Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Jul 1974

Vol. 274 No. 9

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £36,970,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1974, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government, including grants to Local Authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes and grants including a grant-in-aid.
—(Minister for Local Government.)

When I reported progress last night I was dealing with the control of pollution.

Another area where an initiative has been taken relates to what is described as the "polluter pays" principle. By this is meant that the person or interest which is responsible for activity causing pollution must accept liability for the cost of undoing the damage, or the cost of measures, if necessary to prevent damage. I think it will be agreed that the "polluter pays" principle is basically sound, though its application has to be tailored to some extent to national circumstances and take account of other general objectives, for example, in relation to regional policy.

As a first step in promoting the "polluter pays" concept throughout the Community, a draft recommendation has been prepared by the Commission and is at present under examination. The proposal has implication for a number of Departments other than mine and is being examined in that broad context.

It is true of environmental proposals generally that they often affect a number of Departments and have implications for development as well as conservation programmes. There is need therefore for effective liaison between Departments in dealing with these matters. This kind of liaison was always there but I have been anxious to make it more effective and the Government have now approved of a more formalised liaison arrangement in relation to environmental matters. I think this will make for better co-ordination and a more effective handling of environmental business.

In my Estimates speech last year I indicated that the fire service was under review by a working party representative of the Departments mainly concerned, of the city and county managers, of the professional bodies and trade unions. I understand that the work on the review is now well advanced and that it is hoped to finalise the review within the next few months. The working party submitted an interim report on fire prevention. The recommendations in the interim report were conveyed to the local authorities by my Department with a request that arrangements be made to act on them as quickly as possible. An important recommendation was that local publicity campaigns should be put on by the local authorities, involving in particular seminars for management in places of public resort, and also for other such groups.

Despite their staff problems, a number of local authorities have responded to this recommendation and have put on very successful seminars aimed at industrial and hotel management. My Department, through the Fire Protection Association of Ireland, assisted with the provision of specialist fire prevention films, posters and leaflets. The fire insurance companies also made valuable contributions to the success of the seminars through the provision of guest speakers. I have no doubt that the same assistance will be fully available to assist other local authorities mount such seminars, and I am urging them to do so. These local seminars can be very valuable in getting across to those in key positions the need and duty to provide adequate fire safety protection for the members of the public and the staff in their care.

Last year I also referred to the recommendations which my Department made to local authorities in the matter of strengthening their capacity to engage in fire prevention work by appointing, within the existing structure of the service, additional staff to do fire prevention work, and by availing of the special course in fire prevention which was put on at the Regional Technical College, in Galway. Twenty fire service personnel, mainly at Second Officer level, undertook the 20-week course, the first of its kind in this country. The course ended in March last. With proper local guidance, these men can enable their local authorities to make a major impact on local fire prevention problems, and I have urged the local authorities to see to it that the best use is made of these men. These staffing and training arrangements in fire prevention promoted by my Department represent an ad hoc measure to enable local authorities to engage more extensively in fire prevention work in as short a time as possible. The need for additional measures in regard to fire prevention and other aspects of the fire service will be considered in due course in the light of the working party's findings and recommendations.

While the importance of fire prevention is nowadays receiving greater emphasis than hitherto, the traditional role of the service in fire fighting and rescue work goes on. Apart from fire situations, firemen are expected to deal with a variety of emergencies. I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to commend the excellent work being done, day and night, often in hazardous circumstances, by the men of the whole-time and retained brigades. I would like in particular to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the fire service, including the fire brigade ambulance service, in helping to deal with the terrible consequences of the recent car bombs. In such circumstances we can readily appreciate the value to the community of a service which we are inclined, perhaps, to take too much for granted under ordinary circumstances.

The programme for the rehabilitation of itinerants was recently reviewed by the Government. While some 800 families have been accommodated on camping sites or in houses and their children are attending school regularly, the fact remains that many other families wishing to settle have not been provided with the opportunity of doing so. While there is broad public acceptance of the need for and the possibility of improving the lot of itinerants, all too often this general acceptance breaks down and many local authority proposals to provide accommodation for itinerant families in an area have had to be abandoned due to opposition from the settled community. It is obvious that further worthwhile progress cannot be made unless this aspect of the problem is tackled. I believe that voluntary effort has a vital part to play in supporting the local authority efforts and in overcoming local obstacles. I am satisfied that an important contribution in this regard is being made by voluntary groups in many areas and in particular by their co-ordinating body, the National Council for Travelling People.

Mr. Victor Bewley, Vice-Chairman of the National Council, who has been deeply involved in itinerant settlement for a number of years was an obvious choice when I decided to make an appointment of adviser to me on the itinerant settlement programme. He will be engaged by the National Council to promote and co-ordinate the programme with particular reference to certain aspects, for example to liaise with councillors, managers and local committees in promoting schemes and in overcoming local opposition. I have asked all local authorities to afford Mr. Bewley their full support and co-operation and to assist him in every way possible in carrying out his duties. The co-operation of the public is an essential element in the success of his work. I would therefore appeal to the public in the interests both of the settled community and of the itinerant families to look at the problem in human terms, in terms of the difficulty of living on the roadside while keeping reasonable standards of hygiene and maintaining social responsibilities but, more especially, in terms of the young children who are rejected by society wherever a project to accommodate them and give them an opportunity of being educated is opposed.

During the year 1973-74, An Foras Forbartha continued their valuable research in the fields of planning, construction, roads and water resources. Generally the work of An Foras is published in reports and some specific activities of An Foras are dealt with elsewhere in my speech. However, to give some overall picture of the activities of An Foras during the year, I shall mention a few of the more important things they did.

These activities included chemical and biological sampling of rivers and lakes; construction management training; the national housing condition survey; the compilation of the national building product file; and work on the national heritage inventory. Research was also continued on aspects of the environment including an ecological management project, while the Irish biological centre operated by An Foras continued to record the distribution of Irish fauna. The wide range of interest of An Foras research can be seen from the varied activities mentioned. Other activities were the operation of an effluent standard assessment system. This was established to monitor grant-aided industry at the request of the Industrial Development Authority and in conjunction with the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards. Also in operation is the vehicle testing programme under which 1,800 cars were tested for defects and the results analysed and submitted to me. An Foras are now assembling facilities to test heavy goods vehicles.

Among the more important reports published by An Foras were two reports on the question of office location which drew attention to the rapid expansion of office employment in Ireland and showed the extent to which concentration in Dublin is a major obstacle to regional growth. The amount of grant-in-aid being provided under subhead I to An Foras this year is £296,000. This is exclusive of the grant it receives from the Road Fund as the national centre for road research.

It is a policy aim of the Government that local government be truly democratic and relevant to the needs of the people. This has, of course, implications also in relation to the organisational and financial framework of local government both centrally and locally and in relation to the internal efficiency of the organisations.

The sum of £1,632,000 in subhead A is the amount necessary to cover in respect of the period up to the 31st December next, the salaries of the staff needed to give effect to the Government's policies in such priority areas as housing, roads, environmental services, planning and EEC involvement. A detailed study of the work and organisation of the Department is now at a fairly-advanced stage, and the report of the Task Force which is making a study will include recomdations on the actual steps necessary to develop or instal the four staff units of planning, finance, organisation and personnel—as recommended by the Public Services Review Group—and on any other changes which are considered desirable in the Department's organisation and working arrangements.

