Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 Jan 1968

Vol. 232 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26 — Local Government.

Tairgim:

Go ndeonófar suim fhorlíontach nach mó ná £10 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1968, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Rialtais Áitiúil, lena n-áirítear Deontais d'Údaráis Áitiúla, Deontais agus Costais eile i ndáil le Tithíocht, agus Scéimeanna agus Deontais Ilghnéitheacha lena n-áirítear Deontais-i-gCabhair áirithe.

There is a house in North Great George's Street which at present is in fairly good condition but which in a very short period, the next year or so, will not be in such good condition, unless repairs are carried out to the roof. The landlord of that property has no intention of repairing the roof. In fact, his clear and manifest intention is to allow this roof to fall in so that, in due time, the house will be condemned by the corporation and the existing tenants will leave the house and be given accommodation by the corporation and he in turn will let the house, having then made the repairs, to tenants who will pay him what he will consider the market price at that time. In other words, there is a racket going on in Dublin in house property.

I know that the Minister at different times has said that he intends to curb the rapacity of some of these Rachmans in property in Dublin but so far he has done nothing. The only penalty a landlord involved in such doubtful activities can incur is to be brought every few months to court, called there by the corporation, and pay a derisory fine of about £5. The landlord's whole object is to get rid of the tenants who live there at present and who over the years have built up certain rights on the house.

The tenants in the house in North Great George's Street have no desire to leave that house but under the law, they have no way of ensuring that the landlord will carry out his duties to maintain the property. In fact, last year, the tenants got a man in to preserve to some extent the roof of the house.

This goes on while we all agree that there is a scarcity of housing accommodation in Dublin. There are certain people in Dublin who, for material gain, are involved in a vandalism which the law cannot stop. If a vandal, an ordinary hooligan, wrecks public property, we penalise him by putting him behind bars but men involved in property speculation in Dublin can with impunity wreck whole blocks because it will mean a higher return to them when they get the existing tenants out. This is a ridiculous situation.

The question can be asked: how much more sound property is there in Dublin in which there exist long-established tenants whom the landlords wish to get out of the houses and, having got rid of them, turn them over to public maintenance in new corporation schemes? If we are serious about the housing situation in Dublin, then we must and should turn the searchlight of public scrutiny on these very doubtful and twilight practices going on in the city. It is completely wrong that the necessity of people to have shelter should be regarded as on the same level as any other business activity. It is far different. Human beings are involved and therefore social justice and the norms of what we consider to be fair public policy should control and curb these activities to some extent.

There are many more houses around the city in the same state, houses which could be saved, the fabric of which is quite sound, but the landlords of these houses wish to clear long-established tenants and instead get tenants with no traditional history who are not protected by law and to whom, therefore, they are enabled to charge very high rents. I draw attention to the extent of the high rent question existing in Dublin at the present time. There are people who consider it legitimate to look for £5 and £6 a week for single rooms in Dublin from people who may be earning only £12 to £13 a week. It it not at all unusual to find certain people in Dublin who are ineligible for corporation housing, young married couples, for example, who must spend nearly 50 per cent of their weekly income on the provision of shelter over their heads. How can you expect these people to get sufficient money together to rear a family or to be able to save, to practise this virtue of thrift we are always saying is necessary in our citizens, when these unfortunate people are forced to pay an inordinate amount of their weekly income on the provision of shelter? There is no possibility of such couples ever getting together the amount of cash that would be necessary as a deposit on a house. Therefore we can understand the desperation of many families in Dublin who see no prospect of getting any decent accommodation in the years ahead.

One thing we should see to in regard to corporation houses is that the period between one tenant leaving and the next coming into that house is shortened as much as possible. I do accept that this is a very complicated job and that, even for paper work, there has to be some delay. However, it is very difficult to explain the situation to people who are looking for accommodation, perhaps, in a particular area. They will say that such-andsuch an address has been vacant for so many weeks, and it is hard to explain that, in accordance with the waiting list, such accommodation is already booked for families of a certain size. The authorities should see to it that the accommodation that is vacant is filled as rapidly as possible by the people for whom it is reserved properly in the first place.

We should, especially in the city of Dublin, consider once more what we consider to be adequate housing standards in the year 1968. It is true that the corporation have announced their intention of clearing out Corporation Place and giving the people better accommodation in this area. They should also look at Benburb Street which was built in the late Victorian period and does not now in the least fulfil the standard of accommodation we should have in 1968. The front doors of these houses in Benburb Street are open all night to any person passing along the street. There is no way one can shut the main doors of this accommodation which is in a dimly-lit street. It is extremely difficult to see how hygiene and other things can be preserved in such antiquated accommodation. All of us who are acquainted with the problems of housing in Dublin are aware of the ravages being made on the health of children due to their poor living conditions. Every week we send medical notices to the corporation from one doctor or another who is dealing with the family in question stating that such-and-such a child is suffering from asthma as the result of the conditions in which he is living.

Those of us who have contact with this problem are aware of the number of nervous diseases being caused in Dublin. One has only to talk to the people who are acting in a professional capacity in St. Brendan's or St. Loman's to be told that the housing situation is one of the main causes of these diseases. There are many families whose health is being wrecked due to their appalling living accommodation.

One cannot produce a statistic to show how exactly the health of children is affected, but there is no doubt that there is a serious effect on a child who has no room to play at home. You meet cases of mothers who never allow their children out of their prams, although they are of an age that should be out running around; if the people in the flat underneath object to the child running around the room, that child must be kept in its pram until it is three or four years of age, and those are not unusual cases.

There are some people who talk about the danger to family life in Dublin. I would say the biggest danger to family life here is the present scandalous housing situation, and singly this is at the bottom of most family troubles. Nobody has calculated the ill effects or how far it goes into the next generation. We all have only one childhood, and if our childhood is one given over to cramped accommodation in which we cannot run around, in which our health suffers, this must have a very grave effect upon our intellectual development. If we believe that all the children of the nation should be cherished equally in matters of education, I do not see how we can achieve that if the housing situation is not improved dramatically.

