Last night I referred to the Minister's statement in regard to re-organisation of local government and I recalled that a former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Molloy, did issue a discussion document on this very important matter. It was a well presented document giving great food for thought and I am sure the feedback to the Minister was very valuable. Since then the city has changed somewhat and we must now take another look at the matter. I would suggest that Dublin, which has now become so very big, should be sub-divided into local councils and I would ask the Minister to consider bringing back local councils like the old Pembroke, Rathmines, Glasnevin and Drumcondra ones, so that we would have real local government. These local councillors should be elected by the people and given certain functions of a local nature. These small councils would then send delegates to the city council which would have the overall running of the city. In that way the smaller councils would be integrated in the structure. In that way we would have real local government and we could build up a very healthy structure of civic government involving as many people as possible.
The last revision of electoral areas was hardly equitable when one remembers that a man in No. 9 area represents about 30,000 people, far too big a number for any one man to represent. It just cannot be done. The No. 9 area has 60,000 voters and, if you multiply that by three, you get the total population of the area. It is far too big to ask any councillor to look after it properly. Perhaps the Minister would refer to this when he is replying.
Division of the city must come very shortly. One of the problems at the moment weighing against progress is the rapid growth all the time. This trend has been deplored. It has been going on since the industrial revolution but it has become accelerated in recent years. We made the mistake of trying to stop the drift to Dublin by making Dublin unattractive. We developed industries in provincial areas. This was a good idea but unfortunately we forgot about the people in the city with no employment and we now have the awful spectre of 50 per cent unemployment. We must now reverse our policy. We should, of course, make areas outside the city attractive but we should also have a balanced policy in regard to the capital city. It is anticipated that the population in Dublin will reach 1,000,000 in due process of time and provision must be made for these people. Again, city dwellers cannot just migrate to other areas and set up new homes. They have been living for generations in the city and the Government, aided by private enterprise, must now start giving Dublin a new deal. The deprived areas in Dublin cannot be matched anywhere. They are no hope areas. The people in these areas have stopped hoping. The best merely survive and many of the others go under.
We have to restructure vast areas of this city. Last night I recalled the action of some industrialists at the beginning of the century when they built places like the Iveagh Trust flats and the Markets. At that time that was a great advance and provided much needed accommodation in the city. Today, the private sector will have to join the Government and the local authority in rebuilding part of the city in order to give hope to the people living in these areas.
The housing situation has improved greatly in recent years but we still have a housing problem in these areas. We must have a look at the dwellings built in the thirties. While they are still habitable and some families are happy living in them, they do not stand up to examination by modern standards. We may be forced to do what the local authorities in Britain and the United States are doing: pulling down dwellings built about 30 years ago because the sociologists have discovered that some of those houses were not conductive to good living. We may have to start not alone building more dwellings but carry out a greater clearance in the city areas.
There are four or five areas both north and south of the Liffey which will have to be made reclearance areas because there are some very bad buildings there. Although some people are content to live there, others may revolt; and who can blame them? If one walks through one of these areas one is immediately aware of the depressing atmosphere. What chance has any boy or girl born into any of those areas to get a proper education, obtain employment and become a good citizen? These young people show their revolt in many ways, such as by acts of vandalism and so on. We must bear with them. We must correct our omissions and see what we have contributed to this type of violence. While we all deplore violence we must realise that we are to blame in part for some of it.
The Government were criticised because the White Paper suggested they would not be giving as much attention to the rebuilding of the centre of the city as they should. That White Paper says what I am saying: that we must bring the private sector to bear their share in the redevelopment of this city. This redevelopment will be hampered by the very high price of land. From this morning's newspapers one can see how house prices in Dublin have escalated. It is almost impossible for the local authority to buy land in the centre city areas.
I suggest that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development look at ways of helping the local authority to buy land. The finances of a local authority are not endless, and they find it almost impossible to acquire land in centre city areas. We are building some dwellings in centre city areas. Each unit will cost approximately £25,000, because the local authority had to acquire the land, clear it and pay compensation. Could we institute some kind of land bond so that the local authority could acquire land and the repayments would be spread over a number of years? In this way they would not have to pay immediately for every acre they buy. If somebody does not come up with a solution to this problem we will not see the centre city redeveloped and we will not have a living city. Office blocks are no substitution for family dwellings. There may be a reason for building office blocks on the north side of the Liffey because it might improve the appearance of these depressed areas.