I have already mentioned that the total cost of local government will be about £300 million this years. With annual expenditure so large, it is essential that the best possible use be made of modern management techniques and aids. A number of local authorities are now using computers in their day-to-day operations. A small number have, in fact, installed their own computers and others are obtaining computer services from special bureaux. The potential for extension of computer use in local government is very great and I am satisfied that planned action must be taken to develop this potential to the full. To avoid the dissipation of scarce resources of manpower and finance, the overall approach to this problem must be a co-ordinated one. Much more is at stake in this than the mere speeding up of office routines; the computer can in time become a powerful tool in helping to raise the whole level of effectiveness in local government. Developments in this respect will not take place overnight but we must plan for them now.

Last year, a new Computer Services Section was established in my Department. This Section will work in full co-operation with local authorities and will have the guidance of a management committee comprised mainly of local authorities and of the Department. A number of specialist staff have been recruited and are now working on specific computer projects in consultation with local authorities.

The principle of public accountability is safeguarded by the audit service of the Department which audits the accounts of all local authorities and various other local bodies, including the health boards. This service is estimated to cost approximately £98,000 in nine months to the 31st December, 1974 including salaries and travelling expenses. Fee charges to the bodies audited are expected to bring in £40,000 against this expenditure.

The cost of goods purchased over the past year by local authorities including the health boards is estimated at about £7 million. Notwithstanding scarcities of some commodities, official contractors have in the main been able to maintain supplies throughout the year and to provide a satisfactory service. Steps are currently being taken to improve the terms on which goods may be supplied in the future.

The Exchequer and Local Financial Year Act, 1974 provides for the change-over of all local accounts to a calendar year basis commencing on 1st January, 1975. This involved, among other things, a number of consequential adaptations of statutes and statutory instruments governing the services provided by this Department, and, more particularly the striking of local rates for the nine months April to December, 1974. An informative leaflet has been issued to all ratepayers explaining the changeover.

During the course of my speech on last year's Estimate, I said that the most significant development in the sphere of local authority finance was the Government's decision to remove from local to central taxation that part of the cost of health services and local authority housing provided for letting which heretofore had fallen on the rates. Deputies will recall that, in 1973-74 the rates in the £ required to be struck for these services were only 75 per cent of the corresponding rates in 1972-73.

On the 18th February last, I notified all local authorities of the Government's decision on the completion of the phasing out of the relevant health and housing changes. The decision taken was that, for the nine-month "financial year" April to December, 1974, the rates in the £ required to be struck for these services were to be 37 per cent of what they were in 1972-73; in 1975, the rates in the £ will be 25 per cent of what they were in 1972-73, and in 1976, 12 per cent of the 1972-73 levels. From 1st January, 1977 onwards, no contribution from the rates will be required for these two services.

As an indication of the extent of the benefit accruing to ratepayers from this decision, I should point out that, in 1972-73, the total contribution from rates towards the cost of health services and local authority housing provided for letting was £43.2 million, representing approximately 44 per cent of the total rate levy. In that year, the rate in the £ for health services alone ranged from £1.59 in the £ in the case of Meath County Council to £3.19 in the £ in the case of Mayo County Council— the average being £2.48 in the £ for the country as a whole. In the period from April to December 1974, the total contribution required from rates for the two services will be reduced from the £43.2 million I have mentioned to an estimated £16.2 million. In 1975, it will be cut further to £10.8 million and in 1976 to £5.4 million. If the Government had not made the decisions relating to the rates contributions for these services, ratepayers would be paying £1.70 in the £ extra, an average, in April-December, 1974.

Apart from removing the abovementioned burdens from ratepayers, the Government are also considering the general concept of relating local taxation to the ability of persons to pay. Some work in this has already been carried out in my Department, and I have asked the Economic and Social Research Institute to supplement this work by undertaking a study of various aspects of the problem.

While on the subject of ability to pay, I would like to make a reference to the rates waiver schemes which are operated by some local authorities. Under these schemes, local authorities can waive all or part of the rates in the case of persons who may be unable to pay them. Fifty-four local authorities operated these schemes in 1972-73 when over 21,400 persons were afforded relief from the rates. Final figures for 1973-74 are not available but the indications are that an even greater number of persons were granted relief during that year. I would like to appeal once again to those local authorities which do not at present operate rates waiver schemes to consider the desirability of doing so in the future. I would also like to appeal to those local authorities which do operate schemes to adopt a compassionate and flexible approach in the granting of relief under the terms of their schemes.

Deputies will recall that the members of Dublin City and Bray Urban Councils had been removed from office by the previous Government. I restored local democracy in these areas and followed this up with arrangements for local elections which were held this year for the first time since 1967.

This year's elections differed in several important respects from previous local elections. For the first time, 18-year-olds had the right to vote at local elections. Many of the former restrictions on eligibility for membership of local authorities were removed. For the first time nomination was open to 18-year-olds, and to a wide range of categories of persons previously excluded. Greater safeguards for the secrecy of the ballot were introduced and the property vote at local elections was abolished. Local electoral areas were revised to bring about greater equality of representation on local councils.

Postal voting facilities were extended, for the first time, to voters generally. These arrangements enabled a voter to apply to vote by post at local elections if he was unable, or was likely to be unable, to vote in person at his appointed polling station by reason of the circumstances of his employment, absence from the address where he is registered, illness or physical disability, or employment by the returning officer in connection with the election. The question of whether similar facilities should be provided at Dáil and Presidential elections and referenda is now being considered in the light of experience at the local elections. An up-to-date statutory procedure whereby a local election can be questioned by petition to the Circuit Court has been provided in replacement of provsions found to be unconstitutional 14 years ago.

I regard all these measures as valuable inputs of the democratic process into the local government system and as a further step in this process of improvement I issued a discussion document to local authorities on the subject of local government re-organisation. I might say that since taking office I have made it clear that I did not accept the proposals set out in the previous Government's White Paper on local government re-organisation—particularly the proposals to abolish local authorities and that I would be putting forward my own proposals in this regard. The main purpose of the document was to provoke a debate on the matter and to say firmly that I do not propose to abolish elected local authorities. I put forward, for the purposes of discussion, certain proposals which I felt would help the many small local authorities to alleviate some of the problems which are created by their limited resources. I am at present considering the views put forward by local authorities with the possibility of further consulting them about specific aspects of the proposals before arriving at final conclusions in the matter.

We have just heard a very long and interesting speech from the Minister. Like his housing policy it came in fits and starts in that it came in three separate sections. There is an old saying that attack is the best form of defence and the Minister's remarks on housing coincide with that old saying. At a time when there is serious concern in the building industry as a whole, especially in the section of the industry dealing with housing, at a time when so many men have been laid off, at a time when a number of building firms are finding themselves in serious financial difficulties, the Minister has presented us with a very rosy picture.

Slightly less than one-third of his speech was devoted to housing. He mentioned the Coalition Government's commitment to the erection of 25,000 houses and, quite rightly, he took considerable pride in the fact that 25,000 houses were erected. He knows as well as I do that, unless there had been forward planning, unless the sites had been available, unless the plans had been drawn up and unless tenders had been submitted, his target of 25,000 houses could not and would not have been achieved.

He gave a considerable number of selective statistics. He said:

One of our main commitments when we took up government last year was to increase housing output to 25,000 dwellings a year, compared to an average of 15,600 dwellings a year over the previous five years.

That is a nice example of selective statistics. I am sure the Minister will agree that the output of dwellings in the year before he took up office was much more than 15,600. It was 21,600 odd. I suppose that, in these times when there is very little comfort for the Government, it is a good thing that at least one commitment they made was met.

Also nicely camouflaged in the Minister's speech is the record that prior to his coming into office a very high number of grants had been applied for because, as he said, people were interested in getting grants allocated before the certificate of a reasonable cost scheme came into operation. As the Minister knows, the building industry is very sensitive. It is responsible for a large percentage of the jobs in the country in that the services associated with it employ a very large number of people.

