Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Jun 1971

Vol. 254 No. 11

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £13,762,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1972, le haghaidh tuarastail agus costais Oifig an Aire Rialtais Áitiúil, a chuimsíonn deontais do na húdaráis áitiúla, deontais agus costais eile i dtaca le tithíocht, agus scéimeanna agus deontais ilghnéitheacha, lena n-áirítear deontais-i-gcabhair.

—(Minister for Local Government.)

Mr. P.J. Burke

Speaking on the Estimate for Local Government last week I complimented the Minister on having presented us with a comprehensive document which is certainly one of the longest we have had in my time.

I want to refer very briefly to the amalgamation of the city and county of Dublin with Dún Laoghaire. I should like to ask the Minister if it would be possible to set up a commission to examine how each of the three areas could maintain their administrative identity? I feel that if these three areas were amalgamated into a Greater Dublin area they would become impersonal. I realise that in 100 years time these three areas will probably be part of the city but in the meantime it would be a great advantage if they could maintain their administrative identity. I realise the Minister was not the creator of this idea. The decisions were made long before he became Minister for Local Government but by saying that I do not mean to suggest the present Minister is saying: "I have nothing to do with that", because every Minister is responsible for his Department.

We have a great deal of land in County Dublin for housing but we are finding it very difficult to get our housing drive off the ground because of a shortage of trained technical staff. Good architects and engineers earn more money in private enterprise than we are allowed to pay them. We have been stymied in that way. I would ask the Minister to see whether there is any way in which we could expedite the building of houses in County Dublin. While we have about 800 houses in the pipeline at the moment we have applications for about 2,000. That is for the county of Dublin.

I should like to deal with the question of the roads out of Dublin city. I have been on the local authority for 11 years. I would not have gone on to the local authority except that I felt we should do something about the prairie-type roads out of Dublin city. I live at Santry and last Sunday I went to a pattern in Swords. It took me a half-hour to travel 3½ miles, bumper-to-bumper, on a very narrow road. Only yesterday the compulsory purchase order for the widening of that road and the by-passing of the Santry road was signed. When this matter goes to him would the Minister try to expedite this inquiry? Conditions are chaotic on that road. I would ask the Minister to see what can be done to improve the roads. I was at the opening of a school recently and the Taoiseach was delayed on the Lucan road getting there. Heavy lorries moving at ten miles an hour or other slow-moving vehicles may be encountered and it is because people try to pass them that there are so many accidents. This is a major issue as far as Dublin county is concerned and I cannot speak too strongly about it. The least we should have is two lanes of traffic coming into and two lanes of traffic going out of Dublin. One part of the Belfast road is only 16½ or 17 feet wide at Lissenhall. We have decided to build a bridge there. The consultants are dealing with that matter and no doubt it will be delayed. I would ask the Minister and his departmental officers, in whom I have great confidence, to see what can be done to have a breakthrough on this matter.

I know the Department are giving a 100 per cent grant for main roads and also a 100 per cent grant for the public lighting of main roads. However, it is a serious problem. We have had a number of accidents on the north road. The Bray road was to have been done 25 or 30 years ago. We are trying to acquire land for it now at enormous prices. The Lucan road is bad. We are getting on reasonably well with the Naas road, trying to acquire the property nearer Dublin, which is always a very slow process. A number of people do not want to leave. We are trying to meet them in every way. We do not want to interfere with people's rights. It is a very slow process and I appeal to the Minister to try to expedite the sanctioning of any request sent from Dublin County Council to his Department in regard to roads.

During the summer period these roads are chock-a-block. When the Italian Foreign Minister was travelling to the airport the other day after a short visit to this country gardaí on motor cycles had to try to clear the road for him. He was late for his plane because traffic was moving at a snail's pace. Every year it gets worse. We need a crash programme for the part of the road from Dublin Airport to the city. I was for two years chairman of Dublin County Council and I had conferences with the officers of the Minister's Department, the officers of Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta and our own officers. We were told that everything would be all right. That was four years ago. Three years ago the same thing happened. Nothing has been done since. It is really frustrating and people say: "What are these public representatives doing? Are they not doing something about it?" There is some dead hand holding up these things and I cannot speak too strongly on this.

County Dublin should be treated differently to any other county because of the heavy traffic on the roads. While our county roads are good they are very narrow. With the development of the county there are very large lorries on the roads which the roads were never meant to take. I am pleading for special concessions for County Dublin. We really need more money to do the job we would like to do on the roads. Our rates are going up. Of course they are going up in every other county too. I shall not dwell on that.

In regard to the laneways in County Dublin there was a proposal five years ago to improve the laneways where there were people living along laneways that were not taken in charge by the county council. It is costing about £100,000 and we are doing it out of revenue over a period of five years. All citizens should be treated equally. We are getting on reasonably well with the work on the laneways and hope to have it finished in a very short period.

I should like to compliment the Minister on the low-cost housing programme he envisages. If he can have low-cost houses built or if he can encourage councils to build them it will be a good thing. We will be ready to listen to any advice and to give any co-operation we can give. We have a big backlog and there is a big demand for more houses in the city, in the county, and in Dún Laoghaire. The Minister raised the question of housing for the aged. We have the huge problem in the city and county of Dublin of more and more aged people trying to get into hospitals. When we are building houses or flats I should like to see a percentage of them built for old people. Old people are usually looked after very well by charitable young couples and middle-aged couples. In parts of Dublin flats for the old people are provided on the ground floor while the younger people have flats on the other storeys. The old people are looked after by the younger residents. I believe it is best not to put all the old people together but to mix them with younger people. I approve of that arrangement very strongly because it is in the best interests of our community.

There is a big demand on our local authority hospitals for the admission of old people. Under the Eastern Regional Health Board and under the old Dublin Health Authority, welfare clubs were established to look after these people and to give them a cup of tea and a meal. This keeps them out of the hospitals. The number of old people who are trying to get into hospital creates a problem for the State and for the local authorities. In the old days, unless they were dying, people did not think of going into hospital. There are very good homes in the city for old people and, of course, the local authority bear the brunt of the expenses. We have most efficient doctors and welfare officers dealing with the aged. As I said, I should prefer flats for old people to be provided on the ground floor.

Private builders have built about two-thirds of the houses in the city and county of Dublin. Private enterprise has made a good contribution to our housing programme. The young people who have saved money and who are trying to buy their own homes are very good citizens. Any grants or subsidies that can be given to them should be given to them because some of them are finding it hard to manage as rents are so high. I welcomed the recent increase in the loans given by the Minister. This is very helpful to our people who are trying to buy their own homes. The credit unions in the city and county of Dublin have brought peace and happiness to our people. They will be applying to the Minister for permission to build offices and I am sure the Minister will give them sympathetic consideration. The supplementary grants are also a great asset to our people. The ceiling has now been raised and that, too, is very welcome.

The Minister referred to the price of houses and land. This is a very intricate problem. I was president of the local authority members of the Council of Europe in 1966-67. We had a conference in Paris that lasted a week. We visited a number of local authorities around Paris. The then Minister for Local Government and Development set up a committee consisting of officers of his Department and officials of the Paris Corporation. They are called prefects there and they are in charge of an area. There were also outstanding citizens on that committee. They bought land along the Seine Valley. The price of houses was very high. An ordinary three bedroomed house costing £4,000 in Dublin was selling for £7,000 or £8,000 in the suburbs of Paris. This committee bought up all the land that could be serviced and then gave it back to the builders. This brought down the cost of land.

Mr. Macken, our City and County Manager, has a land pool now in the city and county of Dublin. He gives a certain amount of land to builders. I often made that point when I was a member of the corporation and before I lost the good job of alderman. Mr. Macken is facing up to this problem very well and so are his officers and the commissioner. They are trying to keep our people and the small builders employed. Small builders and reasonably large builders want to keep going and, if they know that a piece of land is going and that it will be serviced, they cannot be stopped from buying it. If we tried to stop them we would be told that we were undemocratic. The Minister and his predecessor tried to solve this problem but it is not so easy to solve. The City and County Manager is now helping the small builder who cannot buy land himself because he cannot compete with the man with the money who has been building for a long time.

I want to refer now to co-operative housing. We had some co-operative societies in the city and council of Dublin who built quite a number of houses. Unfortunately, there was a fly in the ointment but, on the whole, the co-operative societies worked well. The Minister referred to efficiency in building. There will always be one builder or one building contractor who will satisfy everybody. He will do his job well and leave the estate in a wonderful condition. The local authority can then take it over.

On this question of estates I might mention that there are many unfinished estates in County Dublin and while section 35 of the Planning Act, 1963 did, as we thought, give us powers to deal with that problem, we now find that it is not retrospective and so we are being hindered. We have written to the Minister asking if a meeting could be arranged at which the possibility of amending that Act could be discussed. One of the estates concerned is at Woodpark, Castleknock. We have been told that we have no authority within the Planning Act to take over an open space there because children use it as a playground. For the past five years I have been endeavouring to have that estate taken over. We took the matter to court but our legal advisers told us that section 35 of the Planning Act of 1963 was not wide enough to permit us to deal with the matter.

In the light of experience within the Department I ask the Minister to change his mind and have this section amended because such amendment is long overdue. While I was chairman of Dublin County Council I had an order made that we would sweep the estate and have better public lighting provided at the expense of the local authority. We have been endeavouring for as long as 14 years to take over some estates. We endevoured to bring in a clause which would prevent builders who did not co-operate with us getting grants because sometimes we find that a builder leaves the country or forms another company and in that way gets around the penal clause under which he should finish the work that he was supposed to have done. Of course, in future anybody obtaining permission to build houses must sign a bond from an insurance company or lodge money personally as a safeguard that the estate will be finished properly and that the instructions of the local authority are carried out.

I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the problem of the demolition of houses. There are a number of unsightly old houses to be seen not only in villages in County Dublin but in the city itself as well as in various parts of the country. Anything that can be done to speed up their demolition should be done.

Mr. Molloy

That is being done.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Houses that are not bad enough to be demolished but which could be reconstructed create another problem. There are many such houses that could be made fit for human habitation.

