliation. It is sometimes a question of compelling people to do things for the good of everyone else in a way which is slightly more expensive. It is not a question—here I speak as a conservationist—of abolition and it is not a question of interfering with the legitimate use of legitimate chemicals.

Having said that, I want now to turn to the problem as it faces us in this country. We have the good fortune to be as yet not too deeply involved as are other European countries in the problem of pollution. This is partly because our population density is low and our relative level of industrialisation is less high than in some neighbouring countries and partly because the intensification of our agriculture, because of the agricultural price structure under which we laboured for a very long time, is lower than it is in neighbouring countries. The problem, therefore, is less intense here than it is elsewhere. We have, however, to travel only 100 miles, or so, to the great conurbations of industrial England to see just what destruction of environment and what destruction of human values can follow from pollution if a move is not made at an early stage to check the growth of environmental pollution. We have the great good fortune to be where we are in terms of climate, population density and undespoiled countryside—despite the efforts of certain philistines. The fact that we still have an environment uncrushed by ruthless industrialisation is something that is not just of psychological and moral value to us but is of incalculable value to the future of our tourist industry and to the future of our relationship with those countries in which population density is greater than it is here and in which the destruction of environment has gone much further. What we have to offer in terms of clean water, clean air, a clean countryside and, if we can get that far, clean streets and clean buildings will be something for which there will be a very real hunger experienced by hundreds of millions of Europeans, who are not very far from us but whose environment has already been destroyed.

The task before us is a very important one. The initiatives that have been shown recently by both public and private bodies are to be welcomed. We are becoming aware of the danger at a time when, in contradistinction to many European countries, not too much damage has been done to our environment. If we move now we can halt the process without doing immeasurable economic damage to either industry or agriculture. I would urge conservationists to retain the goodwill of the people because it is on goodwill success will depend. It is on goodwill success in the anti-pollution drive inevitably hinges. Conservationists must retain that goodwill by making their demands reasonable and possible and by aligning what they demand with the legitimate demands of both agriculture and industry.

Perhaps a dozen years ago in a European country, where farming is more intensive than it is here, I recollect hearing a professor of pharmacology saying that we no longer had agriculture but that we had chemical warfare. It was striking for someone from Ireland to hear that then. It was not then true in Ireland, and is not yet true here. The range of extremely powerful, and in many cases persistent, chemicals which is available to farmers is increasing all the time. As the drive for intensification continues utilisation of long-known chemicals intensifies also. As the development of high-density housing for livestock goes ahead the problem of slurry and of disposal of animal outputs and effluent from silage becomes more intense. The point I wish to make about anyone who, as a farmer, is producing obnoxious effluent is that he is also a citizen of a local community and probably a man who likes to fish and who takes great pleasure and pride in his environment. He is not automatically determined to get the last possible economic return from the use of chemicals if he sees that such use is to the detriment of the environment which is so precious to him. I have less knowledge of industrialists but I feel the same thing applies also in their case.

The great task at the moment is one of education, persuasion and explanation and of making the entire population aware, by all the resources available to the Government and through all media, of the importance of this subject. On this subject there should be no party political advantage to be gained nor should we take up positions against each other for political reasons. This is something which affects all the inhabitants of this island, whatever their income level and wherever they live. We are reaching a stage where the Government must take restrictive action in regard to the various effluents and discharges from factories and farms, in regard to the use of chemicals and in regard to water utilisation. Action must be taken also in regard to the treatment of food substances. If the Government have to take restrictive measures, saying that one may not use certain chemicals or release certain substances into the air or into the water, such restrictions will be accepted provided there is sufficient comprehension of the need for them. The growth of industry, agriculture and of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries makes such restrictions necessary. If this is done in what one might call an administrative way, rather than in a democratic way, the regulations will be resented and violated wherever possible.

In the past it has seemed to me that the Minister has had a tendency to do things which I would consider correct and permissible, even laudable, in a way which made me and many other people resentful. I am referring to another area of the Minister's responsibility. I am speaking about the imposition of speed limits, as an example of the Minister's methods. I will return to the question of pollution shortly. It was permissible to impose speed limits, but the imposition was carried out in an impermissible way. I believe there would have been widespread acceptance of the 60 m.p.h. speed limit and it would have been much less violated had there been a campaign of explanation of the dangers and of the needs for such limits and a discussion of the alternatives. I may be told that there had been propaganda but I feel that what happened was that one day we found there was an order in existence which imposed speed limits. There was no proper process of consultation or discussion beforehand. There was no process of democratic participation or explanation, or even of public relations. The attitude of doing good by stealth is one which gets people's backs up and negatives the objective of the legislation brought about in such a non-democratic way.

With regard to pollution, the task at the moment is to explain to everyone, but particularly to the young that we must do our best for our land precisely because, as humans, we are transient and we hold the land in trust for generations to come who are entitled to judge us by the condition in which we hand such land over to them. If we value the fabric of the land, and even the physical embodiment of its history we must respect that fabric and protect the physical embodiment of its history in terms of its historic buildings and structures. We must limit the destruction of the environment by pollution in a way which is more rigorous than at present. We must do this after a process of explanation, discussion and participation. The propaganda must be such that it will be a matter not for the imposing of rules but for the acceptance of standards by the population as a whole. If this seems slightly quixotic or appears to be exaggerated hope, I would reply that we have no option but to trust the people as a whole in this matter. We have no option but to educate them. We must persuade them that the preservation of their environment and minimisation of pollution is in everybody's interest. Sometimes I feel that the Minister will do what he feels he has to do without caring in the least what people think about his actions. Provided his actions are right in his own view, the Minister will go ahead. This is laudable in some ways but it often produces what is known as a negative feed-back and often engenders hostility to the new regulations which result in their being evaded.

I am begging that when we move on to the limitation of the rights of industrialists and farmers and even of people with open coal fires to discharge their open coal fire smoke into city environments—which stage we must reach in the interests of the population at large —this should be done in a most humane manner after the deepest possible discussion. We have no option but to trust people and to educate them. Having said that, I would urge the Minister in the framing of more rigorous regulations which we may make in regard to chemicals and pollution of the atmosphere and in regard to the use of chemical additives in foodstuffs, in regard to getting our rivers to the stage where they are living and beautiful things—some of them have been destroyed; they are now biologically dead and have become sewers—that it be done through consultation with all the possible interests, including the people who are there to enjoy them, the populace at large.

I should like to give an undertaking, for my part, that to the extent to which the Minister deepens the discussion about pollution, explains the needs about pollution, he will find goodwill in the Opposition parties; he will find an absence of "politicking", an absence of trying to gain political advantage from this situation because he will find acceptance of the necessity for action. At the same time, however, we realise that some of our necessary actions must inevitably engender some hostility and some resentment.

I also want to say something about itinerants. Indeed, if it will not cause him to reconsider his actions I should like to compliment the Minister. There is evidence that this is something about which he feels deeply. However, it has to be said again in public—it has been said before and no doubt will have to be said many times more—that before public opinion changes on this, and again this is not a matter of party, we must as a nation accept very great responsibility, a stigma, that we have behaved with so much inhumanity for so many years to an excluded, alien and helpless section of the community. One judges a nation in many ways and an important way is the way it treats the weakest sections of the community, children perhaps, the old, the disadvantaged in various ways. Who is more disadvantaged than a child born in a caravan on the side of a road who is never able to plug into ordinary life by the ability to read and to write? The lack of being able to read or to write is a terrible exclusion from contact with knowledge, with the possibility of enlargement and advancement.

I know the reaction in rural communities. I know of the filth that is left along the side of a road when itinerants move on. I know the state of subdued warfare between—I suppose the word "tinkers" is not looked on as a proper one now—itinerants and many local populaces. I understand the basis of the determination that is sometimes expressed by particular communities that "if they have to be settled they can be settled somewhere else but not here". While one can understand that I do not think one can accept it. One has to go back and say that these people are gravely disadvantaged and they are citizens of our nation; they are men and women who are participants in mankind, as we are, and all our professions of religious belief, our professions of goodwill towards mankind are pretty hollow if we go on behaving towards them as we have been. Therefore the initiatives of the Minister are to be welcomed and applauded. His advice, which sadly he had occasion to repeat more than once, to local authorities to hasten with the provision of sites where permanent settlements could be established is to be applauded from all sides of the House.

This is an area in which each of us possesses a specific local influence, in a constituency or in a community, and each of us has a responsibility in this domain. We must accept a criticism for having discharged this responsibility in the past less than adequately. Again, this is an area in which there should be no political disagreement and in which all of us must applaud the initiatives that have been shown and which we must accept and support in order to ensure that in a very few years there will be no people in our community who are cut off by a sense of alienation, by illiteracy, by a lack of roots or by the hostility, often the absolutely open and naked hostility, which is expressed when itinerants try to settle down in a specific place. This is a blot and a stigma and it is very shameful.

Finally, I want to turn in a general way to the question of planning, local planning, regional planning, the concept of amenity, the matter of the total physical planning of a region. This again is something like pollution which is relatively new and relatively fashionable. However, it is accepted now that if the pursuits by which we gain our living, the growth of industry, of transportation and of housing, are permitted to proceed in the way in which they have been proceeding— we can take as an example the industrial explosion in parts of England in the last century—we will have the sorts of urban problems that now plague every big city in the world; we will have the sort of destruction of the landscape, and we will have cities which, apart from their psychological and physical drawbacks, will also be profoundly uneconomic places in which people do not want to live, which lack order or viability or any basic economic justification. This is accepted on every side. It used to cause one to be branded as a socialist or a red or various other unpleasant things if one talked about planning 30 years ago. The first great examples of planning in western evolved societies were in the United States in the thirties as a result of the depression.

But in the intervening 30 years the concept of researching all the needs of a growing area, of expressing those needs in actual figures in regard to how many houses, how many feet of counter space, how many places at primary and secondary schools, how many gallons of water, how many industrial jobs, how many doctors, the whole quantitative expression of all aspects of the needs of a growing community, the production of this sort of analysis of a community, has become a commonplace all over the world. Once one is able to measure these things it is inescapable that one must make rational decisions which are based on those available facts. The era in which one could simply let the thing grow and afterwards try to tidy up the desperate messes that resulted from capitalism in its heyday is over. It is over in the opinion of absolutely everybody of every political colour. We now have no option but to plan. We now have no option but to make rational use of the data, knowledge, techniques and sociological insights that are available to us.

The question then arises as to how we plan. Do we plan in a technocratic, closed and professional way or do we plan by the participation of the whole people? In this context we can look again at the meaning of the word "democracy" because democracy is a word that changes and gets deeper with the growing complexity of society and with the growing self-knowledge of people of the society in which they live and indeed with the growing educational level of a population. There was a time, perhaps even half a century ago, when one could be satisfied that if one had some form of universal adult suffrage and a parliament and a government which were replaceable if the people changed their minds, then, one had democracy. That concept is no longer tenable and much of the upheavals in universities and in cities are taking place because of the head-on collision between newer, deeper, more profound and more valuable concepts of democracy with that older and now inadequate idea. If one looks at the literal meaning of the word, democracy means the rule of the people but people have to rule not just at parliamentary level but at all levels of society and in all aspects of their existence. If the rule of the people is to have a meaning in a modern, deep-going and social sense they have to be able to rule in their universities, in their hospitals, in their civil service, in their local government and finally I suggest—and the object of all this preamble is to say—in their planning.

Planning has to be a democratic function of an educated and a risen people, risen in the sense that they are giving depth and meaning to the insight and foresight of Pearse, risen in the sense that they are determined to participate in the things which affect them. I know that in the Planning Acts —specifically in the 1963 Act—there is an effort at deepening the sense of participation and also at deepening the structural basis for participation and to the extent that it is there at all, rather than not being there, it is to be applauded, but in pursuing this thought about democracy in planning I want to return to the whole structure, administration and attitudes in regard to local government and social services.

Over and over again people say to me as a Deputy: "There is no way we can do this" or "How do we do that?" or "What are our rights about the other thing?" It may be about houses, health services, any of the range of things that impinge on them locally. It is possible for me to say to them over and over again, and I have no doubt other Deputies have the same experience: "But you do not need a Deputy for that and I would not be doing you a favour if I did it for you because it is your right and all you have to do is to go to place X, Y, or Z and ask person A, B or C. It is perfectly simple and straightforward." The point of my explaining that attitude is to indicate a very real psychological situation which exists, that the people have no idea at this moment of how they participate in modifying, altering, developing the society in which they live. They feel—to use the jargon phrase of the moment—"alienated", they feel cut off. They do not feel that they are participants. When this criticism is raised people will say: "It is their fault, it is their ignorance, that they do not utilise the possibilities for participation which exist." This is often perfectly true but if there is a circumstance where vast numbers of people— in my experience the vast majority of the people—do not know what their rights are and do not know how to set about obtaining those rights then there is a failure of communication, a failure on the part of the people who have structured and developed those rights. Though I often have occasion to indicate where there are failures in the provision of necessary things which come within the area of responsibility of the Minister, it often happens that the failure is not their provision but in public awareness that they have been provided.

It is of course the fashionable, almost the cult thing, to say, but it is none the less true, that alienation is one of the great problems of our society. It is a problem which bears more on the duties, functions and role of the Minister for Local Government than of any other Minister. It does not bear very heavily on the functions of the Minister for External Affairs or of the Minister for Finance though one could indicate ways in which it could. Its application would not be very obvious in relation to the Department of Defence. But in relation to local government, in relation to the structure of a community, in relation to the services that are available in that community, there is a terrible failure of education and communication in regard to people's rights.

When we say over and over again that things are being presented by Deputies to constituents as favours when they are the basic rights of the people, we are making a criticism of Deputies and often those of us in the Opposition are making a criticism of the Party in Government, who have vastly greater possibilities in this area than Opposition Deputies have, but we are also making a criticism of the failure to communicate, to explain to people what their rights and privileges are in regard to local administration and what their duties are.

For example, in the Devlin Report there was a criticism of the extent of secrecy in the public service. I do not find the Devlin Report a document containing very much innovation, very much that is radical. There is nothing in it which suggests the opening up of the public service that I would like to see but I am bound to welcome that statement on the basis that I was a civil servant for five years and have since dealt extensively with the civil service. This criticism corresponds with my opinion. In my experience there is a degree of wilful secrecy, a degree of concealing of information that there is no possible reason to conceal, there is a degree of just letting out the bare amount of information, but no more. There is no determination to explain to people: "This belongs to you. You are paying for it, you are carrying it. It is your labour and the labour of your antecedents which has built this structure. These are not benefits that you must regard as kindnesses or favours or charity. They exist to work for you."

Can anybody say this was the attitude of our population at this time to the Department of Local Government or to the people in local authorities throughout the country? If they could so say, their experience would be vastly different from my experience and from the experience of most people to whom I talked. This is not a different issue from or irrelevant to the point I was trying to make in regard to planning, because in Irish society at the moment if somebody asks why we cannot do X, Y or Z, the answer is that we cannot afford it. Very often, this is a valid answer because we are not a rich society by the standards of people close to us who speak the same language and send us their films. We are given many ideas of those things that we can enjoy from the United States or Great Britain but these are societies richer than ours.

However, one must and can be concerned with quality as well as quantity and I think it is a just criticism of the whole structure of our social services to say that even when they were giving in quantity as much as could possibly be given—in fact, one could sometimes make the case that too much was being given in the light of the economic circumstances of the country or in the light of any other priorities—there was still a terrible failing in quality. Let me give an example which relates more to the administration of health——

Mr. Crowley

In what way are social services relevant to the Estimate for the Department of Local Government?

Mr. Keating

A large part of the Estimate for the Department of Local Government is concerned with the structure of social services. For example, I look on the provision of houses as part of the area of social services.

Mr. Crowley

The Deputy was discussing health.

Mr. Keating

I was not actually talking about the details of the health services but with regard to these services and the buildings and so on I wish to say that these were often cold, ruthless and uncomfortable and people were made to feel humiliated. It is very important that they should be treated as participants and there should be the greatest possible warmth and kindness even when there is not more to give. When people are able to participate in planning—we must establish the structures by which they can participate—much greater development of local government at all levels results.

However, we must also develop the awareness in the population as a whole that participation is not the sacred bailiwick of, perhaps, a member of a political party or a member of a local authority but, in an evolved democratic society, it is not alone the right but, to a considerable extent, the duty of everybody. It is a great failing in regard to the whole structure of our community that at this time we do not have that.

There are many ways in the administration of planning and in legislation dealing with planning in which the Minister could improve and increase the sense of participation in people making decisions about their own environment and their own future. Of course, there must be the professions and, of course, it is necessary to have people with the highest qualifications to use their expert knowledge but, having done that, it should be possible to break down a plan and bring it to the people and, instead of saying to them "unless you absolutely lift the roof with protest we cannot change this" to say "this is what seems to the technocrats to be the best way of doing this". However, no plan can possibly have the insight when it comes to the finer details of a particular area as will the people who have lived there all their lives. Therefore, long before something becomes a finished piece of legislation or before a decision has been reached, it must be discussed. People must be listened to and there must be modification in the light of what they have to say.

The structure of our society and the degree of alienation are such that if one simply puts a notice in the newspaper saying that by such a date a protest must be lodged or saying that a meeting will take place at such a place on such a night when, if those who wish to protest do not come along, the plan or legislation will go through. We know that this may be a concession to democracy but unless there is much more participation we will not, in fact, get real participation and that while the professions who are already aware of what is happening may offer an opinion and while the politicians may offer an opinion, the public who, in the long run, will pay for the results of the planners' work and who will have to live with the results of the planners' work, will not have any opportunity of expressing their opinion.

Therefore, planning raises a point that applies to the whole fabric of our society and it is something that the Minister has often appeared to set his face against. There have been instances in which the Minister could have given more information but did not wish to. It is not specifically that any Deputy regards that as a lack of courtesy to him personally but, as the representative of many thousands of people, he regards it as a denial of the right of the people to know and of their right to participate. The Minister, not by any specific act, but by an examination of his attitude and actions on this could deepen the sense of participation and could deepen democracy not just at Parliamentary level but right down through the fabric of society thereby making the whole of our society a school of participation and a school for democracy in all of those organs that come under his responsibility as Minister for Local Government. This, in terms of the development of the Irish people, would be a profoundly useful contribution to the development of the nation because it is my opinion that democracy is in danger in many places. Democracy is a difficult thing. People must learn how to work together, how to make decisions collectively, how to accept each other's point of view and how to give way to the rights of the majority while, at the same time, safeguarding the rights of all. All these things are clichés but they are things which we do not learn to do or which we may learn to do with great difficulty.

