Last night I had been dealing with the Planning Act and the necessity for controlled development of national primary and national secondary roads. This is very important if we are to preserve the beauty spots that are tourist attractions. Therefore, I fully support the Planning Act but I do so with some reservations.
The position is, of course, that there is some opposition. There is nothing uniform about it. There are variations from county to county. As a member of a local authority, I have found that decisions on planning applications are too long delayed. In cases where newly-weds or couples intending to marry wish to build their own houses they may get refusal of an application after two months. This is unfair. The Minister should direct local authorities to exhibit a map indicating whether or not planning approval would be forthcoming in certain areas. This would avoid a great deal of frustration.
We discussed this matter yesterday evening in the course of Deputy Esmonde's speech. There seemed to be some confusion. The planning authority must give a decision within two months but there is a back-log of work and if they are not in a position to complete their investigations within the statutory period it is a very simple matter for them to issue a query to the applicant seeking further information and this gives them extra time to deal with the application. It would be well worthwhile expediting planning decisions. Delay causes frustration to developers.
In the planning committee in Cork there is a great difference of opinion as to whether or not national primary roads should be opened up for development. I believe that this would be a very dangerous step. I do not accept that building should be restricted on the outskirts of towns and villages. On the contrary we should encourage expansion in this direction rather than have uncontrolled, indiscriminate development along national primary roads.
Development should be opened up on the outskirts of towns and villages. If that were done and the speed limit were extended there would be no additional hazards created on the roads. There are miles and miles of road along which people are not allowed to build. Ordinary house-building usually follows industrial development. Where industries are located it is essential that land should be available in the same area for building purposes. The industry will provide the jobs and the people working in the industry will be housed.
As I suggested to the planning committee, there should be settlement areas along our primary roads. We are now realigning and widening our roads and, as a result of that, they are becoming speedways. It would be wrong to allow people in these circumstances to go ahead and build wherever they wanted to build along main roads but there is an easy way out. It is the way I have suggested; let us open up settlement areas and in those areas apply a speed limit. This would result in meeting a great many of the complaints made in regard to planning.
I am in favour, as I said, of controlled development. Unfortunately some of our semi-State bodies are the greatest offenders from the point of view of planning. In the area in which I live the ESB have harnessed the River Lee and, when the water subsides in the upper reservoir, there is nothing but desert, with roots of trees, old fences and old bridges clearly visible. It is an eyesore. When one moves further over to Geara on the main Macroom/Inchigeela road—a very important tourist area, this— exactly the same thing happens and local development committees try, when the water is low, to remove these eyesores. The ESB should be compelled to do this. What happens now interferes with the beauty of the area and spoils its attraction.
With regard to planning appeals, I was amused, to say the least of it, at the attitude of both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary when our spokesman for Local Government, Deputy T. J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan), referred to decisions given on a political basis. Neither the Minister nor his Parliamentary Secretary would accept that. I am not saying that the Minister is in any way culpable, but there is always the possibility of the successful applicant making a contribution to the local cumann. I have had experience over the past four or five years of people appealing against a planning decision of the local authority. The first question is: “How can you get to the Minister?” Representations to the Minister will start at the local cumann secretary, pass to the Fianna Fáil TD and go right on to the Minister. People have gone to Galway from my constituency in an effort to contact the Minister.
There must be appeals. The Minister and the Government were very foolish not to accept the Fine Gael amending legislation designed to remove from appeals any suspicion of malpractice. Up to 95 per cent of those involved in any kind of development, who have to appeal against a decision of the planning authority, are convinced that, if they have a line to the Minister, and sufficient pull, they will get favourable decisions on planning appeals. This is a sorry state of affairs and the sooner responsibility for appeals is taken away from the Minister the better it will be.
I will cite one case by way of example. A builder was selling well-equipped modern houses for as much as £12,000 in a certain area. This was not too far from Cork city and, if the Minister looks up the case, he will know that what I am saying is correct. Across the road, a narrow country road, a powerful businessman in the south made application for the development of a sand and gravel pit. Now everyone knows the muck and filth generated by this kind of activity. The planning committee rejected the application. The applicant appealed and, on appeal, permission was given. There are 19 members of the Minister's party on the Cork Planning Committee and, when they learned that this decision had been given, some of them described it as disgraceful. Indeed, there was complete unanimity on the committee and, as a result of representations made, the Minister then decided to grant an oral hearing. This has not yet been finalised. All over the country there are protests and demonstrations about this, that and the other. I warn the Minister that, if this permission is given, there will be demonstrations and protests in that area.