We must also look into this question of suiting people's human desires in regard to where they want to live. At present the practice is that when a person who is on the waiting list is offered accommodation when his turn comes, very often it is a place he will not accept. We must, as far as possible, see that we suit people's family requirements. A chap may live at one end of the city and be offered accommodation at the other end. There are other people who may be on shift work or who may be on permanent call in their job and who would find it extremely difficult to meet the demands of their job and home life if sent out to live in a place like Ballymun.

Apart from the extra expense involved in removing people from the city centre, we should consider whether we want the city centre to become a morgue, completely devoid of people, of inhabitants, which has happened in some of the cities of Europe and which they now regret. We must see to it that the older parishes in Dublin are preserved by developing housing there. There are on either side of the river, in the centre of the city, wide tracts being given over to car parks. The fact is that we should be developing flat building schemes in that area. There are people in the area, dissatisfied with their present accommodation, who would be very happy indeed to remain in their familiar surroundings, the neighbourhoods in which they were born and reared, if there were decent accommodation available in the area for them. We cannot forever continue the flight, north, west and south into virgin land for building purposes. We must utilise the vacant areas in the centre of the city.

It is far cheaper to live in the centre of the city than it is to live in the hinterland. That is demonstrably clear when one compares the prices in Moore Street, for example, with the prices in the new supermarkets and retail shops in the suburbs. It is a year now since Canon Doyle died. He did his utmost to prevent the depopulation of Arran Quay parish. There were areas in that parish which could have been used for building development. Instead of that there is throughout the whole area the development of car firms and car parks. Property is allowed to deteriorate and no attempt is made to arrest the flight of the population from the centre of the city to the outskirts.

There are more flights than the flight from the West and the flight from the land. There is also the little publicised flight from the centre of the city. This flight has certain detrimental effects on community living. It is no light thing to wreck a community. Whole communities in Dublin are being sent north and south and west. This trend must undoubtedly have very serious social consequences. It will affect the children. They will be reared in the kind of anonymous relationship that grows up in this kind of environment. The trend has been noted in other countries. We will be no exception. The social consequences on the children coming from such areas are disastrous.

One of the most dangerous symptoms is the automatic acceptance of the idea that the centre of the city is dead. There has been no attempt to keep people in their own neighbourhoods. The depopulation of Arran Quay is puzzling, to say the least of it. This is an area well supplied with schools, churches and shops, with an open playing area in the adiacent Phoenix Park. Why it should have been permitted to die is something that passes my comprehension. To me it would appear to be a planner's dream for imaginative development. Instead of that the area has been allowed to develop into a desolate wasteland. There would be a better understanding and appreciation of planning policy if such areas were utilised for the housing of our people. That kind of planning would engender the confidence of our people in our planners. Nobody at the moment looks on planning with any great enthusiasm because planning seems to consist in the main of these huge, soulless monstrosities in Ballymun, a shadowing forth of Orwell's "1984". Digging out people's roots is a very dangerous recreation.

Everyone accepts that there are places unfit for human habitation. There are many hundreds living in accommodation which has been condemned as unfit. These people cannot get alternative accommodation from Dublin Corporation. The only way in which one can get on the present preference list is by having two children as rapidly as possible and, if one can do it, three children as rapidly as possible enables one to qualify that much quicker. That is the policy of the corporation. It is regrettable that our housing situation should be so bad that our City Fathers advise young married people to beget X number of children as rapidly as possible in order that they can be put on the list. The begetting of children should not be motivated by the hope of getting accommodation. Begetting children is a private matter between husband and wife. It should not be something governing one's place on a housing list. But that is the present tragic situation here in Dublin. Unless the accommodation is excrutiatingly bad a family with one child must wait indefinitely.

There should be a complete inventory made of accommodation needs and the kind of accommodation in which people are forced to live at the moment. Many people are unaware of the conditions under which their fellow citizens are living. Social justice is becoming more and more popular and everybody is helping one weak section or another. The housing position might improve if these fellow citizens appreciated the extent and gravity of the present housing problem. The first step is a proper realisation of the extent of the problem. The next step is the tackling of it. There must be a solution to the problem of newly-weds. They must not be compelled to live with in-laws in already overcrowded accommodation. There must be some halfway stage to solve the problem of newly-weds. Even one room in which they could be on their own would be an improvement. That is a problem that must be tackled separately.

There is then the problem of old people. One questions the wisdom of putting old people in chalets isolated from neighbours. All modern studies seem to suggest that old people retain their mental health if they are kept in the normal community structure. It is bad policy to segregate the aged. In some instances our treatment of the aged is somewhat reminiscent of the treatment meted out to lepers in less enlightened days.

It is time we brought old people into schemes with young people, that we considered the problems of our old people, that we considered how they may be kept in touch with people in their locality, how they may be kept sufficiently warm and how they may have sufficient to eat. Many of our old people have not sufficient food in the conditions in which they have to live. If old people are isolated from general schemes, put into caravans in places here and there and cut adrift from their neighbours, there is a grave probability that they may fall into ill health. We often hear people saving that old Miss So-and-So has not been seen lately. We should ensure that the discovery of hardship among old people should not be left to chance and an effort should be made in big housing schemes to ensure that no old person should die in an urban community without care.

It is scandalous that young people who are newly married and who cannot get a house under the regulations of Dublin Corporation should be levied to the extent of £5, £6 or £7 a week for a single room. There is no penalty under the law for this and yet we can say that it is absolutely wrong in a Christian society that anyone should make money in such a manner.

I would like the Minister to deal with a rather disturbing matter which has arisen of late, that is the manner in which the Minister has countermanded the decisions of local authorities with regard to planning permission. I am thinking especially of the Mount Pleasant affair in Dublin. After many years of refusal by the local authority to develop that site, the Minister has reversed the local authority's decision and has granted a person the right to develop a petrol pump station at this place. It is correct to say that nothing has happened over the years which would justify such an action by the Minister. The traffic flow at that point does not suggest that the erection of a petrol pump would help the free flow of traffic. It is a pleasant and open green with a certain appeal and too many such places in Dublin are now being blotted out.

