Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 Jun 1971

Vol. 254 No. 13

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £13,762,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1972, le haghaidh tuarastail agus costais Oifig an Aire Rialtais Áitiúil, a chuimsíonn deontais do na húdaráis áitiúla, deontais agus costais eile i dtaca le tithíocht, agus scéimeanna agus deontais ilgnéitheacha, lena n-áirítear deontais-i-gcabhair.
—(Minister for Local Government.)

On the last occasion that this Estimate was before the House I had covered most of the items that I had in mind but one cannot conclude without referring to the last part of the Minister's statement dealing with road safety propaganda and education. While I appreciate that attention has been called by the Department and all other authorities to the necessity for road safety, I am amazed that the number of fatal road accidents seems to increase steadily. The year 1970 brought us to the staggering figure of 532 dead and 70,000 injured. That number of fatal accidents would represent three deaths every two days. As one who drives thousands of miles annually and who has a reasonably good knowledge of the roads, I think that should not be happening. We have a relatively small population of less than three million and except in the major centres the roads are not too congested. There is evidence of carelessness on the part of many drivers.

What steps are to be taken? The Minister has set down a number of subheads in his statement. He has appointed road safety officers and junior school wardens. He has provided charts, leaflets and warnings. He has devoted a paragraph to the wearing of arm bands.

Despite all the warnings and all the statements made by the Department of Local Government and the local authorities, more definite action must be taken. As one who possibly drives as much as anyone in this country, seeing that the propaganda used has not brought about the desired result of reducing the number of fatal road accidents and making the roads safer for the travelling public, I have no hesitation in saying that there is need to increase the punishment in some cases for driving offences. Every man who takes a vehicle on the public highway has a duty not only to himself and his family but to the general public and must realise that he has the right only to use the road and that his driving must be such that other users of the road can drive safely so far as he is concerned. The Minister has some work to do there. He must do some rethinking on this problem. Since his appointment as Minister for Local Government he has made a number of statements but what has been the outcome? The fatal accident chart is steadily moving upwards.

It is beginning to go down. It came down in May. I am not claiming credit for that.

Last year the number of fatal road accidents was 532, a marked increase on the previous year. I am glad to learn that there has been a reduction. If that is the position it shows an improvement for this year. The Minister is confining his statement to one month. What is the position for the year?

No. I am only saying that we had a reduction in May. I should like to think that this trend will continue but I would be over-optimistic to expect it to do so.

Of the 532 people killed many were bread-winners and we must consider the consequences to their families. We must continue our efforts to bring about a reduction in this figure. There are thousands of people involved in road accidents. As a result of such accidents many are absent from work for months or even years, and some may be incapacitated for life. Let us consider the imposition on our hospitals who provide care for people injured in road accidents. I am glad to see that the Minister is fully aware of the problem and I welcome the measures set out in the latter part of his statement. As Minister for Local Government, he is entitled to the co-operation of all in his effort to reduce the numbers killed and injured on our roads.

The provision of swimming pools is desirable but I consider that preferential treatment should be given to inland towns and villages rather than to seaside resorts. People who live near the sea have nothing to complain about but in some such areas there is agitation for swimming pools. I think all will agree it is only fair that the inland towns and villages should get preferential treatment when the provision of swimming pools is being considered.

I realise that parking regulations are a source of contention. I know the problem that exists in Dublin, Cork and the larger towns but the problem exists also in every town in Ireland. Some people maintain, with some justification, that it is a good sign to have to cope with such a problem. I realise that parking regulations are necessary but I should like to impress on the authorities here that such regulations should be drawn up in co-operation with the local residents. This should be done in a friendly way and the viewpoints of the people concerned should be considered. This has been done in most cases but my reason for referring to the matter is that in a certain street in Skibbereen there is some trouble regarding this matter. I had hoped that during the past year or two a suitable arrangement would be worked out. There should not be friction between the authorities and the local traders. So far as possible the traders should be facilitated and in every case where regulations are being considered the views of the local people should be sought.

The problem of water pollution has been dealt with at some length in the Minister's statement. Some of our beaches are not as clean as they might be and this is harmful to our tourist trade. It is regrettable that such pollution is more frequent now than in previous years and we should take some steps to deal with the matter. We should be watchful and ensure that pollution is dealt with quickly. We are fortunate in south west Cork that there is very little of this kind of pollution but I have had representations from some districts about this matter. I am sure the Department of Local Government will co-operate with the local authority in dealing with this problem.

I have been travelling regularly to Dublin for more than 20 years and I have wondered frequently at the patience of Dublin people with regard to the way the problem of pollution is being tackled in this city. I know if the people in west Cork suffered to the same extent as do the people in Dublin we would hear much more about it. Recently I read a great deal about the rivers Dodder and Tolka but the river I know best in Dublin is the Liffey. Speaking as a non-resident of Dublin I think it is strange that nothing has been done to deal with the pollution of this river. It is peculiar that this situation should obtain in our capital city. I would support without hesitation the provision of funds for the purpose of eliminating this altogether. I am satisfied that the demands made from many quarters are well justified. Over the years I have had great sympathy with the people. There is a sufficiency of Deputies in Dublin to make representations here and this is the first time I have raised this matter, not because of an insufficiency of representation but in order to bring home to the authorities the desirability of spending money on this kind of work, work designed to reduce harassment on those living in adjacent areas.