The sooner the Minister hands over his responsibility in the matter of planning appeals to some committee the better it will be for himself and for the country. The people are losing confidence because they believe that, if you have sufficient pull and sufficient influence, you will get a favourable decision and, as a result of my experience, I am inclined to agree with them.
I said that planning is necessary. Unfortunately people are not aware of what planning really is and, if they were made aware, I believe you would have the co-operation of the general public and planning could be seen to work to the advantage of the people. As a member of a planning committee I support controlled development.
Before dealing with the most important aspect of the Estimate—housing— I have something to say in respect of group water schemes. Deputy Esmonde said last night in the course of his contribution that there was a long delay in going ahead with a group water scheme in Wexford. The Parliamentary Secretary did not accept that and took a note of the scheme concerned. I know that there are long delays in these schemes but I cannot understand why there should be such delays. I am not sure as to where lies the responsibility for this situation but I have my suspicions. It is my opinion that the Department of Local Government are on a deliberate go-slow policy in so far as these schemes are concerned. If work on the schemes was speeded up many people would be supplied with water who, otherwise, would never get it under regional schemes. The local authorities should encourage groups concerned to get water from the mains. In my area people are so frustrated because of delays in group water schemes that they would not become involved now in any such schemes. I know of one particular case where there has been a delay of ten years. The money was paid long ago but no work whatsoever has begun there yet. What happens in such cases is that some individuals, in desperation, provide their own supplies. This means that the group will then be rendered uneconomic.
We, in Cork County Council, have made representations on many occasions both to the Minister and to his predecessor, particularly to his predecessor, to allow into Cork County Council representatives of the group water schemes in Cork so that there could be discussion between both interests of schemes which would be of concern to both. We were refused that permission on each occasion. There is no co-operation between the local authorities and the Minister's officials particularly in so far as group water schemes are concerned. If both parties worked hand-in-hand, the people would benefit but while there is this alienation, the people will suffer. It is obvious in Cork that there is disagreement. If the Minister ordered one of his officials to attend a meeting of the housing and sanitary authority in Cork on only one day each year, all this disagreement could be sorted out.
When the Minister is replying I would like him to tell us whether, after a group water scheme has been completed, the local authority, under an Act of this House, are compelled to take it over. It is my opinion that once a group scheme has been completed, not only are the local authority obliged to assume responsibility for it from then on but that it can be sold to the local authority. One scheme in particular was carried out in Cork for which a two-inch water main was laid by the Department. It was not possible for any of us to bring together first the Department officials and members of the housing and sanitary authority. The scheme was in operation within about 12 months and when the question of taking it over arose the sanitary engineer claimed that the main should have been a four-inch one. I am inclined to believe he was right. Now there is further development on that road. The group consisted of about ten cottiers who put up a booster pump at a cost of £800. The local authority will not take over the scheme now because they claim it is not up to their standards. The contribution paid by each member of the group to get the scheme off the ground was £35. These people paid this money in the belief that, on completion, the scheme would be taken over by the local authority but now this crux has arisen as a result of the Minister's refusal to allow his officials to discuss schemes in detail with council engineers.
In his reply, too, perhaps the Minister will let me know whether in this instance Cork County Council are obliged to take over this scheme. The householders concerned are responsible for collecting water rents and ESB charges and this can prove difficult for them in respect of assessing what each person should pay. I hope the Minister will take note of what I have said and that he will ensure that group water schemes generally will be expedited. In fairness to the Department officials in Cork, they have always been very helpful but they have a problem of inadequate staff. It is not good enough that people should have to wait many years for water supplies. It is necessary to have a water supply in every home and this could be achieved through the group schemes. I hope the matter will be taken up now and that week after week it will not be necessary for Deputies to table Questions seeking information on various schemes. I could supply the Minister with a list of schemes in my constituency in respect of which there have been delays of from three to ten years. It is very difficult for public representatives to explain these delays to the people concerned.
In dealing with housing I shall be as brief as possible because much has been said already on this subject during the debate. From what I have heard here it would appear that there are similar problems in respect of housing in almost every constituency. I welcome the raising of the ceiling in relation to loans and also the increases in grants. This was long overdue. The cost of houses had risen to such an extent that the grants had no relation to the cost. This increase is very welcome to people who have to pay the bills for building or reconstructing houses and I am pleased it is coming.