I must say that in so far as water and sewerage services are concerned, we, in County Dublin, have done a great deal of work. We have been trying to do within a few years what should have been done 20 years ago. The North Dublin regional water scheme as well as the scheme in South Dublin are progressing rapidly and we hope that when the scheme in North Dublin is finished—this should be within a year and a half—the Minister will pay us a visit. When the scheme is completed we hope it will supply water to all, with the exception of a few hundred people, in North County Dublin. In the case of the few hundred it would be too costly to extend the scheme to them but as time goes on we hope to include them also.

Group water schemes have been very helpful since their introduction by a former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Blaney. This good work has been continued both by the present Minister and by his predecessor.

The control of pollution is one of the problems of our time. In this city and all over the country generally there is more pollution from heavy vehicles by way of the emission of smoke from them than from anything else. One travelling behind one of those vehicles at times would need a gas mask. The manufacturers of these vehicles should endeavour to control the emission of pollution from them. Factories, too, with low chimneys are responsible for quite a lot of pollution. I read recently of the steps taken by countries such as Germany, France and England to deal with this problem and it appears that they have made great advances in this respect. Each one of us should contribute in his own way towards the solution of the problem because it is serious in so far as our health is concerned.

Of course, there is also the problem of water pollution. Any city near a river will have this problem. From what I have seen of rivers in France and Germany I cannot imagine there being any fish life in them. This is a difficult problem and I suppose the best way of dealing with it would be to appeal to the people generally not to use the rivers as dumping places. It is very wrong, too, that untreated sewage should run into rivers. We have here an anti-pollution organisation and while these people are entitled to their views, they should not exaggerate the situation. By doing this they could do a lot of damage to the tourist industry. They have reported on the whole North Dublin area as far as Portrane and Rush. There is very little real pollution outside the city and these people should not try to make matters worse than they are. They want to kill our tourist trade. They want to stop the movement of our people from the city. It is very difficult to deal with this matter when people exaggerate. They almost allege now that Achill, Valentia Island and Clare Island are affected. We should be cautious in regard to this matter. I do not want to see raw sewage going into the sea. It should be treated. This is a very big task. We have come a long way in our time having regard to our resources. The ratepayers can bear only a certain amount. The Minister for Local Government can get only a certain amount from the Central Fund for this service. He cannot get millions where they are not to be got at the time.

Next there is the question of water pollution in the Dublin area. The Minister, his Department, Dublin Corporation, and Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation, are all aware of this problem and are trying to have the water supply in the Dublin area as pure as possible.

Oil pollution is another problem. A few years ago it occurred along the North Dublin coast. There was a good deal of oil pollution in a certain area with the result that a number of birds died. Possibly that oil came from some boat that was not too far out to sea. I am sure that the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Transport and Power endeavour to deal with this problem. If where there is oil pollution along the coast, the boat responsible for it could be identified, we would be getting somewhere. There must be international goodwill in regard to this matter so that oil pollution would not be allowed to occur if it is avoidable. Of course, in the case of an accident at sea it may not be possible to prevent oil pollution.

As a former swimmer, I am very anxious that swimming pools should be provided. The Minister is a very good swimmer and, as Minister for Local Government, has done a good deal in a short period to promote the provision of swimming pools and I am sure he will continue to do so. May I compliment him for setting up this special lifesaving section under the auspices of the Department? It was time that this work was undertaken by a Government Department. The Minister has succeeded in doing a good deal of work in regard to lifesaving training and instruction in swimming. I was a small delicate lad when I joined a swimming club. My health improved as a result of joining the club and I became a reasonably good swimmer.

We have succeeded in making many improvements in regard to fire fighting over the years. Various local authorities have done good work in regard to modernising equipment and ensuring that provision is made so that the service will be able to meet every emergency and that a fire engine will be available when required. Sometimes a shortage of water is responsible for the fact that a house is burned down. This applies particularly in rural areas.

The position of itinerants is a matter that has greatly concerned me. I made myself very unpopular when as a member of the corporation I proposed the setting up of Labre Park. There are 40 itinerant families living there now. When I went up for the last election I lost about 1,000 votes. This is what public men are up against. People will ask you why you do not do this and why the local authority is not doing that. In every case where an attempt is made to put an itinerant family into an area there is objection. We tried to have a few families placed here and there in County Dublin but not to the extent that we would like. There are some in Balbriggan, Lusk, Ballyogan Road, Clondalkin and places like that. One must move slowly in this matter. We could do a good deal more if the people realised our problem. During our time we have succeeded in rehabilitating many of these people. These people have souls. They are our own people. They have no chance to uplift themselves.

When I attended the World Planning and Housing Conference in Jerusalem I saw what they had done in regard to a problem that arose in Israel. There were thousands of nomads travelling along the streets and the countryside with donkeys and goats. The Israeli Government took the goats and donkeys from them, which seemed very cruel—if we were to do that there would be uproar—doubled their insurance and put the people into kibbutz or villages, gave them so much land to till and put social workers in with them. The children were sent to school and when the children left school they were assimilated into society. Their fathers and mothers were taught how to sit around a table, how to behave themselves. If we were to do that there would be uproar. I regarded it as a practical way of dealing with the problem. It may have been a little cruel but the families were kept together, fed and properly housed and the hardships endured in travelling the roads were eliminated.

That reminds me that when I made that suggestion at a corporation meeting some years ago I received a letter from a gracious lady in Ballsbridge. She condemned me and said that I was unchristian and wrong and should not have made any such suggestion, that the itinerants were our own people. I made inquiries about this lady and discovered that she was reasonably wealthy and had about half an acre of garden attached to her house and that there was a road at the end of the garden. I invited her to come to Leinster House. I brought her to the restaurant and gave her afternoon tea and thanked her very much for her charity towards the itinerants. "Madam," I said, "Ireland is all right while we have charitable ladies to look after the poorer sections of the people. I have one itinerant family here now. I have chosen them specially because they are very civilised people and have only two children. My dear lady, we will supply you with a caravan if you will give them the site at the end of your garden. You would be giving great example to all the people in the area." She shut up and could not get away from me quickly enough. It was all right to condemn public men and everybody else but the attitude is "Do not let the itinerants near me." That is what public men are up against. The Minister, being a member of a local authority and Mayor of Galway, is up against that. In County Dublin we are trying to arrange that each parish would take in a certain number of families and look after them. I wish to pay tribute to the people and clergy of Lusk ad Balbriggan for their work in this regard.

Regional planning is essential. Nowadays most counties co-operate in their planning programmes, especially in regard to water and sewerage schemes. This joint planning is being carried out by County Kildare and County Dublin and is satisfactory. Conservation year achieved good results in that there was a reawakening among the people of the importance of preserving our heritage.

It is important that something should be done regarding Dublin traffic. In view of the rapid increase in this traffic, in ten years time it will be impossible to go through the city. The Minister has set up a special department and other measures have been taken to study this problem but much more is necessary. A crash programme must be adopted to try to cope with this problem. I am not complaining about the Minister because he is not long in his job but this matter has been neglected for too long.

We should have subways underneath some of the very busy thoroughfares in Dublin. The corner of Henry Street and North Earl Street, O'Connell Street and Westmoreland Street are extremely busy points and the measure I have advocated would help to relieve the traffic congestion. In addition, at least one other wide bridge should be constructed across the Liffey. When I was coming to Leinster House yesterday I left my home at 2.30 p.m. It took me 45 minutes to come from Santry—a distance of about four miles. If one by-passes O'Connell Street one finds that many other people have the same idea and, consequently, Capel Street Bridge and Church Street Bridge are crowded. The Minister has had a number of reports regarding this traffic problem. It is essential that something be done to deal with this matter.

It is said by many people that road accidents are caused by people who have been drinking. Although I agree that drink may be a contributory cause, I think most accidents are caused by bad manners. Many of the accidents occur in the morning when motorists may be in a hurry and drive at reckless speeds. If people would have courtesy on the road many accidents could be avoided.

I wonder if it is possible to adopt the system in operation in America where matters relating to road safety are under the control of the Department of Justice. Anything that can be done to improve road safety will be welcomed by all. I realise there has been some improvement regarding the parking arrangements for lorries but this is an important matter when we are considering road safety. The back of the lorry should be constructed to ensure that it is not possible for a small car to run under it. Many accidents have been caused in this way. Something more than painting and the erection of signs is necessary. Some firms have put bars at the back of their lorries and I should like to see this practice more widespread.

Many of the bridge are not constructed to cope with heavy traffic. In this connection I refer especially to the bridge at Blanchardstown. It is on the main road to Navan and it is causing an immense amount of trouble. The bridge in question is unsafe for heavy traffic and I would ask the Minister to ensure that work is carried out by CIE and the county council to remedy this matter. The existing bridge is in a poor state of repair and it is necessary for traffic to go via Castleknock Road.

My only comment on driving tests is that they are very good. In regard to educating our young people in the matter of road safety, I hope the Minister will succeed in the work he is doing. The junior school warden service is admirable in that it is giving our children an opportunity to practise discipline and this will help them in their adult life. A great many people are killed walking along the road. It is hard luck on the unfortunate driver and it is hard luck on the unfortunate people who are killed. People should, I believe, be encouraged to wear armbands when they are walking on the road. They should wear them for their own safety.

Local government is a very big subject. In County Dublin we are deeply concerned about public lighting. Only last year we adopted public lighting all night in the county. We are trying to improve the lighting because a good deal of it is substandard. For 11 months of the year people ask for more and more amenities and for one month in the year we discover we are the worst councillors in existence because the rates are going up. We cannot provide amenities unless we have the money. This is the problem we have to face.

Anything that can be done to help in the provision of swimming pools will be welcome. At the moment we have a demand from Clondalkin and also from the Sisters of Charity in Navan Road. A few other areas also want swimming pools. Where the local contribution is going ahead I should like to see the people getting every encouragement.

We have succeeded in providing certain amenity centres in County Dublin. We bought these out of our own revenue. The problem is that we do not have enough money for all the demands for schemes. Some time, when the Minister has time, I should like him to see our council in action. We have many problems in County Dublin and they are multiplying all the time. Our staffs are overworked. County Dublin local authority is the busiest local authority in the country. In some weeks we have two or three meetings and, even at that, we do not finish the agenda. Where would we be if we had Greater Dublin, Dún Laoghaire and everywhere else thrown in? We are the busiest local authority in the country, coping with a variety of very exacting demands, from planning appeals right down.