The controversy over the location of the Dodder Valley sewer and the Grand Canal sewer contributed substantially to the delay. The scheme will pick up a great deal of sewage effluent at present polluting the Liffey.

Any scheme that will do that should not be hindered.

This happened some years ago.

There would seem to be no justification for it. I believe any moneys required for this purpose would have the support of everybody.

The work is under way.

I am glad to hear that. The last item I want to deal with is a local matter. I wonder how deep the Minister's purse is. Where does he keep his wallet? We are looking for a sizeable cheque in south-west Cork. It would be close to the £500,000 mark.

No problem.

I am sure the Minister knows what I have in mind. I am referring to the replacement of the bridge in Kinsale. We have had repeated meetings and we are very pleased now that everything is in order. Plans, specifications and all the incidentals have been dealt with. Everything is in order except the cheque. I know there are many demands on the Minister, but Kinsale is one of the oldest towns in the country. The bridge is an exceptionally dangerous structure and the people in Kinsale and those who visit Kinsale would be very grateful if the Minister could see his way to making the moneys necessary for the replacement of the bridge available without delay.

I have taken up perhaps more than my fair share of the time. I do not like using more time than is absolutely necessary, but I feel strongly about the matters I have raised. In the reorganisation and restructuring of the local government system I hope there will be no great urgency in formulating policy and drafting a Bill. A White Paper has been issued presumably so that people may study it and make suggestions. I hope any suggestions made will receive a sympathetic hearing. I take it there are no pre-determined, unchangeable policies.

All we ask in south-west Cork is our fair share of the loaf. The general feeling is that we are not getting that. That feeling is not confined to Labour and Fine Gael; it is shared by the Minister's own party members as well. We have been frustrated in schemes for housing, water, sanitary services, et cetera. We would like more co-operation from the Department. We would like the excessive red tape in the Custom House and down at O'Connell Bridge cut. It is more of a hindrance than a help. I understand the Minister has accepted the idea of giving more autonomy to local bodies.

I have been critical of the Minister and his Department, but these matters must be viewed objectively. I am well aware that the Minister is a relatively young man and not too long in the job; I know it takes time to acquire knowledge and experience in any job, not to mind the job the Minister has in the Department of Local Government. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is a very understanding public representative. Both of us came into the House at the same time. He is most suitable for the job he has. I believe he is as good as any on the benches over there and he is an ideal second-in-command to the Minister. I wish the Minister well. This country is small enough and we have had differences enough for too long. No matter who occupies this position he must bear with criticisms and protests made in this House and in public bodies where people have the right to make protests. I do not accept street protests to any great extent. I believe the Minister has an obligation to listen to and deal with protests and criticisms as fairly as possible.

I hope that in the current year and for whatever time the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are in office, their work will be fruitful and that we shall have more co-operation from them than we have had in the past from their colleagues in Cork County Council and its public administration departments.

Like every other Deputy I believe it is only right and proper that we should all have our say in local government. Although the previous speaker is a Deputy from my own constituency we may see things through different glasses and have different views. Local government is a very big undertaking now. When I was first elected to the council many years ago the number of officials in our own department in Cork County Council was very small. It has grown a good deal since. In the time of the last four or five county managers we occupied three rooms in the courthouse in Cork. The furniture and equipment was not very elaborate but the quality of the men there was very high. We built a very elaborate county hall, one of the largest in the country, I suppose, which when first built would, we thought, house all our officials in the foreseeable future but which is already bursting at the seams after a few years. Like the Custom House which had to branch out to O'Connell Bridge House and other parts of this city we shall soon have to seek more accommodation. But while we have men and houses the work being done is not increasing. We were very foolish, I think, to build that county hall because the power and control over the work down in Cork is held in the Custom House.

I wish the youthful Minister opposite luck in his authority and in the work he is doing. He has more power now than Hitler had in Germany. He has complete control of everything, as I hope to explain to the House. In the first place, we cannot build a scheme of houses without first getting his sanction. We have engineers and inspectors and qualified tradesmen to build houses; we have a very big number of engineers, highly qualified, who should be able not only to run Cork county but run the Department itself. Yet, this is no good; a letter must go to the Custom House and in some cases there is no room to write the addresses because they have gone up and down so often seeking sanction for this or for that. What is happening? I know cases where applicants are waiting four or five years for sanction for the building of a scheme of cottages. Outside Clonakilty people have been waiting for county council cottages for four or five years. When we first submitted the scheme the contract price was too high and we were advised to re-advertise and get tenders at prices acceptable to the Department. The scheme has gone up and down so often that these houses could have been built £500 cheaper five years ago than they could be built now. These are the things that matter.

There is a small farmer living outside Clonakilty, a man who fought at Kilmichael and Crossbarry, who could not afford to build a house himself. We agreed to build it for him but he has now been waiting at least seven years. One part of his house fell down and he is now living under a few sheets of corrugated iron. Although we hear of patriotism, of republican parties and so on, here is a man who stood by his country in the hour of need living under corrugated iron outside Clonakilty. This is the tragic thing, as has often been said. Every member of every party on the western committee of Cork County Council has referred to this case. We have done our best to get this man, with others, housed but he is still there after five or six years. Although we had tenders to build the house they were not accepted by the Department and we are now as far away as ever from housing that man, and others also.

