Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Oct 1963

Vol. 205 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

"That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy Jones.)

Mr. N. Lemass

We are taking a number of motions with this Estimate and the principal item under discussion seems to be housing, always a prominent subject in a debate of this nature. We on this side of the House claim that the collapse of the housing programme in Dublin city resulted from the Coalition Government's mishandling of the situation, mainly in 1956. Deputies opposite, by referring to the production of new houses in 1956 and 1957, try to show this is not correct and that instant houses can be provided at the will of the Government. This contradicts Deputy Dillon who quite frankly admitted in the House that from the time a development scheme is proposed until it is completed a number of years must elapse.

I should like now to take a look at some of the matters published in the newspapers in 1956 and show that not only did Deputy Briscoe and I accuse the Government then and still accuse the administration of that day for the situation from which we are suffering even now, but several other members of the Dublin City Council also did. Several of these reports quote statements made by me and I propose to read them now, since I was one of those attacked most regularly by Fine Gael in that respect.

On page 4 of the Irish Press for 7th November, 1956, I was reported as making reference to the then Minister who had made a statement to the effect that the money for the completion of the SDA scheme was in fact there but that the Corporation, and particularly Deputy Briscoe and I, were sabotaging the scheme by not spending this money. What I said then, as reported accurately in the paper, was that if moneys which were available for activities in progress under the housing of the working class Acts were transferred to the SDA loans, it would result in the complete disruption of Corporation contracts, that it would lead to the laying-off of men on the direct labour schemes, that all further site development would have to be abandoned, that the final assault on the slums and their replacement by decent flats would be held up and that it would take years to recover the position.

Time has proved how right I was. In the Irish Press of 13th November, 1956, a letter appeared, following a conference in the City Hall, Dublin, repudiating statements made by the Minister for Local Government, particularly in relation to SDA loans, and pointing out that the Corporation needed an unqualified assurance that £2,800,000 would be forthcoming in cash in the next 12 months to deal with SDA cases alone. Councillor Denis Larkin, the Chairman of the Housing Committee, is quoted as having said:

The Corporation could not be expected to enter into contracts binding themselves to an ultimate expenditure of £6 million without some assurance that the money would be made available.

That was the opinion of the Labour Party Chairman of the Dublin Housing Committee at that time.

On 13th November, 1956, a report appeared on page 3 of the Irish Press referring to the schemes then held up as being: completion of schemes in progress, £465,700; direct labour, £137,700; contract schemes at Finglas East, £20,600, and at Walkinstown, £32,200; other schemes in the programme, £1,386,750; site development works, £330,914; supplementary grants, £100,000; repair grants, £80,000; acquisition, £100,000; miscellaneous, £50,000, making a total capital expenditure of £2,700,864 which, in addition to the £500,000 already spent on SDA schemes and the moneys required for the North Dublin drainage scheme, would completely liquidate the £4 million which was to be made available to the Corporation in 1957-58.

That was the situation in 1956. In 1957-58, we were to be given money already spent by the Corporation. In fact, the money came after the complete disruption of the building programme.The £180,000 for the repair and acquisition grants that should have been made available at that time might have saved the lives that Deputy Ryan was so concerned about here today. That is the root of the problem.

Again, I refer to the pages of the Irish Press for 14th November, 1956. The then Minister for Local Government, Deputy O'Donnell, said the Government had guaranteed sufficient money, but I on that occasion, as reported in the Irish Press of the date mentioned, pointed out that at a meeting of the Dublin City Council on 10th August of that year, it was reported to the Housing Committee by the City Manager that unless an additional £500,000 were found for the 1956-57 period, it would be necessary to reduce the direct labour schemes in progress from £278,200 to £130,000, to abandon Finglas East schemes to the amount of £61,000, to abandon Walkinstown direct labour schemes of £42,800, and to abandon other schemes to a total of £69,000. I also pointed out it would be necessary to reduce site development from £158,000 to £154,500, to eliminate anticipated expenditure of £26,000 on repair grants, effecting a complete saving of £441,600. The Corporation bankers agreed to advance the £500,000 which meant the money allocated by the Government would have been spent by the time the Corporation got it.

These facts are not taken from statements by the City Manager alone but from statements by Councillor Denis Larkin and other public representatives.I should mention that bodies such as the Dublin Council of Trade Unions were also interested. On 14th November, 1956, the Dublin Council of Trade Unions passed a resolution which urged:

that the congress should act in conjunction with the Provisional United Organisation of the trade union movement and concern themselves with the easing of the credit squeeze which, together with the import levy, has caused widespread unemployment.

In October of that year, the bulletin of the Federation of Builders, Contractors and Allied Employers stated:

Housing schemes, hospitals, schools, public works of every kind, were axed last September with an abruptness which left the whole building and civil engineering industry well-nigh stricken.

Mr. Seán MacBride, a former Deputy, and a man whose vote was keeping in the Government of that day, lecturing in O'Connell Hall was reported on 9th November, 1956, page 4, Irish Press, as saying the savage credit squeeze on top of the levies had been disastrous, but he still, as I say, continued to support the Government for some months after that.

Perhaps one of the best-known trade union leaders to speak out at that time, the Secretary to the Irish Congress of Unions, Mr. Leo Crawford, said as reported in the Irish Press, page 4, 4th December, 1956:

Recently, representatives of the building unions had found that plans were being held up on flimsy excuses and that tenders had been lying in the Department for four months while workers were fleeing the country.

On page 11 of the same paper, Mr. Denis Larkin, Chairman of the Housing Committee, Labour Deputy supporting the Government at that time, pointed out that approval for building houses in Bluebell took four months; that previously such approval would have only taken two weeks. He also pointed out that approval of the development at Gloucester Place took six months. He said — I quote:

The Finglas No. 2 scheme had been lying there for almost six months—

that is, in the Department of Local Government—

—and regarding St. Anne's area, the Corporation spent time making report after report.

What it boils down to is the fact that there was such delay in sanction coming to the Corporation that the Corporation found it could not complete its target.

The Provisional United Trade Union Organisation is reported also in the Irish Press of 14th December, 1956. I quote — this is from a resolution which they passed:

We further demand that all the administrative factors delaying local authority housing and other schemes be urgently reviewed and the necessary steps taken to eliminate delays at all levels.

On 19th November, 1956, page 6, Irish Press, Mr. P.J. Tobin, in an address on behalf of the Engineers Association, is quoted as saying:

Because of the "credit squeeze" the building industry is experiencing such a slump as had not been known for a considerable period.

Surely, it is clear that it was not only Deputy Briscoe and I who exposed this situation to the people of the country? Are all these people the saboteurs that Deputy Briscoe and I are supposed to be? These are reputable people from trade unions and trade organisations. If Fine Gael think they are saboteurs, let them say so.

Over and over again, Deputy Dillon, Deputy Sweetman and Deputy O'Donnell in particular have refused to admit the facts. They are trying to mislead the public as to what exactly was the situation in 1956/57 as they are now doing in relation to the turnover tax.

In volume 192, column 947, Deputy Dillon is reported as saying:

...I hope we have seen the last for my time in Dáil Éireann of the shameless, unscrupulous, heartless fraud perpetrated by Deputy Noel Lemass and Deputy Briscoe in the Dublin Corporation when they refused the people of this city the money to build their homes, not because there was any scarcity but because they wanted to purchase votes by falsehood from a deceived and frustrated electorate...

Do these remarks apply to Mr. Leo Crawford, to the leaders of the engineering, trade union and builders' associations, to Mr. MacBride and Mr. Larkin, former Deputies? I do not know. If they apply to Deputy Briscoe and to me, they must apply to the others.

In reply to that statement, in column 955 of the same volume, I said:

...not so long ago in this House I read copies of the letters that passed between the then Government and the City Manager. What the letters prove conclusively is that the then Government had to make funds available to Dublin Corporation from the Local Loans Fund because the Bank of Ireland refused to accept their guarantee as sound collateral. That is the situation that existed in 1956-57.

Deputy Dillon, not to be outdone, in columns 968 and 969, comes back in the same tone:

The other matter I want to mention is this and it is typical of the reckless irresponsibility of an individual like Deputy Noel Lemass. Can you conceive of a Fianna Fáil Deputy who was Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Dublin Corporation, getting up in Dáil Éireann and saying that in 1957 the Government bankers, the Bank of Ireland, refused to accept the guarantee of the Irish Government for a loan for the Dublin Corporation?The statement, of course, is without a shadow of foundation; there is not a scintilla of truth in it.

For some reason, when I proved that what I said was true and absolutely true, from corporation documents and letters that transpired at the time, the Press, that is, the Press in general, being more impressed apparently by Deputy Dillon's flow of oratory, failed to lay particular stress on the proven fact. I believe it is the kernel of the whole point that not only did the bankers believe that the Government was bad collateral, the same thing applied to private business as well, as I will go on to show, as I have shown here before, but still Deputy Dillon comes back with these outbursts which are completely contrary to the situation at that time.

