Committee on Finance. - Vote 26—Local Government (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (19th Dáil) – Tuesday, 3 Mar 1970

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy Hogan).

Mr. M. O'Leary

Throughout this debate we have been emphasising the serious situation arising from the housing shortage in our urban centres. Those of us from Dublin have been speaking about the situation here and other Deputies have been emphasising a similar alarming situation in their areas. It all adds up to a very strong indictment of the Minister for Local Government, one of whose responsibilities is to ensure that the supply of houses in some way approximates to the demand. The demand at present is in the region of 25,000 houses per year. We are not meeting that demand and the Minister for Local Government in any of his projected programmes gives little evidence of either being aware of the urgency of the situation or producing any plans suggesting that in the very near future he intends to meet the increasing demand for housing in the urban centres.

Let us look at the newly-weds' scheme. Our canvassers in the Ballyfermot area have brought back reports from the tenants of Ballyfermot of the alarming situation faced by their sons and daughters in their search for accommodation here in Dublin. There are a very limited number of houses offered in a draw by Dublin Corporation each year for couples who have married within the two-year period prior to the draw. From this draw emerge an extremely lucky few because this is the only provision made by the corporation for young married couples who have no children. It is a shocking comment on the housing situation in Dublin that young couples who have no children have absolutely no hope of being offered accommodation by Dublin Corporation except for this draw.

In the present by-election campaign we have found that the issue uppermost in people's minds is housing. They have repeatedly emphasised the problems faced by their sons and daughters who have no opportunity of qualifying for housing. Their problem is not lessened when one remembers that if they must live in private flat accommodation no rent control exists and they may have to pay £6 or £7 for a single room. Obviously that situation does not permit of any savings. Neither can they have regard to the husband's distance from his place of employment. There is also the custom among such landlords that as soon as a couple has a child they wish to get rid of them very rapidly. We are very conversant with this problem in Dublin. Even those who are lucky in the newlyweds' draw must wait many months before their number is reached.

A great deal of controversy has centred around the actual number of people on the approved list in Dublin. It is regrettable that official sources have not explained conclusively the way this official waiting list is made up. One of the features that makes any firm conclusion about the extent of the housing situation in Dublin difficult to reach is the lack of, one would almost say, honesty on the official side about the situation. Here the Minister himself has added his own quota of vagueness, innuendo and inaccuracy. In order to qualify for inclusion on the approved waiting list a couple must have at least one child. There is also an unapproved waiting list but this exists purely for statistical purposes because no action is taken to house families on this list. The number of people who are not on the official list do not exist at all in the official mind. The unapproved waiting list is a list of families who have applied for houses but are not considered in the official mind to be in immediate need of housing.

What is the order of priority for the housing of families on the approved waiting list? Families considered to be living in dangerous or unfit dwellings would be one category; another category would be overcrowded families and a further group would be families with priority for housing on medical grounds.

What happens if a dangerous building notice is put on a building—that is, it is considered a danger to the occupants if they remain in occupation, and indeed the building has to be very dangerous for such a notice to be affixed—in other words, the people are considered in imminent physical danger of a stairway giving way, or the roof collapsing? Those people are offered accommodation in accordance with what is available at that time. However, what is available at that time has no bearing on the proximity to their place of employment, and if the person happens to be a shiftworker this can be of extreme importance. In looking at this problem in Dublin many people seem to consider the city a very small village, with distance of no account, but a man can be 20 miles away from his place of employment at the present time in Dublin. Therefore, for shiftworkers proximity to their place of employment is of crucial importance.

The question arises: who, in fact, will be offered accommodation when a building is described as dangerous and who will be excluded? Single people and childless couples under the age of 60 years are not offered alternative accommodation and, when there is a possibility of being offered alternative accommodation, it is usually substandard. If a person occupies a building classified as dangerous and, for reasons of proximity to his employment, turns down the offer made by the corporation, he may remain on in the dwelling at his own risk and is not made a further offer until a court order for eviction is brought against him.

I have mentioned the position of an occupant in imminent danger on account of the condition of the dwelling. Indeed, many families have had to wait for the roof to collapse before a dangerous building notice was affixed. But what happens to those people living in a dwelling considered a danger to health? This danger to health may not be evident immediately but may affect them in the following years. What does one say of a family who do not qualify for inclusion on the approved list of Dublin Corporation but who have an infant with bronchial or chest disorders as a result of damp conditions? Under the present housing fiasco that exists in Dublin how long does it take before aid can be given to a family officially considered as living in unfit accommodation?

The Minister may give different figures but it has been my experience that it usually takes two years before all steps have been taken to ensure that a habitation designated as unfit is closed down and before the inhabitants are rescued from a situation that constitutes a threat to health. There is a very large backlog of such dwellings in Dublin at present whose inhabitants must continue to live in conditions that constitute a danger to their health. One could take many aspects of the housing programme as it affects Dublin and draw very serious conclusions on the inadequacy of the official response to this problem. One could take that question of danger to health and consider the fact that in our capital city there are hundreds of families who must live in conditions that constitute a direct threat to their health, who must wait over a given period and whose children may suffer lasting, adverse consequences to their health as a result of the present housing situation in Dublin.

This is the cost in human terms and misery behind the official housing statistics the Minister trots out in this House in defence of his record. These are the facts that bring people out onto the streets and bring the agitators to the fore. It is no use for the Minister to suggest it is purely the wickedness of the contemporary human spirit that compels young people to revolt for reasons they do not know. The reasons are all around them in this city. They see, perhaps, friends, relations and neighbours living in intolerable conditions with no real possibility of rescue in the forseeable future. Seeing all this, if their comment on the society that permits this to happen is a violent one, who can blame them, least of all the responsible Minister?

One of the other criteria involved is overcrowding. This is determined by the cubic capacity of accommodation occupied by an applicant. What do we consider as appropriate to each individual? We consider overcrowded families in the Dublin Corporation area are those whose accommodation consists of less than 400 cubic feet per person. In other words, the cubic capacity of the chair occupied by the Ceann Comhairle is about what we consider to be satisfactory for one individual in terms of living accommodation in Dublin at present. It is not very much, as the Ceann Comhairle would possibly agree—I am sure he would not like to stay in that chair day and night —but that is the position in Dublin. How can we ensure that our standards of cubic capacity in relation to accommodation are more civilised and how can we rescue people from the indignity of officials coming along with tapes, measuring wardrobes and ceiling widths, including sculleries and halls, taking into account every inch of space, ignoring prams and all the paraphernalia one sees in overcrowded conditions? How can we rescue people from this assault on their privacy and this measuring tape mentality?

There are health priorities. How do the corporation or the local authority approach the question of health? How do they consider the serious threat to health posed by our poor housing record? Priority for housing on health grounds is determined by the city medical officer. There is a tendency to condemn him. I am not a medical person but, knowing the cases involved, I have been at a loss on certain occasions to understand why the city medical officer could not pass a particular case on health grounds. Of course, he is as much a creature of the system as any other official in Dublin Corporation. After all, they are in the hands of the Minister. Only the Minister and the Cabinet can make available more cash for the institutional changes needed to step up the housing drive.

If the city medical officer makes incomprehensible judgements on certain occasions, surely it is the housing situation facing him and not his medical training or his medical assessment which speaks when he rejects one case for housing and accepts another? Obviously his medical opinion must suffer to a certain extent when we consider that his job is an impossible one since he cannot speak as a medical person as the houses are not, in fact, there.

In the situation in which this unfortunate officer of the Dublin Corporation finds himself, priority can only be given to a family which is affected by a serious and contagious disease such as tuberculosis, or where the health of a family is affected detrimentally by their living conditions and the danger exists that a continuing habitation of that building could prove fatal. This boils down, in effect, to something like heart disease, where an applicant's accommodation is considerably above ground level and a person with a heart condition must go up and down a few flights of stairs every day.

Undoubtedly the city medical officer must take certain risks in relation to the judgments he makes because he is faced with an appalling housing shortage and, therefore, he must cut corners in making assessments of people's medical needs. Since our health priorities cannot take in all the cases which are grievously affected by the housing situation in Dublin, we know we are taking grave risks with people's health in Dublin in relation to housing.

It can take practically two years to decide that a place must be closed down. With a serious shortage the official response is always to slow up the process of turning more people, more applicants, onto the housing market. It must be established whether or not a dwelling is capable of economic repair before it can be officially closed. Quite expensive investigations must be undertaken before such a decision is reached. A part from our present problem, which is a shortage of houses, there would also seem to be a certain amount of unfairness in the method of determining overcrowding which is the major criterion used at present in facilitating people in their request for accommodation from the Dublin Corporation.

The official mind has, if you like, become hardened to the idea of a continuing housing crisis in Dublin and the regulations ignore some of the resultant misery. People living in overcrowded accommodation are listed for housing according to the measurements of the accommodation in which they sleep. The result is that subtenants who share a bedroom with members of the tenant's family are listed as occupying accommodation which, in fact, they only share. In other words, if they share the place where they sleep with the tenant's family it is considered, by our present overcrowding criteria, that it is their bedroom when, in fact, they are sharing it.

Sex overcrowding is recognised only in a family which includes a child or children over the age of ten years. I think it will be generally accepted that the age limit should be lower today. The age of ten, it appears to me, is much too high in 1970 when considering sex overcrowding. Obviously it should be much lower. Again the problem is a shortage of houses and again the official mind has to cut corners. For a city or a county famed for its fastidiousness in sexual matters, it is an extraordinary comment that ten years should be considered the appropriate age in this connection. If our housing programme had regard to true human decency it would be much lower. Here we are committing a basic assault on human dignity because of our failure to provide sufficient houses.

These are real reasons why deep indignation should be felt by many citizens, why housing enrages so many people, and why many people are agitated about it. The Minister should understand with sympathy why there is such indignation at the bad housing situation. It is insufficient in response to quote the imaginary inadequacies of the Coalition Government on housing. It is inadequate to try to explain a failure to provide houses in 1970 by citing failure in 1956 and 1957.

This is very important. No special priority is given to any family where the father is a shiftworker and has to sleep at home during the day. Distance from an applicant's employment is not taken into account. We are famous for our attachment to family life. In fact, our Constitution mentions the subject. Governments over the years have given warm praise to the idea of family life, yet no special priority is given to families who are separated due to overcrowding.

If a married couple in Dublin are separated and living apart because of the housing situation we do not consider this a crime. We do not consider it alarming. We allow it to happen. In many cases in this city young married couples must live apart. How sincere is the society which forces so many of its young married couples to live apart because of its failure to provide houses for them? Can one blame such young people if they feel that the community of which they are exhorted to be members has excluded them if, in fact, that community gives them no possibility of living together in the married state? Again, one could ask, quite fairly, how sincere is that community in its protestations of the sanctity of the married state when it cannot allow people in the married state to live together in decent housing accommodation.

You can then have the situation in Dublin where a family living in very bad health conditions must wait an intolerable period before in fact being suited and one can offer them no particular hope of accommodation in the foreseeable future. The only way in which we can really meet the situation is to provide more houses. We need something of the order of 25,000 per year. It was remarked earlier in the debate that the present Government policy appears to favour reliance on more private house building and the figure suggests a turn-away from the number of houses built for local authorities. We appear—this has been remarked during this debate—to throw all the burden onto the private sector, forcing citizens to purchase their own houses. Fair enough if we so arrange the market that they can get houses at reasonable prices, but it is not considered to be the State's business to ensure that houses can be provided at reasonable prices. Under the corporation purchase system married couples in Dublin after two or three years living in private flat accommodation or under another system can have scraped together £700 deposit. Of course when we have brought forward suggestions—not fantastic but sensible suggestions—to meet the situation— one of the most sensible was control of land prices—the Minister has met us with inflammatory charges—this was communist propaganda. This party had a private Bill in this House a few short months ago and the Minister's response to that particular motion can only be described as disgraceful.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

You had to withdraw it.

Mr. Boland

I did not have to withdraw.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary will understand that the advocacy of legislation is not permitted on an Estimate. The Deputy knows that.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am referring to a change of attitude on the Minister's part to suggestions made for improving the housing situation and I am suggesting that the Minister's attitude is wholly unsatisfactory. The situation is far worse than he admits and he has given us no indication of a decisive change in his programme nor does he say that his attitude is in the least degree altered by the facts brought forward here by Opposition parties in relation to housing. In those circumstances, it is only fair to cite the Minister's own responsibility for the shocking housing situation existing in Dublin and in the country and I have no hope, no confidence, in the Minister being serious about the housing situation in Dublin and the country. I do not think the Minister can be moved rapidly enough from this job.

I know these are serious charges but I think the Minister's record merits this comment. Instead of a disposition to treat of criticism made in, let us say, a cordial spirit, to meet the critics, to look at the facts and to bring forward the legislation needed, what we have is intolerance on the part of the Minister, an attempt to label the critics, who justifiably say that the present housing situation is disgraceful, by the various epithets known best to the Minister. But of course the day is long gone when that kind of scurrilous political response to charges of incompetence can be approved of by the people and we have throughout the campaign in Dublin South-West consistently heard condemnation by the people there of the housing situation in Dublin at the present time. There is a veritable clamour in Dublin to get an improved housing programme I believe there is a contradiction between an improved housing programme and the continuation in power of the present Minister for Local Government. I do not think he is interested in housing.

I can state other things in other parts of the country on which the Minister considers himself far more fitted to comment. We therefore see little hope on the evidence. There is such a thing as a death bed repentance. I am not talking about an actual death bed repentance now; I do not wish the Minister any physical harm; I am talking about the Minister as a responsible Minister. But, there is such a thing as a late repentance and I would earnestly exhort the Minister to repent, to repent of his past misdeeds in the matter of housing, the omissions which are his, the total lack of an effective response.

There is need in housing for a crash programme and it is no use denigrating the motives of those who call for a step-up of the housing programme. It is no use, it seems to me, labelling people as Reds and Trotskyites and using colourful epithets like that. We must, if we are serious about the job, look at the actual situation and see what can be done. As I suggested earlier, to reduce the pressure on the local authority for more accommodation requires action on a number of different fronts. We would need to ensure that people could rent accommodation at cheaper rates so that in their early years a young married couple would have some possibility of saving. This has been done in other countries without revolutionary change. It can be done here. We can control urban land prices and, as pointed out by Deputy Dr. FitzGerald in the debate on the last day, this has been done by the Unionists whom the Minister is forever criticising. He can criticise the Unionists for other things but the Unionist Government can be described as revolutionary by comparison with Fianna Fáil in regard to housing.

Mr. Boland

I have criticised the Socialist British Government.

Mr. M. O'Leary

They are ahead of the Fianna Fáil Government in housing.

Mr. Boland

The British I criticised, not the Unionists.

Mr. M. O'Leary

And remember that. The Unionist administration under O'Neill and Chichester Clarke have shown better responsibility towards housing than has the Cabinet of Fianna Fáil in Dublin and I would commend to the Minister apart from the controversy surrounding it politically, the manner in which the Unionist Government in the North acquired land for Craigavon city. I would commend that example to the Fianna Fáil Government in Dublin. Deputy Dr. FitzGerald quite justifiably asked what constitutional obstacles there are to prevent us from acquiring land at a cheaper price, controlling the price of urban land. What obstacles there are the Minister has not yet stated.

Mr. O'Kennedy

State control is the easy answer to everything on those benches—control land or anything else for that matter. There were not many martyrs like Deputy Justin Keating——

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am trying to keep this debate on a serious level. It is a serious matter but perhaps things are more spacious in Tipperary North——

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Is it in order, Sir, for the Deputy to interrupt?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Kennedy

State control is something you can introduce absolutely. You might as well be honest and say that is the basis of your programme.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Is this in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

At the moment Deputy O'Leary does not seem to take much objection but the Chair would point out that any interjections at any time are disorderly. Every Deputy will have an opportunity to contribute.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy who intervened may not have this problem which is a very serious one in Dublin. Things may be more spacious in Tipperary North as there has been a steady exodus from there over the years and this would lessen the pressure on housing. As I say, this is a very serious problem in Dublin and the people will not be put off the steps which they see could improve the situation by hoary charges of State intervention or other charges of that kind. Fianna Fáil innuendoes of that kind are not effective in the Dublin area. They may be effective in areas such as Tipperary North but they are not in the crowded conditions of Dublin city. If we are serious about the housing situation and reducing costs, seeing that sites are such a costly item and seeing their effects on the rates and rents which have to be paid for corporation houses, we must realise that there are certain obstacles to providing local authority housing accommodation. One of these is cash, the money that must be invested in the project. If we are interested in seeing that local authorities can provide houses at more reasonable rates then the community must take the responsibility of controlling the price of urban land which is needed for such houses.

This is not a new concept because the practice of controlling the price of land which is needed for houses has been undertaken in other European countries, none of them behind that curtain which is so often referred to by Members opposite. This procedure has been followed in the Craigavon scheme in the north and, as Deputy FitzGerald remarked, whatever else we may call the Unionist Government they are not a Government noted for their extreme socialist views. Therefore I would urge the Minister to let us know in detail to which constitutional obstacles he refers and if there are real objections or obstacles perhaps he could include these in the package review of the Constitution which will give us votes at 18 about which his candidate is talking in Dublin South-West.

Another serious matter in regard to housing is the rents situation. As we have heard repeatedly a great deal of hardship is being caused by the Dublin Corporation's B scale scheme. We can all accept and approve in theory the idea of differential rents but the application of the B scale scheme means that the income of every member of a family is taken into account in assessing the rent, even the incomes of sons and daughters who are preparing for marriage. What we are doing is forcing the unfortunate tenant and his family to pay for out lack of courage in ensuring that housing costs are reduced. If we are afraid of slogans, afraid of being called certain names and of taking the commonsense approach to the control of urban land prices then the unfortunate corporation tenant and the ratepayer must pay for that cowardice.

It would be much fairer if, in assessing rent, we confined inspection to the income of the chief breadwinner, the husband, as it is he who is the tenant. The income of other members of the family should not be taken into account. After all, we tax them heavily enough through central taxation. The basis of our endeavours should be to ensure that they could save enough to prevent them seeking corporation houses themselves. As it is at present we penalise the whole family. One could say that it would be just that overtime earnings or bonus payments and so on of the head of the family should not be included in the assessment of rent. However, as it is, the income of the entire family is taken into account. This is putting the official boot down heavily.

The payment of Dublin Corporation rent is the cause of great hardship. For example, a man does overtime or receives bonuses in his job and over a period such income is assessed and then one fine day at the end of three months he gets a bill for perhaps £30 or £40. We know of nervous breakdowns and families breaking up, of attempted suicides—and the tenants' associations have referred to these matters—even in such model schemes as the Ballymun scheme. In such cases you will find people living in fear of the corporation rents, of the increased cost of living, the cost of long journeys to and from their places of work. There are people living on the verge of nervous breakdowns and it goes without saying that a state of near permanent mental disorder is the lot of very many people living in these houses in Dublin. There are so many cases where people are cited as suffering from nervous disorders that it goes without saying that the medical officer, in practical terms, ignores all health factors which include mental disorder. So common is this malady in Dublin, connected as it is so intimately with the housing shortage, with the primitive living accommodation of so many families, that any cases the Dublin city medical officer gets include mentally depressed persons, and so common is that that their treatment will be ignored and turned down even though the medical officer may be convinced the person concerned is in a high state of nervous tension. So severe and so common is this malady due to the housing shortage and to other inabilities that a person must be taken in as a permanent patient before this mental disorder is taken as a factor.