The Minister or his predecessor introduced a scheme whereby higher grants were made available to persons who should be housed by the council but who were so long waiting that they built for themselves. I asked a question recently in the House and the Minister admitted that it is he who must decide who will get the higher housing grants. He asked me to give him a few names and I gave him three or four or five but I never heard about them since. One of the applicants did get a reply but the Minister or his officials did not think it worthwhile to let the representative from the area know what was happening to these people, whether they were getting houses or not. This is treating Deputies with disdain and it is disgraceful that the Minister or his officials should not inform elected representatives whether a man is to get a higher grant for his house or not. The letter he received was as follows:

A Chara,

With reference to your application for an increased rate of new house grant please note that at present you do not qualify for this grant but when you are married and in occupation of the house you should notify the Department when your case for a higher rate of grant will be further considered.

Mise, le meas.

For the information of the Minister and the officers of his Department that man and his mother have been living in the house for the past 12 months. He was a young man very badly housed who built this house for himself. I do not know whether the others received any answer or not, but there is not even a reference number on the letter this young man got which he could quote if he rang up the Department. I cannot make out the name of the person who signed the letter.

When did the Deputy give me the three names?

About six weeks ago. I asked a question in the House the same day; I approached the Minister as he went out and informed him that he had asked me to give him a list of names.

The Deputy did that six weeks ago?

I told one of the people concerned that I was waiting for a reply and he told me he had already received a reply. I hope the Minister will look into these three cases.

It has not been as long as the Deputy says.

I mentioned these three cases in order to prove the Minister's power is so great that even to get the higher grant for a small cottage in West Cork the Minister himself must give the authority. In the case of planning authority if the Minister decides that the county council were wrong in refusing planning permission to an applicant he can grant an applicant planning permission. The Minister's sanction must even be got for sanitary services. The Minister must have his hands full looking up all these files on all these subjects. Surely the Minister cannot do them all himself. If he does he must work very hard.

Cork is a very big county and many people are paying £1,000 for sites which were not worth a bob ten years ago. Many people who have survived on very small incomes are getting a good sum of money for their land now but the planning restrictions are very strict. I agree we must have planning and probably we should have started to make plans earlier than we did but when we eventually made plans we were too rigid. I know of many houses in the West Cork area which are locked up because the people have gone away. Many of these people will never return and the houses will remain derelict. With a coastline of hundreds of miles I would prefer to see a nice house, with somebody living in it and paying rates and in West Cork we certainly want a bigger population. People who have lived on small means are able to sell the land which was useless a few years ago for a good price.

While there have been improvements in the plant and machinery for widening and improving roads, work on our roads is going very slowly. The road running from Cork city to Castletownbere is, I suppose, one of the busiest tourist roads in the country but the road from Cork city to Innishannon, a distance of 12 or 13 miles, is one of the worst primary roads in the country. When the West Cork railway lines were pulled up, I do not know who bought them or where they went. I asked a question the other day and I was told it was a State-sponsored body. State-sponsored bodies can do what they like. They do not have to answer to anybody. The miles upon miles of steel rails, equipment, et cetera, must have fetched a considerable sum but very little of the money went towards improving roads in the county. Traffic on the roads increases day by day and year by year. If the people who made the order to sell the West Cork railway could take that order back today they would do so because at that time we thought CIE would be paying its way by now and that they would be well able to take care of the remaining traffic but we find that we are paying just as much to them now as we were paying before they took away our railways.

I appeal to the Minister and to his Parliamentary Secretary to grant us a primary road out of Cork city for the 100 miles that faces west. Even if it went as far as Bandon for the first year we would be satisfied. Surely something must be done about it. I am sure the Minister's officials could tell him that the patching that is going on there is not suitable. A good deal of money will have to be spent on it to make it even a second class primary road. When Deputy Blaney was Minister for Local Government we had him down to open a bridge at Skibbereen. He promised at that time to give us a primary road. However, he is gone from the office. If he was there now we would have a better chance because he would live up to his promise and give us that road.

I see he opened a road recently in your own constituency, a Cheann Comhairle. It was described as a very high class road serving the highlands of West Donegal. More power to them; more luck to them; they deserve it all. They are keeping in touch with the seat of power. The Ceann Comhairle is laughing. He is benefiting, too, because when he goes home he has a fine road on which to travel. Think of the poor men in West Cork who fought for freedom and made it possible for you all to come up here and enjoy it. Think of the people who are living under sheets of corrugated iron.

This year for the first time we are getting an increase in our rural improvements scheme grant. How it came about I do not know. However, the Government, in spite of the scarcity of money, agreed to give us an additional £19,000. So well they might. Last year we had 500 applications for rural improvements schemes and the amount of money we had would not provide for one-twentieth of that number.

We had to announce to the people in the public Press that we were taking no more applications, that we had more applications than we could deal with in the next four years.

How much did you get last year?

I think it was £27,000.

An increase of £19,000 on £27,000 is not a small increase.