I will repeat some of the remarks which appeared in volume 195 of 8th May, 1962, column 356. I had referred to a report of the minutes of the Municipal Council for the city of Dublin, 1956. I said:

It is a letter from the City Manager to the Lord Mayor, Alderman and Councillors, and is dated June 11th, 1956:

On April 16th the City Council were informed of a letter from An Taoiseach regarding the financing of the Corporation capital works for 1956/57 which indicated that if the Corporation were unable to raise the full £3,000,000 required, the Government would make good the deficiency by advances from public funds. In the light of An Taoiseach's letter, An Coiste Airgeadais authorised me (the City Manager) to communicate with the Bank of Ireland with a view to securing overdraft accommodation from the bank for capital purposes pending the availability of money guaranteed by the Government. The Bank on the 7th instant, stated that they

— that is the 7th June —

were not in a position to assist the Corporation in financing its capital requirements.

Irresponsible statements? Was the City Manager irresponsible in sending a report to the Council? If there is any irresponsible statement, it is when the Leader of the Opposition gets carried away with his own fluency and forgets what he is talking about, which is quite regularly. We got the money eventually by the sale of Government securities.

When I said that before, Deputy Sweetman said I was talking nonsense. So, in that regard, I should like to quote Deputy Sweetman. Deputy Sweetman, as reported on 30th November, 1956, in the Irish Press, said:

The public capital expenditure programme on its present scale was not being sustained by voluntary savings of the public, even as supplemented by the proceeds of special import levies. The deficiency had had to be made good by the sales of sterling investments by the Government and the banking system sales which had reduced these to a low level.

In spite of these sales Fianna Fáil had to pay other bills which were outstanding when we took over office in 1957. As I say, the housing programme collapsed in these circumstances.It has not fully recovered yet but in the last year or two it is showing great signs of recovery.

In order to overcome the embarrassing position in which the then Government found themselves, a new, what shall I call it, panic measure, was introduced. A circular No. H.12/56, H.263/1/1 dated June 29th, 1956, from the Department of Local Government to Dublin Corporation in relation to guarantee schemes for advances by building societies for private housing says:

I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to refer to the Department's circular letter H.10/56 of the 9th June, 1956, and to state that arrangements have been agreed with the principal building societies on the basis of a scheme for guarantees in relation to advances for private housing. The guarantee will operate only in relation to advances for the erection or purchase of new dwelling houses owner-occupied.

At column 285, volume 195, of the Official Report of the 3rd May, 1962, Deputy Sweetman is reported as saying:

I shall tell the Deputy what the circumstances were. The circumstances were that Deputy Noel Lemass and Deputy Briscoe were clamouring all over the country that there was no money to be got. The facts were that in those years they were getting over £1,500,000 more money than they were given by Deputy Dr. Ryan. Deputy Noel Lemass and Deputy Briscoe deliberately went out on a campaign to prevent people erecting their own houses under the Small Dwellings Acts.

However, as I have said in contradiction of that statement by Deputy Sweetman, it was necessary to sell our securities, our collateral for external trade, in order to pay for some of the bills that were incurred. It is all right for Fine Gael to go out with beautiful handbills: "Fine Gael for lower taxes and better times." As it turned out we got neither lower taxes nor better times. It may be alleged our taxes are a little higher now but they are certainly better times.

In earlier remarks I have nailed the lie to the wall for all to see. The complete disregard for the truth of the situation over the years is enough to make me at least a little vexed. Regardless of what documentation we can place before the House we get the same thing over again. I have nailed Deputy Dillon's lie and Deputy Sweetman's lie — outside the House a lie; untruth in the House.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is that in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy amended his previous statement.

Mr. N. Lemass

One more example of the complete disregard for truth is that shown by the then Minister for Local Government where he deliberately misstated the facts of the situation in order to try to prevent my being elected to this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order to say that a Deputy misstated what the Deputy said.

Mr. N. Lemass

I am referring to a statement made outside this House at election time as a misstatement. Is that not in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order to say it was a deliberate misstatement.

Mr. N. Lemass

I withdraw the word misstatement.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is the word "deliberate". Has the Deputy withdrawn that?

Mr. N. Lemass

I withdraw the word "deliberate". I refer to an untruth which was published in the Irish Press on the 6th November, 1956, page 5, column 4. Deputy O'Donnell is reported as saying that a number of loans had been approved under the housing guarantee scheme by building societies. Inspired by that I wrote to all the registered building societies: the Provident Building Society, the Irish Civil Service Permanent Building Society, the Educational Building Society, the Irish Industrial Benefit Building Society, the Working Man's Benefit Building Society, the Metropolitan Building Society, the Irish Civil Service Building Society, the Ireland Benefit Building Society, the City and Provincial Building Society, the Guinness Permanent Building Society. Not only was there no loan guarantee up to 6th December, not to mind the 6th November when the statement was made by Deputy O'Donnell, but it was indicated that no building society was prepared to work a scheme on the guarantee of recovery from anybody who failed to pay. They say you need neck to get into politics; I think you only need neck to get into Fine Gael.

I wish to quote from a speech made by the then Deputy Larkin in 1957. Not only does he give his opinion about the housing situation but he makes it quite clear that in his opinion the then Minister did not know anything about his Department at all. The Chairman of the Housing Committee, then Deputy Larkin, did not think much of the Minister although his vote helped to put him back in office. The Government had already changed when the then Deputy Larkin said, as reported at column 1009, volume 161, of the Official Report of the 8th May, 1957:

It surprises me that a former Minister for Local Government who would normally be expected to have some real knowledge of the position could, when speaking on the Estimate of his successor, refer with some disparagement to the fact that Corporation building has extended too far out from the city centre.

That was the opinion of Deputy Larkin about the former Minister for Local Government in the Government whose method of handling the finances brought about the difficulties the worst of which we are feeling today.

Deputy Sherwin has explained what has happened since then. Personally I believe that Councillor Larkin was over-conservative, as were the majority of the members of the Corporation, in his approach to housing matters. I advocated in 1957 that whether or not there was then a demand for houses in Dublin, site development and the condemnation of old buildings should be proceeded with at a much greater speed. I proposed that a tall block of buildings should be erected in the Dominic Street area with lifts and with small flatlets for old people.

Deputy Ryan referred to a motion before the Corporation in 1959 which was proposed by Deputy Barron and seconded by Deputy Brady to the effect that building on the perimeter of the city should cease until such time as all the available city building sites had been built on. I supported Deputy Brady on that occasion and, if I remember correctly, he described Dublin as an apple rotten at the core. Dublin city was, and is to a certain extent, sweet and clean on the outside but rotten at the core. Even the ESB buildings about which Deputy Ryan is so concerned are subsiding into the ground. I agreed with that resolution and I argue now that if it had been proceeded with at that time by the Corporation, the crisis we are experiencing today would not have come about. I accuse in particular Councillor Larkin who, as Chairman of the Housing Committee, probably had the most influence, of being too conservative in his approach. He was probably afraid that he would find himself in a financial position similar to that in which he found himself in 1956 and was afraid to take any chances.

Another resolution proposed by Deputy Briscoe and seconded by me said that the housing programme of the Corporation was in the first instance, a matter for the Corporation and in the second instance, for the Minister. If the Minister was not approving of the Corporation's schemes or was holding up the money for them, there would be some purpose in the motion before us now. If the money was being held up by the Department of Local Government, then there would be some cause for complaint but that has not happened. There has been no hold up of money for housing since Fianna Fáil came into office. That first Fianna Fáil Budget was not an easy Budget but it did put the country back on its feet.

The Minister for Local Government has brought many Bills before this House and on every piece of legislation that has come from his Department, he has had full consultation with the interested bodies. On the occasion of the recent Town Planning Bill, he read his Second Stage speech and then agreed to an adjournment for some weeks in order to allow local authorities and other interested bodies to consider the implications of the measure. He sent experts to the various local authorities to explain the provisions of the Bill and came back to the House with many amendments. Every piece of legislation that has been brought in by the present Minister has been brought in, not on political grounds, but with the maximum amount of co-operation he could obtain from the various interested people.

We all agree that more and better dwellings, more convenient dwellings and more communal facilities are greatly desirable. In this regard there was a report in the Saturday Evening Post of the 21st September, 1963, on building in America. Some of the statements in that report are applicable to this country. Some of the recommendations have been adopted here but one matter to which I would like to refer is the opposition there to prefabricated construction from various trade union bodies. Perhaps the members of the unions were afraid that a lower labour content would be required for the erection of prefabricated houses. However, it is a fact that for every 100 skilled building workers we can bring back here we can put 400 labourers to work. Building work is being held up here for lack of skilled workers.

Pre-fabrication has been agreed to in certain cases such as school building.Dublin Corporation have bought caravans for one unit families. I was critical of this at the beginning but I have now come to the view that it may be the better arrangement. When the crisis is over these caravans will be easily disposed of while the prefabricated buildings might be more difficult to get rid of.

This is the quotation from the Saturday Evening Post to which I would like to draw attention:

Many union leaders block the introduction of modern performance codes because they fear loss of jobs. Yet they probably would be better off. Craft unions in St. Louis— together with certain suppliers and contractors — fought a bitter seven-year battle to stave off a new performance code. The new code was finally pushed through in 1961, and local construction costs have since come down 16 per cent, setting off a building boom which has given union members more work than ever.