The extent to which that sort of democratic behaviour exists at all levels is the extent to which one is certain that democracy will not perish in a community. It must exist in a family and in a community which is much smaller than the area of a local authority. The Minister's speech contained many admirable individual innovations. It was a lengthy speech; it was careful; it was rather at variance with some of his recent actions in the Dáil, in fact. I very much welcome the length and the detail he saw fit to convey to the House but, at the same time, I feel he could influence the development of participation, the development of democracy, for good or ill. Sometimes it seems to me he is influencing it for ill by his determination to do good by stealth. I urge him, therefore, to look at all his activities as Minister for Local Government in the light of what I have had to say.

Mr. Tunney

Níl sé ar intinn agam mórán a rá. Aontaím le roint mhaith den mhéid atá ráite ach san am gcéanna bhféidir go bhfuil cleamhsán agam nach bhfuil an Roinn Rialtas Áitiúil chomh háitiúil agus ba cheart dí a bheith.

I do not propose to speak at any great length but I intend, if possible, to re-echo what has been said by other speakers in the matter of the gap between what is commonly called local government and those participating therein. If I have any big criticism of the Department of Local Government it is that the word "local" is no longer relevant. Therein, perhaps, lies a certain amount of the frustration and the annoyance with which we public representatives have to deal when we are on our rounds. Arising from that, I should like to say something which, perhaps, is rather late in the day but it is something I mentioned last year. It is something to which I am utterly opposed. I refer to the proposal to build new municipal offices in Dublin.

When the citizens of Dublin have anything to complain about—and they have much as far as the corporation is concerned—they have not access to officials. They do not know where to locate any of the officials. They do not find officers of the corporation with whom they can consult on matters which are very vital to them. This applies to the corporation tenant regarding his rent and is something to which Deputy Keating and others referred. It also applies to matters which are relevant to the controversial B scale system at the moment. Part of the frustration arises from the fact that at the end of 13 weeks the tenant is required to lodge with the local authority a statement of his earnings covering the preceding 13 weeks. If he has been in receipt of certain increases as against the previous 13 weeks he becomes liable for an accumulated amount of arrears due to the corporation. Here we can see the desirability of having on the spot a rent collector to whom the tenant can make his report weekly and who will indicate to the tenant the extra amount he is liable for in respect of that particular week. This would avoid the situation which occurs after this extended period when the tenant has spent the money and finds he now becomes liable for an additional £25, £30 or £40 under the B scale.

I and other members of this party have already made recommendations in the matter of having certain modifications applied to the B scale. It is unfair that a tenant having earned £1 in respect of one hour's work in a week should have to pay income tax at the rate of 5/3d in the £, the local authority charging him as if he was in receipt of a full pound. This scale should be modified. In 1966 we allowed in respect of the major earner in the house the sum of £1 to be disregarded and a sum of £3 to be disregarded in respect of auxiliary earners, but having regard to the diminishing value of money those amounts should be raised. That is not to say that I disagree with the principle of differential rents. I was very pleased to hear Deputy Justin Keating, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, indicate they are in full agreement with the principle of the B scale rent.

I want to refer now to the tenant who lives some distance from the central office. This causes him a certain amount of frustration. Take an applicant for an SDA loan who has to make certain inquiries. He goes down to Jervis Street to make those inquiries. This probably means that he has to take a half day's leave to do his business. This is a young man who is interested in purchasing a house for himself on the outskirts of the city. After much bother in that office he succeeds in speaking with the official who is dealing with his area. There is also the lady from Finglas or Ballymun who wants to have a chat with an official with regard to her rates assessment. She must travel from Finglas to the City Hall. These are but a few examples of what is happening at the moment. Instead of the corporation going out to meet the people we have a situation in which they are anxious to consolidate their position on the south side of the city.

Centralisation results in certain economies but it also involves a certain remoteness from the people whose servants these people are. Instead of spending £2 million-plus on palatial buildings on the south side of the Liffey to cater for people on the north side it would be far better if in every corporation electoral area on the north side of the city central offices were located to which people, irrespective of the nature of their business, could go to meet some official who would be familiar with the area, familiar with their complaints and who ultimately could create a certain dialogue in the matter of their needs in the area. Two million pounds is a considerable amount of money but this is being done in circumstances in which the draft plan for Dublin suggested that as far as possible development should not take place in the heart of the city. This was a plan drafted by corporation officials but, nevertheless, they are very wisely suggesting this to others. Because of the circumstances as existing in the matter of traffic and the congestion arising from it, and because of the difficulties which exist— again public representatives are aware of them—in the matter of telephonic communications, they are suggesting there should be a movement outwards but at the same time they are offending against their own suggestion by planking their own central offices in the heart of the city.

I cannot resume my seat without referring to another local matter which has not presented itself to me during the past weeks or months but became a matter with which I was vitally concerned when I was a member of Dublin Corporation. It concerns domestic water supplies, especially in the north side of the city. It is extraordinary that in such a progressive society the two commodities for which some years ago there was so little regard and about which one heard very little conversation, now have become so scarce. I refer to fresh air and water. It is an extraordinary reflection on this progress, in inverted commas, which has occurred that water and fresh air, so vital to life, have become so scarce. I suggest that progress of the kind which denies to people water and fresh air must be questioned. What is the point in there being an increasing standard of living, what is the point in our talking about affluence, if at the same time the units, the objects, which create this are simultaneously depriving people of that which was heretofore a free item?

In the north city area which I represent, during the past two years because of an absence of proper liaison between those who were developing and those who were responsible for the provision of water, a situation has arisen in which people are suffering from scarcity of water not in one street in one area but in many streets in many areas. I understand that areas in other parts of the city also cannot be guaranteed adequate domestic water supplies. However, I understand from representations I have made to the corporation that the matter is in hand and that a new main will presently remedy the position. With proper foresight, it is something that should not have arisen. It has arisen and we must accept it but we hope it will not be long before it will have been corrected.

One final point I should like to raise is in respect of housing especially affecting those to whom we refer as SDA applicants. The SDA applicant is the person for whom I have most respect because I see him as a newly married man setting about providing his own house. As far as I am concerned he is the citizen to whom we should show our utmost sympathy and consideration. I am afraid, however, that this is not so and I can clarify that statement at two levels. First of all, the maxima in relation to loan and grant have been in existence for some years and those for whom this assistance was intended are now, by virtue of the depreciation which has occurred in money values, earning in excess of the amount on which the maxima were based and therefore being precluded from the assistance.

I suggest that the ceiling of £1,200 annual income in respect of SDA loans is not sufficient. I do not think this matter has been raised here during the past couple of years and I now respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should look at this problem with a view to raising the maximum as a matter of urgency. I know several people, prospective buyers of houses, people who have accumulated £500, £600 or £700, which they are anxious to invest in the building industry, who are experiencing difficulty in qualifying for SDA benefits. Because they are earning £1,245 or even £1,201, they do not qualify. The same applies in the matter of supplementary grants for which annual income of £1,045 has been the appropriate figure for some years past. I suggest that, as in the case of the maximum figure for loan purposes, this ceiling also should be raised.

My concern for the gentleman who is purchasing his own house evokes thoughts which I have on another matter. Some Deputies mentioned the ignorance of people, their lack of knowledge of the regulations. Let us take the case of a person making his first venture into house purchase. If he goes around Dublin looking for quotations, trying to find out prices, he will be confused because one person will quote one figure and another person another figure. Only one figure should appear as the price of a house. As far as the builder is concerned there should be no reference at all to the grant: there should be a figure at which he will sell the house to the applicant and after that it is the applicant's business and concern to move towards collecting the appropriate grant.

I am afraid that the ignorance of applicants has led to a situation in which some, not all, builders decide: "I will buy an acre of ground and build houses at a density of eight to the acre. I know each applicant coming to me is entitled to £275. I must multiply £275 by eight because in so far as the applicants are not dipping into their pockets to produce the £275 they seem very ready to part with it".

In that way, the builder felt quite happy in spending what might be considered exorbitant money on an acre of ground. Now, in certain areas, with a density of ten to the acre, and with a grant of £300, the builder, assuming that that money will come to him more readily than if it were being paid over the table to him by the applicant, feels quite safe in making the calculation that ten houses will yield £3,000 per acre. This, I think, has already occurred. This probably explains the high price paid for land in or around Dublin. I should like a situation where that grant would be paid direct to the applicant. Otherwise I should like to see the grant system done away with entirely and the money thereby saved allocated to provide loans to people at cheaper rates.

Mr. Timmins

It is only right that a certain amount of credit should be given to the Minister for the work that has been done, particularly over the past two years, in connection with the provision of houses. A greater effort must, however, be made to provide houses within a reasonable time for all our people. Practically every speaker in this debate has referred to the number of people who have been on the housing list for many years and who, because of the shortage that still exists, cannot see any hope of being re-housed within a reasonable time. This applies in most of our rural towns as well as in our cities and large urban areas. Some people lose hope because their lives are bordering on misery. They feel a sufficient sense of urgency is not being displayed in providing the necessary accommodation for them. I do not want to detract in any way from the work the Minister has done but the time has come for him to say to our local authorities that the backlog must be cleared within the next two years and that he will provide the necessary finance to enable this to be done.

Most of us in this House, and particularly those of us who are members of local authorities, can play a part in endeavouring to reduce the housing shortage. We can assist local authorities to secure sites by reason of our local knowledge of our areas. It is not sufficient to be critical of the situation as it exists: we should make a contribution towards its solution. Constructive co-operation between the members of our respective local authorities would play a big part in helping to alleviate the present unsatisfactory housing shortage.

It is easy to make suggestions as to how to increase the volume of housebuilding. Let us recall that a very substantial percentage of people availing of SDA loans have incomes of only about £1,000 per annum. If this situation continues, it is obvious that money should be made available to such people at a low rate of interest to encourage them to provide their own homes. There are many good reasons why this position should be encouraged, particularly when we consider the amount of money the State must provide for the building of local authority houses. People can buy non-essential items at around the same rate of interest as that for a loan to erect a house for themselves. If we ask people to pay differential rents it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to have money provided at low rates of interest for people with low incomes who are prepared to make the sacrifice so that they may own their own homes, particularly as the State, under normal circumstances, would have to provide these homes for them.

People should be encouraged to provide and build their own houses. My experience is that people are prepared to do so if the repayments can be kept to a reasonable proportion of their wages. Local authorities ought to make suitable sites available at reasonable prices for this purpose. In County Wicklow, the local authority made sites available in many areas for these people. In Enniskerry, a contract was accepted and the successful applicants for these purchase-houses were told the repayments would be £3 10s per week. A dispute then arose between the contractor and the council. The houses are now being finished by direct labour. The prices have rocketted since the first costings and the successful applicants are now being asked to pay £5 per week. Many of them have incomes of £14 to £16 per week and I do not see how they can possibly be expected to meet the increase. The fact that these people were prepared to make the necessary sacrifice to own their own houses is sufficient indication that if the Minister made more money available at a low rate of interest, and increased the grant, more houses would probably be built in that way, thus saving the State from having to provide the necessary finance for local authority housing in such cases. Surely this is an added reason why the Minister should endeavour to have a scale of graduated interest rates for money lent for housing?

My namesake here mentioned that there are people living in corporation houses who would be prepared to build their own houses if increased grants were available to them. This is something which I have come across, but only in a limited way.

The main difficulty seems to be the securing of a higher rate of grant. The local authority involved has to certify that the applicant needs to be rehoused. A certain number of local authority houses would be handed back to the local authorities if the Minister were prepared to waive that condition. I do not think such waiver would cause a dramatic reduction in the housing lists but anything likely to alleviate the position is worth considering.

Several Deputies have mentioned the problem arising out of the sale of vested cottages and the fact that classes of persons for whom these houses were not originally intended are able to pay very substantial prices for them whilst the classes of persons for whom they were originally intended cannot afford to pay such prices. The idea behind the purchase scheme is desirable and commendable but a practice has grown up whereby people who would normally be expected to provide their own houses are purchasing vested cottages at high prices. I understand if a cottage is sold to a relative the one-third which the local authority receives at the moment can be waived. I would suggest to the Minister that this one-third waiver should be extended to persons who are on a local authority housing list. This would give them an opportunity to compete for the purchase of a house, which is something they are not able to do at the moment. I do not know whether such a suggestion would require legislation but I put forward the proposition as a means whereby people on low incomes who are in dire need of rehousing could compete for the purchase of vested cottages.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy appreciates that his suggestion would require an amendment to the 1966 Housing Act.

Mr. Timmins

The Minister should suggest to local authorities that they should be favourably disposed to grant loans at a special rate of interest to persons on the housing list for the purchase of existing houses.

During the course of the debate many Deputies praised the work of the various bodies concerned with the preservation of local amenities. Coming from a county where such bodies are very active I should like to put the other side of the story before the Minister. I would ask him to bear in mind the reasons why some people in Wicklow are anxious to get planning permission and the necessity of allowing a certain amount of development. Taking into account the hundreds of miles of unbroken scenery in Wicklow some of the objections are not very reasonable. In many cases the land involved is only fit for building purposes. While we are anxious to preserve the beauty of Wicklow, we do not feel that the preservation of Wicklow as a green belt area and a playground for Dublin should be the overriding consideration in determining planning appeals. Being adjacent to Dublin has many advantages but much worthwhile development has been turned down because of the anxiety of certain people to preserve the whole of Wicklow in its present form. In the case of one vast area where tourist development is essential if there is to be any economic progress application permission to build 28 houses for tourists has been turned down simply and solely because there would be interference with the scenic amenities of the area, despite the fact that the developer was prepared to site the houses so as not to be offensive.

So much has been said about conservation and preservation that most people have their own opinions on the subject. We in Wicklow are concerned about the determination of applications based on what we feel is the predetermined position of so many of the people involved. As I said earlier, Wicklow is the playground for Dublin, it also supplies Dublin with most of its water and some of its housing. It is worth mentioning here that the money lost this year by way of rates, as a result of the establishment of the Poulaphouca scheme, is £14,000, as far as Wicklow County Council is concerned. It is a very sizeable sum and one which over the years could have provided many worthwhile improvements in the county. It is felt that we have made more than our contribution towards the provision of amenities for the city of Dublin and its inhabitants. The time has come when the people of Wicklow should be given prior consideration. I am not saying that we are not without our faults in Wicklow but in so far as the application of section 4 is concerned we certainly have an unenviable record. This is probably one of the reasons why we have so many people wanting a say in what should and should not be done. The people living in the county have their rights and in many cases the Planning Act has infringed those rights with the power it gives to various bodies to object to development.

People point out to us the value of tourism so far as Wicklow is concerned, but the income from tourism in Wicklow is the most inverted in the country having regard to the number of people who visit the county. For that reason I would ask the Minister to make a greater contribution to the development of facilities in that county because, if tourists have not got some place in which to enjoy themselves, or some amusements to detain them, they will just drive through the district.

I should also like to mention planning permission for the provision of sewerage facilities and the erection of septic tanks, and all the form-filling that has to be carried out. Where grants for water supplies are concerned, the Department are satisfied with the necessary form being signed by the sanitary authority. In some counties all the red tape of planning permission has to be gone through where the provision of sewerage facilities is concerned: notices in the paper, two maps of the site, two plans of the septic tank, interest in the land, and all the normal requirements for planning permission, plus the fact that people are also given the right to object if they feel so disposed.

Normally it is the people with limited funds in the rural areas who are providing these facilities and, in some parts of the country, it is very difficult to get people qualified to prepare the necessary plans. I suggest to the Minister that he should be prepared to accept as sufficient a certificate from the county medical officer saying that he has seen the proposed site and is satisfied with it. In that way the provision of sewerage facilities could be exempt from planning permission.

Much has been said about traffic congestion and how it should be relieved. Representatives from tourist counties also have said that extra money should be made available for road improvements in those counties. When we consider the amount of traffic coming from the city to Wicklow almost every week-end, we say that the £20,000 county road grant we are getting is insufficient. A high proportion of our roads are dust free but, because of the large influx of traffic, the cost of maintaining these roads is becoming increasingly high and beyond our ability to meet it.

Where tourist roads are classified as county roads it is not unrealistic to ask the Minister to make a contribution towards their upkeep, as he does in the case of main roads, since these tourist roads are used much more by people from outside the various counties than by people living in them and as the money available to the road fund is increasing substantially each year.

I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister the question of giving an increased county road grant to County Wicklow in the coming year in particular, having regard to the fact that Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta are anxious to have a link road provided from their factory to Arklow Harbour. It is expected that this road will cost somewhere in the region of £40,000 and it is hardly reasonable for the Department to expect the local authority involved to spend their county grant road money for the next two years on this particular work. The Minister should undertake to have a conference held between the local authority, officials from his Department and officers of NET, and he should consider favourably increasing the Wicklow county road grant this year in view of the necessity to provide this road.

It is conceded that another bridge over the Liffey is essential, and the Minister's proposal in connection with a ring road in Dublin city is welcome. At the same time, when one takes into account the expected increase in the number of vehicles over the next 15 years—from something like 300,000 at present to 800,000—it hardly seems realistic to expect the Minister to continue to provide millions of pounds to ease the flow of traffic in the centre of the city especially when so many other worthwhile proposals have to be put on the long finger. Other solutions will have to be found to this problem.

We are all pleased that road safety is being emphasised but there is one aspect which I feel should be given greater emphasis, that is, the question of elderly pedestrians. Old people are literally being "mowed down" on the Irish roads. Fifty-five pedestrians over 65 years of age were killed in 1968. This figure is out of all proportion to the extent to which they travel on the roads. In many instances the only time they use the roads is when they are going to collect their old age pensions or going to Mass.

Most old people are prone to make mistakes and errors of judgment. They fail to comprehend the awful dangers of present-day fast traffic. Few of that age group have much experience of driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle. In their young days there was virtually no traffic. The basic pattern of road behaviour has changed completely. It is too much to expect them to change their approach to this problem in their declining years when their reflexes are slowing down. Young drivers are very liable to kill old people. They should be warned to take more care of aged pedestrains on the road and to display more courtesy towards them. The aged have a perfect right to use the roads. A special appeal should be directed to young drivers to take more care.

There is no use in devising TV programmes aimed at the instruction of the aged. They will not change their behaviour. The Government have expressed concern about their welfare particularly in regard to old age pensions and other facilities, but neglect completely this very human aspect. The school safety programmes have all been aimed at children. If a person over 60 becomes involved in an accident his recuperative powers are practically nil. Special emphasis should be laid on the safety of the aged on rural roads.

Dr. Thornley

The debate on the Estimate for Local Government is a particularly interesting one precisely because it ranges over such a wide field both on matters of broad principle and matters of detail. Occasionally the debate is used as an opportunity—I am not criticising any individual Deputy here—to make points which are specifically related to constituency matters, points frankly aimed at the newspapers as much as at the Dáil. On the whole we have had relatively little of that in this debate, which has been an interesting and full one. All too often, also this debate is devoted to an attack upon the Minister as such, which I think is a pointless, negative, futile and inadmirable exercise. I should like in the few remarks I have to make here to make as constructive a contribution as I can to the discussion of issues which arise on this whole question of the Estimate for Local Government.