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary but he should also take into consideration the fact that £27,000 last year would do nearly as much as the £19,000 and the £27,000 this year having regard to the increase in the cost of materials and everything. The increase would be a lot more if we were in County Sligo, in County Galway or in County Donegal. The Parliamentary Secretary must have the figure for what they are getting in Donegal. It has increased considerably and not by £19,000 but by nearly £100,000. The same applies to Sligo and Galway. Of course, the Minister is from Galway and why should he not throw a little bit out to the boys in Galway and get them roads out to Connemara, Moycullen and other places? Of course, the money of Ireland has gone into Salthill already. However, they got a good bit extra this year. Now think of West Cork. Maybe there is still something in the kitty and it is not too late to rectify the position. Maybe the Minister would send us down another instalment so that we could do 40 or 50 more.

You will have to get the Letterkenny parliament down there.

They would not survive down there. Our grant from the Road Fund was cut this year by £68,500. Imagine that when there is an increase of nearly £1 million from road tax and from petrol. Our manager has stated that it will mean 40 to 50 of our road workers out of employment. I suppose we got the biggest cut in our road grant of any county in Ireland. Even if we got the £68,000 extra we still could not do the work we have been doing over the years because of the increased price of materials and services of all kinds. It will also mean a big reduction in the mileage of the roads to be improved. Our engineers were sure we would get it. Our county manager stated when we were asked to vote an increase on the estimates for the county: "I am sure I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that we will get at least the same grant. They cannot reduce it." The Department reduced our grant by that sum. Surely they will not be responsible for throwing 30 or 40 of our staff out of work after we voted the extra money and taxed the already over-taxed ratepayers in the county. Surely they will not reduce our road grant by that much money.

Water schemes are very important especially in tourist areas. They are vitally important to us in West Cork. We have the scenery and we have the beaches. People are anxious to come there. Every year they are coming in increasing numbers. We have been pressing for a water scheme in one of the finest tourist resorts in the country, Inchidoney. At last we succeeded in getting one, but we still cannot supply the extra amount of water needed there. The pipes are laid but the scheme dragged on because of lack of finance, and probably because of the cement strike last year.

You are doing all right in Cork with water supplies.

When I have finished the Parliamentary Secretary will not be so sure of that.

I opened a water supply scheme in Cork last week and they are fairly pleased with the allocations they have been getting.

What part of Cork?

The Parliamentary Secretary went to the affluent area. He could not face West Cork. He is like the person who came from the bad side of the country who always goes where the land is good and where he can better himself. I do not blame him. The next time he is coming down we will be delighted to receive him. If he is coming we will roll out the red carpet for him.

I think we met at Inchidoney before.

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that he was treated well there.

Courtmacsherry, was it not?

It is so long ago that I hardly remember it. That is the only money that has been spent on our tourist resorts. We never got an amenity grant. We never got what has been handed out in thousands to other parts of the country. I am now drawing this to the attention of the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the officials of the Department. It is about time they thought of us.

The same thing applies to sewerage schemes. We have a big concentration of new housing and caravan sites and we badly need sewerage schemes. They should be given the first priority. If the tourists find that water and sewerage schemes are not available in these resorts they are not anxious to come there again

There is another matter which is causing a lot of hardship and a lot of expense to the ratepayers of Cork county, that is, oil pollution. This year we had to make three or four attempts to clean the beaches before the tourist season started. Miles upon miles of beaches were covered with the residue of oil. The county council workers had to be sent out to clean these beaches. The House knows how big a job it is to clean a beach a mile long and to get the skin of oil off it and bury it. It cost the council a lot of money. We applied to the Department for extra money to deal with this menace, and menace I call it.

We have an oil refinery in the area but I would not say it is entirely responsible for this pollution. Many people who have studied this matter say that before the big tankers come in to take a load, or when they are cleaning out their holds, they dump not only their crude oil but also their waste oil. Some effort must be made at a national or international level to ensure that this pollution does not occur year after year. Not only is it harmful to our beaches but it is also very detrimental to offshore fishing. We are told that many miles out this pollution is lying on top of the ocean and some of it is drifting in to our coast. Something must be done about this. We have got to try to get the money to clean up our beaches.

I come now to the very important subject of rates. The Department seem to have an idea that we can keep on increasing the rates year after year. How long can this go on? For the past three or four years the rates in Cork county have gone up by over £1 per annum. Three or four years ago our rates were somewhere in the region of £3 and now they are nearer to £6, and in some cases over it. The people in our towns and villages cannot afford to pay these rates. When will these increases stop? They must stop somewhere. They cannot continue year after year. The ratepayers can no longer foot the bill. This question must be dealt with in the near future. We do not like to see a cutback in any of the public services but the people cannot afford to pay increased rates year after year.

As well as the rates being increased we have hordes of valuation officers scouring the country day and night to increase valuations. The Department are pulling in the rates with one hand and doubling valuations with the other. The position was so bad that last year members of Cork County Council asked some officials of the Valuation Office to come down to Cork County and explain to members of the council, and to the general public through the Press, what the reasons were for the increases in valuations. That was the first time we got a straight answer. It was that a house valued at £5 for rateable valuation 20 years ago was valued then at its letting value but that the same house today would be worth twice that amount. I accept that answer. However, the valuations are increasing year by year. Officials are going through the country day and night taking with them measuring tapes, and in winter flashlamps, so as to ensure that there will be plenty of revenue from the rates next year.