This decision of the Minister must produce a certain lack of confidence in the planning powers of local authorities if, when they make a decision, the Minister can grant an appeal, in this case the appeal of a man wishing to develop a petrol pump. That is a serious situation and must lead to a lack of confidence in the local authorities. If the Minister makes such a change on appeal, it is important that he should publish his reasons for making such a change. The local authorities must state the reasons why they will not permit a certain development and the least the Minister could do is to state his reasons for permitting the development of a petrol station. If justice is not seen to be done on all such occasions, it will be further proof to the rumour-mongers when they suggest that all is not well in these areas.

This is an extremely delicate area. There is money to be made. A site that may not have been worth much yesterday may be worth £60,000 tomorrow because of its permitted development or because of its proximity to another development. If the granting of permission to develop means a difference of £50,000 in the value of a site, the least we can expect is that the Minister should give an explanation for his change of decision. I understand that a similar case has arisen in Galway where the Minister gave permission to a man to build a bungalow. The local authority had turned down the application to build because the proposal interfered with the view towards the seashore. Yet the Minister, on an appeal by a German citizen, accepted the appeal and the man can now build his bungalow. The local authority does not know whether it is to be a singlestorey, two-storied or three-storied building.

The Minister holds a very important post at this time in this matter of permitting developments and he must see that profits are not made in this connection because somebody possesses a site which is in close proximity to some other site. I hope the Minister will answer some of these points when he comes to reply.

This debate on Local Government has gone on for quite some time. That is as it should be because the activities of the Department now touch the lives of every citizen. Deputy O'Leary and other speakers have stressed some of the difficulties and hardships which our people suffer because of the lack of housing facilities and Deputy O'Leary instanced certain difficulties in Dublin. We, in Cork, have individual cases as bad as those mentioned by Deputy O'Leary. The problem is full of difficulties because what suits one family does not suit another and we have not got such a selection of houses that we can suit everybody's requirements. It is true to say that all Governments, all Ministers for Local Government and all members of local authorities, are anxious to see the solution of this problem. I do not think the sincerity of local representatives and members of the Dáil can be doubted or that it can be said that they are not fully aware of the seriousness of the problem.

We have heard a lot about the public sector of housing but I would like to refer to the private sector. Everyone who is in a position to build his own house relieves the local council of the responsibility of having to build a house for him. In this regard there are a couple of points I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. I should like, firstly, to point to the delays, the friction and frustration caused to a person who is trying to build his own house when he is trying to prove title. In the meantime, that person has to go to the bank to borrow money and then pay interest on it. The delay is often one of several months. I wonder if the Minister would look at the position and see if, in cases where legal title is granted for the whole site which is about to be developed, it is also necessary at the outset to get individual title for every single plot on the site. I should like to see this being examined because I feel it should not be an insurmountable difficulty. It should be possible to expedite the matter and make the grant available when the builder has title to the whole area. This is a legal point and I am only asking the Minister to look at it to see if something can be done to prevent the delays that now occur.

A sore point in many areas is in regard to the price charged for land to private developers. In some areas, it is almost impossible to buy a piece of land. In the circumstances, the local authority—and I must say in Cork city we have done this—should acquire the land compulsorily at a fair market price, develop it and then parcel it out at a fair price to people who want to build houses, without wanting to make a profit but making it easy for the purchasers. Many grants have been given to those who want to build houses, but, rightly or wrongly, there is a feeling that over the years such grants have only tended to increase the price of houses. The feeling is that if there is a State grant of £275 and a local authority grant of £275, more than half of that, if not more, goes into the increased cost of the house, that the price of the house is inflated. The best possible way of helping a person to build a house, and I am sure the Minister appreciates this, is to reduce the interest rate on the money he gets to do so. To reduce the rate of interest is much more important than providing a grant of £275 or more, which very often finds its way into the hands of the wrong person. Where possible, the local authorities should also be encouraged to reduce the rate of interest.

This brings me to my fourth point, the Local Loans Fund. The Minister should direct the local authorities not to charge more than one-eighth more than the figure at which they borrow money at themselves. We know that it is the custom to charge three-eighths or more, and while that may have been justified 20 years ago, when the amount was small and the overheads were different, today the overheads are more or less static and there is a much greater amount of money involved. Authorities like those in Dublin or Cork must make a considerable profit from what they charge over and above the rate at which they borrow the money. Fortunately in Cork city, we have been able to loan it at one-eighth more than the figure at which we get it. We must be the lowest in the country in this regard. I do not see why every authority should not be able to do that.

This is the time of year when the rate problem becomes very acute and all those who have been clamouring for concessions now find it difficult to meet the bill. I am not foolish enough to imagine that you can have increased salaries and wages, or that the price of every commodity can be increased, and that the rates will not go up accordingly. In spite of the fact that I understand the Government are examining the position, I do want to say that the present rates structure is outmoded. It was brought into being when times were far different. It seems peculiar that now a householder has to be the ratepayer while members of his family may be earning more than he is. The other people get off scotfree. The whole thing should be overhauled because there must be some end to it. It cannot go on in this way indefinitely. We will have other occasions on which to speak about health, but the burden is becoming unbearable and something will have to be done about distributing the levy more evenly among a greater proportion of the people.

I would ask the Minister to examine carefully the question of regionalisation. I understand some of the tremendous problems which are involved — local pride and tradition and all the rest—but it has been done by Bord Fáilte, who have divided the country into eight regions. This has meant a tremendous step forward for the region in which I am interested and will lead to great economies and more efficient work. The whole question of boundary lines between cities and counties should be considered for the purpose of local government. There is overlapping and we are paying large fees to professional men who are doing a job in a small area when they could take in a much greater area.