I apologise for taking up so much of the time of the House but I am very familiar with this subject. I have a special interest in it. I wish the Minister luck in his important assignment and I thank his officials for their unvarying courtesy towards me over the years.

Mr. O'Higgins

I agree with what Deputy Burke has said in regard to the proposal to alter the present local authority set-up in the country. I think any such change would be unwise. I think this proposal indicates a mentality which is out of touch with the actual needs and requirements of the country. There has been a growing tendency over the last two decades towards regionalising local affairs, handing them over to larger and larger bodies farther and farther removed from the horizons of ordinary individuals in the different areas affected. This has an unfortunate effect on the pride of people in the area in which they live, on their sense of communal responsibility and on their concern for their neighbours. If a local authority seems very large—a local authority has its impact on the people—and seems far removed, the tendency is for people to come to regard their own problems as insoluble and that, in turn, engenders in them an anxiety to look after their own affairs and forget about the affairs of others.

A practical example of that is the present mentality which exists in the city of Dublin. Anyone who has worked amongst the people, or has had anything to do with people, in Dublin city realises the sense of frustration that exists because of the abolition two years ago of Dublin Corporation. People feel that, without public representatives to whom they can go, they are in the hands, as undoubtedly they are, of a nameless and faceless bureaucracy. This has had its effect on public thinking amongst the citizens of Dublin and I would urge that immediate consideration be given to the restoration of Dublin Corporation and to the holding of new elections for that body.

It seems clear that the Minister and the Government have wrapped up the problem of restoring Dublin Corporation in their new proposals. I do not believe these new proposals will find general acceptance. I do not believe they will ever become legislative proposals. It would be much better in the interests of the proper administration of local affairs if a clearcut decision were taken now to restore Dublin Corporation and to give back to the people the means at least whereby they can ventilate their own personal problems vis-à-vis the corporation. To that extent, I agree with the general principle of what Deputy Burke said in part of his speech here.

In the last decade we have witnessed in the city of Dublin a profound change. If someone who had left the country ten or 15 years ago, someone who was familiar with St. Stephen's Green, with the centre of the city, with Ballsbridge and other picturesque areas, returned now he would find It very difficult, I believe, to be certain where he was because the whole face of the city has changed and is changing very dramatically. I wonder whether the change was planned or intended or whether it has come about accidentally and to some extent haphazardly. It is clear, in any event, that the centre of the city is being turned into a purely business centre. Where old houses and institutions had been there is now development into enormous flats and office apartments and enormous centres of business activity. I am not in a position to and would not attempt to pass judgment on whether that is a good thing but it means that if the trend continues, more and more we shall have a population existing on the periphery of the business centre of Dublin, extending more and more into County Dublin, north, south and west, thereby creating more problems in regard to local amenities and requirements and in regard to commuting from the place of residence to the place of work.

In other words, we have created these problems ourselves by the manner in which the city has been permitted to be changed in the last decade and a half. Having created these problems it is urgent that there should be an examination, periodic if necessary, as to what in fact the result has been and is at present in relation to the new developing areas around the centre of the city. We have had a Planning Act which has now been on the Statute Book for some years. It has been given different interpretations in different parts of the country and it has led to experiments, trials and errors and I wonder whether the stage has not now been reached when we should review as a matter of urgency our whole planning system.

I do not want to exaggerate but I have in mind one particular area which happens to be in my constituency of South County Dublin. I refer to the development taking place now and envisaged in relation to the new town of Tallaght. At the time of the last general election—to put it no further back—Tallaght was a small, pleasant area on the outskirts of the city, with open spaces and green fields running down to the river and a resident population conscious and aware that in the next four or five years there would be a vast building programme and an incursion of some 40,000 to 50,000 new residents. The people felt that as this had been blueprinted and ear-marked, the development would take place with consideration, thought and concern and that the new town of Tallaght when built would be a pleasant suburb of Dublin city with all the amenities which experience had taught our planners would be necessary for a well-appointed residential area.

In pursuance of that wish and hope Dublin County Council as the main planning authority for the area drew up a draft plan for the development of Dublin county including Tallaght. This plan was exhibited and the people of Tallaght through the residents' association and other bodies were encouraged to examine the plan and say in what respect they disagreed with it and, through their representatives on the county council and elsewhere, to suggest changes and amendments. At the time the draft plan went on exhibition for local consideration a great deal of development had already taken place. The people could only see the houses appearing row after row and the green fields being bulldozed and builders coming in. They were certain that this was all part of a well-thought out plan. But in due course the plan went on exhibition and the people were able to see what was involved. They suddenly found that there was to be a vast, comparatively speaking, industrial development in the centre of Tallaght, with vast areas of new buildings. But where were the green open spaces? They did not appear to exist.

The local residents' association put what they saw on the plan into a coloured drawing, the yellow indicating the concentration of houses, the red the industrial development and the green, the open spaces. It became quite clear that the main open space proposed for the future was the River Dodder and nothing else, with the exception of a few small areas contiguous to the river owned by the monks. They produced this coloured drawing for circulation among the people of Tallaght with a rather touching marginal note headed "Daddy, I have nowhere to play". "How many times has a child made this remark?" asks the marginal note which goes on:

Do we as parents fully understand the pathetic plea of our children? It is not enough to provide a home but we must also provide park amenities of all descriptions to ensure that our children grow in a healthy and happy environment. To help those of you who care your representatives on the ad hoc committee of the Tallaght and District Community Council have sketched the draft plan of Tallaght so that you will fully understand the urgency of the situation. You will see that if we continue to allow Tallaght to be developed as proposed, in three years time the only place left for our children to play will be on the streets of the concrete jungle that Tallaght will become. To stop this happening we will have to object in the strongest possible manner.

They suggest how the objections should be made by contacting various local representatives and so on. The note ends by saying: "We must not forget that idle minds are not happy ones and even the best of children can go wrong when they have nowhere to go to keep their minds occupied." That cri de coeur which is contained in that marginal note represents in a very succinct way a very human need that people living and coming into this new development area feel and want expressed.

Along with my colleagues in my constituency and the county councillors in the different parties I became concerned about the needs expressed by the people. We sought, so far as we could, to get an assurance that in the development which was taking place the local amenity requirement would be fully recognised. I found it very difficult to ascertain what was going on. Dublin County Council are using a draft plan, which is an excellent idea, provided it is left at that and remains only a draft. There is power under the Planning Act either to have a plan in the planning authority area or to use the idea of a draft plan, which is indicative of a situation in which all development ought to be freezed until, as a result of local consideration and discussions, the planning authority can decide what ought to go into the final plan.

In Tallaght the draft plan was put on exhibition but at the same time the builders were marching on and have been ever since. No matter how many meetings the local residents' associations held the builders still went on building. I tried to find an explanation for this but I could not find a satisfactory one. It seemed to me perfectly clear that in the planning department the right hand did not know what the left was doing and somewhere behind and beyond all that some jurisdiction was being exercised, under the aegis of the Minister's Department, whereby planning appeals and planning permissions, both verbal and written, were being granted indiscriminately to builders.

I want to put this on record because I believe as a result of all this we are unfolding a tragedy in Tallaght. A book was written about Charlestown in which the message was given: "No one shouted stop." I suggest the situation in Tallaght at the moment is such that the Minister must cry stop in order to find out exactly what has happened. In the course of my investigations I was told that this diagram was all right and that inside the yellow, when it came to an action plan as it is called, there would be a green space. I am informed there is a development area called Springfield which consists of an area of four or five acres. The action plan I was shown, which I assume to be accurate, indicated a development along the periphery of these four or five acres, with roads going in and a wonderful open space in the centre suitable for playgrounds, park amenities and so on. It looked very well, it satisfied me and I am sure it would satisfy most of the people concerned with this particular area. I asked to see the area and I saw a builder already building. But what kind of building was going on? From the moment he started building on the site he marched his houses right through, there was no open space, there was no building on the periphery. I am sure he is a good builder who is following some plan and I am sure the houses will be very good. The point I am making is that although an open space is indicated on the action plan it is not being kept open. One must assume the building is being carried on lawfully and, therefore, one must assume that someone, whether in the Minister's Department or somewhere else, indicated to the builder that he need not bother about the plan indicating an open space, he could march his buildings in and that would be that. I mention that as one particular example of building in an area where people are invited to consider a draft plan.

In the last two years many new families have settled in Tallaght. I do not know the number but it must run into thousands. As a result, quite suddenly, and everybody is conscious of it, there are many hundreds more children in the area. There is a problem in relation to schools. The parish priest is concerned about the planning of schools. Prefabricated buildings are being erected but nobody knows what the eventual result will be.

Some well-intentioned, decent people decided to get together to do something for the children. Many were keen on playing soccer and the local soccer club got together between 150 and 200 children in order to provide under-15 teams. Where were they to play? They saw a particular field which they knew was intended for building at some time by the corporation and they set up posts in that field. They had one practice match and the following day the bulldozers came in. It was bulldozed because somebody with a licence to build or somebody with whom the corporation had made an arrangement decided they had better put a stop to this very quickly. The children playing in a field brought the bulldozers along. There is nowhere in Tallaght for the children to play or practise for the mini-olympics which is coming up. The heading, "Daddy, I have nowhere to play" is perfectly apt, perfectly relevant and perfectly true.

What is happening? Does anyone care? That is my concern and I ask it not in a blaming way but in an inquisitive way. Is there anyone in the institution examining what is happening? Is there anyone keeping an eye on what is happening? Is there anyone carrying out a periodic examination? Tallaght is going to be one of our first satellite towns. We have allowed Dublin city to change. We are squeezing the population out. They are going because the developers have come in with big money, building skyscrapers, offices and so on, and there will be very little residential development inside the city. The new population and the people who leave will be in the satellite towns and this is the first. I am concerned to know what kind of town it will be. Will we have a situation in ten years time in which people living in Tallaght will ask: "How did you let it happen?" Because it has been happening. I do not know whether it is a ministerial responsibility. I want to be quite fair. If it is, I do not know whether it is the present Minister's or any one of his predecessors'. It does seem to me that there has been an utter and complete lack of communication and liaison between everybody involved and the Dublin County Council in the planning of development.