At this point I should mention the officials of the Department and the officials of county councils. In Cork, we have an excellent body of men who are doing a very good job. However, I have the idea that we are employing many more than we really need; that the number employed is out of proportion entirely to the amount of work being done. I do not know if the position is the same in the Custom House but I see many new faces there year after year and I hear many different voices on the telephone from time to time. I do not know whether it is a question merely of older members being replaced on retirement but it appears that the numbers there have increased considerably and, as is the case with county councils, I cannot say that the work is increasing in proportion to the increase in the number of officials.

For one thing, there is too much duplication. Our local authority engineers are as competent as any engineers to be found elsewhere but when they design a road or draw up plans for the improvement of a road, other engineers are sent from the Department and much time is lost before they finally decide to sanction the scheme. Surely when we are already paying men who are capable of doing the work, there is no necessity to send others from the Department to inspect the inspectors down there. If the work was left to our own engineers it would be done in less time and, perhaps, it would be done better. I am not saying anything against the Local Government engineers but it should not be necessary to have two or three groups of them following each other around the country. This country cannot afford that and it is about time we realised it. The money spent in this way would be better utilised in the improvement of roads.

Lastly, I shall deal with the White Paper issued during the spare time of the Department this year to every county council. I suppose it is irrelevant that this White Paper bore a green cover but it was described as something which would open a new era for local government. At the first meeting of the county council held after this document had been received, I said that this was local government by remote control. I suppose whether or not county councils accept this the Department will say to them that they can take it or leave it. I can assure the Minister and all concerned with that document that it is the vaguest document that has ever come from any Government Department. There is nothing in its 20 or 30 pages. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me. It was sent to the county councils asking for their opinions but why were they not consulted before it was printed so that——

They were asked for suggestions.

——their suggestions could have been incorporated in it? If this had been done I am sure a scheme could have been drawn up that would have been acceptable both to the Department and to the county councils.

Go ahead and let us have it.

The general council of county councils of which I happen to be a member are meeting tomorrow and while I am not a prophet of doom I believe that their findings will be that this document is not acceptable to them—that it is not local government. It is suggested that there are to be no urban councillors or town commissioners in the future. That is only the beginning. It would not surprise me if the next local government elections proved to be the last to be held in this country if Fianna Fáil are in power. However, I expect that they will be out of office before then.

We have heard that one several times before.

I might be over there myself then so I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to keep the seat warm for me. Of course, my friend here would be the Minister and I would only be second in command.

It is from over here that the remote control will be coming then. Deputy O'Connell or Deputy Cruise-O'Brien will provide as much remote control as the Deputy would desire.

I could get on very well with Deputy O'Connell. I advise the Minister to withdraw that document entirely. I understand we are now to receive a financial White Paper. I suppose this is the one that will either kill or cure. I expect it is for the purpose of getting the last halfpenny from us. No matter which party are in power, the rates cannot continue to escalate as at present.

I hope the Minister and his officials will have special regard at least for County Cork, that they will increase the special employment grant and give a few extra pounds to the people who have been waiting for this for a number of years. This has been done for such counties as Donegal, Galway and some other favoured counties. Give Cork its rightful share and make the road from Cork to Bandon an arterial road, as it is called now, a primary road, and get to work on it as quickly as possible. The Minister knows the volume of traffic on that road. West Cork is one of the biggest beet producing areas and in the winter time hundreds of lorries travel this road laden with beet. The sides of the road have gone down. Portions of the road have been widened and improved but, generally, the whole road must be reconstructed and redesigned. I will be awaiting the results of my speech here and I will be ready to meet the Minister and his officials if they come to the area and I will be grateful for any improvements they carry out in the coming year.

It is nice to be given an opportunity on this Estimate to deal with the matters that I want to deal with. I hope I shall not be told I am out of order as I am too often told when bringing up subjects with which I am deeply concerned.

The Department of Local Government has many ramifications. It is a Department that has concerned itself with a great many matters and we in the Labour Party have been advocating that there should be a special Minister assigned to deal with the vital matter of housing. Although there were vague promises from the Taoiseach in this regard, they did not amount to anything.

My main concern now is the question of local authority rents. This is a burning question with tenants. When I moved a resolution on behalf of the Labour Party here some time ago urging the Minister to have an independent investigation into the question of differential rents and the anomalies that arise, he rejected it out of hand because of the fact, as he said, that the people were not dissatisfied. He had the audacity to say that the people were fully satisfied with the differential rent system at present in operation. The Minister will have a rude awakening because from what I hear, and I am hearing it regularly, the people are most dissatisfied and I would not be performing my duty here if I did not outline how the system is victimising persons who have been in occupation of local authority houses for many years.

When I refer to local authority houses, in my area we talk about them as Dublin Corporation houses. We are told that the houses provided by Dublin Corporation are cheap houses intended for persons who cannot afford to purchase houses. This was the whole basis of local authority housing. It was to provide houses at economic rents. I mentioned the anomalies that exist and the Minister refused to listen. I shall mention them again in the hope that the Minister may see reason. There are persons who have been on fixed rents for many years. They have been in occupation of these houses for, perhaps, over 30 years. Their families have grown up in these houses. As the parents grew old the children were paying the rent. The rents of these houses have been paid for years by their children who have been growing up. In some cases the parents have died and, naturally, the children have sought the tenancy of the houses. They fear that if they did not seek the tenancy they might be evicted. Knowing Dublin Corporation as I do I can say that is likely to happen at any time. They seek permission to have the tenancy of the houses in their names. Dublin Corporation apply special sanctions in cases like this. They put these people on a high new rent, a new differential rent.

There are low and high rents.

The Parliamentary Secretary need not start me off on that. I will meet him outside with a few people who will be ready to tell him how they are being victimised.

The word "differential" connotes a difference—low and high according to income.

I have spent a few hours on this and if it takes the entire time, we will go through the differential rent system.

It is a differential system and there are high and low rents.

It is anomalous. It is an unjust differential rent system that is in operation at present.

But they are not all high.

They are high. The system is unjust and immoral. I am speaking and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government interrupts me, I do not mind.

The Deputy is a good hand at interrupting on many occasions.

I do not mind you interrupting. But I tell you you will hear some facts from me.

OK. I want facts. That is why I am here.

I will tell Deputy Dowling some facts about people being victimised.

Is Deputy O'Connell aware that it was the Labour Party who introduced the differential rents system into Dublin Corporation?

Yes, and it was a proper system until it was manipulated by the Fianna Fáil Government in order to extract more and more rent from the people of this city.

Deputies will not be allowed to interrupt. Deputy O'Connell will address the Chair and this will avoid some of the cross-fire.

We accepted the principle and always accepted the principle that differential renting is just.

Hear, hear.

Not the present system, which is unjust and immoral. That is what I say. People who have been in occupation of these houses for many years now find that they are expected to pay an abnormally high, exorbitant rent.

According to their means. According to their income.

It is an unjust rent.

Deputies can make their contributions and answer the arguments being made. The Deputy in possession must be allowed to make his case.

They do not like to hear it. I am in possession.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Dowling will have an opportunity if he wishes to speak.

That is right. I am in possession and have a right to speak.

I will deal with these remarks.

I hope the Deputy will. When I have finished the Deputy will not have an argument. The system is wrong. People are being victimised and their freedom is lost.

And you are responsible.

It is a terrible encroachment on people's lives when they are expected to go down and fill up forms and go to their employers to get forms of income.

That is the system as it was introduced.

If they work overtime——

All that.

If they work overtime they are expected to complete these forms. Many people are absent from work through illness. In a number of cases they talk in hours worked. Some of these people work so many hours. There is one case where a poor girl was ill for 115 hours in a year. She is told by Dublin Corporation that she must submit medical certificates for a day out in order that she can have her rent adjusted for that week. She will pay £1 to be seen by a doctor and get a medical certificate in order to get her rent reduced.

What about the certificate of income?

Doctors' certificates are not accepted in the rent office. It is a certificate of income that is required.

And I am telling you some of the facts about it. Let us get back to where we started. When you talk about a tenancy you do not necessarily envisage the parent as being the tenant. The tenant is the family. That is what is forgotten. The tenant is the complete family. It is not just the parent who is the tenant, it is the family, a fact that is often forgotten. All the names of the family are entered on the tenancy list. A former Minister tried to alter the situation when he imposed a penalty of 7s 6d on people because he said they were subtenants in these houses. This was an unjust penalty.

Why was it done?

The Minister concerned—he is not now in the House— said that the purpose was to stop overcrowding and to prevent the local authority houses being converted into slums.

That was not the reason.

These people were subtenants because they could not get accommodation. Far from providing them with accommodation the Minister decided to impose a penalty on them. This was trickery on the part of Fianna Fáil.

That was not the reason.

The Chair will not permit the kind of disorderly debate that is going on at the moment. The Chair will listen to an orderly debate and I am sure this is what Deputies want.

Fianna Fáil do not like to hear the facts about the way they have manipulated the differential renting scheme to extract exorbitant rents and to make people's lives impossible because their liberty is encroached on by the requirements that they must get certificates of income and other certificates. They must submit these certificates to the bureaucracy. That is what is happening.

It is the same system as was introduced by the Labour Party.

I would ask the Chair to see that we do not have further interruptions.

Deputy Dowling must cease interrupting, otherwise he has his remedy.

The Deputy cannot continue to mislead the House.

The Deputy has been told that he will have an opportunity of speaking.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

I am glad to see that the Minister is present now. I want him to hear some of the things I have to say. When I spoke on behalf of the Labour Party on the motion in connection with housing I asked the Minister to consider the setting up of an independent body to investigate the injustices and anomalies that exist in regard to the differential renting system as operated by Dublin Corporation and other local authorities. People are agreed about the injustices and if the Minister does not do something about the matter he will be inundated with letters from people who are the victims of the system. The idea was good but the way the system has been manipulated by the Government imposes a dreadful penalty on people.

The tenant of a house is not just the parent of the family; in many cases members of the family have contributed for many years to the payment of the rent and they have a certain right of succession to the tenancy on the same terms as applied to their parents. This is particularly applicable in regard to houses of the older type, many of which have been occupied by the same families for more than 30 years. It is difficult for these people to realise that they must pay a high rent and I am repeating this point as the Minister is present in the House now. Incidentally, the houses have the basic fundamental amenities—nothing more.

The Minister should alter the differential system to ensure that when the immediate family, the son or daughter, succeeds to the tenancy, he or she should be permitted to have it at the same rent as applied in the case of parents. That slight adjustment to the differential renting system would give satisfaction to a considerable number of tenants and occupiers of corporation houses. This is their biggest grievance at the moment and it would help matters if the Minister would consider adjusting the differential renting system.