Despite the Minister's assurance, in today's Irish Times under the heading “Still danger of lay-off of building workers”, there is the following statement:

There is still danger that thousands of building workers will be laid-off, in spite of an assurance by the Minister for Local Government, Mr. Tully, to a trade union deputation on Tuesday that enough money would be available to meet the Government's housing target this year.

I do not have the statistics the Minister has available to him but in the last few weeks and months I have heard of the fears of responsible employers and workers. I begin to wonder if the Minister is not in the position where he has to come into this House and put on a show. I do not understand very much about the game of cricket—it is not played in my area —but I know there is a player who is called "a stonewaller". He is the man who goes in when things are bad, he waits at the wicket and takes everything that is put to him. In this respect the Minister has done a good job for the Coalition.

As a Deputy and in my professional capacity I have a considerable amount to do with housing. In common with other Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, I have the experience of people coming to me and telling me it is impossible to get loans, that there is no point even in sending in applications. I know of men earning between £2,750 and £3,000 who want to build houses but they cannot get finance. I would ask the Minister to fulfil the promise he gave to the Federation and the delegation he met last Tuesday to make more money available. There are many hundreds of people throughout the country who are outside the limit laid down by the Housing Acts for SDA loans and who are not eligible for local authority housing. These people are not able to get the necessary finance and they are forced to wait in flats that are in poor condition and have not the necessary facilities.

In his statement the Minister said he was glad to record that the interim target of 6,500 local authority houses set for 1973-74 had been achieved. This is an indication of the forward planning put into housing by the former Fianna Fáil Government and one would expect to see somewhere in the statement an acknowledgement of that fact. The building industry is a very sensitive one and it needs gentle handling. It is rather like a marathon runner; sprints are bad for it. The graph was going upwards but now I fear it is on the decline. Even though I have not access to the statistics available to the Minister, common sense, the reading of newspapers and conversations I have had with builders have led me to believe that all is not as well as the Minister would like us to believe. I do not like to use the word "crisis" because that sounds rather sensational.

Quite rightly the Minister has referred to the quality of local authority housing. I must be honest and say I have not seen any great difference in the design of local authority housing since the Coalition came into office. As a professional engineer I do not agree with some of the designs that have been given to local authorities in recent times.

In another capacity I pointed out it was foolish to omit from local authority housing some form of solid fuel heating. I do not know if it is as a result of the fuel crisis or because he feels it is needed in local authority housing, but I am glad to see the Minister is insisting that all local authority houses should have at least one chimney.

I fail to see a reason for the implication in the speech that a Fianna Fáil Cabinet were responsible for the lower standards. If the standards have declined it is because those who were paid to supervise the jobs must not have carried out their work. It is they who should be held accountable. Most large schemes are supervised either by a resident engineer or a clerk of works and it is up to this person and to the architect or the consulting engineer to see that the work is carried out to the standards laid down in the specifications. I refuse to accept that any Government would condone a very low standard.

The Minister is probably aware that there is great anxiety among people in a number of estates where some form of central heating is the only means of heating. In Ballina some people who have only been in occupation of their houses a short time find they have to borrow money to pay their central heating bills. I have raised this matter with the local authority but the buck seems to be passed from Billy to Jack. I will be asking the Minister at a later date for his personal intervention.

The Minister referred to the urgent task of restoring central Dublin which will be a costly job. Urban renewal in various American cities has been the subject of some television programmes. It would appear that we will now have to face the same problems at the same cost. The Minister said that a major step forward was taken by Dublin City Commissioners when they adopted the Central City Housing Development Programme. He could have given some little credit to the former Minister for Local Government who initiated that programme.

The Minister is quite right in his assumption that Deputies will share in his special interest in the provision of suitable housing for aged and disabled persons. This is an aspect of our housing programme which was, to some extent, neglected in the past except in certain local authority areas. I would like the Minister to ensure that where houses are built for the aged and disabled they are not then allocated to young married people as happened in certain local authority areas. Young married people in the natural course of things will have families and the families will become too big for the houses. A need is created then for more houses. At the same time the houses which were originally built for the aged are not available for them. I understand a scheme has been submitted from Ballina Urban District Council. At least the preliminary drawings were ready some time ago. If the scheme has been submitted I would be glad if the Minister would sanction it.

I referred to the Government's pride in the fact that 25,000 houses were built. That pride, however, must be somewhat lessened by the fact that, even according to the Minister's own statistics, 10,000 odd grants were allocated in the quarter ended 31st March, 1973. He must admit this was a fair start to his 25,000 houses.

The Minister said:

The availability of the back-up facility, arranged with the banks, enabled the societies to embark immediately on an extended programme of forward approvals and had the effect of relieving a backlog of unsold houses which some builders in the Dublin area had on their hands.

It may have enabled the societies to embark immediately on an extended programme of forward approvals but it does not necessarily mean that the loans that were approved have yet been paid. The Minister said:

I can only reiterate here what I have said before—that arrangements will be made if necessary to provide additional finance.

I can only reiterate what I have said already—that the Minister should now, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, because of the specified difficulties of which I know the Minister is aware—make the additional finance available. I have personal knowledge of houses in good areas in Dublin which have been vacant for nine months and which cannot be let or sold. Two years ago there would have been a queue waiting to buy those houses. That to me, if not to the Minister, is an indication that things are not as rosy in the garden as he would lead us to believe. I know of a major building company who two years ago were in the happy position of being able to pick and choose their clients and who had on their books some 300 names of people who were looking for houses over and above the number they were able to provide at that time. They now have 40 odd houses on hand. They wrote to those 300 people to let them know the houses were available and they had one reply out of 300. That is for a small scheme of 40 houses. If one accepts that the average price of these houses is £6,000 one can see the amount of money tied up in this small scheme by this particular firm is in the region of £250,000 and it gives an indication of the seriousness in which a number of building firms find themselves.

I am glad to see that the Minister is having consultation with the Construction Industry Federation in relation to a new house purchase guarantee which he hopes to have introduced next year. In the meantime, if he can find anybody with the money to purchase a house, he should stress the necessity for purchasers to go to solicitors to get proper contracts drawn up. Each purchaser would then know exactly what he is getting for his money and when he can get it. I am glad to see the Minister is continuing the development of the co-operative movement in housing which was pioneered by Fianna Fáil.

One of the areas in housing which needs urgent re-appraisal is the reconstruction section. At the moment the grants allocated are not satisfactory. They need to be updated considerably and they also need to be segregated. The grants for additions should be paid separately from those that are paid for alterations and improvements. I know many people who got reconstruction grants three or four years ago when they were not able to afford to add additional rooms, which they now find are necessary. They are not entitled to get the grants because a period of five years has not clapsed.

People are spending too much money on old houses which will always be old no matter how much money is spent on them. The Minister should instruct his inspectors, where they feel it is not economic to reconstruct, to insist on the applicant building a new house. Quite a number of people build new houses but many of them just do the reconstruction work. I have seen estimates between £2,500 and £3,000 for reconstruction work, without water and sewerage. There was an estimate of £2,000 for a three-roomed house, a kitchen and two rooms, without water and sewerage, which was a false economy.

The large increase in the reconstruction grants is a reflection on the very high cost of new houses. The price of materials has escalated enormously in the last one-and-a-half years. Some of the local authorities, when adopting the loans scheme in relation to reconstruction grants insist on waiting for an estimate from the Department of Local Government before they even make an inspection. When a person needs to reconstruct his house, if he has to get extra accommodation, this means a two-months delay before he gets planning permission. Reconstruction inspections are not carried out unless certificates of planning approval accompany the application forms. That person has to wait approximately five weeks for an inspector from the housing section, a further two or three weeks before the particular estimate arrives and then a further six or seven weeks before the country council give approval for the loan. That means a delay of between six and nine months before approval of the loan is granted.