Inevitably for a Dublin Deputy the issue of housing is paramount. The Minister's introduction of his Estimate gives an impressive array of statistics for the performance in housebuilding by the Government. I do not see any point in playing with statistics, to argue that this Government or other Governments have done better or could have done better. I think we must accept that an element of progress has been made in housebuilding and give the Minister and his officials due credit for this.

The point we must bear in mind, however, is that progress in housebuilding in Ireland has to be measured against the unquestionable human needs which grow from year to year. For example, in the Buchanan Report, which the Minister cited with qualified praise, it is estimated that 364,000 new houses would be needed between the period 1961 and 1985. Again we must bear in mind that the vast majority of our houses are old and falling increasingly into disrepair and disuse. Again Buchanan estimates that in 1961 there were 160,000 houses built before 1860 and 307,000 built before 1900.

It is against the background of a growing urban population, against the background of a growing pattern of youthful marriage, against the background of serious overcrowding of this kind that we must see the apparent achievements of the Government. If we view them in this way I think any Dublin Deputy, no matter what party he comes from, must admit in his heart that the improvements fall very far short of what is adequate. As Buchanan estimated again, about 36,000 households were seriously overcrowded, which in that report means more than two people to a room. The definition of more than two people to a room as serious overcrowding is not one which would be accepted by the Dublin Corporation. The situation unquestionably exists in Dublin working class areas where a family of three has absolutely no chance of rehousing under the present corporation set of rules, and the family of four has got very little chance.

In saying this I do not for one moment criticise the officials of the corporation who are bound to operate within the rules, the structures and the amount of money prescribed for them from above by the Minister and his Department. But it remains unquestionably true that again any urban Deputy can bear witness to the enormous quantity of human tragedies which come before him in the constituency clinics which he may hold, where he tries to help in whatever way he can to solve the problems of people who are applicants for housing: the tragedies of overcrowding, the tragedies of nervous breakdown, the tragedies of split families where the obligations of maintaining a home, living with in-laws or living in overcrowded conditions have simply become too much for the head of the family and his wife to bear, and any competent psychiatrist, in St. Brendan's, for example, will bear witness that this is the case.

In these circumstances I do not think any of us can talk of achievement now or at any other period. To some extent perhaps all of us have got our priorities wrong here. It is completely wrong that the housing or non-housing of a young married couple, we will say, with one or two children should be made a political football to be kicked around as a statistic in this House. As far as I am concerned, decent housing is a legitimate human right to which people are entitled—we often boast about it in this country—under the democratic programme and the declaration of social principles in the Constitution. This right should be made free to them—I do not mean free in its literal sense of no rent—not as a dole for which they say "Thank you" to the Minister, to their representatives, to me or to anyone else, but as a right to which they are entitled.

If I might mention an analogy with Russia—if Deputy Crowley were here now he would immediately say I was again taking my analogies from Russia —there is a famous book by a woman who was in a Russian concentration camp. She made the remark that of all the appalling frustrations she suffered in the concentration camp one rose above all others, rose above the hunger, above the privation, above the physical restriction, above the heaviness of the work, and that she described as the right to cry alone. I wonder how many people in the overcrowded areas of cities like Dublin and Cork have got that right to cry alone. I wonder how many young married people who are in the parlour of their in-laws' house and cannot settle down and put the baby to bed at night until the television is turned off and the rest of the family have retired, have that right.

In this context I do not think we should be juggling with figures in this House. We should be accepting that as a community we have as yet, despite the progress that was made in the thirties and is to some extent being made now, failed to fulfil one of our basic obligations to the human family. We are a community who like to talk a lot about the rights of the family, and I sit on the side of the House which is frequently accused of having the destruction of the family, the Catholic religion, the Legion of Mary and everything else as its main aim. I wonder if we are not being slightly hypocritical in paying so much attention to the rights and the unity of the family in the situation where a young married couple with a child find it impossible to get corporation housing. I wonder if we are not being hypocritical to talk of the rights of the family and the importance of the human individual when the first thing that happens in so many private lettings is that a young married pair, because the wife becomes pregnant, are evicted and they find they have nowhere else to go and certainly find no place on our corporation lists.

But let us not talk of percentage progress, of thousands of houses built by one Government or another; let us accept the fact that, as yet, we have fallen far short of our obligations to our people and that some, if not all, of the appalling criticism which could be flung at the housing of urban Dublin in 1913 can still be flung at the housing of urban Dublin in a free, allegedly independent Ireland almost 60 years later.

Arising from that, may I make a point in reference to the Government's record vis-á-vis housebuilding? Undoubtedly, the Government have to a considerable extent built large concentrations of small and often overcrowded homes set together in largely barrack-like areas. Their priority, I think, was to house the people and get a roof over their heads. On the whole, I accept that that priority was correct but in doing this they neglected, over a period of 15 years or so, to bear in mind that part of the maintenance of sanity and decency in living is the provision of some kind of quality of life, or amenity, with the result that we have these great barrack-like concentrations of small houses with no amenities and very little in the way of playing fields, community centres and no place to talk, meet or do anything else.

The other day when I was canvassing in Ballyfermot—perhaps I should not refer to that unfortunate event——

Mr. Boland

It will be referred to.

Dr. Thornley

I am sure it will be, and when it is by the Minister it will be listened to with courtesy by me——

Mr. Boland

Next Friday.

Dr. Thornley

——unlike the remarks I am getting.

Mr. Boland

I doubt if the Deputy will be here on Friday.

Dr. Thornley

I do not think the Minister has any reason to complain of my attendance record in this House. Perhaps, the Minister would be happier if I did not turn up at all.

Mr. Boland

We do not see the Deputy too often.

Dr. Thornley

But when the Minister does see me—and I think that is pretty often—he finds invariably that I indulge in a form of courtesy which with due deference to the Minister's years, he would do well to imitate.

Mr. Boland

Let us hope I never do.

Dr. Thornley

It is never too late to mend. A final act of contrition even in the Minister's case is always possible.

Mr. Boland

I hope I shall never imitate the Deputy.

Dr. Thornley

As I was saying, when talking seriously about this subject, before I was as usual quite unnecessarily interrupted by the Minister, I was struck when I knocked at the door of this house in Ballyfermot to see the young son of the house and the girl standing on the step. The Minister may introduce a flippant note into the discussion if he wishes; what they were doing standing on the step is their business but I could not help being struck by the fact that on a cold night in February the only place these young people had to go was the step outside the house. It reminded me of novels about working class England in the 1880s.

Mr. Dowling

What were they doing?

Dr. Thornley

I do not think we should go into that lest I should be accused of all sorts of things.

Mr. Dowling

The Deputy was not watching.

Mr. Desmond

The Deputy should remember his colleagues said he was over 40 and that there is no time for anybody over 40 in Irish politics.

Mr. Dowling

Age and experience.

Dr. Thornley

To get back from these flippancies, I was trying to illustrate in human terms what I think is a sad point, our failure to provide amenities, places to meet, places of recreation for those who live in these houses and who are now a grown-up generation born in houses, which I admit, the Minister's Government, to a great extent, built. I am trying, in the face of intense provocation, to be polite to the Minister.

Turning to the question of B scale rents which has been so much stressed in this debate and which bears particular relevance to the situation and discontent building up in Ballymun, I can understand that some Deputies who participate in the protests against the B scale rents can be accused of band-waggoning and so on. I assure the Minister there is nothing of the sort involved so far as we are concerned. I want to correct one point which Deputy Tunney made in what was otherwise an excellent and most constructive contribution to this debate, when he said he was glad to hear Deputy Keating accepting the principle of the B scale differential rent. What Deputy Keating and this party accept and I accept is the principle of the differential rent as such but we do not accept the manner in which the B scale is operated at present, for many reasons into which I do not propose to go in detail since I think the points have been adequately made.

To reiterate three of them, in the first place, we feel that overtime earnings should not be assessed for the purpose of determining B scale rents. This is a disincentive to ordinary people trying to bring up families to doing overtime work. Secondly, the earnings of children should not be brought into assessment in determining these rents. As a nation we tend to marry young. Many people make great sacrifices to educate their children and they are able to avail themselves of their children's earnings for only a very short time. During the same time these young people are thinking of getting married. If they are going to participate in the Minister's purchase schemes they are trying to save deposits and it is quite wrong that in this period their parents should be penalised because of the short-lived fact that the children are earning.

Thirdly—and I have raised this point by means of questions in the House and Deputy Tunney quite correctly touched on it also—there is another objection to the B scale system in that it is turning the tenant into, in effect, an accountant. It imposes a strain on him in respect of assessing his own earnings which is not imposed on him by the income tax system. PAYE makes it easier for him to pay income tax than the B scale rent does to pay his rent. If he is not a thrifty, qualified accountant the situation may arise as Deputy Tunney quite correctly pointed out, that a man may do overtime to earn a relatively small sum, say, to get him over the Christmas period or something like that: he does not keep a note of this: it is not his function since he is not an accountant.

Six or three months later he gets a snap demand for back-rent of £50 or £100 which is quite beyond his capacity to pay. Then, the whole procedure of eviction is initiated with all the heartbreak that follows. Every Deputy in the House knows, if he sits for an urban area, that what I have said is correct and that it should not be so. I would ask the Minister to persuade the corporation to assume even the function of performing more regular assessments itself and take this obligation away from the people. So long as this iniquitous system exists it should not be operated so as to penalise working people for their work and demand from them sums they cannot possibly meet.

Throughout much of the debates that have taken place here and outside about housing since 1966 the concept of what is called the economic rent has been frequently mentioned. I should like to have the concept of an economic rent explained to me. As understood under the B scale by the Minister and his predecessors it seems that this is the concept of a rent which would pay not merely for the tenancy of the house but ultimately would service the capital necessary to build it. As a matter of fact, the corporation tenant on the B scale is not getting anything for nothing; he is paying off his house in the same way as somebody on a purchase or building society scheme. But at the end of 20 years the essential difference is that the tenant has nothing to show for his investment; he does not own the bricks and mortar within which he lives.

This is a wrong philosophy. We should not make the housing of unfortunate, underpaid people the play of the money markets. It is fair enough, perhaps, that middle or higher income groups should subscribe to the workings of the money markets through the operation of the building societies. To digress for a moment, I am not one of those who regard the building societies as sinks of iniquity. They fulfil a useful social function provided, of course, that their interest rates and their running are properly supervised.

In this context, moving for a moment to middle income group housing, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his decision to reduce the footage of houses which qualify for grants. This decision was correct but overdue. I have nothing against the building societies but it is wrong that they and the operations of the private money market should be asked to assume so much decisive responsibility for the housing of the lower income groups with the result that the price of basic housing is forced disproportionately upwards.

I am sorry to have to refer to a hoary theme, which has been brought up here again and again, but Deputy Tunney very correctly spoke about how removed the process of housing was from the people. I know I lay myself open to a barrage of interruptions from the Minister when I say this but, leaving aside who was right or wrong, I consider no act more calculated to remove the process of housing from the people than the dissolution of the Dublin Corporation. This abolished the people's effective and direct link with the housing authority. It is most regrettable. In all seriousness, I suggest to the Minister that he should let bygones be bygones, stop recriminations about whether the corporation committed suicide under the baneful influence of Labour and Fine Gael, or was slaughtered by the baneful intervention of Fianna Fáil, and reconstitute the body as rapidly as possible, holding the necessary elections if that should be necessary.

I should like to raise another point about which I have asked the Minister questions and to which like many other Deputies, I have not received any satisfaction. Deputy Tunney referred to the ignorance of applicants of their rights and the difficulties they encountered in getting information. That is a completely valid point. When I speak of the ignorance of applicants I do not mean they are illiterate or stupid— I do not think the ordinary Dublin working person is either ignorant or stupid—but they are not qualified to tread their way through the complexities of the corporation's priorities. It is not surprising that they are mystified and baffled when they do not find themselves rehoused, when they think people with less claim to rehousing get accommodation. The complexity of the forms baffles them and the long years on the waiting lists erode their dignity. Every attempt should be made to expound their rights to these people so that they may demand them as a right instead of coming to me, to Deputy Tunney and to many others, seeking as a favour what, in fact, is a right. I am seldom so embarrassed as when I get "thank you" letters from constituents for getting them houses, as if I had worked some mystical bribery on the Dublin Corporation. With very few exceptions, I do not think any Deputy is capable of varying the priorities of the corporation, which are usually justified.

Deputy Tunney made an excellent point regarding the placing of corporation officers in specific areas to explain to the people their rights. In this way there might be less competition between Deputies for the granting of imaginary favours. A simpler process of rehousing might be formulated which would allow more opportunity for this House to devote itself to legislation, to the provision of an adequate committee system and other matters. I associate myself with Deputy Tunney on this. If I might make a side point, Dublin North West is one constituency where the four sitting Deputies have an effective working relationship. However much they may differ in party political questions and major issues of legislation—for example, I think the Minister's whole view of housing is inadequate and Deputy Tunney does not—in so far as they are representatives of the community they work as one, and this is as it should be. I should like to support Deputy Tunney's view that the £1,200 limit for the SDA loans is, in the context of modern value of money, quite ridiculous.

On this same point of the manner in which the community can be aided to develop—to some extent through the intervention of the Deputy—may I make a particular plea to the Minister? I know all the other Deputies in my constituency, irrespective of party, would associate themselves with this. It is for more rapid and generous aid towards the development of community centres. Voluntary people who have no politics whatever, or may have different politics from mine, in most of the districts of Dublin have made enormous contributions in time, initiative, energy and money in an attempt to provide the amenities that were not previously provided by the Government. I think their energy and initiative should be rewarded and given support by the Government. Although something is being done in this direction I am not satisfied that the effort is adequate.

When projects from reputable bodies for the building of community centres come before the corporation, the Minister should do everything possible to provide the necessary funds. The Minister may turn around, as he did today at Question Time, and say "This is a matter for the corporation; it is not my business". I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he cannot have it both ways. The corporation, in the sense of an elected body, no longer exists. Therefore, if there is anyone whom the individual Deputy can approach about the functioning of the corporation, it is the Minister for Local Government. If the Minister is not prepared to accept responsibility for answering questions about the funding of corporation projects, then he should reconstitute a corporation which will accept this responsibility and answer these questions in public.

I should like to refer to a point which came up at Question Time and to which the Minister refused to give a satisfactory reply. It is something which, I know, deeply concerns Deputy Tunney. I refer to the level of water supply in Dublin, more particularly in north Dublin. There is no need for me to develop the points already made on this. I know from correspondence with the corporation that a new main is to be provided at some date—it retreats into the distance as times goes on—but the point has now been reached where people cannot use their baths, their lavatories and their wash-hand basins. Some kind of remedial action, if it is possible from the engineering point of view, ought to be taken. However, when pressed about this today in a set of answers—or rather non-answers —the Minister simply washed his hands of any obligation so far as this matter is concerned.

In this Conservation Year we should consider very seriously the question of conservation and pollution. Like Deputy Timmins, I am not one who regards conservation for its own sake as a end in itself—here I think I should find myself in agreement with the Minister. From my point of view, given the alternatives of, on the one hand, an attractive view to be seen by people in motorcars or, on the other, a factory giving employment to 50 people, my instant preference would be for the latter, and I do not care who knows this. However, there are aspects of the destruction of the quality of life in our society to which we should pay attention and for which we should have a conscious plan. However, this does not seem to be the case.

Obviously, one of these is pollution. The waters of our country, to the preservation of which so much attention has been given, are being increasingly destroyed. It may seem a trivial point and it is one that is cropping up in major cities in Europe and America, but we live in a city which daily gets noisier. If anyone thinks this is trivial they should ask the people who live in the towers of Ballymun. We live in a city where traffic congestion has reached a point where at certain hours of the day virtual immobility descends on the city and the bus services, the mainstay of the ordinary people, are correspondingly affected and are delayed. Speaking for myself, as a car owner I would fully accept a plan which banned private passenger traffic from the centre of the city at certain times of the day. Is there a plan for this? Have we got a policy? If we have I do not think it has been spelled out in the Minister's speech. Have we, in general, got a policy about the shaping pattern of things like houses and the demographic development of houses? Have we a pattern for things like roads?

I do not want to return to one of my hobbyhorses, the Buchanan Report, but the Minister himself mentioned it with scant praise. The implication of that report seems to me to be that effective development, with the exception of one or two areas, will stop at a point broadly on the Shannon. The implication seems essentially to be that, while the growth of Dublin will be held back to the extent that it will not become a gargantuan monolith, it will effectively become the head and tail of the country. The implication seems clearly to be that we accept a policy of regionalism which will change the whole face of our country.

The Minister praised certain aspects of the report: how we can improve industrialisation in quantity and quality, how we can expect a more satisfactory regional distribution of population and employment. I think the Minister is sincere in this. I think the Minister's vision of Ireland is not the vision of the Buchanan Report. I think his vision is not one where you have four or five cities, with people commuting over vast distances in large cars from areas which will become tourist hinterlands or a cross between dormitory suburbs and tourist hinterlands. The Buchanan Report says, with almost complete detachment, when speaking of the revision of population in remote tourist areas:

The parts of the country concerned are mainly in the extreme west.

It goes on at another point to talk of smaller places within 30 minutes journey time to large employment residential towns. What a vision for the future of Ireland where a town like Clifden becomes equivalent to the Croydon of London vis-à-vis Galway.

I have ranged widely deliberately for two reasons. The interest for me in this debate is that it covers fundamental, down to earth, bread and butter problems and it also raises a whole range of implications of philosophy about the future of our country. I have tried to touch on both because I feel very strongly about them. In my opinion the Government are not being honest in expressing their attitude both towards the Buchanan and the FitzGerald Reports. Regionalism is taking place while the Government temporise and do not tell us what they are going to do about it. I know there are members of the Cabinet who have misgivings about this. The Government would raise themselves in the estimation of the people if they were honest about the Ireland of the future in the context of these reports. Will it be an Ireland, regionalised, Americanised, noisy, polluted, smoke-filled when it will be too late to change and too late to redress that policy?

I felt also I had to say something about housing. I am sorry if this sounds like a constituency plug—it is not meant to be—but, having taken my clinic last night, and every Monday night, and having seen the heartbreak behind the Minister's statistics it is all too patently obvious that the juggling with statistics is not an adequate answer to the fact that there is a housing problem, a heartbreaking problem. None of us has learned the solution to it. We should be bending our energies to finding that solution and to alleviating the misery instead of indulging in statistical gymnastics.