Time and again the Minister has said that the present system is equitable, fair and just. I have here a rent receipt belonging to a disabled man of 70 years. He is awaiting the old age pension and the total weekly income of his wife and himself is £7.35. Out of that amount the couple must pay £1.39 rent, plus a 13p rates increase. I brought up a similar case some time ago in the Dáil and Deputy Dowling said it was impossible. The case I have just mentioned sets out the facts—out of an income of £7.35 they are paying £1.52 for rent——

Can the Deputy state what is the scheme in question?

This man only knows of one scheme——

I am assuming that the Deputy knows more.

I know one thing——

What scheme is he on?

——this man has to pay £1.52 rent out of £7.35. If that is not unjust I do not know what is.

What scheme is he on?

He is disabled and he is a psychiatric case. All he knows is that, if he does not pay that rent, Dublin Corporation will very quickly evict him.

Is that a flat rent? What scheme is it?

I will leave this with the Minister. I have written to him about it. If the Minister regards that as justice then we are living in the wrong society. This man is trying to survive. If suicide is not the answer I do not know what is. It is shocking to expect people to subsist at that level and pay a rent like that. These are the anomalies.

What did the Deputy tell him to do?

I have written to the Minister because Dublin Corporation will not listen to me.

The Deputy was not able to advise him.

I have also written to the Taoiseach because it is wrong that this kind of thing should be allowed to happen.

The Deputy could probably get a rent allowance from the Eastern Health Board.

The system is so good he was asked to send back his disability pension before they would give him the old age pension; he did that and now he has been three weeks waiting for the old age pension. He is living on nothing at the moment.

Is he on a flat rent or a differential?

It is a house rent.

The Deputy does not know much about it.

I know he pays £1.25 rent out of £7-odd.

Is he on a differential rent and, if so, what scale is he on?

Let the Minister find out. He said the system is a fair one. I will show the Minister that it is a wrong system and an unjust one. When I said that before I was told I was a liar. Now I produce proof and I am told I am wrong. I had another case. I brought it to the attention of the Minister and to the attention of the Taoiseach and I was told here I was wrong. Now I produce another one. All I am saying is that the system is unjust and calls for investigation. If the Minister is so sure——

Are these the facts the Deputy has to back up the case he is making? He does not know what scale the man is on.

If the Minister is so sure that the system is good and people are not dissatisfied why will he not allow an independent investigation? The Minister will not answer that.

That is a lot of rubbish.

That is all I wanted to hear.

There is nothing to investigate.

I wanted what the Minister had to say on record.

The facts are known to everybody. There is nothing to investigate.

So are the injustices and anomalies known to everybody, except the Minister.

Is it the A or B scale?

Now the pseudo-expert is talking.

Ridicule will not prove the Deputy's point.

This man, living below subsistence level, is not interested in polemics. He is interested only in the fact that, if he does not pay his rent, the bailiffs will be at his door. Do not think they will not because Dublin Corporation will send them quicker than the Minister can say "Jack Robinson".

(Interruptions.)

Deputies opposite will use all sort of arguments to avoid admitting the system is wrong. It is an immoral system. It is easy to talk. I showed this case to a few people today——

And those people did not know either, like the Deputy, what scale.

We should be discussing how we can help a person like this man. All I want to do is bring this to the Minister's attention as yet another anomaly in the system.

If the Deputy is really sincere and genuine in his concern for the tenants in local authority houses he would, first of all, inquire into all the facts relating to rent.

That is what I have done.

The Deputy previously in this House brought up a case——

——I did.

——and I told the Deputy then that, if the facts were as stated by him——

I know the case.

I am elaborating slightly. If the facts were as stated on that occasion then the Deputy should advise the individual now concerned to opt for the 70 scale with the hardship clause and the rent could be reduced as low as 7s 6d a week. The Deputy is now doing a very underhand thing in introducing a similar case in which, if the person has the right to opt for the 70 scale, and does so, he can improve his position by having his rent related to his income. Did the Deputy advise him of that?

I got the case this morning.

Do not come in here as an expert on the differential rent scheme.

I brought the case in St. Michael's estate to the Minister's attention last year. That was the man who had £6 a week and he was asked to pay more than £1 in rent. Very quickly, through home assistance, he got extra to bring him up to subsistence level. Sometimes it is a good thing to raise these cases. It helps and I have no doubt this man will be helped as a result of exposing this case.

(Interruptions.)

I do not care what I do so long as I expose an injustice. I do not care what kind of fool I make of myself.

(Interruptions.)

The Chair would again point out to Deputy O'Connell and other Deputies that this type of debate is disorderly. Deputy O'Connell is entitled to speak without interruption. He should not invite interruptions.

I would not be doing my duty if I did not bring this case before the House. I feel strongly about this. It is not a question of scales. It is a question of injustice. I am not concerned about scales. I honestly believe there are shocking anomalies and injustices. I would ask the Minister to ensure that these anomalies are removed. If he does that he will show he is genuinely concerned.

On the question of transfers, I think people should have the right to transfer. It might be a matter of being nearer schools.

On a point of information. The Deputy has quoted a case and he has not given any reference in regard to the paper from which he read. If I am to reply to this badly briefed case the Deputy is making, the least I should have is the reference number of the document from which he read. Let him give me some reference so that I can check.