The Minister should seriously consider having inspections carried out by the Department's staff prior to receipt of the certificate of planning permission from the local authority. Sanction for the grant is not given until the certificate of approval from the local authority is submitted. This would cut down a delay of approximately six weeks in that case and would be of benefit to a number of people all over the country.

The Minister says he is arranging to pay reconstruction grants where solid fuel fireplaces or appliances are installed in centrally-heated houses even though a statutory minimum period has not elapsed since a previous housing grant was paid. Will this apply to local authority houses? Will he pay a grant to a local authority to instal solid fuel fireplaces?

All expenditure in relation to local authorities is now paid by the State.

If an application is made by a local authority for solid fuel fireplaces would the Minister have that considered and have it paid?

Thank you. There is a slight contradiction in that the Minister says it is essential that people engaged in the construction industry should keep abreast of new techniques and developments while earlier in his speech he mildly criticised the use of new techniques by the previous Government. I suppose that where new techniques are used there is always the danger that there will be some flaws if the techniques have not been fully developed.

The Minister appears to feel quite strongly about what he considers adverse publicity and goes as far as to say that people misinterpret statistics connected with housing. The Minister must admit that there is a genuine fear among persons in the industry that things are not as rosy as the Minister would seem to think. The Minister must be aware of the remarks of builders and of the trade unions expressing their fears. These are responsible men. Quite a number of builders have a genuine fear that unless something drastic is done things will reach crisis proportions. This is common knowledge. There is grave concern among builders' providers that the stocks which they have on hands cannot be sold. A member of a responsible trade union has said that whereas stocks in builders' providers at this time should be almost minimal, the stocks that they have in fact will lead to redundancies in their staffs.

I cannot overemphasise the importance, as far as I am concerned and I am sure as far as the Minister is concerned, of immediate intervention so that loans can be made available to persons who are looking for them. Perhaps the Minister would consider increasing the SDA loan ceiling. If this were done to a realistic figure a number of the houses that are on hands and that cannot be sold could be bought by those who are now frantically running from building society to building society and insurance company to insurance company seeking the necessary finance to purchase houses. The unfortunate part is that some of them had paid deposits on houses in the belief that they would be able to get the necessary finance. They may be in danger of losing their deposits.

The Minister went on to talk about the introduction of the block grant system for roads other than national roads and stated that it is an important step in the devolution to local authorities of responsibility for determining their own priorities in planning and expenditure in relation to local needs. I agree with this but I would say that the local authority of which I am a member finds itself hamstrung inasmuch as there are certain circulars on their files which would indicate that there are certain areas of grey in what should be a simple black and white situation. Last year I asked that extra money be given to Mayo County Council for a particular type of work. I was informed at that time that the block grant system was in operation and that Mayo County Council could spend the money as it saw fit. At the following county council meeting I asked that this be done and made certain suggestions but I was informed by the manager that because of circulars that had issued from the Department this was not possible and that only a certain percentage of the grant could be spent as we wished to have it spent.

I am glad that the Minister has this year abolished the 50 per cent limit on expenditure from grant money for the cost of upkeep of main roads. Mayo County Council last year gave the sum of over £50,000 from rates for the black topping of untarred roads. Our particular problem is immense. I shall not go into the reasons for that. They are known to the Department. In Mayo there are more untarred county roads than there are in the province of Leinster and the three Ulster counties taken together. We cannot see in our lifetime an end to this situation no matter how much money we give from our funds which, because of our low valuation, are very limited. We do not seem to be able to make any great impact in regard to the tarring of these roads.

While there must be very good national primary roads, which are the lifeline of a county such as ours that is rather remote, and through which all materials have to be transported, the vast majority of our people live along untarred roads. They maintain, quite rightly, that in 1974 they should have what they call the luxury, and what I call the normal requirement, of tarred roads. As I said, we have done our bit. I would ask the Minister the following question: If we want to use our total grant for black-topping can we do this? Would he write to me and let me know if we can use the road grant exactly as we want to use it, and whether previous circulars from the Department are now superseded because of the introduction of the block grants.

The Minister pays particular attention to the ever-increasing toll of road accidents. I am glad to see that he has made a grant of £140,000 to the National Road Safety Association. However, until, so to speak, the penalty is made to fit the crime, accidents will be with us for a long, long time. It is a frightening thought that 85 per cent of cars inspected in the Dublin area, and more than that in the rural areas, had significant safety defects. Perhaps it would be a good idea for everyone in this House, when he gets home, to check his car to see that he is not one of this 85 per cent. I would ask the Minister to extend on television and radio the quite good advertising that is now being done in the sphere of road safety and to urge on all motorists the responsibility they have to themselves and to the general public to ensure that their cars are road-worthy.

I hope that when negotiations are completed on the harmonisation of transport requirements, our circumstances will be taken into account, in so far as quite a number of our roads and bridges will not be able to take some of the weights that are being urged by our EEC friends.

One of the best achievements of the former Minister was the devolution of the local improvements scheme to the local authorities. This is something that has been of particular significance to the people along the west coast. It is something that possibly the Minister, coming from a pretty rich county, might not fully understand, although I am quite certain that Deputies from the Labour and Fine Gael Parties who represent the western seaboard in Counties Leitrim, Longford and other such areas will have impressed upon them how important it is. I realise that out of an Estimate of £300 million there are tremendous demands on the Minister, but I would ask him to consider increasing this allocation and in particular, increasing it to counties such as mine where, in addition to the 1,600 miles of road which are under local authority control, there are literally hundreds of miles of road that are in no man's land.

They are called lanes, boreens and so on. People live along these places and have to travel on them five or six times a day. The Local Improvements Scheme is the one hope of these people for getting reasonable roads to their houses. There was a reduction in the year the Minister came into office. He countered this by saying there are letters on files about this, that and the other. However, I am asking the Minister to be very lenient with counties such as I represent, counties that have a backlog of schemes to the tune of £600,000, and to increase the allocation made.

The Estimate shows that in relation to sanitary services the amount being spent this year is less than what was spent last year. We in Mayo have in the Department many schemes at various stages. I do not intend to get parochial. What I want to deal with I shall take up with the Minister privately. However, there does not seem to be any financial limit on the value of the schemes which can be done by the local authority without submitting a preliminary report to the Department. I understand there is a figure of £20,000 fixed as the limit on a scheme which can be done without having to send in all the documentation to the Department. I wonder would the Minister, in his reply, spell out exactly what he means by this statement:

I decided to replace the responsibility for the detailed planning of water and sewerage schemes squarely on the shoulders of the local sanitary authorities.

This has always been the system. From what I know the local authority had to decide on particular areas that needed water and sewerage extension and then submit preliminary reports. When they were approved they had then to prepare contract documents which were sent to the Department for sanction. Do I take it that the necessity for sending these to the Department for sanction has been eliminated and that local authorities will now get their own consulting engineers to prepare their documents; that they can put them out for tender and merely inform the Department that they are carrying on a particular scheme?

I should like to commend to the Minister the extension of the experiment which he initiated last year of devolving the work of group schemes to the local authorities. This is something that should be done all over because the local authorities know the ground. Through the elected representatives local authorities have knowledge of the area where group schemes operate and where they are needed. I hope that the complete devolution of group schemes to local authorities will take place in the near future.

In County Mayo, although the post is at present vacant, responsibility for group schemes is given to one engineer. We also provide well-boring and testing services but we do not provide for the design of the scheme although we do supervise. In major schemes we have, with the permission of the Department, made sizeable contributions.