People who want to live in the centre of the city should be given the opportunity to do so. Our first priority must be housing. I appreciate the tremendous cost involved and that is why I say the private sector must play their part. If industrialists at the beginning of the century recognised that they had an obligation to invest in the development of the city in which they made their profits surely there is still an onus on industrial and commercial enterprises to do this today. We have seen gestures of this type from some go-ahead commercial and industrial enterprises. I appeal to them to come forward with a plan and to show their faith in the city by injecting a plentiful supply of money to rebuild the deprived areas of the city and make it a good place in which to live. It will be a tremendous task and will take the efforts of everybody—Government, local authority and private enterprise —but it must be done. If the democratic State do not do it, some people who do not believe in a democratic State may try to achieve their ends by any means and this could lead to more violence.
In his speech the Minister mentioned the progress being made to house itinerants. There have been great strides made in this direction, but this is a very tricky problem. We are all inclined to say "Yes, we must house the itinerants but not where I live". We must get over that attitude. This city has the most go-ahead body in the country to look after itinerants. There are several magnificent places for them. The real answer is to integrate them into our society. They should not be placed in special centres but in housing estates. This raises a problem. Many itinerants collect old scrap and it is not very nice to see a scrap heap in a residential area, and people resent this.
We differentiate between the itinerants who do not settle down but who want to live in their roadside camps, and some of the well-heeled traders who live in luxury caravans, carry on their trade buying and selling on the roadways and who leave the sites in a disgraceful state when they move on. We may be planning some policy in regard to these traders. They do the real itinerants a great injustice because the urban dweller and even the rural dweller is inclined to bunch them all together and to say that they are well off. The real itinerant is not very well off. There is something very tragic about a child begging on O'Connell Bridge or in Cork, Galway or anywhere else. The child is the victim of the system, of lack of parental control or lack of care by the State. I feel sure that under the present Minister there will be further headway in the drive towards giving itinerants a better way of life.
I wish to pay tribute to all those people who voluntarily give their time and offices in trying to help the itinerants. In particular, I pay tribute to Mr. Bewley and to those unnamed members of religious orders who do so much to educate these children. It may not be popular today to praise the religious orders but in this and many other fields they are doing colossal work which will be of lasting benefit not only to the itinerants but to our whole society. I hope that all itinerant families who wish to settle will be given the opportunity to do so. There may be historic reasons why they are itinerants but it is our job to give them every assistance to settle down and become good members of society. Their children are deprived from the moment they are born and we must do everything possible to give them a better way of life.
I refer the Minister to the workings of the 1969 Housing Act. This was introduced in order to prevent people from demolishing habitable buildings without permission. Local authorities are doing their best under the Planning Act and this Housing Act to ensure proper planning and to preserve as many buildings as possible. It is just as important to preserve the existing stock as it is to build new houses. The Act needs to be examined because it is weak in certain aspects. It is no trouble at all to the ruthless developer. A house on a good residential road may be left vacant for a while; windows will be broken and squatters will move in and the house will become derelict almost overnight. Local residents will ask for something to be done and the developer will move in. People will have anything rather than a derelict house full of squatters. Under the Act the local authority have the power to go in and repair that house but I do not know of one case where this has been done. I am told that the local authority are not happy about going into such a house and repairing it because it could be said that they had damaged the house and the owner could bring an action against them. The vast majority of developers are responsible people who want to do a good job but there is a minority who play all kinds of tricks, including the use of itinerants. They bring itinerants to live in a house so that they may knock it down and get planning permission more quickly. I would ask the Minister to strengthen the Housing Act.
Two or three years ago we had a special conservation year which was intended to preserve the best things in the country. Conservation is not an easy matter because the more industrialised we become the greater is the challenge to our existing amenities. It is often very difficult to decide between the preservation of an amenity and the factory which will employ 100 people. One cannot generalise about this problem; each case must be examined on its merits. We can, of course, have overall preservation areas but I often feel that we are hypocritical in that while we will not allow a factory which may pollute the air we do not object to our people having to go to some foreign part to find employment. Once they are out of our sight we forget about them. I applaud the efforts of the conservationists and the preservationists because they make us think about what we are doing, but we must have a balanced point of view. We must remember the difficulty experienced by our young people in obtaining employment and bear this in mind, as well as our conservation laws, when considering each application for a factory.
I am glad that the Minister is creating jobs for young people in local government. I applaud this and I hope that he will expand this policy. A lot of work could be done by young people until such time as they take up a real career. If we could give them this kind of interim work it would help them and help the country in general.
Regarding the pollution of rivers, someone has said that local authorities are the worst offenders. However, all over the world there are big cities which have cleansed their rivers and brought back marine life. I pay tribute to the Greater London Council for the work they have done in regard to the River Thames. A few years ago the Thames was so poisoned that to fall into it meant almost instant death. They have spent vast sums on cleansing the river and they have now brought back fish life. That river carries a tremendous amount of shipping from all over the world, much more than is carried by any of our rivers.
In the Dublin area the Grand Canal drainage scheme and the Dodder Valley drainage scheme will bring about a great improvement within two years. The Dodder will be made as clean as possible and the Liffey will be much cleaner. Any river which is used by shipping is likely to be polluted by oil. We must tighten the laws and anyone who breaks them must be made to pay the cost of repairing the damage. We must be really tough on those who unnecessarily or wantonly pollute air, land or rivers.
The same applies in regard to our streets. This city has not an enviable reputation regarding cleanliness. There are, however, vast areas of the city where one will see very clean streets but we are still not getting the message across that the prevention of pollution starts with each one of us. Throwing litter on the streets is the same as any other kind of pollution. Appeals to people do not seem to have the effect that we hoped for. It is only a minority of people who litter the streets. Perhaps the Minister would put forward a scheme in conjunction with the local authorities to keep Ireland beautiful. It is not just a matter of visual offence. It is a matter of economics because tourists will not come to a place that is not clean. In that area many of the continental cities are an example to us. They may err in other ways but one seldom sees littered streets in European countries. I would ask the Minister to urge local authorities to step up their drive against pollution in all its aspects. It is a matter of education and, while I hate adding to the burden of schools, I would ask the school authorities to appeal to their students not to pollute our cities or the countryside. The young people are the future builders and the future government of the country and they should be encouraged, as part of their duty to their own community, to keep our country clean.
Now that we are a member of the EEC we have greater weapons in our fight for the proper preservation of the environment. I am not just speaking of the money that may be available for this purpose. The peoples of the other eight nations in the Community are very conscious of the need to preserve the environment so that people may live proper lives in their own communities. The technological age has brought problems. Many people fear the nuclear plants although I do not know if we know enough about the whole matter to condemn or accept them. However, all the time people are arguing about nuclear plants they are causing damage to their health because of pollution of the environment. It will cost a lot of money to prevent pollution but it will cost much more if we do not take effective steps in this matter. I would urge the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter.
I feel very strongly about rebuilding the centre part of Dublin. Other cities throughout the country have the same problem but not to the same extent. It is no consolation to tell us that cities like New York or London have this frightful problem; for some reason the centre of those cities has decayed also. It may be wrong to compare Dublin with New York or London because of the difference in size but basically the problem is the same. We must face the fact that it will cost a tremendous amount of money to do the job I mentioned for our city. I invite any Member of the House to walk around some of the deprived parts of this city. He or she will get some idea of what has to be done. We could adopt some of our preservation policies to help in the matter.
In this connection I should like to mention our canals. The Grand Canal is in a fairly good state in most parts of the city but unfortunately the same cannot be said for the Royal Canal. We could start some major public works on both canals, particularly on the Royal Canal. It would be possible to have a waterway almost to Belfast, to the west and to the south. Our roads may become so overburdened with traffic that we may have to use the canals as a means of transport for some of our goods. Apart from that, our waterways are a tourist attraction. I realise the Minister has a lot to do but I hope he will give top priority to the rebuilding of Dublin city centre and to the preservation of the waterways.