The Minister made a very long speech. I fully sympathise with his objective that every family in the country would be properly housed at a rent they could afford. This is very desirable and is easy to say but to achieve it may be another matter. The Minister gave details of the number of houses built, the amount of money allocated to private and local authority housing. This looks well on paper but in order to measure the problem and what progress we are making towards its solution it is also necessary to look at the numbers still on the waiting list for rehousing, the number of people or families living in hovels. Without that, there is no point in the Minister saying that we have built so many houses since last year, provided so much money for local authorities and paid so much in grants. We must examine the way we are tackling the enormous waiting list for housing. It is not sensible to expect the Minister to provide a solution overnight, as some people expect, but I believe his priorities are completely wrong. The Department's priorities have been wrong for years because provision of adequate housing should get first priority for our people.
I have visited anybody in my area who wrote to me about housing and I have been appalled to find families living where cattle would not be housed. If the Minister has any doubts I can give him a list of cases, particularly in the Douglas area of Cork, where people are still waiting ten or 12 years for houses. It is bad enough when old people or single people are living in bad houses but where there are young children living, sleeping and eating in houses that are unfit for animals it is a great reflection on the authorities and the Department of Local Government. We should put our priorities in order and tackle the housing problem immediately. When families grow up in bad housing conditions it creates a feeling that they are outcasts of society or second-class citizens.
The Minister has not unlimited resources for housing but last night we were talking about swimming pools and saying it costs as much as £50,000 to provide one. A swimming pool is desirable but it would not be my top priority. The housing of people living in hovels, particularly if children are involved, should take precedence over the provision of swimming pools.
I am not opposed to this kind of development but I oppose the spending of public money on it when houses are required in the area. We also have a directive from the Department regarding the provision of public conveniences in quite a number of villages in County Cork. Those buildings cost about as much as would build a house, £2,600 last year or the year before. It is little comfort to the mother of a young family living in a bad house where, perhaps, as in one case which I saw recently, the beds have to be covered with oilcloth at night to prevent the children getting wet if it rains, to be told that there is a swimming pool down in the village or that there is a public convenience across the road. In one case a public convenience was erected and was locked by mistake for three months with the light lighting inside it but nobody complained. That indicates the use that was made of it after the expenditure of what I think would build a decent house for an unfortunate family on the waiting list. If the Minister said to-morrow: "I shall discontinue this and devote all my resources to providing houses" I would say he was right. A decent house is a basic essential for any married couple wishing to rear a family.
At the present time, as in the past few years, we are realigning and providing diversions on our national primary and secondary roads. I was amazed to find that a mile of a national primary road can cost as much as from £70,000 to £120,000. This figure came from the Cork county engineer and I believe it is correct. It is more essential to provide speed tracks, adding, in my opinion, to the massacre on the roads, than it is to divert that money towards the provision of houses for families living in bad houses? If the Minister said tomorrow that he would not spend any more money on national primary roads but would provide money for houses instead, I would think that was right. I think it would remove much of the unrest and the protest we have at present. As a Deputy stated the other day—and I agree with him—a bad house can be responsible for broken homes and marriages; it can turn the head of the house to drink. We should realise this and whatever about roads or swimming pools or public conveniences, the first consideration should be to provide decent houses for our people.
I also agree with the Minister when he says our aim should be to ensure that every family would own a house. We should aim at ensuring that each family will own and take pride in their own house. I have often seen somebody get a council house and, perhaps, because he is transferred to another job, after keeping that house for years, decorating it and keeping it well and laying out its garden, he just walks out as if he had never done anything there. I was responsible for the passing of a resolution at a meeting of the housing and sanitary committee in Cork to encourage people waiting for houses for years. We should tell them: "We will make a loan available to you interest free or at a reduced rate of interest to enable you to build your own house." I think people are worried about their commitments in regard to the repayment of loans and because they cannot provide their own houses you have married couples being exploited by landlords who let flats or flatlets for exorbitant rents. If they paid the amount they are paying in rent as repayments, they would provide themselves with a house which would be their own property after a number of years.
We must give people the incentive to do this by providing them with interest-free loans. Those who qualify for rehousing under a local authority survey should qualify for interest-free loans. This would be a worthwhile development. A survey is carried out in an area at present and a housing superintendent reports that so many have qualified for rehousing. The system is so cumbersome, the local authority is strangled so much by the Department of Local Government, that every step they take has to get the OK. I am glad the Minister has made an effort to give more power to local authorities because as in the case of group water schemes there is no justification for a situation where somebody qualifies under a rural survey and it takes as long as six or eight years to provide him with a house. Circumstances will change so much in the meantime that this delay is not justifiable. If the local authorities had full power and got a block allocation of money so that each year they could go ahead and provide houses it would save much of the frustration and delay that occurs at present.