The Minister has made reference to the Kenny Report on land. He mentioned the fact that the Government have grasped the nettle but it took the Government a long time to grasp it. I understand that the report was with the Government on 14th March, 1973, the day they took office. It took them until January, 1974 to grasp the nettle. I hope that the legislation which is necessary will be prepared as a matter of urgency because land prices escalated during 1973 to a great extent. I should also like to ask the Minister to have a look at the possibility of preparing new legislation that will make compulsory acquisition of land much simpler. I am aware that under existing legislation compulsory acquisition takes a long time and that it can be blocked in many ways.

It is essential now that land be acquired not only, as the Minister has stated, for housing, roads and sanitary services, but also for development purposes. Local authorities are now finding themselves in the role of development associations and committees. Their function in this regard has changed drastically in the last five years.

The Minister referred to planning control and that he had asked local authorities to be much more flexible in their approach to planning problems. It does not appear that the Minister's advice has been accepted or appreciated because quite a number of appeals are still with them on the basis of sanitary considerations, something on which the Minister felt planning authorities should be a little more lenient. Those of us who are members of local authorities approve of the particular line but it would appear that some local authorities do not.

I should now like to deal with the establishment of the new appeal board. I am aware that this legislation has not yet come before this House but, in my view, the Minister should seriously consider keeping the final adjudication to himself because too much power has already passed from this House. We do not appear to have any power over semi-State bodies. The Minister for Health has now no power over the appointment of consultants and this is now a matter for Board na nOspidéal. I do not want to see responsibility for planning appeals passing away from the Minister for Local Government. Let him, if necessary, accept the opinion and decision of the appeals board but I would not like to see him becoming a mere stamp of the appeal board. It is essential that the Minister hold on to the power he has in this regard.

The Minister mentioned that the country is now undergoing a process of organisation and, in a somewhat roundabout way, admits that emigration has declined considerably. I and Fianna Fáil, are glad that the Minister recognises this. We are happy about the decentralisation of government and semi-State Bodies. The IDA, in our part of the country at least, has helped in no uncertain manner to accelerate the process of decentralisation. This was done under Fianna Fáil.

There was genuine disappointment all over the country at the reduction by the National Coalition Government of amenity grants. The amenity grants, more than any other grants, with the possible exception of the local improvement scheme grants where a contribution is also required, gave people who were proud of their own areas a chance to do something voluntarily in the provision of necessary amenities. In Mayo especially, voluntary groups showed a tremendous interest in these grants. In Ballina town the operations of local groups in co-operation with Ballina UDC have resulted in a much tidier and much nicer town. I would ask the Minister to consider increasing these grants because they give people a chance to do something for themselves. They supplement voluntary effort. They supplement the finances raised at dances and hops and by collections and raffles. They give people a chance to beautify their areas and to show a pride in their areas.

I should like to refer briefly to the protection of the environment. This problem is beginning to worry all of us. We are caught in the dilemma that we are trying to entice industries into areas and, at the same time, we are trying to protect the environment. The problem basically is an educational one. I suggest that the protection of the environment should be the responsibility of a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary. At the moment many Departments are responsible for the protection of the environment. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Local Government have a part to play. If the Bill which is being prepared is to have any real teeth, it should place the responsibility for this problem firmly on somebody's shoulders.

One of the greatest causes of pollution is a fault in the 1963 Planning Act which allows agricultural buildings to be erected without planning permission. I agree that there is control now in that grants will not be paid unless the planning authority can be assured that the work will not cause pollution. If a person wants to go ahead without getting a grant, I think he has to apply for planning permission under the 1963 Act. Perhaps the New Bill will make this essential.

The Minister talked about air pollution which is now beginning to exercise the minds of local authorities more and more. In my area because of a proposed industry, it is very much on our minds. As the Minister said, it is important that we should all know what these developments will mean to us. In this respect the 1906 Act should be updated. We are now beginning to get quite a number of big chemical industries. While the county council staffs who are responsible in the ultimate for giving planning permission, for laying down the conditions, are doing their best, the absence of any up-to-date regulations especially in relation to big chemical plants is a hindrance to them.

I would ask the Minister to take cognisance of the points I have raised. I ask him especially in co-operation with the Minister for Finance to give a heavy injection of capital into the housing industry so that the situation which arose some months ago will not arise again in a few months, and to give the industry what it needs most, confidence.

I should like to thank the Minister for a very comprehensive and lucid speech and particularly for the amount of time and space he has given to housing. Deputy Calleary spoke about housing for quite some time and voiced his concern. If my memory serves me correctly, this time last year there was the same type of carry-on on the far side of the House and Deputies were saying that money was scarce, building societies were in trouble, and we would not attain our target. Indeed, we went beyond our target and over 25,000 houses were built. In this House the Minister has given assurances that, if there are any problems in the industry, he will ensure that they are alleviated and that the necessary funds will be made available. The Opposition should remember this because the same thing happened last year. I have every confidence we will meet our deadline in the coming year.

Housing is one of the most importtant aspects of people's lives. I am concerned about the overall attitude with regard to this matter. Up to now it was thought that if a person had a roof over his head he should be content but that is not good enough any more. We must consider the overall housing situation from the point of view of the people, and their needs should be considered when the matter of design is being discussed. I am a Dublin Deputy and I realise it is essential to have a socio-economic mix. In the past the tendency has been to build vast local authority housing estates on the right while on the left we had the Foxrock, Ballsbridge and similar developments extending to Wicklow. This tends to give an unbalanced type of society and if we do not do something to correct it the people will rebel against it. It would not be an exaggeration to call it a form of class distinction.

We hear much about new towns and it is envisaged that the greater Dublin area will have three or four such towns. From what I have seen of them they are disastrous. They are not towns but are merely urban sprawls. There has not been any planning in these areas and the Minister should look at the situation. The local authorities have not the capacity or the staff to take on such a vast job. The Department of Local Government or one of their agencies should establish a group that would consider this type of development and if the local authorities still wish to be involved in the matter this group of experts could be seconded to the authorities for this work. If we do not take action we will have urban sprawls that will become tatty, unwanted slum areas in the not-too-distant future. A considerable amount of capital has been put into the development of these areas and it should not be wasted.

The Minister spoke about housing for the disabled. It is very important that specially designed houses should be built for these people. They should be part of the general scene, not housed in isolated units. Co-operative housing is another worthwhile part of housing and it requires every assistance we can give it. The previous speaker said that this type of housing derived from Fianna Fáil but that is not so. The co-operative movement came from the people themselves and no political party can claim the right of ownership.

It is up to the Government and the local authorities to ensure that these movements get every assistance and appropriate sections should be established to deal with this matter. There is a good community spirit in the housing co-operatives where people work and build their own houses. I do not think it is possible to get a greater bond among any group. We should strive for the development of a community spirit. We must get away from the attitude of not depending on anyone else, of living on one's own island. Special emphasis should be given to community centres and all assistance given to them. People wish to have community involvement and development and it is up to the Government to help them.

We should help them by giving the necessary finance. It is not a question of whether we can afford it; we must realise that it is vital to encourage local involvement and effort. In our modern society we have many pressures on us but if we can get people working together for the overall good of the community, the young people, the aged and the middle groups, we will be doing a worthwhile job. The people want this kind of development and it is up to the Government to make a firm commitment. They must state clearly what grants will be given. The necessary expertise with regard to planning and other matters must be made available.

In the last 40 years there has been not a gradual but an astronomical decline of the population in the city centre. Sometimes this has been for social reasons where there was over-crowding, but frequently vested interests have moved in and have bought up property. The result has been that people have been forced out of their traditional areas. The city commissioners—I was a member last year—made available a large amount of land for development.

