Before the recess of the Dáil in August I was speaking on this Estimate and I concentrated some of my contribution on a report which was brought out by the ACRA group in Dublin city. One of the grave errors made by the Fianna Fáil Government was the abolition of Dublin Corporation. This deprived the rank and file of the citizens of the Dublin area of any form of representation at local level, in an area which comprises the greatest local and urban authority in this country. For the sake of the people in the Dublin area who have been so neglected in the past and who have to suffer so much in the normal course of events, the Minister should bring back Dublin Corporation. There is pollution in the city and we are also plagued by defective dwellings. The rates are excessively high. There are no public representatives available to the people to voice their views to the corporation when the rate is being struck. The latest figures in the census show that the population in the Dublin area is expanding very rapidly. It was a terrible thing for the Government to take a decision to abolish Dublin Corporation. No effort has been made to provide public representation at local level in the Dublin area since then. I call upon the Minister to replace Dublin Corporation as soon as possible.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 26: Local Government (Resumed)
The Deputy is being less than honest when he places the blame for the removal of the corporation on the Government.
The omission of any provision by the Minister for Finance, in his statement with regard to the allocation of £20 million, to alleviate the position of the private ratepayer I find difficult to understand. We have £20 million being ploughed into the economy in different forms and not one penny of it is going towards relieving the hardship which many ratepayers all over the country are suffering, and particularly in the Dublin area which has the largest concentration of the population. I do not know whether the Minister for Local Government fought hard about this matter at the Cabinet meeting at which the cake was sliced up and divided amongst the different Departments.
Previously I voiced a criticism of the Minister's attitude towards the detailed report which the ACRA group brought out suggesting an alternative form of collecting revenue for local authorities. I voice it again here today. I presume certain individuals in the Minister's Department examined this report in detail. The Minister should have given consideration to certain of the proposals contained in it. As I said on another occasion, people should have to pay rates according to their means. No form of taxation, direct or indirect, should be taken from citizens without regard to their means. The sub-committee of the Fine Gael Oireachtas Party which is investigating the rating system is studying the ACRA report.
In their report the ACRA group have provided an alternative. Whether it is the right answer I cannot say as an individual, but it does provide a very good alternative to the 1852 Act of the British Parliament which introduced the rating system here. They have proposals in relation to malicious damage. They have proposals in relation to the abolition of rating on private dwellings. Their proposals are practical to say the least of them. They suggest that people should pay according to their income. This is a very practical proposal.
Some of the comments they made highlight the gross injustices in the present rating system. In this city we have 65,000 old people who are in need of institutional care, who are living lonely lives. How many of these people are widows of private householders who were evicted or who had to give up their houses because they could not afford to pay the rates? We have a rating system which dates back to 1852, which has never taken into account earning capacity or the inability of these people to eke out a living. We had a new rating scheme introduced but it has solved very little of the problem. One has only to go to meetings of widows' associations, ladies' clubs, tenants' or residents' associations to hear of the unjust way in which rates are levied. The recent increase in rates in the Dublin area which was added on to tenants' weekly rents, regardless of their means, has resulted in people with an income of £4.55 having to pay an increase of 30p on the flat in which they live. These people cannot afford this increase. I am speaking to the Minister on their behalf. There are many people in this city at present receiving demands for rates payments which they cannot afford to pay. I appeal to the Minister to consider certain proposals contained in the ACRA plan to achieve the abolition of the present rating system on private houses initially. I have outlined that in some detail before.
The double taxation effect of the rating system cannot be over emphasised. The ratepayers of Dublin are without public representatives, without their local corporation. Its abolition was one of the most unjust moves ever made by any Government in this country. I do not want to dwell on it but unless there is a recall of Dublin Corporation and a rethink on the rating system, the action which has been advocated by ACRA, the withholding of rates, will gain support and will snowball all over the country. Just as NATO are going on rent strikes in their own form of civil disobedience against the injustices of the B. scale rents, ACRA also, representing the majority of ratepayers in this city, will launch a campaign of withholding rates. The system has gone on for far too long and it is reaching the stage where the last straw may break the camel's back. There are many children who would be at university today if their fathers did not have to pay exorbitant rents.
I want to refer to the housing policy of the Department. In a country the size of this, with the small population we have, it is totally unnecessary to build any local authority dwelling over four storeys high. There is enough land in this country, around this city, not necessary for our economic viability as a nation which could be acquired for the building of houses, or possibly four-storey flats, but nothing higher. The qualification necessary to obtain a local authority dwelling in Dublin is to have a minimum of two children. Last year it was one child. The Minister should investigate the modular system whereby small, medium and large houses can be built and then extended over the years as the family increases in size. One need only start off with a one or two bedroomed apartment on the ground floor. What we are faced with here is a family moving into a small one bedroomed flat when they have two children and this is the maximum they will get at present in Dublin. When they have three or four children they will get a larger flat. They may have to move from the north to the south side of the city. The children will have to change schools. They may be attending a hospital on the north side and may have to change to a hospital on the south side. When they have a few more children they will qualify for a house and will have to make another move.
Most families who have secured a house in the city will have moved at least three times since they were initially allocated a dwelling by the local authority. We should concentrate on giving a family not only four walls and a roof but a home in which they can develop academically, culturally and socially. It is essential to provide homes and not just units. It is a fact that in Dublin at the moment families are being treated simply as numbers, so many numbers with so many children to so many square feet, so many children to so many square feet irrespective of whether they are boys or girls. There is the other strange anomaly that ill-health also gives priority. Of course, if people suffer from a serious illness and if the illness will not respond to treatment unless they have adequate housing we must face up to this but how much illness are we creating in families who are living in substandard dwellings? How much emotional and psychiatric illness or physical disability is caused by substandard housing? How aware is this House or the Department of Local Government of these factors? In view of all the indications pointing in the direction of a massive expansion in the population in Dublin, why have we not launched a crash housing programme in the Dublin area to cater for the families who need local authority accommodation? They cannot afford to buy their own houses and many of them who had qualified to get a purchase house found they could not afford to pay the deposit because the increased cost from the time of signing the contract was added to the deposit.
The housing policy followed in this city is creating another housing problem. The essential qualification to obtain a dwelling in this area is a large family and the larger the family the better are one's chances of obtaining a house. Many of my constituents who have one child and who come to me about their housing problems go away resigned and depressed when I tell them that their chances of obtaining a house are nil. Many of them are convinced that they have no hope of obtaining accommodation until they have two children.
The kind of situation this is leading to is obvious. Many of the tenants have said to me: "When we have two children, it will probably be necessary to have three children in order to get a local authority house". It is unfair of any authority or Government that this should be the case. I would ask the Minister to investigate the feasibility of introducing modular building in the city. We should not build any structure more than four storeys in height.
In Great Britain, of those children who can be classified as under-privileged, the orphan is first and next is the child who lives in a high-rise dwelling. Such a child is under-privileged because of many factors. Because he lives in a high-rise dwelling the only way he can get out into the fresh air is probably by access to a small balcony or if he is taken out-of-doors for a walk by his mother.
We have seen one catastrophe in this regard in this city. It was not committed by the Dublin Corporation but by the Department of Local Government. We saw the building of a town that was meant to be revolutionary in design and accommodation, which was approved by the Department of Local Government. This would never have happened if the matter had been in the hands of public representatives in the corporation. No public representative would encourage the building of high-rise flats where children would be brought up. It is recognised that the stimulation their minds receive from being cooped up indoors for long unbroken periods of time is negligible. As a result, they are unable to mix, and their powers of imagination are not developed to a satisfactory extent. In many cases the parents are aware of what is happening and they, in turn, have not the same initial optimism after a number of years in high-rise dwellings.
I was surprised to see in the Kilbarrack area that high-rise dwellings are being erected. This is an area where there is no shortage of land, where houses are being built at Donaghmede, Kilbarrack and Coolock, and in the middle there are the towers of high-rise dwellings being constructed. They are similar in design to those built at Ballymun and they will be similar, to a large extent, in their defects with regard to the provision of a proper environment for the children.
In comparison with families of local authority houses in other countries, the family size in Dublin is much larger. This factor should be taken into account in the planning of the dwellings to be built. We all know the money must be spent but the history of large families here must be taken into account. It is not sufficient to examine local authority projects in Great Britain, Sweden or Germany and to return with blueprints. This is not satisfactory because we are not providing for our own people. We are not cutting the cloth as we should.
It is a black mark on the Department of Local Government to have provided so many separate dwellings in such a small space as they did in Ballymun and as they are doing at Kilbarrack. The fact that the factory was established to produce the pre-cast units which are then lifted by crane, the fact that all the equipment was bought, may have contributed to the decision by the officials of the Department of Local Government to build these flats. I was given figures to show that a three-bedroomed flat in Ballymun costs in the region of £7,000, whereas the three-bedroomed houses there cost only £4,000. I am not interested in the average cost but in the type of accommodation provided. The fact that a house could be built more cheaply than a flat, without taking the land into consideration, must weigh heavily with the Department in making decisions on these matters but there must be something else involved if they persist in putting up these flats. I have my doubts with regard to the integrity of any authority that persists in building high-rise flats of the type we have seen.
There is another problem with regard to the creation of new estates, namely, the transfer of a large number of people to the new areas. When the houses are being constructed we should provide shopping facilities, schools, recreational facilities, transport, health services and such minor luxuries as telephones. These should all be co-ordinated. Surely we have reached a stage of sophistication at which such co-ordination can be achieved. A housing estate should not have to wait for years for an adequate bus service, health service, educational facilities and a proper shopping area.
Ballymun, an area I represent, is a classic example. These amenities were not provided. The people there had to negotiate muddy tracks for years before proper roads were laid. No recreational facilities were provided. In the last two years some efforts have been made to provide such facilities. There are concrete buildings, which look like German bunkers, and small playgrounds half the size of this Chamber, with old tram bricks as a base and a couple of swings. Surely a little more imagination could have been exercised.
When Ballymun was originally planned we were given to understand that the developers would provide a swimming pool free of charge. That pool is quite clearly marked on the plan. So is the Garda barracks, the health centre and a gymnasium. That plan was shown on television and it was broadcast as a revolution in local authority building. The swimming pool has not been built. No application has been made by the corporation to the Department of Local Government for a grant to build a swimming pool. Ballymun may be without a pool for years to come. Houses are now being built on what was originally planned as a football pitch, a recreational area. There is no place for children to play indoors except a small area in a concrete basement. The emotional and physical effect on children should be obvious. Physically they will not develop as they would if they had adequate recreational facilities. Swimming is a very important development. It is a form of therapy in physical rehabilitation. I urge the Minister to have a look at the original plans. If it is correct that the developers promised to build a pool, then the Minister should hold them to their agreement.
Magnificent efforts have been made by voluntary workers to provide youth clubs. These should be encouraged. The Minister appreciates the value of sport and I would appeal to him to give the children in Ballymun the same facilities he and I had when we were children.
The lifts have been very unsatisfactory and I understand that the firm in Finland which manufactures spare parts is now going out of business. There are 8-storey and 15-storey flats. The 8-storey flats have single lifts and, if these go out of order, it is quite exhausting climbing to the top of the building. Children interfere with the mechanism. This is something which should have been obvious to anybody before these lifts were installed and lifts which could not be interfered with should have been insisted upon.
There is urgent need for co-ordination and co-operation between the Department of Health and the Department of Local Government in the provision of dwellings for the aged. Flats and dwellings should have an emergency warning system if the elderly occupant falls ill. There are 65,000 people over 70 living alone in the Dublin area. Possibly the recent census will give a more accurate figure. These are from the earlier census. Many of the aged are incarcerated in mental hospitals. This is no way to treat our senior citizens. Were it not for "Meals on Wheels" and other voluntary efforts a great number of our senior citizens would find it very hard, indeed, to make ends meet.
One of the Minister's priorities should be to ensure that sufficient dwellings are provided for these elderly people many of whom are not keen to live in a caravan or any other sort of mobile home. Last year, for some reason or other, the Minister for Finance imposed a heavy tax on mobile homes such as those used by local authorities for housing elderly people but now the Minister is allocating £1 million for housing. Perhaps if the truth were known, this £1 million has accrued from the taxation that he imposed last November on mobile homes and so we have a continuance of this contradictory situation.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the problem of pollution. There is much evidence of pollution in this city. We know that the three main rivers which flow through the city— the Liffey, the Tolka and the Dodder— as well as the canals are polluted. In this respect the greatest abuses are on the part of local authorities because they grant permission for the erection of factories without ensuring that provision is made for the disposal of waste products by these factories. Recently in Dublin we had to suffer an obnoxious smell which continued for three weeks. We were told that this was due to organic matter decomposing. This resulted from the total inadequacy of the sewerage system.
Last week we read that the British Government have succeeded in clearing up pollution in the river Thames and that people can now fish again in that river. We are far from that stage in so far as Dublin Bay is concerned. It is disgraceful that this bay should have been allowed to become polluted. The amenities of the bay were enjoyed by many people but to go bathing there now would be a danger to one's health.
The Deputy has no proof of that. There is no proof that there is a danger to health.
I assure the Minister that I would not have endangered my health by swimming in Dublin Bay during the past three or four years.
It might not be very pleasant to swim there but there is no proof that there is a danger to health.
This pollution of Dublin Bay is disgraceful. Large quantities of untreated sewage are emptying into Dublin Bay. There is need for some form of financial assistance to enable the corporation to tackle the problem; otherwise the Minister should get his Department to tackle the problem himself.
The problem is being tackled. Of course I could tell the Deputy that many times but he would not listen.
I am sure I spend much more time around Dublin Bay than the Minister spends there and he can take it from me that there is visual evidence of this pollution. The position is not becoming any better.
It will not become any better until the Grand Canal sewerage scheme, costing £6½ million, and the new treatment works at Ringsend, costing £3½ million, have been completed. These are in an advanced stage of design and there will be no hold up in their construction.
I am glad to hear that the Minister has responded to certain suggestions that I made in this House concerning the pollution of the bay. Pollution of the air is a matter that has been overlooked completely by the Department of Local Government. Apart from the setting up of stations for the purpose of ascertaining what is the degree of pollution of this nature, little or nothing has been done although responsible sources here inform us that smoke pollution in Dublin city is twice that of London's and that our sulphur pollution is equal to that of Manchester's. This is a very serious state of affairs.
There should be more areas in which smokeless fuel is burned by industries. I know of three houses in one area behind which incinerators are burning continuously. The smoke and decomposed products from these incinerators are affecting the back gardens of these houses so that these gardens can no longer be used. I have made numerous representations to Dublin Corporation regarding this matter. I have had acknowledgments of these representations but no action has been taken. If Dublin City Council were still in existence this would not be allowed to continue because we would be able to do something about it. A very important aspect of pollution of this nature is that it is a contributory factor where bronchial ailments are concerned. This is another region in which the Departments of Health and Local Government can co-ordinate their efforts.
Noise is a problem that is, perhaps, unfamiliar to many people in this House but it is one that is very familiar to me as a representative of Dublin north-west constituency. Practically half of the constituency is subject to this problem because of jets and other aircraft taking off from Dublin Airport which travel in a south-westerly direction and then veer left on going away from the city. Again, I have made many representations about this matter. There is hardly a meeting in my constituency at which this problem is not raised. I receive complaints of windows rattling and of sleeping children being disturbed because of all this noise. In some instances people have alleged that the noise has affected their nerves. I do not know what is the validity of that allegation. Rumour has it that some of the flats in Ballymun are a danger to the jumbo jets. These aircraft, because they take off on full power, create a very high noise density.
Another matter I wish to mention is the campaign launched by the Minister in an effort to reduce deaths on the roads and which, statistically, seems to have been successful for a while. This should be supplemented with a new scheme. Having shown that this has worked, he should make an earnest effort now to reduce the number of road deaths. He has had a certain success in that regard. He has had a certain amount of success, with the co-operation of local authorities, in regard to warning notices at bathing places during the summer season, for which he is to be complimented, but I would urge him not to relax his efforts but to press home the advantage he has gained and try to reduce the number of fatal accidents involving mothers and fathers and children. These accidents occur mainly through stupidity in driving at excessive speeds or through drunken driving.
There is one other factor in road accidents which I want to mention, namely, defective vehicles. There is a large number of defective vehicles on the roads. I do not think the law is strict enough in the penalties that judges may impose upon persons who break the law in regard to defective vehicles. Bad tyres on cars may result in fatal traffic accidents. Cars may have defective brakes, defective engines, defective gearboxes. There are far too many of such cars on the roads. Somebody mentioned in the House some time ago the number of cars that are untaxed and uninsured. I suggest that if a person has not got the money to tax and insure a car he has not the money to maintain it except in the minimum working order to allow the car to transport him from point A to point B. Motor cars, being lethal weapons, should be maintained as near to optimum order as is practicable.
The increasing number of home deaths, almost equal to the number of road deaths, should be seriously considered. The Minister should take note of the number of persons who have died in their homes as a result of electrocution due to defective wiring. The Department of Local Government are very lax in imposing the regulations applicable to builders installing electrical wiring in new homes. I am quite convinced that in certain cases the house purchaser is not obtaining value for his money and some of the houses being purchased in this city at the moment are defective to a large degree in the electrical wiring and safety precautions and should never be passed by his Department. I made representations to the Minister regarding particular cases.
I should like to see further co-operation between the Department of Local Government and the Department of Health with regard to the ambulance service. There is duplication that need not exist and that can only result in inefficiency. The ambulance service should be under the administration of the Department of Health. It is silly to have two ambulance services in a country of this size. As road accidents, particularly multiple accidents involving, perhaps, four or five persons, increase the greater becomes the necessity to introduce anti-shock treatment at the scene of accidents. I have advocated here that medical interns should travel in ambulances to the scene of accidents.