I should hate to think that some of these developers have privy to the ear of the Minister. I should hate to think that some of them are in a position in which they can snap their fingers at those who plan in the offices for future development and can just by-pass those plans and get direct permission to proceed. If that were so, it would be a very bad thing indeed. Something has been happening and something is very wrong. There is still time, but only just time, to save Tallaght from becoming what is feared by the parents and the people in the residents' association—a concreate jungle. There are still open spaces left, not as ideally situated as they might have been, not having as pleasant a potentiality as they might have had, but they are still there. Without in any way preventing the building that is planned—one must not do this —it is still possible with revised planning to fit in future buildings and at the same time provide for minimal local amenities. I would urge that this whole problem of Tallaght should now get the immediate attention of the Minister's Department, and I think it must be the Minister's Department, and exercise a sympathetic overlordship in relation to what is happening in this part of County Dublin.

Having said that about Tallaght, may I go on to something else which is somewhat associated with the same kind of problem? Again Deputy Burke in his review of the national scene referred to the problem in relation to the taking over by the local authority, the Dublin County Council in my case, of estates that have been developed. The Minister is aware of this problem, as his predecessor had been, but I am concerned to know what is being done to deal with it. The present position, as I understand it, is this: a particular area is to be developed by builder A and he enters into what, morally, is a contract, an understanding, or an arrangement with either the planning authority or the Minister on appeal. He is to build particular types of houses, he is to lay in roads and have open spaces here, there and everywhere. Ten per cent at least of the area must be allotted as open space. In he goes and builds and having built he does nothing further. He does not hand over the developed estate to the local authority. The result is that buses cannot go in over the roads and local services cannot be provided because the estate has not been handed over. Possibly there may be complaints in relation to the quality of the building or the nature of the roadways but the local authority can do nothing. The open space is there. In one case recently the person who developed or who bought from the developer, I am not certain which, after the development sought permission to build on the open space but fortunately the local authority did not give that permission and I understand the matter is now before the Minister. I have no doubt the Minister will act properly in that instance.

The point I want to make is that there is no power apparently in the local authority at the moment to compel the developer to carry out his conditions and to hand the estate over to the local authority. This has meant that in every part of Dublin county there are estates, some newly developed and some quite old, which have not been handed over and local, genuine, bona fide complaints by new residents cannot be dealt with by the local authority because apparently there is this lacuna in the Planning Act which was diagnosed some four or five years ago. I ask, in the name of the Lord, why do we not arm local authorities with the necessary power to deal with these estates? It seems quite absurd that on matters so clearly known as this, we do nothing, in some kind of belief that it is necessary to accumulate over a number of years so many amendments that you can come in with a Bill of inordinate length. I would recommend to the Minister if the difficulty is in the section Deputy Burke mentioned, section 35, or whatever the difficulty may be, as a matter of reasonable development the planning authorities or the local authorities should be armed with the necessary power, after a due and reasonable interval to compel developers to rectify any mistakes or alterations they have made on the original approved plan. If that were done quite a lot of frustration which now exists in new plannings estates would disappear.

I should like to say something about the problem of pollution. Deputy Burke seemed to regard pollution as something which is there, which is everywhere and something about which we can do nothing. If that is so, I think we as a people can look forward to a very messy and very short future.

Mr. Molloy

That is not a very fair representation of what Deputy Burke said.

Mr. O'Higgins

Perhaps it is not, but I seemed to get from him the message that it was only in relation to air pollution that anything could be done. I think pollution, whether it is air, water or oil, is a matter in respect of which we must take action. If we are not prepared to take action we will literally destroy ourselves. I believe that it is absolutely essential that any one who pollutes the air, whether with a diesel lorry or whatever it may be, should be made aware that he or she is committing an offence against our community. If the necessary powers are not there, they ought to be there. When people realise that they will not be permitted to do a certain thing, it is extraordinary how quickly the problem disappears. I am more concerned with water pollution. Deputy Burke seemed to think that water pollution was all right. It is anything but all right. I hope it is incorrect, but my information is that the effluent from the new sewerage scheme to provide serviced land all around North County Dublin, an enormous development into which some £9 million is going, will be carried to a point on the other side of the Pigeon House. At the moment the sewage effluent from Dublin city goes to the other side of the Pigeon House. This point was decided on away back in the early days of the century when the population of Dublin city was of the order of 400,000 to 500,000. This matter has not marched with the requirements of time.

I am informed that every day a boat collects whatever deposits there are and brings them to the other side of Howth Head. That kind of treatment of sewage may have been suitable and adequate some 60 years ago, but it scarcely measures up to the requirements of our community and of this growing city at this time. I am told that for the new sewage scheme that will deal with all the servicing of the satellite towns out to Blanchardstown, the effluent point will be the same point. If that is so, and if my information is even remotely accurate, where are we going in relation to Dublin Bay? It is quite absurd for a Deputy to say: "Will you close your eyes and do not mention it, or you will frighten away the tourist."

The Minister is a swimmer and I am a dipper. I go for a swim or a plunge in the 40-foot near where I live, and I can assure the Minister that sewage is a problem, and has been a problem and an increasing problem in that part of Dublin Bay in recent years. It is no good trying to pretend that it is not there. I am well aware of the advice the Minister gets. It is an understandable human thing, I suppose, that people whose job and duty it may have been over the years to deal with a problem, tend to assume that everything is all right lest the suggestion might be made that, over the decades, they have been falling down on the job. I know the kind of advice that is currently given that Dublin Bay is not being polluted.

Mr. Molloy

No one ever said that.

Mr. O'Higgins

Obviously the Minister has not been aware of this problem for sufficiently long to appreciate it.

Mr. Molloy

I never said that.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am not saying the Minister said it.

Mr. Molloy

Or my advisers or officials.

Mr. O'Higgins

Possibly there is a distinction between the Minister's advice and that of others. Certainly I have heard that advice expressed. The problem is a very definite one. I appreciate that it cannot be dealt with without a vast expenditure of money: I do not know what the capital provision is in relation to the North County Dublin sewerage scheme, but I understand that it is of the order of £9 million. I am certain that is inadequate. We will have to invest a very large capital sum to deal adequately with the servicing of sewage all along the Dublin cost. If we do not do that, this absolutely marvellous amenity which is available to people living in Dublin and Greater Dublin will disappear. It would be tragic if this happened. I hope there will be a general appreciation of the need for action.

I do not know whether the Minister has a view on this, but I certainly have. Over the years, as a result of a lack of knowledge, perhaps, or through carelessness, perhaps, we have allowed many of our inland waters to become polluted. Many of our rivers have been chronically polluted for years. Many of our lakes are being polluted or are in a polluted condition because of lack of money, lack of planning and lack of care, particularly on the part of local authorities. At the moment it is the responsibility of each local authority to deal with its own sewerage problems, its own problems of industrial and other waste. There is no standard of purity laid down by Oireachtas Éireann. We may criticise the British for many things but, at the turn of the last century, the British set up a royal commission to deal with the whole problem of water purity and the necessary biochemical treatment of water. They dealt with fast-flowing rivers. They set a standard and they have endeavoured to observe it. One need only look at what happens in London to see what advance they have made in dealing with waste and sewage. Here we do not do that and each local authority is permitted to act haphazardly and often, I regret to say, with utter disregard for the harm being done.

The Minister should take steps, administratively or otherwise, to set up a national standard of purity for our inland and contiguous waters. He should insist that each local authority brings its own waters up to that standard. If we do not do that, obviously we are just hoping for the best, hoping that things will be all right, that pollution will not create a problem. Of course the problem exists. We can do something about it and we must do something about it. It is too bad to hear every six months or so of some other lakes which are showing the first signs of pollution. We do not want to have our lakes like the lakes in many parts of Switzerland, for instance, where 60 or 70 years ago they died as lakes, where the oxygen has disappeared and where the only fish life in existence is the crudest possible. In this country we have very many lovely lakes and waters, lakes with all the attractions of crystal clear and pure water and which have all the fish and other life which make them a wonderful amenity. However, these are gradually being encroached on by pollution, not merely sewage but industrial pollution and so on. I would urge the Minister to see that the necessary machinery is established with which to tackle the problem. I am aware that the Minister has expressed his concern on this but there must be set a target and the necessary machinery must be put into motion.

The problem of oil pollution has been mentioned also. I suppose one might say that we are in the front line in relation to that type of pollution. With the vast demand from new sources all over the world for oil, there is the danger of oil slicks by reason of the occurrence of a hazard at sea and this, of course, is extremely serious. We shall always be in the front line in this regard by reason of living on an island with much coast line and at any time we could be faced with the problem of oil pollution on our coast. I do not know what can be done about it. Obviously, it is an international matter but I would hope that the Minister and the Government would be in touch with, perhaps, other countries in relation to the production of some plan to deal with that kind of an emergency, should it arise.

Reference is made also to supplementary building grants. Originally these grants of £300 were very useful when, at that time, houses could be built for less than £1,000. The grants were then widely availed of. However, today a supplementary grant of £300 is very much in the past tense. Therefore, there is a real need for bringing these grants in line with the vast changes in building costs and with the fall in the value of money.

Mr. Murphy

The main question at the moment in regard to local government is one of reorganisation. I am a firm believer in democracy. Our Government here and the other Members of this House are elected by the people in a democratic way. In the same way, members of local authorities are elected. Therefore, one would think that what prevails in this House or is supposed to prevail would prevail locally also. Of course, everybody knows why this is not the case. Perhaps the change emanated from the Department and from their many advisers. It is well known that for a country like ours with a population of 2.8 million people, there is overloading of public officials and that the Department of Local Government are carrying their share of them.

Some people may say it is good that we have employment at home for our people but my view is that employment of a non-productive nature is of no advantage either to the people or to the country. This results from having more people employed than are required. In any case, since this surplus is there, they must be doing something and I am sure it was some of these people who thought of the idea of restructuring in the past the local government system and, thereby, taking away from the elected members the powers that they should have, and, instead, passing them to the non-elected personnel engaged in the roles of managers, senior executive officers and the many other officers who administer local authorities. That happened about 30 years ago but it has outlived its usefulness. I think it was in 1929 that this managerial system was first mentioned here by General Mulcahy as Minister for Local Government. I understand that at the time a relatively small number of public representatives were not as straight as they should have been and that there were some convictions for misdemeanours. A small percentage of such persons could be found in any section of people. In any event, that was the view of General Mulcahy at the time of the introduction of this system for Cork city. It is some years now since I read what our beloved President who, thank God, is still with us, had to say on this. He opposed it in the most vehement terms.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that the President should not be introduced into the affairs of the House.

Mr. Murphy

I am so aware. However, a man of high standing in this country at the time and since that time had much to say about this changeover. He indicated quite clearly that so far as he was concerned the day would never dawn, if he had power, when he would agree to the change suggested by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government in 1929. It is now past history how he changed his mind and how, when Fianna Fáil came into office, this whole system was thrown overboard and the streamlined managerial system was introduced in its stead. The managers were appointed by the Appointments Commission and irrespective of whether they were good or bad—I am not referring to any individual manager; I am referring to the system—they remained with the council. They remained in these senior executive positions unless they committed some outlandish crime and, of course, it is not an outlandish crime to be incompetent and incapable of carrying out local administration. Once such persons are appointed you have them until they are 65 years of age and, if they leave you, they are appointed to some other county. I repeat that I am not in any way reflecting on our executives but I am reflecting on this system.

The longest term that a member of a local authority can serve is five years and if the people find him wanting they can remove him from office. Those who pay the piper should call the tune. It is the ordinary man and woman, whether a ratepayer or a taxpayer, who is paying the piper and who should call the tune. The only way he can call his tune is through his local representatives having the power to play the tune he wants them to play. At present they have not got that power. What chance has John Citizen of seeing the executives? If he knocks at the door and asks for the senior executive he is asked who he is and it is made clear to him that it is impertinence on his part to seek an interview with such a person. Everybody knows that that is the position obtaining at the present time.

This is more relevant at the present time than it was in the past because of the suggested restructuring of local government. In the White Paper submitted to local authorities by the Department of Local Government, the author of which is some anonymous group or individual within the Department, I failed to find any chapter or sentence which would indicate that locally elected members will have a greater say in local affairs than they have at the present time. Is that democracy? Why not go the further distance of abolishing local authorities? What is the use of having a group of persons elected to a local body if they are to have no say in local affairs?

I will give a simple illustration. If tomorrow Galway or any other county council decide to build a cottage for a worker they have not the right to approve of the layout plan. It must be sent to the Department. Such an insignificant aspect of local authority work must receive approval in Dublin. Even the managers were not given that power. This local government structure we have at present is the most ridiculous system that could be devised. If one were to go up to Grangegorman and were to get a group there who had some knowledge of local government they would be able to produce principles of local government that would be at least as good as, if not better than, the principles on which local government is administered at present.

The members of local authorities, who have to get the support of the electorate and who must have their credentials approved by the general public, are the persons who should direct policy. They are the persons who are conversant with local conditions, the persons that the local people will go to see to air a grievance or to make suggestions. The system is rotten. I emphasise that again. It is rotten because the powers of local representatives have been whittled away. Bureaucracy has taken over completely. We must have public servants but I do not think they should be in the role that they have at the moment as absolute bureaucrats who do not have to go before the public at any time, who do not have to attend public meetings, who do not have to answer queries from the public if they so decide. That is the system and that is a system that I think should be abolished or, if it is not abolished, local government should be administered in the same way as social welfare is administered—from Dublin, completely centralised. Then local matters could be discussed at Question Time and other appropriate times in more detail than is happening at the present time.

All citizens have equal right to seek election as members of local authorities. It is not the preserve of any group or section. Everyone has the same right to seek public support. We are all very pleased to see on local authorities so many public-spirited people offering their services to the public and helping in any way they can to improve the local way of life but the frustration of a newly elected councillor can be imagined. He comes to his first council meeting thinking that he has some reasonable amount of power but after a little experience he finds that his powers are very limited, that the power is vested in the bureaucrats.

I am saying here what I have said before and I am saying it as a member of a party which has not a majority on any council and I am saying it as a democrat and a believer in democracy, that position may not obtain always but the people have the right to elect local representatives and local representatives should have the right to determine local matters. It is not reasonable to assume that members of an urban council or a corporation have as much integrity as members of the Government? It might well turn out that their integrity rating would be higher.

I am hopeful that before this reorganisation of local government is finalised there will be another Government in power who will have the job of dealing with this matter. Members of this House should not forget that they have not fixity of tenure or any guarantee that they will be in this House next year. If I am elected at the next general election and if, as has been generally accepted, we have new men at the helm, then I will make the same case as I am making today.

The kind of local government structure that is in operation now should be abolished completely. The Chair may think I am taking up too much time in dealing with this aspect of local government organisation. I have had the honour and privilege of having been elected chairman of Cork County Council on a number of occasions. This is an honour for which I am most grateful to my colleagues on the county council. By virtue of my office I think I have had a greater insight into the workings of bodies—even larger organisations such as the Cork County Council—than has the ordinary councillor or citizen.

There is one matter which has been occupying our attention in Cork County Council for some time and I see nothing in the Planning Act which hinders me in the demand I am making. For instance, if Deputy Geoghegan applied to Cork County Council for planning permission and if his application was rejected, if he seeks the grounds for rejection the most he will get from the council is a summary of the reasons, which are set out in general terms and are far removed from the actual reports submitted by the county council officers. My claim is that if any citizen applies to a public body for planning permission or any other facility, if his application is refused by the executive authority he is entitled to know the grounds for rejection. Without such evidence he cannot make a case for appeal to the Minister for Local Government.

What is wrong? In the first instance the application is examined and reported on by the local assistant engineer. Secondly, it goes to the chief assistant dealing with housing matters and roads; it then goes to the chief assistant planning officer; next it goes to the county engineer and, finally, it reaches the county manager. All of these officials up to the county manager are supposed to make a written statement setting out the reasons for rejection of the application. If we assume that such statements are a factual appraisal of the position and that these officers are doing their job in an upright manner, what is wrong with giving the evidence to the applicant? He needs this information in order to set out his own statement when he is appealing the case.

The reason I mention this matter is to illustrate what little power councillors have. Apart from the chairman of Cork County Council, no member of that body is empowered to see the file in question. The file is kept secret and can only be seen by the executive staff. Is this democracy? My answer is that it is not and I think this procedure should be changed. If a member of a council is asked by a constituent, or anyone else who feels aggrieved about an application, surely the councillor has the right to all information in connection with the case? This administration behind closed doors is bad. The instance I have mentioned is only one example of the way decisions are made behind doors closed not only to the general public but to members of local authorities also.

Why, it may be asked, do the county council not demand by resolution to obtain this information? That could be done but it would mean that a council like Cork County Council would have to meet three or four times each week. My point is that councillors should be facilitated with this information. If this is the kind of local government we will have in the late 1970s, if this is the type of local government envisaged for the eighties, the type of administration envisaged when we enter, if we do enter, the European Economic Community, then we are falling for behind the local government structure and the democracy of that structure in other countries. I have had the opportunity of visiting a number of countries and I made it my business in those countries to get some information about local government administration. I found that we are, so to speak, out on our own as far as bureaucracy is concerned and as far as the stifling of the voices of public representatives is concerned.

I prefaced my remarks by saying that this kind of system has been in operation here now for 30 years. What has it achieved? Life today is very different from life in the forties. We are living in a different world. Throughout the world, particularly in that part of it in which we have our being, western Europe, services have been expanded to a far greater degree than they have been here in Ireland. Local government services generally are supposed to be managed, administered and controlled by local people. That is the pattern in other countries and the system in those countries works smoothly. Here it is not the pattern. My remarks are directed now against the system. I have no personal animosity against any of our executives in Cork or elsewhere, in case anyone may think I am hitting out spitefully against any individuals. The records of this House will show that I have preached this policy here during all the 20 years in which I have been a Member of this House and I will continue to fight for democratic principles in local government.

We had an unexpected change in May, 1970 when the then incumbent of the Department of Local Government moved out of office and made room for his successor. There was general expectation then that the new Minister would make many changes. I will not refer to what happened in the past because it is the practice of this House that one does not comment on the activities of an ex-Member of the House who can no longer defend himself here. We all thought changes would take place. People are disappointed because few, if any, changes have taken place. There has been no change in the public relations system of the Department. It was always poor and except for some few sectors it is still poor. I am told there are exceptions.

It is generally supposed that the Department of Local Government is used as a propaganda machine by Fianna Fáil and that one of their principal functions is the churning out of letters and correspondence of a completely superfluous nature for the purpose of keeping the local boys, so to speak, happy and to imply that, were it not for the influence of particular representatives, something or other would not have been given at all. This should not be the case. I had a few such letters myself. No public representative is entitled to get anything for any citizen unless that citizen is lawfully and legitimately entitled to it. There may be factors overlooked by the applicant and the Department which, when brought to bear, may change a decision. Our role is somewhat similar to that of a solicitor or a lawyer in court. We are not there to get something for a citizen unless we are absolutely satisfied that the citizen is entitled to it. We all know that people are entitled to certain things and that they do not always get that to which they are entitled because of a breakdown in communication or because of failure on the part of the applicant to mention certain vitally important factors in his application. Public representatives are naturally reasonably abreast of regulations and I have always regarded my role as that of advising citizens about their rights. If there was any difficulty with the Department I had no hesitation in trying to get such rights. That should be the agreed principle. So far as it is possible to do so, give every man his due. Let there be an end to the letters implying that, were it not for the representation made by so and so, a grant would not have been paid. That is actually fraudulent. No man is entitled to get money from Local Government unless he is entitled to that money. The fact that a senior member of an organisation makes representations should change neither the system nor the regulation.

I am sure that, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare has access to the files in the Department of Local Government, he is aware of the kind of letters issued to party members. We all appreciate replies to correspondence but I certainly do not like the type of letter I have been talking about dealing with the disbursement of public funds. It starts off: "Dear Joe, You were speaking to me about Jack Murphy's grant. I have examined it. There was some difficulty about it all right but, in view of your representations, I think it is all right and we will be paying it in the near future. With kind regards, Yours sincerely, So-and-So." That is not the type of letter that should issue from a public Department. It should be a formal letter. I do not believe in this "Dear Joe, Dear Jack, Dear Thomas." That is all right when one public representative writes to another, addressing him as "Dear Jack" or "Dear Jim" and puts "Kind regards" at the end, but I do not think it is proper for people in ministerial positions. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am not keeping up with the times. Please, let no one ask me to produce some of those letters; I have had a few outstanding ones. One of the most outstanding did not come from Local Government but from the Parliamentary Secretary's office in relation to a widow's pension. I shall say no more on that now because we are not discussing social welfare.