The last speaker said Fianna Fáil should take credit for this. I do not know why he should make that statement. In City Quay, in my constituency, in 1966 a compulsory purchase order was made for a sizeable area of land for much needed housing. The Minister of the day would not confirm the CPO. It would have been far cheaper to acquire the land at that time than it is today. That was indicative of the thinking of the former Government and that would still be their thinking if they had remained in government. The present Minister was not six months in office when he took his decision. I hope it is only the beginning of centre city development or urban renewal. Areas have been zoned residential and commercial. Up to now this was a farce because the position was that people moved in and bought and that was it.

Where commercial and residential is stated on the draft plan that should be precisely what it means. If a developer wants to develop that area he should put in 50 per cent housing and 50 per cent commercial development. I know the Dublin Corporation Planning Department are now insisting that housing goes into most developments but it is not on a 50-50 scale. With a 50-50 scale we could achieve urban renewal. It would also keep down the cost of land in the city area because developers will not be so enthusiastic and will not have the same profitability on a 50-50 basis as they would if it were 90 per cent commercial and 10 per cent housing.

The Minister has on a number of occasions mentioned the present housing stock. It is important that our present housing stock should be maintained and refurbished. In our centre city area property had been allowed to decay to such an extent that the local authority was left with no option but to declare them dangerous or unfit. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is the Rent Restrictions Act which tended in many ways to keep rents very low. The days of very low rents are over and most people realise this. I would like to see very generous grants being given for this type of renewal. We speak in terms of £1,000 or £1,500 for refurbishing one floor of quite a good size house. When one considers the cost of acquiring land and rebuilding this is very cheap housing and very worthwhile and it would conserve capital for other purposes. For people who would receive those generous grants, we would have to have rent control. If somebody received a substantial sum of money for refurbishing and then charged very high rents it would not achieve the end I have in mind. Realistic rents would be charged based on floor area. People now realise that a low rents situation does not exist and are prepared to pay reasonable rents. We see in Dublin today people getting £8 for a room in a tenement house from newly married couples who have nowhere to go, who are the victims of the present housing situation which was caused by neglect over the last number of years. I would ask the Minister to ensure that our housing stock is refurbished.

There is quite an amount of ground in the centre city area of Dublin in the form of large back gardens. Local authorities are very slow to grant permission for mews development. Mews development is excellent. Criteria can be laid down for a good type of dwelling which will enhance an area, which will bring back population to the city and which will give a mixed population. With local authority development and mews development in the centre city there would be a very good mixture and this is most desirable.

Housing finance is a problem. The whole area of finance for housing will have to be looked at. The building societies have done quite a good job but we must look now at whether they are able to meet the needs of this particular time. I do not know whether they are or not. My view is that a national finance agency could be set up purely for housing. Some of the building societies have lent fairly large sums of money not necessarily for houses, not necessarily to people who were in the queue for loans. This is what makes me a little nervous. I would like to see a national finance agency looking at the situation. At the moment building societies lend money at a static rate. If interest rates rise it rises a little but repayments are reasonably static over the period of purchase. I believe this should be done on a sliding scale. The deposit on a house today is £1,000, £1,500 and in some cases £2,000. Where possible there should be loans of nearly 100 per cent with the payments beginning at a low level. We could then project the rate of inflation and the rate at which the average person's earnings would rise. Repayments could then be on a sliding scale. They can go out and purchase in the knowledge that as their salaries increase so do their repayments. This should be investigated with a view to ensuring that as many people as possible own their own houses. If we had a good purchase scheme like this it would take a load off local authorities because there is a large number of people on their lists who want to purchase their houses but because of high deposits and high rates of repayment they are unable to do so.

When Dublin Corporation build houses for sale there is such a big demand that the names of the applicants have to be put into a drum and a draw takes place for those who will get the houses. It is a ludicruous situation that people who require houses should have to get them in this way. This is not what I want and I have no doubt it is not what the Minister wants. While revising our overall attitude in relation to the financing of housing health should bear a considerable factor.

When I spoke about the national financial agency I did not want to infer that I wanted to kill off building societies. They still have a role to play. The Government should look at the needs as they see them today and people should have access to finance for this type of development.

In relation to house designing the Minister has ensured that the old tradition of a chimney flue is brought back into housing. It should never have been done away with. Central heating is a first class innovation in local authority housing but it is still necessary to have chimney flues. We all know what happened in many areas of Dublin last year during the fuel scarcity. In some houses in Dublin there are only nine inch block walls and one can look out into the street where gaps have appeared around the windows. The plaster has come off on the inside of the walls and dampness has appeared. We often find that windows are not well finished and doors become warped. We then ask people to pay for central heating. The cost of central heating, because of badly designed houses, is astronomical. There is a great heat loss in many of the new houses.

I was at a housing conference in Copenhagen last year. We were brought to see some housing schemes and I was very impressed by their doors, windows and their attitude towards conserving heat. They had centrally heated homes at a minimum cost. It is important, with the price of fuel at the moment, in our future houses designing that the terminal insulation of any house or building is first class. We have to import almost all our fuel, and costs have increased for it, whether it is oil, gas or electricity. In future house designing our walls should be first class and we should try to have double-glazed windows. The doors should be well sealed also so that we get maximum terminal insulation.

The Minister should set up a body to investigate our housing needs. He should also project into the future our requirements. I do not accept the statement made by some people that we will always have a housing problem. We will certainly have one if we think that way. We should try to eliminate our housing problem by having a planned programme, projecting our needs into the future, deciding the number of houses we want every year and not talk in terms of up and down development, that if the building industry does well this year we will have a large number of houses built and if it does not do well the number will go down.

We must have ordered development. I am glad to see that the Minister has a commitment of 25,000 houses a year, although I do not think that meets our needs. It is important that the housing requirements are investigated and that the existing stock of houses be looked at, to see if they are houses which will remain for another 40 years or some which have not any life at all. The Minister should look into this and after he has carried out an investigation he can draw up his plans for a number of years and say that after X number of years, with the population increase and taking everything into consideration, we will not have a housing problem.

Public representatives in Dublin find that they get more letters about housing problems than about anything else. You come across young married couples with one child living in atrocious conditions. They cannot be housed by Dublin Corporation unless they have got a medical problem. You can only tell them that at the moment Dublin Corporation are only housing families of four, that if they come back next year or if they have an extra child they may get a house. It amazes me, when I come across the chronic housing conditions some people in Dublin have to put up with, how they can remain happily married. It is a great test of their strength that a marriage can survive in such conditions.

It is important that they break through and get down to it. We have seen what the last Administration did when they spoke about low cost housing and what type of housing we got. We must get away from the low cost mentality. We must build quality homes for people. They will cost money but if you build something good it is cheaper in the long run. Some of the low cost housing will be literally slums when they should still be good.

Greater emphasis should be laid on design. Many housing estates are ordinary and plain and show no great regard for design. There are many fine architects in this country. The design of housing schemes should be open to competition from a limited number of architects, say, six, seven, ten—whatever number is thought desirable. In that way good ideas could be introduced. There are many architects who normally would not get into the housing design field because it is a very closed shop and who could produce fresh ideas. This is important. Let us have new ideas in housing. Let us get away from the old tradition. People go for the old tradition but the reason is that nobody shows them anything else. There should be variety.

The concept of landscaping is lacking. In new housing schemes one sees only concrete. Our climate is ideal for greenery and foliage. Concrete tends to harden people's attitudes. If people are looking at nothing but concrete all their lives it tends to make them violent. It may be suggested that trees and shrubs would not last any length of time in housing estates. People must be educated in this respect.

In Copenhagen last year we were brought through the housing estates. There were flowers and greenery and one got the impression of a place that was lived in. It was not that the design of the houses was any better than ours but the landscaping gave an impression of warmth and softness. It relieved the hardness.

It is important that we should adopt an attitude towards landscaping and overall design. There are not many landscape architects available in this country. That is not a matter of wonder. They would die of starvation if they were depending on contracts. If the demand were created there would be as many landscape architects available as were required.

I welcome the Minister's attitude towards housing for itinerants. The sight of itinerant encampments on the roadside could not make one feel smug or happy. The attitude of some people towards itinerants is disgraceful and nauseating. We all have an obligation to help the less well off in our society. These people are victims of our society. They have been kicked from one county to another. Nobody wanted them. It is refreshing that the Minister has appointed Mr. Bewley, a man whose concern is great and who is aware of the needs of the itinerants. The itinerants require special attention. A man of Mr. Bewley's great humanity can provide special attention for them.

It is a credit to Dublin Corporation that they are doing their bit. Every new development is better than the last. We all hope that the itinerants can be absorbed into our society. I hate using the word itinerants because it suggests that they are something apart and they are not apart. They are the same as we are. They have the same fears, the same wants, the same needs. We are now starting to look at the problem and I am happy that developments will proceed at the right pace and that in ten years' time we will be able to look back and say that we have done a good job.

Grants for older houses must be increased. The present level of grants is not adequate and is not an incentive. More money should be available for persons who want to add bedrooms to their houses. There should be an increase in the amount of money that may be borrowed for this type of development. The present ceiling is £600 and the proverbial dog-house could not be built for that amount. I would ask the Minister to ensure that grants are made available for this kind of work and also for new houses.

A big problem in regard to housing is land. People reading the Sunday newspapers over the last number of weeks are scratching their heads. The Kenny Report is a very good and reasonably comprehensive report. What concerns me here is whether one person because he may own a piece of land has the right under the Constitution to override the rights of many hundreds who are looking for housing. The Government should act quickly on this. I realise that since January the price of land is being held but it is important that the Government act quickly and if there is a problem about constitutionality that it is cleared. I would not see any problem about constitutionality because I believe the rights of the majority override the rights of one or two. The greater good applies. People should not be deprived of homes because land is held by people waiting for vast fortunes, or waiting for some planning committee to change the zoning which will mean that they can make vast fortunes at the expense of young married couples.

This is a scandalous situation on which a Government committed to social reform will have to move quickly. The Dublin Corporation have been quite good in acquiring large tracts of land in the county, despite some county councillors saying it was not the right thing to do. The important thing to remember is that the acquisition of tracts of land by the corporation is keeping the price of land down. The corporation must be complimented on this, and I hope they will continue to do it. Now with the Kenny Report it will make it much easier for this sort of situation to come about.

The Minister is bringing out a Planning Bill to ensure that our cities and towns progress in the right way and to deal with people who blatantly violate the planning laws—and there are a number, particularly in this city, who use the courts and every other means to do this—moving into residential areas and converting the accommodation into offices and so on. This is bad when they get away with it, because it encourages others to do likewise. There is no doubt the new Planning Bill will give the local authority more teeth to ensure that this kind of activity will cease, and that those people who engage in it will get their fingers burned and others will not be encouraged to follow their example.

The Minister is giving local authorities greater flexibility but there are some of these local authorities who still tend to go by the book and to be very rigid. The Minister should inform these local authorities, in relation to the new board being set up to deal with appeals, that he does not want appeals being referred to him because of some technical detail and that it is up to the relevant local authority to make decisions. Good planning makes a difference to our lives and our environment. Anything that is human must be flexible. If the Minister gives local authorities this flexibility he should insist that they use it. We are paying planners what I hope is good money; if we are not we should be. The important thing is that when we pay them they should live up to their responsibilities and make decisions not necessarily always in accordance with the rule book but in accordance with the needs of people. This is what planning is all about.

There is a committee sitting now for about 11 years on the review of the bye-laws. I think it was in 1963 they first got down to it, and by the time the review is completed they will want to start another review, because decisions made ten years ago will be out of date by that time. If the Government set up a body to review something and it drifts on endlessly and aimlessly, it is no wonder we have this attitude towards these reports when they are presented, and put them on a shelf and let them gather dust.

On the question of the environment, quite a number of foreign industries will be looking to Ireland for locations. The Continent is chock-a-block and some of what are known as dirty industries which are perhaps not acceptable to other countries but which may be necessary to our economy should be located in areas where they will have the minimal effect on land and on people's health. The Government, having made a survey of sites should say to the IDA before these industries come in that they are designating certain areas for these dirty industries and they cannot run off to Bantry, to Donegal or into Dublin Bay or anywhere they like. If we do that we shall have some control over our environment. If we do not do that, we shall have the usual planning appeals, lobbies and counter-lobbies. It is far better that the Government should direct this sort of activity. As I say, a number of these industries are not acceptable in other countries and I do not think we should carry the dirty can for anybody else. However, if it is an industry that is necessary for our economy and is good for the country then certainly we should take it in and put it where it will have the least effect on our environment.

The Minister spoke about roads. This subject is a bone of contention particularly in built-up areas where people may see a notice in the paper one morning indicating that a six-lane highway is to run through the Liberties, for instance, and that several hundred houses are to be knocked down. A notice may appear that a highway is to run through Sandymount Strand and through the property of people in the vicinity. This causes consternation and lobbies are formed. The local authority engineers handle such matters awkwardly. They are not good at public relations. There should be greater consultation.

There are many cars on the roads. The local authorities do not take sufficient regard of the human aspect of the problem. The human aspect should be borne in mind. People are concerned about their homes and their property. I can never see the necessity for very wide roads through the city. There should be a good road system leading towards the city from the housing estates. There should be bus-ways. These would limit the number of buses required. Buses could come in from districts like Ballyfermot, Tallaght, Finglas and Coolock. There should be linkroads on the outskirts of the city with inner city buses of a smaller size operating from there. The numbers of cars coming into the city must be reduced.

Recently the corporation have insisted on a fixed number of car park spaces in each office development. Such restrictions should be imposed in conjunction with a good transport system. People must not be deprived of the means of getting easily to and from work. The local authorities and CIE should examine the position. Cars will choke up this city unless steps are taken to improve the position. I would like to see people bringing cars to the outskirts of the city. I am in favour of mini-buses running around the various parts of the city free of charge. There would be more pedestrian walks through the city then and this would bring life back to the city. Some traders feel that this would damage their business. On the contrary I feel that business might improve. One cannot move around Dublin because of the traffic at present. Linkroads and inner city buses would help to make Dublin a pleasant city which would attract visitors.

I notice now particularly in the city areas that waste ground is taken over for use as car parks despite the fact that there are no amenity areas in the portions of the city in which they are placed. The car has greater importance than the public. This is wrong. Even for short periods space which is lying waste should be developed as amenity areas for people rather than as an area in which people can leave lumps of metal parked for eight hours a day. I am not anti-car. I have one myself. The car should not be allowed to take over. We should be masters of cars. At the moment one would get the impression from road developments that the car runs our society.

The new planning board is welcome from all sides of the House. It has taken responsibility from the Minister. Such responsibility was unfair on him. There will now be an independent tribunal. They will make all the decisions. The onus is removed from the Minister. By virtue of being a politician he is subjected to pressures from people trying to influence him to make decisions one way or the other. It is important that this pressure should be removed. I have no doubt that the Minister for Local Government and the former Minister across the House are happy that the position has been changed.

The Minister spoke about swimming pools. Every effort should be made to provide as many swimming pools as possible. I am not looking for luxurious pools. I have seen pools which cost considerable sums of money. We could have a smaller type pool which would leave money available for further pools. There are not enough pools in Dublin even yet. The Minister should ensure that money is allocated for swimming pools.