One plan for an emergency or large accident is that the local doctors should travel to the scene, but due to the regulations issued by the Department a doctor in any part of this country may not carry any sign on his car or use a siren on his car which would facilitate him in getting to the scene of an accident or emergency. That section of the Local Government Act should be repealed immediately. I was amazed when I first came across it. The plan in local authority areas is that an ambulance goes to the scene of an accident and that a doctor should be called and that he should travel in his car. Invariably the ambulance has gone before the doctor arrives because he is prevented by this regulation to which I have referred from carrying a siren or some other warning system which would indicate to other road users that the doctor is travelling to an emergency and, therefore, the doctor is not facilitated in getting to the scene of the accident where a life could be at stake. That regulation should be changed because too many people in this House have on too many occasions criticised members of the medical profession for not immediately rushing to an accident when, perhaps, the doctor had only third- or fourth-hand knowledge of the kind of accident involved or as to where it had taken place, and may not have the necessary equipment.
The stupidity of all this is something that only a bureaucracy could create. Now that he is aware of it I am sure the Minister will take the necessary action which will result in doctors being able to participate in the system of treating accident cases at the scene. I am quite sure that the Minister knows that many lives that could be saved are lost, that many people are most severely damaged as a result of blood loss which could be avoided. A major feature of road traffic injuries is the crush symptom which necessitates immediate intravenous replacement of fluid. This cannot be done by anyone but a fully qualified doctor, nurse and ambulance men. Therefore, I would strongly urge the Minister for Local Government, with the Minister for Health, to arrange that medical interns would travel to the scene of serious accidents, at least, for a start.
This debate has taken up a good deal of the time of the House and I do not propose to delay very long. I want to make a few points which arise from one's experience as a member of a local authority. Despite all the criticism, I want to say that the Minister has had a good result as regards housing. I never remember a time when everyone was satisfied with the housing programme and, in the nature of things, if we continue to develop at the rate we have been developing our economy, I do not suppose that we shall ever hear an end to this criticism. In every developing community in Europe and outside it there is criticism of the housing programme.
I am glad to note there has been some relaxation on credit and that the Minister has got his share from the re-distribution of moneys which the Minister for Finance announced today. I am sure every local authority member will be pleased to hear of this development. I do not ever remember a time when we could get enough money to build all the houses we would like to build.
I am never impressed when I hear people talking about a "crash programme". The phrase always reminds me of an aeroplane crash. I do not think there is any such term in the context of housing. Every member of a local authority will admit that it takes a period of years to provide a housing scheme. Earlier this year the Minister indicated that he was providing a quota of industrial buildings, in other words industrial housing.
Each local authority is responsible in the last analysis for the progress made in each area and progress depends on a number of factors. If we are to continue with our housing programme we must provide land. The main costs involved in housing are the cost of the land itself, the cost of labour and the cost of materials. If local authorities do not plan ahead and acquire land at the best price they are leaving housing in the air, so to speak. My own local authority have made good progress in regard to housing in the last five years but this does not mean to say we are satisfied with our progress—far from it. We are proceeding to acquire land in areas where we think the demand will arise and by every means in our power we are proceeding to develop and service the land.
I should like the section of the Minister's Department which deals with sanitary services to recognise that we shall, more and more, as time goes on, be circumscribed in our efforts in regard to housing by the problems of conservation and pollution. I am aware that local authorities will in future be faced with a huge programme in the sanitary services area. I do not think there is one provincial town which does not stand in need of a good sanitary system because local authorities have taken advantage of the terms of the 1966 Housing Act. I would like critics to recognise that under that Act we took power to house people who could pay neither rent nor rates.
The rating system is a separate matter altogether and I do not propose to deal with it now but I do know that we have had three reports on the rating system and in Britain they have had four and not one of those reports has come up with a cut and dried alternative system. It will take some hard thinking if we are to rationalise the rating system.
I want to return to the point I made about the housing of people who can pay neither rent nor rates. Local authorities, from the resources at their disposal, have made good strides in this regard although much more needs to be done. I want to emphasise again that in our desire to house people we may sometimes go too far in circumscribing the efforts of those who could provide houses through private enterprise. A local authority or an urban council are sometimes forced to remain within the borders of the town and this may eventually result in—I think it has, in some cases—congestion, in too high a density. In our efforts to spare money and make it go as far as possible we may succeed in having too high a density of houses.
I made a plea here earlier in relation to building societies—I shall come to them later—which I think could now be made in regard to local authorities. They should be encouraged in providing small housing estates to develop them so that there would be a limited amount of planting and scope for small parks well laid-out. Those are the elements which impress the young and would, I believe, help to encourage an anti-litter campaign and the keeping tidy of small estates so that in general they would present a much better appearance. Future generations might well damn us for what we are now doing, for example, in creating too high a density at the expense of the amenities I have mentioned.
I like an argument to be realistic but I cannot understand why certain building societies spend so much money advertising in all the media, newspapers, radio and television and at the same time are now so selective in accepting applicants for loans. I should have thought that, arising from the bank strike incidentally, building societies would have plenty of money. They are vying with each other on the air and in the newspapers but at the same time if somebody approaches them for a loan he must be a subscriber of, I think, one year's standing. If we are to have a loosening up, and I hope we shall have some relaxation of the squeeze, housing societies should be encouraged and a little more than encouraged to lend whatever money they have to the community to promote housing.
In this connection it is relevant to say that we are entering the age of high pollution not merely here but elsewhere and we shall hear much about it in the future. Those who were brought up in the country and who sometimes, and only sometimes, like to take a walk— it is now a luxury although many people may not believe that—can see all around them the beginnings of pollution. Rather than having a national discussion we could do more to encourage an active campaign to avert this horrible menace. I suggest some kind of inter-departmental unit be set up to advise on and promote anti-pollution measures. At present local authorities are unable to service all the houses that will be built in the next few years and provide a proper sanitary system for them. It has also been said that traditional methods of sanitation can be supplemented by mechanical aids which are available. If this is so, the Department of Local Government should give a lead in this field in conjunction with the Departments of Health and Agriculture and Fisheries. Otherwise, we shall encounter problems straight away.
From bitter experience we know that some of the loveliest lakes in the country have been polluted and fish life in those lakes destroyed. This is too bad. On this front we should get the Departments together and not have them working as if they were separate private firms. We have expertise and we have industrious men well briefed in all Departments, men who keep ahead at least on paper of problems relating to conservation generally. Therefore, we should make a serious attempt to implement some measures to counter pollution. I believe local authorities will have to play a leading role in any anti-pollution measures it is decided to take to preserve our rivers and lakes, cities and towns and whatever natural beauty our country may have.
Lest it might be thought that I am in any way pitching this too high, let me say that I have evidence to back up the argument I am trying to make in favour of the measures I have suggested.
I do not propose to develop this point any further beyond saying that unless we have physical measures, physical anti-pollution measures, in operation inside two years we will be in big trouble later on. I know that certain firms are taking steps—and I know that firms setting up industries here are obliged to take steps—to abate whatever nuisance they may generate. I also know that piggeries are being erected and that, in certain circumstances, in certain areas raw sewage is threatening certain towns and rivers. The local authorities will have to deal with this matter.
I want to get away from that for a moment and deal with another point which is relevant to this Estimate. Deputy Byrne referred to the distressing problems connected with the Road Traffic Act. There is not much use in our trying to frame legislation unless the people accept it and unless they agree to work it. From my experience I believe that our roads are tending to become jungles. If some of the motorists who are causing the problems on our roads act in the same way in their own homes, I would not like to be living with them. There is common sense in everything. Common sense applied at the right time can be a wonderful factor in reducing the number of distressing accidents on our roads. I know there is an element of risk even with normal driving and I would say that normal driving would now be up to 60 miles per hour, but that is not enough for the man who is in a hurry. We have ample evidence of those drivers endangering not merely their own lives but the lives of others as well—and in high numbers—by their actions on the roads.
During the year the Minister made many appeals in this regard. I hope that due to those appeals, and due to the progress in road-making, there will be a decrease in the number of accidents but I am fearful about that because, so far as I can see, some motorists have no mercy and no charity. We have all heard the expression: "He died defending his right of way." Possibly we should suspend the erection of public monuments for a while, but I should like to see a monument to the motorist who died defending his right of way. This seems to be the attitude. It results in a high loss of life, in high cost insurance and in high cost motoring generally. I do not suppose there is very much more the Minister or any other Minister can do to reduce the hazards on the roads beyond bringing our roads up to a certain standard, which is being done rapidly, and pointing out to the people involved the risks inherent in the tactics which are being pursued.
A good deal has been said here in the past few years about swimming pools. Members of local authorities who set out seriously to provide this amenity found that help was forthcoming from the Minister's Department, and for this we are grateful. I do not want to expand or develop this point. In the past few years in my own town and in neighbouring towns this provision was forthcoming and, as a result, youngsters who wish to indulge in swimming can do so. I hope they will. In a short time, while not neglecting any other part of our programme in any way, we have succeeded in gaining acceptance for the idea that local authorities should provide swimming pools in their respective areas. We know there was criticism of this early on. As a member of a local authority I was subjected to this criticism and I know what it is to live with it, but criticism should not deter any local authority from providing this amenity.
Deputy Byrne also mentioned Dublin Corporation. He bemoaned the fact that Dublin city was at a great disadvantage in not having the services of the city council. From my point of view, and I live near enough to the corporation area, the council at the time it was dissolved did not want to survive. I think the members of the city council had the death wish. It was not the fault of the present Minister nor, indeed, of his predecessor that Dublin city council went out of existence; it was the fault of the members themselves because they refused to serve. Members of a corporation or a county council must serve if they elect to do so in bad times as well as in good times. They cannot have high times always and they must take the bad times as well as the good. I would not waste any time regretting the abolition of the city council because the members refused to serve.
The scope of the Estimate for Local Government is so wide as to defy a close look at all the aspects it covers. It must be difficult for the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to provide surveillance of all the aspects of local government. The debate here has ranged wide and long since the end of May and I do not think there has been any attempt made by any person or any party to filibuster on this particular Estimate. It is an Estimate in which most people are interested because many Deputies are also members of local authorities and, perhaps, feel that it touches their interests more than any other Estimate. In this way a debate that started last May has continued for almost six months.
The Minister's speech, now five months old, can be questioned as to its relevance to the position of the Department as it now stands. A number of things have happened since the Estimate was introduced on which people who have made their contributions did not have an opportunity of having a say. Since the Dáil went into recess the census of population figures have been disclosed and these affect all of us in our constituencies, whether it is a case of a population increase or a change from rural to urban areas in our constituencies. These have been brought up to date and we are now in a position to make some points as to the relevance which the census of population has to this debate.
Another thing which happened since the debate began is the Supreme Court decision on the numbering of ballot papers. This raises a very important point because it is within the ambit of the Minister for Local Government to bring in legislation to implement the Supreme Court's decision. I would suggest, though I am not absolutely certain, that we can have no election, either general or local, until this amending legislation has been introduced. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply to the debate, will indicate just how soon he intends to bring in this amending legislation. It is in the interests of all of us since the local elections will be held in June of next year. Of course, at any time a general election is likely and, indeed, some of us think even more likely in the present political climate. We know that this decision has created a block to the holding of a general election in the near future. I expect the Minister will have to bring in this amending legislation almost immediately so as to allow the normal scope to his Taoiseach to call an election should the need arise or should the Government be defeated in a vote over the coming weeks or months.
I would say it is more likely to be weeks or months. These are two points I make about the length of this debate. Many things have happened since it started.
All of us in this House are concerned about housing and in this debate we have tended to discuss the problems of housing nationally and particularly locally. On the first Estimate on which I spoke almost two years ago, I mentioned that there were then at least 1,100 families in Wicklow in need of immediate housing. I put it to the Minister at that stage that he could be doing more but I also indicated that Wicklow County Council had done little or nothing in the five previous years to help house those families. Indeed, as few as 108 houses were built by the local authority for the whole rural area of Wicklow in the previous five years. Since that time I am glad to say Wicklow County Council have made great strides to improve that situation. The unfortunate thing is that when they began to look at the situation with more urgency they found that land was very expensive and that there was great difficulty in securing building workers and contractors in the county. We adjoin Dublin where many of our people are employed and in order to attract back workers rates and conditions had to be as good, if not better, if we were to have a work force there to proceed with the housing drive in all areas of the county. The problem then was that the cost of housing in Wicklow turned out to be as dear, if not dearer, than in the city of Dublin. In the last two years the number of houses completed in County Wicklow has been only marginally better than for the previous five years. At the same time, the number of people in County Wicklow has increased, the demand for houses is rocketing and it is estimated that 1,200 families are on waiting lists in the three urban areas of the county.
Recently Wicklow County Council requested as a matter of urgency assistance to the extent of £6 million from the Department of Local Government. It was estimated that £6 million would provide approximately 2,000 houses which would cater for people on the waiting list at present and for future applicants. We are aware that the co-operation the county council got from the Department has been very slow to materialise. Up to yesterday schemes for Bray, Greystones, Newtownmountkennedy, Rathnew, Kilcoole and probably for other areas had been awaiting sanction for months. As a result of pressure by local councillors, and when the county council threatened to invade the Department by deputation— or if refused a deputation, to lobby the Minister and the officials—sanction was given yesterday. In fact, the county council were notified by telephone in order to stop the deputation going to the Department today. Last week there were a number of reasons why sanction could not be given but they were cleared up when the county council literally began to scream for the money in order to build the houses.
I do not know if the Minister was aware then that he would be in possession of an extra £1 million as a result of the news we heard today. I can assure him that this money could be used in one county alone and, at the same time, the housing problem would remain almost as great. As I said earlier, I blame the Wicklow County Council for their lack of planning for housing in the past but in the last two years they have acquired land and have endeavoured to draw up schemes. Their engineers have worked hard in the two years and the county council are asking for the aid and co-operation of the Department of Local Government in sanctioning the schemes and the money for them. I hope that co-operation will be forthcoming.
With regard to repairs to rural cottages, the Minister said that he does not think there is now the same need for such repairs and that there has been a decrease in the grants for repairs to rural cottages. I can inform the Minister that this decline in the need for repairs to rural cottages is because of a shortage of manpower. In County Wicklow we cannot get men to carry out essential repairs to cottages although the state of repair of many rural cottages is deplorable. Public representatives in rural areas get many complaints about the condition of floors, ceilings and roofs of old cottages. Many of the cottages are in an extremely dilapidated condition but the councils are unable to compete with building firms for labour. These firms are paying more than the trade union rates but up to recently county councils were unable to pay more than the local rates. This meant that most of the labourers and tradesmen went to the jobs that were best paid, which is only natural. The Minister should allow county councils to pay whatever rates are being paid in excess of union rates in order to have urgent repairs carried out. The Minister spoke about the sale of council houses. It always amazes me that in the figures for the sale of houses, figures are also produced to show the amount of deficit on each house to the local authority. One might think that the best thing to do would be to sell as many houses as possible and thereby reduce the deficit in proportion to the number of houses sold. However, I do not think this is so since administrative costs would remain the same and the deficit would be proportionately higher on those houses that are left, with the result that the Minister would have to pay a larger subsidy per house.
I agree that people who can do so should be allowed to buy their own houses. Many people are puzzled about the change in the purchase of houses since 1966. There have been many instances where people were unable to buy their houses in 1966. When they inquire about purchase now they find they must pay the replacement rate less a percentage for each year of occupation. This works out at a considerable sum, much in excess of the price mentioned in 1966. In my town prior to 1966 houses were sold for amounts varying between £170 to £400. Nowadays when applications by tenants are considered the amount is more than £1,000, and for the newer houses the sum varies from £2,000 to £3,000.
A number of people who are interested in purchasing their houses from the local authority find it is difficult to have a purchase scheme put into operation. In the informative booklet recently sent to Deputies, the Minister gave the impression that it would be relatively easy for a tenant to purchase his house, but this is not so. Schemes must be drawn up and in many cases the attitude of the councils in this matter varies considerably. As a result the purchase schemes are held up because members do not think it is a good idea to sell the council's stock of houses. There should be some clarification in this area so that tenants of local authority houses could find out what steps they should take if they want to purchase their own houses.
Last year the Labour Party tabled a motion about the cost of building land and the Minister told us then that he had set up a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Kenny to inquire into the cost of building land. Once again I must cite an example in my own county. Land in Bray has been valued at almost £4,000 an acre. Nowhere in Wicklow can one buy a site of even a quarter of an acre at less than £500. I would be interested to know when the committee will produce its findings and when the Minister will be in a position to give legal effect to these findings. The Minister is well aware of the problem. I know he is interested in solving it and I hope something will be done very soon. It is imperative that the committee should produce its report as soon as possible to enable action to be taken.
Another problem is the demolition of habitable houses. This happens in rural areas just as much as it does here in Dublin. People are inclined to think that houses are knocked down to make way for supermarkets or blocks of flats and offices but anyone who travels the country is aware that gate lodges and farm houses on estates are being knocked down; these could be made habitable with very little expenditure. Wicklow County Council are selling some of their older cottages because they say they are not habitable. People are buying these as summer houses and are converting them for quite a low expenditure into very desirable dwellings. No fewer than 20 such dwellings have been sold by the local authority and converted into summer houses. As I have already pointed out, there are 1,200 families needing houses and they are very bitter about the situation because, when these houses come on the market, they have not got the money to buy them.
Many Deputies referred to swimming pools. Some may wonder why a Deputy representing Wicklow should raise the matter of swimming pools since Wicklow has some of the finest beaches in the country and nobody is very remote from the water but there are people, not in affluent circumstances, who cannot afford to travel to Wicklow, Brittas Bay, Bray and other areas. There is a swimming pool in Wicklow and the Christian Brothers in Bray have a swimming pool. I believe every aid should be given to those anxious to provide swimming pools. There are priorities but every encouragement should be given to local effort in the provision of swimming pools. It is amazing what a go-ahead committee will do with a little monetary encouragement, even if the encouragement does not go very far in the provision of a pool. Not everybody needs an Olympic pool. There are various specifications. The harbour in Wicklow is heavily polluted and it would be cheaper to provide a swimming pool than to provide the plant necessary to curb pollution. It would save money to provide £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000 immediately to help local committees provide a swimming pool in the area.
Most Deputies referred to the White Paper. I do not think this White Paper has been accepted by the smaller local authorities. Two local authorities in my area would be affected by the recommendations; a third has been abolished. Should the recommendations be implemented the only authority in Wicklow would be Wicklow County Council. Many people have put forward valuable and valid arguments why small local authorities should remain. I trust the Minister has taken note of these arguments. Since the Minister has not spelled out what the changes will be or what the financial burden will be, it is difficult for us to make a complete assessment. I believe the feeling at the moment is against change at this point of time. That is natural because people are usually against change. The loss of small local authorities removes from the towns concerned a feeling of closeness and co-operation among the population. I am aware that the Minister has had many submissions in this regard some of which came from my own area and I would say to him that at this time, because of the information available to him and because of the lack of information as to how the new larger units will be financed, most people are against any change in the present system.
The previous speaker mentioned road safety. Each of us here must consider himself to have an obligation to speak on this matter especially since most of us travel long distances every week. Deaths and injuries resulting from accidents on the roads have been increasing in number for a number of years and measures taken by successive Ministers in efforts to reduce the number of accidents have not been as effective as we would have hoped. Each Minister has endeavoured to do the best he could in this regard and any criticism that I may make is not made from a political point of view.
However, if one considers road safety under engineering, education and enforcement one will realise that we have been falling down in our efforts to ensure greater safety on the roads. In engineering, for example, our efforts to provide safer and better roads have been much too slow. As one who uses the Bray road three or four times a week in both directions I can say that this must be one of the worst roads in Ireland as well as being one of the busiest. Some attempts have been made to improve it but it still must be one of the most dangerous roads in the country. It is aggravating to have to travel on that road. Deputy Carter mentioned that people change when they sit behind the steering wheel of a car in so far as they tend to become bad tempered but in defence of anyone who must use the Bray Road to get to work, I would say that he could not be blamed for arriving at his destination in very bad humour. It is a very bad start to one's day to have to travel on that road between 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning. That is one road of which I have personal knowledge but I understand that there are others that are very bad also. There appears to be a lack of planning on the part of engineers in Dublin Corporation and County Council in so far as road repairs are concerned because one finds that major roadworks are carried out simultaneously on different roads with the result that there are major traffic jams. For example, for about a year now the position at Blackrock has been chaotic because of the road widening work. Major works have been carried out, too, on the road at Donnybrook while some minor works have taken place on the Dundrum Road. All of these operations were carried out simultaneously so that a person would not have any alternative route. The position seems to be that either everything is done together or that nothing at all is done for many years.
There is not enough emphasis placed on the education of road-users, be they motorists, pedestrians or cyclists. I do not think it is sufficient to erect a sign indicating that a particular stretch of road is bad or to erect a sign requesting that no road deaths be caused because when people continue seeing such signs, they are inclined to become complacent about them. On the other hand, such signs are so numerous on our roads now that they are indicative of how great is the problem in respect of road safety.
Another aspect of driving is that it has now become so expensive that motorists are cutting down on repairs and renewals. In some instances they cut down to the extent that they do not pay tax or insurance on their cars while others do not replace worn tyres. The Minister should look closely at the legislation in this respect especially in so far as insurance is concerned. There is no reason why a disc similar, perhaps, to a tax disc, could not be displayed on the front of a car to indicate that the vehicle is insured.
On Saturday last when two of my colleagues and I were travelling from the airport on our way home from Strasbourg we were involved in a minor accident. A car coming from a by-road hit the car in which we were travelling. The two occupants of the car involved jumped out and ran away when the accident occurred. The car could have been stolen. Nobody was injured. Unfortunately, I find myself, because it was my car we were travelling in, with a quite hefty insurance bill to pay to repair the car. I do not know what the unfortunate person who owns the other car had to pay or how he is covered. The policemen who came on the scene told us that there was little or no use in our trying to pursue the insurance of the stolen car since it was likely that it would not cover us.
I am afraid this kind of thing is happening. I do not know what can be done about it. Motoring is so expensive that if I had been in my previous employment I might have had to walk from now on, which might have been a good thing or might not. I have to have a car in my job and must get my car repaired. I am glad to say that I will not skimp on the tyres or the insurance or the tax. Something else must go. Many people would have to put off getting a new set of tyres in order to have essential repairs carried out.
There are so many problems of road safety, so much has to be done under the three headings engineering, education and enforcement, as to create a big job for the Minister and if he were engaged on no other task than that he would have his hands full solving those problems.
There are one or two other points that I should like to mention. One is the repair and upkeep of courthouses. I mentioned this a couple of years ago and asked that it be made a central charge. I do not see why the ratepayers of an area should be asked to pay for the upkeep of courthouses. It seems to me strange that a Department which uses them should transfer the bill for upkeep and maintenance to a different Department. The fines levied in these courts should be allocated in some degree to the repair and maintenance of the houses where justice is administered.
I want to comment on rates and the collection and charging of rates. The national scandal of the method of appointment of rate collectors has gone on for too long and I would hope that the Minister would introduce legislation, if that is necessary, to change the method. The worst thing that can happen to members of a council is to find that they have to fill a vacancy for a rate collector in a county area. The office of rate collector is considered a major office similar to a staff officer or county secretary or county manager. Any other major office would be filled by the Local Appointments Commission. The appointment of rate collectors for urban areas is done usually by a committee of accountants and secretaries from adjoining local authority areas and it has proved to be a good method. I cannot see why this method is not adopted in the appointment of rate collectors in county council areas. At the present time the Wicklow County Council are endeavouring to fill one small position.
If this change would require legislation I am afraid the Deputy may not pursue it on an Estimate.
I do not think it would. I do not believe it does.
I am afraid it would, Deputy.
Would it? Therefore, I cannot pursue that matter but I would point out to the Minister that the bizarre system of collecting rates in certain rural areas should be looked at. I had first hand knowledge of this type of work for 12 years. I know what happens and what goes on. I am aware of one instance where the rate collector for an area in a Munster county lives permanently in Dublin and only goes down with a number of his relations to collect rates at certain specific times of the year and these ratepayers have to come into him and pay him the rates. He does not collect as such. They have to come to him. I know of another instance where the ratepayers have to go through a public bar and through a yard to an office in order to find a rate collector in an operation area. This type of thing is not good enough in this day and age and I would hope the Minister would introduce a change in the method of collecting rates and the method of appointment of rate collectors.
Malicious injuries claims are an old cause of complaint in this House and my colleague Deputy Tully has raised this matter on every Estimate for Local Government on which I have heard him speak and at any other time he can. This had not been a great problem in my constituency until recent years but many people in this House and outside it are now aware that there has been a campaign of vandalism in County Wicklow which has caused a number of huge claims under the malicious injuries code. There have been explosions in hotel and motel chalets near Arklow; there have been burnings of farmers' premises and haysheds, and the like, in the past few weeks. The bills are now being handed to the ratepayers of Wicklow to pay. If this is going to continue and to expand the ratepayers of Wicklow will find themselves carrying a heavy burden. The rate under this code is increasing fantastically, as it is in every other area, but it will be proportionately greater in Wicklow than in other counties. I would ask the Minister to consider this problem. I would ask him to see whether insurance companies can be made to cover this type of action or to consider that the burden should be spread over the ratepayers of all counties rather than put on an area within a county or on the ratepayers of that county in general.
Mention has been made of the use of caravans and mobile homes because of the lack of housing. I should like to say how unfortunate it was that a colleague of the Minister had to tax these vehicles in the last Budget. I would hope that the Minister for Local Government would tackle this problem of a tax being imposed on caravans or mobile homes used for families who cannot get a house because of a shortage in a particular area. This is adding to the worries and torments of those who are already badly housed or living in unfit conditions. I would ask the Minister to consider the matter and, perhaps, give a subsidy which would wipe out the tax which at present has to be paid on mobile homes and caravans used, not for holiday purposes, but by people who cannot get alternative accommodation.
I should like to mention the national park idea for South County Dublin and part of Wicklow. I am aware that this is being pushed very strongly by certain sectional interests. This is unfortunate because, in order for it to be a success, everybody must be involved in it and made aware of the benefits as well as the problems which will result from the establishment of a park of this nature. The national park idea is not one individual's conception. This has grown up over many years in various countries. Those of us in Wicklow who welcome thousands of our friends from Dublin are anxious to see that the facilities are there for them in Wicklow. We are also anxious to see that the facilities which exist are maintained and safeguarded. There are a number of problems in this area which will have to be cleared up with local interests before a decision is made over their heads or because there is a demand by a particular section or area for a national park. People with land and people living in the area designated for the national park must be consulted and their fears and anxieties must be met before the scheme is put into effect. I would ask the Minister to endeavour to ensure that people living in all parts of the national park area will be consulted so that when the decision to provide a national park is made there will be as few problems as possible and the benefits to be derived from it will be derived by the maximum number of people not only in Dublin but also in Wicklow.
I want, first of all, to draw the Minister's attention to the question of an extension to the sewage system at Ballina Quay, County Mayo. I have been invited, along with other public representatives, including the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Lands, and Councillor Seán Calleany, who lives in this area and is particularly interested in the problem, to attend meetings at Ballina Quay school. Councillor Calleany asked me either to see the Minister personally or to raise the matter in the House and the Minister will therefore appreciate my reason for raising this matter.
As far as I am aware from the most recent meeting held about a fortnight ago the position has been cleared by the Department of Local Government but the Department of Agriculture now have to sanction the proposal. I notice my colleague, Deputy Finn, has a question down about this matter too. I understand that Mayo County Council have, through their engineers, who are, I understand, a reputable firm of Galway engineers, cleared their part of the work. It has gone through the Department of Local Government and now rests with the Department of Agriculture. I was requested to ask the Minister for Local Government to give it a push so that the work can be undertaken. I should appreciate very much if he would do that so that I can go back to my constituency and tell Councillor Calleany I have raised the matter here.
The Deputy will be happy to know I have already informed Councillor Calleany of the position.
Yes, I am sure the Minister must be getting a little bored with all the repetition. I shall have to do a little bit of it myself because every Deputy likes to make a case for the problem in his own constituency. I should like, first of all, to deal with the housing situation in County Mayo. While it is true that there are many vacant houses in the county, there is still a demand for houses in the towns and in some rural areas as well, even though houses are being built. Mayo County Council have been doing their best with the limited money at their disposal down the years. When proposals to erect new houses in towns such as Ballina, Foxford, Swinford and Charlestown are put forward difficulties and problems always arise. One of the most serious delays we have experienced is with regard to the purchase of suitable land for housing purposes. Once it is known that the county council are interested in a plot of land for housing purposes that is the signal for the price to be doubled or trebled. This causes delays and when the matter is eventually resolved, delays in advertising for tenders occur. Indeed, there are delays in the Department when the schemes come up for final sanction. We have laboured under all these difficulties in the same way as other county councils have but I would ask that the difficulties I have mentioned be resolved at local level in order that the Department can sanction schemes as soon as possible.
Mayo is a very big county with miles and miles of roads running through boggy and mountainous areas. We have some good stretches of country where it is possible to construct roads at a reasonable figure, but County Mayo has a particular problem with regard to roads. On the road from Crossmolina to Belmullet there is a power station fired with turf produced from the local bog. There must be vast areas of bog before one can start producing electricity economically and the fact that this station is sited where it is bears out what I am saying, that there are miles and miles of bog where the foundations are bad and this is where the high costs come in. We get a poor return for the grant money and the local rate money which we spend on constructing those roads. I am well aware that the Department of Local Government are often at a loss to know how roads in County Mayo are so expensive and because of this there are often differences of opinion and violent clashes between our engineering staff and the engineering people in the Department. If the engineers in the Department were more familiar with the territory they would appreciate that costs can be very high in the type of region I have mentioned.
A road, which was one of the first in the county to be tarred, has collapsed due to the increase in the volume of traffic and due also to the fact that the vehicles using the road have become heavier. An attempt was made by a former county engineer to have something done with it and no doubt he did the best he could at that particular time. Very shortly after he left office the road collapsed again. I think it has collapsed three or four times altogether. On the last occasion —I know this because I read some of the correspondence between the county council and the Department—the Department insisted on lower standards which the county engineer reluctantly accepted. He carried out the work after a tedious discussion and the road collapsed again. Recently a most unsatisfactory patch-work repair job was carried out on it.
In recent times engineering staffs have been trying to get excavators to excavate the bog to a depth at which they would find solid ground and then they could fill it up with suitable material to the proper level. That would be a sounder job. The point I want to make clear is that such works are very costly compared with road work in a county like Meath or other counties where there are solid foundations.
Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to be more generous in his grants. In our county we have been looking for extra grants through the years and unless we can get this additional money, according to the estimates of our engineering staffs, we shall not have our roads in a reasonable state of repair even in roughly 50 years time when many of us will have gone to our reward. The Minister should realise that we have a particular problem, one with which he must be conversant because in his own county of Galway there are many similar problems. It is only fair that I should make a case not only for my own county but for all counties along the western seaboard, Counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Kerry, that special grants be made available to these counties to bring the roads up to a reasonable standard so that people could look forward to having their road networks completed and tarred in 15 or 20 years instead of 50 years time.
The Minister appreciates that in these regions you have choice scenic areas. In Galway and Mayo you have mountains and lakes and rivers, bad and good land—a mixture of everything. It is important for the economy of these regions that we do our best to get proper roads. It often happens that a few miles of road leading to a lake is pot-holed and either is not known to the tourist or, if known, he is reluctant to travel on it because of its poor condition: One often finds an overgrowth of briars, grass and weeds on the verges some of which will scratch the bodywork of a car or caravan if one attempts to travel along it. It is important to the economy of the region, therefore, that such roads be black-topped as soon as possible.
As the Minister knows people in the west depend very much on the farmhouse holiday scheme to supplement their meagre incomes. The idea that only pubs and hotels benefit by tourism is disappearing and people are beginning to appreciate that there is and can be a nice supplementary income available if good roads are available for tourists.
We heard from the Minister for Finance this evening that more money is being provided for different purposes. The Minister and I will agree that the amount for his Department is all too little; no doubt other Ministers would think likewise in respect of their Departments. The Taoiseach today, when I raised the question of the declining population in the west, assured me that a number of schemes have been undertaken which will benefit the west. I am aware of these schemes, many of which were beneficial to our people, and I am not belittling them, but we still have a declining population and many people could find employment on roadwork. Many of these roads lead to small lakes or to the seashore and if one can only get to the lake or the sea one often finds an unexpectedly large strand. These roads are being neglected. They are also poorly signposted. I should like to mention signposting in passing. The more one travels around the country and experiences the difficulties in certain areas where one is seeking a townland or some other place the more one realises how poorly the country is signposted. That is not my complaint alone but the complaint of many foreigners and it is something that should be remedied.
We have a particular problem in Mayo which applies also in the Minister's own county. I travel a good deal through Galway and even in the south of the country. In Mayo, we have Knock Shrine, visited by people not only from within the country but from all the northern counties and from abroad. We also have Croagh Patrick and on the last Sunday in July each year, we have up to 60,000 or 65,000 people trying to crowd into Westport, or that region, along with the normal tourist traffic. I have mentioned Knock specifically. Some of the approach roads to Knock are in a deplorable condition. I have drawn the Minister's attention to this on previous occasions. There is the road over to Balla, on towards Kiltimagh and on to Knock, and the road from Kiltimagh into Knock Shrine. Recently a widening job was done there. There is the other road from Ballyhaunis, on towards Dunmore, and on to Kilmovee and Ballaghaderreen which I travelled within the past week or ten days. These roads are in a narrow and dangerous condition. We need a lot of additional money if we are to tackle our problems.
We are entitled to some special treatment in that region. I am making the case for the Minister's constituency too. Other parts of the country have benefited in a big way from industrial development. It seems to be our misfortune—and no one can deny this— that we have not benefited to the same extent. I was in Cork recently and I saw the industrial development down there. In the Minister's home town, too, there is quite a considerable amount of industrial development. In other parts of the Minister's constituency money spent on road widening and road planning would be of immense benefit. I am appealing in particular for something to be done to the road leading to Knock Shrine. People come down from the North of Ireland, from every county in the Six. We see their buses there. There is congestion and it is difficult for vehicles to pass when they meet.
Small and all as the grants are, when they come down to us they are very late. We have to pay substantial sums of money in loan charges because we must go to the banks or whatever lending companies advance the money until the grants come from the Department. When a local authority like Mayo County Council borrow sums of £200,000 at present rates of interest, and have to wait three or six months before the money is sent down from the Department, this causes a very serious impost on the rates. Our county has the unenviable distinction of being the highest rated county. I appeal to the Minister not to delay in sending down the grants so that we will not be forced into the position of borrowing money from the banks and paying high loan charges. I have not got the estimate with me but I know that is a hardy annual.
I do not want to repeat the points which were raised by other Deputies but I want to wind up by joining with Deputy Kavanagh in pleading with whatever authority is responsible for our courthouses—for the time being the local authorities—to have those buildings repaired. There were some adverse comments in the High Court— I do not want to enlarge on that— about a courthouse in a certain part of the country. That does not surprise me. Many of the courthouses at which litigants, solicitors and gardaí have to attend, are not fit for that purpose. I cannot say whether the Minister can push the responsibility for dealing with this problem on to some other Department. Something should be done as quickly as possible to make our courthouses something like what a court of law should be.
The Minister's purgatory is not quite over but it is probably coming to an end. As far as posterity is concerned, the Minister's Department is the most important of all Government Departments because within his Department lies the control of physical planning and the shape of this country in its cities and towns and villages for generations to come. At this time in our development, so many parts of our towns and cities are in need of renewal that I imagine more development will be carried out in this and the next decade than will be carried out for many decades to come and certainly more than has been carried out for many decades in the past. The form and line that this renewal will take will be determined very largely by the values the Minister brings to policy planning generally.
I regret to have to say that in my opinion the philosophy that has been applied by the Minister and his Department in this regard has been seriously wanting. This is a personal opinion. It has not taken into account the individual nature of this country. We are here in a very vulnerable position on the edge of Europe, in a sandwich position between the cultures of Europe and America. We are very prone to be affected by that hybrid monster, the mid-Atlantic culture. I am afraid it has manifested itself in this country to a considerable degree in the buildings that have appeared particularly in this city. The first blot on this city, in my opinion, was Liberty Hall. We cannot blame the Minister for that. It is now quite apparent that it is a monstrosity in relation to its surroundings.
I think it is a proud noble building.
I am talking about the aesthetics of its situation and its size in relation to its location. It is a proud noble building and I have no doubt——
It is worthy of the working people of Ireland.
——that it would enhance an appropriate situation but the quays of Dublin in the proximity of the Custom House were an entirely unsuitable place for our first mini-skyscraper. Part of the difficulty is that the 1963 Planning Act burst on the Irish local authorities, on the Minister's Department and on the Irish people generally, and had as traumatic an effect as the Council of Rome had on the Roman Catholic Church. It brought us into 20th century planning without any pre-education. I hate using the word as it is more mid-Atlantic jargon, but the infra-structures necessary to tolerate such drastic changes in our planning law were not there. I refer to trained planners and an educated public with an aesthetic sense with regard to their physical surroundings. We are only now beginning to wake up to the importance of that when we see it being destroyed. In many cases we wake up when it is too late and a situation has been achieved that will last for decades and will affect posterity. A good bit of harm has been done but I am quite certain that a lot more harm can be avoided.
There is one particular matter which I should like to mention. I refer to the new civic offices proposed for this city. We are aware that the site marked out for these offices is the open space in front of Christ Church and we are aware that this is an open site sloping from this wonderful medieval cathedral down to the river Liffey in the most historic and most ancient part of Dublin. Recent excavations have shown that this was a very early settlement indeed. It is on this historic site that Dublin Corporation propose to erect their new offices. We have seen the models of the proposed buildings and we are told how they will preserve the views of Christ Church from the river and how they will tone in with Christ Church on one side and the Four Courts on the other side. I would submit to the Minister that this is propaganda on the part of the developers, on the part of the architects, and that far from allowing any view of Christ Church from the river it will entirely cut it off except for, perhaps, occasional glimpses. Very often, in advertisers' jargon, a view and a glimpse are not distinguished. We are told that the scale has been kept down so as not to clash with the adjoining masterpieces but the models, I would submit, are misleading because we are looking at them from a bird's eye point of view, whereas when these buildings have been constructed we will be looking at them from a worm's point of view; we will be looking up at them. In their scope and in their size they will make a tremendous impact and they will take over that part of the city entirely.
I would appeal to the Minister in this particular instance to exercise his power having regard not to the present whims of Dublin Corporation but having regard to the future generations who will use this city, not just Dublin people but people from the rest of the country coming to their capital, tourists from abroad coming to see what our capital looks like. The Minister has a wonderful opportunity to preserve as an open space, beautifully landscaped, the most historic part of the city.
It may be said that Dublin Corporation are in urgent need of offices. I have no doubt that they are but even if they have such a need and even if there is not an alternative site immediately available, I would ask not to have this historic site sacrificed merely to provide offices for today. But the position is not even as bad as that because Dublin Corporation own what, to my mind, is an infinitely better and preferable site. That is the site of the cattle market. The cattle market has received an artificial extension of its life by reason of court proceedings but the people involved in that mart must know that it is now an anachronism and that it is not necessary with the growth of marts all over the country and with the growth of lorry traffic for removing cattle. Dublin cattle market is now an anachronism and with proper consultation and negotiation I have no doubt it could be brought to a peaceful end. That magnificent open site which is already the property of Dublin Corporation is available to them to site their civic offices and their offices can be designed without being in any way restricted in the design by reason of sloping ground, shortage of space or adjoining historic buildings.
I would appeal to the Minister not to let this last opportunity, this one and only opportunity, of saving that open space in front of Christ Church slip and to use his power as the chief planner for this nation to ensure that Dublin Corporation erect their new offices on the site of the cattle market. It is a part of the city that could do with the boost that those offices would bring to it. I cannot see any technical reasons for not using it. If there are I would suggest that they pale into insignificance when compared with the gain for posterity of preserving Christ Church in its present open setting and preserving for this city and for future generations of Irish people that wonderful historic site unimpeded by faceless mid-Atlantic culture buildings. I would appeal to the Minister to consider that this is the one and only opportunity to preserve this particular spot and I would suggest to him that as far as history is concerned he can carve for himself greater repute as a man of taste, as a man conscious of his country, if he will do that for the city and for this country.
As this matter is on appeal at the moment I think the Deputy should refrain from referring to it. It is sub judice.
I shall not refer to it any more in the light of that information but I think it is a matter that will have to be clarified by the appropriate Dáil committee, whether a matter is sub judice merely because it is subject to administrative appeal. I am not disagreeing with the Minister that it is desirable that it should be concealed but I can see cases where sub judice should be taken to refer only to cases actually in the courts and not to the subject of administrative appeals. That is another day's work for another body of the House but in deference to the Minister's suggestion I shall depart from that subject.
I think the Deputy has made his point, anyway.
I have said that the development of planning in this country has been unsatisfactory. One of the reasons is that at the time of the introduction of the Act there was a lack of trained planners. That has been rectified and we now have the position that most counties have intelligent, conscientious and technically skilled personnel in charge of planning, not all of them but most of them. In my experience they are men who are dedicated to their task of preserving and planning properly for the areas under their jurisdiction. Their work is too often frustrated by the bad appeal system. The appeal system is rotten and I am certain that the Minister, who has the burden of it and has to take all the brickbats that go with it, will agree with me that it is rotten. I would urge the Minister to give priority to the Bill which has been introduced to deal with the setting up of a tribunal to hear these appeals. There is a huge backlog of appeals in the Minister's Department. I understand part of the reason for that may be the lack of the trained planners to whom I have already referred. I have no doubt, too, that part of the reason is the immense difficulty in which the Minister must find himself in withstanding pressures being put on him to decide appeals for reasons other than purely planning reasons. I regret to say that the Minister does not always withstand these pressures. One must be fair and say it might be humanly impossible to withstand them but the Minister must remember that the prestige and strength of his post should enable him to withstand them. There has been one glaring case in my town lately and I think that if I indicate the facts of it is will show the House what precisely I mean and it will underline my appeal to the Minister to introduce, as soon as possible, the planning appeal tribunal which is proposed in the new Bill.
In a cul-de-sac consisting of six houses on one side of the road one of the houses became vacant and was purchased by a speculator. The other houses were occupied by families with the exception of the first house which was set in two flats and was occupied by two single ladies. The adjoining house became vacant and was purchased by a speculator who converted it into bedsitters. The remaining houses were occupied by young married couples with small children. The speculator did not need permission to convert his house into flats but he needed permission to use the converted house as flats or bedsitters and he applied to the local authority for permission for the change of use.
The local authority, having examined the situation and with their intimate local knowledge, refused the application on the grounds that such development would be entirely out of character with the quiet, residential cul-de-sac—a place that was safe for children, where there was no noise at night time. The applicant appealed the refusal to the Minister's predecessor who upheld the local authority and rejected the appeal for valid reasons. The Minister's predecessor reiterated that the development was undesirable and completely out of character with the area. The situation existed that the local authority with their local knowledge and skilled staff and the Minister's predecessor, having been advised by the technical people in his Department, both came to the same decision in connection with this application— they rejected it.
There was a change of Ministers. The applicant then applied to the local authority to retain his then unlawful development. Nothing had changed and the local authority did not change their minds either; there was only an interval of some months between the first and second applications. The local authority, for the same good reasons that they rejected the initial application, rejected the application to retain. The applicant knew that the local authority would reject his application for retention but he had to go through the charade of asking the local authority in order to appeal to the Minister. The applicant appealed to the Minister who allowed his appeal. I say to the Minister that this was an abuse of his office.
Certainly not. The Deputy should not insinuate.
If the local authority on two occasions for planning reasons and the Minister's predecessor on one occasion, also for planning reasons, rejected the development, the Minister at least should do the objectors to this application the justice of spelling out in detail what caused him to change his mind and to indicate what different advice he got from the officials who had advised his predecessor against a different course. I challenge the Minister to produce planning reasons for this change. I state confidently he will be unable to produce them.
All the fears that were in the minds of the local authority and the Minister's predecessor when the initial application was made were realised. There are parked cars which block the ingress and egress of other residents; the place is a slum: there are empty bottles lying in dustbins in the street; car doors are being banged at all hours of the night; there is singing; there is loud, and I regret to say at times obscene, language as parties break up. This is happening in a quiet, residential cul-de-sac, where the local authority on two occasions and the Minister's predecessor on one occasion refused this kind of development. It is no wonder that people become cynical about political influence and political pressures because I regret to say they must have been the reasons for the change of mind.
Insinuations.
I am making the statement. Let the Minister produce planning reasons if he can.
The Deputy is insinuating.
I am prepared to make it as an insinuation.
The strange thing about this case which the Deputy has been flogging around for some time is that the only pressures of any kind that were put on me were those by the Deputy and his friends——
On planning grounds because we knew the Minister was being got at otherwise. I challenge the Minister to produce the planning reasons why he has given a different decision from that of his predecessor. To my mind, this is a classic example of the urgency for introducing the new appeals tribunal. The Minister, and anyone who succeeds him, will not then be in the invidious position of having to decide appeals for reasons that are other than valid.
Another loophole in the planning law is the availability to county councils of section 4. Happily there is little use made of this section by most councils. I am happy to say that in Westmeath County Council on only one occasion was a section 4 motion passed to compel the planner to do something he did not want to do. There were arguments in favour of the council's decision, although generally I would be in favour of supporting one's planner. I consider this is something that could be abused and the Minister might consider closing the loophole even though it would limit the scope of a local authority. I would hope, with more public awareness of the need for planning and the benefits that can come from proper planning, that the use of this section would fall into desuetude.
Another difficulty that arises with regard to planning matters is the unfair fight that must take place sometimes. We see a proposal by men of property, men with unlimited financial resources, to develop an area in a way that may be aesthetically undesirable and contrary to good planning but in a manner that would ensure high profits for the developers. The opposition to these people must generally be undertaken by those whom I might call "gifted amateurs"; disinterested persons who are members of preservation bodies have to dig into their own pockets to pay for professional, legal and technical advice to mount a campaign against those developers. I do not know if it is intended that this unequal situation will be covered by the new planning tribunal legislation but the position should be that if an appeal comes before the tribunal both sides to the appeal will be fully represented in terms of professional advice.
At this stage it would only be proper to pay tribute to those disinterested, civic-minded people who up to now have been responsible for fighting so many battles against indiscriminate development. Perhaps with the advent of the planning tribunal the present procedure in relation to automatic appeals may cease. I am informed—I speak subject to correction—that in Britain, which has a long history of statutory planning, a longer history than we have, planning appeals to the governmental authority, as to 99 per cent of them, are taken against grants of permission by the local authorities. In other words, the local authority may occasionally err, usually in an aesthetic direction, and an appeal is taken against the grant of permission. It is almost unheard of for an appeal to be taken against a refusal because the superior governmental authority believe the planner in the front line is the best person to decide and, if the decision is by way of refusal in order to preserve the status quo, it is not for a remote body in the capital city to alter that local decision. Perhaps the situation will change here if and when those taking automatic appeals find their appeals falling on deafer ears than those on which they have fallen up to now. Perhaps it is one of the snags of being a small country that it is so much easier to appeal from Cork to Dublin than it is from, say, the far end of Cornwall or the north of Scotland to London. It may be just a matter of geography.
I should like to turn now to the influence of Dublin generally on local government. The White Paper on re-organisation, which has received such a hostile reception from local authorities generally, is welcome in that it shows an awareness of some of the problems of the present local government set-up. To my mind, however, it does not fully acknowledge, fully remove, or fully provide for the full removal of the main problem concerning local government. I refer to the central control by Local Government, if I may use those contradictory terms. That, in effect, is what is wrong with local government at the moment.
I am a member of a local authority. The Minister was a member of a local authority. I suppose practically every Deputy is or was a member of a local authority. I think all will agree that the frustration suffered by members of local authorities invariably arises because of the dead hand of the Department of Local Government in initiatives proposed by local authorities. The White Paper does not propose to remedy that situation. Each local authority has its own financial structure, financed by the rates, by contributions from its ratepayers by way of repayment of loans, by the sale of services and by grants from Government funds. It is staffed by highly trained administrators and highly qualified professionals. By and large, the policy body is composed of persons representative of the community the local authority has to serve.
One would imagine that that sort of structure could be given autonomy. Instead we find that every single action is subject to the consent or approval of the Department of Local Government. If that consent or approval were readily forthcoming, or readily withheld, it would be bearable, but that is not the case. It takes months, years in some cases, for some proposals put up by a local authority to get off the ground. Let me give a small example from Westmeath. In an effort to improve the enginerring service of our county, Westmeath County Council increased the engineering staff, appointing an engineer in charge of sanitary services with the rank of chief assistant. This man, we knew in advance and we now know from experience, was most highly qualified and highly competent, He made a survey of the areas in the county where old fashioned pumps should be sunk. In making that survey he took into account whether or not the areas could be served by a group scheme or, in the reasonable future, a regional scheme. If either development were possible he did not designate a pump for that area.
The areas for which he designated pumps were areas in which there was no other hope of getting water. The cost of installing these pumps is partly met by the Department of Local Government and our chief assistant engineer's scheme had to disappear into the bowels of the Custom House to be vetted. That was months ago. Some weeks ago I inquired about the scheme. It was being vetted to see if these areas could be served by a group water scheme or a regional scheme, the two precise points this highly qualified local official had taken into account in drawing up his plans. This is a prime example of the frustration that we, as members of local authorities, suffer in our dealings with the Department and in our efforts to improve the living conditions of those whom we have been elected to serve. The presence or absence of a single pump may seem a trifling thing to a Department as large, as intricate and as involved as the Department of Local Government but to the housewife carrying two buckets of water half a mile or three-quarters of a mile several times a day it is a constant major problem. This is a homely indication of the dead hand of the Department on worthwhile activities of local authorities. Every Member of this House can quote examples, major examples where housing schemes have been held up, water and sewerage schemes held up and road development held up.
About five or six years ago Westmeath County Council proposed a regional water supply scheme for a number of areas immediately adjoining the town of Athlone. The proposals were drafted by the consultant engineer and sent to the Department. Today, years later, that scheme is no nearer completion. To go back just three years and follow the history of the scheme for that three years, in December 1968 plans, which had already been going back and forth between the Department and the county council and the consultant engineer, were returned once again by the Department, which asked that they be revised on the grounds that there might be very large-scale development in this area and the plans should be revised to take account of that possibility. In March, 1969, the revised plans, revised by the consultant, by the engineers and by the planners, were re-submitted to the Department. Then in July of 1969 these plans were approved in principle and the consultants were requested to prepare documents for contracts. These documents were submitted to the Department in March, 1970 and 11 months later, in February, 1971, the Department requested further revision. Revised drawings were submitted to the Department in March, 1971, in compliance with this further request but there is no decision yet.
If the Minister's Department can allow this matter to be dragged out for a few months more, it will have been ten years since the plans were submitted first to them. That was in July, 1962. I would submit to the Minister that that must be a record but in achieving that record the Minister has stifled the growth of Athlone. In spite of that, the town has grown but at a rate that is slower and more unsatisfactory than if piped water, which is a basic necessity, had been available on the outskirts of the town. Piped water is not available within 200 yards of the urban boundary.
How far is Athlone from the Shannon?
There is an adequate water supply.
I was wondering if the Shannon had run dry. There must be something wrong.
There is something very wrong.
No doubt the present Minister will do something about the matter.
If the Department had had the will there was a way of sanctioning this scheme because earlier this year red tape was cut and a contractor who was working in another part of the county was invited to come in and, as a matter of urgency, complete one short stretch of this regional plan so as to serve an industrial site. Therefore, if there is a will, this scheme can be sanctioned but, regrettably, up to now, the will has been missing on the part of the Department with the result that there is a feeling of intense frustration on the part of people who live within the bailiwick of that local authority that the local authority is a useless body and the people and the local authority themselves believe that any initiative they might take cannot be carried to completion without approval which is not being given.