Every month at a meeting of the housing and sanitary committee we get a housing report. Our officials say: "This was submitted to the Department for sanction six or 12 months ago. There was another reminder since then." Officials in the Department and officials in the county council should not be engaged in that type of communication just to achieve what should be done by the local authority. I am glad the Minister has seen this and that this is to be tackled. If the local authority gets full control, I think houses can be provided more quickly. This could make the job of public representatives much easier. At least one would be in a position to say what progress was being made. Between the local authority and the Department of Local Government it is very difficult to know. The Department are responsible for most of the delays.
One finds a situation where a scheme of houses is built by a local authority, the cases of applicants are investigated and tenants appointed. Very often you find that there are people such as an old age pensioner and his wife or a brother and sister who have gone beyond marriageable age. These people will not succeed in getting houses because there will be more deserving applicants on the list. Families with young children rightly get priority but we should provide some kind of smaller conventional type houses or prefabs that would accommodate people who because they are living alone are committed to living in hovels for the remainder of their lives.
There is something wrong with a system under which you find in some council houses single people who are still in possession and whose family have gone away and a man, his wife and young family living in a caravan. There should be something more flexible so that the authority could say to the person who has a council house and probably paying a high rent: "We will give you a smaller house at a reduced rent" in order to make available the council house for a young family. This would be very desirable. Members of local authorities who are Members of this House are well aware of the difficulties that exist in relation to housing. Every one of us is inundated with requests from people who are looking for houses. I hope the Minister in his reply will give us some indication of the number of people who have qualified for rehousing and are still not housed so that we will know in what direction we are going and what progress we have made.
I believe every local authority should have some kind of emergency housing scheme because where there are two families living in one house, people living with in-laws—I have come across many such cases—there can be a very sudden eviction, a very sudden breakup, and young couples can find themselves out on the street. There is no place to put them except into the county home in Midleton or St. Finbar's. This is not good enough. There should be an emergency housing scheme for people who become homeless overnight.
The provision of houses is a big charge on the Exchequer. There are big industrialists coming into this country and setting up industry, not for love of the Irish people but for the profit they can make. They are very welcome but I often wonder whether they should not make some contribution to housing because when there is an industry in a town which gives employment it automatically creates a demand for houses. When an industrialist comes in and employs, perhaps, 100 people in a town, houses and flats become very scarce. I think industrialists should make some contribution to housing. I should not like to go back to the olden days where the employer provided a house for the workman and when the workman lost his job he lost the house but the Minister should consider whether some contribution could not be made to housing by industrialists.
We seem to be departing from the old idea of the rural cottage. The local authorities are inclined to build housing schemes and to say to somebody who has qualified under a rural survey: "We have a house for you in the next village or the next town." The authorities should continue to build rural cottages where there is employment for people. We should not be too anxious to push people into towns and villages. The movement away from the land is rapid enough without being encouraged by us. We should try to decentralise industry and keep people living in rural Ireland because, without people and without houses, the rural areas will decay. The rural cottage can be a very nice home. If somebody is anxious to live in the country, and he has qualified for a house under a survey, he should not be compelled to go and live in a terrace of houses. That is not the correct approach.
When houses are being built by local authorities it is essential that they should provide a playground or a park where the children can play. It is deplorable to see big housing schemes where the children have to play on the footpaths and on the roads. This is not a healthy sign and we should not condone it. When a scheme is finished we should at least have an acre of ground where the children can play games in the evening. If we force them to play on the streets we are courting trouble.
I welcome the special grant for the physically disabled. The least we can do for these people is to try to make their lives more pleasant, even by bringing the switches nearer to the floor, or providing a bathroom on the ground floor, or making provision so that they will not have to climb a flight of stairs. These are all very desirable.
I want to refer briefly to the amenity grants made available to the local authorities. The problem is that, like everything else, they only scratch the surface. I would ask the Minister if at all possible to increase the grant to Cork County Council under this heading. The allocation we get would not cover 100th part of the work which the local authority have in mind. This money could be spent in areas which would attract tourists and which would be of benefit to the local people. If we had more money we could tackle the problem of derelict areas.
To give credit where credit is due, the Minister has done more than any of his predecessors in regard to the housing of itinerants. This is very desirable. They are human beings just as we are. They have their rights and they are entitled to be housed. Progress is being made, but it is difficult to get some of them to accept houses and to keep them properly. This should not deter us. If we house these people we have an opportunity of educating their children, and this is where the problem should be tackled. I should like to see them integrated more into society. We should not house them all together. In Cork local people objected to the housing of some itinerants because the local authority wanted to house many of them in the one area. This defeats the whole purpose. If you house them in different areas there is a better chance of integrating them with other people and they then become a part of society. If you house them all together you do not achieve that.