There is inability to pay rent arrears which are calculated in backlogs of rent in the case of persons who pay rent week by week but who do some overtime or get some bonus in respect of which months later bills are issued for the extra amounts. In economic terms we call for increased productivity and any manager in industry will tell you that it adds up to more efficiency if he gets more output per individual worker. However, we call for higher productivity while we penalise such higher productivity excessively in the assessment of rents by the corporation and in the whole manner of the implementation of our rents policy. The differential rents system is fair in theory and if it must operate it should exclude the members of a tenant's family who should be free to add to their savings or to make their own plans for the future.

On the national level, houses in this country are old by any European standards. We have a very high proportion of obsolescent houses. Some of them are more than 100 years old. There are no exact figures but one wonders how out of date the data collected in the 1946 housing census is by application to today. We cannot really give any convincing answer on this. In 1946, of 662,000 private dwellings only 5 per cent had fixed baths and only 23 per cent had indoor lavatories. I suppose we can assume that a higher proportion of the 160,000 units built since then have been serviced to permit the installation of indoor toilets and bathrooms.

It would seem that a case can be made for a new census today which would give us our exact needs in the 1970s. While the present housing shortage continues, I would say that we must continue to cut corners to meet demands. If there is lack of housing, then our regulations are designed to ensure that as few people as possible qualify for housing. That is the impasse: when we do not build sufficient houses our regulations lay down that as few people as possible qualify. Assuming that we can get more houses built, we must re-draw the waiting list of Dublin Corporation. At present, so bad has the housing situation got that quite a number of people are taking the law into their own hands and are squatting in corporation property. There is no exact figure to go on but it seems to me from the situation I observe that the system of filling vacancies in the city is breaking down. We must remember that young married couples with one child do not have any hope of being rehoused by Dublin Corporation. There must be many such families taking over corporation property. I do not condone this. It is all very well for me to say I do not condone it at a time when so many are living in intolerable conditions.

Therefore, it seems to me that we must devise a new waiting list, a new system. I suggest it should be according to a points system, a system which will take into account all the circumstances relating to all families' living conditions. This would not increase the number on the waiting list. Of course the only way to deal with this problem is to build more houses, but the review of the house allocation system I have in mind would ensure that needy families would be housed first. This would mean a lot of hard work and it would take a long time to launch such a scheme. There would have to be an interim period. There are numerous families who have been on the list for years.

It would mean expanding the corporation welfare department. This department is under-staffed at the moment and it has not the prime role it should have under a local authority system which was tackling the housing problem properly. At present an official may say: "What is the use when we do not have sufficient houses to put the people into?" That would be a fair enough reaction but it seems that in order to make an impression on the housing crisis we need a better staffed welfare department. This department would need to work in close unison with the medical department and the housing allocation department. Up to the moment the welfare department has been regarded as the poor relation of the other departments in the corporation.

A crash housing programme is needed if we are to achieve any success in providing houses. We need 25,000 new units a year and we are not getting them at present. A whole host of reasons can be given for this failure to provide the required number of houses. As the market appears to reign supreme in regard to private houses many people will be thrown back on the resources of the local authority. Health factors and problems of overcrowding are not taken into account when allocating houses because the houses simply are not available. Human misery will increase as long as no action is taken.

We have had some successful schemes in Dublin but not enough. It is regrettable that the Ballymun scheme, which is an admirable scheme, was built on the outskirts of the city because it means that the people living there have to travel long distances to work. One constant, but small, complaint is the lift, which, appears to break down about once a month. Many of the people living in Ballymun are not accustomed to living 16 storeys up and having to use a defective lift might well lead to neurosis. Would the Minister inquire why the lift is always breaking down?

The tenants in Ballymun are unable to control the heating in their own flats. Deputy Dr. O'Donovan has pointed out to me that the heating in Leinster House is excessive, but at least we are not forced to come here and we can always leave with or without the help of the electorate, but the unfortunate people of Ballymun have no control over the heating system. The Minister will probably say that the expenditure involved in giving individual control in each flat would be prohibitive, but even if control could be arranged floor by floor it would be some help. I wonder whether, in common with many other things we do, modern blocks of flats in Europe were looked at prior to the building of the Ballymun flats. I do not know which example Ballymun took after; it was probably the example of a county council estate in Britain built about ten years ago, but the heating system is intolerable.

The other day I was talking to a man who lives in Ballymun and he said that he had taken his children to Drimnagh for Christmas and while they were there the children's complexions returned to normal. Apparently, now that they have returned to Ballymun, their complexions are as pale as they were before Christmas. It may be some years before the Minister says that there is an adverse reaction to this kind of central heating but in the meantime some type of control over the heating system should be given to the tenants.

The old people in the Summerhill area of my constituency are, for all practical purposes, forgotten people— they live in the basements. They do not have much chance of being rescued from these dungeons—and dungeons is what they are known as—before they die. I do not think old people should be segregated from the rest of the community but, while the housing shortage continues, we cannot afford the luxury of meeting the problem fairly and squarely. Meanwhile, these forgotten people continue to live in appalling conditions.

There is a complete lack of information about the corporation's housing policy. I can never understand why the corporation cannot explain the situation more clearly so that people will know the facts about housing. Every Wednesday morning people can go and find out where they stand in the housing queue. As long as the overall housing position is inadequate the tales they hear from the officials will be gloomy. I would welcome Dublin Corporation opening information offices where corporation tenants could obtain information because at present there is a complete lack of information. The whole corporation housing programme is shrouded in controversy and mystery.

We must seek out our own figures so as to calculate exactly how serious the situation will be in the years ahead. It seems pretty clear that none of us in this House, of any party, can see any solution of the housing crisis in Dublin over the next five to six years. There are no factors which will reduce the seriousness of the situation. We now have Islandbridge, St. Michael's Estate, which is nearly complete, Dominick Street-Dorset Street and Ballybough. After those, what else? The Kilbarrack and Coolock area? There is no major scheme of the size of the Ballymun scheme coming up. Therefore, representatives of all parties meeting their constituents when the facts of the situation are inquired about must more and more answer in the negative in the future. In such a situation it is an indictment on all of us that in the kind of democratic system we operate more and more people may, regrettably, be forced to take the law into their own hands.

It is a serious situation where the system cannot provide for such elementary things as housing accommodation and it is regrettable that the Minister is not a man in whom we can have any confidence. He is not in fact interested in seriously facing up to the situation. He does not appear to share any alarm. His whole approach to criticism is to ignore it, to consider it purely a matter of political opportunism, that any criticism of the housing situation is made by political critics. All of us know in our hearts, regrettably, that we can see no diminution of the housing crisis.

Whatever other failings our system may suffer from, there is no reason why we should fail in the matter of providing housing. It would require no revolutionary change in our system to improve the housing situation. It might require a different order of priorities but that is all. As long as we refuse to take the action necessary, as long as we ignore the problem, the protests will be intensified and more and more must we see action move into areas which have nothing to do with the parliamentary process.

I hope that this serious matter of housing will be given some attention by the Minister when he comes to reply. I hope we will not be treated to a repetition of previous replies of his, pointing to alleged deficiencies of Coalition Governments in the past. Those were so long ago that they are outside human memory.

Dr. O'Donovan

Gone and long forgotten.

Mr. M. O'Leary

What we are interested in is what this Government proposes to do in the years which are left to it as a government. There is adequate material for debate in the record of this Government from 1957 to 1970, 13 long years, and the sincerity and direction of this Government must be seriously suspect when one sees over that period a continuing decline in the number of houses built by local authorities. It is no use meeting criticism by saying that that is a mark of economic prosperity. I have made this point before. Prosperity for whom? There is no point in reiterating this fable of empty homesteads under Coalition Government and bustling population under Fianna Fáil Government to account for the failure to provide housing. The demand is there. Why are we not meeting it at this particular time? Why are we not building an increased number of local authority houses annually? Why are we refusing to take action to control urban land prices? Which vested interests are tying the Government's hands in this matter? Those are questions people will continue to ask as long as the number of houses built each year declines.

The people who suffer from this continued ineptitude and incompetence on the part of the Government are mainly the old and the young. I see no clash at all between social investment in housing and investment in productive economic undertakings. That false distinction has been made in the Second Programme and has influenced the attitude of planners under the First and Second Programme. One of the failings of the Coalition Government, as they see it, was their obsession with social investment. It is a healthy obsession and I see no contradiction or no distinction between social investment and economic or productive investment. Investment in houses, in the health of our people, is equally conducive to economic well-being. Who is to say what the final cost to the community is in the matter of the health of our citizens, what it will take to bring them back to health and so on, of living as they do in such appalling conditions?

I have not exaggerated the case because tenant organisations have adequate files on the matter. There is serious financial anxiety caused by the implementation of rent scales especially the B scale rent. The cost of living is continuously rocketing and people based long distances from work have to pay increased bus and travel fares, and so on. Those are the people who will suffer as long as the official policy of ignoring the housing situation continues. More action is needed from the Minister for Local Government. I hope in his reply to the debate the Minister will give us some sustenance, some grounds for hope that either he is leaving office, departing from that Ministry or at least bringing forward plans.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am a bit disappointed that Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien did not come back in with the gang. I was talking about variety in housing schemes. I am particularly glad that the Minister and his Department, and An Foras Forbartha in conjunction with them, are now paying serious attention to this very important aspect of local authority housing. It is vitally important that the concept of freedom, the concept of variety, the concept of the individual house being different from the house next door, should operate in local authority housing schemes as it does in private housing schemes.

If we do no more from now on—and the signs are very encouraging from what the Minister has said and from the programmes that are under way—than to introduce this notion into our local authority programmes we will have gone a long way towards solving not just our housing problems but also the other problems so closely associated sometimes with congested housing development such as crime problems and social problems of one sort or another. The next time I walk down along the banks of the Shannon in Deputy O'Malley's or Deputy Coughlan's constituency I hope I will find that the places of beauty not only have not been spoiled by housing developments but enhanced by new housing developments.

While I am quite sure it is a matter to which An Foras Forbartha are giving a lot of thought it does not strike me as being any problem for 100 different types of designs to be made available to the local authorities in introducing these new schemes. Each of them could be implemented with the same type of fittings, the same standard fittings, the same type of equipment, but a different facial structure. To me at least this does not seem to be beyond the wit of man, beyond the wit of architects or planners. I hope that from now on we will be able to have that enlightened, active, shall I say happy, approach to housing and not the rather drab approach that has been a characteristic of our local authority development up to very recently. In the past five years there have been signs of very healthy change.

I welcome particularly the Minister's concern about standards. I know little about this but I am told that we have about 150—may be 150,000 for all I know—different types of domestic plugs and sockets. Of course, this sends up costs much more than if we had the standard types of plugs and sockets which are being so wisely and sensibly introduced and used in every other European country.

Dr. O'Donovan

I think they are being standarised now.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I hope they are Things are looking so good with standardisation and one per cent money that I do not think we will have any further problems.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is much the same idea.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I think I would do best by taking some precise points, because there are many Deputies here who are much more experienced than I am. I intend neither to comment nor to olagón for an extended period. The last matter I want to raise on housing arises out of the Minister's recent announcement that henceforth the grant house will be limited to 1,249 square feet. I can see the reason for this. As the Minister says, our job is to secure the highest possible output in areas of greatest need with our available resources. The Minister said there will be provision for further grants for extensions to houses in certain cases. I think he called them expandable houses. Possibly that is what he means.

Take the case of man with a large family. If he needs to build a house in excess of 1,249 square feet, where does he now stand? Will he be expected to come within that limit? This is a very simple question. Maybe I missed something in the Minister's speech and he and his advisers may think it is too naive a query. In any event, it is clear that if he wants to expand subsequently the facilities and the grants will be there. It is not clear what the position is if he wants to do it now. If he has 12 children and cannot come within the 1,249 square feet limit, can we devise a system whereby he and others who need space right now will be exempted in some way from the restrictions which this new scheme will introduce?

Other than that I wholeheartedly commend the notion behind the Minister's approach. Housing is a need for all the community and our job is to ensure that those who cannot provide it for themselves get it. We must be realistic enough to say that this may mean that some people—indeed many of ourselves in this House who have hitherto had the benefit of grants and loans for local authority houses— will have to give up those grants and loans so that more can be made available to those who need more.

I want to make one final comment and it is not directly a matter of housing but has a very definite effect on the housing programme. Every time a new site is bought anywhere in Ireland, and particularly in rural Ireland, the Land Registry have to draw up a new folio. This means that the Land Registry have to plan a new map in respect of that folio. This causes more delay than if I go over and buy all of Paddy Ryan's property holus-bolus because all that is involved is changing Paddy Ryan's name and putting my name on the folio but if I buy a portion of his property his map must be amended and a new map must be drawn up for me and a new folio. I know from my own knowledge that with all the site development going on around the country, with the pressure on housing space and the pressure for housing development, the biggest delay we have to face in every case—particularly in relation to people looking for loans from local authorities who cannot get them until the places are in their own name—is the delay experienced in the Land Registry.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

It is 12 months in some cases.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is 12 months in some cases. This does not come directly under the aegis of the Minister but I know it is a matter of concern to him. Something will have to be done in that section because, through no fault of the officers there, it is holding up the housing programme throughout the country. Many people who are given the benefit of loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation at certain rates, or from local authorities at different rates, have to wait a further 12 months when different rates of loans or different rates of interest apply. I hope that those concerned will get their heads together and that someone will find a different way of dealing with these maps or new folios. Perhaps there could be some kind of temporary folio or temporary map, thereby allowing the applicant to go ahead with the building of his house.

I want to deal now with some isolated matters which have no relation to each other or to what I have been saying on housing but are matters which warrant some comment. The Minister indicated in the course of his speech that the group water schemes throughout the country are expanding both in numbers and in nature. From my own experience in North Tipperary I can confirm this.

One of the great attractions of this scheme obviously is that it helps people to help themselves. The advice and assistance will come from the local authorities and from the departmental inspectors but the onus is on the local people to start the scheme and to raise their shares of the money. This scheme has been entirely successful in North Tipperary and, I am sure, in every other constituency. However, as the Minister says, the inspectors involved are working to the limit of their capacity. Therefore I am glad more inspectors will be appointed because more will be needed. We in North Tipperary, Limerick and Kerry will be continuing this demand, and I should like to make a plea in this connection to some Deputies who are members of local authorities. A habit has grown up of seeking up-to-date reports of the 50 or 60 group water schemes at a particular time. By the time these reports come in and by the time the inspector is obliged to prepare these reports for the meetings, they are out of date, in the first instance; they take up his time, in the second instance; and, thirdly, they cause a great deal of comment which at the time is not at all relevant. Therefore I would ask Deputies who are members of local authorities where this kind of thing is happening to advise them: "This report will not have any effect because by the time we get it it will be three months out of date and it will interfere with the work of the inspector."

I am particularly glad the Minister said that new and more stringent regulations will be introduced for the control of pollution from vehicles and so on, particularly in or around Dublin. Since I came into this House one of my greatest concerns has been to see our environment in this city being spoiled by, amongst others, State sponsored bodies. I should like the Minister to ensure, apart from anything else, that there is an adequate pollution control scheme. It is no use saying the regulations are there. I know they are there but I can see within a short walk of the Four Courts any day chimneys belching out poison all over the city. Out on the dual carriageway near Baldonnel where there is a marvellous view of Dublin one can see poisonous fumes all over the place. We cannot live in a vacuum but we can do a little better than we are doing. I am not convinced that there are enough inspectors, prosecutors or whoever should deal with this to ensure that the matter is dealt with properly. There is a certain road construction company and every time one of their trucks passes it leaves a trail of poisonous gas in its wake which is dangerous for traffic and dangerous for health and the environment. When these new regulations have been introduced I hope some time in the near future to be able to ask the Minister, because this could be the test, how many prosecutions there have been and what has been the result of these prosecutions. I would also hope that prosecutions would decline each year. There is no point in saying to the Irish people: "Please do." This is something we must learn the hard way. We shall have to be forced to do it. It may be that, equally important as the appointment of traffic wardens, will be the appointment of anti-pollution wardens and the sooner they are appointed throughout the country the better for all of us.

The swimming pool is a facility which ought to be extended throughout the country. My town, Nenagh, is very fortunate in that, while we have the Shannon and some other rivers at our door, a swimming pool was provided by local effort over 40 years ago. Other areas which do not even have the Shannon or adjoining rivers are apparently only now becoming aware of the facility of a swimming pool. Apart from calling on the Minister and his Department for assistance in the provision of a swimming pool people had better be aware of the fact that it will cost a great deal of energy, dedication and interest to maintain it. It is not enough for the Department to give a grant of even 95 per cent. The important thing is in ten years time, when perhaps those who are interested in the swimming pool will have disappeared from the scene there will be another team to ensure continuity in the maintenance of the swimming pool programme. Even in Nenagh, where the pool was provided by local effort without any grant, we had problems up to recently in maintaining this pool in the manner in which we would like.

Apart from that, where the local response is significant enough to warrant a response from the Department, I would commend the further extension of the swimming pool programme. I am reminded of what the late Deputy Donogh O'Malley said when he was Minister for Health and when there was something of a housing problem: "Maybe if you give Blaney the houses I won't need the hospitals." The same could equally truly be said in regard to swimming pools. If we give the Minister the swimming pools we may not need the hospitals. I am told by experts that swimming is a very healthy and natural exercise. If children are encouraged to swim it may eradicate problems that arise in later years for so many people.

I was particularly gratified to hear the Minister talk about the planning programme being undertaken by his Department in conjunction with An Foras Forbartha. Planning is one of the most important matters for this country at present. There are fewer of us in Ireland per square foot than there are in any other country in Europe and possibly than in most other countries in the world. So far we have not planned our environment as we should. I am glad to hear this is being done in conjunction with the local authorities and An Foras Forbartha. In Clare, Limerick and North Tipperary they are not just planning in isolation as far as industry and tourism are concerned but are getting together to plan in conjunction with one another in relation to urban and local authority matters, so that there will be uniformity of design and so that the best use will be made of the available resources.

I am glad to hear of the extension of the programme for research and scholarship and the advisory programme which will be made available to local authorities. Up to the present, as was mentioned in the Devlin Report on the State services, and which is equally true of the local authority service, I fear these authorities are not as effective as they might be as planning authorities in the widest sense, as positive programming authorities, not there just to administer schemes and say who is qualified for housing and who is not, and to build roads where necessary but there as planning authorities in the fullest sense, concerned, for instance, about something I have already mentioned, the general decay of town centres. They should be concerned about the nature of services provided in certain areas and could exchange ideas with each other. Indications from the Minister's review of what has been done and what is proposed are very encouraging. Anything done in that connection will add to the effectiveness of local authorities in any development they undertake.

One matter that has caused concern —this is in connection with the road programme—is the problem one has in acquiring rights of way—for want of a better term—along the roadside when a new road programme arises. Last year I had the opportunity of entertaining some American friends. They were impressed by our expansion in every way. They happened to be from Missouri. They pointed out that if we do not do something about our national roads particularly, we will have a major problem. They also pointed out—and this was a practical matter which they had experienced at home—that if we do not acquire the rights of way along the roads it will be much more expensive to do so in five years time when the plan is ready.

Now is the time to acquire those rights of way. If we wait two years before building a road, somebody will build a house, a factory, a store or even a petrol station along the road and when we come to acquire it we do not acquire the land only but must also acquire and compensate for the house, the factory, the store and the petrol station. We may have further troubles through not being able to clear up the titles. This is evidently happening throughout the country at present. I saw a case where one cottage held up a major road programme. It is only proper that a person's home is his palace but it is strange that a major programme could be held up in this way in—I think—County Kildare of County Laois.

Dr. O'Donovan

It happened in Tipperary.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It could have happened there also or anywhere else. Danger of delay should be countered in advance of the road programme itself. I know there is a problem and that we cannot go about buying up all land adjoining the roads now: the money is not there but if we could enter into some scheme of loans for local authorities to buy well in advance of the road programme we would have done a very good day's work and, in the long run, would save local authorities considerable expense.

There is great need for further extension of our national primary road system as it is now being called. Even the ancient Romans realised that a good road network was the first basic element in expansion and effective development. The Americans have also realised it and surely we, who are concerned, as we are, about reaching the hinterland of rural Ireland and making it available to us wherever we may be, about closing the gap between rural Ireland and the cities so that they will not seem to be divorced from where the action is, so to speak, must ensure that the road programme is continued as rapidly as possible.

One often hears discussions about the Buchanan Report and whether we should build regional development centres or, on the other hand, build up small industries in certain rural areas or in small towns. To me there is not necessarily a conflict here. Provided we have a good road network—we have done a magnificent amount of work in recent years but we are a long way from our goal—distance will not be the obstacle; it will just be a matter of time. Castlebar will not be whatever it is, say 20 miles, from Claremorris but, say, 20 minutes. This is the important thing. We shall not then have any worries about rural Ireland being denuded. People are coming into Dublin from places like Carrickmines and Foxrock and it takes them three-quarters of an hour to get to work sometimes. If you are 20 miles from the town in which you work and if you can get there in 20 minutes or half an hour, so much the better; you have the benefit of both worlds. You live and work in rural Ireland and can enjoy a happy drive to and from work.

This is asking a lot now but I hope when the national primary road system is introduced, the new road programme the Minister has promised—and which apparently has been widely commended by international experts—the Government will give this matter full consideration. The new road authority will also do away with the lack of consistency in road standards in various parts of this small island. Is anything so ludicrous as that in a country so small we should have different types of road surfaces and different road contours in different counties? Is there anything so dangerous as to have in one county a huge open road which has recently been provided and when you come to the county boundary you find a bottleneck? This makes no sense at present but it has made sense for too long. I hope the first thing the national road concern—I forget its title —will undertake is an absolute standardisation of road widths, contours and matters of that kind so that we can all go our way more safely.

It is splendid to find on some newly-opened roads, travelling, for instance, from Dublin to Limerick, the excellent work that has been done in providing definition lines along the roadside and it is also wonderful to find along the margins of these roads, standards inside the actual road surface, which light up almost like an airport runway when one drives along the road at night. It is absolutely essential nowadays to have these standards and definition lines and these marginal lights—for want of a better term. These are the only things that give a driver reasonable security and precise vision when driving at night.

This has been done to a great extent in many parts of the country. It is significant that it has been done and also significant that it has not been done in so many other parts. When a local authority or the new national road authority repair or extend roads they should as a first priority establish and construct definition lines at the side of the road to let the driver know where the road ends and the ditch begins. Then, as soon as possible, they should put down whatever reflector lights are needed both in the middle of the road and on the sides of the actual road surface.

We need much more standardisation of road surfaces and travelling conditions. I have been greatly encouraged by the Minister's awareness of this problem, and by what has been done already and I am sure that work of the kind already done will be continued and carried out more speedily.

My penultimate point is in connection with night travelling and night traffic accidents. I have had occasion to defend professionally people charged with dangerous driving causing death. I have seen death caused where it might have been averted. I say "might" because one cannot say in any one case that it would have been averted. If a car breaks down at night or if there is an accident on the road it is likely that the lights were failing. The lights may fail completely or they may not be sufficient. The gardaí are called. I have nothing but praise and commendation for these men. They try to clear the road of traffic. They may have lights or they may not. We all know the things a referee should carry on to the field—a whistle, a pencil, a piece of paper and so on. A guard going to the scene of a traffic accident should have not only a pencil, a notebook, a measuring tape and possibly a flashlight, but also what each driver should have, a triangle. The Minister's advisers are better equipped in this than I am but I feel the gardaí should have some kind of self-pulsating lights that they could leave on the road to show the public that there is an accident. They should have reflectors, even armband reflectors, for all concerned. I do not think this would incur very much expense but it could save lives and prevent injury. If it saved four or five lives or, perhaps, ten serious injuries it would certainly warrant consideration and introduction.

The gardaí should also possibly have breakdown equipment. We are rather unique in this country in that we have only one type of policeman, the policeman who does everything, from investigating crime to looking after traffic. In most other countries there are traffic police and then other police. This applies to Italy, France, Germany, America and even England. We must give serious consideration to introducing a second type here also. We need traffic police properly equipped. We need traffic police with the equipment I have been talking about. Last Friday on the way home from this House on a dangerous junction at Clondalkin my car broke down. I could do nothing about it and I could get no garage mechanic, because they were all going to their tea, to help me. All I could do was block the traffic until such time as a very concerned driver came and drove me back into the city and we got somebody there to take my car out of the way. One should not have to rely on the civic concern of a person like that. We should have, particularly on our main arterial roads, traffic police who would ensure, with this equipment, at nighttime and at other times that our roads are kept free and that an accident will not be the cause of another accident, as happens from time to time. These police might possibly serve the dual function that I mentioned, that of pollution control police.

I promised when I started that I would not delay the House with generalisations. From my point of view the Minister's review was such a wide and deeply researched speech which gives such hope that it would be wrong for me or anybody else to try to cover the range of all that he said. I hope these few precise comments may add something to his consideration.

The Minister stated that there will be a review of the structure of local government. At this time I do not want to say anything more about that. I would gladly welcome such a review. I think it is long overdue and when the Minister gets that review before this House I will be glad to talk on it again.

Mr. Cosgrave

I want to make a few general remarks and then say a few words about my own constituency.

In the course of this discussion there has been a great deal of talk about housing, particularly by Deputies from city constituencies or adjacent areas. Some statistics have been quoted beginning with those quoted by the Minister. I do not want to add much to the figures that have been quoted nor to try to make special points from comparisons between one set of figures and another. In the main, the housing programme in the last ten or 15 years has had two or three significant changes. Fifteen years ago the number of houses built by the local authorities and by people availing of State grants was slightly less than the total figure which the Minister gave for last year. In the meantime, the number of houses built dropped very considerably in some years and then in recent years showed a rise culminating in the figure for last year.

The usual approach to this matter is to compare the figures for the inter-Party Government period with the figures for the subsequent Fianna Fáil years. The Minister then quoted the figures for last year to show that an improvement had taken place. No one of these sets of figures, other than the actual number of houses built, compares like with like in the sense that whatever number of houses were being built 12, 14 or 15 years ago and whatever number are being built at present, particularly so far as the Dublin area is concerned, each fails to take account of the substantial growth in the population and expansion of the Dublin area. It is to focus attention on that aspect of the problem I want to say a few words this evening.

I do not think people are impressed, no matter what their political views, by Deputies of one party or another quoting figures to show that at a particular period one Government or one Minister or even different local authorities constructed this or that number of houses. The problem that exists at present and the one I feel we have to face and take major decisions on is to establish an effective order of priorities in respect of housing. For many years the problem for one reason or another did not present itself in an acute form because sufficient resources were available for housing and for other construction work but there is now, particularly in the Dublin area and contiguous areas like Dún Laoghaire and in some other cities and towns, a housing problem. Unless we establish a clear set of priorities and decide what amount of public capital will be available for the housing programme it is inevitable that the capital available as well as the supply of land for housing will be in competition with the money and land available for other purposes.

I do not suggest it is an easy problem to solve; the capital problem is one aspect and the availability of land and the price for which it can be purchased are other aspects. We have never taken a major definite decision to differentiate between the two. Undoubtedly in last year's Budget certain changes in taxation were made designed to deter office blocks and blocks of buildings being constructed for purposes other than housing. The Minister dealt at length in the course of his speech with the constitutional, legal and other difficulties involved in any form of compulsory acquisition. There are difficulties in restricting by legislation the use of land but some modus vivendi should be possible.

It has been suggested here that State and local authority control, as advocated by some Labour speakers, is the solution. I do not know if this is so. I think it would be contrary to the accepted attitudes that have been adopted here and, possibly, contrary to the Constitution to try to operate that. In Norway a licensing system operates in regard to construction that ensures whatever construction activity the economy can support is directed into fields of priority importance. No real attempt has been made here to define priorities in regard to building. There is a notional acceptance by the Dáil and possibly by the Department of Local Government and local authorities that housing has priority but in actual practice so far as acquisition and availability of capital are concerned—and this brings into the field of public discussion the matter that has been referred to here—unless there are some restrictions either by means of taxation, by the provision of a licensing requirement or some other method, large commercial undertakings, whether insurance companies, office block promoters or property developers will be in a better position to secure capital much more readily than the ordinary private builder. Without the assistance and support of the State the private builder and even the local authority who erect houses cannot continue with this work.

Therefore, we must face up to the decisions involved—either to restrict by the application of some form of licensing system in certain defined areas or, alternatively, the imposition by means similar to those introduced in last year's Budget of some increase in taxation or some form of added burden that will deter people from engaging in forms of building other than housing. Undoubtedly the owners of sites are entitled to receive the market value and fair compensation for disturbance but the community should not be expected to pay grossly inflated prices which some speculators and people who happen to be in the right place at the right time manage to secure. Sums of money should be available for building houses instead of being siphoned off to a great extent for construction purposes other than housing.

In that regard we must take a number of decisions in respect of the matters referred to in the Devlin Report. For a number of years we have advocated, and the Devlin Report reinforces this, that decisions must be taken in respect of different aspects of local authority affairs. One matter referred to by the last speaker was the question of a national highway authority under which uniform standards would apply and which would be financed as a national concern. The other aspect is the question of rates reform to which I shall refer later but so far as the question of local administration is concerned I know the Minister has announced his intention of publishing a White Paper on the matter.

Some of the comments of the Devlin Report on the Department of Local Government were not merely interesting but enlightening. The report said that the Department was holding on to excessive central control over local authorities which resulted in delay and duplication, frustration of initiative and complications in long-range planning. The report further said that the model to aim at might be the degree of operational discretion given to the noncommercial State-sponsored bodies which would become executive units under its proposals. These points were mentioned on page 273 of the Devlin Report. The report also stated something with which I am sure Deputies, who are members of local authorities, would agree—that the degree of control exercised by the Department, either for traditional reasons or because of certain legislative provisions, is in many respects not merely intolerable but frustrating and unnecessary. The report refers to certain major questions that are of sufficient importance to warrant reference in the report.

I want to reinforce my argument with some smaller examples. The report says that "Block samples could be substituted for detailed financial and technical control of individual projects. Control systems involving duplication of approval for individual schemes should be eliminated when general approval has already been given. When technical controls are abandoned the Department should establish standards to which local authorities should be expected to adhere." Now this reference in the Devlin Report can be reinforced in a variety of ways.

In my constituency I have had experience of schemes submitted after they had been prepared by qualified technical officers—architects, engineers, planners and so on—and, as a result of departmental action, changes were made in these schemes. In one scheme covering 100 to 120 houses the scheme was cut in half; a modified scheme was proceeded with and, before that modified scheme was properly finished, the county council had to go back to the Department and the Department had to revise its earlier attitude and sanction the scheme as originally planned. The scheme, of course, was done in two halves, with some minor variation.

Even in relatively minor matters the position is that, as the Department functions at present, traffic control lights cannot be erected by a local authority unless they are approved and sanctioned by the Department. Surely the people properly qualified to deal with such a matter are those directly concerned, those who are familiar with the situation and who have available to them the same statistics as the Department have? Surely the erection of traffic lights should be left to their discretion? If they are not competent to deal with a matter like this then the power should be taken away from them altogether. The degree of control exercised by the Department in relatively minor matters is unbelievable. This is accepted because it has been the practice over the years.

I want now to refer to particular matters affecting my constituency. Some of these matters are peculiar to constituencies on the fringe of Dublin. They are problems almost solely of areas in which there has been substantial housing development. A number of estates have been developed and the houses on them are occupied in the main by people who take advantage of the small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. In a great many instances these estates have for years remained unfinished. The occupiers are liable for rates. I, in common with other Deputies, have for years been attending meetings of residents' associations. The people are not merely exasperated and frustrated but annoyed and sore in that the only service made available to them is the provision of scavenging facilities. No other service is provided in most cases.

These estates have been finished or almost finished for a number of years. Because of the failure of the particular builder involved to complete the work to the satisfaction of the local authority the normal services, such as lighting, adequate pathways, and so on, are not provided. The places concerned range from Glenageary to Deansgrange, Foxrock, Stillorgan, Leopardstown, Clonkeen. This is a vast area adjacent to Dún Laoghaire; most of it is in the Rathdown part of the constituency and some of it is in Dún Laoghaire Borough. In most cases, because of the developers accepting responsibility only for the provision of roads—in some cases they provide nothing at all—the facilities and services in a great number of new housing estates are decidedly substandard. The residents feel aggrieved because they maintain the planning system, as operated, can be used to prevent the occupier of a house building a garage, a room or a couple of rooms on to his house while the developers and builders are not required to do their work to a proper standard. These occupiers are liable for rates.

There is a definite gap between the enforcement by the local authority of the requirements they specify and the actual completion of the work by the builder or developer. Occupiers have been in occupation of their houses for periods of from three to five years—in some cases it has been ten to 15 years —paying rates, sometimes full rates, and the only service they get in return is the scavenging service. They get no other service to which, as ratepayers, they are entitled. I urge the Minister and his Department to use whatever powers are available to them to get some action in respect of this very important matter. One of the phrases used in the Buchanan Report was that planning must be positive, not merely preventive, and it adverted to the danger of excessive central controls. It is in a matter of this kind, I think, their comments apply. People who want to erect a garage or add on a couple of rooms to a house find they must comply with a whole set of requirements laid down by the planning authority.

In this regard it is only right to say that the planning officers do their best. We have been largely unequipped to deal with planning. I agree with some of Deputy O'Kennedy's comments to the effect that this is a new field and we have lagged behind; because the number of people to the square foot or the square yard is probably the lowest in Europe we have not paid a great deal of attention to the matter. Certainly, so far as the Dublin areas are concerned, and this includes Dún Laoghaire and all the fringe areas, planning problems are presenting difficulties and, indeed, serious annoyance for many people. When many people wish to have a small matter attended to, or a decision taken in regard to a relatively small question, they find the forms that have to be signed in order to comply with the requirements are considerable. They look at the area in which they live and they consider that the planning authority—using the term in its broadest possible sense—or the local authority responsible for operating the Planning Act have failed to provide the ordinary standard services to which ratepayers and those who have made a considerable investment in houses in respect of loan charges and so on, are entitled and, naturally, they feel that this is a sphere of local authority administration in which action is required quickly.

A criticism made at a recent meeting at which I was present was in regard to local authority schemes. In most cases such schemes involve a small number of houses but whether the number is small or large the scheme will be completed and the services provided by the local authority; if they are not, the tenants and occupiers would rightly complain. However, where the scheme is built partly by one builder and partly by another, or, perhaps, by a number of other builders, in some cases an annoying situation develops. In one particular case I have in mind, in which some non-local firms were involved, they made laneways at the back of the scheme and they assigned these to a man of straw so that they would not have to maintain the laneways. That sort of non-social activity should be the subject of action not only by the local authority but by the Minister and his Department in order to ensure that where facilities are provided for developers of that kind, the tenants and occupiers are entitled to the services by reason not only of their investment but also by reason of their contribution as ratepayers. Failure to provide these services and the delay in finishing estates has caused strong feeling among the people concerned. This applies to a number of areas which I mentioned but in the main this is an urban or semi-urban problem. It is not a problem which exists to any great extent in any other part of the country although I suppose it can exist. It applies particularly to my constituency, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and also to the Minister's constituency and certain other areas in which there has been development on the fringes of the old urban area.

I want to advert now to a matter raised in the Buchanan Report in regard to regional development. This is a matter to which sufficient attention is not being paid. A number of years ago, and on a number of occasions since, I mentioned here the desirability of regional development in certain areas. Two places which often struck me as being suitable for this type of development were Limerick and Ennis. While the theoretical idea behind providing employment in Shannon, in the sense of making up for the drop or possible drop in employment due to technical aeronautical development, seems attractive enough, nevertheless, the need to provide all the ancillary services and facilities emphasises the value of employing or utilising the facilities and services already in existence in places like Limerick and Ennis.

One of the situations that has developed in the Dublin area, and even in places like Dún Laoghaire, is that in many of the older parts the populations have had to be transferred, because of the age of their houses, to new housing schemes and this has meant that many of those old areas have become derelict and denuded of buildings. Undoubtedly, there is a strong case on economic grounds and even on sentimental grounds for a redevelopment of those areas and for the erection of schemes of houses or flats in them. Most of the residents of those areas would prefer to remain in them if it is possible to have adequate facilities either in houses or in flats In that connection most people prefer schemes which would be much lower than in the case of the Ballymun scheme. In some of the schemes provided in places like Church Street, of those being built off Dorset Street and around Dominick Street, and in my own constituency, one finds that blocks of flats of three or four storeys are more popular with the tenants and in many cases are more satisfactory from every point of view.

These are major planning and policy decisions inherent in two reports which must be the subject of serious consideration and decision before a national planning scheme can be operated. I do not think there is any real conflict here; certainly, some conflict of interest may arise in certain cases as between one town and another but, as major centres of development are decided upon, for many reasons it may well result in general development in the area concerned.

I want to refer also to one matter which I have raised here before, the question of the fire-fighting services. Some years ago there was a very bad fire in my constituency in which the Dún Laoghaire church was burnt out. It was most fortunate for everybody concerned that it happened in the day-time. It was fortunate also that it did not happen in a multi-storey building in which people were living.

Everybody realises that faced with modern developments our fire services are not adequate if put to the test. This is not a reflection on the personnel of the fire-fighting service, who are well trained and who apply themselves with energy and in many cases with considerable bravery and skill to the tasks they have to deal with and the consequential work needed to be done, but the facilities and the equipment are by no means adequate. Therefore, I was glad to hear that certain proposals have been made to Dún Laoghaire Corporation to provide more up to date and better facilities in the town.

That brings me to the question of the problems facing the fringe areas, the main one being that of water supplies. With the development of a number of estates in the extremity of the area, not only at peak periods but at other periods when they should reasonably hope for adequate water supplies, the residents find the pressure is not sufficient. I should be glad to hear from the Minister what prospects there are and what plans for a general improvement in water supplies for domestic and other purposes. Many of the areas I have been speaking about are in my constituency but in other parts of the city that I am aware of this problem has presented itself, more acutely in areas in which elevation and building development happen to coincide.

I should like to deal with some other problems in relation to my constituency. One has arisen because of modern development, the increase in car population. It relates to the necessity to provide underpasses on many thoroughfares. Sanction has been given in respect of the provision of an underpass at Williamstown, Blackrock, but it is obvious that with the advent of more and more cars at higher speeds a number of underpasses will have to be provided. Otherwise it will be necessary to hold up traffic for greater periods in order to let people pass across the roads. Therefore I urge that sufficient underpasses be provided on main thoroughfares.

An area of particular concern in this respect is Stillorgan village. The present intention is that portion of this village will form the dual carriageway between Dublin and Bray. When this carriageway was planned originally the bulk of the village was on one side. Then there was private development and houses were constructed. Then the county council built a housing scheme there. In this respect I wish to advert critically once more to the fact that this scheme of 100 houses was reduced by the Department and eventually when the scheme was built it was done in two parts, houses being built on both sides of the road. Even now, before the construction of the dual carriageway, people find difficulty in crossing the road. Large numbers of children and many older people find it impossible to cross. At the moment traffic is controlled there by one set of traffic lights and, because of the length of the village and of the frontage of the housing schemes, people have to walk long distances before getting to the lights. I therefore urge that when the plans for the dual carriageway are being sanctioned the Minister will ensure there is provision for underpasses. The same applies to other villages, but Stillorgan is now the largest village from the point of view of distance between point of entry and point of exit from the village.

Recently, a question was raised in the House about the proposed ready-mix plant at Newtownpark, Blackrock. I wish to reinforce what was said during a discussion on a Parliamentary question tabled by other Deputies and me. The original plant in Blackrock was a concrete block one. It is on a site adjacent to a school known as the Kingstown and Avoca School. There is also a scheme of houses there. It is proposed that the plant be reconstructed or altered in order to be used as a liquid concrete plant. The residents and the people in charge of the school, as well as the pupils, but the residents more strongly than anybody, object most strenuously to this alteration which increases considerably the nuisance created by the plant. The user will be changed to such an extent that a definite nuisance will be created with a possible hazard to health and a definite hazard as far as convenience is concerned. I suggest that the Minister and his advisers examine carefully the whole question before allowing any development which would conflict with the interests of residents.

In connection with the whole question of financing local services, I think the time has come to operate a system other than the rates. I am not suggesting for one moment that the services, such as housing, sewerage, water, light and so on, which local authorities have to provide could be provided without finances. All these services cost money and they will cost more money in the future.

There are two major defects in the present system. The first concerns the health service, which is providing an inequitable system with rising costs. It should be based on insurance, but that, possibly, is a matter outside the Minister's Department. The second is that the rating system itself is inequitable, because it takes no account of capacity to pay. In the last year or so a nominal system of waiver of rates has been adopted, but no one regards this system as satisfactory. It is hardly in operation at all in some cases. However, the fact that it was introduced is recognition of the inequities of the present rating system. People are liable for contributions in other forms of taxation either because of their income and their capacity to pay or because they commit themselves of their own volition to spending money on a particular commodity which is taxable.

The present rating system does not come under either of these headings. Whether one is an old age pensioner, a pensioner of any kind, a person in full health earning a substantial salary or engaged in business, the rate liability depends entirely on the valuation of the house—apart from a minor change which was made in relation to some old people recently. Whatever merits and advantages existed under the old system—and there were probably quite a few—that system is no longer capable of financing schemes which, in many cases, are national in their application rather than local. In most cases they are local in the sense that a particular district or local authority is responsible for them but the standards laid down are national in their uniformity and apply nationally.

I want to refer to the deplorable increase in vandalism. The damage done to public buildings, telephone kiosks, public toilets and so on and the amount of refuse which is piled on the roads in and around our city illustrates an attitude of mind which must be deplored. Consideration should be given to the introduction of penalties enforceable against those members of our community who engage in this sort of thing. In co-operation with the Department of Education, instruction in these matters should be given to our young people. In large centres of population local authorities should facilitate the public by providing dumps as well as adequate receptacles for this refuse so that the situation will not deteriorate and the environment will not be disfigured by this refuse.

Decisions must be taken in relation to the establishing of priorities in housing and rates, and the recommendations made in the Devlin and Buchanan Reports. Some form of penalty should be brought in enforceable by county councils and the Department of Local Government to ensure that developers will leave housing estates properly finished once residents go into occupation so that when people become liable for rates they should be in receipt of services. I know this is a matter of less general application but it is of vital concern and anxiety to residents in constituencies like my own where new housing estates are being built.

Mr. Cluskey

The Estimate for the Department of Local Government has taken quite a considerable time and I feel it will probably take quite a lot longer. The Minister for Local Government is responsible for making decisions which vitally affect the daily life of every citizen in this country. The Department covers a wide range of matters of tremendous importance to the people. Numbers of new dwellings have been erected—we have heard a lot about it from the Government benches—Ballymun estate has provided us with certain unique difficulties. Although they have to an extent helped to solve a very great problem, they have created new difficulties. This is something of which the Minister and indeed all of us should be aware, and we should do our utmost to make provision for it.

In Ballymun we have these high rise flats. A number of problems have been referred to by some Deputies. One of the major problems for the people living in Ballymun, and the vast majority of them are people with young families, is the problem: "How do you allow your child of very tender years out of the flat which can be up to 13 or 14 storeys high and down into an area to play? You have lost sight of the child. Physically you are very far removed from the child." This is a cause of considerable anxiety to these people.

In my capacity as a Dublin Deputy I have been approached by quite a considerable number of people who accepted accommodation in Ballymun. They found the accommodation in itself quite acceptable. Many of them spoke very highly of the actual accommodation, but they were worried by this problem and also by the lack of facilities in Ballymun. The Minister must accept some responsibility for the undue delay in providing these facilities. There is now a trend in Ireland towards something which has been in vogue in England since the war years, that is, married women going out to work. This presents a further problem with regard to the care of their children.

I believe a system has evolved in which one of the women in these flats —not necessarily in Ballymun; this could apply to Inchicore or Ballyfermot or Cabra or Crumlin or any of these large estates—undertakes to mind a number of her neighbours' children during the day. This poses a particular problem in the high rise flats. In the event of a fire there could be anything up to eight, ten or 12 very small children in one of these flats and this could prove to be disastrous. I would suggest to the Minister that, when these estates are being planned, provision should be made for a day nursery so that these women can leave their children there and go about their necessary business with some peace of mind. This is one of the many things to which we in this country seem to be very slow to adapt.

As we all know this is Conservation Year. Some members of the Government have been very vocal about the desirability and necessity to conserve whatever we can of our natural beauty and our national heritage. One is inclined to take some of the remarks in this field by members of the Government with a grain of salt when one looks at what happened in Hume Street. A very serious problem is developing in regard to the Dublin city coast of which the Minister should be aware. If things continue as they are going, in a very short period of time the children of this city will be denied the use of Dollymount strand. It is becoming polluted and apparently no effective action is being taken to stop this pollution. The same can be said of Sandymount strand.

Of late the Minister has been in places like Ballyfermot so he should be aware that for very many of our children during the summer months this is the only opportunity they have of going to the seaside and running around and playing on the strand. It will be denied to them completely if we allow Dollymount strand and Sandymount strand to become polluted in this way. Since it can be rectified, the necessary and appropriate action should be taken by the Minister to rectify it.

A number of Deputies spoke about the traffic problem. There is no doubt that an acute traffic problem is developing, particularly in Dublin. This involves expense and annoyance for motorists. It is also becoming increasingly more difficult and dangerous for pedestrians to cross our streets. One has only to drive or walk around the city to realise that pedestrians are catered for inadequately. There are parts of the city where you literally take your life in your hands if you try to cross the street. The danger is grave enough for the normal, agile adult but for children and elderly people it is extreme. It is also unnecessary. Surely it is not expecting too much to suggest that a proper survey should be made of the city so that we would know the volume of traffic in particular areas and provide adequate safe crossings for our people who, in the main, travel by public transport.

This morning in my own constituency I was made aware that buses have been diverted and now take in Mountjoy Street in which there is a school, and that no pedestrian crossing or no traffic warden has been provided. The people sending their children to school in the mornings are becoming more and more worried about the safety of their children. In consultation with the Garda, and with his commissioner, the Minister should do something about this hazard to children.

Another problem has arisen in connection with a number of flats we have in the city area. It is not a new problem but it has become more intensified of late and it is causing people increasing anxiety, that is, the problem of vandalism within some of our city flats. Instead of trying to curtail this vandalism which we cannot eliminate, Dublin Corporation do not provide caretakers in these flats although caretakers have been provided in the past. The annoyance caused by some of the youths in these flats particularly to elderly persons who are accommodated on the ground floor, is extremely serious. The mental anxiety caused to these elderly persons by youths who can only be described as hooligans defies description. One would have to talk to these elderly persons to realise that their lives are being made a living hell by a very small number of youths in some of these flats. The presence of a caretaker in these flats would reduce, if not eliminate, this persecution. I ask the Minister to take this matter up with his commissioner.

In his speech introducing the Estimate, the Minister referred to the number of grants which had been made available for the repair of old houses. This is a very good scheme which should be encouraged in every possible way. It enables people who are living in houses which are structurally sound, but rather old, to put them into proper repair and to instal amenities such as toilets and bathrooms. The way in which the scheme is being operated leaves much to be desired. Recently I was asked to call on a constituent, a lady living with her sister, neither of them young. The houses in this part of my constituency are reasonably old. These ladies had saved a certain amount of money and wished to put the house into proper repair and to add on an extension to the kitchen to provide a bathroom and toilet. They were prepared to spend their life-savings on this project. They received a certain amount of assistance from the local authority in having this work done. The job was done in a most unsatisfactory way. I wonder how this could happen? If one applies for a grant an inspector is sent out. He inspects the premises and the estimate which has been given for the job. If he does not consider that what is being done would put the place into a proper state of repair he insists on additional work being done before the grant is given. Before the grant is paid a further inspection is made of the completed work. This is to ensure that the necessary repairs and renovations have been carried out. In the case to which I refer the renovations and repairs could only have been done by a very inexperienced, careless workman. Any man who knew his job would not have passed them on inspection. These people had spent their life-savings on this work. They were forced to the further expense of legal proceedings in order to get the work carried out properly. Last week I heard that on the day the case was to be heard in court a settlement had been reached. Surely the inspector should not have passed this work? These inexperienced people had full and utter trust in the workman. There is something wrong in a system which allows this kind of "chancer" to prey on people who are trying to put their homes into a good state of repair. I would suggest to the Minister that it might be a good thing if builders had to be licensed and that unless they met certain standards they should not be allowed to carry on this business at tremendous expense and inconvenience to those who, in good faith, employ them.

I will not press the point. Another question which deeply concerns our people, and which I will refer to again later, is the question of rates. Rates, as many people know, have been a controversial issue in this country and in this city. With much fanfare, an announcement was made that certain reliefs from rates were to be granted to certain categories of persons. This brought great hope to many people who were in difficulty. Some people absolutely dreaded from one year to the next the time when the postman would put the rates demand into the letterbox. Widows who were trying to maintain their homes which had been built up in better days when their husbands were alive and their children were growing up, and were now on a very small fixed income, thought when the announcement was made that they, naturally, would be included in the relief promised by the Minister. Unfortunately their hope was crushed. It was a false hope.

The way this scheme is operated, particularly in Dublin city, could only be described as a confidence trick on one of the most defenceless and badly off sections of our population. There is no local authority, as far as I am aware, operating a scheme that one could in truth describe as a worthwhile, decent scheme but the one being operated by the commissioner who was appointed by the Minister is certainly the worst of a very bad lot. How could anyone who realised the plight and desperation of some of those people trying to meet their rates bill build up false hopes? It would appear that it was done purely and solely for political motives. Many people thought that at last this was the relief that we had so long been seeking. They discovered that it was another of the Fianna Fáil promises which are very seldom, if ever, fulfilled.

The Minister devoted quite a lot of his brief to housing. He mentioned the loans available for persons who wanted to buy their own houses. The Minister would agree with me that the ceiling of £1,200 is completely unrealistic and it might be to everybody's benefit, particularly to those who are trying to buy their own homes, if this were reviewed in the near future. We also heard not only from the Minister but from Deputy Dowling in particular, Deputy Moore and Deputy Foley of the tremendous progress that had been made in the provision of housing, particularly in Dublin, over the last number of years, that everything was disastrous under what the Minister described as the Coalition Government but that once Fianna Fáil were in the saddle everything was rosy and that all those people one saw on a Wednesday morning queueing up at Dublin Corporation appealing for some type of accommodation were a mirage, that the Fianna Fáil Government and the Minister for Local Government in particular had provided so many houses that we had no housing problem. The Minister quoted figures at great length to try to substantiate the statement. He was supported by figures which I have no doubt he supplied to Deputy Dowling to reinforce the argument.

Let us be honest about the housing situation particularly in respect of Dublin. Undoubtedly great progress has been made and there has been quite a number of dwellings provided in the City of Dublin. I cannot speak with any great authority outside Dublin but the number of dwellings provided by the local authority in Dublin is quite considerable. The fact is it is not enough and as far as solving the housing problem is concerned we in fact—I emphasise "in fact"— have not made any progress. The official figures of the waiting list of Dublin Corporation show that not only have we not made any progress but we have taken a step backwards, that there are more people now on the housing list of Dublin Corporation, that there are more people now in the City of Dublin who lack proper accommodation than there were in 1965, five years ago.

If we look at the number of dwellings provided by Dublin Corporation over the years we see something very significant. I have heard the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, on many occasions tell us of the disastrous year 1956. The strange thing about that disastrous year is that while in 1955-56 the Dublin Corporation provided 1,021 dwellings, a period of seven years elapsed before Dublin Corporation broke the thousand barrier again. I wish to quote from the official figures of the Dublin Corporation as furnished by the commissioner appointed by the Minister, so surely he will accept them as authentic. In 1955-56, as I said, 1,021 new dwellings were provided by Dublin Corporation. Fianna Fáil came into office that year and have been there ever since. In the year they came into office they provided 480 dwellings, somewhat of a drop; the following year the local authority provided 505 dwellings; the next year, 237 dwellings; the next year, 643; the next year 786, and then, 791. There is something we should note about the figure 786. A total of 786 new dwellings, which was somewhat of an increase on the previous years, were provided in the year 1963-64, and they were provided as a result of two children losing their lives in this city because a tenement house in Fenian Street fell on top of them, and two elderly people were fortunately rescued from a tenement house which collapsed in Bolton Street. This started a panic. In 1963 officials of the dangerous buildings section of Dublin Corporation were going around and condemning ad lib houses in this city. The situation we had to accept was that people were evicted from their homes at a moment's notice and there was no one in a position to offer them alternative accommodation.

That was the direct result of a deliberate policy by the Fianna Fáil Government from 1957 on. Those are figures which the Minister and Deputy Dowling and Deputy Moore did not choose to quote. I can understand some Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party being fooled here by the statements of the Minister, being blinded by science, by the quoting of this number of houses, this number of sites, and this amount of money. However, I refuse to accept that Deputies such as Deputy Dowling and Deputy Moore, who are Deputies from Dublin working-class constituencies do not realise what the facts of the housing situation in this city are. Some Deputy representing Cork or Kerry or somewhere like that might accept in all good faith what the Minister says, but Deputy Dowling and Deputy Moore have no such excuse. They accept what the Minister says because it suits them politically to accept it, but they know what the facts are and they know that what the Minister is saying is a distortion of the facts.

Deputy Dowling, above all, knows the facts because he appears to have a direct pipeline to the Minister's representative in this city. Deputy Dowling can quote up-to-date figures here. I shall quote some up-to-date figures and some not so up-to-date figures, official figures of the waiting list of Dublin Corporation, and we shall see just how much progress has been made with regard to the housing situation in this our capital city in the year 1970. This is the approved waiting list and I underline "approved" because it does not reveal the full picture of people seeking their own accommodation. In 1965 the figure was 4,890 families looking for accommodation from Dublin Corporation. In 1969, after four years of this crash programme initiated by this dynamic Minister, this man who was solving all our ills, this man who repeatedly told us in this House that the housing situation in Dublin was being vigorously tackled, the official waiting list in Dublin Corporation was 4,980. It seems to have increased. There were more people on the waiting list in 1969 than there were in 1965.

This is progress. It is for this we are supposed to applaud the Minister responsible for housing, that he can manage to increase the waiting list in the capital city for housing accommodation over a period of four years. It is a peculiar way of measuring progress. The approved waiting list now — again I underline "approved"— in February, 1970, the latest date for which I have figures, is a little short of 5,500 families. In 1965 the figure was 4,890 and five years later it is 5,500. Then the Minister has the audacity, in introducing his Estimate here, to try to tell us and, through us, the people that tremendous progress has been made in the housing situation. Is the man mad or is there nothing that would make him face up to reality and openly admit that his policy has been a dismal failure?

When quoting figures here as I have been doing we tend to lose sight of what these figures actually mean. If the Minister cares to come along with me or any other Labour TD from Dublin to the clinics we hold to hear the problems of our constituents, he will realise they are not just figures. What is behind the figures? Misery is behind the figures; broken homes, broken marriages, delinquent children, bad health and ruined lives are behind the figures we are quoting. This situation would be understandable were it necessary but it is totally unnecessary. The only thing that stops us from solving the housing problem not only in this city but in this country is that the Government in power lack the political will to do it, and there will be no solution to the housing problem as long as the people give Fianna Fáil their support.

It is very hard when speaking of housing not to get somewhat emotional, particularly when day after day, night after night, people are coming to you, a man, his wife and one child, where the man is living apart from his wife and child through necessity. You must tell them honestly that under the present system they have no hope of being provided with a house by the authorities responsible for the provision of housing for our citizens. You must tell a young woman who has been married one or two years that in all probability her marriage will never get off the ground, that it is on the cards that this is a broken home for all time. Goodness knows, young married people in the best of circumstances have to adjust themselves to certain problems. How much more magnified are these problems if the husband cannot even live with his wife and child, where she is forced to seek accommodation for herself and her child under another person's roof, even if that other person is her own mother or father? What hope have these people? No hope.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 3 Mar 1970

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

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 Mar 1970