I do not think that the proposals in the White Paper for the reorganisation of local authorities would improve matters in any startling way. I could not get any clear picture from the White Paper of the alternatives proposed. I suspect that the regional bug which has already bitten so deeply into the higher echelons of the Government service is the virus which produced this White Paper and that this document is a softening up towards the introduction of some form of regional organisations. McKinsey and Company have appeared on the horizon and I have no doubt that they will produce a regional structure showing a very logical chain of command which will be as outrageously unsuccessful as that which they proposed for the health boards and which will be as extravagant as that one.
Quite right.
The Minister can improve local government in this country by giving to the local authorities their budget in advance and giving them discretion on the details of its spending. It is at his peril that the Minister interferes with county boundaries because, being from rural Ireland himself, he must be aware of the existence of tremendous loyalty to county unity. It is not a loyalty that is all that ancient but everything is so geared to the county basis that it has become an automatic part of a person's thought to have this deep loyalty. Any system of reorganisation which proposes to disregard this loyalty is, in my opinion, doomed to failure. It would be re-organisation that was being imposed on the people rather than accepted by them and I have always been a great believer that an imposed solution is no solution.
To try to tinker with county boundaries will not meet the case at all. Any such tinkering will only produce trouble for the Minister. Also, the Minister should exercise great care in relation to the abolition of urban areas. The case made in the White Paper for the abolition of the smaller urban areas is good but some of these have been in existence for a very long time not as urban areas but they succeeded as statutory towns and while the towns, by some economic freak, have not grown, the retention of an urban town might assist growth in the future. I would suggest to the Minister that he should be slow to abolish them.
The existence of urban councils can be a focal point in the generating of civic pride. I know there is a suggestion in the White Paper of the setting up of local committees where these urban areas might be abolished. These are committees that would not be elective in the normal sense but, again, I would refer to the experience of the health boards in warning the Minister to tread very slowly in constituting any local bodies that are not elective in the sense that we have always known them to be. Professional bodies have appointed members to the health boards and my colleagues who are members of these boards told me that the approach of these persons has been biased in favour of their particular vested interest. That danger would be very real if the Minister should propose the setting up of local bodies that would be composed of persons representative of particular groups rather than members elected by the total population.
There are many points of detail that I would make in regard to the White Paper but at this stage, having regard to the Minister's travels around the country and the views he has obtained and if democracy means anything, the White Paper must be scrapped now. I would urge the Minister to put out of his head any notion of transgressing county boundaries and I would suggest to him that all that local government reorganisation requires is the removal of the dead hand of the Department and to allow local autonomy and local initiative. The members are bona fide in their approach and they have highly qualified administrative and professional staff to advise them and I fail to see why bodies so composed should not have scope and initiative and financial initiative within their own areas notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of their finances may be coming from the central authority. I have not the slightest doubt that if the local authorities were given their finances and given their autonomy their grants would be well spent and economically spent and there would be a great deal more satisfaction throughout the country and a great deal more progress, which is what we all want.
Again there is the dead hand of the Department, I regret to say, with regard to housing development. Every local authority has highly competent and skilled engineers and even more highly skilled consultancy services available and if from these resources they cannot produce plans without having to send them up for approval, it is a funny world. Indeed, if the plans came back improved I would not object to their going up but they generally do not come back with improvements or changes of any significance. If the Minister indicated to local authorities that he would like to see a change in the type of house design for local authorities, that he would like to see more green spaces in housing schemes, if his Department insisted on these things being built into schemes, then I would be all in favour of submitting housing plans to the Department but, by and large, the answer that comes back is that there is not enough use being made of the ground available, that having regard to the cost of sites there should be more houses built. There is no consideration of the people who have to live in these schemes. There is not enough provision of open spaces. To build rows and rows and rows of similar type boxes is an insult to the Irish people.
It is terribly wrong in 1971, in a new Republic, that if you drive into any town you can immediately know what is private development and what is public development. The most heartening thing I have heard was from a county manager in a midland county whose council had completed a scheme. He said that the nicest thing he had heard about it was that one would not know it from a private scheme. Every local authority scheme should be like that and if the Department is to interfere it should interfere to achieve an end result such as that.
I am sceptical too, though I recognise the reasons, about the system-built houses which are being urged on local authorities. Again, quoting from a particular example in my own county, we were asked to build a scheme of system-built houses. This is often put forward as being cheaper to erect and quicker to erect. We found the time difference would be practically nil and that the cost was quite considerably dearer per house. So, we rejected it in favour of traditional building.
At first sight there is a lot to commend system-built houses but if they are going to be dearer and not any speedier, they have nothing to commend them. It should be made clear that they have handicaps, one of them being that they have to have concrete floors and that the traditional timber floor cannot be installed in those houses. If that is the case, I do not think they are suitable at all. Details like these should be gone into with the local authority's engineers, the people in the firing line who have to meet the housewives who subsequently have to occupy the houses. Details should be gone into and made clear in advance.
I welcome the recent increases by the Minister in the income ceiling for loans and for grants for new houses. It requires to be made clear to some authorities that they do have power to grant marginal reliefs in the case of windfall payments by way of temporary overtime or bonus or in the case of Army personnel whose pay includes a sum for ration allowances for themselves and their families. The total figure sometimes puts these persons, privates and non-commissioned officers, over the ceiling limit for obtaining a local authority house. A fresh circular letter from the Minister to all local authorities at this stage telling them to grant marginal relief would be very welcome and would ease a great deal of hardship.
I do not know if my information is correct or not but I would ask the Minister to tell me if it is correct, that is, that the income limit for reconstruction grant is still £1,200. If that is the case, I would ask the Minister to raise that figure because it now is unrealistic.
Some time ago I raised with the Minister by way of question the position of a farmer of £60 valuation. He gets nothing and that is irrespective of whether that £60 is £20 on land and £40 on buildings. He is out, generally, as far as grants are concerned. I would suggest to the Minister that in assessing a farmer's means for the purpose of deciding his entitlement to loans, only the land valuation be taken into account, that his buildings valuation be not taken into account. I know the theory is that farm buildings are generators of income. We had this point on the regulations under the Health Act and I would suggest that it is equally relevant here. I would ask the Minister to change the regulations so that in assessing a farmer's valuation for grant or loan only his land valuation would be taken into account. Buildings by and large, are for sheltering stock or for sheltering a farmer and his family. They do not produce income. His land produces income and that is the only thing that should be assessed in deciding his entitlement to a grant or loan.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on his initiative in getting swimming pools started all over the country. This is a subject dear to his heart, and very properly so. The provision of swimming pools and their existence in many towns throughout the country will change and improve the quality of life for our children and people immensely. I congratulate the Minister on his initiative and energy in getting these things provided. I would suggest to him that, having proved that he is a man of initiative and energy, he would apply that in other directions as well, particularly in bringing in a new broom in regard to the attitude of his Department to local authorities. Next to the work he has already done, the Minister could take that as the most important task to be done.
Another area where there is scope for initiative and energy of a high degree is in the arterial road system, particularly roads leading into this city. I have raised this matter before with the Minister. I know he sympathises with my views on it. The road with which I am most conversant is the road from Kilcock into the city and I can only say that it is a disgrace. I understand that all the major approach roads are no better. The only way in which that position will be cured is by a drastic solution requiring initiative and energy of the highest order. I think the Minister can bring these qualities to bear on this problem and I would appeal to him to do so. A drastic solution involving two or three motorways running from selected points 20 or 25 miles north and west of the city is the only answer to this problem. Tinkering with the existing roads will not solve it.
I realise that the old and difficult question of finance comes into it but I suggest to the Minister that it is economically desirable at this stage to undertake the immense financial involvement of such reconstruction. We are told by economists that transport is a very big factor in our economy and the delays on the approach roads to the city must be immense quite apart from the danger involved. Once there is danger involved, there is life to be saved and the question of cost becomes relative.
I have heard there is a move in Europe towards increasing the maximum size of lorries permissible on roads. I would ask the Minister to resist any move to increase the maximum size of lorries here. They are already getting too long for many of our roads, overtaking is hazardous on many roads as a result and certainly lorries should not be allowed to get any larger. The Minister might suggest to his colleague in the Department of Justice that the regulations regarding the securing of loads on lorries be enforced more strictly because it is a hazard which is growing.
As I said when I started, the Minister is, in my opinion, in charge of the most important Department of State because it is the one Department which can influence the shape of this country for generations to come. The tone of the country is very often set by the tone of the capital and many of the developments which have taken place in this capital up to now have not been desirable. They have been developed by people whose only consideration has been profit. The shape and appearance of our city and the aesthetic state of our nation does not matter to these men. Sir John Betjeman, the poet, in an article in the Sunday Express of 30th May, 1971, describing these men said:
When they see woods in the spring they do not look at the leaves against the sky but they think of the price the timber will fetch.
Unfortunately, that attitude is very prevalent in this city and it is spreading throughout the country. The Minister by rigorous and even puritanical exercise of the planning powers which he has, by virtue of his post, can do a great deal to curb the activities of those men. To quote Betjeman, again, he says:
They wreck the skyline, change the scale, and turn what once was part of home into international nothingness.
If we examine that quotation in relation to this city we can see that trend. I would appeal to the Minister to be firm with these people.
I have listened with great interest to the many contributions which have been made during the course of this debate on the Estimate for my Department. The debate has run for something like 40 hours. It has been a discursive one and was indicative of the wide range of activities for which my Department is responsible. As Deputy Cooney quite rightly said, the activities of my Department impinge on the lives of people more so than the activities of any other Department of State. They affect where people live, where they have their homes, where they work, how they travel as well as the whole physical environment in which they live. The problems which face my Department in topics like housing, regional development, land use and pollution, which is a problem people are becoming more aware of, and also traffic have pushed themselves to the forefront of the problems which goverments throughout the world have to grapple with in these times and, indeed, have proved to be the most intractable of problems for governments elsewhere as well as here. To a very large degree they are the result of technological developments and economic progress. It is ironic that they reflect in some measure the success of government policies which are aimed, as we know, at economic growth.
It is no exaggeration to say that in this, as in most other countries, our success or failure in coping with these problems will be critical for the quality of life which our people will enjoy in the years ahead. Although a cliché, it is, nevertheless, true to say that as long as the country is developing we shall have a housing problem. The same could be said of many of the other problems which I have already mentioned. While it is a good democratic exercise for Deputies to list the problems as they see them and as they affect my Department, I would say there is no reason for despair. The debate has been very useful in bringing forward the opinions of Deputies from different sides of the House on how things are going in the local government field with regard to the activities of the Department and local authorities. That does not mean we should not be impatient for faster progress in overcoming our problems. We should be concerned, first of all, to see that we are able to anticipate rather than to react to problems. We should be able to anticipate their development and at all times make the most effective use of the resources which we are able to devote to that task.
It would be impossible for me to deal with the many and detailed points raised by Deputies in the course of the debate but I should like to assure all Deputies who spoke that what they said will be carefully considered by me and by the officials in my Department and will be taken into account as far as circumstances permit in future policy making and in reviews of the operation of local government at all times. I propose to attempt to speak, first of all, in a general way about the few topics which are of major concern to me and judging from what I have heard here of major concern to Deputies and then to make a few observations on a limited number of detailed points made by some Deputies.
Deputy Kavanagh brought up an interesting point, which is of topical interest and which I would just like to answer before dealing with the other points raised, about the recent Supreme Court decision on the numbering of ballot papers. He asked if this would prevent any election being held in the absence of new legislation. The answer is "No". Those parts of the existing legislation declared to be repugnant to the Constitution are invalid but the remainder stays and is sufficient to enable an election to be held. I understand the Supreme Court decision relates only to Dáil elections——
Very reassuring.
——but, at the same time, I should like to tell the House that I am at present engaged in tidying up the position relating to all elections following the court decision This would not be a hindrance in any way to the holding of elections, I am sorry to tell the House.
Thank you.
The White Paper was the subject of extensive comment during the course of the debate. I am particularly glad that most of those who took part accepted that there was a need for some change in our present system of local government. Anybody who is prepared to say that is half way along the road with me. One of the main purposes in producing the White Paper in the form in which it was produced was to get a debate going. It was to get the views of persons with vast experience such as those who have spent many years in local authorities or served in the House here for short or long terms. All these have personal experience which can be valuable when drawn on to make a contribution towards any changes or restructuring. Of course, the whole community was invited to make comments and criticism of the White Paper as well as elected representatives.
Naturally, I suppose, a number of Deputies expressed reservations about the White Paper's proposals. I could not hope to deal on this occasion with all the points made by Deputies but I shall deal as fully as time allows with some of the major ones. The White Paper put forward fairly constructive proposals for public discussion and the points made in the House are a valuable contribution to the overall debate and will, I feel, assist me in coming to a final decision. The information I have gathered will be valuable. As I said in my opening speech, the whole approach to the White Paper is an evolutionary one, involving gradual adaptation of the existing system into a more modern and efficient one. Nevertheless, it is based on the traditional county as we know it. This point was missed by many who claimed to have read the White Paper which states quite specifically that the county would be retained as the basic unit of local government. At the meetings I have held I have elaborated further on that in speaking to local authority representatives.
The proposals in the White Paper cannot compare with the very radical changes proposed in Great Britain and it is obviously incorrect to claim, as Deputy Hogan did, that the proposals were copied from the British ones: I do not know how he came to that conclusion. The evolutionary approach of the White Paper is exemplified by the proposals relating to the regions. A number of Deputies and, I think, Deputy O'Higgins in particular, made the point that there is an undue tendency towards regionalism. He commented on the disadvantages of larger local bodies. The Government accept this and that it would be vital that any move towards regionalism should not reduce local involvement and participation nor in any way diminish the responsiveness of local government to local needs. For that reason the White Paper deliberately set out that the county should be retained as the basic unit and that regional bodies could be used only for the purpose of co-ordination and as machinery for voluntary co-operation between adjoining authorities.
One of the questions raised in the White Paper concerned the abolition of small urban councils. Views on this have varied greatly in the debate here. For example, Deputy O'Leary accepted that there is a very good case for transferring the functions of very small bodies to the county councils. On the other hand, Deputies like Deputy Tully were not in favour of this proposal. I do not propose to reiterate or expand arguments put forward in the White Paper in favour of the proposals in regard to small urban councils. I shall confine myself to saying that in my view the White Paper has made a fairly good case for action in relation to these small authorities. I think many Deputies accept that a prima facie case has been made for the changes. The arguments in the White Paper must be weighed against the views expressed by the local authorities and the many other interests concerned and when that exercise is completed final decisions must be made.
Speakers, including Deputy Treacy, Deputy Tully and Deputy Burke, were critical of the new forms of local bodies proposed in the White Paper, the area committee proposal and the community councils. It is still my view that these proposals warrant very serious consideration by all concerned. Anybody who looks at the proposals with an open mind and considers the pros and cons must agree there is quite a degree of merit in the White Paper proposals. Because of the importance I attach to them I shall set out briefly some of the arguments in favour of the proposals.
First, I emphasise that the approach adopted in the White Paper on area committees is a flexible one because the role of such committees can vary from one county to another, depending on local circumstances. County councils would be allowed considerable discretion in setting up suitable local government structures in their own counties. In general, I would envisage the area committee advising the county council about needs and on all the various aspects of development in that area. The area committee could be consulted by the authority on various issues, for example on the development plan for the area and other planning matters arising in the area. They could act as a medium through which information about county council policy on proposals could be transmitted to the local community.
The committee could also act as a co-ordinator of all local effort and as a clearing house through which ideas and proposals could be channelled from the community to the authority. Also, various functions could be delegated to the area committee by the county council. For example, a county council could allocate a certain sum of money each year to each area to be used by the area committee for the provision of amenities such as parks, public walks and recreational facilities, matters which are of very great concern at local level. I think the proposals in regard to areas committees would help local authorities to maintain close contact with the local community without sacrificing the advantages of scale which are to be derived from the provision of services and expensive works which could be and are a burden on small local authorities. I see a situation where we will be operating on a larger scale with a larger authority with greater resources but not losing in any way the point of contact with local people. I think this proposal goes a long way towards bringing local government much closer to the people than it is at present.
The proposals I am talking about in regard to the area committees are designed to preserve the sense of involvement of citizens and provide a voice for each local community. They have the advantage of being based on the inter-dependence of town and country and allowing a much greater degree of flexibility in the actual operation of local government at more local levels and of bringing together the statutory local authorities and local voluntary bodies.
A further very important feature of the proposals is that they will provide a logical and integrated system of local representative bodies for all local communities and not just the one in five now served by certain authorities. This is a point which has been missed by many people. Out of the total population only one person in every five persons in the country is served by an authority other than a county council. So, four in five have not got the benefit of these lower authorities, or other authorities at a level lower than the county council.
As I have explained in the White Paper, I foresee that the membership of these local area committees will be comprised of the county councillors who have been elected for that area. It might also include an appropriate number of representatives of local voluntary bodies or community councils, where they exist. In this event the county council members will have a majority, to ensure the preservation of the fundamental principle that local government is effected through the democratic principle of election of members responsible to electors. The community councils will, of course, be outside the formal local government system but will have close links with it. I believe that such councils can play a vital role in the community.
Whether or not I give them a place in the restructuring of local government, I am firmly of the opinion that community councils which are being formed will continue to be formed and will play a very vital role in the structure of society in the years that lie ahead. In the proposals in the White Paper I am giving them recognition, not statutory recognition but a degree of recognition which they have not got at the present time. Whether or not my proposal is accepted and whether or not a final decision is made on it, I believe that community councils are with us and are here to stay, and that all elected public representatives and authorities will be very happy to deal with them in future years.
The proposals in relation to the voluntary bodies and community councils which I am talking about are not intended to devalue the role of local councillors or, indeed, to make any councillor redundant. This seems to have been a fear of some elected councillors on reading the White Paper, or probably listening to badly informed opinions on what was contained in it. On the contrary the proposals amount to what I consider a restructuring of what might be regarded as the informal local government system that already operates through local voluntary bodies and the provision of machinery through which this informal system can be co-ordinated and can co-operate with the statutory local authorities.
Many organisations have commented favourably on these proposals in the White Paper and Deputy Cooney and other Deputies who have advised me, in their wisdom, that the White Paper has been rejected in toto by the people are wrong. I do not accept that at all. I am in quite a strong position to comment on this, having travelled the country and spoken to representatives of local authorities at nine regional meetings which I held during the recess. My honest assessment of the views of the councillors is that there is agreement on many of the points in the White Paper. I have been encouraged by these meetings to continue my efforts to restructure and to improve the system that has operated up to now.
Of course we did have objections from some local authorities. Their objections were mainly on the grounds that power and influence were being transferred from the local councillors who had been elected by universal suffrage to bodies of men chosen by other means. All I can say is that, in the review of all the proposals and of all the comments I will take full account of all that I have heard. I do not want to anticipate the outcome of the review because it was only recently that I completed the regional meetings. As the Taoiseach indicated the week before last at the Muintir na Tíre conference, we are in a developing situation and it might be undesirable to attempt to present a fully articulated decision too quickly. Serious consideration of the proposals was slow to get off the ground. The debate has been going on seriously only since last May.
As might be expected some Deputies from the Dublin constituencies commented on the proposals relating to Dublin. The proposals are different and separate from the proposals in the paper relating to the other local authorities. Dublin had to be taken as a special case. Deputy Burke, Deputy L. Belton, Deputy O'Donovan, Deputy Clinton and Deputy Cosgrave referred to the proposals to reorganise the system of local government in the Dublin area. Most of them were critical of the proposals and some of them even went so far as to suggest that there was no problem to be tackled at all. I have had a lengthy discussion on these proposals in relation to the Dublin area with representatives of Dublin County Council, Dún Laoghaire Corporation and the Balbriggan Town Commissioners. At the end of that meeting it was agreed that the councillors concerned, having had the opportunity of hearing my views at first hand, would discuss the proposals in the White Paper again and that they could have a further meeting with me if they so wished.
I am making myself available for a further meeting with them and I am circulating to them a memorandum dealing with the main points of the proposals for the Dublin region, the main proposal being, of course, the abolition of the existing authorities and the creation of one unified authority to serve the whole Dublin area with local councils appointed to represent —no figure has yet been fixed but, roughly, for the sake of explanation— about 100,000 people which would mean something in the region of eight to nine such local councils being appointed throughout the whole of the Dublin area. I will not elaborate further on that suggestion. I am having discussions with the authorities I mentioned and this is a continuing process until decisions are finally made.
I find it difficult to understand how anyone can argue that the existing administrative arrangements in Dublin should be preserved without making any alteration at all. The enormous changes that have taken place in recent years in the Dublin area, and the level of growth forecast for Dublin in the years that lie ahead, cannot but suggest that some restructuring of the local government system in the area must be carried out to enable it to cope more efficiently. I am talking about these matters but I want to emphasise that no decisions have been made on any aspect of the reorganisation in the Dublin area or any of the other areas. The time for decision-making has not yet come. The House will be informed of the decision eventually by way of a Bill.
The proposals have been stated deliberately in these general terms in order to allow all concerned the opportunity of participating as fully as possible in the work of restructuring which I feel, and they seem to agree, is so necessary. I listened carefully to all the proposals and they will all be considered before any course of action is decided on. Having said that I do not expect that there will be any easy solution to the problems. I do not expect either that I will be a Solomon and satisfy everyone. Whatever emerges from these discussions—and something will emerge—will have been decided upon with the one intention of creating a system of local government able to cope with the many problems which will arise in the years that lie ahead. I hope we will be able to develop a system which will stand the test of time as well as the system which has operated up to now.
Deputy Cosgrave suggested that it was wrong to publish the White Paper without prior consultation. I think that is rather ridiculous because the White Paper was published with the stated intention of all the interests concerned. I felt that Deputy Cosgrave's whole attitude to the White Paper was very inconsistent. He was arguing in favour of having a commission to review local government and then he cited as precedents in support of his argument the reviews of local government which were carried out in 1926 and in 1938. What Deputy Cosgrave overlooked and what was overlooked by a number of members of his party who have spoken on this matter and who probably took their lead from him was that both of these commissions recommended the establishment of a unified local government system in the Dublin area. The case for establishing such a system is now far stronger and, despite that, Deputy Cosgrave seems to oppose the idea of a unified system. I have no reason to expect that any commission I would set up now would come up with any different solution or recommendation from that of the two previous commissions. Deputy Cosgrave may have been using the idea of a new commission as a gimmick but he must face the fact that what we are proposing now is, in effect, to implement the recommendations of the commissions which were held in the past and by which he seems to set such great store.
I should like to refer to a point made by Deputies Hogan and Fitzpatrick. Other Deputies too made this point. They said that the White Paper on local finance should have been published before I came forward with the White Paper on reorganisation. I agree that it would be very desirable to have the White Paper on local finance and taxation as soon as possible. Work on preparing the White Paper on finance is at an advanced stage at the present time and everything will be done to have it published as soon as possible but I do not accept that the proposals already published in the White Paper on reorganisation cannot be considered in a real sense by local authorities until the proposals relating to finance and taxation are known. On the contrary, it is clear that some conclusions should be reached as to the future structure of local government and the appropriate range of functions for local authorities before proposals in relation to local finance are finalised. The future of the local finance system has no bearing on many of the proposals contained in the White Paper particularly those relating to the operation of the system.
A number of local authorities requested me to attend their meetings to discuss the White Paper. There are 115 different local authorities throughout the country with some 1,500 councillors elected to them. If I were to attend a meeting of each of these local authorities to discuss the White Paper I would have had to attend 115 different meetings in all parts of the country. I do not think any reasonable person would expect me to accede to that request. In response, however, to the request that I should meet them I agreed to attend meetings established on a regional basis. There were two or three local authorities who decided not to attend. I am sorry they did not. I found the meetings very useful and I should like to publicly express my appreciation of the courtesy extended to me by these local authorities and by their members who attended these meetings and to compliment them on the very constructive and valuable contributions which they made towards the debate. Now that these meetings have been held it is up to me to consider all of the views which as far as possible were recorded by members of my staff. I hope to get down to formulating final proposals as soon as I can.
I suppose all Deputies will agree that it is desirable that any major structural changes in the local government system should be decided on and in operation before June 1972 when the next local elections are due to be held. If we are to achieve this it will be necessary to make final decisions fairly soon. I am aware of the difficulties involved in getting any major structural changes into operation but I am sure we would be open to criticism if we incurred all the expense of holding elections to various local bodies without having reached decisions on the future of those bodies. I want to tell the House that it is my objective at the present time to have such changes in operation before the next local elections.
Will the local elections be held on time?
It is my intention at the present time to press ahead, make the decisions, bring forward the legislation and have the structural changes carried out in time for the 1972 local government elections. That is my intention. I am not saying that I will achieve this objective because it will depend on the House and other factors but that is my intention at present and no other decision has been made by me or by the Government in relation to the local elections next year.
Deputy Treacy referring to the question of young people and their interest in politics argued that the proposals in the White Paper would increase the reluctance of younger people to become involved in local government. That is Deputy Treacy's argument. I do not accept it at all. In fact, I am convinced that the very opposite will be true because if we do not reorganise and modernise the system of local government I am afraid that we will soon begin to see a marked reluctance on the part of young people to have anything to do with it or to stand as candidates. Listening to the comments of Deputies like Deputy Cooney who was the last speaker it is obvious that there is a need for re-organisation. It is also obvious to me that very few Deputies have studied the White Paper in any great depth because it states quite clearly that it is my intention as far as possible to devolve as many functions and powers and as much decision-making as I can from the central authority down to the local authority. That is my intention and that intention will be carried out if God leaves me in the Department to see this thing through.
If we do not carry out these changes local government will be seen to be more and more irrelevant in the structure of government and of getting things done. There is a dire need for re-organisation and restructuring throughout the whole system and I am not excluding my own Department. The White Paper deals specifically with local authorities at that level. We are capable of forging a modern and efficient system. The system we decide on eventually will be one that will encourage more people, especially young people, to take a greater interest and to participate more in the administration of local affairs. This is the purpose of any re-organisation that may be carried out. It is the reason for the existence of the local government system—people should participate in it, it should be relevant to their lives.
Next to the topic we have been speaking about, housing has probably been the matter of most concern in this debate. I was disappointed at the over-simplified manner in which a number of Deputies tended to approach the complex matter of housing. Housing is a problem still and may continue to be a problem always for whatever government is in power unless we run into bad times. We must learn how to cope with this problem more effectively each year.
It is easy to speak in favour of increasing grants. It is easy to say the Minister should increase subsidies and that he should see that interest rates are reduced. This kind of argument was put forward by Deputies Creed, Murphy and Treacy, but they did not make any attempt to point out where the resources to finance these extra aids were to come from, nor did they make any effort to make any justification for increasing subsidisation of this kind.
Similarly, it is easy to make selective comparisons between ourselves and other countries. This is a favourite practice of Opposition speakers. Deputies Hogan, Cruise-O'Brien and Treacy quoted this international comparison when they spoke on housing during the debate. However, they did not give the full picture or acknowledge the peculiar circumstances that make the nature and extent of our housing needs different from those of the other countries they mentioned.
While I accept that there is a need for grants and subsidies. I am convinced that these financial aids will not solve our housing problems. Many other factors are involved. We are already spending on subsidies £1 for every £5 we spend on housebuilding and improvements. In regard to local authority housing, we are spending £1 on subsidies for every £2 we put into new buildings. I do not think these relationships are the right ones. We know that the root cause of our problem is an excess of demand in relation to supply and the resources we can make available each year to augment that supply. A problem of this kind will not be solved by artificially stimulating the demand through the medium of subsidies. It will be solved by boosting the supply of houses. The only way we can solve the housing problem is to build more houses. Therefore, we must aim at putting as much as possible of our total resources into housebuilding or improvements. We must accept that all arguments for increases in subsidies must be looked at critically in the light of the extent to which they will have the effect of diverting resources from new buildings.
I should like to assure the House that I do not like to see interest rates as high as they are at the moment, but I must be realistic in this matter. I must face the fact that the primary need of building societies is to raise the necessary capital and it is possible for them to do this only by offering competitive rates of interest to investors. So far, there has been no indication that the level of interest rates has had any material effect on the demand for loans—a point we should bear in mind.
Some Deputies implied that housing was not a high priority with this Government. Deputies Hogan, Creed and Cruise-O'Brien made that point. I wish to refute emphatically that ridiculous allegation——
Does the Minister think the Government have their priorities right when they give £1¼ million for Posts and Telegraphs and only £1 million for housing at a time when there is a housing emergency? This was announced today by the Minister for Finance.
If the Deputy examines the Book of Estimates he will see where the priorities of this Government lie. Of course, it would not suit the Deputy to say the Government had their priorities right.
Why was £1¼ million given for Posts and Telegraphs and only £1 million for housing?
An additional £1 million was provided for housing and the bulk of the money made available went into the creation of new jobs. One of the greatest necessities at this time is to provide new opportunities of employment for our people. We are going through a difficult time and this will continue for quite a few years. The Labour Party must face that fact, just as the Government must face it——
How can the Minister state that interest rates do not affect housing?
The Deputy must cease interrupting and allow the Minister to conclude.
A sum of £38 million is being provided for housing in the public capital programme this year and this is a clear indication of the Government's priorities——
It is not going into housing.
It is enough to give the lie to the arguments of Deputies Creed, Cruise-O'Brien and others who made the ridiculous charge that housing was not a top priority with the Government. We have set our targets for housing for the mid-70s, targets that are based on a realistic appraisal of our needs. It is a matter of top priority with me that, subject only to the resources we can generate for the purpose, these targets will be achieved.
The target for the mid-70s was to achieve a housebuilding rate of between 15,000 and 17,000 per year. In 1968-69 we built 13,033 houses; in 1969-70 we built 13,644 houses; in 1970-71 we built 13,671 houses, despite the cement strike during that year. The best estimates I can draw on for 1971-72 indicate that I will achieve the target of 15,000 this year. This is the target we set ourselves for 1975. In fact, we are achieving our targets and, judging by the way things are going, it appears we will exceed them.
Would the Minister tell us what percentage are local authority houses?
One-third.
What percentage?
A Cheann Comhairle, I wonder might I be allowed to reply without interruption from Deputy O'Connell?
Will Deputy O'Connell cease interrupting?
I know the Minister must speak but, notice, he fails to answer, or he evades answering when it does not suit him.
The Deputy spoke for an hour and 50 minutes and he might now give the Minister an opportunity to reply to the debate.
I am waiting for answers and the Minister is not coming up with the answers. I feel strongly on this issue. It is shocking——
The Deputy has already made his speech and it would not be in order for him to make a second one.
I should like the Minister to give some answers. That is what he is here for.
It is a matter for the Minister, not for the Deputy. Would the Deputy please keep quiet now? It is getting late in the evening for interruptions.
What the people want is action, not words.
Give them places to live in, not action.
I want now to refer to what I consider to be an anomalous situation in Dublin. Unlike Deputy O'Connell, I think there are other places in Ireland just as important as Dublin, but this particular problem relates specifically to Dublin. I am referring to families with only one child on the housing list. Because of the system of priority these do not seem to have been doing very well. They do not seem to have had much chance of getting local authority houses.
Or a flat.
Any local authority dwelling which is not just a room. I realise that persons with only one child have been in a very weak position on the Dublin housing list. I have initiated discussions with the Dublin city manager — these are continuing—in an effort to see if there are some special measures which could be taken to cater for this particular category. I hope to be able to report some satisfactory conclusions to these negotiations and offer some hope in future to families in this position.
May I say my action——
Order. Would the Deputy please cease interrupting?
May I ask the Minister is he aware of the fact that three years ago families with one child could get places; now they cannot. The situation has deteriorated.
The Deputy had a chance to speak and I sat here and listened to him.
Once I see the Minister doing something about the problem I shall not say a word to him.
When the Deputy meets me outside he tells me I am a great fellow. International comparisons are a hardy annual here; it is said that the number of houses we build is low by international standards. I want to kill this myth now if I can. I also know there are good reasons for this being so and many Opposition Deputies who are happy to make these international comparisons make sure, of course, not to mention the peculiar circumstances. Let me spell out some of the differences. First of all, the rate of new house building is not necessarily a reliable indication of the general housing situation of a country. Other factors, such as the extent of reconstruction activity, the number of rooms available per 1,000 population, the extent of the unfit housing problem, the size of the houses built and the number of families with dwellings of their own, all these have to be taken into account. In relation to reconstruction work, it is worth mentioning that we were probably the first country in Europe to introduce grants for this purpose and over the past ten years 90,000 houses have been reconstructed with the aid of State reconstruction grants. This extensive reconstruction work has had a significant effect on the general standard of our housing conditions and it has been a potent force in lessening our housing needs by prolonging the useful lives of dwellings which might otherwise have become obsolescent.
With regard to the number of rooms per 1,000 population, in 1966 the number of rooms occupied by private householders averaged 1,118 for each 1,000 persons. In this connection, according to a table published in The Economist on 12th June of this year, countries in Eastern Europe which have had higher rates of new construction per 1,000 population have, in fact, got only between 435 and 699 rooms available for each 1,000 persons. There is quite a difference there. On the question of unfitness, in 1969 we estimated that roughly 5 per cent of our total housing stock was unfit. Deputies may like to compare that situation with the situation in Britain, where about 11 per cent of the total housing stock is estimated to be unfit; in Northern Ireland the Minister for Development on 5th April last stated that there were over 100,000 unfit houses in the Six Counties. That represents about 22 per cent of the total housing stock in that area. The percentage deemed to be unfit here is 5 per cent.
There are a number of other important factors which make the relative housing need lower in this country as compared with other countries. Only about one-third of the population is married compared with up to half the population in other countries. Obviously, that has a significant effect on our level of housing needs. Secondly, our population, while increasing, has not been growing at a rate comparable with that of other countries. Thirdly, our average family size is bigger than in most countries, a situation reflected in the fact that houses built here on average are almost the biggest in Europe. Furthermore, we have a higher than average dependency rate. These are all significant demographic factors which, when taken together, point to lower housing needs here as compared with countries in which there are relatively more people in the marriage age group, where people marry younger and have smaller families.
Again, on the purely economic side, the second or holiday home is not a significant element in the total housing output here, but figures for second homes and holiday homes are included in the number of houses in international figures when they give comparisons between this country and other European countries. Neither have we had the high rate of non-family households which has become a significant element in housing needs in a number of countries. It would require very detailed statistical examination to quantify the effects of all these social, economic and demographic factors on our housing needs. Such an examination has not been undertaken. I am quite satisfied that, if it were, it would show the building programme we have projected in the White Paper, Housing in the Seventies, appears quite favourably taking all the factors into account with the programme in most other countries in Europe.