Finally, I would not want to sit down without saying something about the Cork bridges. I understand that the survey team have recommended that there should be four or five bridges in Cork, that the old bridges should be replaced. With the best intention, I want to say that I hope the Minister will be able to ensure that there will be no undue delay and that he will be able to show, as he has very rightly shown within the past fortnight, that most of the delays can be shortcircuited and decisions reached in the shortest possible time. If the bridges are necessary, then they should be erected, and if they are not erected now, they will have to be erected at an increased cost in the future. In the meantime, there may be a great tragedy which no one would wish to see.

I was rather surprised to hear Deputy Healy referring to the Local Loans Fund as far as Cork city is concerned. I remember going down to Cork 12 years ago when they successfully floated their own loan and when they were able to procure the money for their own housing needs. I am disappointed to find that a change is being made there. Cork Corporation should never have any necessity to avail of the Local Loans Fund. Any money they require could be acquired in the city, unless like other cities, they have been so denuded of cash by the Government that they can no longer find it.

In regard to houses, we heard Deputy M. O'Leary refer to the dearth of houses in Dublin city and we heard Deputy Healy refer to the dearth of houses in the city of Cork. I should like to refer to the dearth of houses in the country, with particular reference to my own constituency. For years and years we have been pestering the Department to sanction small housing schemes throughout County Donegal and it is only after years of delay that we can obtain sanction for the building of these schemes. If I may refer to one particular scheme in my own home town of Dungloe, three or four years ago we sought four new local authority houses in Dungloe. We were able to tell the county manager where a site was procurable, and that site was readily given. It was sold to the local authority, but there is still no word of those four houses being built for nine applicants in that small town.

The same thing applies throughout the whole of rural Ireland. In every report of every local authority, be it in County Wicklow or County Donegal or any other county, we find complaints of a housing shortage and of delays in building houses. If the Minister were wise he would have a crash programme with top priority given to the building of houses not only in the cities but in the small towns in rural Ireland to try to house the people, because if we cannot house them there is no use in giving them employment. As Deputy M. O'Leary said, they will never remain unless they have houses of their own.

To solve the problem, we in Donegal have now purchased ten prefabricated houses and we have allotted two of them to each electoral district. If we find they are a success we propose to build more throughout the county. I often wonder if it were an individual who was trying to build these prefabricated houses, would town planning permission be given. Our local authority was so fed up endeavouring to get permission for the building of houses that this was the only solution they could find. I may say that the building of prefabricated houses was abolished in the Six Counties after the last war. However, it was the only solution offered to us.

There is also delay in procuring permission to build houses. Even if one owns a site and decides to build a house there is delay in procuring town planning permission. This procedure of procuring town planning permission is a fairly costly one today. It is absolutely essential to obtain an architect. Two sets of maps in triplicate are required, one site map and one location map, which can only be drawn by an architect. In the beginning we were told that a person such as a school teacher could draw up a plan but that is now being turned down by the local authorities and it is absolutely essential that a qualified person be employed to draw up the site and location plans.

Then one must wait for a certain period to find out if there are any objectors. After the statutory period has elapsed one must wait until such time as permission to build is granted. I notice that certain standards are now required by all the local authorities. There must be a particular type of fence at the front with a hollowed space in the centre for a gateway. There is no imagination and no variation in the standards, and the whole thing does not look very good from the planning point of view. As was pointed out, when one has completed one's house it is necessary to get a Deputy or a county councillor to write several letters to the Department before the first instalment of the grant is paid, and one is a good many months in occupation before the final instalment of the grant is paid. In the meantime, the owner has to procure the money and provide it, possibly by way of overdraft from the bank on which he will be paying interest. He must pay the vendor of the various materials of which the house is composed and the builder. If the Minister wishes to see private enterprise, be it an individual or otherwise, building houses, he must ensure that the grants are paid, and paid forthwith, when they become due.

When I talk of town planning, I do not wish to cut across anything my colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick, may say on the Bill which will be introduced later this evening, but sometimes when I see town planning in operation, I wonder what are the reasons at the back of the whole subject. I have no objection to the positive side of town planning: it is to the negative side that I object. For instance, we are now publishing a town plan for County Donegal. We find that certain houses in certain towns and in certain parts of the county will be demolished when that plan is implemented. We know that that plan, which we reckon will cost £11 million, will not be implemented for 30 or 40 years but, in the meantime, those houses which are listed for demolition are being devalued and are becoming absolutely useless from the owners' point of view. At the same time, firms and people who are not subject to town planning are getting away with what I might describe as murder.

I might refer particularly to the ESB. In every county throughout the State, transformer stations are being erected by the ESB. I understand that town planning permission is not necessary for the erection of these transformer stations. Where do we find them being erected? — at the entrance to the various towns, particularly the capital towns and the larger towns. There is a beautiful approach to Longford from the Sligo direction but here we have a transformer station completely obliterating the view in that area. Again, to be parochial, the approach to my hometown from the Glenties direction has a magnificent view of the Rosses lakes, the Dungloe and other lakes. To my amazement, I find that the ESB acquired a site for a transformer station within a quarter of a mile of Dungloe and have a heinous and objectionable obstruction placed there obliterating the view of people entering that town. If the ESB want to erect transformer stations — and I am certain there is a necessity for them — in close proximity to towns, they should find some by-way or back road, or erect them where they would not obstruct the vision of tourists or the public generally entering those towns. I should like the Minister to bring to the notice of the ESB that there was considerable objection by people in my area to the erection of this transformer station.

Why did they not appeal? If they had objections, why did they not appeal?

I understand that there is no such thing as an application from the ESB to erect a transformer. If it is so, the people of Dungloe never saw the notice published.

(Cavan): There are different provisions in relation to the ESB. They do not have to go through the ordinary procedure.

They have.

(Cavan): No. Public bodies do not, and the Minister knows that perfectly well. There is one law for public bodies and semi-State bodies and another for Seán Citizen.