Mr. Sherwin

I am glad that my first opportunity of speaking in this House should occur on this Estimate for the Department of Local Government. Dublin south west has many problems. It is well served with industry and there is good employment. This must have been a thorn in the side of the Opposition campaigners in the recent election. When I was a boy in the late fifties there was not the same opportunity for employment in that area as there is now. It was only natural that this lack of employment opportunity should give rise to a dire need for social welfare. The problem in my constituency today is not one of unemployment but, rather, lack of community facilities and an inadequately developed environment. The people in Dublin South West are crying out for the facilities which will enable them to develop as true citizens of their respective community. I do not denigrate the area in which I live and which I now represent. I merely want to point out the desire of my constituents to become full citizens of their community.

This area is a credit to Dublin Corporation but it does need further development in order to become a viable entity rather than a place in which to live, eat and sleep. A great deal has been done but a good deal remains to be done. My constituency is almost entirely made up of corporation housing estates. It is not a representative cross-section of society. But neither is any other constituency which lacks one or other element which goes to make up such a cross-section. I venture to say that there is no constituency truly representative of every stratum in our society.

I am a product of Ballyfermot. I am well acquainted with Drimnagh, Walkinstown, Bluebell, Inchicore and Crumlin. It is most unfair to describe the youth of this area in the way in which they were described in two recent articles in the Irish Times. No doubt a small minority behave in the manner indicated in these articles. There will always be vandalism and those who pontificate should remember that in any area in which you have a large number of young people and in which there are not adequate facilities to cater for these young people some of them will inevitably go a little bit off the rails. The great majority of the people have never conducted themselves in the manner portrayed in these two articles. We resent these areas being described as ghettoes by people who themselves choose to live in areas which they regard as approximating more closely to their particular class. It might have been better policy initially to have had a variety both of houses and classes in these schemes. Local authority houses should, perhaps, have been erected in Foxrock and more luxurious types of houses in the housing estates in Ballyfermot, Bluebell and so on. I leave that for the academic socialists to argue about. My neighbours in Ballyfermot do not feel in any way deprived because we have no immediate contact with people living in better-class houses. We feel the lack of amenities. We certainly feel the lack of a swimming pool, a community hall and the various other essential amenities for the creation of a proper environment. We do not feel we have anything particular to learn from other strata of society.

In fact, I believe areas like those I have mentioned could learn something from us. For instance, the people of Ballyfermot and Bluebell accepted the itinerants' encampment a few years ago. We are proud of its success. We saw the appalling mess created by unserviced and uncontrolled encampments of itinerants. We protested against this to the appropriate authorities. We realise that these people have many good points. We realise their faults arise mainly from the only way of life they have ever known. We are glad to have the opportunity of helping them to become real citizens. I hope to see the day when some of the constituencies that tell us what is wrong with us will follow the example of areas like Ballyfermot, Bluebell and Finglas by providing, right beside their own doorsteps, proper sites so that the travelling people can be given an opportunity of developing properly.

I mentioned the lack of facilities in my own area and in other corporation areas. I appreciate the immense task and the huge expense of building houses for those who need them. It is understandable that this task should get priority because it is vitally important to try to make these excellent housing schemes into real communities. More should be done in this direction. The corporation should try to involve the local people in this work. They should sponsor and assist local fund-raising efforts so as to reduce the need for public capital. Public capital is needed for further housing. Vandalism and dissatisfied tenants are a source of loss to Dublin Corporation. The provision of adequate community facilities would lessen these problems. This fact should be offset against their cost.

The differential rent system is becoming quite a serious problem, particularly in Dublin south west, but it is being magnified and distorted by the publicity given to it. Corporation tenants in general do not object to paying for their housing in accordance with their means. The principle of differential rents has now been generally accepted. Corporation tenants have as much pride as any other section of the community. They take pride in paying their way. It is a pity that some of those speaking on their behalf give the opposite impression.

I should like to draw attention to the numbers of tenants opting to avail of the tenant purchase scheme introduced by our Minister. Deputy Dr. Thornley referred to the fact that we may not own a stick in our houses after contributing so much money over the years. This should be pointed out to corporation tenants in order to encourage them to own their houses and be owners of private property. This scheme was introduced a short time ago. The corporation could not cope with all the applicants. Much publicity was given to the scheme. A huge staff would be needed to cope with the applications for house purchase. The real complaint which the tenants have is not to the principle of paying for their accommodation in accordance with their means but to the inconsiderate, inflexible and totally unfeeling way in which the rents sections of Dublin Corporation operate. If some of the officials in this section of the corporation would realise that they are dealing with human being and that these people have feelings, perhaps less antagonism and less dissatisfaction would result.

I do not intend to go into details on this question of differential rents. I recognise that this is not directly the Minister's responsibility. What is needed is a change of attitude in the rent collectors' department of the Dublin Corporation. Over the past few years I have had occasion to deal directly with the corporation on rent problems. I have found that a number of the high-ranking officials are considerate in relation to the problems of people with rent arrears. This reaction can only be felt by a public representative who goes to the corporation. I fear this reaction is not felt by the ordinary tenant when he goes down to the office and is interviewed by an executive officer. It is a shame, because, as Deputy Dr. Thornley pointed out, we in this House should be here to legislate and not to take up our time on the question of rents with the corporation or spend time representing tenants when the corporation could themselves be a little bit more humane and try to help.

People in Dublin south west and other corporation areas throughout the city do not want money or handouts. They do not want help unnecessarily given to them. They really want help to understand the system. If this help was forthcoming in a fairly reasonable public relations department of the corporation it would lessen the burden on the public representative trying to alleviate the friction between the corporation and the tenants. From my own experience of local rent collectors' offices throughout the estates, I find that the collectors are acting like little Hitlers. They give the impression that they are giving charity from their own pockets. This attitude must be changed as soon as possible. Many tenants need help to keep them from getting into difficulties over their rent. Bullying and rigidity drive them to despair. When a tenant gets into arrears of rent the attitude should be to keep the arrears as small as possible so that the tenant will have some prospect of being able to clear them off without court orders, eviction notices and sheriff's expenses. Instead of this the corporation's attitude is "all or nothing".

The injection of a greater number of fully-qualified social workers into this section of the corporation would be a desirable development. There is comparatively little wrong with the differential rents scheme, although there is a clear case for the remission of part of overtime earnings from the assessable income. However, the administration of the scheme by Dublin Corporation is stupidly inadequate in so many ways as to justify the resentment of the tenant. There is no need at present for the type of protest which is being organised; all that is needed is the introduction into this section of the corporation of a little humanity and practical Christianity.

Mr. Crotty

I am glad the Minister devoted a large part of his introductory speech to housing, as all speakers in this debate have felt that it is a most important aspect of local government. I agree with Deputy Thornley that a lot of the difficulties in marriages and so forth are caused by bad housing. It would be grand if we could reach the stage when we could offer young married couples on their wedding day a local authority house, because to have a house gives a wonderful start to a new kind of life. However, I am afraid that that day is far distant. Progress has been made in housing in recent years, but unfortunately the situation was that we were only trying to catch up on the backlog. As we all know, this backlog was created because very few houses were built for seven or eight years. We must face up to the situation as we find it and ask ourselves: "Where do we go from here and how are we to provide more houses for our people?"

In my area, which is not a development area and in which we have no industrial estates, we have our problems. As well as the human problems we have skilled people leaving our city for want of houses. Kilkenny is facing up to its responsibilities. We have a fair amount of industrial employment but we cannot afford to have trained people—people trained in engineering or in other walks of life—leaving the city. Unfortunately, the situation is that we are losing them for want of houses. The local authority in Kilkenny have done a very good job promoting the building of private houses with SDA loans. Over the last few years we have had as many of these houses built as we have had houses built by the local authority itself. The county council provided sites at a very reasonable cost and we got a large number of houses built in quantity building which kept the costs down to what people could afford. As a result, we had people who came under the £1,200 a year figure who were able to go into these houses and meet the repayments. Thank God we had these houses because, if we had not, there would be an outcry in Kilkenny. Every day we hear from Dublin Deputies how bad the position is in Dublin but in Kilkenny city we have a waiting list of 200 and in the county we have a waiting list of 600. That is a large number, but the position would have been much worse if we had not these houses built under the SDA scheme: people would have been waiting four, five or six years for houses.

The Minister should have another look at the scheme because with rising building costs we are reaching the stage in Kilkenny where people will not be able to avail of the scheme due to the salary limits required to qualify for a grant or loan. When we built these houses the people were able to go into them without having to put down a deposit. As I said, the houses were built at reasonable cost because the sites were provided cheaply by the local authority, but now we are reaching the stage where people will have to put down a deposit and, as the years go on, the deposit will become larger. It may be said that the least a person going into one of these houses should have would be the money to meet the deposit. However, we must face the fact that, although young people are earning fair wages, they do not save. But they would be able to meet the repayments if they were given houses and they would be able to pay the £5 or £6 or the £7 a week which is required. Our last scheme envisages that repayments will be £7. Along with this, people will have to find the deposit and this will not be easy.

I would ask the Minister to look at the loans for these houses and if possible to increase them. After all, the value of money is decreasing, and the Minister would be doing a good job if he did increase them because he would be getting houses built under this scheme. I might say that because many people in local authority houses availed of these houses local authority houses were left free for people who could not afford these other houses. This is what we want. I know it is not easy for the Minister to come up with a solution and I know that it is easy to say he should increase the loans and grants, but we have arrived at the stage where they must be increased if we are to reap the benefit of these schemes. That is what the Minister and everybody else wants.

During the year I was disappointed at the Minister's announcement that he was not going to provide any money for urban development schemes. I think the Minister had in mind that this money was being squandered, that it was just given out to take some unemployed from the employment exchange, or something to that effect, but in our city we used this money to very good effect. It was used for very badly needed road widening in our housing schemes. Over the last five years the money was spent on these road widening schemes; we had the money earmarked for these schemes until they were completed. We feel they are so necessary that it has been put into the estimate for next year that these should be carried out. This will mean 1s 2d on the rates of Kilkenny City. I need go no further.

The Minister knows the problem of rates better than I do. Deputies on all sides of the House agree that there is a rates problem and that something must be done about it. I feel that this is putting an undue hardship on the ratepayers. These schemes are vitally necessary or the local representatives would not insist on completing them and as a result put this extra burden of 1s 2d. On the rates. I would ask the Minister to have another look at the provision of money for these schemes.

We have heard about home assistance being provided for people who were not paid their sickness benefit on time. The local council had to pay home assistance to this type of person who was destitute as a result of not getting his social welfare benefit. This money should be paid back to the council in all cases. I believe it is paid back in some cases. The local ratepayers should not be asked to subsidise social welfare. They should not be asked to stand in and look after these people because their benefit did not come through.

The problem of roads is a very pressing one in Kilkenny at present. As the Minister knows, we have agitation about the question of an arterial road. We had a special roads meeting at Kilkenny County Council recently. The local representatives and the people of Kilkenny as a whole feel very strongly that we should have an arterial road through the city. We are the only city or large town or large population centre in the country singled out not to have an arterial road through it. I know the Minister will give this matter consideration. The improvement of the planned arterial road and the improvement of the road through Kilkenny will cost the same amount of money and Kilkenny is prepared to face up to its responsibilities. Investigations have been started into a ring-road and a new bridge for the area. The Minister should give this matter sympathetic consideration. Kilkenny qualifies under all six headings laid down for an arterial road. The people of Kilkenny feel that they have been overlooked in all the plans for expansion that have come out on all sides—hospitals, industry, colleges of technology and so on. We feel that if we are to have a secondary road we will be made a secondary city because there are new maps coming out with the arterial roads shown in different colours and if Kilkenny has a secondary road, even though it will be a top-class road as the Minister has assured us, the fact is that people looking at the map will take the arterial road. The people of Kilkenny feel very strongly that this should not happen to their city and I appeal to the Minister to examine this question very closely and not to take a hasty decision on it.

I would also ask the Minister to look at the grants given to county roads. The people who use the county roads. are a forgotten people. We have in Kilkenny roughly 100 miles of unsurfaced roads, mainly in fairly backward areas. These are the places where we all say that the people should be kept and that they should not be denuded. We hear that said in debate after debate here, we cry crocodile tears, but we do not do anything to help them especially in the matter of roads. These people pay all the taxes but there is no doubt that they are forgotten. I appeal to the Minister to give the local authorities more money for county roads. These roads are used day after day by tractors and people going to creameries and they should be given facilities and not asked to travel on these poor roads. We should show our serious intention of looking after these forgotten people by giving them the service of good county roads.

We in Kilkenny also have a grievance about the local improvement grants. Our county gets one of the lowest grants in the 26 Counties. We get only £5,000 a year and we feel obliged to provide ratepayers in rural areas with good entrances to their homesteads. Some of them have long lanes leading to their houses and they cannot move their houses out to the side of the roads. We have got to the stage now where nobody—the creamery people, the people who deliver manures—except the people who live there will travel on these roads. I do not think it is fair that we get only £5,000 to cover these improvement schemes for the whole county of Kilkenny. The local representatives in Kilkenny felt so strongly about this that they introduced a scheme of their own whereby they provided £30,000 a year from local rates. They borrowed £30,000 to surface the lanes of the county but, unfortunately, for the last four years this £30,000 has only been sanctioned once by the Minister. This is a disgraceful state of affairs and I implore the Minister, even at this late stage, to give Kilkenny County Council sanction for this £30,000 to provide the service which these people are paying for but are not getting.

We heard many people speak of conservation and pollution. I think this is conservation year. This is very necessary if it is taken in the right way but I feel we must put our own house in order before we start talking about pollution. In the local authorities we have a sad lack of services. Kilkenny has a new sewer servicing 150 houses. This sewage is going into the River Nore without any treatment whatsoever and the resulting situation is a serious one. The Minister should give the local authority sanction to have this situation remedied. In that case they would be in a position to do something about it. In view of the fact that there is a regional water scheme four miles down river, this is a very serious situation. Granted, the water is treated but this is not the answer to the problem. There is another area at Mooncoin where there are a large number of houses for which water must be provided. We have asked for sanction for a scheme for this area and for another area adjacent to the industrial estate at Waterford. This area is being developed and there are a number of houses there. So far we have failed to get sanction to engage a consultant with a view to the provision of a sewerage scheme for these areas.

In regard to problems of pollution and conservation it is not possible to do everything we would wish overnight but we would like to be in the position that when we reach the stage of being able to proceed our plans will be ready so that there will be no further delay.

Mr. Briscoe

There are three points on which I should like to speak on this Estimate and I would ask the Minister's indulgence. The first point relates to traffic signals at pedestrian crossings. Traffic in Dublin has continued to increase rapidly. I understand that approximately 65,000 extra cars are going on to our roads each year with the result that pedestrians are gradually being pushed off the roads. The increase in traffic creates greater need for pedestrian crossings. I understand that about 80 requests for pedestrian crossings are received each year by Dublin Corporation but that their budget allows for the provision of a maximum of approximately 15. Therefore, I would urge the Minister, in the interests of road safety, to increase the allocation to the corporation for this purpose in so far as it is possible to do so.

A request has been made to the corporation to have a traffic warden outside the school at Clogher Road in my constituency but I understand from the corporation that there is not sufficient traffic to warrant the appointment. However, where young children are concerned it has become essential to have traffic wardens at all schools. This is very important, particularly in the city. The cost would not be very considerable and is hardly to be counted at all when the safety of the children is involved. Perhaps the officials in the Department would pay particular attention to this problem?

CIE, among others, must be fed up hearing from me in regard to the second point I wish to raise. I realise that the comfort of people travelling on buses is important but I do not see why the buses have to be as wide as they are in order to achieve this standard of comfort. If our roads were wider I could understand buses of this width being used. It would appear that all replacement buses being ordered by CIE are of the wider variety and these are proving increasingly dangerous for motorists, particularly on the roads out towards Maynooth, Bray and so on. Again, I would ask that the Minister's officials consider this question in consultation with CIE.

The third point on which I wish to speak is the one which I consider to be the most important. It is the question of citizens' advice bureaux. When I was first elected to Dublin Corporation the first motion I put down was that the corporation would investigate the possibility of setting up citizens' advice bureaux around Dublin. This motion was carried unanimously by the council and the corporation were to examine the question but with the dissolution of the city council the proposal did not come back to council. It is very important, as one will realise from listening to the speeches of Dublin Deputies about the complaints of tenants in corporation houses, that these citizens' advice bureaux should be set up. Such bureaux exist in all major towns and cities in England. The setting up of such bureaux in Ballymun, Ballyfermot, the Crumlin-Drimnagh area and other parts of Dublin, would be very useful. Part of the rent office could be used for this purpose. It has become a matter of urgency that this question be considered.

There are too many people who do not know what they are entitled to. It is all very well having your speech published in the newspapers the next day pointing out certain allowances to which people are entitled and which they did not know. Frequently representations are made to me in relation to matters/allowances to which people are entitled and about which they do not know. All these are matters which could best be dealt with by a citizens' advice bureau. It would relieve a lot of the burden on the corporation if this was done. I understand that something in the region of 10,000 letters a week are sent out from Dublin Corporation on a variety of problems. This shows that there is a real demand for the setting up of a citizens' advice bureau. I will say no more than that but I would emphasise that the most important suggestion I made is the setting up of a citizens' advice bureau. I should like to see the Minister encouraging local authorities and certainly Dublin Corporation to spend more money on traffic signals. The Minister should consult CIE in regard to the provision of narrower buses.

Mr. E. Collins

Perhaps rightly so speakers for the past few weeks have emphasised the problem of housing when speaking on this Estimate. It is not my intention to juggle with statistics as I think they can be minister-preted on a large scale. When I want to discuss housing I prefer to go on my own experience of meeting people. When I encounter a family with one or two children living in a one or two roomed flat or a small house the housing is bad. This is my experience not only in my own constituency but in a number of other constituencies which I visited. Frankly, I do not accept the rosy picture painted by the Minister in his opening speech. The fact is that Fianna Fáil Governments have a very bad record in the building of houses especially during the period 1958 to 1966. Whatever the increased output in houses in the past two or three years it is only slowly making up the leeway which has to be made up to catch up on what I would consider the most serious problem facing the Government.

One of the greatest problems which the Government and, indeed, local authorities have failed to face up to is that of land acquisition. Indeed, the price of land, especially in Dublin, has increased very much in the past few years. In and around County Dublin is becoming an absolute haven for speculators. It is a sad reflection on the Government and on local authorities. The Government are not doing enough to encourage house building by local authorities as well as by private interests. The grants should be substantially increased to encourage private and local authority house building. Cheap capital should be provided by the central Government and by local authorities for people who want to build their own houses. Indeed, capital at one per cent, which has already been mentioned by the Labour Party, is something I would fully support and I would see this as a possible way of conserving public capital.