My point is that the Departments should reply to all letters from citizens and should be as helpful and co-operative as possible. I do not think citizens whether they are senior Fianna Fáil members or senior members of any other party or association expect this informal treatment, "Dear Jack" or "Dear Paddy". I do not think that is right and I dislike the implication, the invisible writing in the letters, that were it not for this man you would get nothing at all.

We have representations naturally about housing grants and every other type of grant. People are being pressed for payment by contractors who in many cases are small and have limited funds. We endeavour to get payments as quickly as possible because a month can make a great difference. If there are difficulties we try to compromise and reach a fair and just conclusion in regard to particular applications. We try to get them all considered sympathetically where circumstances warrant it particularly in the case of poorer people who may be due housing grants but who find that because of limited funds the full requirements of the Department may not be fulfilled.

Housing generally is bad in south-west Cork. In the Minister's statement and in statements by his predecessor we were told that people need wait only a short time, a matter of months, for accommodation if their circumstances warrant it. I am not conversant with what happens in some local authority areas but the information I want is whether there is discrimination and whether the allegation is correct that if a housing applicant resides in a constituency which gives marginal support to Fianna Fáil—I mean where they are fortunate to get two out of three seats—then in order to hold that support recommendations from councils and individuals there are dealt with more favourably. That is a serious statement and if it is not correct I will be the first to withdrawn it. I do not blame the Civil Service for this: I am sure this would be a policy directive from the top.

As I mentioned recently at Question Time I find that in Cork County Council, West, we have reasons to complain again and again about the many frustrations put in our way by the Department. House building in south-west Cork is negligible. From 1957 up to the present, in the Schull and Skibbereen areas which comprise Cork County Council, West, the number of houses built has been exceptionally small. For four or five years during that period no house was built because we could get no money from the Department. We sent up deputations and I had reason to complain about their reception by the authorities here. I do not think that requires repetition but as a Deputy from the area I claim that we are entitled to the same consideration as is given to any other part of the country.

We had a programme which a few years ago was relatively small, because we knew we should keep it small, to build 17 badly-needed cottages for deserving applicants. We applied again and again to the Department. We got tenders and there was correspondence about lay-out plans but there was always some technical problem or some hitch of one kind or another. A few weeks ago I described this as delaying tactics which I think is a fair comment. In any case, not one of the 17 houses was built. The council decided to build four houses out of the money accumulated through the sale of vested cottages. That was done and these are the only houses built in west Cork for a number of years past. How can that be reconciled with the Minister's statement that for every two houses built a few years ago there are five being built now? These must be private houses or, if a sizeable percentage of the houses to which the Minister refers are local authority houses, then my charge of discrimination is obviously correct.

Now things are changing. The cost of building the cottages in south-west Cork has risen by 50 per cent in the past few years. I accept that building costs may be somewhat higher there than in other districts. It is a seaside area with a great deal of outside building but, generally speaking, in the inland areas costs are fair and reasonable and we are not getting much competition in the building of council houses. Because of the Minister's activities, or to a greater extent those of his predecessor, the houses will now cost much more to build, possibly £1,000 more. I do not know if it is any use making a plea here. What is happening now is that the applicants are moving from county councillor to county councillor, of whom there are 12 in the district. Some of the applicants had to act to see if they could get housing for themselves and their families. All the blame for allowing families to live in such appalling conditions rests with the Department of Local Government.

In the non-muncipal housing field the position is somewhat similar. All the towns in south-west Cork have housing problems and the number of new houses built in recent years is very small. In Bantry the problem is acute. The last housing scheme there was in the fifties and nothing has been built since. In Dunmanway only four houses have been built in recent times. In Clonakilty about half a dozen houses have been built in recent times and five are being built at present. In Skibbereen up until this year no houses have been built although six are being built at the present time and in Bandon and Kinsale the position is similar. It is quite evident that south-west Cork has no reason to praise the Department for their activities in relation to housing in that area.

I said yesterday during the course of another debate that I am well aware money does not fall from heaven. Money must be found for all our projects and services and this money must come from the pockets of our people, apart from what we can borrow from outside sources. Our loan position is not too good and our debt servicing fund is steadily growing; it is moving into the nine figure mark. I have always advocated that people should be encouraged to build their own houses as far as possible. There are a number of advantages: the applicant is much more independent; he is building a house for himself; he can select his own location and his own type of house but how can one give that kind of advice to a man of slender means?

If we look through the statements from the Department of Local Government we find the subvention towards local authority housing is reasonably big. The amount given for each house is a sizeable sum although, of course, it is not adequate. It would be a good idea if we had a fund from which we could make interest free loans to people who should be housed by the local authority. I know the cost of borrowing money is reasonably high, something like 9¾ per cent, but when one takes account of the income tax and surtax reductions it probably costs the State a net 6 per cent. Such a scheme would be advantageous to local authorities who would not have to be responsible for the maintenance of the houses, which is a considerable burden. Local authorities have to send people out to report on whether or not the slates are off or some such thing and this burden would be removed under such a scheme.

While this scheme could not be extended to all applicants it could be extended to those in secure employment. There may be difficulties in assessing those entitled to such facilities but as there are already various forms of means tests in operation I cannot see any great difficulty in drawing up regulations for qualifications under this particular heading.

It is time the present system whereby local authorities build large numbers of houses was changed. I am fortified in this assertion by what is happening in Cork so far as the repayment of loans is concerned. Many applicants who have got loans from Cork County Council over the years are people of slender means—I am sure the same applies in other counties—but the number of cases where people run into repayment difficulties are negligible.

When I first suggested this to Cork County Council in the early fifties the then chief executive officer and some of the members felt that if we were to give loans to people without some sureties the system would break down when the breadwinner died because there would be difficulties as there would not be any sureties for the repayment of the loan. Experience has shown that such is not the case and, in fact, this is the one service which is working quite smoothly.

I hope the Department will address themselves to the problem of trying to get people to look after themselves so to speak. There is an obligation on the public service to help people but I hold the view that there is also an obligation on an individual to help himself and the combination of the two should achieve the desired objectives. I hope more attention than has been given so far will be given to the problem of devising a system whereby people can build on their own and be independent. Anyway, it would eventually effect a saving to the public purse.

Side by side with housing, water and sewerage facilities are needed. We are like a group of protestants down in south-west Cork now. At all our meetings there are people protesting about this and protesting about that. Unfortunately, the protests are justified. We know that the Department must consider the rest of the country as well as our part of it and we know that regulations are supposed to be made on a national basis and available funds disbursed in an equitable way. Our claim is that we should have much more autonomy than we have at present. The business of sending to Dubin for this or that kind of approval should be wiped out.

Mr. Creed

Hear, hear.

Mr. Murphy

I think that it will eventually be wiped out.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy read the White Paper, of course?

Mr. Murphy

I did. There was not much to it.

Mr. Molloy

That was mentioned in it.

Mr. Murphy

This is a most frustrating exercise and it consumes a great deal of money. Having people employed by the local authority writing these unnecessary statements to Dublin and then having answers sent back by the public servants in Dublin consumes time. When it consumes time on the part of public officers it consumes money and, to my mind, consumes it wantonly.

I had a great deal to say at the outset about democracy. We can see how it works so far as the Minister is concerned when he is following in the footsteps of his predecessor in dealing with local authority representation. The finest illustration is that incidental to the implementation of group water schemes. In Cork generally group water schemes are not going well. There is a great lack of co-operation on the part of the Department and I think that is the main trouble. There is also, of course, the usual tactic of delaying applications so as to conserve the funds. Having paid money towards a scheme the people of Adrigole six or seven years ago had to take back their money after four or five years. Nothing happened. The members of Cork County Council, West, are united in their efforts to help. We work as a team and political or other differences do not enter into our deliberations. Our main desire is to help the public and brighten their way of life by providing, as far as we can possibly do so, local essential services.

This body requested that the group water scheme inspector should attend meetings periodically with a view to discussing schemes that did not seem to be getting off the ground and different aspects of the system and making suggestions for improvements. What did the Minister, Deputy Molloy, do? He did what the former Deputy Boland had done. He said: "The group water scheme inspector will not visit your meeting. He will not meet the local representatives." The local representatives were elected under the same system as the Minister himself was elected. Those fellows are very high up. They are on their high horses. We were told the inspector would not meet the members, that if he met anybody it would be an officer of the council. I think, Sir—I will be extreme in describing it—that it is a form of blackguardism on the part of the Minister to prevent his inspector attending local authority meetings and discussing with the elected representatives of the people matters of common interest. I am surprised and disappointed that a relatively new Member of this House, as the Minister is, on his promotion to ministerial office, would stand over the type of regulation laid down by former Deputy Boland some years ago. In the past, of course, this man did attend meetings of the council but he was precluded from doing so. That gives an idea of how democracy is working within the Department. I hope the Minister, when he is replying to this, will tell us his reasons for not allowing these inspectors to attend meetings of the local authority.

Housing grants are worthy of note in this discussion. In years gone by the State and council grants for those who qualified constituted a reasonable percentage of the cost of a house. In the 1950s the grants totalled some 30 per cent of the cost of a house. Now what is happening? A person without dependants building an average-sized house whose income is more than £22 or £23 a week or £1,250 a year must make do with a grant of £300 or £325. Those with an income less than the qualifying sum will not get, with a few exceptions in the case of smaller farmers and workers, more than double that amount, taking the supplementary grant into account. Possibly percentagewise is the wrong way to approach this because the average farmer or the average worker building a house now would get a grant of £600. A grant of £600 towards the building of a house costing £3,600 is exceptionally small. I believe that the grants should be increased. The cost of house building is rocketing. Inflationary trends are the order of the day in the house building world. Prices are soaring. The grants have not kept pace, or are not meant to keep pace, with increasing costs. Perhaps it could be provided that those in the higher brackets should make do with what they are getting—there might be some justification for that if the Minister thinks the money is limited. It is up to him and his Department to devise the best possible way of disbursing the money.

In the late fifties, I think, the figure for house repair grants was changed to £140. That is still the figure. Questions have been put down persistently in the House asking for increases in the maximum supplementary grant of £140 for a five-roomed house, without avail. I am sure that the average estimate for repairs submitted to the Department would not fall far short of £1,000 and, in many cases, the figure would be in excess of that amount. The way the grants are apportioned at the moment is not realistic. If an applicant has an estimate of £420 for the repair of his house he will get £280 which is quite fair and reasonable because a burden of only one-third of the cost is imposed on himself. The man who has to lay out four times that much on repairs, whose estimate is £1,420 or £1,800 will get only £280. There should be some graded scale and, when reconstruction costs are high, the grants should be scaled upwards possibly on a percentage basis. I believe that there should be a regulation under which an applicant would get two-thirds of the cost up to £420, the existing figure, and half the cost above that amount.

I am asking the Minister to examine the costings of house repairs and also the installation of water and sewerage services and to draw up a different system for the payment of the subvention towards such costs. I will not refer to the low cost housing project because I think it has not got off the ground yet and I do not know what will come of it. I hope it will not be like the Land Commission scheme of the Minister for Lands involving the taking over of holdings from elderly people and the payment of pensions to them. That did not get off the ground. If this scheme gets off the ground I wish it well.

Mr. Molloy

Does the Deputy not read his correspondence? I sent him a letter last week on this.

Mr. Murphy

Yes, but the letter was not of a very newsy nature.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy did not read it.

Mr. Murphy

I read it all right. I scanned it.

Mr. Molloy

That is about all.

Mr. Murphy

There was nothing firm or concrete in it.

Mr. Molloy

Sometimes I wonder whether it is worth while.

Mr. Murphy

Worth while what?

Mr. Molloy

Sending out information to people who do not even read it.

Mr. Murphy

I will digress a little. I think I can say that, as a Deputy, I read most of the correspondence— even though lately it is not worth reading—from the Departments. I remember getting one from the Department of Local Government in the late 50s with the woman with the two buckets of water——

Mr. Molloy

I am talking about last week, not the late 50s.

Mr. Murphy

We can go back a little. She had two buckets of water hanging on to her. That was on the cover page.

Mr. Tully

Is she still carrying them?

Mr. Molloy

Indeed she is not.

Mr. Creed

If she were depending on group schemes she would be.

Mr. Molloy

Group schemes brought water into thousands of homes.

Mr. Murphy

This should be placed in the museum. We would not want to see that happening again in Ireland. I do not know whether it happens in Galway. I suppose the Minister gives Galway a little extra attention. They are still going along with their buckets of water.

Mr. Molloy

Fewer and fewer each year.

Mr. Tully

Schemes?

Mr. Molloy

We will not stop until we have wiped that out as far as we can.

Mr. Murphy

They have to make do with bad housing. The Minister is not too sure whether it is worth his while to send out some documentation to Members of the House.

Mr. Molloy

To the Deputy.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister is in a privileged position at the moment. He has a retinue of civil servants to answer his personal letters and do his research for him. He has no worries about statements. They are all set down for him and all he has to do is pick them up and read them. More luck to him; as a Minister he is entitled to all that kind of attention. An ordinary Member of the House, such as I am, has to do his own research. I have not very much time to do research. I have to speak from my own knowledge.

Mr. Molloy

I am sorry. I thought I was helping the Deputy last week by sending him a copy of a statement I made on low cost housing to give him up to date information.

Mr. Murphy

I have to do my own research.

Mr. Molloy

I did it for the Deputy. I presented it to him on a plate.

Mr. Murphy

I have to answer my own correspondence. I have no aides. I have to make the representations that Deputies must make. I must travel here. It is almost a day's work to get from Schull to Dublin.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy had not even got the Christmas cards.

Mr. Murphy

I do not send out any Christmas cards so I have not got that way of currying favour with the public generally. I am surprised that the Minister thinks a rural Deputy has so much time on his hands for all these things. Most of the Minister's constituency is reasonably compact but, at the same time, the Minister should know that rural Deputies are badly handicapped. As the Minister made this interjection about reading documents which he sends to Deputies—and Deputies should read all such documents from Departments; we get them from the Department of Local Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Departments, and it is no joke to set aside time to read them—it is no harm for me to say that Opposition Deputies have no facilities in this House at the moment. This may not be relevant to the Department of Local Government but it is incidental to the Minister's remark. There should be some assistance provided by the State for Deputies such as myself in this matter. The only assistance given to Opposition parties is the allowance given to the Leaders of the parties. All a Deputy can do is go to the General Office and ask there for some help and while the personnel there are willing to oblige, they are not paid to provide individual service for us. Some help should be given to us so that we would be in a position to read all of the documents issued by Ministers.

Mr. Molloy

Is that what the Deputy has to say about low cost housing?

Mr. Murphy

I extend an invitation to the Minister to attend the next meeting of the western committee of the Cork County Council and in doing so I am speaking for my 11 colleagues. The Minister, if he accepts the invitation, can come and discuss our problems with us. He would then realise that houses cannot be built for the costs he has in mind.

Mr. Tully

Is the Minister talking about the houses that will be built cheaply by contractors provided the sites have been developed by somebody else?

Mr. Murphy

I am not being frivolous in extending this invitation. I might say that it would be no harm for any Minister for Local Government to visit local authorities occasionally in order to keep himself abreast of what is happening. By virtue of his position the Minister is a national figure and should keep himself informed in this way. While not comparing the Minister in any way to our Holy Father, even he has been travelling to meet his flock and to discuss with them how local affairs are administered.

Mr. Tunney

He would not be considering going to west Cork, would he?

Mr. Murphy

The Minister should not confine himself to the Custom House or to attending dinners organised by his own party. In the same way, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries should travel out to meet the different committees of agriculture. In a country of this size, with a population of less than three million, there must be co-operation in every sphere of public activity so as to advance the interests of our people. Any statement I have made here today has not been made in any personal sense but I believe in saying what I believe to be right. One might ask the question of what happened this year in respect of road works?

Mr. Creed

That is a good question.

Mr. Murphy

The local authorities anticipated an increase this year in the road grant allocations which would cover increased wages and costs. That was the minimum expectation. In Cork the figure this year for this purpose is £87,600 less. In anticipation of a fifty-fifty grant, the county council had provided a sum of £47,000 from local revenue but the Department failed to follow the practice of previous years and did not provide the money. This resulted in a severe setback and will lead to the deferment of road improvements. It will lead, too, to loss of employment and that is something that none of us likes to see happening. The present trend of pushing out casual workers, whether they be engaged in road work or in forestry, is growing. Some workers who have had up to 14 years service on forestry have lost their employment. The manager of Cork County Council estimates that the decrease in the grant will result in the loss of 50 jobs in council employment. There may be more involved but 50 jobs will have gone by the board as a result of the decrease in the grant. I am not blaming the Minister for that and I said so at local level. I am sure that decision was taken by the Government and it may be—I say this in a charitable way—that the Minister is rather new in his office; his elevation was rather sudden and unexpected and, taking the events of last year and this year, he possibly was not able to put his foot down and say that he would not stand for that as Minister. So, we decided to ask the Taoiseach to receive a deputation. Deputies Forde and John L. O'Sullivan and myself had the pleasure of meeting the Taoiseach in Leinster House. Let me say that he is the most courteous of persons. The best way that I could describe his reception of us is that it was in a fashion the exact opposite of the manner in which the former Deputy Boland would have received us. I hate referring to him when he is not here. We met the Taoiseach and we put forward the views of the members of Cork County Council. We had a very pleasant discussion. The Taoiseach was most sympathetic. He appreciated the position so far as the loss of 50 jobs in Cork County Council was concerned. The next meeting of the council is on Monday next. I am hoping that a letter in favourable terms will be sent to us.

The fact that we decided to ask the Taoiseach to meet us is in no way a reflection on the Minister. We were quite pleased to have the Minister with the Taoiseach. We felt this was a national question and that any additional allocations to Cork would have to compare with similar allocations to other counties. I hope that as a result of our discussions with the Taoiseach the 50 council employees will not be without their jobs. I do not like the term "raiding the Road Fund". It is a bad term. I went to the trouble of finding a more suitable term than "raiding". That is the way the Minister used to talk about it long ago. The Road Fund was supposed to have been raided in 1948.

Mr. Tully

Would the Deputy consider "robbing"?

Mr. Murphy

The tax on petrol is more than 20p per gallon and that does not include the 5 per cent turnover tax. This tax and the taxation on cars and so on brings in a sizeable amount of money and I do not see any justification now for taking over 25 per cent of road revenue for Central Exchequer purposes. With the increasing number of cars and the increasing income from taxation on cars and the increase in petrol tax there is no justification for appropriating some 25 per cent of the Road Fund. That was exceeded in the case of Cork. I am not sure of the figure but I think it was £30,000 to £40,000. The entire amount of motor taxation should go towards the maintenance and upkeep of roads. Motorists, lorry owners, tractor owners and others who contribute are entitled to that. It is enough that the Central Exchequer should get the petrol tax, the wholesale tax and all the other taxes associated with motoring without taking the Road Fund grant. The Road Fund grant should be payable in full to the local authorities.

I shall not delay the House by referring to local improvement schemes because I had an opportunity at Question Time of discussing the position. I alleged discrimination which I think is more or less accepted by the Minister.

Mr. Molloy

There is no discrimination and it is very unfair of the Deputy to continue to make that charge when I explained the position very fully to him at Question Time. There is no discrimination in the matter one way or another.

Mr. Murphy

I have with me this map of the western counties that Deputy Brennan, the Minister for Social Welfare, wanted. The Minister gave £52,500 to Cork; £112,000 to Galway and £129,000 to Mayo. We had to cease receiving applications in Cork because it was said when the number reached more than 250 there was no point in taking any more and creating a false impression that applicants would be dealt with in the immediate future. I shall not go into it now—I have taken up the time of the House already on this question— but I do not accept that, on any possible calculation, Galway should get £112,000, Mayo £129,000 and Cork £52,000.

The next big item is regional planning. It is a very big item and it is relatively new. It was the 1963 Act that provided for development plans for the various counties. The plan is now four years in existence and it is due for overhaul. Overhaul is essential. I was pleased to note from the Minister's statement last month that he was not too satisfied with the plan as it is at the moment and I assume that he will take appropriate action. It would be impossible to convey to you, Sir, the frustration experienced by many people in regard to the plan. I shall not go outside the confines of Cork county. Everyone agrees that you must have a plan, that you must have planning. I shall confine myself to Cork county as I am not too conversant with the position in other counties.

The Cork county development plan was supposed to be drawn up by the members of the council—it is their function to do it—but it could be said that 99 per cent of this plan was drawn up by the council's officers. It is the members I blame for that, not anybody else. The plan was approved and it was supposed to be implemented by the executive in accordance with the terms set down. The number of rejected applications was quite high in Cork if you take the coastal areas and forget the inland places where planning does not arise to any great extent. People who felt dissatisfied with the council's decisions and appealed to the Minister find that it takes on an average more than 12 months to determine. Would the Minister agree that it takes more than 12 months?

Mr. Molloy

No. I am trying to reduce it. It is, on average, about six or seven months but I am not satisfied with that.

Mr. Murphy

I live on the Mizen Head Peninsula at Schull. I know of a number of applications from that area which have been rejected without justification. I know that the decision made in Cork is made in all sincerity but the prevailing rule there is that so far as the people in Sheeps Head and Berehaven and in the other peninsula areas are concerned they are supposed to keep that part of the country unspoilt in order to attract visitors. The owner of a plot of land is supposed to keep it in virgin state because otherwise, it is said, it will adversely affect our tourist industry. I do not agree with this. In fact, many of the locations would be enhanced if houses were erected, and reports from engineers support this view.

There is also another aspect to be considered. In south-west Cork a number of farmers sold sites for building purposes and they obtained quite considerable amounts for the sites. This part of the country is most attractive and in one case a sum of £1,000 was offered to a small farmer for a piece of land that had little agricultural value. One can appreciate the necessity for examining a planning application in this instance with the greatest attention in view of the necessity for preserving our amenities. However, we must consider also the farmer who was offered the quite considerable sum for the site. He had hoped for a more comfortable life but his hopes were dashed by the decision to reject the application.

It is easy enough to say that the small farmers who live in the remote areas do not count. It is easy enough to say: "Why should we allow a house to be built in an area like this? Even though it may help the person concerned, why should we allow this building if it detracts from the amenity value of the area?" There is no justification for depriving these people from obtaining good prices for plots of ground which have no agricultural value. The change such a sale would make in the household of a small farmer would be immense and, equally, it would have a decisive bearing on the future of his children. However, it appears that consideration is not to be given to these people. In fact, I was told that if I own a plot of land, from which is a clear view of the sea, I am not free to dispose of the land as I wish. I have never heard a more ridiculous argument. The same could be said about a man owning a store in O'Connell Street, Dublin—that, by virtue of the location of the store, he has no right to cash in on it any more than if it were located in Ballaghaderreen.

When there is this kind of thinking in regard to planning applications there is bound to be much frustration. We are told that in remote parts the population has declined considerably and this is true. I see nothing wrong with people building their homes in such districts—there is much to be said in favour of it. The local authority benefit from the increased revenue received in rates; the local publican, grocer and butcher will benefit from the arrival of new families in the district. This is not a sell-out of our heritage of land to outsiders because many of the people who wish to buy sites are emigrants who want to return and settle in Ireland. In addition, the people who return to take up residence here generally are not a charge on public funds because usually they are people of independent means.

Another advantage is the type of houses such people build; generally the houses are well-built and the grounds are well landscaped. Unfortunately, the planners see a great deal wrong with this. I want to see this kind of power given to the elected representatives of the people. I want to take that power away to a large extent from the bureaucrats and transfer it to the people's representatives. They are the people who should be determining such applications. No public representative will hold office for long if he does something which conflicts with the common good of the people in his area.

Whilst planning is justified and whilst it is essential, it can be abused. It is being abused. Travelling from Durris village to Kilcrohane the road is on average 70 or 80 feet, in some cases more, higher than the actual coast. If a person were to apply for planning permission to build a house between the road and the sea he would be regarded as mad, as someone requiring psychiatric treatment. That is the present thinking down there. I ask anyone in the Custom House to come down and I will travel that road with him; there are three or four houses which have been there for years and, instead of taking away from the scenic value of the area, they actually add to it. There is no question of hindering the view because the road is so much higher. The land is exceptionally bad from an agricultural point of view. Houses could be built on it were it not for these planning regulations. There is no reason why houses should not be built on it. We have miles and miles of coastline and there will always be easy access to the sea. No one will prevent people crossing land to reach the beach. There is no question of hindrance so far as access to beaches is concerned.

This area has been denuded of population because of emigration and, from that point of view alone, cognisance should be taken of the advantages as well as the disadvantages of granting a particular application. First of all, the sale of the site could transform an impoverished household into a nearly affluent one. It could lay the foundation of a better chance in life for the children. Cashing in, if that is the correct term, could be of tremendous benefit to the owner of the site. As well as that, it would help to increase the population. It would be no harm, indeed, to bring in a little new blood. We have had reports from some eminent civil servants about the low marriage rate and that something should be done about it. There is a certain amount of justification in these reports. I see nothing wrong in allowing people in from outside the country even. There are more than 1,000,000 Irish born in Britain and, if an English family thinks this would be a nice country in which to settle down, I do not see anything wrong in such a family coming in here and being treated in the same way as we hope Irish people are treated in Britain. That would not constitute selling out our land to foreigners, in my opinion.

Again, one will not get planning permission for a house in any part of the country with direct access to a road which is deemed to be a national primary or a national secondary road or a road which is likely to be deemed to be such. This is one of the most absurd regulations I ever heard of. Some years ago the Minister for Local Government of the day made a rather foolish statement about access to roads and the dangers and hazards of traffic. Roads deemed to be national primary or national secondary usually have yellow borderlines so there is no problem and there is no hazard. These hazards exist only in the imaginations of departmental or local authority officials. Take the road from Clonakilty to Skibbereen: the Minister has rejected planning appeals because the applicant planned a direct entrance on to the road. One has to get out on to a main road. Are not main roads common to all our people? Are we not entitled to travel over them? I am sure people living here in Dublin have no conception of the utter ridiculousness of the regulations in country areas.

This is the forum in which to air our grievances. I see no justification whatsoever for preventing a person building a house with access to the Skibbereen/Clonakilty road. I know well the inconvenience that is caused by the council and by the Minister when they reject applications from that area. The same applies in other similar districts. It is all right to sit in a comfortable office in Dublin. If I were inclined to do so I could illustrate my arguments with individual cases. I am not going to because possibly it would be unfair to mention identifiable cases in the House; the applicants might not like it. Had I thought of it, I would have sought their permission to do so and I could illustrate my contribution with plans and sketches attached to their applications. They are not being treated fairly or justly but under this bureaucratic system at present obtaining there is little redress.

An ordinary member of the council is not supposed to see the file. A councillor who asks about a particular application is told that the file is confidential, that it is not for him to see. The applications are dealt with behind closed doors. That is a fair interpretation of what is said. I want to see an end to that sort of thing. I want democracy to prevail in regard to planning applications. With special reference to planning applications I want to ensure that democratically-elected members of councils have access to files and can see reports on individual applications. I also want to ensure that when the second five year plan comes in in 1972 an aggrieved applicant will be entitled to get reports made by local authority officers on his application. In justice he is entitled to them. The summary now sent out in many instances bears no true relation to the substance of the reports submitted. It is only just that an applicant or objector, if there are grounds for an objection, should get such information.

To dwell for a moment on the case against this—what it is? A public official has a job to do and so far as planning is concerned—I dealt with this earlier in the discussion in a general way—his job is to make a factual appraisal of the application in so far as it relates to the county development plan by which he is supposed to be guided. It then passes to other officers. Of what are they afraid? Are they not all men of ability or supposed to be? If their reports are sincere and soundly based, in their view, why should they object or any manager object to a member of the council reading it or to the applicant getting a copy? Why should we have the closed doors system of decision which I think is repugnant to our way of life and in my opinion to the Constitution?

Why cannot an applicant get such information? I have not the slightest doubt that giving such information is justifiable and it would be an immense advantage to many applicants who appeal against local authority decisions. As chairman of the county council in Cork for a number of years I had the opportunity of reading the file and I thought it completely wrong that I out of 46 members should be able to read John Murphy's file while my 45 colleagues could not do so. Were they not interested in applications as much as I was? Were they not as much entitled as I was to ask for them? Should not the same rights apply to every member? We talk about restructuring local government and giving powers to members but if that power is not given to every member let us say so and admit that we are moving towards the Eastern European system under which you do not have democratic elections and under which the commissars are nominated by the authorities.

We want to hold West European democracy but it is not applied in the administration of local government. Anyone in the position of those who have planning applications submitted and have to seek information on those applications would be even more outspoken than I am. I do not like the bureaucratic system and I want to end it. I know most of our public servants are excellent but we have some who look down on the people. We want to get rid of them from the public service. One would think it was beggars who were looking for a favour to judge by the way they treat people. I want to see the citizens' rights upheld and I want a system not only in regard to planning but in regard to all aspects of local administration in which citizens will get replies to their own letters and will not have to go to Deputies or councillors, in which they can go to the council or State office and discuss their business with the appropriate officers. That is how a small country like ours should be managed. I cannot see why we have not such a system. When a man writes to the Department of Local Government about the payment of his housing grant invariably he gets no answer. That was the case and I believe it still is unless it was changed in the recent past. When a citizen writes to a Government Department on his own personal business he is entitled to an acknowledgement and an answer to the questions he may ask.

It has been said time and again that a great deal of the time of Deputies and public representatives is taken up in making representations on individual cases which should be dealt with between the applicant and the officer of the authority concerned. There is an obligation on the Minister to ensure in the case of his own Department that any citizen who writes about a grant or who puts a question to the Department should get a reply. I assert that has not happened in the past and I am merely repeating an assertion I made two years ago and probably prior to that also. Also, when a citizen calls to the local authority office and requests that a particular piece of business be dealt with he should get attention. He is entitled to the same attention as if he were accompanied by the lord mayor or the chairman of the council. That is my view on local matters. It would be a big step forward if this were the case. It would ease the burden on public representatives of doing work in some instances where their services are not necessary.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.