They must get planning permission.

(Cavan): Yes, but they get it in a sort of secretive way by correspondence.

I did not know that.

I am not blaming the Minister for this but he should look into it. I do not expect him to know anything about it — it would not be fair to ask him to — but it is something which, when brought to his notice, he should look into. I cannot say very much about the transformers already erected and I am thinking chiefly of those in process of erection or those to be erected in the near future.

I do not know who granted town planning permission for the erection of the signs on the Slane road. Between here and Ashbourne, the local Garda have erected signs, direction posts, and how they got permission for it I do not know. They probably applied to themselves and got it. They are most objectionable signs.

It was not the local authority who gave instructions for their erection; it was the Minister's Department.

I do not know; that is what I am inquiring about. The signs are most objectionable. First, you have them erected in English and when you go about 50 yards, you find the same signs erected in Irish. I have never seen such duplication and waste of money. Signposts are erected mainly for visitors because we are a small country and the majority of those using these roads know the various directions of by-roads and side roads. I do not mind being bilingual in this respect but why not put the two languages on one sign if we must erect a sign at all? Why we must have them within 50 yards of each other, huge objectionable signs, is something beyond my comprehension. The Minister should inquire if Meath County Council did apply to Meath County Council for permission to erect them and if the county council gave permission to the county council, something should be done about it.

May I refer to another matter which is causing considerable concern along the Border? We have many roads known as through roads which are sometimes referred to as concession roads where you may pass from the Twenty-Six Counties to the Six Counties and back again into the Twenty-Six Counties without stopping. There are no customs posts. These concession roads are a considerable advantage to those residing in the locality but since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, vehicles are no longer permitted to travel on these concession roads. I am referring to the smaller ones, not to roads such as that between Dundalk and Castleblayney, particularly in counties Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal.

As traffic is no longer permitted on these concession roads due to foot and mouth disease, many by-ways which are not county roads are being used by this traffic and these accommodation roads and by-roads have been so cut up by traffic that they are no longer usable by the people who used them in the past. I am thinking of a particular road known as Cullion Lane in south Donegal. It is a private road, but owing to the closing of the road between Lettercran and Pettigo, all traffic is diverted to this private lane, and I have seen it myself in such a condition that nothing can now be done to enable pedestrians to use it. The local authority can do nothing about it because it is not a county road but I think the Minister could possibly give a grant out of the Road Fund for such roads as have been overused during this emergency. I should be more than greateful if he would make a grant available for this famous lane.

Another matter which is worrying people considerably is the question of the obligation to fence public highways. This is an agricultural community and on many roadways there is absolutely no fence between private property and the public highway. As a result, cattle stray on to the highway, motorists crash into them and individuals are often seriously maimed and vehicles damaged. There is no liability on the owner of the cattle, first to fence his land, or secondly, to pay compensation for damage which may result from a car crashing into animals on the public highway. There is an onus on a farmer if he has fences to ensure that those fences are kept in proper repair. The Minister should look into this matter and if he would think it too great a hardship to compel farmers to fence their land — and I do believe it would be a great hardship — it might be possible for the local authority to assist the farmers in this matter. It is something that has given judges and juries and the public generally, particularly motorists, considerable worry and trouble. Now that the Minister has a Road Traffic Act before the House, it may be possible to bring in amending legislation which would remedy the situation. It might be possible for the Minister to ensure that for a very small additional premium, motorists could be compelled to insure themselves and their passengers against such damage as might be incurred in car crashes with straying animals.

The Minister is responsible for the Coast Erosion Act which he introduced five or six years ago. Speaking at the time, I remember saying how necessary it was, but also pointing out how cumbersome the procedure under the Act would eventually prove to be and how the delay and the duplication and the other machinery involved would eventually defeat the purpose of the Act. How right I have proved to be. In County Donegal, I think we have formulated some six different coast erosion schemes. They have been with the Minister for the past four years and that is the last we have heard of them. They have gone to the Board of Works that somebody described correctly as the "Board of Jerks" because that is exactly how they work. They remind me of the old narrow gauge railway. One passes the buck. The local authority say they have submitted it to Local Government and Local Government have transferred it to the Board of Works.

The Minister is responsible for the legislation. I do not care to whom he passes the buck. This was given to his Department when the legislation was introduced. I would like to know — and I will find out next week by means of Parliamentary Question — how many schemes have been submitted, how many have been operated and the amount of money spent on coast erosion. We will clear the air then. No scheme in Donegal has been put into operation, although they have been submitted many years and the land is still being eroded.

May I now move into the bailiwick of my friend now in the House, Deputy Briscoe? May I join with him and other Deputies in appealing to the Minister not to close the Grand Canal? I was surprised to receive letters from citizens of Dublin informing me that their grandfathers came from my constituency and appealing to me to use any influence I had to ensure that the Grand Canal will not be closed. I am now carrying out the duty I have been asked and am appealing to the Minister to ensure the canal will not be closed. I know it is in good hands when it is in the hands of the Deputy from County Dublin.

Dublin South-West. He is in the city, not the county.

(Cavan): The Minister is a Deputy for County Dublin.

There is very little difference between the county and city. Ordinary Seán Citizen does not know the actual boundaries of the various constituencies. Between you be it, but for God's sake, keep the Grand Canal open.

We were talking earlier on about housing, but without sewerage and water houses cannot be properly serviced. There is a considerable delay in sanctioning sewerage and water schemes. May I quote one example? I have quoted it so often I am sure the Minister must be tired of listening to it. It is the water scheme for Ardara and Glenties. After years of planning and all the other necessaries, we eventually got sanction for this scheme and advertised for tenders. In September, 1965, we succeeded in procuring the lowest tender for the scheme. On 15th September, 1965, we forwarded that tender to the Minister for Local Government for his sanction so that we could accept it. From that day to this, we never heard from the Minister, despite repeated requests.