Of course, I will. I will give the Minister the details. I have already written to the Minister today about three cases.

It is from Dublin Corporation and the receipt number is 249,71,73, 1.39.

Where is the house?

In fairness to the tenant I do not think that should be published.

That is right.

The Deputy should not give that information.

I do not think I have any obligation to disclose the name.

There is no name on the receipt.

The address is on it.

What street?

The Deputy should not ask for even that and, even if it were, Deputy O'Connell should not give it.

Since Dublin Corporation were abolished is it not the duty of the commissioner to advise an individual of the existence of a scheme?

Deputy O'Connell did not bother advising his constituent.

The manager in Dublin must be falling down on his job.

(Interruptions.)

The Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Murphy should allow Deputy Dr. O'Connell to continue.

I shall just mention another anomaly in the system. I believe people in corporation houses have a right to transfer or intertransfer for many reasons. There may be incompatibility with the neighbours, differences of opinion; they may have to move closer to parents who are ill or disabled to nurse them. Their children may be attending schools too far away. They must have this right. It is inherent in the system. A further injustice arises here because if they intertransfer with another tenant both are victimised and both are put on a new rent scale. I see no justification for this. Unless the transfer is approved by the city medical officer on medical grounds decided by him they will go on new rent scales. This is unjust. If you deny a right to which they are entitled and victimise them because they want to transfer or intertransfer, that is unjust. It is morally wrong and another anomaly in the system. Now, if the Minister wishes to interrupt and tell me I am a liar or that I am wrong I should like to hear him. They are very quiet now that I have given the facts.

Obviously the rent relates to the income of the tenant and it must also relate to the standard of accommodation. If a tenant wishes to transfer to a house which is on a different scale then he must agree to pay the rent on the scale operating for that house. The transfer is a matter solely for his own discretion. It is a personal choice of the tenant and nobody forces him.

That is where the Minister has put his two feet into it.

Nobody has put his feet into it as much as the Deputy.

If two people want to intertransfer they are both victimised under the present system of differential rents. If the Minister doubts my word he can phone Mr. Kennedy in Dublin Corporation tomorrow morning and he will get the facts. I want the Minister to come in here tomorrow and tell me that he was wrong. I know he is wrong and Deputy Dowling knows it but he is keeping very quiet.

No, I do not.

Then the Deputy is not doing his duty——

The Deputy is again inviting interruptions. This is not orderly debate.

(Interruptions.)

On a point of order, arising out of what Deputy O'Connell says if a transfer——

This is not a point of order. The Deputy will resume his seat.

Surely, if Deputy O'Connell makes an allegation——

This is not a point of order.

Why is it not?

Because, if he wishes, Deputy Dowling has the opportunity as I already pointed out to refute the case made by Deputy O'Connell.

I think you have enough trouble on hands in south-west——

The Deputy has already been advised to direct his remarks to the Chair.

It is very important that this matter should be brought to the attention of the Minister because he does not know what happens in regard to these transfers.

I know well.

I think he should be told about it. The present differential system is unjust and includes many anomalies. If I want to prove that it is not operating properly this is the only way I can do it and bring it to the Minister's attention. We may get the Minister to see reason and have an independent investigation into it. The system is wrong when it assesses the rent on the gross income of the tenant. If a person is assessed on a £25 income when he has already paid a portion of that in tax, the system is wrong. It is what comes home in the pay packet that counts. It is morally wrong to assess somebody on income he does not bring home. This is double taxation and it is wrong. It is another example of injustice in this system.

Everybody is paying income tax.

Not double tax. These people are also subject to deductions for social insurance and other things. To assess the rent on the gross income is morally wrong and could be challenged. These are anomalies in the differential rents system which the Minister says is so fair, with which nobody is dissatisfied. He had the audacity to say that in this House. If we are to get any semblance of satisfaction among tenants of local authority houses who have not got all the amenities we would wish because they are deprived of certain rights by being tenants of Dublin Corporation under the differential rents system, these injustices must be eliminated. Corporation tenants do not enjoy the freedom they would have under an ordinary landlord. I cannot understand the Minister's statement to the effect that the houses need so much subsidising. As I worked it out on the Minister's estimate these houses must be costing £10 a week with the subsidies given by the State. It is inconceivable that these houses and flats should cost so much in rent. There must be something wrong with the system. I could not get a satisfactory answer from the Minister or his predecessor when I asked about the cost of the flats in Ballymun or the high rise flats in St. Michael's estate. I could not get a figure for individual flats but it would seem to me, judging by other flats, that the cost of these flats must be about £6,000 or £7,000 each. It seems wrong that they should cost so much and that so much of a subsidy should be required from the State. There is something radically wrong with the system.

The State should not subsidise them? The tenants should pay much more? If the Deputy does not want the Government to subsidise them he is arguing that the rents should be increased.

Deputy Dowling resorts to all kinds of devices, but I do not want him starting on that. These houses do not need to cost £10 per week in rent.

Deputy Dowling is right. If they were not subsidised the rent would have to be increased.

(Interruptions.)

If there was no subsidy how much would they cost?

(Interruptions.)

I am asking what would be a fair rent. It seems inconceivable that these rents should be £8 to £10 per week. Is it true they should be £8 to £10 per week? I am only starting on the Minister; he is in for a hard morning tomorrow.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn