The greatest cause of dissatisfaction among local authority tenants is the question of differential rents. This system is not being operated either fairly, equitably or with justice to the tenants. As I explained already—I hope the Minister has since obtained some information on the matter—there is a valid reason for this dissatisfaction. These tenants are deprived of the right to transfer or inter-transfer because in such event they are then put on a new scale of differential rent. If a member of a family succeeds to the tenancy of a house he is deprived of the rights that were granted to his parents by Dublin Corporation despite the fact that he may have lived in the house for many years. There are many such cases on the books of Dublin Corporation.
The assessment of rent on gross income under the differential rents scheme is also a source of grievance in so far as it constitutes double taxation on these people who have already had to pay tax on their incomes. Some of these grievances would be removed if the Minister would institute an investigation for the purpose of ascertaining how the differential rents scheme would be modified so as to grant to tenants their basic rights. There should be no victimisation in the case of transfer or inter-transfer and rents should be assessed on net income.
These, then, are the major grievances of the tenants. The Minister must be aware of the number of people who are being victimised under present regulations. The valuing of these houses has gone completely out of hand and is unrealistic. The Government talk about spiralling costs and inflated house prices which are not justified while they themselves are condoning the present system whereby Dublin Corporation are inflating house prices beyond the means of the tenants who have been in occupation of the houses for a long time. I know of cases where independent valuers have valued houses at prices much lower than the value put on them by Dublin Corporation valuers. This, too, is a source of grievance to tenants who are contemplating buying the houses. Some of these houses do not contain the basic amenities—many of them have no bathroom—but yet tenants who wish to purchase them are asked for prices as high as £2,300 and £2,400. I ask the Minister to consider seriously these matters in an effort to have them rectified and, consequently, to have some content among the tenants. The discontent is building up to such an extent that the Minister, by his inaction, may be inviting trouble with which he may not be able to cope.
I turn now to the question of the local authority housing programme. I have heard the Minister and the Taoiseach say that the programme for housing as projected in the White Paper, Housing in the Seventies, was not only reached but was exceeded. However, if we consider the figures we will realise that local authority housing has not kept pace with the demand. Therefore, it is a blatant lie to say that housing has exceeded the target set. One can talk about private houses in the £5,000 to £10,000 range but are we solving the social need for the provision of shelters for persons who are not able to provide houses for themselves out of their own means? I have looked at the list of projects in hand by the local authority in Dublin. I have no hesitation in saying that it does not even attempt to cope with the enormous problem that exists. By not giving full figures, by concealing the real figures by not including on the list persons who have no children, Dublin Corporation are hiding the fact that there is a housing crisis.
I do not know if you have heard of Hollyfield Buildings, Mount Pleasant Buildings, Benburb Street Buildings, Corporation Place and other such areas. I would compare them with the hovels that one might see in underdeveloped countries. Public toilets only are provided for these tenants of Dublin Corporation. Amenities are not provided. In some cases electricity is not provided. I do not think that the tenants of these buildings have been considered in the housing programme. These people are treated as worse than second class citizens in being asked to live in these hovels. A debtors' prison has been created out of Hollyfield and Benburb Street Buildings, where people who go into arrears of rent are forced to live. I have seen a case where a family of ten are sleeping in one room with a tiny kitchen attached. They fell into arrears of rent through no fault of their own. This is the way in which the housing authority deal with social problems.
Public representatives have a right to full details from the housing authority. We are deprived of full details in Dublin city. We are not given the facts regarding the housing problem. We are given the regular stereotyped reply that there are worse cases on the list. This is not good enough. In the booklet "A House of your Own" the Minister mentions that there is a queue. There is no one on the Dublin Corporation housing list who can say that he is in a queue because he does not know his place on the list. This is the greatest cause of discontent and was perhaps the cause of many cases of squatting. People felt that there was not a just and equitable system in the allocation of dwellings because no one could give them accurate information as to their place on the list. I have found that these people would be more than patient if they could be given any indication of their chance of being housed. They were told to put down their names for one area and then they were told that they must move to another area. Because the system is wrong the people can be given no idea of when they may be housed. If there were a points system in operation in Dublin such as works very satisfactorily elsewhere, people could be given accurate information as to when they would be offered accommodation.