My argument is that if we can cut down the cost of small dwellings by the adoption of performance codes, more people will be able to buy them and thereby relieve the pressure on the Corporation to some extent and create more employment in the building industry as a whole. I believe from statements by the Minister that some of these matters may already have been taken care of. But in the new Housing Bill, due in 1964, deposits for SDA houses must be reduced to a minimum and red tape and legal fees must also be cut down to the minimum.I have no doubt that the Minister, who has solved many problems pertaining to his Department, will seriously consider these matters and incorporate them in whatever legislation may be necessary.

I believe that all the available sites in Dublin city, including the controversial site at Sutton, will have been built on by the end of the decade and a problem will arise. Assuming that the present Programme For Economic Expansion continues at the rate indicated in the White Paper, and that we have a growing population and a growing demand for houses, what are we going to do when that programme has been completed and all the building sites have been built on? This is a problem that also deserves great consideration. I am in favour of the single house to the family. I prefer to see young children being brought up in housing development as distinct from flat development. In certain flat developments social difficulties can arise. Social officers have been appointed by the Corporation and are doing great work in dealing with these problems but in view of the land available to the Corporation they must have a new look at the building of a tall block. In the minutes of the Special Meeting held by the Dublin City Council on the 21st September, 1959 at 7 p.m. on page 211, there is a letter to Mr. Hanly, Housing Architect's Department, Mountjoy Square, re: Dominick Street — Tower Block — Contract 1B, which states:

Dear Sir,

I confirm having submitted proposals to reduce the cost of the plan at the above.

I just want to read the relevant portion which says:

On this basis, it will be seen that the building cost per flat, whether one-roomed, two-roomed or three-roomed will be only about £100 per flat dearer than at Gardiner Street (the exact figures to be computed in consultation with the City Quantity Surveyor).

It was estimated that the tall block would cost £100 per flat more than the existing type of structure. The Corporation Housing Committee did recommend that we should seek tenders for this tall block and with the desire not to hold up any other development it was decided to tender separately for the traditional block and separately for the tall block. A contractor who submitted tenders for that scheme told me that if he could quote for the entire scheme, that is for the traditional block along with the tall block, he would be able to quote a so much lower figure that he would reduce the cost per room in the tall block by £200.

The time has come to re-examine this question of high buildings. I believe the Dominick Street plan was a good one because it provided mainly for old people. It was up to the Corporation to control that type of development because if there were young families there there could be difficulties and even tragedies through the children playing with the automatic lifts. I would prefer to see an old person going up 16 or 20 storeys in a lift than to see them living in a caravan on the boundaries of my constituency.

To my knowledge only one housing proposal was sent back to the Corporation for reconsideration. Perhaps I should not mention this now but to my mind the Minister's officials apparently considered that the Corporation had made a wrong decision. Almost immediately, and almost without consultation, they resubmitted their original suggestion and it was then adopted by the Minister. The result was that the flats which were to be available last Easter are not yet available.I will query that situation when the final costs are available, which I suppose will be in about six or eight months' time.

Getting away from housing, which is only one of the items which come up under this Department, I should like to read two letters. I am not sure whether this matter has already been dealt with in the new Planning Act which we hope to see fully in operation very soon. One of them is from the Minister to me and it is dated 2nd September, 1958, and he informs me:

I have received your letter of the 15th instant. A local authority has power under Section 11 (1) (d) of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, to sell or lease houses on land acquired by the authority. It is assumed that "house" includes a residential shop.

The Dublin Corporation took the opposite view. They said it was not possible to sell a shop assuming that there was a dwelling overhead. That is a matter which would require to be thought out by the Attorney General as distinct from the Minister for Local Government.

On behalf of people I represent, apart from my constituents, that is, members of various commercial travellers' organisations, I should like to say that we have been somewhat disappointed with the Joint Committee on Electoral Law. We still find that 4,000 or perhaps 5,000 travellers will be unable to vote on polling days if they are held in midweek. They have also disagreed in their report with the National Holiday. I should like serious thought to be given to this problem because provision is made for men in the Army, and so on, to exercise the franchise, but a commercial traveller based in Dublin who is working anywhere except around the city area cannot vote because it would interfere with his firm's work.

I should also like to refer to the opposition which always arises when it is proposed to by-pass a village or town with a new main road. Local agitators to my mind should bear one thing in mind. When an industrialist plans to set up a new factory, one of his first considerations is the availability of the nearest port. For instance, one of the present controversies is in relation to the proposed by-pass of Swords. Swords has a few factories. I am sorry if I am treading on the toes of the Minister for Social Welfare and Deputy Burke regarding Swords. However, it has some factories.But the traffic on the road to Dublin port is rapidly growing and slowing down. This means an increase in the cost of bringing in raw materials and in exporting finished goods.

By having a fast highway between Swords and Dublin port, that town will have a far better chance of attracting industrialists to the area and, in the long run, the traders and local inhabitants will prosper to a much greater extent. The first to realise this fact were the Romans. They nearly conquered the world by their conception of road conveyance.

In this regard, I should like again to support Deputy Sherwin. We must have a bridge or tunnel east of Butt Bridge, let it be a tariff bridge or tunnel. I am sure it will pay for itself. Experience in other countries has shown that such development can be made to pay for itself. I was in the office of an oil company official not so long ago. He showed me a map and pointed to the cost of transporting oil from the petrol depot at Alexandra Road to Ringsend. This is a matter of national importance and it might be undertaken on a national basis as distinct from a local basis.

I would urge also the further extension of one-way streets to speed the flow of traffic. The most obvious are the two sides of the quays which should be made one-way. Discussions should be entered into between the Department of Local Government, the Corporation and the trade unions with a view to getting some agreement regarding centre city street repairs. In Belfast, I find that such repairs on main roads are done between 7 and 12 p.m.; each shift completes the resurfacing of one section of the road. I would advocate something like that as distinct from Deputy Ryan's advocacy that the workers work on the Sabbath.

With regard to road safety, the first thing we should do is to teach the drivers how to drive. The sooner we have tests the better. Most accidents are caused by bad driving. According to the statistics made available to us, particularly during the various debates on Intoxicating Liqour Bills, drink plays a much lesser part in accidents than one would imagine from reading the public press. Furthermore, speed plays a lesser part in accidents than we might be led to believe in the press.

To my mind, the main cause of accidents is bad driving. One of the things in bad driving which is in my opinion the greatest cause of accidents is too fast overtaking. On drunken driving blood tests, there are one or two aspects on which I should like to comment. I take it that these blood tests will be taken at the local police station. I should like adequate assurances, assuming these regulations are brought into force, that there will be proper sterilisation of the needles and that full hygienic and safe means are used for taking these blood samples. I have a fear that the normal practices in hospitals for such a test may not obtain to the same degree of care and safety in the police stations.

There is only one true test, that is, a reflex test such as has to be passed by British police car drivers. I do not know whether the same test is applied here. The driver is put into a dummy motor car and is given the controls. A road comes towards him. Somebody runs out. A cat jumps up. A car appears at a corner, and so on. The reflexes and reactions of the driver are recorded with a view to discovering if he is capable of passing the test. If it were practicable to get such equipment into most of our police stations, I believe it would be a most effective test.

If I sleep a little later in the morning and then just have a cup of coffee and work through the day without lunch and tea and then take a quota of four and a half small ones and drink them back, within a very few minutes, I should be incapable of driving. However, if I eat all through the day and have one or two small ones while waiting for a big meal in the evening and, after that meal, take four drinks they will not render me or Deputy O'Donnell or many others incapable of driving. Therefore, it is important that we should get a reliable reflex test.

I know that reflex tests are carried out now but I should be glad if we could get more reliable reflex tests. Then, when a policeman goes into court with his prosecution, he will be on much sounder grounds than he would otherwise be, even adopting the report which has been laid on the Table of the House.

Some of the parking laws are extremely silly. One in particular is that you are allowed to park on the public street for six hours at night. I understand you must either have your parking lights on or, alternatively, you must park within a certain distance of a street light. These hours at night create an impossible situation. Workers' real earnings have gone up. Many people living in what can be described as tenements or poorer flat type dwellings in the city have no garage and park their car on the street. If they leave it there for one minute over six hours at night, they may be fined 10/- on the spot — and that fine, seven days a week, would be a bit heavy, to put it mildly, on the people concerned.

Consider the position of people who stay in many of the better class hotels in the city which have no garages. For instance, how many cars are parked outside hotels which are within walking distance of this assembly for over six hours at night? I have the regulations but I have not yet interpreted them all. I understand this law is still in force but it should be repealed as soon as possible.

Regarding other parking regulations, they are constantly under review and are subject to revision after a reasonable period of time. I should like also to make a point to the traders in Dublin City who consider they are losing trade through lack of parking facilities. This is a general complaint throughout the country. Only one local authority, so far as I know, examined the situation objectively.

Mr. Leneghan

Castlebar local authority.

Mr. N. Lemass

They found that 60 per cent of the cars parked in the streets belonged to the traders themselves, the traders being too lazy to park their cars elsewhere and to walk a few hundred yards. In Dublin, once you pass Parnell Square, you have no difficulty in parking your car.

I am not clear from my reading of the new Local Government (Town and Regional) Planning Act, 1962, regarding the surfacing of laneways. Can any laneway the Corporation wish to surface now be surfaced or must it still be a through lane or a lane of public utility? I should like clarification on this. I understand Deputy Timmons was considering putting down a question.If he has done so and has received an answer, I shall be talking to him later. Some lanes are in a very sorry state. I have one particular lane in mind. I sought counsel's opinion as to whether an injunction might be sought against the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or the Corporation.This was a lane left in reasonably good condition by the builder. Subsequently, a Posts and Telegraphs cable was run through it. The Corporation were charged with resurfacing it again. The local inhabitants claimed it was not resurfaced as well as it had been before the Department went in. After various investigations, we found this was supposed to be the Corporation's responsibility.

The residents were not very worried at that time because every laneway within a two-mile radius was being cemented by the public works department.That continued until such time as this question about public utility or through lanes arose. The particular lane to which I am referring was a deadend. Unless it is put into proper condition, the Corporation cannot take it in charge, and unless it is in charge, the Corporation cannot enter upon it. I believe some aspects of this were dealt with in the 1962 Act. I have gone through it but I have not been able to find the reference. Perhaps we will get some information on it.

I do not want this to be considered a hardy annual. However, I should like to read an extract from a debate in the British House of Parliament during the debate on the Second Stage of the Nelson Pillar (Dublin) Bill on February 13th, 1891, when a speaker quoted from a book called History of Dublin, which may be of interest here. As is well known, I am one of the advocates of getting the Pillar out of the middle of O'Connell Street. The quotation is as follows:

The design of this triumphal column was given by William Wilkins, Architect, Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge. It is of the most ponderous proportions which is not relieved by the least decoration. Its vast unsightly pedestal is nothing better than a quarry of cut stone, and the clumsy shaft is divested of either base or what can properly be called a capital. Yet, with all this baldness and deformity, it might have had a good effect when viewed at a distance, or placed anywhere else, but it not only obtrudes its blemishes on every passenger, but actually spoils and blocks up our finest street, and literally darkens the two other streets opposite to it which, though spacious enough, look like lanes. There were objections to this site at first, but they are now become still stronger since the building of the new post office close to it, for, by contrast, it in a great measure, destroys the effect of one of the largest and finest porticoes in Europe.

In this regard, I should like to mention that a Bill was passed in 1882 which incorporated a company called the "Moore Street Market and North Dublin City Improvement Company" and this company has power to take down and recreate Nelson Pillar on another site and then hand it over to the Board of Works for maintenance. I should like the Minister to investigate whether he has power to take over this company and then to do the necessary with this monstrosity in the middle of the city.

Mr. Leneghan

It should have been blown up long ago.

Mr. N. Lemass

Next I want to deal with the matter coming under the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce but relating directly to Dublin Corporation. I wish to quote from the minutes of a monthly meeting of the Dublin City Council held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, Cork Hill, on Monday, 6th July, 1959, at 7 p.m. I am quoting from page 181, item 193, a letter numbered 7192/1959 from the Public Health Department, dated 26th June, 1959, to V. G. O'Brien, Esqr., Assistant Principal Officer, Finance Department, regarding student laboratory technicians. This letter states:

At the meeting of the City Council on 2nd March, 1959, the following motion was referred to An Coiste Sláinte concerning the recruitment of the above-mentioned employees:

That we, the members of the Dublin City Council, recommend to the City Manager that the positions of student laboratory technicians (chemical) in the City Laboratory should not be a closed trade, and that all persons wishing to compete should not be denied the opportunity if they are not related to former Corporation or present Corporation employees.

An Coiste Sláinte considered the matter at their meeting on 10th March and decided to ask the City Manager to report on the feasibility of implementing the terms of the Resolution. The matter was considered in your Department and a report was made by the Principal Officer on 16th June to the following effect:

The conditions relating to the recruitment of boys in the Corporation service are based on an agreement of long standing with the Irish Municipal Employees' Trade Union. There are in all 50 boys employed, of whom 3 are Student Laboratory Technicians.With the exception of these three the recruitment of boys is confined to sons of deceased employees. In the case of the three Student Laboratory Technicians these are selected from sons of employees, deceased employees, and sons of pensioned employees. If any change were proposed at this stage it would mean re-opening with the Union the whole question of the conditions attaching to the recruitment of boys and undoubtedly this would lead to the re-opening of other matters which are at present deemed to be settled. It is not considered that the time is opportune to raise the question of any such revision but the views expressed in the resolution can be noted in the event of the revision of conditions coming up for consideration in the future.

The City Manager on 16th June approved this report for submission to An Coiste Sláinte, and the matter accordingly came before the meeting of that Committee on the same day. Having discussed the Report, they made the following Order:

Do not recommend any change in present policy or recruitment.

The time has come to consider this matter quite seriously and to reopen negotiations with the trade unions.

I wish to reply to a few points raised by Deputy Ryan, who represents the same constituency as I represent.I have already referred to his remarks regarding Fitzwilliam Street and the intention of the ESB to build proper accommodation for their employees there. I suggest Deputy Ryan go along, look at these houses and see that they are subsiding in their foundations. I would then ask him to go down to O'Connell Street and have a look at Sean MacDermott Street, look at this wonderful eighteenth century architecture, and then come and honestly say that this is of great value to our city or that these buildings are an asset to the tenants in them. I know the conditions prevailing at that time made it opportune to preserve these houses as they have been preserved. But let Deputy Ryan have a look at them; let him go into them. They cost £1,000 per room to preserve. Let him then reconsider what he is saying about the offices of the ESB. I agree with him in regard to Merrion Square, but in regard to the Fitzwilliam Street offices, there is only one sensible thing to do — demolish them and rebuild.

The only complaint I have to make against the ESB is that they do not pay full rates although they enter into commercial competition with traders. This is to be deplored. If they are going to do genuine retail trade, then Dublin Corporation should extract the full rateable valuation from them. On the other hand, where their offices and showrooms are concerned, the arrangements existing at the moment are good but I understand they are opening shops throughout the country and I understand all these shops have special concessions concerning rates. Whatever people may say about State enterprise interfering with private enterprise, I should not worry, provided the two forms of enterprise have equal rights and are equal in every other respect.

The only thing that I agree with in what Deputy Ryan said is that there is certain overlapping in the sanitary services department and the dangerous buildings department of Dublin Corporation.That is inevitable and until such time as new offices, which I hope to see in my lifetime, are provided, this type of overlapping is bound to occur because the Corporation offices are too widely distributed to have efficient management.

I dealt also with the point he made when he quoted Deputy Sweetman and when he explained that Deputy Sweetman was building up reserves while in fact he was selling serurities. In regard to the canals, Deputy Ryan said that they were full of dead animals, fifth and muck and yet he wants them preserved and cleaned up and said that the Board of Works or Bord Fáilte or somebody would take them over. I am a sailing man and I saw the centre keel being laid for the first of the Shannon cruisers that were to be built at Dún Laoghaire. At least two of them were accepted. I do not think the second one was paid for and the boat builder concerned as a result of getting into this new booming industry went into voluntary liquidation— I believe it was voluntary. I attended a regatta at Hadson Bay and one boat came down by the canal. I know why. They wanted to get their picture in the paper and that is the only reason. They knew they would not win any races.

Incidentally, a sentence in a letter from me that appeared in the Evening Press last night is slightly wrongly phrased. It would seem I am saying that my constituents are a danger to the health and safety of the community but it is the canals I am referring to. Once a year Dublin Corporation present medals for bravery and I should say that half of these go to people who dived into the canals to save children from drowning. Unfortunately, they are not all saved. In the last two years, to my knowledge, three people have been killed as a result of the hump on Harold's Cross Bridge. I also get complaints, as I am sure Deputy Ryan does since he represents the same constituency, that rats coming from the canal are getting into artisans' dwellings at Harold's Cross or Corporation dwellings further up. I think there was a scare some years ago about Weil's disease which it was thought had arisen from infestation by rats from the canals. That was when they were being really used.

I agree that the Shannon will develop as a good boating centre but I submit that it does not need the Grand Canal to succeed. The Minister has been very patient in listening to the Opposition——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Could you not include yourself?

Mr. N. Lemass

——without any loss of temper. In all the activity of his Department he has sought the maximum co-operation of people interested and I sincerely hope — I know people of his constituency and I know the people of Ireland also hope — to see him in that office for many years to come.

Mr. Barron

This token supplementary Estimate is mainly concerned with housing, but before dealing with that, would it be in order to suggest that the Minister should have a chat with the Minister for Transport and Power so that the railways would not be torn up thus putting further transport on the roads? Would he also have a word with the Minister for Justice about speed? The great mistake made was that there was not a maximum speed. There should be a maximum speed of 60 m.p.h. because our roads are not fit for higher speeds as I think rural Deputies will agree. There should also be a law about dimming lights. Many accidents occur at night because people will not dim, and blind an oncoming driver.

It is good to be here as a member of Dublin Corporation since 1950, and to listen to people condemning the Corporation, people who are not members and people who although members are not regular attenders. I suppose you will always have that while a person in public life is anxious to have his name in the paper and have his constituents read it and think that he is a great fellow although what he says at a public meeting or in the Dáil may be of no consequence or quite irrelevant.

There is a motion here and an amending motion in regard to housing and particularly housing in Dublin city and county. Not being a representative of Dublin county, I do not know much of what is happening there but from what I hear from members not only of Dublin County Council but from members of other councils, there is no doubt that there is a shortage of housing. There is a shortage of housing in Dublin but we can explain that in a moment. The position in Dublin city is altogether different. I say without fear of contradiction that no city in Europe has done as much to house its citizens as has Dublin in conjunction with different Governments in the past 30 years. One would imagine that nothing has been done.

Unfortunately, when four-fifths of the work was finished, this regrettable emergency occurred. The first of the houses that fell, fell because the houses at either side were taken away. Some blame may be attached to the Corporation because they did not send inspectors there to see that the house left standing was in a safe condition. Otherwise no blame attaches to the Corporation, or to any members of the Corporation, in connection with that. That emergency followed on the deaths of two people in Bolton Street and two children in Fenian Street, children who were in a shop buying sweets and who were told to clear off. Unfortunately, they went the wrong way while the people who told them to clear off went the other way and escaped.

There is an emergency in Dublin at present. It has been caused by returning emigrants, by early marriage on the part of our young people, by people from the rural areas coming up to Dublin to find work. Our inspectors will not take chances, and they are quite right not to do so. We find ourselves in the position then that we are not able to house all those whom we would wish to house. Dublin Corporation have not painted a false picture. That has been stated here. That is not so.

The motion mentioned a decline in house building. There was a decline. In 1956, we built 1,341 houses and flats; in 1957, 1,564; in 1958, 1,567; in 1959, 460; in 1960, 505 and in 1961 279. In 1962 we built 612 and, this year, between flats and houses we have 1,400 in course of construction, not to mention areas in which flats will be constructed in the future.

In the financial year 1957-58, we had 1,294 vacancies because of people either dying or going to England. In 1958-59, we had 1,393 vacancies. We had that number of houses or flats to house our people. In 1959-60, we had 1,605 vacancies; in 1960-61, we had 1,260 vacancies. Adding those vacancies to the houses and flats built gives an interesting result. In 1957-58, there were 1,294 vacancies; we built 1,564 new dwellings, which represents roughly 2,800 dwellings for our people. In 1958-59, we had 1,393 vacancies; we built 1,567 dwellings. That gives a total of nearly 3,000 dwellings for our people. In 1959-60, we had a grand total of 1,605 vacancies, and adding those to the 460 dwellings built in 1959, you have 2,000 dwellings for our people.

Why was there a drop in house building and flat building in the city of Dublin? Why did our people object to going out on the fringe of the city? So great was the objection that I tabled a motion asking that we suspend building on the fringe and concentrate on flats in the city. One of the main objections to going out was the prohibitive bus fares. There are hundreds of examples I could give; I shall quote just one. There is a man living in Ballyfermot who works where I live now; bus fares cost him 17/- a week. When tenants went out, they were back in the following week because of bus fares. I endorse every word Deputy Sherwin has said in that regard.

The suggestion that building be suspended on the fringe was not accepted. The decision was to keep on building on the fringe and, at the same time, build as many flats as possible. I made a suggestion — Deputy Sherwin will bear me out in this — that the Corporation should buy up large houses and put the prospective tenants into them until flats were ready. Nothing was done about that suggestion.

Let no one tell me Dublin Corporation were negligent about house building.In face of the vacancies, how could they be? These vacancies came about because of the position in Britain. That position lasted for a year or two. As everyone knows, Governments spend a great deal of money before an election in order to be elected again. That is what happened in Britain. Our nationals who went over there were able to earn from £20 to £40 a week. That situation continued for three or four years.

I leave it to sensible people to assess the position. We concentrated on flats in the city. Flats take longer to build than do ordinary houses. The area has to be cleared. There is always the person who tries to get the most out of the Corporation for his property. Time is taken up completing plans. The drawings have to be sent to the Department of Local Government. If they are all right, they are approved.

Perhaps it is because the Minister has not sufficient staff, but there have been considerable delays in our flat building programme from the time the drawings are sent for approval to the time they come back. I would refer specifically to a scheme of flats for Charlemont Street. Drawings which had been sent to the Department early in April did not come back until six months later and carried suggestions for alterations in regard to car parks and other matters. The position is that by the time the bills of quantities have been drawn up and the scheme advertised, it will be another six months. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that from the time the Corporation approve a scheme until the occupants move in, a period of at least three years elapses.

I repeat that the Corporation are not to blame for these delays. A motion on the Order Paper suggests abolishing the Housing Committee. Earlier this century, people in central Europe tried to abolish bodies of this type and they wound up by being abolished themselves.In every administrative area in the country, the manager is responsible for housing commitments but the housing committees consider proposals and make representations. People who suggest abolishing these committees do not know anything about the situation. We heard a Deputy talk of the people who attend these committee meetings and who do nothing at all otherwise. Let me say that they attend these meeting in their own time and at their own expense in the interests of the citizens.

I do not want to mention names, and the Minister may be aware of this himself, but the principal officer in charge of housing in the city of Dublin has made a vocation of his job. Not only is he interested in housing but he has also been responsible for getting small industries going to help the people in the fringe areas of Dublin. As Deputy Sherwin has said — and he should know since he attends practically every meeting of the Housing Committee — we in Dublin Corporation have now nearly got back to the position we were in. I should like here to mention the question of the caravans and to make it quite clear that we have adopted their use entirely as a temporary measure.

If Dublin Corporation are to be blamed at all in the matter of housing, it is because of their efforts on behalf of the larger, the younger and growing families. They have tried to house these first and perhaps they may be blamed for not having taken care earlier of a bigger percentage of the smaller families. Perhaps they could be blamed for not building earlier more one-room and two-room flats for the older people. The Minister and his officials should be able to decide whether we were correct in that. I would repeat that our decision to provide caravans was purely as a temporary expedient for the relief of the older people who had been living in dangerous buildings.

Deputies have spoken about the building of skyscraper blocks of flats with 13 or 14 storeys. They may be suitable across the water or in France but if families, with eight or nine children flocking around after them, were to be housed in such conditions, the death toll would, I fear, be much greater than that of the roads at the present time.

Apart from building houses directly for the people, Dublin Corporation have also been making it possible for people to build their own houses. They have been giving supplementary grants of 50 per cent of what the Government provide and now they are prepared to give grants equal to those provided by the Department — the entire £275 under certain conditions. They also give repair grants and loans to people who would otherwise be unable to get such facilities from building societies or otherwise.

I should like to say a word in passing about the density regulations in regard to local authority house building in the city of Dublin. I submit the density should be greater. If it were, many more people could be housed. When our proposals to build houses in the city perimeter were being discussed, we had to consider the position in the city after the people had moved into those houses. Shopkeepers lost their clients; schools lost their attendances; and the churches had dwindling congregations. They were all points we had to consider and that is why I have been an advocate of building more flats in the city.

I think the blame for the present delay in the provision of more flats in the city lies with the Department who favour larger blocks of flats whereas the Housing Committee favour smaller blocks. There are several condemned buildings in the city which, if demolished and cleared, would provide ideal sites for smaller blocks of flats.

Some years ago, the Corporation had a direct labour scheme. Under that scheme, we got a better house built than we got from any contractor. The first group of houses built under that scheme were cheaper by about £10 to £14 a house but after that they were a little dearer. Nevertheless, the direct labour scheme should never have been abolished. I do not know who was responsible for its abolition. The case was made that the Corporation would get a cheaper house from a contractor. That may be the case but they do not get as good a house. The house built by direct labour does not cost as much for maintenance. The maintenance of the Corporation's housing estate of 42,000 flats and houses amounts to £750,000 annually. I believe that had the Corporation a direct labour scheme, the tenders for the houses we are building now would not be so high. Some people have influence. The Corporation had to abandon the direct labour scheme and it would be a very useful thing if we had it now.

I have made it pretty plain that even though there is a shortage of housing in Dublin, the Corporation of Dublin are not to blame for it. The reason for the small number of houses being built for two or three years was the vacancy rate as a result of people leaving to go to England where they could earn three or four times what they could earn in this city.

Deputies have referred to the question of house purchase. The Corporation had a purchase scheme in respect of St. Anne's estate. It transpired that the Corporation could not get tenants for some of the houses. If a person produced a certificate to the effect that he was getting married within a month, he would get a house. The reason is that the houses are too far out from the centre of the city. The Corporation abandoned the purchase scheme. They are prepared to give loans and grants but they have had too much trouble with the purchase scheme. They found that people would not avail of it because they did not want to go so far out.

I should like to suggest that where houses are condemned, the Corporation should have power to take them over, demolish them and build a block of flats on the site. In that way, more people could be housed in the city area. It would also mean that small sites would not be left derelict for years, pending acquisition of surrounding sites. The Minister should consider giving the Corporation that power and advising the Assistant City Manager and the Council accordingly.

Reference has been made to the canals. I have listened to such references ad nauseam. The Corporation have no power in relation to the closing of the canals. Plans were drawn up for the improvement of Leeson Street Bridge but nothing has been done. The Corporation officials did not know what was going to happen in relation to the canal. I hope the canals will not be closed. CIE were not satisfied until they got the canals. The canals were able to pay a small dividend when owned by the canal company but CIE diverted the traffic formerly carried on the canals to the road and the canals are not paying. The canals can provide a beautiful vista. I hope the Minister will not allow his officials to destroy it. At present, of course, the canal is choked with weeds and rubbish dumped in it. The canals could be used to develop tourism and I hope the Minister will not be a party to having them closed. The Corporation have no power to close them. Unless legislation is passed to close them, they cannot be closed.

Mr. Leneghan

I find it very difficult at this stage to understand how anybody can justify such designations as "Minister for Local Government" and "Department of Local Government" because there is no such thing as local government in this country. Local government ended when the managerial system came into operation and since then we have had a whole set-up of little puppet dictators, little small gods, who rule counties, corporations, urban councils and the other types of local organisations which had existed up to that time. As far as local representatives are concerned, they have no standing, good, bad or indifferent.Everybody knows that. The only position they fill is to receive all the mud which can be slung, to fix the rates, and to accept all blame for anything which goes wrong. Local bodies have practically no power and that is a most unfortunate state of affairs. It happens to be the case. I am not blaming the present Minister for it. He had nothing to do with the setting up of this system.

It is an impertinence to introduce in this House a Vote for Local Government when there is no such thing as local government in this country and has not been for years. The ordinary people have no say at all in the running of local affairs, unless there is a weak county manager or some other weak officials on whom pressure can be brought to bear. There is the central Government which dictates, and has for years been dictating, the way in which everything must be carried out. In my opinion, that is wrong and the Minister for Local Government, as an ordinary countryman himself, should look into this matter and give back to the local authorities some semblance of the powers they had. When they had these powers, people got on very well without any dictation from Dublin.

This pseudo-motion has been put down by the Fine Gael Party who hold the copyright for all types of fakes and jokes which have operated in this country since 1922. It is a rich joke. They are attempting to climb on the Labour bandwagon. The only difference between the two Parties is the question as to which of them is the more conservative and which of them is running after the Unionists of the North the faster. It appears to be Fine Gael because they have more or less decided to link up with them. They appear to want to welcome in these people although they are afraid to go to meet them in case they might have rotten eggs thrown at them. Against such a background nobody could take this motion seriously.

Let us go back to 1932. Is there anybody in the House who remembers 1932? As far as I see, with one or two exceptions, all the people who are here are older than I am. Everybody remembers the type of houses that existed in 1932. The more odious predecessors of Fine Gael, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, spent their time telling the people they had spent all the money they collected in this country on building bridges which the people who were out against them, and rightly so, had knocked down. Incidentally, all these bridges had to be knocked down since and rebuilt because they were erected so badly. There was not a house built in this country up to 1932 and my friend, Deputy Calleary from North Mayo, will confirm that. Certainly there were no houses built in my county. It was after 1932 when there was a change of Government that the houses were built. The houses were built by the Fianna Fáil Government and let us not be fooling ourselves about that.

There is also the famous Fine Gael architecture. Anything that was built by the British, such as Nelson Pillar and the famous Fitzwilliam Street building which the ESB want demolished, they want to preserve. Anything the British built should be knocked down as far as it can be if the last big storm did not knock it down. I make no apology to any Irishman for saying that. We are now our own bosses and it is time we showed them we are not afraid to take down the buildings they put up with the blood of Irishmen.

It is very popular to attack a Minister. There is more to be gained by attacking a Minister than by attacking, say, a county secretary. Whether you get more popularity or not for it, you certainly get more publicity. I should like to ask what has the Minister to do with the fact that there is a scarcity of houses in County Mayo or anywhere else? Does that scarcity not arise purely and simply because the local bureaucrats are completely and entirely irresponsible? I remember in 1956 that 600 houses were vacant in one area of Dublin. It is absurd to build houses when there are three times as many houses as are required. In 1956, a grant could not be got for a house. As a public representative on that occasion, I could not go out into the streets because I would be eaten alive. Everybody was after me: why is my grant not paid? I could not pay it out of my own pocket even if I were a very rich man. However, when there was a change of Government in 1957, they were all paid.

It is because people went to England in 1955 and 1956 that houses are not available today. It takes years and years to right such a situation. Plans have been made for the building of houses. It could not be anticipated that people would be rushing back to this country. There was a man from my own part of the country who came to Dublin a fortnight ago with the intention of going to England. He went into a public house and met somebody there who, on finding out that he was going to England to get a building job, told him there was no need for him to go to England, that he would get a job here. That man earned £75 in a fortnight and has been guaranteed work for ten years to come. How much work would he have got in 1956? Not as much as sixpence worth.

In my county, there is a scarcity of houses. The Minister for Local Government is not responsible for that. The bureaucrats must be made to understand that not only do the people want houses but that they are able to pay for them. The Minister ought to make the county managers, the county secretaries and the county engineers "buck up". It is true that grants are available for houses, but what about the sites? It often costs as much to buy a site as it does to go half-way in building a house.

The Minister has brought out regulations aimed at trying to clear up derelict sites and to make them available for some good purpose. What has happened? How many applications has he got from my county for grants in relation to derelict sites? We have not got five applications in my county for grants under that scheme. If the local authorities acted in accordance with the powers they now have, these sites would be taken over and could be made available to people for building houses at a low cost. That would save the local authorities much expense in the long run. They do not do this and surely the Minister must be aware of it. He must see the joke in all this. They have the powers; they can get the grants, acquire the sites and make them available to me or anybody else to build a house. We usually build good houses, better than were built under the British regime, houses that will have a high valuation with consequent high rates and that would be a big asset to the county.

What do the local authorities do? Nothing at all. They ignore the fact that they have these powers. They let people pay £300 or £400 for a site, as many people have to do. That is a shame and a disgrace and I urge the Minister to do something about it.

There is another important point. In any county where we have a high emigration rate, as we have had since the Famine years, you are bound to have a considerable number of old people. Some of them have wives and some have not because they never had enough money to go looking for a woman. There are only one or two of them in the house, but yet if they want to get a grant, they must have a big house. People such as these do not want a big house, they want a small house. It is important that they should get a grant for a small house. While the Land Commission are not the most progressive body in the country, they have seen through this joke and they have come to the point where they will allow a man to build a small house. The Department of Local Government should do the same. The Minister should take steps to ensure that instead of building five-roomed houses, local authorities should be able to build a two-roomed house and hand it over at a reasonable cost to the type of person who wants it.

We live up in the clouds, up in the air, and the sooner we come down to earth in these matters the better because if we do not, the day will come when we will be brought down to earth. There is also the question of the man looking for a housing loan who might be earning £50 a week. Yet if a mortgage is wanted on a local authority house, he possibly will not get it because a stupid Act was passed in 1936 which stipulates that it is illegal to have a second mortgage on a local authority house. Some of these houses were built in 1916 and there is only about £5 outstanding on them now. Yet if a man wants to raise a loan to purchase the goodwill of that house, he cannot get a mortgage on it.

Surely that is ridiculous. The value of house property is going up and nobody should worry about this matter so long as a man is entitled to a house and to a site. In my county, if you want to get a loan for a house, you would want to start when you are going to school if you intend to get the loan at 21 years of age. You have officials and you switch them round. By the time one man is trained, he goes to a softer job. He will not go to a harder one. The next fellow who comes does not know what it is all about and there is writing to the first fellow to get the particulars. By the time it finally ends up, the fellow who started to look for the loan is in England. The whole position is fantastic and ridiculous and the Minister should do something about it because it is a shame that it should happen.

Then there is the question of water and sewerage schemes. The Minister has brought in a great many new regulations in regard to these schemes but neither regulations nor talk will put in a water or sewerage scheme or build a house. All these regulations are interpreted in different ways by the officials of the various local authorities.There is also the important matter that a very influential section of the community already have water and sewerage schemes and these people take the attitude that once they have got them they are all right. They realise that if the community at large get these schemes, they will have to pay for them, even though they themselves have them already.

These big shots, these self-appointed big shots, go to the trouble of calling meetings to try to urge the people not to allow in piped water or sewerage schemes. The people who call these meetings and urge ordinary individuals to do these things are not the ordinary five-eighths. They are the big shots. Surely, in 1963, if we have any sense, we should realise that it is time that we got piped water supplies and piped sewerage facilities. In no circumstances would I make any apology for saying that. It is very unfair that these people who have some local pull can try to prevent local authorities from doing these things. I want to assure the Minister, whether or not he knows it, that that is going on. It is not the man on the dole who is organising these meetings. The people in rural areas have been paying long enough for the water and sewerage schemes in urban areas and small towns and it is time they got something in return.

In regard to roads, Deputy Flanagan from Mayo made a few statements last week with which I thoroughly agreed. It appears to me that the people in charge of the road programme have gone mad. They must have gone well beyond the lunatic fringe. If you took a crowd of people from a lunatic asylum, they would not do what is being done. There is a road out of the city to the west which is a death trap. After a few miles, you come to what I regard, not as a road, but as an extended aerodrome. I do not know of any type of plane today which could not land easily on this type of runway which is being extended westward until a railway bridge or some other type of bridge gets in the way. Why they did not take away the bridge before they started the runway, I cannot understand but then I am not acquainted with the workings of the official mind. No layman is. I suppose if he were, he would not be in this country or he would have gone into a mental home. The thing is so daft that only somebody who left a mental home would do these things. At Maynooth there is a scheme which has to be seen to be believed. It was bad enough before the place was touched but now it must be the laughing stock of Europe. It is purely a death trap and this is after tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on it.

I understand that it is now a regulation of the Department that any major road going westward, whatever about any other direction, must be 56-feet wide. I know of one man who built one of the finest houses I have seen. He thought it was well back from the road and that he would be safe for the rest of his life, but he is as near now to the road as I am to the corner over there and if things go on as they have been, he will be out in the middle of the road, or certainly on the side of it. I do not know who thinks of these things. They just do not make sense. There is no necessity for them.

You will have seen a photograph in the newspapers, either yesterday or today, of two cars which crashed on one of the widest roads in Ireland but which has one of the highest death rolls. In America, they have started to put twists on the roads instead of taking them out. I do not know how many people realise that but it is true. For years they were building straight roads but they found that they were death traps and now they have started putting in turns to try to reduce the accidents. After all, cars were made to go around turns as well as for travelling on straight stretches. It is no strain on the car or on the driver to go around a turn. As long as you have thousands of miles of what I would call green roads, with nothing but potholes and rubbish on them, it is a public scandal that millions of pounds should be spent on unnecessary improvements to roads which are already reasonably good. However, the officials have gone mad. I hope the Minister will get the necessary tablets and administer them to the proper people to try to bring back some sanity to this whole thing.

You have also the question of speed limits which are another joke. A man can drive at 30 miles an hour through a town and then he can drive at 90 miles an hour when he gets outside the town. Apart from any other consideration, the people who framed these regulations must have known that we have a great many youthful drivers today and their great boast is to say that they got from Dublin to Belmullet in the shortest possible time. They are frustrated in this because they must travel through certain towns at 30 miles an hour, or in some places 40 miles an hour, and they are going to overcome that frustration by increasing their normal speed from 60 miles per hour to 70 or 80 miles an hour. That is what is happening.

In many places you have superintendents or other people in authority who did not want the trouble of enforcing speed limits and said they did not want any speed limits. There are no speed limits in half the places in my constituency, although the lives of the people there are just as valuable as in any other area. There is no speed limit through Newport, or through Mulranny, which is on the way to the biggest tourist area in the west of Ireland. There is no speed limit in the town in which I live, or in Westport. That must be a joke to anyone who knows anything about that area. It is silly enough not to have a speed limit in those areas but it is stupid to find a situation in which a man can travel at 120 miles an hour as long as he does not see a 30 mile an hour or a 40 mile an hour sign in front of him. Surely that is the essence of absurdity?

It is bad enough to see children going to national school and being told to walk on the left-hand side of the road, but to see them going to secondary school and being walked on the left-hand side of the road is worse and it is time to look around. When I asked the Minister for Justice about that some time ago, he told me that he had no power to make any regulations to compel people to walk on the right-hand side of the road. He said it was a matter for the Commissioner. Surely when a man can buy a murder licence for £1 — it is very cheap; if he wanted to get a shotgun he would have to pay 50/- and he could probably only shoot one person at a time — and can sit into a high-powered car, is it not time that regulations were issued to require people to walk on the right-hand side of the road? Surely it would save scores of lives. Anybody must know that.

People will not do a thing today unless they are made to do it. When their bosses are so indifferent to this kind of thing — I will call them their bosses — the people treat it as a joke, but it is a very unfortunate joke. It is very unfortunate that people cannot walk along the left-hand side of the road, especially at night, wearing black or blue clothes. They will not be seen by traffic and will end up in the next world: I do not know what part of it they go to. It is rather a sad commentary on our position today.

At this stage, I think that any Minister for local Government who has the welfare of our people at heart — as I have no doubt the present Minister has — must look into this matter carefully and must do something about it. It is a very important matter. It is all right to issue notices to fellows to drive cars this way, that way and the other way. However, as far as I can see, the ordinary pedestrians are very often mainly at fault, simply and solely because they are doing what they were taught to do. That is the unfortunate thing. It is now past time they were reminded they are doing wrong.

It took a world war and the loss of thousands of lives before the English — who have not much wits, anyway, at best — took steps to alter the position. But, in a country like this, where we all know the right thing to do, even though 100 per cent of us will not even dream of doing it, I think it is past time steps were taken to alter that position. The Minister is morally bound to take steps in that matter and to have instructions issued as to what action he will take to ensure that the people in the future will walk on the right hand side of the roads, that is, if you call them roads in most places. However, whether or not they are roads, we shall have to accept them until we reach the time when we can make them better.

I want to make it clear to the Minister that, even though I have spoken strongly, my criticisms are not aimed at him as an individual. Goodness knows, whatever we have got it is from him we have got it: I want to be honest about that. However, I should not be fair to the people I represent or to the public if I did not state openly exactly what I think — and I am not the type of fellow who worries about giving a fellow a bite instead of a kiss, if necessary and where it is necessary.

I do not take some of the Opposition people seriously because those who clamour against the present Government and say that all they do is wrong are, of course, not right. It is very easy to be a good propagandist when you are in Opposition and when you do not have to fulfil any of the promises you make. We know that if there were an alternative Government, it would certainly be a Government of solicitors, lawyers and that ilk— and we know what they are.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not seem to arise on the Estimate.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The housing problem in Dublin seems rather to have hit the headlines probably, largely due to the unfortunate deaths here in the past few months. According to the figures given by Deputy Ryan, there are 100,000 unfit houses in Dublin. The report of our medical officer of health states that we have 1,000 unfit houses in South Tipperary and with a population there of 70,000, it is parallel to the Dublin situation of 100,000 unsuitable houses for a population of 700,000.

Without any statistics, I think that anybody who has to go around a rural area — I am sure most of the counties are the same as South Tipperary— during election time — and I suppose we shall be repeating that soon again — will see immediately that there is a far larger number of unfit houses than one would glean by simply driving through the country. When you drive through a town or city, it is easy to see at one glance the number of unfit houses in certain areas but that is not so apparent in rural areas until you delve more deeply and travel around from place to place and visit each house.

The Minister has been inclined at times to lay a certain amount of blame on local authorities for the recent drop in housing activities. If he were sitting in any county council chamber and questioning the officials I can assure him they are quite prepared to divest themselves of all responsibility in the matter and are prepared to put a considerable amount of blame upon the Custom House. One reason persistently offered is the difficulty of getting contractors, particularly as regards isolated cottages in the countryside. The blame there, again, is fixed upon the Custom House in so far as they have too rigidly stuck to a fixed figure.

Recently, our engineer has put up a suggestion — I think it follows the view of the Department — to the effect that he would try to come to an agreement on a fixed price for rural cottages so that the contractors would know where they are going and would be encouraged to undertake the work. That would depart, in effect, from the system of public tendering which, to a certain extent, has broken down. I do not mind how they are built. I do not mind whether they are built on such a modified scheme or whether they will go in for prefabrication or direct labour but clearly there has been a falling-off, which has been proved statistically, in public authority building in my constituency while at the same time I think there has been an increase in private building. Even as regards the question of giving employment, surely it is more defensible to build houses for our people and thereby give employment than to pay £350,000 per ship to Mr. Verolme down in Cork to give corresponding employment on ships that will never carry Irish produce and will never sail the Irish seas?

The question of vested cottages is one which has frequently caused us some concern. I advert particularly to the question of vested cottages which have been closed down. I do not know how serious this problem is. One merely hears statements from various county councils that so many are shut down in this area and so many are shut down in the other area. Neither do I know if we have made any survey of the number of vested cottages shut down in each local authority area. I should like particularly to know from the Minister whether the number of vested cottages being abandoned or shut down is increasing. I cannot give any guidance because one merely hears statements made and there are no statistical data or survey figures with which I am familiar on that matter.

Regarding derelict sites I do not know how much activity is taking place under the various authorities for their abolition. One particular case came to my notice recently, where a man was apparently refused money for the work he did on clearing up a derelict site. One got the impression he was being refused because the site had not been inspected beforehand by a Local Government official. I sent the details to the Minister and he very promptly ordered that the man be paid immediately. I thank him for that. However, I afterwards saw the instructions given to these particular people, and it strikes me it is not sufficiently borne in upon them that this is a prerequisite to their getting the money for clearing up the derelict sites. The ordinary countryman is inclined to overlook these little details and later on finds himself in difficulty because he has half completed or completed the work by the time the local officer arrives. If it is a regulation that a local official must inspect the site before an owner proceeds to clear it up, surely that could be modified? Surely one of our local engineers should suffice to see a particular site and give the man the go-ahead within a few days? If the Department do not trust the local engineer there is no difficulty in their making a spot check of any figure given in respect of a site. By that method you could considerably speed up work and allow the man wishing to clear up the derelict site to get on with the work immediately and at his own convenience.

There is one small point to which I should like to advert. I mentioned it also last year. I noticed, for example, that when Deputy Ritchie Ryan was speaking here he had a bound copy of the minutes of Dublin Corporation and, I think, the manager's report before him. It is extraordinary that in none of the county councils, where huge amounts of money are being spent — in my constituency last year £1,750,000 — there is such thing as a manager's annual report. This causes no inconvenience to the senior officials in the Custom House, but for outside institutions, for economists and for the general information of public organisations, surely, when such a large amount of money is being spent, it is not too much to ask that the county manager should provide the people with an annual report? Already subsidiary bodies, such as the committee of agriculture, the medical officer of health and the vocational committee submit a report. Neither have we any report from our urban bodies and corporations. There is no engineer's report. They are spending a huge amount of money on rural water supply schemes in my constituency. Yet, except what the people will read in the local newspapers, there is nothing in the way of an annual report that the public might read and satisfy themselves that all this money is being well and reasonably spent and that they are getting something in return. It would be good public relations and certainly would reduce a considerable amount of public criticism, which at times is all too vocal as regards local bodies.

In regard to small urban bodies, the particular one in the town where I live, Cashel, is the second lowest rated in the country. The time has arrived when we should consider the abolition of the small urban bodies. In this modern age it is quite impossible for a small urban body to provide the necessary public health and social services which the community demands and which the community is able to obtain elsewhere. For instance, in Cashel all we have to spend is £27,000. You can do very little with £27,000 in a small urban body and yet you have to provide all the paraphernalia of local administration for your £27,000, whereas the county council last year spent, as I said, about £1,750,000.

This is very apparent when you come to consider such public health matters as sewerage. Most of the villages in my constituency have a modern sewerage system either completed or in the process of being secured. Yet the public sewerage system in Cashel is an open sewer leaving the town and passing one or two miles into the county council hinterland. We find difficulty in getting a few pounds to cover one part of that sewer in the urban district area to keep the rats from infesting the local peoples' houses and to prevent children from falling into the open public sewer. We cannot do otherwise because 1d in the £ produces only £20, and you have not the money to provide the necessary sewage treatment for the community. The Minister will reply there is nothing to prevent a larger outside body such as the county council moving in and building houses in the centre of the urban body's area or doing work of that nature. While there may be nothing legal to prevent them doing so, it is another matter when you get up in the council chamber and ask the councillors from all over the county to provide the money for the urban area in which you live. They become very local in their patriotism when that situation arises. I can assure the House that it is the situation with us, and I am sure it is the same situation elsewhere when similar conditions arise. Therefore, I would submit the time has arrived when we should, in the interest of social development, consider the abolition of the smaller urban authorities.

For example, we examined the question of urbanisation in regard to Cashel. We had discussions on it and the assistant county manager explained that we could not completely wash our hands of certain commitments; we could not be completely de-urbanised and come completely over to the county council, and that there were certain intermediate difficulties we could not share. He seemed to be rather hazy about the position and at the end of the discussion we saw that there were difficulties which we did not realise beforehand and many of which we did not understand. I feel this is a matter which requires departmental attention. A beginning could be made at least with the smaller urban bodies, even if it rather upset local patriotism, those that are not able to meet their commitments now.

Cashel urban district council have built a large number of houses and have gone 50-50 in the Galtee water scheme. These are heavy commitments for a low-rate urban body. Were it not that this council have a considerable amount of money which they got some time in the past, the rates in Cashel would be intolerable.

Like most rural councils, we were gravely disappointed by the switching of money by the Minister from the county road improvement scheme to the main roads for the present year. We had allocated £91,100 but he reduced that to £39,000. He has done that all over and in our case the argument was, I think, that we had 80 per cent dust-free roads. That has always been a bone of contention between the departmental mind and the local representative who has to meet the various deputations that visit his house every day about one road or another of the type not now being done.

I take issue with the Minister on one point in particular. As is customary, we held our five area road meetings for the five electoral areas— we always hold them around Christmas — and we did so in the belief that the distribution was to be the same as the year before. Having fixed on £91,000, we later found that the Minister had reduced that to £39,000. It was then suggested we should hold a second round of area road meetings but we were by then too tired and we just threw the matter to the area engineer to deal with and to spend the £39,000 as he thought fit. I believe the Minister should have foreseen this would happen and we should have got some indication of the amount of money we would be allowed in that category so that we would not be running up a blind alley believing we were going to get a certain amount of money and leaving us in the position of promising constituents that certain roads would be done only to have to go back and tell them later on that these roads were now cut out. Perhaps there are reasons why the Minister could not give the information earlier but it seems peculiar we could not be told beforehand and so avoid much disappointment.

In my constituency, as in all others up to a few years ago, rate collectors were appointed on a poundage basis. Later, by direction of the Department — I think it came from the present Minister — we altered that to a salarycum-bonus basis. That was said to be in the interests of economy. About a year ago, those who were on the salary-bonus basis applied for an increase in salary and at a council meeting that increase was granted in the forenoon. In the afternoon, a notice of motion appeared on the agenda that some of the work of one rate-collector be transferred to another. The collector whose work was to be reduced was being paid on a salary-bonus basis. The collector who was to get the work — it was the Fethard area — was on a poundage basis. There was no suggestion that the man who was to have his work reduced would have his salary reduced. By a majority, the county council removed the Fethard collection area which would probably represent one-third of the man's work, after having given him an increase of salary in the forenoon, and gave that area on a poundage basis to another collector with the result that South Tipperary ratepayers must pay in perpetuity about £120 more for this change.

This proposition was sent to the Minister and I am sorry to say that that Minister on whose instructions we had introduced the salary-bonus basis in the interests of economy, saw fit to sanction it. It was an entirely political manoeuvre which placed an unnecessary impost of £120 in perpetuity on South Tipperary. I do not begrudge the reduction of work to the man who got it with the same money; I do not begrudge the man getting the extra book and I do not begrudge people who try these things but the Minister, as a Minister, should set an example. There is no use in telling me that South Tipperary County Council did that. If a county council, or other public body, misbehaves, it is the Minister's duty to correct that misbehaviour and not endorse it, as he did in the instance to which I refer.

For some years past now in some counties the policy of amalgamating the position of relieving officer and cottage rent collector has been adopted. Some county councils favour this; some do not. The reasons offered for the amalgamation are that by combining the posts one is giving one man a worthwhile job; one can pay him a bit more. Another reason is that combining the posts cuts down travelling. There is one man instead of two going to the one house. One man can do the job. The objection against the system is that it is wrong to have one man collecting money and the same man, perhaps on the same day, giving out money to the same house. Whatever may be said for and against, in North Tipperary all these posts are now combined.

In South Tipperary we have two relieving officers who were appointed as a result of public advertisement, one of them in 1952 and the other in, I think, 1958. The conditions of their appointment were that when the cottage rent collector positions in their districts became vacant they would automatically secure those posts. These two men took these appointments under these conditions. We find now that, although the policy of amalgamation has been pursued in North Tipperary and South Tipperary, and I believe also in Cork, Waterford, and other local authority areas, these two men have been deprived so far of these posts, and that deprivation has continued for a period of twelve months. South Tipperary County Council passed resolutions and motions. Later the county manager was dilatory in sending these to the Minister. Then the Minister spent four or five months brooding on the request of the South Tipperary County Council to give permission to the manager to make the appointments to the cottage rent collector posts by combining the two appointments.

A grave injustice is being done to these two men who, in all honesty, applied for these posts as publicly advertised. There is the further aspect that, if these men are not appointed, the South Tipperary County Council may find itself subjected to an expensive legal action. Whatever may be the technical difficulties as regards the Departments of Local Government and Social Welfare, whatever objections may have been raised under the 1956 amendment to the Local Government Act, I fail to see why these two men, who applied for jobs as publicly advertised, and who believed that everything was in order, should not now be appointed to these combined posts, remembering that such appointments are being made all over the country and that the same policy has been adopted by South Tipperary County Council and several others.

I want now to deal with a matter which is of considerable importance to every public representative, and of particular importance to representatives of public bodies. We hear a great deal nowadays about incomes policy. We hear a great deal about employeremployee relationships, about conciliation, arbitration and labour courts. Recently our county manager produced to us — I believe this is true of other county councils too — a scheme for conciliation and arbitration for local government officials. This scheme raises considerable problems for every county council and will raise considerable problems not alone for the Minister for Local Government but also for the Minister for Health.

It appears that the conciliation and arbitration scheme county managers are putting before county councils all over the country — some county councils are passing this scheme, some are refusing it, and some are deferring acceptance of it — is unacceptable to the majority of local authority employees, to be precise to 60 per cent of them. I do not know whether it is advisable to have two schemes. I am not qualified to give an opinion on that but certain it is that, if you have an arbitration and conciliation scheme drawn up, one of the first essentials is that it should have the confidence and respect of those to whom it applies and whom it is supposed to serve. If you have a scheme to which 60 per cent are antagonistic I submit one cannot expect such a scheme to operate successfully or secure the degree of agreement and co-operation one would hope for. This particular scheme was strongly objected to by my county council. We were well aware that there was considerable opposition to it. Our County Manager, however, seemed rather annoyed that anybody should object to the scheme. In fact, he said he thought it was a great impertinence on the part of professional organisations to object to the scheme as drawn up by the County Managers' Association. He sounded like Caesar. We asked him to defer the scheme, but he insisted on putting it through. His attitude was that, if others want to come in, they can come in later.

The position is that 40 per cent are apparently agreeable, 60 per cent find the scheme unacceptable. These latter represent the following professional associations: the Incorporated Law Society, the Irish Medical Association, the Irish Nurses' Association, the Agricultural Science Association, the Institute of Chemistry of Ireland, the Royal Institute of Architects, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Society of Radiographers, the Town Planning Institute, the Veterinary Association of Ireland.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 30th October, 1963.