With regard to rising house prices, this is a matter of great concern to me. I think it was Deputy Hogan who said he would like to know how I was going to halt the rise in prices. I presume he did not expect a simple answer to that question because I think Deputy Hogan knows there is no easy solution and no easy answer to that particular problem. I have said before, and experience everywhere indicates, that the problems associated with rising house prices are not susceptible to quick or easy solutions. The level of prices at any time reflects the interaction of supply and demand——
What about land speculation?
——as well as the trends in the cost of land, of labour and of material used in the construction of these houses, all of which factors are important in determining the prices at which houses are selling.
The Minister has not said anything about land speculation. Is that not an important factor?
I will deal with everything as I go along. In so far as these rising prices are caused by any imbalance that might exist between supply and demand, we could tackle the problem in two ways. One of these ways would be to attempt to control prices rigidly at, say, their present average. Of course, this might be very appealing on first sight but in course of time it would take money and builders away from housebuilding at the very time when our basic needs is to attract as many people as possible into playing their part in this housing programme. It would be disastrous if that were to happen because it would disrupt completely all the projections of the Government and the targets to which I referred earlier.
The other course is the one which, in the long run, would be in the interest of house-purchasers. That would be to tackle this imbalance between supply and demand by means of an expanding programme of house building. This is a course to which I am committed. At the same time, I want to assure the House that I am determined to take whatever steps are open to me to secure as much stability in prices as possible without jeopardising in any way the rate of progress in new building. Deputies will be aware of the proposal announced recently by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to extend to new houses the scope of the Prices Acts. I shall have more to say on that later.
Some months ago I initiated a programme which was given the label "low-cost housing project". Deputies Tully and Belton and others who contributed to the debate referred to this special housing project which I had developed. The reason why I had this project developed was to try to secure economies in the cost of local authority housing by guaranteed orders for standardised dwellings during a period of years. Some Deputies gave me the impression that they thought that all low-cost housing was offering was system built housing. This is not so. The most attractive offers which came in as a result of that programme were for houses built on traditional methods of construction. I have spoken already at length on this subject here and I have circulated to all Deputies details of the outcome of that project and of the tentative building programme under it. The immediate cost economy that I sought in that programme was to try to achieve a reduction of 10 per cent in the cost of housing but, of course, this was not the only objective of the exercise. There were many other important benefits that would accrue from the project and these would include more efficiency and more precise use of the capital resources. Another benefit to be derived from the programme is a better organisation and wider distribution of overheads in the building industry and yet another benefit is that it gives relative stability to firms and workers under the guaranteed order basis and creates a climate of open-mindedness and better reception to new ideas in the industry. Also, it provides a better and a more uniform standard of construction and of finish. It provides also a deeper use of the available professional expertise in the country. However, I could go on because there were many benefits to be derived from the programme other than that of the actual reduction in cost that we achieved.
In addition, the project has already stimulated a greater degree of competitiveness in normal tendering and this, in itself, is a very significant development in a situation in which we are fighting rising costs continuously. The programme offers also the prospect of rationalising building components on a more practical level and these will be used to a greater degree in future years in helping to promote rationalisation in the building industry.
I made a special appeal to the local authorities to examine this project and I encouraged them, where possible and where suitable to them, to avail of the project. I thank those who co-operated with me in this and I suggest to others that they keep this programme before them when discussing their future housing needs.
While I am upholding the existing standards in the house types being offered under this project and, indeed, some of the standards are an improvement on the standards that have been obtaining up to now—for instance, central heating is included in most of these houses—there must be an acceptance by the local authorities that they cannot have all the frills. We are in a situation in which there is a very high demand for housing while costs are rising but resources are limited to some extent. We have an obligation to house persons who are not in a position to house themselves. This type of situation demands a greater increase in the number of houses being built each year. In recent times we have been accepting many frills that are costly additions to houses. These include, for instance, separate back entrances, the construction of large out-offices or cartilage parking and the construction of garden walls. Many of these items seem to be dear to the hearts of councillors. They are commendable if we can afford them but we are aiming at lower costs because we need more housing for people who have not got houses or who are paying exorbitant rents for bad housing conditions as well as for people who have been waiting for some time for local authority housing; people who are in such a position want a reasonable standard of housing provided quickly and these frills are not all that important to them.
There is a need to cut the cost to a minimum by eliminating any items that can be done without but, at the same time, to plan for an open and a pleasant environment and to spend the money on items such as playing fields and on landscaping instead of spending it on troublesome back entrances and unnecessary garden walls which seem to have been a feature of housebuilding in this country. Experiments carried out in other countries indicate that such extras are not needed at all. I believe there will be a greater acceptance of the open plan in the years ahead. Therefore, if my efforts to secure real cost economies are frustrated, I shall have very little alternative, if I am to keep up the number of units, but to lower the standard of dwellings and to start thinking in terms of a shorter life-span for houses. I do not think that would be the most satisfactory way of dealing with this problem.
Before I leave the question of the low-cost housing project, I should like to bring the House up to date as far as I can on progress relating to it. This gives an indication of the reaction to my invitation to local authorities. There are at the moment schemes in progress where houses are actually under construction in the following locations: Lucan, County Dublin, 277; Clonburris, 61; Tallaght, 310; Galway, 292. In planning, there are the following schemes: Finglas, section 1, 294; section 2, 351; Carlow, 97; Drumbiggle, 120 houses; Navan, 104; County Wicklow, Old Conna, 230; Oldcourt, 105. Other Wicklow schemes include 100 houses, 20 at Kilmacanogue; 30 at Newtownmountkennedy; 50 in Greystones. In the mid-west region, 236 houses are being planned for the Limerick area; in Waterford, at Rockenham, 22; at Lisduggan, 120. In Castleblayney there are 70 houses planned; in Clones, 18; Newpark, Kilkenny, 100; Graiguenamanagh, 30 houses; in Carroreddy, Tipperary, 70 houses; Cahir, 30 houses.
So, generally, there has been fairly good acceptance on the part of local authorities of the proposals contained in the programme.
Would the Minister be able to give details of the prices of these new houses?
Yes, I could later, but not now. There are another 1,100 which will be coming up in the planning stage quite soon. The total of 1,100 coming in for planning, 2,116 in planning already, in an advanced stage in most cases, and 1,035 in actual progress, is not bad and shows some concern on my part and on the part of the Government.
You will be able to give some details at the finish?
Yes. I can discuss all that with the Deputy if he comes up to my office.
You should give it to the House because the House has been concerned. You made a big issue of this low cost housing that you are planning. It would be much better if, instead of giving it to me privately, you would give it to the House.
Part of the information has already been circulated to the Deputy in relation to the general results of the scheme and if there is any particular information he wants I will make it available to him.
The prices?
Yes.
I think the Minister is not quite correct in saying that.
The Minister.
The information that I gave was general information on the results of the programme. If there is specific information the Deputy requires I will certainly make it available to him.
No. I think you should make it available to the House, as to the savings being effected.
The Minister is entitled to be heard.
This is an important matter. The Minister has talked about this low cost housing and of the saving that would be made.
When the Minister is finished the Deputy may ask a question, if the Minister will answer.
It is relevant at this time.
I have already told the Deputy in the course of my few words here this evening that we have achieved a general saving of around 10 per cent on house costs.
Oh. I did not hear that up to now. You never said this before.
I did, yes.
The Deputy has not been listening.
I have been listening to every word he said. He did not say 10 per cent.
May I continue?
Yes. The Minister.
Now I will deal with some points that Deputy O'Connell made when he had the floor. He made some attack on the differential rents system and condemned the system as unjust and immoral. I think I am correct in quoting the Deputy?
You are, indeed, very correct.
Am I correct in quoting the Deputy also that he admitted that the principle involved is just?
The principle is just and I admit that I said so.
We are correct so. The differential renting schemes have been in operation in this country over periods up to 40 years, so, it is not some new idea that has been introduced here. I want to explain that the basic principle underlying this type of renting is that each tenant's rent is related as closely as possible to his ability to pay and to the standard of accommodation he occupies. In other words, under this differential renting no tenant, however poor, need refuse housing because of his inability to pay and that principle has been much admired by Deputies on all sides of the House and, indeed, it has been suggested as a basis on which rates should be levied. However, I will not go into that now. The differential rent scheme, then, as I have said, does not differentiate between the poor tenant and the rich tenant as to whether or not one of them will get the house. His means is not a factor in deciding whether or not the local authority give him a house.
Under the scheme the minimum rents are fixed as low as five new pence to 50 new pence a week and that depends on the size of the dwellings and even this minimum rent can be waived in the case of hardship.
May I ask the Minister, because he is coming out with some strange facts here, what number of tenants in Dublin are on rents of five new pence per week?
We cannot have questions at this stage.
It is terrible to listen to a barrage of nonsense from the Minister.
It does not suit the Deputy.
I am very sincere in saying that they are not facts. Your colleague, Deputy Noel Lemass, has told a meeting that the system was immoral and unjust and said he would appeal to you to change it.
May I continue?
Yes. The Chair is calling on the Minister and is asking Deputies to allow the Minister to conclude.
In case Deputy O'Connell took me up wrong I shall repeat what I said. What I did say was that under the differential renting system the minimum rents can be fixed as low as five new pence to 50 new pence a week, that the level of the minimum rent depends on the actual size of the dwelling and that where cases of hardship exist even those minimum rents can, in fact, be waived completely. That is the minimum side of the scale. On the maximum side, the maximum rents under the differential renting scheme are based on the actual cost of providing and maintaining the dwelling.
Could the Minister quote a case where the whole rent would be waived?
The Minister.
I am trying to give the House as much information as I can and, as I have said earlier on, I could take 12 hours on this if the House so wants because there have been so many points raised. I am trying to deal with some of the points that were raised and I am not being allowed to do it. I would ask the Deputy, if he wants the House to hear some facts——
You had better put facts in inverted commas because they are not facts.
No tenant, no matter how high his income, is asked at any time to pay more than the cost of his dwelling. So, there is no question of any tenant who is paying the maximum rent subsidising other tenants or providing money to build other houses. That point is sometimes made erroneously. The whole system is, in fact, designed, of course, to help the lower paid and the less well-off and at the same time to ensure that subsidies paid by ratepayers and subsidies paid out of taxpayers' funds go to assist the tenants who are most in need of assistance.
Local authorities have a measure of discretion in adopting differential rents schemes. They can adopt schemes which they consider to be appropriate to the conditions that operate in the local authority area and for that reason an absolutely uniform differential rents scheme does not apply throughout the country. There is, however, a very large degree of uniformity in the various schemes that are in operation. The main feature of typical differential rents schemes is that the rent can be as low as five to 50 new pence a week when the income is low and that it will be related to the size of the dwelling. Secondly, the maximum rents cannot exceed the cost to the authority of providing and maintaining the house. Thirdly, allowance is made from income before rent is assessed of £2 of the principal income, £4 of the income of subsidiary earners, 50 new pence a week for each dependent child, one-fifth of overtime earnings, any children's allowances, scholarships, home assistance and redundancy payments that may be coming into the house. Generally, these are typical features of the schemes. There are other additional concessions available in particular schemes to suit local conditions. They all differ slightly.
What happens to an old age pensioner's rent when she gets an increase of 50p?
Having made the deductions from the total income, the ones I have referred to——
I do not think the Minister is speaking truthfully now.
Interruptions cannot be allowed at this stage; the Minister must be allowed to conclude.
The Minister is giving a distorted picture of the situation.
The Deputy may think so but the Chair must insist on the Minister being heard.
I will attack him on other issues.
If the Deputy can show even the smallest inaccuracy in what I am saying he can bring it up at Question Time or any other time. Having made these deductions from the total income the rent is assessed generally on the basis of one-seventh of the remaining income. All these deductions are made—in most cases other concessions are made as well— what is left is, as a rule, divided by seven and that is the rent.
The rates are payable in addition to the rent. The amount of the rates is based on the standard of the local authority house. There is a range of different valuations relating to houses of different sizes, built at different times, but the average rates on local authority houses are £1 a week. Each scheme incorporates a hardship clause and this provides that a local authority may accept a lesser sum for rent and rates than the amount actually required under the scheme if, after an assessment is made, hardship can be shown by the tenant.
Under a typical scheme a married man with four dependent children earning £20 a week and living in a new local authority house will pay a little over £2 a week in rent for a house which is currently costing the local authority more than £7 a week to build and maintain. If the demand for the exclusion of overtime, which is the main claim being made at the moment by some tenants, were to be conceded by the local authorities it would cut completely across the basic principle of differential renting, which is that the level of rent should relate to the level of income. As well as defeating the whole principle of relating the rent to the income it would create an anomaly between persons who were working in jobs where the income was a fixed income and others who were working in establishments where overtime was generally available or where another similar element is added to income. It would also mean that many persons who were, in fact, poorer than those in receipt of overtime would have to pay more either in higher rates, higher rents or higher taxes in order to recoup the heavy loss which local authorities would sustain through the omission of overtime and other similar earnings in calculating rent.
It is conceded that overtime may involve a tenant in some extra expense: for example, it may involve his going back again to work after tea or it may involve having a meal away from home but a reduction of one-fifth in the over-time is allowed to cover extra travelling or extra meals away from home.
The difference between the cost of providing local authority houses and what the rents are bringing in is approximately £11 million in the present year and this is paid for from rates and taxes in order to keep down the rents of the dwellings. The rents being paid at the moment are not economic in all cases, naturally, and the amount needed to subsidise them is £11 million. The total income from rent is £7 million and the average weekly rent of a local authority house in 1969-70 was only £1.02 although each new house costs the local authority on average £7 a week. It has been estimated that it would cost local authorities a further £2 million in the first year of operation if over-time payments were to be excluded from the calculation of income for rent assessment and if other concessions presently being sought by tenant's organisations were also conceded.
I am fully committed to the idea that rents should be low for people with low incomes and that no person should have to refuse to accept a tenancy because of his inability to pay the rent. The differential renting system enables this idea to be put into practice. It undoubtedly has its limitations, its irritations and its anomalies but I have pledged that I will investigate personally any individual case of hardship brought to my notice. I do not know of any alternative system which will do a better job than the differential renting scheme and which will be as fair to the tenant as the differential renting scheme.
Condemnation of the system arises for several reasons. Deputy O'Connell said he considered the fact that tenants had to give returns of their income in connection with this system was an interference with their liberty and their rights. Deputy Treacy also thought that probing into incomes was socially undesirable. These and other Deputies who made this point gave no indication of a different way in which local authorities might find out the tenant's income in order to enable them to assess the reduced rent to which the tenant was entitled under the system. Deputies who suggested payment according to means with regard to rates should realise that in order to operate any system which relates payments to means we must know the means of the tenant. It is in the interests of the tenant as often as not that the local authority know his means——
The Minister should not run a Gestapo agency from Dublin Corporation.
——because it would often be to his advantage where a reduction is involved. There is no other method by which it is humanly possible to find out the means of a tenant without asking him to give a statement of his income.
Why does the Minister not discuss it with the tenants' organisation?
Would the Deputy suggest a suitable alternative way of finding out a person's means without knowing what a person's salary or wage is?
The income tax people can find out.
It should be remembered that if a tenant's income goes down so also does his rent.
And court orders follow if his income goes up.
A tenant can secure a reduction in his rent by producing evidence of the reduction which came about in his income.
Another complaint was made about the requirements of tenants who wish to inter-transfer. The law at present requires the local authority to let their houses as soon as possible in accordance with an approved differential renting scheme. This does not oblige the local authority to charge income related rents to tenants who are now occupying dwellings at fixed rents so these tenants can continue to enjoy the extremely low fixed rents which generally apply in such cases. The local authority are, however, obliged to have an approved scheme available for new lettings of existing houses and this includes lettings following on a vacancy occurring on a transfer, or a succession, or otherwise. The only exceptions normally allowed are the cases of widows and widowers succeeding to tenancies held by their former spouses, transfers recommended to relieve overcrowding, or transfers made on medical grounds.
Any other type of new letting such as, for instance, would arise in the case of an inter-transfer, should be in accordance with the approved differential rents scheme for the houses concerned. I think it follows that the tenant on transfer will not be asked to pay more than the house is worth. If his income is low he pays the low rent and if his income is high the rent will rise proportionately, subject at all times to the limit of the maximum rent which applies to the house.
In this connection the main object of the campaign at present being conducted by tenants' organisations against a number of local authorities is to have rents based on basic income; that seems to be their main aim. They want to exclude from calculation of income for rent assessment other earnings such as overtime, shift work and so on. Over-time payments range from one-quarter to double the basic pay rate and in a large number of employments over-time working is regarded by workers as a regular feature and contributes, on average, about one-third of actual earnings. If overtime and similar income were not taken into account in calculating rent persons with higher incomes would gain substantially; in some cases they could gain a rent reduction of up to 50 per cent while other tenants on lower incomes would not benefit but would have to meet half the cost of the concession. This would obviously be to the detriment of the poorer tenants and could not but create bad feelings and justifiable complaints that the differential rents system was being abused in favour of the better off.
To illustrate this a little further, on information I have received from a number of employers it is clear that it is not unusual—these returns come to us from local authorities—to have quite a large number of persons 50 per cent of whose total income is earned in overtime. Take the case of a man on a basic salary of £20 a week and who is earning £10 extra in over-time. His total income is £30. On the basis of the 1970 Dublin scheme if overtime is included that man's rent is £4 if he and his wife have four children. If the overtime is excluded the rent is £2.33. What I want to emphasise is that two people each earning £30 per week could be living next door to each other but because one man earns £30 basic and the other earns £20 plus £10 overtime there could be a difference of nearly 100 per cent in the rent they would be obliged to pay local authorities if overtime were excluded as income for assessment purposes in calculating the differential rent.
It may seem to tenant's organisations that to have overtime excluded would be the solution to all their problems. They created this problem for themselves in making the demand in the first instance without having fully considered it and the effects of it. If such a claim were to be conceded— this could not possibly be done because the whole principle of differential rents would be defeated—it would create more problems than could be handled. I would be doing a great disfavour to the man whose income was basic with no opportunities for overtime. You could have cases of persons with greater incomes paying a good deal less than those with lower incomes. I do not see how anybody could justify the claim to exclude over-time as income for differential rents purposes.
I come now to something which is of very great concern to me, the matter of areas in Dublin in which substandard corporation dwellings predominate. A number of Deputies raised this matter and stressed the need for action to improve these areas. I visited a number of these areas and I agree fully that improvements are urgently required. Following my visit I had the whole question taken up with Dublin Corporation——
May I ask the Minister where he visited?
Questions are out of order.
It is a simple question.
Following my visits I was in touch with the corporation and I have been informed by the city manager that he was at the time in the process of formulating a detailed programme to improve the housing standards and the general environment of the area. They are going into this in some detail. My Department have recently approved of Dublin Corporation's proposals for reconstruction work at Hollyfield Buildings. The corporation estimate that converting the two blocks involved from 60 one-roomed flats to 24 self-contained flats, together with the improvements necessary to the exterior facilities, will cost about £46,000.
That is too expensive; demolish them.
I can assure the House that I and my Department will co-operate in every way practicable to try to achieve the improvements that we consider to be so badly needed. I am also personally very anxious to see that the number of social workers in these areas is increased, that the worst features of overcrowding are eliminated and that sanitary arrangements are improved and better play facilities provided in overcrowded areas.
I understand that already a social worker has been appointed for the new Rathmines social services centre and that her duties will include advising families or individuals living in Mount Pleasant and Hollyfield Buildings. It would be wrong not to acknowledge that a good deal has in fact been done by the corporation in the past to eliminate or improve areas of substandard housing under their control. I shall refer to that briefly. The corporation have had an on-going programme of improvement and demolition which has been in progress for some years. They have succeeded in that time in making very significant progress with the problem. Deputies will be aware, for example, that Keogh Square no longer exists. It was often mentioned in this House.
That was due to much pressure.
In place of the old dilapidated, obsolete dwellings there we now have a very fine scheme of modern flats.
Forty years overdue.
Also Sarah Place has been cleared and the old houses replaced by an attractive scheme of flats. Marshalsea Barracks are no longer being used by the corporation for human habitation.
The Minister should not boast about that; he should be trying to put an end to that name.
The housing of families from Corporation Place has been progressing with all possible speed and there are now only about 30 families living there compared with the former population of 250 families. It is appropriate that I should give some details of the further steps now proposed by the corporation to upgrade the principal remaining substandard schemes, namely those at Benburb Street, Hollyfield Buildings and Mount Pleasant. For all three it has been generally agreed to develop a programme for the elimination of communal sanitary accommodation——
People are only hearing that there is such a thing.
——and to regroup the accommodation so that each family will have separate sanitary facilities and where possible separate cooking and other facilities. Inevitably this will take quite some time in view of the fact that these buildings are occupied. The corporation, with the assistance of Voluntary Services International have provided a play centre in the Benburb Street area and intend to provide some further covered accommodation and make provision there for outdoor games. The conversion of a building for community purposes which will be used in conjunction with welfare personnel and, if possible, a physical training instructor, is also envisaged.
Improved methods of refuse disposal at Benburb Street are being investigated. The corporation are looking into the possibility of making the nature of the flats less communal so that each group of tenants, six to ten of them, will be able to control the conditions in their section. What I have said in relation to Benburb Street applies generally to the other two schemes as well. In the case of Hollyfield, the corporation have taken steps under the Derelict Sites Act, 1961, to acquire an adjacent site and playing facilities are proposed for that site. The corporation hope in this instance also to employ a physical training instructor.
They also hope to be able to arrange supervised swimming facilities for the children of the area. The facilities in the Mount Pleasant scheme are being improved by the addition of a children's play centre. The corporation have assured me that they intend to press forward with all energy to have the various works I have mentioned carried out as soon as possible. I do not want to minimise the problems involved in carrying out these physical reconstruction works, particularly in relation to the redeployment of families but, subject to these difficulties being overcome, they hope to have the work under way very soon.
Before leaving the question of substandard accommodation I do not think it would be amiss of me to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the efforts made by the many private individuals and voluntary groups who have taken an interest in the problems of substandard dwellings in the corporation area and of the persons who live there. They have been doing very practical work and it is no harm to praise them publicly.
The Minister cannot include Dublin Corporation in that list.
The Deputy should praise the Minister for looking at the area.
His predecessor should have done that years ago.
The Minister is in possession. Deputies should allow the Minister to continue.
The Minister is not under any illusion that he will ever satisfy Deputy O'Connell——
Primitive conditions.
——or get an expression of satisfaction from him.
I will pressurise the Minister into doing something.
An tAire.
You will not be there for long and when we replace you we will put an end to the housing problem. I will guarantee that.
I hope they will do better than they did before.
Look at the problem you have created in Ballymun. Let us talk about Ballymun.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, could I have your assistance?
The Chair has reminded Deputies that the Minister and only the Minister has the right to speak at the moment.
I am sorry Deputy O'Connell chose to interrupt at this stage of my remarks. I want to have this recorded. Practical steps have been taken by these voluntary groups and I know that in their spare time many of them were responsible for carrying out improvements to the dwellings. I want to express my appreciation of the work they did and to praise that type of activity. It is indeed deserving of the highest praise.
Before concluding these general remarks on housing I should like to say something to Deputy Treacy and other Deputies who alleged that nothing was being done to accelerate house building. It is easy to say that, but the only statement that matters is a statement of fact. If they make comments like that, they must be completely out of touch with what is happening in relation to housing at the moment. Information available to me from the manufacturers of building materials suggests that activity in house building is running currently at an extremely high level. This is borne out by the fact that the number of dwellings begun or authorised in 1970-71 was more than 20,000. That is the highest number ever achieved in the history of the State.
Luxury houses.
I want to leave the subject of housing for the moment. Our record is a pretty good and a growing one.
You can twist anything.
I want to deal now with another subject to which some attention was given during the course of the debate, that is, the question of pollution. Interest in environmental pollution as a general topic has been increasing more and more during the years. This is very welcome. I am satisfied that the way to approach it is to establish the facts. Where and to what extent is pollution a problem? We must ascertain where our existing machinery is defective, if it is defective, and then decide on a programme to deal with the problem and on what machinery is required to implement that programme. All of this is being done at present in relation to air and water pollution by an inter-departmental committee who represent all the Departments concerned with this problem. I established the committee some months ago. When they have examined this question they will report to me on the nature and extent of air and water pollution. They will then refer to the different remedial strategies that might be adopted and make suggestions along those lines. They are obliged to make an assessment of the cost of the strategies and the appropriate distribution of the cost between the State, the local authorities and the private sector which will, of course, include industry.
The adequacy of existing legislation is another matter which the inter-departmental committee are considering. Having considered it, the committee will make suggestions to me on the need for new legislation, if such is felt to be necessary. Deputies will appreciate that an investigation of this nature which is being undertaken by this working group is difficult. I expect that the committee will make a report to me in a relatively short time but, if the study is to be done in any depth, it will take some further months. I do not expect a report for another three or four months. I know it is dangerous to give the House dates because they are thrown back at you later on, but that is my target for a report from the committee. I am prepared to give the committee that length of time to do the job properly. If the job is not done properly and if the right conclusions are not reached, the whole exercise will be a waste of time. Every effort should be made to get out an early report but I am satisfied to give the committee time to do a proper job and not a rushed one.
I should like to mention briefly now some of the investigations and studies which have already been initiated to help to establish the facts of the situation and which will enable the committee to make sound recommendations. In addition to the survey of rivers, which is being carried out by the water resources division of An Foras Forbartha, with which I shall deal later, the following investigations are being carried out: surveys by local authorities of the general situation on air and water pollution in their own areas; surveys by local authorities of industries causing air pollution in their areas; expert evaluation of air pollution records which have been taken in Dublin, Cork and Galway—this will be arranged by my own Department —a survey by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of air and water pollution caused by creameries and meat-processing factories; a survey by the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of all fishery rivers and a survey of local authority sewerage disposal works, including pollution aspects.
The water resources division of An Foras Forbartha have already undertaken a continuing survey of the condition of all our major rivers. The first series of investigations is already nearly completed and a report will be available also to the inter-departmental committee I have mentioned. Even prior to that report, the information that is already available is being sent to the local authorities as it comes to hand from An Foras Forbartha. I have asked these local authorities, where pollution is shown to be occurring to a significant degree, to take immediate steps to establish the sources of the pollution and to initiate remedial action. I have also requested them to take the result of the Foras survey into account when dealing with applications for permission for development which might give rise to effluent problems. I have asked the planning authorities to use their powers to the full to prevent any new sources of pollution being created and I have issued guidelines to them to ensure that as far as practicable a consistent approach is adopted by all of the planning authorities when they are considering planning application for new industries or, indeed, extensions to existing industries. They should be careful at all times to seek out a situation where problems may arise in relation to disposal of effluents. I have also made arrangements to achieve co-ordination in this particular matter between planning authorities and the IDA and Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In other words, even while we are awaiting the report of the committee the existing powers, and there are quite a number of them, are all being used as far as possible. For example, as regards air pollution the Control of Atmospheric Pollution Regulations, 1970, which came into force on 1st January this year, will deal with the more objectionable types of air pollution. These regulations were made under existing statutory powers. The necessity for any further measures to control air pollution will be examined by the working group in the light of the results of the various investigations being carried out to which I have referred and which will enable informed decisions to be taken.
To indicate the importance which I attach to pollution I want to inform the House that a new section to deal specially with environment has been established in my Department and they have been grouped, appropriately, with the sections in the Department which were dealing with sanitary services and planning.
The question of overall ministerial responsibility for the environment is not an easy one. A number of Departments are bound to have a very strong interest in the subject. I need only refer to the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries, Lands, Forestry and the IDA apart altogether from my own special role in the Department of Local Government where we are responsible for the overall planning code. I am responsible for the provision of all the environmental services—sanitary services, roads, amenities, housing. All of these matters are important when dealing with environment. It is often said that there should be a Minister for Environment but people would need to go a little deeper into the problem when they consider the number of Departments concerned. How one could group the whole lot under one Department up to now is beyond me. What is important is to ensure that there is very close co-operation between the Departments concerned and also what is important is that these Departments should all be very much alive to the need to protect and develop the environment. What is also important is that these Departments should be supported and encouraged to do this by a very active informed public.
It would be remiss now if I did not mention that pollution control costs money and we must always be realistic when speaking about these matters. Between the State, the local authorities and the public who will be providing it one way or the other, and all the competing demands that exist, one must realise that if money is to be provided to deal adequately with this question of pollution then there must be a total understanding and appreciation by the public of the need to divert funds to cater for this need. We should recognise this and be prepared to make the necessary decisions to deal with this matter which I consider to be very important. That is why we are establishing the full facts relating to pollution at present and will be in a position, I hope, after this report, to make final decisions on all the matters I have mentioned.
I must, of course, refer to the development of Dublin Bay in dealing with pollution. It has been mentioned by a number of Deputies. I think it was Deputy Belton who suggested that the Minister should direct Dublin Corporation to have Dublin Bay declared a special amenity area. This is a very old chestnut. Maybe it should be declared a special amenity area but again I want to tell Deputy Belton and the House that I have not got the power to do this. In the draft development plan Dublin Corporation state that it is their intention to consider the making of a special amenity order for Sandymount Strand and it is up to them to take the necessary action. Their powers to make this special amenity order come under section 42 of the 1963 Planning and Development Act. Section 43 provides for the issuing of public notice that they intend doing this. It also provides for the making of objections to the Minister and, if they were to come, the holding of a public inquiry by the Minister into these objections. I cannot, therefore, see how the Minister can be deemed by Deputy Belton to be the man who should direct Dublin Corporation to declare Dublin Bay a special amenity area.
Can the Minister not direct his own commissioner to do it?
It is not my function.
The Minister has Commissioner Garvin.
It is not my function. because I will eventually be the arbiter in deciding whether this amenity order should stand or fall.
The Minister always seeks a way out like that.
If the Minister decided to confirm the special amenity order thus drawn up by the Dublin Corporation, or any other local authority, this confirmation order would eventually be laid by me before both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is the law in relation to special amenity orders. So it can be seen that if the corporation wished they could make an order without waiting until the Development Plan is made.
Over a number of years various representations have been made about the need to preserve Sandymount Strand and about the Port and Docks Board development in the bay. The board's long-term plans are expected to be available in the near future and when they are available I think they will clearly have to be subjected to very close consideration by the Ministers concerned as well as by the planning authority. Some Deputies will know that I personally inspected the bay and the development there on a recent visit to the area with the Minister for Transport and Power. The inspection was made in the company of Deputy Seán Moore. I want to assure the House of my concern to see that the amenity value of the bay is not vitiated. In this Dublin area everything possible will be done in my Department and in co-operation with the local authority to ensure conservation of the environment and improvement in the living conditions for the people in the greater Dublin area as far as that is practicable.
This brings me to the rivers in Dublin which have been referred to— the Tolka, the Dodder and the Liffey. In regard to the Tolka and the Dodder the House will accept that in recent times substantial improvement has been made. The corporation have devoted considerable sums towards improving them and corporation workmen have spent quite a number of manhours on these two rivers. The position of the Dodder is very satisfactory. I understand it is vastly improved. The Tolka is a different problem. It is a river which runs very dry in the summer months and unless persons who have been throwing rubbish into the Tolka cease to do that there is no guarantee I can give that we can restore the Tolka as a pure water river. I appeal to the residents to be vigilant in preserving their river which can be a beautiful amenity for them and which should be looked after carefully.
I am satisfied that the condition of these rivers will not be righted overnight. The work in progress in this connection and that planned by the local authorities in the Dublin area in relation to drainage schemes and new treatment works will help to improve the position and eliminate the existing unsatisfactory conditions obtaining in rivers, such as the Camac, which are causing pollution in the Liffey and which eventually lead to an unsatisfactory level of pollution in Dublin Bay. With the development of the city this problem will continue and if it should be established at a future date that further remedial works are necessary we will not be reluctant to undertake them.
I told the House earlier that the pollution of the Liffey is caused mainly by the Camac river, which is highly polluted by industry. The Camac flows directly into the Liffey near the Islandbridge area. The sewers in the centre city area have storm overflow manholes which discharge into the Liffey when the capacity of the sewer downstream of the storm overflow manhole is exceeded. The Grand Canal drainage scheme, which will cost £6,500,000, will cater for those pollutant factors and thus eliminate the main cause of pollution of the Liffey. Therefore, we can look forward hopefully to the restoration of the Liffey to its former glory when the Grand Canal sewer is in operation. There is nothing that I as Minister, the Dublin Corporation, or any Deputy can do to clean the Liffey until the Grand Canal sewer is laid and is in operation. I can assure the House there is no undue delay in proceeding with the construction of this sewerage scheme.
It will also be necessary to construct new treatment works in Ringsend which will treat the sewage coming from the new schemes. The treatment works will cost £3,500,000. We are making a heavy capital investment in an effort to eliminate pollution in the rivers in the city. In addition, in the case of the Grand Canal the provision of the new sewers will provide about 12,000 acres of land for development. In view of the development that will take place there will be a much greater population in the city and, consequently, further problems will arise in relation to disposal of additional volumes of effluent and other pollutant factors.
Some Deputies referred to indiscriminate dumping. I have been concerned about this matter and I realise that it can have injurious effects on quite pleasant places. On 2nd July, 1971, I sent a circular letter to all the sanitary authorities in which I asked them to carry out a review of the existing refuse collections and dumping arrangements in their areas. Among the suggestions I made was that large transportable receptacles should be provided in convenient locations for the temporary deposit of refuse. The authorities should examine, from the point of view of the avoidance of injury to amenities, the advantages of the use of large central dumps. I suggested also that public notices be displayed urging the public to use the dumping facilities provided. The notices should emphasise the penalty for contravention of the law in regard to dumping in unauthorised places. Dumped material presently lying in unauthorised places should be cleared away by the local authorities. I have asked the authorities to report back to me on the action they have taken pursuant to receipt of my letter and I shall consider the question of what further action is necessary.
Under the general heading of physical planning, probably the principal matter of concern relates to the Buchanan Report and regional development. Building land prices, planning control problems and planning policy come under the heading of physical planning. A number of Deputies were critical of the delay in working out a regional policy. I am satisfied that the issues that were raised by the Buchanan Report had implications so wide and so deep that no responsible Government could quickly and simply adopt them or just reject them. The matter of the physical environment, which we are going to be involved in constructing during the coming decades, is of great importance and is at issue here. This applies particularly to the lines on which town development will proceed, to the question of measures to counteract the current tendency towards a serious imbalance in the geographical distribution of development and the measures to enable each region to use its resources to the full.
The Buchanan Report deals essentially with the matter of growth centres and the programme for such centres. It may be a valuable instrument for regional development but the Government made it clear in their statement on the report issued in May, 1969, that they did not see such centres as the be-all and end-all of regional development. They indicated that the recommendations would have to be considered with proposals for regional development generally.