The future which faces local authorities is one of expanding and increasing responsibility to the people living under their jurisdiction. Nearly all local authorities have now formulated their development plans. In Waterford city we have two plans, one a traffic study and the other an urban renewal plan. These plans envisage modernisation, better roads, proper conservation of good quality properties and the problem of anti-pollution. These are matters which local authorities will have to face up to in the coming years. Without going into details about such plans it must be obvious to the Minister that local authorities are faced with severe financial stringency. Indeed, to put the burden of providing for such development in rural or urban areas on people who pay rates is intolerable. The rates burden at the present time has gone far beyond what I think the Minister intended to see it go. I do not want to discuss the rates problem here at length because it is one which is well known to all. However, the Minister should recommend to local authorities the sale of corporate property.

I know that a number of tenant purchase schemes have been revised for corporation tenants. I welcome them but the Minister has insisted on current valuation less, I will admit, a certain percentage for occupation over a number of years. This current valuation scheme may be good economics or may turn out to be bad economics. The reaction to the scheme in Waterford is not encouraging. Very few people want to buy their houses based on current valuation. I sympathise with their view. Many people have been living in those houses for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years and it is very unfair that the current valuation should be imposed on them. This will in the long run be detrimental to the availability of capital for local authorities. This is badly needed to pursue the problem I have already mentioned.

Another possible source of finance for local authorities lies in the scale of corporate leases. The corporations and the county councils throughout the country have quite a substantial number of leases which could be sold and capitalised and which would yield substantial amounts of capital which would in that way become available for capital outlay by councils. I ask the Minister to encourage councils to partake in such a scheme.

I regard our scheme of rating as being wrong. It is agreed that the rates burden is wrong and that the system of property valuation as at present practised is wrong. Are there new sources of finance available to local authorities? Would the Minister consider allowing the local authorities to impose local taxation, a system which might be unpopular to advocate, but which nevertheless would provide a source of finance necessary for each local authority if they want to modernise, if they want to have more houses, better roads, new bridges? It is something that might be worth examining.

I must criticise the Government for the method they use to recoup local authorities in respect of forward land acquisition and main road development. The fact is that if a local authority buy land forward or agree to a substantial main road improvement scheme, they will have to finance it initially out of their own capital. Granted these moneys will be recouped later, but during a period of possibly five, six or seven years, the overdraft rates which the council will have to pay will be a burden on the ratepayers. Therefore, the Minister should formulate a scheme under which local authorities could be re-imbursed at a much faster rate. I am sure the Minister accepts the suggestion that the Department should help to keep down the rates burden.

I must refer to the workings of our planning legislation. I think, and I am slow to say so, that in a number of instances political pressure has been successful in the granting of applications or in their rejection. This is a very poor reflection on the working of our planning legislation. I could refer to specific instances but I will refrain from doing so. I believe the present structure has led the ordinary public into believing that political pull is essential in the gaining of planning permission and I should like to suggest that the Planning Acts be widened to include demolition among the activities that require local authority sanction.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that new legislation may not be advocated.

Mr. E. Collins

I merely mentioned it in passing and will not continue to discuss it. I recommend to the Minister that regional co-operation be exploited. There is a great future here not only from the point of view of tourism but also in the planning of housing, sewerage and roads. Councils must co-operate to a far greater extent than heretofore when there was evidence of jealousy as between one council and another. Councils must come together for the betterment of an entire region rather than consider only their own limited areas.

I should like to discuss briefly the quality of houses. In Waterford we decided to submit a scheme recently based on a system known as the Radburn system. It has been rejected by the Minister on the basis of cost. If we are to make available to our people a good quality house we will have to pay for it and I should prefer to see new housing estates properly planned rather than have the houses stuck together like beehives. A number of housing schemes throughout the country have been very badly planned. No amenity areas have been provided, no community centres have been erected. This is wrong and especially it will be detrimental to the physical and psychological development of children. I place very high priority on playing fields, community centres and good schools and they will not be provided by the pinchpenny attitude I have experienced in the Department.

I believe the Minister's power to abolish local authorities for long periods is a very bad, a very penal concept, one which the people reject. I submit that the Minister should have power to abolish a local body for only a short period. This was accepted by the Minister for Health in the new Health Act. County councils, borough councils, urban district councils have much to offer to the people they represent who can come to them and discuss their problems. This is most important in present day administration. The Government have been relying far too much on a central outlook rather than on regional or local government. They must reverse that approach.

I suggest that local authority accounts, as compiled annually for rating purposes, should be audited not by an accounting officer from a single Department but by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The principle of public accountability has been flouted for far too long. Indeed, such an audit should be not only of financing— figures—but also of efficiency. Annual statistics covering the expenditure of each local authority should be compiled in detail and should be presented to the Oireachtas in such a manner as to make comparisons easy. This would help to ensure that local authorities are efficient in their administration of the ratepayers' and the taxpayers' money. Apart from the annual accounts, the council should produce an annual report on its activities during a particular period, possibly a financial year. Down through the years, local authorities have done a tremendous amount of good for their county or their city, whatever the case may be. They are criticised by local people and by national pundits in far too serious and wrong a manner. This tendency would be curbed to a certain extent if each council, in co-operation with the manager, produced a good readable report of their activities over the year. Such a report would be welcomed by the citizens at large and would have much to offer in the understanding of the workings of the local authority.

Great advantage could be derived from the interchangeability of staffs not only between local authorities but between private industry, public companies, semi-State bodies, and so on. However, in order to achieve this, one must have regard to pension rights and, indeed, salary rights. A more flexible attitude should be adopted by local authorities in this respect, under the aegis of the Department. Private industry would have much to offer towards streamlining the workings of local authorities. Staffs of local authorities could gain valuable experience from working for a period within private industry.

I welcome the new scheme of arbitration recently announced by the Minister. For far too long, there have been very bad delays in the arbitration machinery. I look forward to a more efficient handling of pay claims and other matters affecting the conditions of employment of local authority workers.

I object strongly to the abolition of the urban employment grant. It was used primarily at Christmastime to help people who, I admit, are down and out. What more deserving persons should get a helping hand at Christmas than those people who have been rejected by society or who are in poor circumstances through no fault of their own or who are meeting hard times through no fault of their own? It may not be a big item on the Department's Estimate but a large number of poor people welcomed the few meagre pounds they got in that way at Christmas. The Government have been very niggardly in abolishing such a small scheme.

The whole concept of financing public assistance needs to be overhauled. We have tremendous pressure groups within our society representing the labour sector, trade unions; we have a strong farming representation; we have federations of industry; we have professional bodies. We have no such body representing people who require public assistance, people who are living in hovels, in cold, unlit houses. One of the big problems facing many local authorities is the presence of old, out-of-date houses. We have many old people living in our society under conditions no socialist government would allow or accept. Our society admires wealth and success to far too great an extent. A reorientation of their thinking is necessary if they are to help poor, helpless people which is something that is long overdue. The Taca boys may succeed but the poor people can be damned. It is a poor reflection on this Government and indeed on this Christian society and I condemn it in no uncertain terms.

The itinerants are perhaps another reflection of our lack of Christian outlook in this modern Ireland. Far too many local authorities have more or less rejected the inclusion of itinerants within their community. There are two types of itinerants. There are those who do not want to come within society: fair enough, nobody can do anything about that. Itinerants who want to be absorbed in the community have the right, under the Constitution, to be so absorbed and each local authority has moral responsibility in this matter. If any narrow-minded representative on a local authority wishes to deny them this right then any such person must answer to God for it and must also answer to the electors at election time. I hope the electors will remember their unchristian attitude on this problem.

I welcome the amenity grants provided by the Department. I hope they will be used by local authorities to clear derelict sites, to provide playing fields, community centres, and so on. I hope these grants will also be used towards the beautifying of residential areas. I trust they will be used in urban renewal and conservation. An Foras Forbartha have a very big part to play in the development of modern Ireland on a consultative basis. The Minister must get credit for An Foras Forbartha. If the Minister employs experts in the various fields of conservation, pollution, urban renewal and all the problems which face this country then we shall make progress.

I do not consider pollution to be a matter for local government. It is a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. Legislation should be brought in to combat the increased pollution of lands and rivers not only in the interests of the tourist industry but in order to preserve wild life, including fish-breeding, which is such a traditional part of rural life. It is a pity to see species of fish such as salmon and trout being killed unnecessarily. If proper precautions were taken this would not occur. Similarly, it is important to conserve the fine Georgian buildings which we are fortunate enough to have as well as the scenic beauty of our country. This can be done only with governmental aid.

I want to protest against the curtailment of grants for swimming pools. The sooner we start building swimming pools throughout the country the better.

I want to object to the very long delays in sanctioning housing and sewerage proposals. A quicker method of examining proposals and plans should be brought into operation by the Department of Local Government. If necessary, outside consultants should be employed in an effort to expedite the matter. We must increase housebuilding and cannot afford to be subject to such delays.

I should like to conclude by saying that the Minister, whom I respect, and his Department can play a great part in the modernisation of the country. More money, not only from the Government but also from local authorities, must be provided for this purpose, but it will be money well spent.

Mr. Donegan

I intend to devote my initial remarks to housing. It would be repetition to go into the long list of statistics which were dealt with so ably by my colleague Deputy Dr. FitzGerald on behalf of our Party. I shall make only a few general observations in regard to statistics. It is a fact that the building industry in this country, as in any other country, once it has slowed down takes a while to start up again. One cannot just decide to build 100 houses and build them the following month. Very often the preparations take a great deal of time and it usually takes some time before contractors start to build. It may therefore be a year or two years before building commences.

In 1949—I am quoting from Housing—Progress and Prospects, which was laid by the Minister for Local Government before each House of the Oireachtas in 1964—the total number of houses provided by private enterprise and local authorities was only 3,418. The build-up of the inter-Party Government in 1948 was obvious and by 1950, 8,113 houses were built. In 1951, 12,305 houses were built and that number continued to be built during the period when the Minister's Party was in power. In 1952, 12,672 houses were built, and in 1953 13,993 houses were built. In 1954 only 11,175 houses were built. In 1955, 10,490 houses were built; in 1956, 9,837 houses were built and in 1957, 19,969 houses were built.

There was a change of Government then and there was a credit squeeze. The Minister may regard it as a political argument but it must be stated how that credit squeeze was cured. It was cured simply by building 7,480 houses in 1958, 4,894 houses in 1959, 5,992 houses in 1960, 5,798 houses in 1961, 5,626 houses in 1962, 6,867 houses in 1963 and in 1964 the accent on housing was increased again and 7,431 houses were built. I give these statistics not as criticism but as a statement of fact that the building industry does not allow itself to be switched on and off like a light switch. If the pace of building is slowed-down it very often takes three to five years before it recovers.

This was very clearly demonstrated to me when Louth County Council decided to build more houses in rural areas. Up to this time we had no county architect, all the work was being done in the engineer's office. We now have an architect, an assistant architect and a draughtsman and they are pressing forward with the job, and after three years we are only now reaching the stage where the Minister will be receiving large numbers of applications for sanction because our plans are coming through and the scheme is beginning to bear fruit. Five years will have elapsed—notwithstanding the provision of 489 houses—before the momentum is increased.

I do not want to go into another series of statistics, but I think it is necessary to give some figures in order to draw attention to what has happened in the City of Dublin. During the credit squeeze of 1956, 1957 and 1958, houses were available for the people and whether or not the Government were right or wrong in so doing they availed of the opportunity to build fewer houses. I am quoting now from the same White Paper at page 37, where it states that the number of houses in Dublin City in 1955 was 1,922; in 1956, 1,311; 1957, 1,564; 1958, 1,021; 1959, 460; 1960, 505; 1961, 277; 1962, 392; 1963, 643; and 1964, 786.

There was a credit squeeze, a recession. We had the Korean War, the Suez crisis, all these things. The Minister might say we had an inter-Party Government as well. I do not mind if he says that; the fact is that there was this financial crisis and the way of curing it again adopted by Fianna Fáil in 1957 was to stop the building of houses. The net result we have seen; we have seen people in Dublin city killed when houses fell upon them; we have seen the situation in Griffith Barracks where husbands were allowed in to see their wives and children for an hour every day, waiting for somewhere to go, taken from houses not because these houses were unfit to live in but because they were dangerous to occupy. My fear now is that again as we are in a time of financial stringency and the Government have to borrow abroad to a very great extent there will be— and we would not know it until it would have occurred next year or the year after—a reduction in the number of houses built.

The Minister indicated in his speech the vast sum of money that is being provided for housing, a grand total of £72 million. However, when we look at this in greater detail we find the total supplied by the Government is £33 million and that £13 million of this came from central taxation and rates. I presume this is above the line expenditure which is met from direct and indirect taxation as distinct from borrowing. There are also listed the insurance companies, the building societies and private savings, the money which people put in themselves—and the Minister can hardly claim credit for that—and other sources.

Let me deal with this question of other sources. We in this House who are also members of local authorities, where we do work which is more difficult than this House lays upon us, know that the Minister is forcing through the local authorities a policy of raising rents. Over the last 16 years during which time I was a member of a local authority, as the cost of houses went up there was always an increase by the Minister in charge of Local Government, whoever he was at the time, in the amount of money allocated on which subsidy would be paid. For the benefit of Members who may not be members of local authorities the subsidies paid in urban areas were either on the basis of two-thirds subsidy and the repayment of principal and interest on loan charges or one-third subsidy in cases where the person housed was not in a condemned house or in any other priority category.

As the spectacular increase in costs occurred over the past number of years the Minister saw fit not to increase this figure. I was at a meeting of the Drogheda Corporation last night where we were considering a demanded increase of 25s in the £ in the local rate. The figure I heard of the cost of a house was of the order of £3,500. What the Minister has done is to hold the amount of money on which he will pay subsidy to the figure of £1,650. One of our biggest housing schemes in Drogheda, namely Ballsgrove, was built in three parts. The cost of the first lot of houses, apart from the costs under the ground, was £1,670; the second lot cost £2,070; and the third lot, admittedly, on a section of the site which was more difficult, cost £2,600. All those houses are occupied. The position now is that houses on better sites are costing this corporation and I am sure every other local authority in Ireland something the same, between £3,000 and £3,500. That means that the difference between £3,500 and £1,650 must be found from one of two sources, namely, the rent that the tenant pays or the rates of the local authority.

In relation to health we have now got four boards looking after four counties and the Minister has had to produce extra subsidies this year to ensure that the rate of the local authority will only go up by a uniform 2/- in the £. I prophesy that the same will happen in housing. It is quite impossible to relate this extra cost that must be borne either by the rents of the local tenants or the rates in an urban area or a rural area to this increase which is not being funded by the Minister.

Up to four years ago in relation to houses costing around £1,650 the Minister was providing, in the case of a person from a condemned house, two-thirds of the cost of principal and interest in the repayment over 35 years. He is now providing two-thirds of one-half, which is one-sixth. At the same time, he is putting pressure on local authorities to increase rents of old houses and to increase rents of new houses by the application of a differential scheme the details of which are not agreed either by any local authority, unless they were under severe pressure and they could find no other way out, or by any of the tenant associations. Housing is no longer a major charge.

Mr. Boland

I am sure Deputy Donegan would not like that mathematical calculation he made to appear on the Official Report, that two-thirds of a half is one-sixth.

Mr. Donegan

I did not say that. The Minister is providing two-thirds of the cost of a house which about three or four years ago, on the average, cost about £1,650. That house is now costing over £3,000 and the Minister is now providing two-thirds of a half —I am very sorry; the Minister is quite correct, in one-third instead of one-sixth.

Mr. Boland

I thought the Deputy might not like anything so foolish to appear in the Official Report.

Mr. Donegan

It was a slip of the tongue. The Minister is now admitting what I meant to say, namely, that he is now providing the principal and interest repayments on one-third of the cost of a house in the best situation, whereas my slip of the tongue indicated it was one-sixth. I apologise to the Minister for having made the mistake and thank him for the correction. May I also advert to the fact that in the case of a person who did not come from a condemned house or was not in one of the priority categories because of health or overcrowding or something else like that, that subsidy is one-third and is, in fact, the figure I quoted, one-sixth. One-sixth of the cost of the house is what the Minister is repaying the principal and interest on in the case of a person who is not in a priority category. I am extremely thankful to the Minister for the correction which has enabled me to be more explicit and far more correct.

This policy is a complete change from everything we knew in this country. On the continent the principle was that people paid as much as one-third of their weekly income for their housing, and perhaps they paid less in taxes and for various other things. In this country up to four or five years the policy was that people did not pay anything like this for their housing and that housing was largely a charge on the Central Exchequer funds. All that was asked of the local authority, and I quote directly from the circular which I remember very well, was: "A generous contribution from the local rates". In my constituency in Dundalk Urban District Council, Drogheda Corporation and Louth County Council the generous contribution from the local rates amounted to 3/- in the rent per week. That is all that was asked. Now far more is being asked. An increase of 12/6d or 13/- in the £ is not out of the way in respect of local authorities that find themselves expanding quickly without getting, before they build the houses and put in the sewers, the return on rates they will get when the ten years period of alleviation of rates has passed.

I happened to be at the Dundalk versus Athlone Town cup match at Athlone on Sunday and the Minister will be glad to know that his colleague Deputy Brian Lenihan was also there. I found myself standing beside a local councillor who informed me that at the moment Athlone Urban Council are dealing with the provision of a new housing scheme and are in the process of seeking sanction from the Minister. I did not ask him how far it had gone but he told me the county manager's estimate of the increase in the Athlone rates in respect of that one housing scheme. Athlone is a thriving community. There are quite a few factories there and they have to provide houses for the young people, and why should they not? This scheme when finished, on the estimate of the county manager, will cost £1 in the £ on the rates.

I want to prophesy—and this is no criticism of the Minister—that just as health has been removed from the jurisdiction of the local authorities, just as a regional board has been set up for health and the provision of hospital and medical facilities for our people, the same thing will have to happen in relation to housing. Urban authorities which are expanding very quickly are faced either with a colossal rent or an increase in the rates of the town which cannot be paid by the ordinary ratepayer or rentpayer.

The only way this can be dealt with is by having a higher central exchequer contribution and by the necessary expansion in the various growth centres. I am sure the Minister's advisers have been talking to him about this. Perhaps they do not take the same view as I do. I think it is inevitable. The position in which we found ourselves last night in Dundalk Corporation looking at an increased demand of 25/- in the £ is, in my view, a precursor of worse things to come next year.

What are we to do? Stop building houses when we have four or five people living in one room? Of course not. Just as the impost in relation to health became too great, so will the impost in relation to housing become too great and then the Minister will have to change his tune. I suggest that his present policy is incorrect for that reason. It is incorrect in another way. A few months ago the Minister issued a circular to local authorities indicating that all sorts of trimmings on houses, which I think are necessary for any unfortunate young housewife who has to set up house and pay for all the interior furnishings, should be deleted, that we should not have things like cupboards in kitchens, that we should merely have ordinary shelving, that a cooker or a stove or a range should not be installed, that it was quite easy for these people to go to the ESB and get themselves an electric cooker, perhaps on the "never never" system.

The idea is to spread the butter a little more thinly and to get more houses built. This, of course, is a most praiseworthy object but, in achieving the object, the reduction in standards is a grave error. Young people going into new houses have not got the sort of money that will provide these amenities. We should bend our arms a little more to the effort of providing that bit of extra money that would allow these amenities to be installed. I do not call them luxuries. They are ordinary amenities which people who got corporation and local authority houses over the past 20 years enjoyed, and which are not being provided at the moment.

Following on that circular we had the strictures applied by the Minister in relation to the size of houses. There was also a reference to the question of greater density on housing sites. I agree that there are problems at the moment in relation to sites. Perhaps some people are making too much money out of sites. This is the sort of world we live in and I express no criticism about that except to say that through the planning and development Act of 1963 we must guard against excessive profits.

While all this is true, I think that the decision to create greater density than has been the practice over the past number of years in the housing areas we all know—where some of us campaigned last week, for instance—is a mistake. You need the green areas. You need the bit of fresh air. You do not want to be living up against your neighbour's backdoor. If you are not living in a detached house and have to live close to your neighbour, you need a little bit of space where you can walk with the children and look at the sun, if there is any sun.

It would be very retrograde to decide to have greater density in any of the local authority housing schemes that are being planned at present. If the Minister forces this on local authority architects and engineers it will be a grave error. I say this in no personal way to the Minister. I merely say that in my opinion—and I am entitled to say this in this House—it would be a grave error. I have noticed in certain housing schemes in my constituency the improvement in this regard over the years: the improvement in the amenities, the nicer planning, and the better facilities available for residents. It would be a pity if, just because there is a shortage of capital money at the moment, there were the reduction in standards which there would be if there were a greater density of houses.

The Minister is also desirous of having smaller houses. This again is a mistake. It is an economic mistake because the costs of houses nowadays are not perhaps as simple as they used to be. The cost of providing services underground is very often perhaps several hundreds of pounds on the cost of a house. We have found in the local authority of which I am a member that very often, particularly on a difficult site, the difference between building a small house that might be occupied by an old age pensioner and building a full sized house that might be occupied by a family was very little. It was wiser to build the bigger house. In the past that often militated against unfortunate people who had no family or against two old people living alone and I hope that will not be the case in the future. While this is so, the advantage seems to be in building the larger house.

There is also the fact that 20 or 30 years ago people accepted housing standards that we should not ask them to accept now. If we reduce the size of the houses and the floor space, without the slightest shadow of doubt we will be expecting the average family to accept standards they should not have to accept, to accept greater overcrowding, to accept smaller bedrooms. In 1970 we should be improving these things rather than disimproving them. The Minister's attitude indicates a rather frightened approach to the capital situation at the moment which is not good, as we know, but at the same time the lowering of standards is not the solution. It is most necessary that these standards should be kept up and improved.

The Minister several years ago, and, I think, in his 1966 Housing Act, changed the situation regarding the purchase of houses by tenants. He also changed the position regarding the purchase by their occupants of rural cottages built under the 1936 Labourers Act. He has made the main guideline the value of the house today. He has given relief in respect of the years of occupancy but my experience in my constituency is that the reliefs given are not fair. When you take a house that was built 25 years ago, a pre-war house which during war years had no painting and no maintenance and consequently suffered as a result, the type of accommodation provided is definitely far below what we have been providing in the past ten years. I believe the prices sought have made it too expensive for tenants to take up the houses. The tenants are in the position that if they stay as tenants the Minister, with his present political strength, may increase rents again and again by pressure on local authorities. On the other hand, if a tenant wants to buy, the price is beyond his capacity. This is a mistake. These houses were built by the Minister for the people at very low cost, the money being borrowed at very advantageous terms by today's standards, some of it at 4½ per cent, half the present figure. These people should get a chance of buying their houses at a more attractive price.

I know that the Minister's idea is— and it can be argued—to get more money into the housing "kitty" to build more new houses. But take this example. You have lived for 30 years in a house planned 30 years ago and you have paid such rent that you know, on the basis of the sinking fund computation, you are paying for the house and that the local authority would in another five years perhaps have completely cleared themselves of all liability in respect of that house—except for the generous contribution I have mentioned from the rates of 3/- in the weekly rent and far less 30 years ago. To be asked then for such accommodation a price related to today's prices is, I think, unjust. The Government are definitely trying to move quite a large share of the cost of future housing on to the backs of people in existing local authority houses. This is a mistake that should be corrected and the Minister should consider this. Tenants' associations are taking to the streets. Next Saturday I understand they will do so in my own constituency. They have been on the streets in the Minister's constituency, as he knows, and they are on them again.

Mr. Boland

They have not; not in my constituency.

Mr. Donegan

I do not want to get into an argument but I thought about two and a half years ago I met a long parade of them.

Mr. Dowling

In my area.

Mr. Donegan

Very well.

Mr. Boland

I thought the Deputy was talking about the present time.

Mr. Donegan

No, about the last few years. It has been going on for a few years, I think.

Mr. Boland

No.

Mr. Donegan

I think the argument on the change in differential rents and the change in the manner of purchasing one's own house has been on for a year or so.

Mr. Hogan

It has been.

Mr. Donegan

There is something the Minister should remember when sanctioning water and sewerage schemes. In a big development area, with great employment and where more and more houses are needed, water and sewerage schemes are far more necessary than in areas where such development is not taking place at the same rate. You often find that sanction for such schemes is given more or less on a county basis, that every part of the country must get its share. In my constituency, in County Louth, most people have jobs and the county has been developing very rapidly for several years. Because of this we have far greater need to have water and sewerage extended to most of our villages than many other, if not most other counties. It is necessary for the Minister to watch the growth of industry and employment and on that decide what schemes will be sanctioned so that we shall not find ourselves in the impossible situation where we cannot build houses because we have no services.

In Louth, we have been trying to build houses for the past three years and have found the delay in regard to water and sewerage to be a retarding factor. We completed one housing scheme but had no sewerage laid on because we were still in communication with the Minister regarding certain equipment which his Department would not sanction. We do not want this happening. It is most important that local authorities should get their sewerage schemes ready for sanction so that the provision of housing sites can go together with water and sewerage.

Mr. Boland

I shall give the Deputy the list again when I am concluding. It will take a little longer this time.

Mr. Donegan

I am sure the Minister agrees with me——

Mr. Boland

I shall give the Deputy the list again.

Mr. Donegan

Of what? Of all the water and sewerage schemes?

Mr. Boland

Yes, Deputy, and it will disprove your argument. It will take about twice as long as the first time.

Mr. Donegan

That is all right.

Mr. Boland

I bet they will not keep the debate going until Friday. I am talking to Deputy Hogan.

Mr. Donegan

I want to assure the Minister through the Chair——

Mr. Boland

They will not keep it going until 5 o'clock on Friday. They will fail miserably because they will not stay.

Mr. Donegan

I gave way to Members of my party four times in this debate before I came in to speak——

Mr. Boland

They will not stay until 5 o'clock on Friday.

Mr. Donegan

As a Deputy and as chairman of Louth County Council I am entitled to make my views on local government known and that is what I propose to do. I do not intend to keep the Minister one minute longer than is necessary, nor is there any desire by our party to keep him longer than necessary. But if people desire to ventilate their views here, that is the purpose for which they were sent here and, thank God, we have a Constitution which insists that they have a right to do so. The Minister might desire that this would not be the case, but it is the case.

The Minister said he was pleased with the development of swimming pools in various towns which he listed and added that he hoped to be able to sanction more later. With money as it is there must be priorities and I am not going to ask the Minister to sanction every swimming pool for which there is an application.

I want to record that in Drogheda town there has been an excellent development in that the swimming pool committee are going through the entire housing area of the town and collecting 2/6d per house from all the working class families. The response has been wonderful and a sum approaching £10,000 has been collected in this way. Also, various business firms in the town have given bankers' orders for yearly subscriptions for five years. I prophesy with certainty that, while Drogheda may not have been first to apply for a swimming pool—on the basis of the regulations now laid down by the Minister at least 20 per cent of the cost of the pool should be available—Drogheda will be first there with the hard cash in hand. If it is not first, it will be second or third. I would recommend to the Minister, on the basis that the working people have backed the project with hard cash, that Drogheda should be given priority. I am fully aware of the situation as regards capital and I am not so silly as to say everything should be sanctioned, but I merely mention the situation so far as my constituency is concerned.

During the period in office of the Minister's predecessor, money was provided for the provision of a salt water, open-air pool in Blackrock—a small village with six or seven small hotels and one large hotel about half a mile away. The tide goes out about three miles and, while it is very pleasant for small children to paddle there, if one wants a swim one must walk out about half a mile. The village had a good tourist trade with people coming from Scotland, from the Counties of Monaghan and Cavan and from the West of Ireland, but had it not got this outdoor swimming pool it would not have survived as a tourist centre. Since the swimming pool was built there has been a resurgence in the tourist trade which we all agree is most desirable.

Louth County Council and Dundalk Urban District Council are prepared to make a generous contribution towards the heating and covering of the swimming pool. By co-operation of this kind we will be able to provide these amenities, backed by the hard cash of the citizens. Since this decision was made, nobody has said: "Why should Louth County Council go into Drogheda town and provide a penny in the rates during the years for a swimming pool?" The answer is simple: it should do this for the very good reason that the boys and girls from Monasterboice. Dunleer and mid-Louth will use the swimming pool in Drogheda. Many of them will be going to secondary school in Drogheda and will be able to avail of the amenity of the swimming pool.

As we know from the experience of Finglas and other places, these swimming pools are not just places where one goes to, pays one shilling and has a swim. Children are taught to swim, hospitals and schools use them for a certain number of hours a week, and we will eventually arrive at the stage where every young healthy boy and girl is able to swim and therefore able to cope with any emergency that may arise later should they find themselves in difficulty while in the water. Neighbouring local authorities should help towards the provision of swimming pools particularly in an age when people travel by car much more frequently than heretofore.

I am sorry to say in the presence of Deputy Tully that Meath County Council did not make any such provision. As chairman of Louth County Council, I made appeals at various meetings held between the Meath and Louth County Councils on hospitals and other matters to give even a token amount of a farthing in the year on the rates on the basis that the children of Laytown and Mornington, where Deputy Tully lives—perhaps Deputy Tully himself might even use the pool——

Mr. Tully

I prefer sea water.

Mr. Donegan

My appeals fell on deaf ears.

Mr. Tully

I do not think we are exactly at peace with Drogheda at present. I think there is war declared.

Mr. Donegan

We must discuss this later. However, I would urge on the Minister that the efforts of the working people of Drogheda town will not go unheeded and that when they come forward with their hard cash the Minister will be good enough to give them a high degree of priority in relation to the provision of the pool, in an area which has a population of nearly 20,000 people.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I hope they do not provide guns to shoot the tinkers.

Mr. Donegan

We can deal with that later if the Deputy wishes. I have already told the Deputy if he started this again he would be in plenty of trouble and he may take that definition any way he likes.

I should like to refer to the matter raised by Deputy Tully, namely, the extension of the Drogheda borough boundary. There is no other way in which Drogheda can expand except by extension of the boundary in the direction which is the subject of this proposal. We have not got a large area of land on the Louth side that would allow us to expand and this fact cannot be disproved. The only way it can be done is as suggested in the proposal. We must face the fact that our urban areas are going to increase. We accept the fact that the Buchanan Report is probably right when it says that Drogheda town will have a population of 35,000 people in 15 years time. These people must be accommodated, schools must be provided and the only way to do it is by extension of the borough boundary. I do not know what has happened since the last developments and if the Minister, as he has indicated, wishes to make some remarks about my contribution——

Mr. Boland

I did not say I would make any comments on the Deputy's contribution.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister said he was going to deal with the question of sanitary services.

Mr. Boland

I said I would give a list of sanitary services.

Mr. Donegan

Perhaps the Minister would comment on the situation in regard to the extension of the Drogheda borough boundary? The provision of approximately 375 houses for white-collar workers was held up and eventually abandoned because of the fact that two local authorities would be involved. The Louth county manager, with the agreement of his corporation, offered to provide the sewerage outfall at a certain point for these houses and that he would compound with Meath County Council who would provide the underground sewerage facilities and that arrangements could be made.

Mr. Tully

No such proposal was made to Meath County Council.

Mr. Donegan

The position is that he indicated this to the developer, who was then to contact Meath County Council. But after about a month or two the developer did not proceed with the project. Perhaps this decision not to proceed was an indication that we are losing because of the boundary or perhaps it was not. If this boundary is to be extended we should do so now and avail of our opportunity to expand. It is clear this is going to happen; you cannot have two local authorities dealing with a town which it is reckoned will have a population of 35,000 in 15 years time.

Mr. Tully

This growth is happening in other towns in Ireland. You are looking for an area three times the size of Drogheda while you have 450 acres of undeveloped land in Drogheda.

Mr. Donegan

Let us agree to disagree on that matter, but if we are to plan ahead on the basis of two local authorities looking after one town, with a future projected population of 35,000 people, this is very bad planning. It may have been done in the past but it is a deterrent to development and let us not do it in the future. We should ensure that in every area in Ireland where we have legislation under the Planning Act, 1963, that we have planning officers working towards what is the best way to carry out this task in the future. We should not continue on the basis of parochialism and shibboleths, doing the wrong thing and disregarding our planning officers.

Mr. Tully

We will give you the whole lot and you can come into County Meath.

Mr. Donegan

I shall now refer to planning. I have not been, and neither has any other member of the local authority, happy about planning in County Louth. Perhaps planning has arrived too late. Perhaps the 1963 Act should have been passed years before. Indeed, had that been the pattern, some of the things that have happened would not have happened.

There must be planning and development but planning must come before development. It would be quite wrong to allow our country to develop higgledly-piggledly into a sort of Chinese junk shop when we can do the job the right way. There is, in my opinion, a too rigid approach and the Minister has asked local authorities to adopt a more flexible attitude in relation to planning applications and a more flexible approach to planning generally. The Minister is quite right. I have listened many times to a record, while driving my car, called Little Boxes; obviously every house would be the same if certain people had their way. I would make Aldous Huxley's Brave New World compulsory reading. In this brave new world there are hundreds of thousands of humans conditioned from birth into believing that they love a certain type of colour and working in a certain way in a certain factory. Eventually they want nothing else. Then you have a group of planners and they are conditioned from birth into regarding themselves as planners who must ensure that the others do the right thing.

All this results in a completely stereotyped society. Ireland is not a stereotyped society. I do not think that would be the Ireland any of us would desire. I do not think there is anything wrong in an individual getting permission to build a bungalow somewhere in the country in order to be near his relatives. There are people who might not care for that kind of life; they prefer an urban atmosphere. I should like to be able to facilitate all in living the way they want to live. There is an inflexible approach at the moment. The idea is to extend water and sewerage facilities and only where there are these facilities will people be allowed to build. That might be all right in another 20 years when the sewerage and water facilities have been provided. They are not there at the moment. The result is that planning permission is being refused. There should be more flexibility. People who want to build bungalows for themselves in a rural atmosphere, those bungalows being serviced by septic tanks, should be allowed to do so. That is the sensible approach. It may not be the one that officialdom would like but, if a more flexible attitude is adopted, our boys and girls may stay at home instead of emigrating or living in squalid conditions in town or village. One can try to be too perfect. There are countries—Holland is one of them—in which there is no strict adherence except where there are sewerage and water facilities. Holland is a country with 11 million population and an area approximating to Deputy Flor Crowley's province of Munster. We can be too rigid in the application of our Planning Act and the Minister is quite right in asking for greater flexibility. I hope there will be more flexibility.

What sort of country do we want? We do not want rows of little boxes. Our population will certainly increase. There will be a levelling up when we enter the EEC. There has already been a levelling as a result of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. There will be an extension of our villages and there will be the provision of sewerage and water facilities, which will prevent an excess of septic tanks, a possible outcome of too great expansion. Until such time, however, as sewerage and water facilities are provided it is wrong to refuse planning permission except for a very good reason. I hope the Minister will comment on this when he comes to reply.

There are very wide powers under the Planning Act. Development plans have to be provided. The amendment of these plans is both a detailed and a lengthy exercise. There is a development plan drawn up for the Ardee Town Commissioners, another for Louth County Council, another for Dundalk Urban Council and another for Drogheda Corporation. Louth County Council carried out a detailed study of their particular plan over nine meetings in committee. Two months ago they decided on a further amendment. It has since come to my notice that this amendment would need to be duplicated 13 pages earlier if what the council want is done. This development plan was scrutinised by the Department and by the county manager and the county engineer. That is the pattern in every local authority. Detailed study and detailed amendment is too big a job altogether for the ordinary local authority representatives and I believe most local authorities have not devoted the time they should to studying these plans simply because they do not have the time to make such a study. Everybody is working on the stereotyped plan which came from Dublin. Nobody in Dublin knows all about the country. Most people in Dublin know very little about the country. The development plan must be amended. Again, it is a question of flexibility. If there were the flexibility which the Minister desired, and which he asked the local authorities to apply through their officers, there would be no need to amend the development plan at all. That flexibility does not exist. Therefore, there is need to amend the plan.

Mr. Crowley

Except one is a foreigner coming in——

Mr. Donegan

I do not accept that.

Mr. Crowley

It is happening in west Cork.

Mr. Donegan

I do not think I know of any case where the Minister, the officials of Louth County Council or any other county council or local authority have acted contrary to judgment or have been influenced by political or any other pressure, or where the allegations which have sometimes been mooted in relation to money could ever be substantiated. In my view this has not occurred in this country.

Mr. J. Lenehan

What did Guinness do in my county?

Mr. Donegan

All I know about that firm is that they pay their workers very well and have done so for many, many years. I want to make my remarks on planning in the context that I think there is nothing wrong either in so far as the dealing with planning appeals is concerned. There is something wrong in the framework as set up. In the actual doing of the job, I make no charge against the Minister. The Minister knows my views about him in other respects. But so far as this is concerned my remarks on planning have nothing to do with any kind of corruption or bribery or pull. The officials I have met have dealt with this in a fair, proper and honourable way. The Minister has done the same on appeal.

There is dissatisfaction at the moment in regard to the results of the application of the development plan, and of the Planning and Development Act, 1963. The Minister did not accept a Bill sponsored by this party whereby planning appeals would go to a judicial body. I have prefaced my remarks in this regard by saying that there is no question of anything wrong. The Minister was badly advised in not accepting that Bill. If the Minister did not want to have the embarrassment of accepting a Bill from the Opposition, he could have thrown it out and introduced something very similar to it later on. This would be a political manoeuvre which I would have recognised as such and, quite frankly, I could not have criticised it because I would do it myself if I had the chance.

Since the Minister refused to accept that Bill there was a case—I will not mention names—where widespread publicity in relation to a planning appeal was given and there was an appreciation of the property. It would have been far better—and I do not believe there is anything wrong—if it was not the Minister's duty to intervene in this regard. The Minister would have been far better off if he had left this to some judicial body and the decision of that body would be only subject to criticism on the basis of the people themselves—people who would not be politicians, public figures, or Ministers of State. I have no doubt the Minister could not care twopence about a planning appeal except to decide it according to the way he sees it and according to the legislation under which he works. He was unwise not to accept a judicial body. Eventually because of all the talk around this city, and all the questions of entrepreneurs coming in and buying land, that is what he will have to do.

I should like to point to another feature of this planning legislation. It is that somebody could practically apply for planning permission to build an office in the field outside my house and it would be decided whether or not they would get it. I own that field. This situation is something which has resulted in people making application for planning permission on chance. The purpose is to find out whether they will get that permission. If they get that permission—and they might not have an ounce of property or any involvement at all—they would now have a document in their hands on the strength of which they could develop a site or a property or sell the development rights or the property itself, knowing they have permission. People might get an old person to give them permission to find out if they could get planning permission. One of the things which should happen is that, where an application is made for planning permission, the owner of the property should be contacted and asked to sign a document indicating that he desires that such planning permission be given.

In fact, there should be a stricter law in relation to the development of property afterwards. People who had applied for planning permission should be the only people who could develop the property afterwards, except with the permission of the local authority. There is too much chancing plans in various places with a verbal agreement with the owner to find out from the planning office whether or not building will be allowed in a certain place. This is gumming up the work of the planning and development office with something which is not really desired at all, but is something on which an entrepreneur is trying to get a few fast pounds. This is important. The Minister should look at it.

We are only starting on the establishment of regional development boards. This will affect more than the local authorities' work. Regional planning is very important. The Minister's party have been dilatory in indicating where the growth centres will be and what main roads will get priority. I understand the political implications, but the Government have a few years ahead of them now to produce a statement on where the growth centres will be. I suggest they produce the information forthwith. They have not done it. The local authorities are not in full command of what is happening in the future so far as their own areas are concerned.

The Minister devoted pages of his speech to roads, road accidents and their general prevention. My view is that we in this country have a pretty bad standard of driving so far as keeping the flow of traffic moving is concerned. Coming through the city or any town in the country one may notice a motorist driving at 15 miles per hour slower than he might drive, or even five miles per hour slower than he might drive, occupying the centre of the road. Such a driver might have driven at the same speed, if he so desired, very close in on the left-hand side of the road. This would have enabled people travelling within the speed limit applicable to the place to pass him. You will find in front of this person, who does not realise there are other people in the world besides himself or herself—and usually it is herself—a quarter mile of road which is not being used, and behind him ten, 15 or 20 cars. This is where the build-up occurs. The next thing you have is an articulated truck in this build-up and once you have that and another car behind it, you cannot pass out. Therefore, you have, within the law and without any danger or anything else, a situation whereby one person who is driving badly interrupts the flow of traffic and is holding up a quarter of a mile of road that may have cost thousands of pounds to build. This is something that should be looked into and mentioned publicly because the flow of traffic is being seriously interfered with. As we get more vehicles on the road, and as we cannot afford to provide magnificant roads within a day or a year, we will find the position being aggravated more and more. We are bad here but we are a bit better than in England. On the continent they are marvellous. I have the greatest respect for Paris taxi-drivers. I think they are marvellous, particularly when somebody gets in their way and they keep pressing the horn. That is the medicine that these people want. They are not paying two taxes or two insurances but only one and like the rest of us they are only entitled to one place on the road.

I noticed with great interest that an experiment in regard to traffic wardens has been tried out in Carlow by having senior students doing the job for the smaller children. I think this is the answer to the problem and if I had known about this, perhaps, we could have saved a few pence on the rates in Louth County Council. Due to a fatal accident at a school in Ardee, where 1,200 students come out and converge on one corner, citizens of the town undertook the job of traffic wardens themselves for a period of some nine months and then they asked us to make a contribution towards the provision of traffic wardens. These were fathers and mothers and it would have been far better to have trained senior students to do the job. If they had done it we might even have got a better result than we are now getting. However, I commend this development which is an excellent one.

I should now like to refer to public assistance which as far as I know is now moving under the direction of the health boards but is still being applied through the finances of the local authorities. Many Members do not know that an unfortunate woman is given £1 to feed her hungry children and that that £1 is levied on the local authority in its entirety, whereas if she got medicine or anything else in the health sector for them the payment by the local authority would be something less than 50 per cent. This limits the public assistance vote. One thing which I have found in discussions at Louth County Council is that when you take salaries out of it is a most miserable allocation. When you increase it a little every year the salaries come up along with it and you are limited by the amount you can pay through the rates. We have increased this vote many times but the limiting factor is still there; there is 100 per cent on the rates.

This is something which should be removed from rates and to the Exchequer. I agree that there is the difficulty, which was inherited in the system, that the relieving officers also do other work, such as the investigation of eligibility for medical cards. The precedent has been created where a 100 per cent grant has been provided for a local authority. This has been done in the engineering section and in various other sections and there is no reason why the amount of money involved could not be provided from the Central Exchequer and allow the local authority, if that is the best way to do it, to give out the money. The limiting factor on home assistance is quite incorrect.

I now want to move a question which I asked last week. I want to assure the Minister that I do not bother exercising my mind asking questions of him which, no matter what way he turns, he must answer in a certain way. I have never had to do that in this House. I have had rows across the House and I have never been personal, I hope, and any time I asked a question of, say, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or any other of his colleagues, I received a reply and my supplementaries were always replied to in an open way. I battled away and the Minister battled against me and it did not matter who won. I would have had a bottle of Harp lager—which we brew in Louth—with the particular Minister immediately after the event—I could not with the Minister because he does not drink—and I have done so on occasion. I do deplore, and I am not saying this in a personal way, the fact that this kind of thing can happen where the Minister says: "I made the order last week," and when asked: "What way did you rule?" he replies: "You did not ask me." I hope that this will not occur again because I should like to be friendly with the Minister and to have my rows with him—he is a tough fighter, a rough man but I can be rough myself and I do not mind taking it on the nose and I do not mind giving it on the nose. I hope that in future questions will be answered as they always have been answered since the House was established, in an open manner and that the Minister will not avail of the wording of a question to wriggle out.

I now want to deal with small amenities for villages and in particular tourist villages. A number of small things require to be done and these are all lumped into the county council estimate and like everything else they come up against parochialism and every councillor wants to have a slice for his own area. When this sort of thing happens necessary amenities are often cut out, such as toilets at beaches and so on—we have succeeded this year in providing a few—amenities which do not cost very much and are very often sacrificed on the altar of parochialism. The Minister might improve small amenity grants so that this sum of money would be available each year to carry out these small projects. It does make a difference in improving the amenities particularly in tourist areas.

Up to a few years ago we had the rural improvements schemes operated by the Board of Works and then they were transferred to the county councils who were provided with 10 per cent of the cost of their engineering staff costs. As far as I can see the amounts provided were fixed at the amount provided some years ago. In Mayo, for instance, there are very low valuations and the scheme approved by the Minister provides for a smaller local contribution when the valuations are low. In various other places you may have one very high valuation and then a series of low valuations. As the local contribution is based on the average valuation, one rich farmer, who, perhaps, is ungenerous, can say: "I will not contribute" and thereby he is increasing the contribution of local cottiers to a great degree. There is need for a revision of this scheme because it can mean that one rich man can stop ten poor men from having their lane renovated. In Louth we have £¼ million worth of lanes to renovate and we cannot take them over except in small measure. What we have done is take them over according as they have been brought up to standard under the scheme. This means that the amount the Minister is allotting to us is only £6,500, whereas Mayo gets £40,000, although I do not begrudge them that. I will deal with all that later. There is need for a revision of the manner and application of the scheme in relation to the average valuation and the local contribution. It would be a pity if this excellent scheme were to be retarded.

In relation to the amount of money provided for each local authority area it is based, as far as I can see, on the amount taken up some years ago. Is it not true that if people were taking up a large amount some years ago the need in the area for a continuance at this high level is probably lessened and the people who were taking up less some years ago need more? I do not know whether the Minister has any other formula that he could apply but I would suggest to him also that he should look at this rural improvements scheme from the point of view of changing the allocation to each local authority area in the years to come. That is not to say I want to take it away from any other place. I do not desire that at all, but I feel that the scheme needs a good examination and that it is extremely necessary that this be done.

I mentioned in my opening remarks in relation to housing that I felt the impact of housing on local rates under the present situation in small urban areas that are expanding would necessitate some change in the years to come. I instanced the situation of health where, in fact, what has happened is that counties had to be banded together in larger areas with health boards. I said that in this year's rating situation the universal increase should be limited to 2/- in the £ with the Minister paying the rest. The impact of housing on the rates now in the various areas where, in some instances, if the place is not developing the impact is tiny and in other instances, if the place is developing, the impact is huge is most inequitable. Without doubt something should be done in relation to housing as was done in relation to health, so that there will be a levelling out of the cost, the establishment, perhaps, of regional housing boards, the expansion of the activities of the National Building Agency with the regional housing boards made up of a selected few members of each county council.

The colossal expenditure of local government and the involvement of local government in so many things increases day by day. Even leaving out the fall in the value of money the involvement increases almost hourly. In view of the very wide area of activity involved I believe that there is grave need for a Minister for Housing apart from the Minister for Local Government. I feel that the detailed appraisal of the housing needs of the country with the Buchanan Report and the Devlin Report and so on in the background, the study of these, the decision as to what should be done in various places, the awareness of the need for sewerage and water extensions in one place while at the same time the same need not apply in another place, all tend to indicate to me that there is a need for a Minister for Housing as well as a Minister for Local Government. Health is gone from the operation of the county councils. The Minister for Local Government had nothing to do with that. The Minister for Health operated through the local authorities for years and now will operate through the health boards. There is no reason at all why a Minister for Housing should not operate through the local authorities and at the same time through regional housing authorities and why there could not be a great upsurge in the building of houses where they are really needed under this system.

Main roads, I have no doubt, will in the years to come also have to be operated on a regional basis. The present situation where every local authority queues up for its main arterial roads on a hundred per cent grant basis and the Minister for Local Government looks at them and on the availability of capital puts one back for next year and brings the other one on, on the basis of the size and the cost of the job, and, perhaps, something waits for five or six years, is unsatisfactory. This is a hotch-potch way of doing it. It is one, in my view, that will not continue and wise counsel will indicate that there should be a regional main road organisation.

I hope I have made a contribution that was, perhaps, critical at times but not deliberately so and was, in fact, constructive. If the Minister desires to make a remark in his reply on any of the things I have said I will be most indebted to him.

Mr. Crowley

What about rehousing of the itinerants?

Mr. J. Lenehan

As I have to deal mainly with western affairs I presume that I shall have at least as much time in which to deal with these affairs as Deputies Donegan and Hogan had.

I have never been particularly enamoured of the words "local government". I think there is no such thing. It should be called the Department of local administration. I do not think all the trouble is in the Custom House. We happen to find ourselves in a position in which we have very little local autonomy. I am not saying the Government took this autonomy away or that the Government by any means prevented local councils or local authorities from exercising power but so many bureaucrats came in at local level and took over that we are now in a position that we have in a country which is about one-third the size of the State of Texas 27 county councils and God Almighty knows how many other local authorities or whatever they are supposed to be. In many cases they are not operating in co-operation with one another but are, indeed, at loggerheads. As a result of what has gone on over the last number of years a great many local councillors and members of local authorities have sacrificed the independence of these local authorities and given way to local bureaucrats who, I suppose, are controlled to a great extent by central bureaucracy here on the banks of the Liffey. It seems ridiculous to me that if the Mayo County Council, for instance, wish to build a public convenience in the town of Belmullet they must get permission from somebody who is sitting on the side of the greatest sewer in Ireland, the Liffey. I do not agree with that. I do not think it is right. Far more autonomy should be given to local authorities. No matter how daft some of us may appear to be we are not that daft. We have carried on for quite a long time and given good, faithful service to the people who elected us. If we did not give that service certainly in the west of Ireland we would not be elected.

I believe I hold a rather unique record. As a member of a local authority, I have succeeded in heading the poll easily for three different parties in three consecutive elections. That does not indicate that I am suffering from any disability from the point of view of public administration. The phrase "local government" is beginning to sound a little weird because there is really no such thing as local government; it is local administration. Unfortunately, in many cases where some fellow, probably my own type, creates a row it is local bureaucracy, but the Government are then blamed.

I notice that a great deal of the Minister's speech was devoted to housing; and on that topic may I say that the Minister is, in many cases, being blamed in the wrong? Apart from Ballymun and one or two other places in which the National Building Agency happened to be involved, the Minister has not been involved at all in the building of houses. This has been left to local authorities; and in many cases, particularly in County Mayo, the local authorities have fallen down in this regard. In fact, I think we hold the record of having done next to nothing with regard to building, having built an average of one house per year, unless Longford have beaten us. Up to 18 months ago we had succeeded in building four houses in eight years and I understand that during the past ten years ten houses have been built by Mayo County Council, despite all the pressure we have brought to bear on local officials.

I know it is said that we in Mayo have given a great deal of money to people for housebuilding by way of supplementary grants. We have done so, but we were not giving the money out of our own pockets. I was asked the other day what I thought about an investment being made by a certain man and I said I was not concerned since it was not my money that was involved. County councillors may say: "Look at our record and at what we have paid out" but, as I have said, it was not paid out of our own pockets but was paid out of ratepayers' money which we repaid by way of loans raised through rates.

In the south-eastern part of my county, where there is a large number of bad houses, if the county council would implement the regulation law dealing with the essential repairs grants, which states that if the Government give a county council £80, the county council can pay the balance between that £80 and the total cost of completing the job, I believe a great deal of our housing problem would be solved.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on abolishing the system whereby a grant was based on the number of rooms in a house. It is clear that a man and his wife who may be more than 50 years of age would have little chance of having a family and, therefore, would not require a three-roomed house. That clause was an absurdity and many a person has gone without a house because he would have to build at least a three-roomed house before getting a grant.

The question of reducing the size of the house was raised by Deputy Donegan. I think he suggested an area of 1,250 square feet but I would like to point out that a large percentage of houses have been built to the standard local government plans and I doubt if any houses, except two-storey ones, cover an area of more than 1,000 square feet. Therefore, I cannot see where any inconvenience would be caused, particularly in western counties where houses are urgently required.

With regard to planning, I might say that this has become an absolute bogeyman in my county where, at county council meetings if we do not spend half the time arguing about article 4 of the County Management Act we spend the time endeavouring to obtain permission for some individual to build. One point which has been overlooked is the rate at which building has been going on in other areas. Most of the good land in this country will be built over by either houses or factories so that in the final analysis we shall have to spend tens of millions of pounds in reclaiming the marginal and poorer types of land in order to obtain the same agricultural productivity as we now have. This trend is becoming widespread. There is plenty of bad land in the country on which houses and factories could be built.

Planning permission should be refused for the acquisition of the better land. I would urge the Minister to consider this matter. I have known some ridiculous planning decisions to have been made. There was one particular case in which there was a long fight, but which I eventually won. In that case, unfortunately, I did not read the document, but I found out afterwards from the person concerned that he had decided to extend his house to cater for tourists. He applied for planning permission but found himself in the unhappy position that any extension he might build could not have an exterior height in excess of six feet. This was intended as a restaurant in which, I presume, tourists would be fed and entertained. I do not know whether the person who decided on this was thinking of the Congo or wherever it is that the pygmies come from. That actually happened. I will give the name to the Minister and he can check on it. A man who lives in the wilds in my part of the country could not build an extension to his house because it was said it was blocking the view of some smart Alec who could not see the mermaids, although I have not seen any yet. The extension could not be higher than six feet. Could you imagine somebody signing a document saying that the exterior height of an extension to a house could not go beyond six feet. I will give the details to the Minister.

I believe we have failed in the West of Ireland in providing some type of accommodation for the itinerants. I know we find ourselves in an awkward position. I come from a county where, because the officials have been lax in carrying out their duties or carrying out the instructions given to them by the councillors, we find ourselves with something like 3,000 ordinary houses requiring replacement. I suppose it is difficult for ordinary people to believe that I would get up here and advocate houses for itinerants. Those people should get houses. When I raised this matter in certain places and said that if they could not be given houses at the moment, at least they should be given some type of a waterproof or plastic tent I was informed by bureaucratic officials in my council that if they gave them those tents it would be a fire hazard. The same smart Alec who made that statement forgot that the very "yokes" in which they were already living along the roads of Mayo were impregnated with tar and pitch and if anyone lit a fire at all they would go up in smoke. Despite this they decided it was a fire hazard and that they could not give them waterproof or plastic tents. They have ended up giving them practically nothing.

I am not exactly sure what the itinerants want. I got the Report of the Commission on Itinerants and it was not, as far as I was concerned, impresssive, because it turned out that the only people who were not asked to give information before that commission were the itinerants. I got a letter and as far as I remember, I was told that, if I wished to make representations to the commission, I would have to give to the commission 30 copies of any document containing what I wanted to say. Whatever about my being able to produce the 30 copies, I could well imagine a tinker in a ditch along the roadside not being able to produce one copy of what he wanted to say, never mind 30 copies. While bishops, doctors and big shots were brought in to tell the tinkers what to do, not one tinker was ever asked to say a word.

County councils in the West of Ireland have failed to do very much for itinerants. We have seen shameful cases in Galway and also in Castlebar in my own constituency. As bad as we are, where I live we live and let live. If an itinerant came in and bought the hotel next door to me or bought the private house on the other side of me I would not raise the slightest objection.

Before I conclude I should like to refer to local improvement schemes. I was one of those who backed this change over some years ago to the local improvements schemes. I found that in Mayo every effort was made by our officials to sabotage this scheme. It has proved up to now completely ineffective. We are beginning to have second thoughts about it. However, it has now reached the stage where we have no option but to try to continue the scheme and to induce our engineers and officials to go on with it. It has left us in the unhappy position that we now have probably the worst roads in Ireland, not that we ever had the best. In many cases over the last three years not even a spoonful of gravel was thrown on some of these roads. They are in such a state now that even if a curlew were to land on some of them she would want wellingtons to get around. We have officials who are still not prepared to go along with the scheme. The average valuation of land in the area is £5 or under and in such cases there is no contribution. Those genii have taken advantage of that by allocating the grants to areas where a contribution has to be made rather than to the poorer areas for which they were intended.