I wish the Minister well in regard to our contribution for the Architectural Heritage Year, 1975. The Architectural Review of 1974 has a feature on Dublin. This is a very influential magazine. They are providing a 60-page booklet describing various aspects of life in Dublin. This will be good for Dublin from a tourism point of view. Perhaps the Minister could make representations to the relevant Minister so that this magazine can get a subsidy from Board Fáilte. The magazine should be a tourist attraction because it shows various aspects of the buildings and architectural heritage of Dublin. The owners of the magazine would like a subsidy. They have approached Bord Fáilte without success. Perhaps the Minister would help in this regard in order to assist the tourist industry. This industry needs help at the moment.

The Minister spoke about rates and the removal of housing and health charges. The removal of these charges has been significant. Because of their removal rates have not reached astronomical proportions. The removal of some charges was part of the 14-point plan. The charges for health and housing will be gradually eliminated. People speak about the abolition of rates altogether. I am not totally in favour of that idea. Local authorities need funding from within their own ambit. If they had to go to the Government for money various Ministers for Finance are liable to get out the axe and chop sums off here and there. This would limit the powers of the local authorities and make them subservient to the national Government. People will always pay for value. They could never see the reason for charges in regard to health and housing. The rates situation should be reviewed and something done to relieve the costs but the local authorities should have money from their own funds.

The Minister spoke about the waiver of rates scheme. This is an excellent scheme. Many people cannot meet the rates bills. It is unfair to ask people to dispose of their houses because they cannot pay the rates. This is socially undesirable. I know of a widow living on the widows' pension with two of her household earning. They give her very little money but because they are earning she is deprived of her right to avail of the waiver of rates scheme. This is unfair. Under the differential rents scheme the main breadwinner was taken into account. I think the same situation should prevail with regard to the waiver of rates. I know this particular person; she is indeed in need but she has been turned down flatly because the local authority got returns from both children, from their employers and this would certainly put her well in excess of the limit. But she was not getting the money and yet she still has to find the amount of the rates. I would ask that this be looked into again.

The Minister spoke about local government reorganisation. I think the last government had ideas about this as well. I think it is important that local government be local and I can speak only of my own local authority, that is, Dublin local authority which, to me, is not local at all. It has become unwieldy and the local representatives, in my view, are too far removed from any local activity. If one takes the area for which I stood, one is not talking about local politics at all; one is talking about national politics. In Dublin years ago we had the various borough councils—there were Rathmines, Pembroke, Clontarf, Howth and so on. I believe that in order to talk effectively about local government we must get back to that local situation. I favoured then and still feel it is desirable that we have the greater Dublin area. In my view, for example, it is ridiculous that people in Tallaght are linked with those in, say, Balbriggan; they have nothing in common in that respect. Therefore, what we need is a greater Dublin area, with Tallaght being involved with Templeogue rather than with Balbriggan. This could only evolve with the smaller councils operating on the basis of being responsible for cleansing, planning, environmental and other aspects. Obviously they cannot cater for everything but the overall greater Dublin council would be talking in terms of housing, sewerage, water and so on. But there would be the smaller councils operating effectively locally giving back real power at the lowest level in our society.

At the moment we have this concept of community; in Dublin there have been candidates who stood as community candidates and I think six or seven were elected. One must consider that the system obtaining in Dublin at the moment is against that type of community situation. Were there smaller units established we would have a greater degree of community involvement; people concerned about their own areas, building up their own areas; planning them in the proper manner and, from there, evolving into the greater Dublin council to which members would be elected from local bodies. By and large, I would see this greater Dublin council as a full-time body. Dublin's population is creeping up to the one million mark now and it is necessary that we have a full-time council operating, coming up from the bottom and not something sitting there in a vast metropolis without any real concept of local Government whatsoever.

Therefore, I welcome and look forward to the Minister's proposals when they emerge. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what I have said about the greater Dublin Council. In my view this is the only system which we can evolve and by which we can hope to get local government back. I am not au fait with what happens in the country but in my view it is important that all local authorities get together to discuss this matter to ensure that when the next local elections come about we will have a good local government set up.

The Minister has spoken about An Foras Forbartha and the valuable research it has done in various aspects of our planning and construction. I should like to see An Foras Forbartha becoming more involved in the area of housing and housing development and lending its expertise to local authorities. This expertise could bring life into the various local authorities. An Foras Forbartha could ensure that our development is up-to-date and that our housing designs meet the needs of our people. In my view An Foras Forbartha have a much greater role to play in the greater development of this country. I do not know if An Foras Forbartha is tied in any way, but if this body is tied the Minister should see to it that they are given as much freedom as possible so that they would not be looking over their shoulders at the various departments. An Foras Forbartha should be a free agent to develop expertise which we all know is needed in housing. Our planning and construction have been dull to date and it has been so because of lack of direction. An Foras Forbartha could play its part by giving this sense of direction which is very necessary and desirable.

The Minister should look at the question of land wastage, particularly in the Dublin area. A good deal of land wastage is taking place in Dublin because of what is called densities. Because land is located in what is described as density areas in draft development plans any hope of reasonable development is ruled out. This seems rather ludicrous. I know of a three-storey house which has a large front and rear garden but because it is located in a density area it cannot be converted into three flats. The building is quite suitable for such a conversion but because of the development plan it can only be converted to two flats. The owner of the building is not allowed to develop housing at the back of the house because the development plan states that the densities will not permit it.

We tend to get bogged down with the idea of a density situation. I am aware that people, historically are afraid that if we have a high density situation we might create a slum problem but in my view we have become sufficiently enlightend to keep away from that attitude and that type of mentality. We have got ourselves bogged down with this rule book attitude where, after an inspection of the draft development plan, people are told that they cannot develop. In my view this encourages people to develop without obtaining planning permission. It encourages some people to convert their houses without planning permission, something which I deplore. It encourages the conversion of ordinary family type houses into five or six bedsitters which are contrary to any living standards. If we had a reasonable density allowing reasonable development we would stop this. People would not be forced to go ahead with conversions and other developments without obtaining planning permission.

The Minister should have a look at the density situation, particularly in the centre of Dublin where there is quite an amount of land wasted because planning permission is not being granted for reasonably good development.

It is necessary, on the question of housing that we should emphasise that quality is important. We can talk about prices and low-cost housing but a low cost house is very expensive if it is defective. We should concentrate on the quality of the house. Some people confuse efficiency with low cost but I do not think it has anything to do with it. When carte blanche is given to build low-cost houses anything can be erected but efficiency is a different matter altogether. We can have good plans and designs to meet the needs of people but at the same time erect such houses at a very efficient rate.

By and large the builders, and the building federation, do a good job. I am aware that they are doing a little scare mongering at the moment regarding the building industry. Last year it was the building societies and this year it seems to be the turn of the building federation to say that men will be laid off despite the assurances given by the Minister. As employers members of this Federation are good and they pay well. They erect the type of house they are asked for and that is why it is necessary to have the right type of design. Architects, preparing development plans in future, should incorporate in them the whole aspect of community life. For too long the aspect of community life was ignored. I am glad this attitude has changed and I know that the Minister is concerned that any developments in the future must have built into them the needs of the people for whom the houses are to be erected. We have had our Ballymuns and we do not want them again. We want now, if we are developing centre city accommodation, to look at town type houses. With density laws waived you can have a first-class housing complex using the land which is available. Land in the centre of the city is dear, but you are building the right type of housing unit, and you are getting quite a large number of housing units into the area without any fear of creating a type of slum development.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share