It is shameful that one has to say to people who have one child that there is no hope whatever of their being housed. A husband and wife with one child can now be told that there is no hope of their getting accommodation from Dublin Corporation. This has been the position for over a year. They can be granted no form of accommodation no matter what their living conditions may be. It is a sad state of affairs that priority should be given to office blocks and luxury flats. A husband and wife with one child will not be accepted for furnished dwellings. We may be a Catholic country but unfortunately we are not a Christian country. Dublin Corporation is not attempting to solve the problem. I defy the Minister to contradict me on this, that a husband and wife with one child have no hope of being granted accommodation. In the case of a husband and wife who through no fault of their own cannot have a family they will not even be permitted to go on the Dublin Corporation list. We should be aware of these facts and face up to them. These people will be denied local authority accommodation forever. It is a terrible state of affairs when one sees a case such as I visited two nights ago, of a husband and wife and daughter of 12 living in a small room which served as bedroom and kitchen and having to tell them that there is no hope of their getting accommodation. It may be asked why they themselves cannot do something about this. A man earning £20 a week has very little chance of saving the deposit required for a house if he has a wife and child and is paying £7 a week for one furnished room. He could not hope to get a room cheaper than that at the present time. One could only tell him that he would have to continue as he was and hope that his wife would have another baby so that he would be considered—considered only—for housing by the local authority. This is the situation when Ministers talk about the programme and how they coped with the problem. So far as local authority housing is concerned they are far from coping with it.
A survey carried out a few years ago showed there were 59,000 families in need of rehousing due to overcrowding and related problems and a further 9,000 houses needed annually because of demolition, increase in households, migrations, et cetera. We must also take into account the fact that 60 per cent of the houses are over 50 years old and in many cases need replacement. This gives one some idea of the housing needs. At the present rate of building I cannot see the problem which was shown to exist three years ago being solved in another ten years. It must be borne in mind that the problem is increasing. Even if we increase the pace of the programme the existing problem would not be solved for 15 years.
The Taoiseach has boasted that the targets of the White Paper have been met and exceeded. According to a survey covering the four year period, 1963-1967, we have had the lowest output of houses per thousand inhabitants and as a percentage of our gross national product we have spent less on housing than any other European country with the exception of Spain. We have the second lowest stock of housing per thousand of inhabitants. Another point worth noting is that for every 100 new houses we lose 47 houses. It is an idle boast for the Taoiseach and his Ministers to say we are coping with the problem. The situation is deteriorating rapidly and the Government are hiding the facts.
The Minister for Local Government has set a precedent in this House in that he will not accept responsibility. We must not forget that we have not got a corporation in Dublin, we have not a city council, and we have no means of getting information we require. The Minister for Local Government has set a precedent in that he will not give the information to the Dáil. Time and again I have tabled questions only to be told that it is not the Minister's responsibility. I do not agree with this. The Minister knows that he cannot give the true figures and he has decided the best way out is to say it is not his responsibility. We should deplore this and we should tell the Minister he is not entitled to decide it is not his responsibility. He appointed the city commissioner and he knows what is happening. Every housing project must be sanctioned by his Department and the Minister is fully aware of the situation. He should be forced to give us the information we request.
It has been said that if more money is provided for housing it sets off an inflationary spiral in housing costs. That has happened here but it is noteworthy that it has not happened in Northern Ireland. The authorities there have been able to initiate a housing programme that is ahead of anything we have done and we must give them credit. The Government are mishandling the housing situation. They have not taken any action with regard to land speculation—a subject on which we have spoken at length. Their only answer is that this would involve constitutional changes and they are afraid to tackle this problem. Where a social evil exists the constitutional problem should be tackled without any fuss or qualms. People are entitled to their rights and any Article in the Constitution that deprives people of a right or permits a social evil to exist should be changed.
In a motion put down by the Labour Party in regard to housing we asked the Minister to freeze the price of land required for housing but the Minister said it was not possible to do this. The authorities in Northern Ireland have been able to do this and in the new town of Craigavon the price of land is £275 per acre. In this way the authorities in Northern Ireland were able to stop land speculation. However, we allow land speculation to continue. Exorbitant prices are paid for land; the speculators are getting off scot-free and, it appears to me, with the blessing of the Government. I would nearly go so far as to say that Government members are conniving with land speculators.
The Government deplore the price of housing and say they must do something about it. However, they imposed a 15 per cent wholesale and turnover tax on building materials and by this measure they have contributed substantially towards increasing costs. The Government regulations have slowed down the flow of finance for house-building. The regulations are so cumbersome that there is not a regular flow of finance for housing and even builders constructing private houses are forced to borrow at exorbitant rates. This further increases the price of houses.
It is difficult to accept the pious plea of the Government to all concerned to keep prices down when we consider the rise of 400 per cent in the Dublin Corporation betterment levy and the ESB demand of £100 from those builders who will not install electric central heating. These are measures that have been approved indirectly by the Government and they are major factors in the rising cost of housing.
The Minister and the Taoiseach have mentioned rising labour costs. This is a myth because it has been proved that the number of hours spent on the building of a house is less than half what was spent in 1957-58. That is proof that what the Minister is saying is wrong. The reasons for the increased price of houses are land speculation, the wholesale and turnover tax imposed by the Government, the rise of 400 per cent in the Dublin Corporation betterment levy and the £100 demanded by the ESB from those who do not install electric central heating.
There has been talk about the local authority in Dublin building up a land bank. I can tell the House that they are endeavouring to sell off some of their land to speculators and supermarket groups. It has happened in Ballyfermot. We must remember that we have no control over Dublin Corporation. They can act as they like, the decision is made, there is no city council, there is only a commissioner appointed by the Minister. Obviously the Minister is dictating to them what to do. Here we see the hypocrisy of Government pleas and exhortations to housing authorities to build up a land bank while they are approving and perhaps telling authorities to dispose of land to supermarket groups and so on. This proves that the Government are not concerned about our housing problem.
I was interested to read last October where Canon Kerr in an address to the Diocesan Synods of Dublin, Glendalough and Kildare, spoke about the housing problem in Dublin. Obviously he was very much aware of the problem. He called for a reactivation of the public conscience. He spoke about the grossly inadequate housing problem and he said that the number of families living in one room was such as to be a reflection on us. He said we appeared to be unconcerned about this problem. He contrasted the miserable housing of so many Dublin families with the proud development of luxury hotels, supermarkets and vast office blocks.
The Minister says we provide as much as we can with the money we have. I am wondering who provides the finance for the office blocks, the supermarkets and the luxury hotels. The money comes from the commercial banks. Are the Government serious when they say they cannot get the money when money can be provided for these other projects, projects which are not of such importance in the light of the social problems that are so prevalent? We look at these edifices and we forget that around the corner there are people living in hovels. Just 50 yards from O'Connell Street, in Corporation Place, four minutes walk from O'Connell Street, there are sights that make one cringe with horror. It is futile to talk of people living in substandard dwellings. The term "substandard dwellings" means nothing until one has actually seen these dwellings for oneself and the conditions in which the unfortunate inhabitants of these dwellings are trying to survive. Everyone should see these conditions for himself because no one can get a proper picture unless he actually sees things for himself.
Take Benburb Street. I had a priest who was concerned about the problems there and he wanted to go and live in one of the rooms there. I saw the assistant city manager and asked him if this priest could have a room in Benburb Street and I was told "No". Surely no one should begrudge anyone a room in these hovels. Surely no one would envy this priest in his particular mission. He wanted to live with the people and to know their problems. It is a shocking indictment on us that we turn a blind eye to these problems. Our priorities are wrong. Things are topsyturvy. We are going the wrong way about things. Fortunately people are now beginning to ask questions. Perhaps the mass media of communication is helping. People ask why they cannot have a proper roof over their heads. To condemn people to live in these hovels is morally wrong. The officials are hardened. They regard the people as just numbers. We have a computer way of thinking. We forget that humanity is involved.
The Taoiseach indicated in 1969 that he was contemplating setting up a Department of Housing. This is something of which this House would approve. The ramifications of local government are so widespread that it is impossible to give special attention to housing. I am talking about the situation in Dublin. I have visited all these substandard dwellings. What I say about Dublin is probably true of other parts of the country; the situation is probably equally bad. A Department of Housing could tackle the problem and plan a proper housing programme, a programme designed to improve the situation and ensure that all our citizens have proper dwellings in which to live.
We hear the Minister constantly talking about rationalising building schemes so that we can produce lower-cost houses. This is hypocritical because I do not think he has any intention whatsoever of rationalising. He talks about system-built flats. I believe they cost as much as, if not more than, traditional building. I should like the Minister to prove to us how these flats are better and cheaper. They are certainly not better. I was in some flats in Inchicore last Saturday. They are scarcely a year old, but the rain is coming in and the walls are damp. The wallpaper being destroyed. I have sent the details to the city manager. It is not right to allow that sort of thing to happen. The tenants are paying very high rents. The lift has been out of action for ten weeks and the people and children have to climb eight flights of stairs. If we were asked to climb eight flights of stairs we would be breathless at the end of it. The people have been told that the parts have to come from Germany. This is just not good enough. Those who install these lifts should be compelled to carry the essential spare parts for them. There should be no question of waiting for these to come from Germany.
These people's requirements are few and they do not complain unnecessarily. They have had no heating since the 1st June. We all know what the weather has been like in the last few weeks. Last Saturday the flats were really cold. Some of the tenants have resorted to paraffin stoves and one can scarcely breathe because of the fumes. Heating should be provided when the weather is cold and inclement. The tenants are paying for heating. We build these flats and we think everything is great and that the tenants should not complain but if an ESB fuse blows on Friday night or Saturday morning they are in darkness for the whole weekend because the corporation has the box locked and you cannot get a corporation official and the ESB cannot get in. Tenants are not complaining too much in asking that these matters be put right. If the central heating goes off in mid-winter when there is snow and ice—it invariably happens on a Saturday or a Friday night—nobody comes to restore it until Monday.
These are some of the things that arise in these system-built houses where every amenity is supposed to be provided. On paper everything is fine but the hard fact is that people have these problems. These new flats that are damp are not ideal. I am opposed to flats. I do not think that children brought up in a flats environment behave properly afterwards and they are handicapped in later life. Anybody who has grown up in flats will not want to bring up his children in flats. No facilities for children are provided with these high rise flats. In the case of the Ballymun flats which are 14 or 15 storeys high there is not even a public toilet for the children at ground level. Mothers cannot keep children cooped up; they must be allowed down but there are no amenities. If we have to build high rise flats we should ensure that there are proper amenities with them and take into account that the tenants will be rearing children in them. That was not done and it is a great reflection on us that we cannot have planners in the Departments or in the National Building Agency, which was responsible for this development, who will consider the type of people who will occupy these flats and what amenities should be provided.
What I have described may seem like small grievances but they are very real. We all have house problems but we would not like to find, when the main fuse blows, that nobody is available to remedy it. It is irritating and frustrating to be without electricity for a whole weekend. Perhaps these luxury dwellings are very nice inside but when you find dampness destroying the decor it is not very good. There should be an inquiry into this. In the case of the Bluebell scheme of flats in my constituency I think the builder should have been brought before the courts. The corporation has spent a fantastic amount trying to rectify dampness. In one case of a four-roomed flat they moved the occupants into one room while the other rooms were put out of commission. The water was flowing down the walls even though they tried everything to remedy it. They finally got on to the city manager and now I think they have decided to take off the whole roof in order to solve the problem. This is the sort of building that is going on. If this is allowed to happen I wonder if money is being misspent or wasted. You must see this to realise what happens.
Since Bernard Curtis House was built it has been a disgrace but the builder was not taken to task. I wonder why, considering that this is one of the worst buildings I have seen. If we admitted to these tenants that they had got a raw deal and said that they would be provided with proper accommodation we might get some progress. These people do not want much; they are easily satisfied but at present they are paying rent for flats that are not proper living accommodation. That is what is happening in Bluebell. There is also dampness in parts of the Inchicore flats, in St. Michael's estate and if that is the case now within a year of these flats being built, what will be the position in a few years time?
There is something wrong with system built flats. This matter should be investigated; perhaps the builders are cutting down on something. If we have these problems the flats may not be so cheap. I tried to estimate the cost in the early hours of this morning of the Ballymun flats because the Minister has refused to give the information. I should like to know the exact cost of them and compare it with the cost of traditionally built flats. Certainly, it appears they should be built cheaper but, in fact, that is not happening. I should like to know how much rent is obtained from Ballymun in a year, what subsidy exactly is necessary and how it is arrived at, the cost of it, the interest rate and the total interest payable. If one were able to produce these figures to the people they might be a little more amenable to paying high rents. Instead, we are just telling them that it is costing the Government a fortune. We are not spelling it out and this is wrong. Details in respect of four-bedroom, three-bedroom, two-bedroom and one-bedroom flats would be very helpful. It might help us to see how the Minister can justify the high rent the corporation charges these tenants.
I should like to know how he arrives at a figure of 25s a week for central heating, how and why this is subsidised. I know private houses can have central heating cheaper and have it all year round. Time and again it is said that people have no means of controlling the heat in their flats. Was it an economy to provide a central heating system which did not enable tenants to control the heat as required?
I lived in America for years and in every apartment in which I lived it was possible to control the heat. If we had incurred the initial expense of providing a controllable system in these flats would the cost now be reduced? Dublin Corporation's answer to me is; "Let them open the windows." This is waste of heat which could, perhaps, have been prevented if control had been provided originally. I should like to know the cost per flat of providing central heating. We should be given these figures but the Minister constantly says it is not possible to give them. It should have been possible to work out the cost per flat originally. No doubt Deputy Foley is concerned about some of the problems he meets in the Ballymun flats.
If the Department increased the number of technical personnel by offering better salaries and conditions this would help to speed up the housing programme. The Minister has promised every support for co-operatives but would he consider setting up a national building co-operative movement for the building of houses? When people apply for sites they get sites all right but the city manager has admitted he makes a little profit on the sale of sites. An article on whether our houses are too dear in the Sunday Press of 18th October, 1970, stated:
...the Corporation did not sell the land at a loss. Neither did the original owners, the Irish Christian Brothers. We repeatedly asked the Corporation to break down the land price of a site but the City Manager, Mr. Macken, just as often refused. We reckon that, as an employee of the State, he has no right to do that.
Mr. Macken's attitude is no different from that of his officials. They tell people they have no right to any information and this is the sort of bureaucracy we have in Dublin city. If proper assistance and co-operation were given instead of pious platitudes and vague promises people would get interested in building their own houses and setting up co-operatives.
I was brought up with the idea that building societies were established to help people provide their own houses but I have had a rude awakening since I began studying the problem. I do not accept what the Minister has said, that the money is provided solely for private housing. I can cite cases where building societies lend money for commercial development properties and hotels because they can get a higher interest rate but this is not the purpose for which building societies were set up. If they are contravening the rules there should be an inquiry. When we hear of a building society which has a permanent chairman and permanent directors there should be an inquiry into that society.
One building society included a new rule in its articles of association—it went unnoticed by the Registrar of Friendly Societies—which states that the society can dismiss any member without reason and without giving an explanation. That means if a person becomes a shareholder in that society —and it must be remembered that borrowers are only one-fifth shareholders, they are not real shareholders—and wants to apply to become a director, as every shareholder should have the right to do, he must apply to become a director of this building society, the Irish Permanent, before 31st December for the AGM held on 31st March. If a person applies to become a director in December this building society can operate the rules against that person and have him thrown out of the society before he comes up for election.
I wonder if the Registrar of Friendly Societies has gone to sleep. That rule is unconstitutional and can be challenged in the courts. I do not think people with their sons, brothers and in-laws should be allowed to control these building societies which were established to help people and not for the profit making which is going on. Some are operating quite legitimately. There is no doubt about this but there are some who are not. It is wrong for an auctioneer to have a building society because the temptation is there for the auctioneer to use the funds of the building society for opportunities in building, land speculation, houses or commercial development. It is all very well to say loans are given but there should be more public accountability of these building societies. I thought further money was to be given for housing but I now know that it is not in many cases. I have been told in reply to questions I have put down that building societies generally conform to the rules but that is not good enough.
This inquiry into the building societies has been going on for a very long time. In April, 1969 I brought up the question of the increase in the interest rates. A person may get the cheque for his house today but it may be back-dated two months and yet he has to pay interest for those two months. This is not right but it is happening. This is a shady business which should not be tolerated. An inquiry was set up and the responsibility for approval of increases was transferred then from the Department of Industry and Commerce to the Department of Local Government. The inquiry is still on to my knowledge. I wonder when we will hear the result of it. I wonder are these inquiries set up just to fob us off. We should have an inquiry into it because if this sort of thing is going on something should be done about it. They are able to advertise. I quite accept normal advertising. I think they should attract money but I should like to see the money being used properly for the purposes for which the building societies were set up. Perhaps the Minister could extend the inquiry to include questions like the misuse of money, the allocation of money for purposes other than housing, the question of rules of the society, the question of the directors and chairman and the question of vacancies on the board. These vacancies exist and when somebody asks if they could be co-opted they are told: "No, I have four other sons. They must get on." This is not right. No one has the right to control or own a building society like this. It belongs to the members. The vote by proxy and people being told to vote for so-and-so is wrong. It is operated wrongly. The sooner we have a public inquiry into it the better because I do not think people should control a society like this, set up their own rules, tell people to shut up and sit down when they ask questions at annual general meetings. Unless we expose this we will see it get worse and worse. If you do not believe me buy a share and attend the annual general meeting of the Irish Permanent Building Society. It has a permanent chairman et cetera. That is what is permanent about it and it will be permanent as long as they are allowed to operate as they are doing. I hear the annual general meeting is a comedy.
I should like to know what insurance companies are providing loans for houses. To my knowledge it is only foreign insurance companies. If they are not I wonder why our Irish insurance companies are not providing house loans. It galls me to see them building office blocks. There is a nice development around the corner in St. Stephen's Green by an Irish insurance company. Why can this money not be invested in housing? Investment in housing is a long term investment but so is office block investment. Why can they not be compelled to provide a proportion even of their money for housing? Perhaps the Minister would answer this question. I brought it up before and he evaded it, whether deliberately or not I do not know. We do not often get an opportunity to discuss housing and when we do we should be given proper answers.
The traffic problem in Dublin city is a headache for many people, including the Department of Local Government. We see it getting worse and we wonder if we have looked at it properly. I do not know that we were right in passing over power to Dublin Corporation again. I think we made a big blunder. We had a Garda superintendent in Dublin Castle who was coping with the problem very masterfully and very competently but he was being harassed and frustrated in all his attempts to alleviate the problem. Nearly four years ago he suggested that traffic lights should be provided all along the quays. This has not been done. That is one instance. He asked for many other things and nothing was done. They said they had gone as far as possible and that it was now up to the Government to decide about building proper roads and bridges. Instead the whole problem has now been passed over to a bureaucratic department who have decided that they are above the law. They have taken over the powers of the police and this is very dangerous. I do not think any director of traffic should have the powers of the police. It is wrong. I shall give an example which involved the life of a baby.
There is a health authority dispensary in Lord Edward Street, Dublin, perhaps the only central city dispensary. The dispensary doctor attends there each morning. He needs his car there because he must be available to go out immediately he is called. Every time he parked his car there he was fined £2. I approached the corporation on his behalf several times. He got in a case of a baby who was blue. He had to take the baby to the hospital immediately. Seconds counted. He had to run up Lord Edward Street to his car in High Street with the baby in his arms. When it reached the hospital it died. If it had been three minutes earlier its life would have been saved.
One must think of how these things affect people. I approached the city manager and explained the case to him. He said he saw the reason for it and would arrange an appointment for the doctor with the traffic director. The doctor met him and he was abused by the traffic director. He was asked how dare he ask for this concession. This was not a concession, it was a right because as a dispensary doctor he had to go at any second to deal with emergencies. He was abused by the traffic director. This is what happens in Dublin Corporation when officials are given powers like this. They are above the law. They have more power than the Minister and there is no check on it. The attitude now is: "If you do not fall in line we will put you in your place." It is very dangerous to allow people like this to be above the law and to have powers in excess of the police. There is no flexibility about their regulations. A French tourist's car parked, inadvertently, perhaps, in a no parking area, was hauled off immediately. It was parked in a no parking area but it was not an actual obstruction. This car was hauled off because the traffic director, who is the big dictator, says there is no flexibility. Laws and regulations must have a certain amount of flexibility. We must not turn our tourists away. This can do us untold harm. One man, a big dictator, can say he does not care who they are. He is given this power by the Department of Local Government. I am very disturbed that this should happen. I do not think we have the right to give a man these powers. Look at the mess that was made of the scheme in relation to the road from Howth into Dublin. This was the greatest fiasco of all times. Anyone with common sense could have known that it would be a fiasco. It was an immature, puerile attempt at solving a traffic problem in Dublin city to have one lane operating for buses only.
This man and his colleagues have their own parking lot. A special place is set aside for them, and dare anyone come into it. There is a big notice saying, "No Entry". They have this privilege and they can sit back and dictate to the people: "You must not do this and you must not do that." I had a look at the special parking lot for these dictators who tell the people who provide so much money by way of taxation what to do. The people of Dublin city are not being given the parking facilities to which they are entitled. Private individuals and companies can now fleece them with parking fees.
I brought to the attention of the city manager that Dublin Corporation had handed over a piece of land near Christ Church Place and Winetavern Street which they did not own to the Private Motorists' Protection Association. They are not trying to provide parking facilities. They are trying to make it more and more difficult for motorists. They say that the best place for a car is at home. If everyone left his car at home revenue would drop and they might discover that they had killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. Their policy is wrong. They are certainly not helping motorists. We have not got the subways and tubes which they have in Britain. The buses are not providing the service. Until the Department produce the proper roads and the proper bridges they have no right to operate a dictatorial policy. Something will have to be done about this and, for that reason alone, the sooner the council is reconstituted the better. I hope it will not be a rubber stamp council. If we were over there we would make sure that the city manager would not have the almighty powers he has at the moment. The last council was a rubber stamp council. As public representatives we would like to see democracy in action.
The Inchicore Road is very dangerous. There have been very bad accidents there. What seems to be forgotten is that it is a main road into Dublin. It passes by Kilmainham Jail. The camber is wrong. I live on this road and my children can never cross it. It is the most dangerous road I have ever seen. It is a narrow road with three bends. There was a very bad accident just at my own gate in which a priest and his mother were seriously injured. Their car was crushed against the wall of my house. Since 1964 I have been writing and asking questions about it but nothing has been done yet. I have seen huge rocks falling off trucks which use that road. It is hard to imagine how bad it is. The Irish Independent ran a story and photographs showing how bad it is but still no action was taken by the Department.
About two years ago Deputy Murphy asked the Minister was this not the main road into Dublin from Cork and he was told that it was. He then asked was it not one of the worst roads in the country and the Minister said it was. Still nothing was done about it. Dublin Corporation put a white line there but the road is too narrow for cars to pass. The white line is now gone, anyway. A "go-slow" sign was erected but it was so obscured that no one could see it. It is terrible to think that nothing will be done about it until somebody is killed. Then there will be an outcry and all of a sudden the Department will do something about it. I understand that plans have been submitted to the Department. The last reply I had from the Minister was that no plans had been submitted. I asked for a pedestrian crossing to be provided there but that would not be done either. How long more must we wait until this stretch of road is improved? If the Minister could do something about this he would be doing a worthwhile job.