I remember in the month of July last two of us, Deputy Breslin and I, going on a deputation to the Minister immediately before the local elections. I must say Deputy Breslin did his best to blackmail the Minister because his opening gambit was: "Deputy O'Donnell is going around Donegal telling the people that you have no money for the Ardara and Glenties water scheme." And I told the Minister: "Unless you sanction it, I will continue to say it." And we are continuing to say it.

May I appeal to the Minister to sanction that tender as soon as possible? I note the Minister is now trying to sidestep, because the other day he sent us down another memorandum asking for a new priority of water and sewerage schemes, knowing very well that at this stage other priorities have crept in and Ardara and Glenties has been pushed slightly down the line. If he can possibly give us some assurance that this tender will be sanctioned in the near future, we will be grateful. But I doubt very much if the contractor will now undertake to carry out the scheme he tendered for in 1965 at the price he then tendered and we may find ourselves readvertising and some successor of the Minister possibly sanctioning it some time in the distant future.

There is a Combined Purchasing Section in the Minister's Department. Some years ago when I was in Local Government, tenders were invited each year by the Combined Purchasing Section. The tenders approved of were notified to local authorities and at that time, they could purchase from any other contractor, whether he tendered to the Combined Purchasing Section or not, so long as the price of the material or goods supplied did not exceed that approved by the Combined Purchasing Section. That has been done away with and now it is necessary to purchase through the Combined Purchasing Section.

That is a very bad thing. For instance, I know small firms in different counties who would not dream of tendering to the Combined Purchasing Section in case they would get orders that would completely swamp them, but they could tender for the supply of materials in their own counties. If the tender did not exceed those accepted by the Combined Purchasing Section, local authorities could approach these small contractors and procure their necessaries from them, thus avoiding considerable amounts in transport. I would ask the Minister to revert to the old system which was in operation until he or his immediate predecessor changed the position.

The Department have fallen down badly in the provision of courthouses and pounds throughout the country. In Donegal we have not got a pound left. If county registrars seize, as they often have to do on foot of decrees, there is no place in which legally to impound any animal seized. The whole thing is a complete farce. The provision of courthouses is the responsibility of the local authority. Rates have soared and we know the local authorities can no longer impose a burden on the taxpayers for the provision of courthouses. Courthouses should be taken out of the category of buildings provided by local authorities. I could understand it in the old days where you had a courthouse in every village and the old district councils were able to procure money for them, but today we are centralising our court. In a few years' time we will have only two or three central courthouses in each county. That being so, it should become a country-at-large charge and it should be the duty of the Minister to ensure that moneys are made available to the local authorities for the provision of these courthouses. They should not be a burden on the taxpayer.

Deputy Healy referred a few minutes ago to the burdens placed on the taxpayers as a result of the high rates throughout the country at the moment. I know this is not part of the Minister's duty, but I distinctly remember hearing the then Deputy Dr. Ryan introducing the Health Act in this House saying, in reply to an interruption from this side, that it would cost an additional 2/- in the £ on the rates. A figure of 17/6 or 19/- is now a very moderate estimate of the impact of the Health Act on the rates. The taxpayer can no longer afford that in addition to the ordinary items which comprise the rates struck by the local authority.

Some years ago the then Minister for Local Government — I think it was Deputy Blaney — said he was looking into this question and would try to relieve the ratepayers of added increases in rates. In my county the rates this year will amount to about £4 15s in the £. It means that local authorities are now the landlords of all private dwellings throughout the State. If one has house property of £16 valuation—and that is a very conservative valuation—one has to pay £1 10s. poor rate, which is over £64 a year. If one wished to let that house one could not procure much more than £64 per year as the letting value, with the result that the local authority are really the landlords and the factual owners are paying the rent by way of rates to the local authority for the house.

I shall not delay the House any longer on this matter. In other years when the Estimate for Local Government was before the House, whether I was on this side of the House or on the other side of the House, I always found Deputies on some side of the House willing to compliment the Minister on what they considered to be the magnificent work he was doing, whether in the matter of building houses, sewerage grants, water grants, town planning, and so on. I have yet to hear one Deputy on either side of the House compliment this Minister on the magnificent work he is alleged to be doing.

I suppose I should open my speech by congratulating the Minister on the excellent work he is doing.

I say that sincerely, not in jest. He has a very difficult task. A large number of people who should be informed are not informed as to what is taking place in local government. This has been a very long debate. Most of the contributions dealt with every aspect of the Minister's Department. However, not enough has been said about the problem to which Deputy O'Donnell referred, namely, the Grand Canal. I have gone to some trouble to inform myself as to what this matter is all about. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the Dublin Corporation, two in particular, members of the General Purposes Committee, voted for the closure of the canal in the committee meeting and at the public session voted against the closure. The peculiar thing is that one of these people who voted against the closure of the canal at the public session actually proposed its closure in 1963.

The emphasis has been laid all along on the need to use the Grand Canal to lay sewers and culverts. The emphasis has been on these aspects but the wrong aspects in my opinion. The most important aspect for the public and those who have been most vocal against the closure is the question of the restoration of the canal.

Deputy O'Donnell appealed to the Minister to see that the canal is restored. The Minister has given authority to the Dublin Corporation to close down temporarily a 5½ mile stretch of the canal subject to its restoration. There is no question about its not being restored. The public have got the idea that it will not be restored due to a number of public representatives who have not informed themselves as to the situation. I spent two and a half hours with the city engineer who told me about the plans for the canal. I feel I should pass on a number of things that he told me. First of all, he said, the requirement was for a culvert for rain water and a pipe for sewerage; that the culvert would be 10 feet high and the sewer six feet high. The intention is to lay these two pipes side by side along the bed of the canal. To lay them separately would increase the cost of the project enormously. If laid side by side they will take up the following space: 20 feet wide, 20 feet deep. The alternative to laying them along the bed of the canal would be to blast a tunnel. The cost of the excavation would be enormous. The city engineer gave me figures. The approximate cost of blasting a tunnel would be between £1,000 and £1,200 per yard as against the cost of laying the pipes along the canal—between £250 and £350 per yard. That is, for the main sewer pipes and does not include subsidiary pipes going into the canal.

But including the cost of the pipes, I assume?

This would be the cost of laying the pipe.

He is codding you.

He is not codding me. He knows his stuff.

(Cavan): How much a yard?

£1,000 a yard.

It is all very well for Deputy Tully to say: "Nonsense."

Deputy Tully has not sought any advice on this.

I know enough about excavation to know it does not cost £1,000 a yard.

Certainly nothing about sewerage. Many of the engineers who have joined in the controversy about the canal know nothing about sewerage. A layman assumes that an engineer knows every aspect of his profession. That is not so. A brain surgeon would not try to tell a heart surgeon how to do his job. A number of people want to know how long it will take to lay the pipes. That will be approximately two years. The time taken to restore the canal will be one year. The cost of restoring the canal now would be approximately £600,000. The figures have been worked out. Unfortunately, because of the delays in implementing the scheme, the cost has increased overall by £1 million. The cost of laying the pipes and of restoring the canal is now in the region of £2,346,000. In 1962, the cost would have been much less. A number of persons have expressed concern about the canal not being water tight. These fears are unfounded. To quote the city engineer on this, the restoration of the canal presents no problems. There are three methods of restoring the canal in order to ensure that it is water tight. One is by concrete; one is by laying aside a large amount of puddle clay and saving it and the third method is a system used in Italy, by welded polythene sheeting. The engineers have taken borings of nearly every yard of that 5½ mile stretch and know exactly what the ground is like in that region.

There has been a good deal of discussion about the destruction of lock gates. There are 10 sets of lock gates. Some of them are rotten, some are rotting and in the normal course would need replacement. The cost of a set of lock gates is approximately £2,000. The gates that are not rotten and would not need replacing could be unpinned, taken out and put back again.

There has been a lot of concern about the bridges, that the bridges will be knocked down or interfered with. There will be no interference whatsoever with any of the bridges. Any interference with bridges would be associated with road widening and would have nothing whatsoever to do with the scheme. A number of people, and one man in particular, asked the question about pipes being laid side by side taking up a width of 20 feet, and said the width of the canal is only 13 feet at a number of locks. I put this to the City Engineer and the answer he gave me was very simple and straightforward. He informed me that the pipes would go on top of one another going through the locks and once through the locks, side by side again, the drop at each lock would give a sufficient head to enable the flow through the pipes to continue unhindered.

People are worried about their boats using the canal. Last year 50 boats came up the canal from Ringsend to the 12th lock at Lucan, whereas the number of boats that were carried up to Lucan to the 12th lock and set sail up the canal to the midlands was 200. There would be a service provided by CIE for carrying boats up from Ringsend to the 12th lock whilst work is in progress. The corporation are building a slip at the 12th lock, and every facility will be there. There is no need for people to worry about their boats being transported. The corporation made extensive inquiries about boats being transported in Britain from leading firms of boat hauliers. The only accident that was reported to any boat was a collision at a set of traffic lights with another vehicle. CIE recently carried a barge from Dublin to Belfast quite safely. There is a considerable amount of unwarranted scare-mongering being engaged in.

If this scheme had been put into effect in the early 1960s, £1 million would have been saved. At that time, land was roughly £700 to £800 an acre and it has gone up by £1,000 an acre, to £1,700 or £1,800. I should say this was due to the lack of serviced land. New towns will be built, and there will be such new towns in the areas of Palmerstown, Blanchardstown, all around that region. These areas will require new industries. People talk of effluent: they think of it in terms of domestic effluent, without realising that effluent from industry has to be accommodated also. Every industry has a right to discharge into a sewer. These people have very little idea of the quantities that can be involved. To give an example the quantity of effluent from the Clondalkin Paper Mills would be equivalent to the sewerage of a town mid-way between Cork and Limerick. The effluent from Guinness's would be equivalent to that of a city the size of Cork. One can see, therefore, the tremendous need there is for adequate sewerage.

People have talked about the canal as a national asset. It is true the Grand Canal is a national asset, a great tourist attraction, etc. However, one of our greatest national assets, and I think everyone will agree with me, is our pure rivers. We are becoming famous throughout the world for game fishing. In England there is no game fishing because there are no pure rivers. The only countries in Europe that have pure rivers are Sweden, Norway and this country. The Baltic Sea is so polluted that there is not even one fish in it, except perhaps carp.

Worries have also been expressed about discharging into Dublin Bay. There is no question of this. New tanks are being built in the Pigeon House, and there the solids are separated from the liquids. The solids are taken by the Shamrock, out to sea 2 miles east of the Baily Lighthouse and there dumped. The currents there carry them away from the land and they completely disperse. In the sea there are approximately nine parts oxygen to one million parts of water, I am told. This may be a little bit technical but maybe somebody here might understand some of this. Nine parts oxygen are considered saturation. Game fish can live in four parts oxygen per million parts of water. In the Dublin estuary there are six parts oxygen per million parts water. Sedimentation tanks are being installed at the Pigeon House and there will be no reduction at all in the oxygen content of the river, and it certainly will not fall below 60 per cent which is six parts per million. Provision will be provided in this scheme to take all the effluent from Killeen Paper Mills and Clondalkin Paper Mills into the new sewer as I have already stated. This effluent at the moment pollutes the River Camac. There have been many complaints about the state of this river. Once the effluent from these two mills is fed into the main sewer, the River Camac, in about one month, can be pure again, chemically pure. Fish can eventually return to this river. This, I understand, could take anything between a year and two years; there is no definite period. However, there are trout further on in the Camac river at Saggart and the Brittas lakes which will make this possible.