I want to deal with the amount of money made available to the Cork County Council for rural improvement schemes. We have a colossal amount of work waiting to be done. In fact, we stopped accepting application forms because we had a backlog which it will take five years to clear because of the amount of money made available to Cork County Council for this purpose. I was amazed to find that the amount made available to the Minister's own county is far more than made available to us, even though the problem in Cork is far greater than the problem in Galway.
In my area there are bulk tank collections of milk and therefore we must have roads on which this heavy traffic can travel. There are many areas in the constituency of mid-Cork where you could not drive a combine harvester, or machinery, or even a lorry to collect milk. We have a huge number of people waiting to improve the laneways and roadways leading to their houses but we have not sufficient money to do this work. I appeal to the Minister to try to give us more money so that we can tackle this job in an effective way.
There are villages and towns in my area which have been awaiting the erection of speed limit signs for years. Why does it take so long before the powers-that-be decide to erect speed limit signs? What causes the delay? Surely it is not a big job to erect two little signs showing the speed limit that has been fixed? There is no excuse for this. Time and time again we have referred to this in Cork County Council and we have criticised the Government and the Minister for the long delays. There are villages in which there are creameries or industries through which traffic is flying at 70 or 80 mph. The Minister has not tackled this problem. People make representations continually to public representatives in their areas. The Minister should examine this problem and expedite the erection of speed limit signs in villages and towns in Cork generally. The delay is inexcusable.
I wish also to refer to the question of rates. Rates are becoming a terrible burden. There is a relief of rates scheme. A similar scheme was operated by the local authority of which I am a member long before legislation was introduced for this purpose. Officials are helpful and considerate, particularly to people who are qualified for relief from rates, namely, old age pensioners and people who have not got the money to pay. There are increases in rates each year. These place a burden on the small shopkeeper in a town or village whose business has been lessening because of the introduction of supermarkets. That small shopkeeper is still expected to pay rates which may be even higher than those he paid when he was doing good business. When will we see the promised report on rates?
The rating system bears no relationship whatever to the ability of the ratepayer to pay. In some cases a small rate is payable, even though three or four people in the house are earning. In other cases small shopkeepers whose businesses have been destroyed by supermarkets are still expected to pay high rates. Only one-third of the people whose names appear on the register of electors pay rates. The whole rating system should be examined. It is out-of-date. It is creating much hardship. Any member of a local authority will realise the truth of what I am saying. Last year I had very many demand notes in my office. Some people were looking for time to pay, and others were informing me that they could not pay. Some demand notes were in respect of people whom I considered should not be asked to pay, but under the system they had to pay. We are all waiting for the report of the examination. We have been promised it for a long time.
Now I want to deal with the reorganisation of local government. This is an effort by the Minister, the Government and the bureaucrats to centralise control and to have everything controlled from the Custom House, Dublin. I should warn the Minister that if there are problems and difficulties in local authorities they cannot be eliminated by amalgamation or the abolition of some of those authorities. A case may be made for the abolition of some of our small town councils. They have given good service. They know the local problems and are aware of what is required locally in their functional areas. The Minister should proceed slowly on this point. The same point applies to urban councils. I have known some councils in my area where members have attended meetings and discussed problems with the local people, and where some of those problems have been aired at council meetings. It would be wrong if the Minister wiped out these councils by a stroke of his pen.
I wish to refer also to the proposed amalgamation between Cork city and county. I should warn the Minister that that proposal will never be accepted. The members of the Minister's own party in the county council will not accept it. No case can be made for this proposed amalgamation. The members rejected the Minister's proposal to have a joint manager. What would happen if there was a joint manager? There would be a man who would be known as the city manager. This will not be accepted. An extension of the borough boundary will not be accepted either. The whole thing is crazy. The Minister should be interested in building up and strengthening satellite towns like Ballincollig, Carrigaline, Blarney and other places. Cork city is about containable at the moment. The traffic problems, as well as other problems, which arise will not be overcome by having a unified authority.
Finally, I wish to mention the sewerage facilities in the area. Is it not hard to believe that in this day and age there are 45 houses within a quarter-of-a-mile of each other in Millstreet which are still without sewerage facilities? Proposals for sewerage schemes for this area have been sent to the Department time and time again. Parliamentary questions have been asked about this point, but 45 houses are still left without essential services. The position is the same in other areas. The Minister should examine this point carefully. The Minister should look at his priorities. I hope that he will refer to some of the points I have made because I am convinced that the Minister's priorities are completely wrong. The Minister should devote more of the resources available to him to the provision of houses for our people.