I have never held with county councils although I was a member of one for 20 years. I do not hold with that type of local organisation at all because it is completely outdated. It was foisted on us by the British Government and has been continued since. Quadruplication of official services makes no sense at all in today's circumstances. A tiny county like Leitrim has practically as many officials as there are in Galway or even Mayo; yet Leitrim has an even lower valuation than the one mentioned by Deputy Donegan a few moments ago. West of the Shannon we have seven county council areas which could easily be administered by two regional councils. If two regional councils were appointed instead of what is now operating I believe we could have, generally speaking, a lower rate in the £.

I do not know what the end is going to be if something like this is not done. In Donegal they have rates in the region of £6 in the £ and in my own county it is £5 17s, and we have not finished with it yet. Those rates are absolutely oppressive, especially on the unfortunate small shopkeepers in the towns. The farmer out in the country is gaining. I do not begrudge it to him. The unfortunate small shopkeeper in the towns is the sufferer, but he gets no relief of any description at all. In many cases if he applies for a housing grant to repair his house it is quite possible he might not get it. He certainly would not get his supplementary grant because of things that happened maybe 50, 60 or 70 years ago and which have not been altered up to this. I suggest to the Minister that he should have a long, hard look at some type of reorganisation for county councils. It is an absolute absurdity that there should be 27 county councils in a country the size of this when there are only 26 counties in it.

There is another thing to which I wish to draw attention. We have a crowd of geniuses in every county in Ireland, particularly in the west, and in the last few years they have introduced the queerest of schemes. In Mayo, for instance, it was suggested we should spend £5 million on houses, £12 million on water, £1¾ million on sewerage, £1½ million on the provision of sites for factories—in which nobody would work anyhow—roughly a total of £15 million. Mayo County Council have not got sixpence at the moment. This is the type of tripe these people are putting across. There must be a tremendous amount of time wasted on the provision of these silly documents.

I suggest that the local government auditor should surcharge the people responsible. This has been going on for years and it is time a stop was put to it. Mayo County Council, to discuss this proposal, held 12 meetings at a cost of £400 a meeting. Of course, not a word has been heard about this document since it was produced two years ago and not a word ever will be heard about it. It is not the fault of the Government but it shows that even the Department of Local Government have lost control of the boyos down the country. It seems as if they cannot give them any directives.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not criticise public officials in that manner.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I am not criticising any particular officials. I am not mentioning names. It is a general criticism.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair agrees, but people like that have no way of replying here.

Mr. Boland

Neither have the officers of my Department but they have been criticised day on end by Deputies on the other side.

Mr. Tully

The Minister has the right to reply for them.

Mr. Boland

Day after day they have been criticised unjustly.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I would prefer to leave the House rather than to withdraw what I have said because I have been looking at this for 25 years, 20 of them as a member of Mayo County Council. I regard what is going on as an example of gross inefficiency and incompetence. The people responsible are not directly employed by the Minister. They are appointed by the Local Appointments Commission and I do not think he has any control over them. It appears to me that we cannot sack them. I do not know whether the Minister can but if he wanted to sack them it is doubtful if he could do so. I do not criticise officials unnecessarily and I would be the first to praise officials deserving of praise.

The roads in my county are a disgrace. This is not the Minister's fault. He has given the money, but in many cases it has been misused. I remember the Parliamentary Secretary calling on me recently. He said to me: "What do you make the roads out of here, Joe?""Obviously mustard," I said. "It looks that way," he said, and I said I did not think he was far out. Public inquiries have been held into those things. If the whole truth were told there would be somebody in the frying pan and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would not be pulling me up for it. It is time that the ordinary people of Connacht, the sufferers, should get what they are entitled to. I do not mind bureaucratic action if it is efficient action but in the cases I have mentioned we have local bureaucracy but we have no efficiency and I hope the Minister will take action to have the matter dealt with.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

It is not my intention to detain the House.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy had better go out and get somebody else in, then.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I can assure the Minister my contribution is not merely for the purpose of prolonging the debate.

Mr. Boland

Tell that to the marines.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

So many have spoken that it is difficult to find anything in the Minister's brief that has not been commented on.

Mr. Boland

Do not let that stop you.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I propose to deal with two or three of the most important matters dealt with by the Minister in his opening speech. To my mind, the most immediate, the most serious problem we have is that to which the Minister referred at the end of his brief, when he stated that there is clear need to isolate and find solutions for the problems of local finance and local taxation. We can look at developments during the last few days, during the last week, and we discover that this statement of the Minister's is of very great significance.

I can recall clearly one of the first Parliamentary questions I tabled when I became a Member in 1961. It was addressed to the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Blaney, and referred to this problem of local finance and taxation, and in 1961 Deputy Blaney said it was intended to examine the whole structure of local finance and taxation. Subsequently, in 1965, a departmental committee was set up to examine local finance and taxation. Three reports were published and were circulated for perusal by the public and by interested persons. The Minister now states that we are to have another report which will deal with State grants to local authorities and that when the review of the structure of local government has been considered by the Government, a White Paper will be published.

The time for reports, White Papers and further discussion in this connection is over. In recent days we have been reading that ratepayers in various counties and cities have been faced with rate demands considerably in excess of those of last year. Deputy Donegan referred to the fact that tenants' associations in various urban areas have been taking to the streets in protest. It is very easy to stand up here and to talk about the various services, amenities and so forth which are provided through local government. There is no use in advocating increased services unless we find out how it is proposed to pay for them.

The ratepayers of the city of Limerick have been presented with a further increase of 12/6d in the £ in their rates this year. The vast majority of the ordinary ratepayers of this country find it well beyond their capacity to meet such demands as are being made on them now: I have in mind particularly wage-earners and people on low salaries who can probably be described as the middle income group. Through stringent saving and at very great sacrifice these people purchased their houses by means of maximum grant and maximum loan. In addition to repayments of the loan they are confronted year after year with an increasing bill for rates. Many people who purchased houses 10 or 12 years ago are now paying as much in rates as they are paying in loan repayment. The situation cannot be allowed to develop further. I cannot see how the vast majority of the ratepayers of Limerick city can be expected to pay the additional burden of 12/6d in the £ this year. Think of the appalling burden this imposes on small shopkeepers and small business people particularly in rural towns where the population is declining and business has been decreasing. Such people are really very badly hit by this ever-increasing rates burden. Since I first became a Member of this House there has been constant reference in every debate on the Estimate for Local Government to the inequities of the rating system. The social conscience must now be worried about the gravity of this burden whose proportions are now such as to be contrary to social justice where wage and salary earners are concerned.

Various tenants' associations throughout the country are up in arms at present and are proposing to take to the streets to ventilate their grievances. Such is the case in the city of Limerick. I have discussed the question with members of the Limerick Tenants' Association. I say in all sincerity and after due consideration of the position that I am convinced these tenants' associations have legitimate grievances which they are seeking to have rectified. I have found the officers of the Limerick Tenants' Association to be people of responsibility. They are not agitators. The Minister for Local Government met a deputation from this association about last November and he will agree that it consisted of a group of intelligent people who did not talk rot or ráiméis and who certainly did not seek to exaggerate the position. There was a calm, intelligent discussion in which they put forward their grievances. I have no doubt that they have a real grievance and that they are suffering injustices which can and should be rectified. They will have to be rectified because all the indications are that the various tenants' associations, certainly the Limerick Tenants' Association, are determined to pursue this matter as far as they can and militant action is being taken. There was quite a considerable number of them at a Limerick Corporation meeting last night and they submitted a memorandum to the corporation.

The question of local finance and local taxation will have to be tackled and the sooner it is tackled the better. As this inter-departmental committee was set up five years ago, and they published their third and last report two years ago, I see no reason why it should be necessary to have a further report and then another White Paper, because another 12 months will pass before anything practical or tangible is done. It is very easy for an Opposition Deputy to talk to the gallery about rates and rent, but in my nine years in this House I have always endeavoured to offer practical suggestions as to what should be done in order to rectify the situation.

Local finance and taxation is a very complex problem. This is clear to anyone who has read the three reports, particularly the third report, issued by the inter-departmental committee, a report on rates and other sources of revenue for local authorities, in which the committee examined alternative sources of revenue and expressed their views on the various sources. It is not possible for any individual Deputy or any individual public representative to come up with a solution to this problem, but the Minister has responsibility to see to it that whatever committee he has appointed now will get down to business and decide which, if any, of the suggestions made in these reports can be implemented.

I have tried to examine this situation as broadly as possible. I have interviewed various individuals as well as the various associations to which I have referred and I want to put on the record of this House some of what I consider to be the legitimate grievances of the Limerick Tenants' Association. The association does not object to bearing a fair and equitable share of the burden of local taxation, but it strongly objects to having to pay increased rents in addition to paying increased rates. In the case of fixed rent tenants these increases have been happening so regularly that they are now faced with the situation going on indefinitely in the future.

The Limerick Tenants' Association stated in the memorandum which they submitted to the corporation last night —and which they also submitted to me and my other Dáil colleague from Limerick—that in all cases under the differential rent scheme their maximum rents were fixed when the original agreements were signed. These agreements have not been adhered to by the corporation and the maximum rents have now been radically altered and increased. As an example, they state that at the new Watergate scheme in Limerick the maximum rent is over £11 a week as compared with £6 14s in other areas. The association deplores the increase in fixed and differential rents in certain housing schemes in Limerick which are in a shockingly bad state of repair and where the necessary repairs have not been carried out. I refer in particular to St. Mary's Park in Killilea, Seán Heuston Place, Prospect and Janes-boro. The memorandum points out that the houses are in a lamentable state of disrepair and that no efforts have been made by the corporation to rectify the situation. I am sure the Minister, or anybody who studies this problem, will agree with me that the Tenants' Association—I can only speak for the Limerick Tenants' Association, but I presume the problems are much the same in Cork and other areas— has a legitimate grievance and that something will have to be done.

I want to bring another matter to the Minister's attention in relation to the situation in Limerick. I have already mentioned that last November the Minister received a deputation from the Limerick Tenants' Association, led by the chairman and including five or six members. The purpose of that deputation was to plead with the Minister to deal with the problems arising out of the tenant purchase scheme in operation in Limerick city. I believe in the idea of the purchase scheme, because I think it is desirable to encourage house ownership, but the problems arose in Limerick when the corporation's valuer fixed a certain valuation on those houses and when the scheme was being initiated. This figure was not accepted by the Minister for Local Government and subsequently a valuer was sent down, presumably from the Valuation Office, to value the houses. The result was that there was a difference of £250 on average between the valuation figure arrived at by the Limerick Corporation valuer and that fixed by the Minister's valuer. I may not be correct in describing him as the Minister's valuer; he was from the Valuation Office but I presume he was sent at the request of the Minister for Local Government.

As I have said the Minister very kindly received a deputation and he listened patiently to the views put forward not merely by the spokesman for the association but by my other Limerick colleagues, yet nothing has resulted from this meeting, except what has happened in the last few days. I received a letter from the association last Friday asking me to inquire from the Minister whether or not he has made any decision on this matter. I have here in front of me a copy of the memorandum submitted to the Minister on that day regarding the valuation of the houses but I am not going to read it out. However, I feel sure the Limerick Corporation valuer was in a better position, because of his local knowledge and so forth, to judge the real value of those houses than the valuer who was sent down from Dublin, who, most likely, was not familiar with local problems, local values and so forth.

I appeal to the Minister to give a decision on this and to accept the value fixed by the Limerick Corporation valuer. I would be grateful if he would do so without further delay. They are long enough waiting now and the people in Limerick are being discouraged by this problem which is a most serious one. I have no doubt that there would be a very good response in Limerick to the house purchase scheme provided the Minister accepts the valuation of the Limerick Corporation valuer which is acceptable to the tenants of the various housing schemes.

I said at the outset that I did not intend to go over the whole field of local government, nor do I intend to do so. Before I go on to the second matter I want to comment on, I want once again to appeal to the Minister in his reply to elaborate further on his rather short and casual remarks at the end of his opening speech regarding the important question of local finance and local taxation.

The second point I want to refer to is one in which I have a very great personal interest and a certain amount of experience. For the first time in recent years, if my memory serves me correctly, the Minister has dealt at length with the question of group water schemes. I am glad to note that group water schemes now seem to have received the Minister's imprimatur. He announces that certain changes are being made, that the organisation within the Department is being streamlined and that the Department are recruiting additional field staff and inspectors.

I recall very clearly that when this idea of group water schemes was introduced in this country it was not the Minister and his party who were responsible for it but the wonderful organisation founded by that great apostle of rural Ireland, the late Canon Hayes. I refer to Muintir na Tíre of which I had the honour to be a member and an official for a number of years prior to becoming a Member of this House. I recall that in 1958 or 1959 I was editor of the Muintir na Tíre monthly journal and a push was being given to the whole idea of water schemes.

The official attitude was to lay emphasis on regional schemes. I remember representing Muintir na Tíre at a conference and exhibition at the Mansion House in 1959. I recall very clearly the massive display of maps from the various counties of Ireland of grandiose and wonderful regional schemes. I recall particularly a regional scheme which was mapped out for my own locality of Limerick in which water was to have been piped from the famous Lough Gur to serve one-third of County Limerick. Muintir na Tíre came up with the idea of group water schemes. It was a very simple concept. It was a practical application of the basic idea of Canon Hayes and of the organisation which he founded, that is, the idea of community organisation and self-help. Muintir na Tíre initiated the idea of group water schemes. If I remember correctly it was in the Kilworth area of County Cork.

Mr. R. Barry

That is right.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Deputy Barry will bear me out on that because at that time one of my colleagues on the national council of Muintir na Tíre was Dr. O'Flynn. It was pioneered by Muintir na Tíre in that area. We met with considerable discouragement and, in many cases, obstruction both from the Department of Local Government and from county council engineers who had spent many months in drawing up these grandiose regional water schemes. I know what I am talking about because I have had the experience of pioneering and organising a number of group water schemes in the Galtee region of East Limerick.

No encouragement was given to those voluntary organisations to organise group schemes. The Minister spoke about plans for expediting the organisation of group schemes. If this had been the attitude ten years ago I am convinced that many more households would now have a water supply and the cost would have been far less. However, I welcome the final conversion of the Minister and his Department to the idea of community co-operation and the principle of self-help applied to the very practical problem of installing a piped water supply in the homes throughout the country.

While I am on this matter it would be very wrong of me if, while paying tribute to Muintir na Tíre and the other voluntary bodies who subsequently undertook this work, I did not pay tribute to one semi-State company who assisted in a very real way in the pioneering effort on group water schemes, that is, the Electricity Supply Board. They did a tremendous job. They had a vested interest, of course, by reason of the fact that in many cases they were supplying the pumping equipment and the electrical equipment. Nevertheless, they assisted in organising the groups and in bringing the various schemes to fruition.

There is no doubt that the Minister is correct when he says that the further expansion of rural water supply schemes on a co-operative basis means that we must have a highly efficient departmental organisation at both the technical and administrative level. The main fault I have found—and Deputy Tully was much more critical than I and justified in being in the light of my experience—regarding the officials of the Department who are involved in this operation.

It is necessary to have efficient and well trained technical and administrative staff, but it is also vitally important that the additional field officers who will be recruited to the Minister's Department would have a proper understanding of community development, community organisation and co-operation and what self-help means. It is no use sending out to a small rural group in a townland, say, in Deputy Crowley's constituency, a man who may be very highly technically qualified unless he understands the whole concept of community organisation and can encourage these groups of people to co-operate with one another to provide these essential services at a very reasonable cost. I have seen a number of these schemes in operation having cost as low as £5 per household. That is, of course, where a considerable amount of voluntary work has been done in the matter of digging the trenches, laying the pipes and so on, but it has been done for as low as £5 per household.

Perhaps we should be hesitant about referring to the Buchanan Report. I spoke at length on Buchanan in a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce which was before the House some months ago. This report has given rise to a considerable amount of discussion and controversy because of the fact that some areas seem to be regarded more favourably than others. The Minister for Local Government is involved in this because it will be the responsibility of his Department to provide the necessary infrastructures, but it is vital that the Government should make a definite pronouncement on Buchanan as soon as possible. The Minister looks at it from both sides and very craftily and cleverly avoids committing himself or his Government in any way to the findings of Buchanan.

I am not trying to give the impression that I am competent to adjudicate or to pronounce on Buchanan, but it is a problem which is causing a considerable amount of worry. I am afraid also that people are expressing opinions on this whole idea of growth centres and so forth without being fully informed of the pros and cons. Last night I was at a meeting in my home town, Bruff, which is also Deputy Michael Noonan's home town. What happened last night was a classical case of what I am trying to get across here. The town of Bruff is five miles from the town of Kilmallock which has been declared a development centre as has Newcastlewest which is 20 miles west of it and 14 miles north of it is Limerick City. For a couple of hours last night we were discussing the future of the town of Bruff, and person after person said: "Kilmallock, Newcastlewest and Limerick City will get factories and we will get nothing. There is no future for this town."

I am not prepared to accept all that Buchanan has to say and it would be very foolish of anybody in this country to accept it fully. However, there are certain basic facts and principles of which most people were aware long before Buchanan was heard of but which have been highlighted and emphasised by the Buchanan Report; that is, that if we are to attract certain types of major industrial development to this country we must designate certain areas where the necessary infrastructure can be provided. I do not accept that all future development must be confined to the towns or cities which have now been earmarked in the Buchanan Report for further development.

I am very conscious of this fact because the whole concept of growth centres is exemplified in the pioneering efforts carried out in the Shannon Industrial Estate, and now the Shannon Development Company has been extended to embrace Limerick, Clare and North Tipperary. There are certain types of development and industrial projects which cannot be located in every town in this country. There are advantages in having industries grouped together. However, I am not prepared to agree with any statement, report or survey which singles out a small number of centres and says that there you shall have growth and nowhere else.

If Buchanan means writing off the small towns—and I am not merely referring to the west of Ireland but to other areas as well—his suggestion is unacceptable. Deputy Treacy dealt very forcefully with the implications of Buchanan for South Tipperary. There is plenty of food for thought in this report. It raises very serious problems for the Minister for Local Government, for example, in the matter of housing. Buchanan estimates that if the projected growth takes place in Limerick and in Cork there will have to be in the Limerick/Shannon region a fourfold increase in housing in six years.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 11th March, 1970.