As regards sewage farms Clondalkin Paper Mills spent £70,000 on a new sewage disposal plant which was completely ineffective. There has been frequent mention about calling in the experts. The only experts in this country on the problem of sewage are employed by the Dublin Corporation, by the Department of Local Government, by the Board of Works and by the ESB. People say that there is no one in this country who knows anything about this problem. These people who are dealing with major sewerage works all their lives know all about it. In spite of this fact, Mr. John Calvert of John Taylor's was consulted by the Dublin Corporation on the Grand Canal scheme. John Taylor's is an English firm employing 600 engineers, and this firm specialises in water and sewerage works. Mr. Calvert himself was a member of the Royal Commission on the Thames and is a member of the Royal Water Resources Board. He is acknowledged worldwide as an authority on sewage disposal. What is not generally realised is that sewerage must eventually discharge a polluted liquid. This usually discharges into a river. The only way in which a successful scheme can operate is through availability of water, preferably sea water.

As I said at the outset, there is no doubt whatsoever that the canal will be restored. There has been talk about a secret road plan. This is no secret at all. A plan has been prepared to cope with the situation which is visualised in 1985 when it is estimated that there will be some 115,000 cars a day passing along by the canal. This plan has been rejected by the Minister. The corporation have been told very definitely—I am sure the Minister will confirm this—that the canal must be restored.

Many of the matters one would normally deal with on this Estimate have already been dealt with by other speakers, particularly Deputy O'Donnell. He, like myself, comes from a rural constituency, a constituency very similar to that which I represent. Because he dealt so extensively with certain aspects in which I would normally be interested, it will not be necessary for me to raise these particular matters now.

I should, however, like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in Mayo we have the highest rate in the country. In Mayo we have a very special problem in relation to roads. We have the longest road mileage in the country. Many of our roads are over mountainous areas and through bogs. Take, for instance, the road from Crossmolina to Belmullet and Blacksod. There is bog underneath in many places to a depth of 12 to 15 feet. The construction of roads over such terrain is a major engineering problem. There is difficulty in making foundations and difficulty in hauling the materials for those foundations over very long distances. Many of the roads, rolled and tarred, have broken down under the increased weight of traffic. There are buses. In the old days trucks weighed three, four or five tons. Today they weigh 20 to 25 tons. These trucks serve the bog development works and the power station. The roads have been wrecked. Foundations are a major problem and costings are much higher than they would normally be.

We have many mountainous roads and excavation on these roads can be very costly. Snow, followed by a sudden thaw accompanied by rain, works havoc on the roads. I am trying to stress the seriousness of the problem. According to the Minister there is a cut of 25 per cent in grants for roads. I know that when the Minister made his speech, the financial position was not as healthy as it is now. I am appealing to him, therefore, to bear in mind the improved financial position and the position of counties like Mayo, particularly North Mayo, where the problem is very serious. From the point of view of tourism it is most important that we should have good roads giving easy access to tourist areas and tourist attractions.

We have a very lopsided economy in Mayo. Valuations range from £2 to £15 or £20. The majority of valuations are £5, £7 and £8. We have no big city in close proximity in which to dispose of produce. It is absolutely important that our young people should have employment on road works. The cut of roughly 25 per cent is a very serious matter. It will aggravate the position in the West generally. The position has been highlighted by meetings of the bishops and clergymen of different denominations in the West. Cutting down on road works will deprive people of a traditional means of employment in order to supplement their meagre incomes.

On the question of rates, Mayo County Council has been notified that in future they will be responsible for roads which were formerly the responsibility of the Office of Public Works. I refer to the minor employment and road improvement schemes. It was a major change of policy on the part of the Government to hand these schemes back to the county councils. It should be appreciated by the Minister that for quite a considerable time the Office which dealt with these schemes was practically shut down for lack of money. In consequence of that stoppage, our roads have deteriorated very considerably and the fact that they have not been maintained as they should have been means that much additional expense will be required to put them in proper repair.

I understand that £44,000 has been indicated as the amount of money available from the Central Fund to Mayo County Council to undertake this work. It has to be borne in mind that this work will entail many engineering expenses. We will have to employ five or six additional engineers, if we can get them, to undertake the surveying of these roads so that by the time this has been done, there will be only £38,000 or £39,000 available for the actual work. That amount could be spent in the Swinford electoral area alone, and it is doubtful if it would be sufficient to restore the roads in that area to their proper condition. It is ridiculous to think that an amount such as £44,000 would be sufficient to do this work all over the county. I would appeal to the Minister to have another look at the figures and realise that what he is giving is completely insufficient.

We have had the experience in our county of bridges coming to be regarded as dangerous and I notice that the question has now cropped up in Cork. I am speaking about bridges over roads between two important towns such as the bridge at Cloonacanna, between Swinford and Aclare. I understand that after a long struggle between the Minister and myself, that bridge is to be rebuilt. I hope there will be no delay in doing the work.

We have another serious problem in relation to grants paid to us by the Government. This is an old problem and has arisen because of the delay on the part of the Department in paying out grants advised to the county council. In order to pay our bills, we have to raise the money from the banks and pay interest on it. Every year we find colossal sums of money being added on to the rates because of the high rates of interest which the county council has to pay on these overdrafts. I have listened to criticism in this House along this line on many an occasion, but, in a county such as ours, where we are facing an increase of from 7s 6d to 10/- in the £ in our rates this year, it is ridiculous that this extra amount should be imposed on us.

The question of housing has been raised, particularly by Dublin Deputies. I know this city very well and I can appreciate the views expressed by Deputy M. O'Leary and others regarding their problems here. Over the years, many of the older buildings have deteriorated and finance to replace them is not available. Our problem is a different one. We have built a lot of houses in the small towns and rural areas and got grants for them. Many of them were built when materials were cheaper than they are at the moment but the regrettable situation is that many of these houses are now vacant.

I would like to put on the records of the House my appreciation of the work the engineering and office staffs in Mayo County Council have contributed towards the solution of our housing problem. It is to their credit that they worked overtime and for long hours in the formulation of housing schemes so that our people might live decently.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn