I move: "That a sum not exceeding £465,202 be granted to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1924, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Local Government, including grants and other expenses in connection with housing grants to local authorities and sundry grants in aid and the expenses of the office of the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums." £490,000 already voted on account.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
I rise to draw attention on page 115 to the failure of the Government to provide a subsidy to private builders for building houses.
This is a very comprehensive Vote with a great number of sub-heads, and I suggest that we follow the procedure followed in the case of the Army Vote of taking the various sub-heads down along. I take it that there will be a good deal of discussion on the various details and I think it would be more convenient for the committee and the Minister if it were taken in regular order. Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Deputies will realise that if a point is raised, say, under Vote E, we cannot go back from it.
I hope when future Estimates come before us that part of this particular Estimate will come under a Ministry of Health, as many matters dealt with in this Estimate now before us should be confined entirely to Estimates for a Ministry of Health. There is really no reason to be put forward against that suggestion, but there is every reason in its favour. The only reason possible that could be urged against the establishment of a Ministry of Health is that we have done so little in the past for public health we probably regard it of very little importance. I have nothing to say against the present Minister for Local Government. He is a man of energy, full of work, and makes himself thoroughly acquainted with all matters with which he has to deal, but there are so many matters concerning public health they should be, in my opinion, co-ordinated. I see in the first case that a medical commissioner who was receiving up to £1,200 a year has disappeared. I want to know whether there is going to be an appointment made in regard to this, and why the ordinary commissioner has not disappeared. Is there any reason for keeping the ordinary commissioner when the medical commissioner has gone? Is it the rule of the Minister to do nothing until we bring in the Public Health Bill we are waiting for? I myself am getting dubious about this Bill. It is a question of "live, old horse, and you will get grass." It is beginning to be a question whether this Government is going to deal with the Public Health Bill during their terms of office. I want to call attention to the inspectors on page 117. There are 20 of them altogether, 19 inspectors and one temporary assistant inspector. It seems to me that that staff is altogether out of proportion to the requirements of the case. I have heard it stated that a gentleman has been sent down to inspect in a certain place. There was nothing to inspect so he spent the fortnight playing golf, because he said he dare not go back, as he was ordered to go down there. Gentlemen acting as inspectors should be properly paid for their work, but I do object to a great number of men being appointed to offices when the work can be done better by a smaller number. There are eight medical inspectors, one lady and two or three temporary inspectors. What those temporary inspectors are, or what they are appointed for, I do not know. I see one appointed as pathologist as temporary inspector, and another has been appointed for no reason given. It seems to me that eight inspectors are altogether out of proportion to the needs of the Free State. I think half would work equally well.
I hope some latitude will be allowed as to what items one wishes to discuss, because there are some matters for discussion that it is difficult to find a head for. I am the first to recognise that the Minister and his Department have worked very hard to put something like order into a department whose administration badly wanted it, and I congratulate him on that. My purpose on rising is not one of carping criticism but to draw attention to one or two matters which seem to me of importance in the public interest. First and foremost for the protection of the ratepayer there is very urgent necessity, as I conceive it, of reforming and recasting completely the auditing system with regard to local authorities. We are all aware of the chaos that has prevailed in the business of local authorities for some years, and most of us are aware that under the British regime the Local Government Board was one of the happy hunting grounds of jobbery, one of the Departments in which favouritism had full play. Mainly for the benefit of retired military persons was the appointment of auditors. Auditors of course are required to pass a fairly severe examination but that little difficulty used to be got over by appointing those gentlemen as temporary auditors and you thereby rewarded your friends by giving them a job which they could do with what zeal they thought proper, and for which they had a very nice salary. That time has gone by. I do not suppose one of those improperly appointed persons is an auditor to-day. There are two items which seem to me to require reconstruction in connection with the present audit system. One is this fact. In Ireland, the people appointed to do audit work for the Local Government Board, must all be fully qualified persons whereas in England that system has been departed from, and the routine work of totting up accounts and so forth is done by clerks who are not qualified auditors. By that system it is obvious to everyone, a good deal of public money is saved. You do not put experts on to hack work, and you save important men a good deal of time while you carry on the audit work with more despatch than there would be if as at present the instructions to auditors were that it is their duty to do all the audit work. Everyone knows, a great deal of audit work is routine work. I have some of the English Estimates here for the year 1919-20, "Local Government Board Estimates, District Auditors." In England you have 76 auditors in all appointed, senior auditors, auditors, and assistant auditors, and you had in the year 1919-1920, 167 senior and junior clerks, whose business would be to do routine work. In Ireland that system has not been adopted, and on page 119 of the Estimates we see salaries put down for various types of auditors.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy. The salaries of auditors are provided under item C and not with the other salaries. Unless we take A and C together we are getting away from the arrangement, made at the beginning.
The Deputy is discussing C.
I am not discussing the question of salaries. I am only illustrating, by reference to C, the fact that subordinate clerks are not appointed whereas I contend they should be.
It will be seen by reference to item C that with the exception of the three stocktakers, I think all the persons who do the work of the Board are qualified auditors of one sort or another, whereas in a country, where local government has not been corrupt in the past, where there has been experience and attempts to reform it, we have an example which, I think, now that we have our own Local Government to deal with, we should look into and see if it is not wise to follow. It is perfectly obvious that a good deal of time would be saved if you allowed clerks to do the work they are competent to do, instead of employing your highly skilled men at such work and incidentally wasting their time.
The second suggestion upon which I should like to have the Minister's views is this. Starting with the fact that we have up and down the country quite a number of inefficient local bodies, particularly inefficient in matters of accounts, and the further fact that the well-administered bodies resent the conduct of the others and that they and the ratepayers want to see those local bodies generally brought to a high standard of efficiency, I suggest that a scheme with which I think the Minister is familiar should be put in force; that is, to make the work of auditing a centralised work which shall be done mainly in Dublin. In order to avoid the appalling waste of time and delay which now goes on in keeping the accounts for local bodies and dealing with queries, and in sending auditors down to the furthermost ends of the country, asking questions and answering questions, and inquiring locally into things, would it not be very simple and would it not conduce to efficiency if the local bodies had to send to Dublin, month by month, the returns of their figures so that queries could be raised at once, as and when they arise, month by month, by persons in the head office dealing with the same kind of problems from all over the country, examining and checking these accounts as they come in, and not allowing any matter or question or query to continue to drag on its weary length month after month. The system is already in vogue in regard to offices and officers accounting to the Auditor General—I mean the system of centralisation. I do not know how often such persons render their accounts, but the work is mainly done in Dublin. Delay is avoided by that system and greater efficiency is secured. It seems to me particularly necessary in the country, and at a time when so many local bodies want pulling up. It will give the central authority of the Ministry a check from month to month over these local authorities which will be welcomed by the efficient ones very much, just as it will be distasteful to the others. It will enable the Local Government Authority, at any time, to know how matters stand financially with the local authorities under their control. There may be reasons against that scheme. I do not know. It may be that the permanent officials who have grown up under the other scheme do not like the change. I have no reason for saying so. I do not know. But I ask that serious consideration be given to a scheme which seems to me to be full of merit at a time when we do want to insist upon the proper control of the finances of the country. Incidentally, of course, it would save a great many of those journeys up and down the country, and those long stays in the country that auditors have to make when they go to examine the queries raised in the accounts of the different public bodies. There are one or two other matters also to which I wish to draw attention, but I am not sure whether they arise on Vote A, but I will take an opportunity of raising them at the end if no opportunity arises on the subsidiary Vote.
The Deputy has been speaking on sub-head C, and in order that no injustice may be done to Deputies who desire to raise points, I think that it would be better that everything down to and including D, "Travelling expenses of auditors," should be open for discussion.
There is a question that I would like to have a ruling upon. There may be matters concerned with the general policy of administration not coming under any of these sub-heads, specifically, and I suggest that it is on A that such matters should be dealt with inasmuch as that embodies the salary of the Minister who is responsible for policy —I mean matters that cannot be raised on any particular sub-head. I am just raising the question as to the proper course to adopt.
I want to make a point in connection with your ruling. If we are now dealing with sub-head D as well as C, there are some points on D that I should like to say something about.
It is simply a question as to when the question of general policy and administration can be raised. If Deputy Johnson's suggestion were adopted and the general question were raised on item A it would be quite a reasonable course to pursue, provided that under the guise of general policy we did not roam over other matters of detail and have them all raised again under the sub-heads. It would be well to raise them either under A or after we have come down to sub-head T and gone through the Appropriations in Aid. For example, in my judgment, the point that Deputy Gavan Duffy raised could be raised under C and D because they provide for the expenses of auditing the accounts of Public Bodies, whether under the heads of salaries to auditors or travelling expenses to auditors, and, therefore, any matters that arise in connection with the methods of audits or that in the opinion of Deputies could be affected in connection with matters of audit could be properly raised under C and D. Therefore, I am quite prepared to allow a general discussion under A.
I would suggest that we might reserve the question of general policy until we had gone through the items and for this reason, that it is quite possible that in going through the items we would eliminate a lot of the matters that Deputies would like to raise on the general policy question and, therefore, it might save time and be for the general convenience to allow us to go through the items first and then probably a great amount of the criticism that would be brought forward on some matters that some people might think of general policy would be met and the general policy debate would be very short indeed.
I agree with that view. When I speak of general policy it will be remembered that the Department has supervision and authority over other bodies which do not involve expenditure and, therefore, no sum of money has to be voted on account of salaries, and I take it that if the proposal of Deputy FitzGibbon is agreed upon, if there is no matter dealing, shall I say, with the conduct of the individual, it will come in salaries and wages and then we shall deal with the departmental policy at the close of the discussion.
The plan which I had in my mind when I made my first suggestion was the plan which Deputy FitzGibbon has outlined, that is, to work through these sub-heads in detail and take a general discussion afterwards. It will be in the recollection of Deputies that, on the Army Estimate, a reduction was moved on the total sum asked for with a view to beginning a general discussion, and that discussion became a discussion on details. We had a certain amount of repetition afterwards when going through the various sub-heads. Therefore it would be better, I think, to go through the sub-heads first and take up general questions afterwards.
I agree.
In the light of that ruling, I would like to repeat that I think we should now take up from A to D, inclusive, and when the Minister has replied to them we can regard that part of the matter as closed, because Deputy Gavan Duffy has gone as far as C.
Is there not a Standing Order, or a ruling, to the effect that if there is a general reduction moved and defeated that then it is too late to move to reduce particular items?
I do not think there is a Standing Order to that effect.
I thought there was a ruling on the matter.
If so, obviously the best way to deal with the Vote is to take it item by item.
Since you have decided that you are going to D, I desire to call attention to an item of £5,500 for travelling and incidental expenses of Auditors, and to ask the Minister how the system as regards allowances is arrived at. This same figure last year was only £2,000, and in each of the years 1919-20 and 1920-21 the figure was £2,300. I would like the Minister to tell us the reason for this increase, which seems to be another argument in favour of the case for centralising Auditor's work as much as possible, and thereby doing away with a very great deal of that travelling.
I desire to say a few words on the questions raised by Deputy Gavan Duffy. I may say at the outset that I do not agree with the suggestions that he put forward, and the reason why I do not agree with him is that I am totally opposed to the centralisation of all Departmental and Governmental work in Dublin. Deputy Gavan Duffy suggested that his ideas on the matter, if carried out, would lead to economy I do not believe such a system would lead to economy, but I believe on the other hand that it would lead to more and more expense. If, for instance, the arguments he put up were adopted, to have accounts sent up monthly by local bodies in the country to a central office in Dublin, it would mean incidentally that you would have to increase the staffs employed by local authorities and also to increase the staff of the central authority dealing with these voluminous documents and statements of accounts that are bound to come in. Therefore I do not think that we in this Dáil should agree to a system that would centralise everything here in Dublin. Take the case, for instance, of the ordinary Urban District Council or County Council. The custom was that an Auditor went down every half-year and spent from three to five days in the average town auditing the accounts of the local body, and in that time he was able to finish his work. The suggestion now is that he should bring down a couple of clerks with him to assist him in the work. That, I suggest, would mean more expense, because the clerks must be paid as well as the Auditor, who will have to be there to supervise their work, whereas if the present system is continued, and competent officials present the accounts to the Auditor, all he has to do is to check and verify them and see that all payments are made in accordance with the law. That in fact is the duty of the Auditors. If we were to adopt the system which the Deputy put before us I am afraid that instead of giving any relief to the ratepayers, it would only increase the burden both on the ratepayers and on the country as a whole. These are my opinions, and I certainly could not subscribe to the doctrine put forward by Deputy Gavan Duffy. The Deputy referred to the increases which occurred during the last couple of years. I think the reason for those increases must be patent to everybody. We all know that for the last two or three years there has been no auditing of accounts of public bodies in the country. Up to six or eight months ago, auditors came down to audit the accounts, and when they arrived they were told they could not get the books, and, of course, there was nothing for them to do except to return to Dublin. During the last six or eight months, Auditors have been working hard all over the country auditing the accounts of public bodies, and of course, they have to be paid for doing that work. If these men had been employed in the years 1921 and 1922, auditing the accounts of public bodies, the work would have to be paid for, but as the work ran into arrears and had to be got over within the last six or eight months, I suppose that explains the cause for the increase.
I desire to ask a question on expenditure under sub-head B. I observe that the travelling expenses of Inspectors have increased by £3,000, from £10,000 last year to £13,000 this year. That seems to me a rather extravagant sum to spend on travelling expenses. It means that if 50 people are employed travelling about, that the travelling expenses of each works out at £260 a year. I would ask the Minister to look into that item very carefully, and consider whether in future we might not look for a reduction on it.
I think the suggestion that monthly accounts should be sent up to the Local Government Department is one deserving of consideration. I would not go so far as to say that the accounts should be furnished monthly. I imagine that every two months or quarterly would be sufficient. I think, if forms were issued to all the local bodies in which they would fill in particulars under certain headings, showing the rates collected and other receipts received, as well as the expenses incurred, that it would lead to greater uniformity, which usually leads to greater efficiency. I would not urge that the visits of the Inspectors should be too few, as it is very important that the Auditors should get in touch, from time to time, with the personnel of the local bodies. It is very important, too, that the head office should know, as a result of personal inspection, how affairs are progressing with local bodies.
To some extent this item A hardly represents the true state of affairs in regard to salaries and wages for this Department. There are a considerable number of people appearing on this Vote who are loaned to other Departments. Altogether there are on loan, and not doing Local Government work, 52 members of the clerical staff: 4 First Division Clerks, 13 Lower Executive Officers, 23 Clerical Officers, and 12 Temporary Clerks. Some of them are gone to the Army, some to Home Affairs, and some to other Departments. As they have not been permanently transferred to these Departments, their salaries still appear on the Local Government Vote. There are also on loan, 6 Auditors, 2 General Inspectors, one on loan to the Inland Revenue and one to the Army, 3 Engineering Inspectors on loan to the Board of Works, and 2 to the Soldiers and Sailors Department. As a matter of fact, if we had only included in the Vote officers who are actually serving in the Local Government Department, Vote (a) would be decreased by about £27,000. The indoor staff of the Ministry has been depleted to what is actually an undue extent.
took the chair at this stage.
In regard to the outdoor staff there is a very big number of general inspectors. That arises from the circumstances of the past two or three years. The Local Government Department of Dáil Eireann operated mainly by its Inspectors. Every Inspector was a sort of plenipotentiary officer sent down the country to act in any sort of emergency, and with very wide powers. None of those who were on the Dáil Eireann staff appeared on last year's Vote for Inspectors. The nine general Inspectors which appeared last year were the old Local Government Inspectors. Four of them have gone; five remain. Of these five, two are on loan to other departments; three will probably go or will be provided with some other work. The other fourteen Inspectors are the Dáil Eireann staff. That is a bigger number of Inspectors than would be required in normal circumstances, and, I think, we have got very near the time when it will not be necessary that there should be the same sort of supervision and intervention by Inspectors in the operations of Local Authorities as we have had in the past. The amalgamation schemes were carried through without any legal machinery being provided beforehand, without legal sanction. In the circumstances in which they were carried through there were a great many loose threads, a great many things unprovided for, and it was necessary that the closest touch should be kept with the Local Authorities, and that they should receive the assistance and guidance of Inspectors, who would go to the spot, to an extent which would not at all be necessary, and, in fact, would be undesirable in normal circumstances.
With regard to Medical Inspectors there has been no increase in the number. As to Deputy Sir James Craig's suggestion that half the number would do, I think he has not given sufficient consideration to the matter.. It is interesting to note that he calls for a great deal more attention to be paid to everything connected with public health and the administration of health matters, and, at the same time, suggests that we could do this greatly increased amount of work and dispense with half the staff. Some Inspectors are at Headquarters in Dublin dealing with medical matters that arise and that come up from the country. One of them is entirely engaged on blind pensions work. Others are engaged on inspection work and holding inquiries into various matters that arise from time to time. There certainly could not, without very great loss of efficiency, be a reduction in the number of medical inspectors. The office of medical Commissioner, has been abolished with the disappearance of the Board. The lay Commissioner still remains. He is a comparatively young man, about 51 years of age, and a very able officer. If he were to be retired, it would mean that a very high pension would have to be given to him and no return would be got for that. An effort is being made to find some post which he could fill with satisfaction to himself and the Government. If it were not possible to find some post for him there would be no alternative but to retire him and with the inflated pensions list that we have, it is exceedingly undesirable that an efficient and capable man should be retired if it could be avoided. The idea should be to use everybody that can be used, and not to pension. If changes have made present posts superfluous those filling them should be given analogous duties, if such could be given to them, and their services should be availed of, so that the State could get some return for the money which will be expended.
With regard to the audit system, Deputy Hughes has stated most of what requires to be said about that. There are a very large number of small audits in this country, which take up a short time, where the amount of routine work, as distinguished from the actual work in which the auditor's discretion will be required, is comparatively small. It would not pay in a great number of cases to have a clerk travelling with the auditor to do the routine work. That would only add to the expense instead of decreasing it. As, however, the recent reforms carried out, and the reforms which are in contemplation, mean the disappearance of a great number of the smaller bodies and a concentration of the work under a central authority in each county, it may be that in those circumstances in future you would have audits of a type which would make it profitable to send down a clerk to assist the auditor in the routine work. But in the circumstances which have existed, and with the very large number of small bodies with a very small amount of work, it would not have been satisfactory at all. It is a matter that can be considered later on.
I would not approve of the idea of having the audits done in Dublin. I think it has a most salutary effect to have the auditor go down to the particular place because, although it does not happen very often, ratepayers do sometimes appear and draw the auditor's attention to matters. It is, therefore, most desirable that he should go down to the place and that he should be there to be appealed to by any ratepayer who objects to things that are going on. In any case, the sending of the books to Dublin would lead to endless correspondence and to the abandonment of many queries owing to the difficulty of reaching any satisfactory conclusion by letter. I think that there is really nothing to be said from any public point of view in favour of bringing the audits to Dublin rather than having them locally. At present the work of auditing is especially heavy and the costs are much higher than they will be normally. We have now a very large number of auditors, most of them temporary auditors, because of the way in which the work had fallen into arrears. On 31st March, 1922, there were 1,541 audits in arrears. At the end of the last financial year, the 31st March, 1923, the arrears had been reduced to 1,230 audits. There is approximately in the way of arrears about two years' work for 15 auditors. Audits, as you know, had absolutely or practically ceased; that is audits by the Local Government Board auditors had ceased and the Dáil Eireann auditors were not sufficient in numbers to overtake the work. There are special difficulties in dealing with the auditing of books for 1920 and 1921. Local authorities, in order to circumvent the efforts which were being made by the Castle to get hold of funds and to force them to make certain payments, had to resort to various subterfuges, and all this makes the work of auditing the books extremely difficult. The only thing I would say in connection with that is, with regard to reducing the cost, that there may be some revision of the scales of fees paid by the local bodies for audits. There could be no reduction in auditors' salaries or travelling expenses. As Deputy Hughes pointed out, auditors were not travelling to any considerable extent last year, so that travelling and subsistence expenses did not arise. Deputy Sir James Craig referred to the establishment of a Ministry of Health. That matter will arise on the Ministries Bill. There is a good deal to be said against his views, in view of the fact that there are very few activities of local boards that would not come within the purview of the Minister of Health. There is a great deal to be said for having one central authority for dealing with all the activities of local authorities.
Sir James CRAIG
I notice a grant in this Vote of £80 payable to voluntary hospitals in respect of the consumption of duty paid spirits for medical and surgical purposes. The Minister should explain how he divides this money, and if it is given to the hall porters in various hospitals. I never came across such an item before. Coming to the second point (L), dealing with child welfare and schools for mothers, I am very glad to see that there is an increase in the amount of that estimate from £7,000 to £10,000. We have been travelling rather slowly in this matter, because in January, 1920, a letter was sent to the County Councils by the President asking them to deal with it. In the letter he referred to the desirability of making adequate provision for the well-being of mothers and young children, and requested the Councils to consider the needs of their area, bearing in mind that a 50 per cent. National grant would be available. Dublin County Council have gone to a great deal of trouble in connection with this matter and prepared a very excellent scheme. The scheme might be criticised in various respects, but the Council asked the Minister for Local Government to give them permission to go on with it. Up to the present they have not received sanction. I should like to know from the Minister whether he would consider it advisable to get some of the County Councils to move now, if only for the sake of example and the experience that would be gained when drafting schemes for other areas. I would also like him to say if he is prepared to give permission to the Dublin County Council to go on with their scheme. There has been a good deal of discussion with the Minister for Local Government with regard to the poor payment offered midwives throughout the country. I appreciate the difficulties the Minister has to contend with. I see the difficulties, as midwives might be appointed to districts where the population is fairly well off, and where they are able to subsidise the poor salaries they receive by private work. I object to the principle of that, because it follows as night follows day, while human nature lasts, that where a person is in receipt of a small salary, and where there is an opportunity of increasing it by outside work, the poor, whom the midwife is paid a salary to attend on, suffer. On the other hand, the Minister may think it is very difficult to pay an adequate salary. The salary the Minister proposes to sanction is £40 a year, with an addition of £1 a year until £52 is reached. As the end of twelve years a midwife would have £1 a week. If such officials are to have a house, I do not know how they would be able to pay the rent, even in the country, but at all events they would not be able to pay much rent in Dublin I have a chauffeur and he is unable to get two rooms in Dublin for 15/- a week. The point I am trying to make is that to offer these women £40 or £52 a year is perfectly ridiculous. They must be decently paid. I did not know that this vote would be on to-day, as I intended to bring forward some figures showing the mortality amongst pregnant women.
Perhaps the Deputy will not be displeased when I say that this is one of the matters that should really arise on the general question which will give him time to get his figures.
I am quite prepared to get the figures. With regard to M, there has been a great deal of trouble in getting payment for this work. Several hospitals are dealing with venereal disease. It is extremely important work and extremely difficult to get the material. I know of one hospital where £1,500 has been actually spent in the purchase of medicines required for this particular work. The hospital authorities paid out the £1,500 and were kept out of the money for over a year. That hospital I was assured would have to close its doors to this class of work unless prompt payment was received. I recognise that this money is partly provided by the Local Government Department and partly by the County Councils. What I want to impress upon the Minister is that he should look into the matter, and as the hospitals are very badly off for money, he should see that there is no delay in payment of the amounts they have expended, in some cases reaching to nearly £2,000. With regard to item N, I am very glad to see that there is no curtailment under this head. I would be very glad to see an increased grant for the provision of food for children attending National Schools. I have called attention elsewhere to the fact that I should like to see a meal provided in all the National Schools for the children. It need not be an expensive meal, and might consist of a glass of milk and something else. It seems to me that one of the things we must look forward to, if we are to have healthy children growing up, is the provision of sufficient food.
There is not any question of providing food for necessitous people. That must be done; but in my opinion there are cases where children have to walk 3 or 4 miles, they have eaten their lunch before they get to school, and then they are starving before they get home in the afternoon. With regard to the medical treatment of children, I have no doubt whatsoever that in the Bill which the Minister has promised, he will make provision for it. May I say in reply to his remark, when he mentioned that he was surprised to find that I wanted to curtail medical treatment, that I do not want to curtail anything of the sort. I wanted to curtail inspection, for inspection adways seems to me to be a matter of trying to looking after people who are shirking their duty. If people are doing their duty there is no need for inspection. It is not in the matter of medical treatment I want curtailment, but in the matter of inspection.
I am glad to hear Deputy Sir James Craig, with all the authority he possesses, paying a tribute to the scheme put forward by the Dublin County Council to deal with motherhood and child-welfare and the inspection of school children. I want to support his plea for legislation which will enable the County Council to deal speedily with this matter. The County Council has gone to a great deal of trouble. The matter arose in this way; there are two distinct Acts. Under the Public Health Act of 1919 it is the absolute duty of a local authority to provide for the medical inspection of children immediately before, at the time of, or as soon as possible after admission to an elementary school.
That is mandatory.
Yes, and the Local Government Department the other day sent a circular to the Councils, particularly to the Dublin County Council, calling upon them to put this Act into force. President Cosgrave, when he was Minister for Local Government under the Dáil exactly a year ago, sent another circular to the same bodies. Not wishing to be outdone by the British Local Government authorities he called attention to the fact that there was a second Act which ought to be put into operation and he wrote two pages of most eloquent encouragement to the Councils to put into force the recent statutory provisions for the benefit of expectant mothers and young children. The County Council thereupon decided that the sensible thing to do was to make one scheme for the whole county dealing with both these matters. This they proceeded to do. After having prepared the scheme to which Deputy Sir James Craig has paid tribute they sent it in, as they had to do, for the sanction of the Minister for Local Government. The Minister's reply was not wholly satisfactory. It is dated the 28th March last, and it says that—
"The Ministry has given careful consideration to the proposed arrangements of the Dublin County Council, and while appreciating the comprehensive character of the proposals and the close attention evidently bestowed on the elaboration of detail, it does not appear to the Ministry that facilities at present exist for the expert supervision and direction which would be needed for the successful operation of a scheme of this magnitude."
Further on it says:—
"The Ministry are of opinion that the administration of a scheme should await the outcome of legislation for public health reform."
That was in March, and since then we have had the Ministry's 14 points. We have had a list of the Bills which it is proposed to inflict on the Dáil between this and the Recess, but I do not notice any reference to the Public Health Bill.
Consequently one is very apprehensive there will be no Public Health Bill until after the General Election. I suggest the matter is of sufficient importance to justify us in asking the Minister to bring in his Public Health Bill before the Dáil separates. The real reason the Minister was obliged to refuse sanction for the scheme was this: whereas President Cosgrave when Minister had sought to induce the different County Councils to put schemes into operation for maternity welfare by the promise that the State would pay half of the expense, as it does in connection with the other statute dealing with the inspection of school children, the present Minister has, no doubt, discovered in the course of his investigations that the promise of his predecessor had no statutory authority and under the law as it now stands there is no power for the State to contribute half or any portion of the sums needed for assisting expectant mothers and children. Consequently the promise made by his predecessor could not be carried out without fresh legislation. In view of the fact that the Dublin County Council has gone to great trouble on the strength of the Minister's predecessor's promise to put into effect a really good scheme covering the important matter of the welfare of mothers and the medical treatment of school children I suggest it is not too much to ask that we should know definitely that it is the Ministerial intention to introduce before the Recess a Public Health measure which, among other things, will enable serious and energetic County Councils like that of Dublin to put this kind of scheme into operation. It is merely a technicality which stands in the way, because I understand the Minister himself is only too willing to agree to the State paying half. He just has not the power under existing legislation, and all that is required is a line in an Act of Parliament authorising him to do so. I think that a matter like this ought not to be put off on the uncertain understanding that, following a General Election, it may be given effect to. Therefore, I warmly support the suggestion of Deputy Sir James Craig in favour of giving the scheme a chance.
I, too, would like to join in the advocacy of Deputy Sir James Craig and Deputy Gavan Duffy with regard to those schemes, or this scheme of the Dublin County Council dealing with child welfare and the medical treatment of school children. I think this is one of the things that ought be encouraged, so that the County Council should undertake responsibility of this kind, because it is a clear recognition of the responsibility, and when in response to a request they go to the trouble of propounding a scheme which is not criticised on account of its unsuitability, they should be encouraged by the Ministry responsible, and by that encouragement let other Councils be encouraged to go and do likewise. It is suggested that one of the difficulties is that the present law does not allow this scheme in its present form to be carried through; that as a matter of fact one of the responsibilities is thrown upon the Urban districts and not upon the county. The other responsibility is a county responsibility. It was clear, I think, that both on the ground of economy and efficiency these two parts of this work could be combined and ought to be combined and run together. But failing the power, to run the two parts of the scheme as one, I suggest that the Minister should approve of the scheme to the extent that the present power of the Co. Council would allow them to carry it through with the promise that future legislation would be brought into harmony with the requirements of the case. At least let us stretch the present powers to the utmost, and help those authorities that are willing and anxious to undertake this responsibility. Let us help them to do that.
I suggest to the Minister and I press upon him the desirability of giving every encouragement to the Dublin Co. Council in carrying through so much at least of the scheme as their present powers enable them to do. Let it not be said that they are handicapped by restrictions imposed upon them by the Local Government Department. I hope in replying to this part of the discussion the Minister will give us some information as to the position in the country at present, and what is the immediate future prospect regarding the Grant under "N" for the Provision of Meals Act. I hope he will tell us whether the Local Authorities are moving in this direction, and whether they are calling for the £5,000 which was voted last year and whether there is any prospect of their calling for the £5,000 for which we are now asked to vote for the service of the coming year. I would like the Minister to make a statement in regard to that. Yes, I think the question that was raised incidentally by Deputy Sir James Craig can be better dealt with at a later stage of the discussion.
I do not really know anything about this £80 which was on the Estimates last year. I meant to probe into the matter but neglected to do so. In regard to the hospital which was owed considerable money in respect to the treatment of venereal disease, and where there was a great delay in the payment, I wish to say that was really due to the administrative difficulty. The Department was only due to pay a proportion of the amount, and the County Council or Corporation another proportion. I think it was a fourth. Now, after the break came with the Local Government Board, the local body ceased to make any provision. The old Local Government Board took or retained out of the grants the local bodies' proportion. However, we could not do that. We made no deduction from the Grants and the difficulty arises that provision was not made for the local bodies' proportion of the expenditure, and the delay occurred really entirely through a technical administrative difficulty that was created in that way. I have every hope that we will be able to get a Public Health Bill introduced this session. Now, the question of the Dublin Co. Council scheme is related to that. In order that the Scheme might be successful a great deal would depend on its being under the supervision of a whole time Superintending Medical Officer of Health. One of the main provisions of the Bill which is being prepared, and which is now getting to a fairly advanced stage is the provision for the appointment in each county, as in the case of Great Britain of a County Superintending Medical Officer of Health. If that Bill is enacted it will enable a great deal of progress to be made that has been held up all along. If we get it through, the delay that has taken place in connection with the Co. Dublin scheme will not be a very serious thing, because it is better to have such a scheme as that worked in a satisfactory way from the beginning, and to have it started under circumstances that would enable it to get a good start, and have it under way in circumstances that can achieve the best possible results.
Will the Minister say how many schemes there are besides the scheme of the Dublin County Council?
I could not say. The Dublin County Council Scheme is the one I know of at the moment. Most of this work is done by voluntary bodies to which grants are paid on that 50 per cent. basis. With regard to the meals for school children, I regret that the £5,000 was not required, and unless there is a change it is not very likely to be required. The actual money paid out during the year ended the 31st March last was only £350 17s. 8d. I think it a pity that more has not been done in that respect, because it would be a very good and very remunerative expenditure for the community. As to the treatment of school children——
Will the Minister say whether provision will be made for this in the coming Bill?
It is not intended to make any further provision. The question of the treatment of school children is bound up with the question of having a Medical Superintending Officer of Health in each county. I believe that in Cork a scheme is being arranged with regard to that, and I hope that more will be done, and that other places, where facilities do exist, will take it up. In any case it is important that any County scheme would require the appointment of an officer who would be charged with the supervision of the scheme in the various localities. For the treatment of tuberculosis I think that a good deal more money will be expended this year. I hope that the amount provided, £35,000, will be sufficient. Last year the amount voted was £20,000, and that was expended, in fact, it was slightly over-expended, the surplus being made up out of one of the other sub-heads, and £21,000 was actually expended. In various counties the tuberculosis schemes had fallen through during the struggle of the last few years, but they have been taken up again.
Before we pass from Miscellaneous Grants, I wonder whether this would be the place to raise the question of the County Surveyors, or whether the Minister can suggest some other Vote for the purpose? County Surveyors do not come under Miscellaneous Grants. I suppose they come under miscellaneous matters. Possibly I should be in order in referring to this question now. I see no other Vote to which it is appropriate.
It may be discussed under this as well as under any other.
The matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister and the Dáil is the qualifications now required for the very important position of County Surveyor. The Minister will, no doubt, remember having received, early in March last, a letter from the County Surveyors' Association in which they complained that a greatly lowered standard was being adopted, or being threatened with adoption, in connection with admission of persons to be County Surveyors.
There was some confusion in regard to that matter, but it is clear now that the question of qualifications would be one for the Civil Service Commissioners.
Does the Minister mean that it does not come within his Department?
It does not.
Very well. Shall we have an opportunity of getting light from the Civil Service Commissioners, or their spokesman in the Dáil, upon another Vote?
Next year.
AN LEAS CHEANN COMHAIRLE
The discussion can now be taken on sub-heads R, S and T.
I do not want to be persistent, but I might point out that if this matter is not raised now there will be no opportunity of raising it at all. I would be quite brief on the matter.
AN LEAS CHEANN COMHAIRLE
We cannot re-open the matter at this stage, in any case, until we get through all the sub-heads.
Raise it on the adjournment.
Under sub-head (s) £700,000 for housing, I would like to know if that £700,000 is not ear-marked for the building of houses by local authorities in the coming year, would any portion of it be given or allocated to those authorities who have built houses and are willing to build more under the schemes. I know that there are some authorities who have done practically nothing as far as the building of houses is concerned under these schemes, and others have done a considerable amount of work and would be willing to do more, provided they get money. I would like the Minister to give me any information on this point.
On this question I wish to draw the Government's attention and that of the Dáil to the failure of the Government this year to provide a subsidy to private builders. Deputies will see that the subsidy to private builders last year amounted to £42,500, and this year nothing at all is provided, although this grant to local authorities has been increased by £100,000. I would ask the Government whether or not they think they are getting full value for the money spent through local authorities, and whether they will not consider the advisability during the latter half of this year—the advisability or the possibility of giving a grant, or promising a grant, to private builders who offer to build five houses for the same grant as you give the local authorities to build two houses. You give local authorities £500 for a house—that is £1,000 for two houses—and private builders say they will build the same house for a £200 grant. If that is so, I cannot understand the attitude or the delay of the Government in giving this grant to private builders. While I hold that the Councils have done exceptionally good work in extraordinary conditions, they have had to deal with rings in the building trade, and rings in the builders' providers trade, who, when they know that a Council is getting these grants, charge double prices for building material. I think the sooner an enquiry is held into the cost of building material the better. It is an extraordinary thing that for the last two or three years—in fact, for many years—we are hearing that there is, on an average, 25,000 to 30,000 families living in single-roomed tenements in the city of Dublin, and for the past five or six years, during the European war and during the recent troubles in Ireland, little or no houses have been built. It is a well-known fact to the public authorities that in the city of Dublin on an average a thousand dwellings a year were condemned—that is, tenement houses in which there are five or six families. That number has been increasing, and in a report five years ago it was stated that 28,000 families were living in single-roomed tenements. Taking the number of houses condemned per year since then, I think the number must be well over 30,000 now. The Dublin Corporation has been handicapped in its efforts to provide houses by builders' providers' rings. I hold that if private builders can get this £200 they will build the same houses as public authorities are building for a £500 grant. We have at present in the Corporation, I think, ninety applications for every single house we build. Housing conditions in the city of Dublin are appalling and worse than ever they were. In Essex Quay, Temple Bar, Gardiner Street, and Marlborough Street houses are being condemned weekly. I received a letter this morning—in fact, I have dozens of letters from families drawing attention to the housing conditions and making appeals for rooms. I think I will send them to the Minister for Local Government, and I am sure when he sees them he will understand the necessity for making great efforts towards remedying the housing evil. Here is one case, in which a man states: "The facts are, eleven in family, ten sleeping in one room, and we asked the landlord to allow us to put a stretcher in the kitchen, after the others were gone to bed, for a grown-up boy." That is, that there are ten of them sleeping in one room, and when the whole household had gone to bed, by the kindness of the landlord a stretcher is put in the kitchen to allow a boy of over 16 years of age to sleep there.
There is another one here which I got this morning from Essex Quay: "I am sure, if your Committee could understand how I am placed and my anxiety for my five children, they would do something for me." That was written from one of the houses condemned in Essex Quay. I do not wish to trouble you with too many of these letters, but if you want similar letters to these I can provide them for you. They come to the Mansion House every day in the week in dozens asking for something to be done by the Housing Committee. I would appeal to the Minister for Local Government on this matter. I know the answer will be that it is a question of finance. I know the difficulties of the Minister in this direction; but I ask, if you can get five houses built by private builders for the same grant as you give to municipal authorities to build two houses, is it wise to continue that policy? I hope at the earliest opportunity he will give some encouragement to private builders. I am satisfied that they will avail of the opportunity and that they will accept the grant, and that it is not the municipal authorities have not done their builders, who can remedy the present housing evil. I do not say that the municipal authorities have not done their best. They have, as I have said, done exceptionally well; but when you are sitting on the Housing Committee, and open tenders, and see the prices all practically arranged by the contractors——
That is in Dublin.
Mr. BYRNE
All practically arranged prices by the rings, the small man who is capable of providing two houses has not the finances to tender for ten houses. If he had a grant like the sum I mentioned for the building of four-roomed or five-roomed houses, you would find houses cropping up everywhere all over the city and country. I make this appeal to the Minister, and ask him if he would favourably consider the suggestion I have made.
We are, happily, I believe, preaching to the converted. It was great encouragement to the Deputy who has just spoken, and to others of us who in this matter are working with him, to hear the declaration of the Minister only a few days ago that he subscribed to this doctrine that private enterprise with the aid of small subsidies can do more to provide houses for the working classes in the city than can be done by any other channel or agency. As I have been informed, in reply to my importunities at various times to the Minister, the difficulty is not want of will in the matter, but want of funds, and it seems to me that is one of the great questions to which we shall have to devote ourselves, I was going to say without much delay, but really I should say without any delay. Unfortunately, the Minister for Finance, in his wisdom, has pronounced firmly in the Seanad against Premium Bonds, otherwise it might have been possible to raise the requisite money for this great social service. I merely rise to emphasise in my measure what has been said by Deputy Byrne. There is no evil in the nature of a social ulcer eating into the civil life to the extent and the malignancy that this is doing in the city of Dublin. Though it was said jocosely by Deputy Hughes that it is in Dublin that we have these rings of manufacturers, that only intensifies the evil. The gravity of the situation is that in the place where housing is most needed, and house repair and house migration are most necessary, it is exactly the centre of population in which it is most difficult to provide new houses or the alteration of old houses because of these rings, so that we cannot do anything more than this, and this much at least we can do, to bring the matter under public notice now, to show that the Dáil is heart and soul behind this movement to provide housing, and that it welcomes the declaration of the Minister that much can be done by private enterprise if the finances were only forthcoming. It is quite possible that private enterprise might go further, and not merely set about the provision of houses, but the provision of the necessary capital for that purpose as well. We hear on all sides practical expression of faith in the Free State and hope in its future, and there is no form in which practical patriotism can display itself with more advantage at the present moment than in this direction.
I wish to make a few remarks on this Vote. Some time ago the Government gave a grant to Councils to build of two-thirds of the cost of building houses. In Athlone the Council are building 11 houses, and in Mullingar the Council are also building 11 houses. Now, 11 houses to the people of Athlone are not enough, and do not come near providing the number of houses required. I should like to know whether Councils that have already received a certain grant for housing schemes will be entitled under this Vote to receive another grant for the building of more houses. Another matter I want to bring to the attention of the Government is the question of labourers' cottages. I wish to point out to the Dáil how the labouring classes in the country are suffering for want of proper housing accommodation. In 1912 there was a grant given by the British Government to all the District Councils to build a certain number of labourers' cottages. In practically every district the Councils have a certain amount of land purchased, and they did go on with the building schemes for labourers' cottages up to 1914 or 1916. In Moate they have about twelve plots for houses, but the labourers who have these plots in their possession have not the houses to live in. The houses that they are living in are not fit for habitation. The same thing applies in Longford. I have been amongst the Longford workers, and I have heard the complaint that their houses are very bad, and they cannot get the Council to build these labourers' cottages. I think under this housing scheme I would not like to ask any of this £700,000 to be given to the country if I could possibly help it, but I think it is necessary that a portion of it should be given to the country as well. I do not want to deprive Deputies in the cities of this money, but I think it is only just and right that the workers of the country, who are as much deserving of being housed as anybody else in the Saorstát, should get some share. Take cases where the District Councils have in their possession land and the tenant is paying for that land, and paying the rates, and these tenants, with that land in their possession for seven or eight years, cannot get houses built. In some cases I know where foundations were laid. I hope the Minister will bring forward some scheme which will give the humble labourer an opportunity of raising his family in the proper manner. In some cases you have a father and mother and their family living in one room where there is probably not room for two beds. If the Minister can bring forward a scheme it will be welcomed in the humblest home in the country.
I want to say a word in regard to the attitude of the Local Government Housing Department in regard to the schemes at present in hands. It is a matter of complaint that the Department so far from facilitating the Dublin Council getting ahead with its housing scheme, is, as a matter of fact, interfering unduly and postponing decisions too long, making proposals which are accepted, partly accepted, considered, rejected, and then putting forward new proposals thus rather tending to obstruct the beginning of schemes instead of forwarding and assisting them. That is a complaint—I cannot vouch for the validity of it but I believe there are good grounds for it, coming from the quarter it does come from. The fear is that the Council will be so disgusted with the frustration of their schemes that they will say "All right, we have done our best, you must take on the responsibility and do the work yourselves." If that is the issue it would be very unfortunate and I hope that we shall not have to hear that the Housing Committee of the Dublin Corporation will have come to the conclusion that it is useless for them to go ahead with their work because of the obstruction of the Housing Department of the Local Government Board. On the last occasion that this matter was discussed a statement was made showing the necessities for modifications in schemes— the statement was made by the Minister for Local Government—that the Dublin Corporation, for instance, insists on using all brick work, not only for external walls, but for partition walls, and he made the same reference to the necessity for concrete as against brick in certain housing schemes that were then under discussion. I gathered that, as a matter of fact, the architects insist that the substitution of mass concrete for this purpose for brick work would be very detrimental, as the effect of mass concrete would be bad in as much as the walls would inevitably crack owing to shrinkage. Then it may be said that concrete blocks should be used and enquiry was made in regard to the use of concrete blocks as against brick work. It appears that the contractors replied that they had gone into the question of the substitution of four inch breeze concrete inner blocks and four inch ballast concrete outer blocks in external walls and they found that these would exceed the cost of brick work. The party walls in mass concrete would effect a saving but an additional cost if built in precast blocks. If the outer walls were built in concrete blocks the time of completion would be much longer. I am referring to that because a statement was made in the Dáil that the Corporation was insisting upon brick work as against a substitution of concrete, and that this insistence on brick work was necessitating higher prices for the houses. That controversy and such controversies, apparently, are causing a delay in the beginning of certain housing schemes. So far as I can gather the Housing Committee of the Dublin Corporation is as anxious as any public body or any individual could be to proceed as rapidly as possible with its housing scheme. They complained, and I make this statement with a view to eliciting from the Minister his reply or explanation to the complaint, that they are in fact being impeded in their work by the growing and changing requirements of the Local Government Housing Department. I am sorry that those who are better able to deal with this matter in a technical respect than I am are not able to be here, but it is a matter of serious complaint that this impeding of the work of the Housing Committee by the Housing Department is going on. The Corporation Committee has had some experience in the matter. They have spent a great deal of time and earnest study upon the problems. They have done everything that they could think reasonable to meet the requirements of the Local Government Housing Department but they feel that they are being pressed unnecessarily, and they suspect— perhaps this is an undue suspicion—that it is for the purpose of causing delay in the hope that prices will come down. That, as I say, may be an undue suspicion but it is there, and it has arisen amongst men who felt very generously disposed towards the Housing Department and who would like to have worked in a friendly manner with them. That is the gist of the complaint and I think it is necessary that the Minister should meet it and try to dispel the doubts and suspicions of the Housing Committee of the Dublin Corporation in this matter.
I would like to say a word with regard to one part of this housing question. The local bodies are showing a very creditable desire to go ahead with building schemes. They make one mistake. When their schemes are carried through and the houses are built when they come to the question of fixing rents for the houses there is a very creditable desire that the rent should be as low as possible, because it is advanced that those houses are built for the humblest people, and so that the rents should be made low enough to suit the means of those people. I have been long of this opinion. I was a member of a public board that had schemes of the kind in hands. I was of opinion that they very often defeated their own object by making the rents too low. I will say that in their desire to save the rates they were not making the best use of the borrowing powers of the rates by lowering the rents. The best way to lower rents is to build houses. The more houses you build the lower will be the rents, and if the building schemes are self-supporting then you can go ahead with more building schemes. That would be the best way possible to lower the rents, and to supply suitable houses for everyone. If there are a thousand people wanting houses, if you build 1,050 then the 50 worst houses will soon become idle. If you charge first the rent on the rates, then when you apply for the next building scheme, you will not be in a position to persuade the Local Government Department to advance the money when it can be shown that the preceding scheme was not paying.
I want first to say that I made a mistake. I missed seeing a note on this paper with regard to school children's meals. £350 was the amount paid out. There is a good deal more than that due but the auditors have not yet certified it.
With regard to the question of housing grants, the housing problem in this country is one of appalling magnitude. The situation in Dublin, Cork and other places is really terrible. It is exceedingly bad for the country, and costs the country dear in many ways, and it is one for which every effort will have to be made even at expense in other directions to find money to deal with it. Because something like 40,000 houses will be required, we will have to give every consideration to getting the best possible value for any money voted for housing. In the early part of this year we gave considerable thought to the matter of subsidies to private builders. This is not an entirely satisfactory way for dealing with it, and there are certain aspects of the housing problem that cannot be met by subsidies to private builders. On the other hand at the present moment, there is little doubt we would get a great deal more accommodation by subsiding private builders than by giving a grant to public bodies. Deputy Byrne has understated the case, if anything. You would get as much out of £180, given to a private builder as £500, given to a public body. All the inquiries, that were conducted, convinced us of that, and up to the time when we were faced with the magnitude of the Bill and the borrowing we had to undertake this year I did hope that we would have some subsidies for private builders. Even if we voted less money we would get something approaching the same number of houses built. All the £700,000 here has been allocated. That is only part of the million grant. There is nothing over to go to any bodies who have completed their schemes, and wish to do more. We will, however, agree to their spending any money they can get, if they get actual cash, from the sale of houses already built in the construction of further housing. Pursuing the same idea, of getting as much value as possible from money to be expended, there was a revision of attitude, and a certain tightening up in regard to the Dublin Housing scheme. I went into the matter myself and felt—it is an undoubted fact and I do not want to blame anyone in particular— that value was not got for the money, i.e. the giving of £500 per house. There was not the return for the amount of money given, and we had to think of everything we could do to get more accommodation, for the people of Dublin in need of houses, with the money available. A complaint was made of our intervention in connection with Donnelly`s Orchard Scheme, yet our economies resulted in eight extra houses for the workers of Dublin. Even Deputy Johnson will hardly believe, that I have any need to deny, that we were interfering for the purpose of causing delay. The only object of our intervention was to cut down the cost of the scheme, so that more houses might be built for the money which was given to the Corporation.
That was our duty under the circumstances and especially it was our duty in the present circumstances when the money available is nothing like what is required to meet the end. In regard to two or three specific points mentioned—the question of concrete inner walls—the statement I made here was not a casual statement but was based upon what we know of contractors and others elsewhere. It had happened that here in Dublin a contractor would not tender in such a way as to make it practical or profitable to go on with the building of the inner walls with concrete blocks. However, that is a matter which we have not done with, but there was certainly nothing in my mind or in the mind of anyone concerned with it except the thought of getting the work done more cheaply. Now there were various other economies suggested by us and there was no great willingness on the part of the Corporation to meet us. They did meet us eventually on that but if there was delay it was upon the part of the Corporation which did not want to adopt our suggestion and wanted to go on with its cut-stone, and the way some of the members were facing the question seemed to be more from the point of view of giving employment to a certain class than from the point of view of providing houses. Now I think it is entirely wrong to face this question of housing with the idea of meeting the unemployment position. You get less value for your money. But if you face it the other way you get as many houses built; you cheapen the cost and by spending as much money as is available you are just as effectively meeting the question of unemployment. Our architect has attended all the recent meetings of the Housing Committee and was on the spot. Certainly as far as we are concerned there was no idea of creating a delay. I did personally deal with the matter and caused a tightening up in the matter of trying to bring down cost that was necessary in view of the situation and in view of the revealed shortage of money. It was impossible to give as much money out of the National Exchequer for housing, as really ought, in the widest interest of the nation, be given. We are in such a condition that we have got to face up to it. Where we give money we are to insist as far as we can and for every reason that those who receive it should take all the precautions that suggest themselves to get the best value for the money.
There are questions of rings of contractors. We have been going into that to see how it could be met and some points we have put up ourselves are with the object of providing that there shall be the widest competition, and that barriers that would prevent new people coming in shall be taken down. As a matter of fact we estimated that £300,000 of the one million would actually have been paid out by the 31st March, and that we would only have to re-vote £700,000. I think there will have to be a small supplementary estimate later on to cover the difference. There was actually less than what we estimated paid out by the end of March so that the £700,000 voted here will not quite exhaust the millions but that will not occur for some time because it will be the end of the year before this £700,000 Grant is expended. For the year to come whoever is responsible for housing and for this Department will certainly have to put the case for some more substantial sum for housing if it can at all be done in the condition of the national finances. It is a question of such a crying and appalling nature—that the country, looking at it from the lowest point of view, cannot afford to have people living in the conditions such as the people are living in at the present time.
There is one point that the Minister has waived completely, and that is whether he will subsidise District Councils with a view to putting into effect schemes for labourers' cottages.
We voted £30,000 last year which we made available for labourers' cottages. Certainly the urban problem is a more crying problem than the rural just now. There was a good deal done under the Labourers Acts.
Would the Minister agree to subsidise private individuals? Supposing a man wanted to build a house himself and he was able to borrow a certain amount in the Bank would the Government be prepared to subsidise him in the same amount, as they do the Local Councils?
That will arise later.
The discussion can now be continued under Sub-head U 1, 2, and 3, and can proceed on the general question of the Vote.
I want to raise a question as to the attitude of the Ministry towards Local Authorities, primarily in connection with payments to district nurses and, generally, to other officers who have been voted certain increases by the Local Authority responsible, these increases, at a later date, being cancelled by the action of the Local Government Ministry. The question I want to deal with more elaborately is that concerning midwives or district nurses, acting under the authority of the local Governing Body and, ultimately, under the authority of the Local Government Ministry. Deputy Sir James Craig touched upon this in the earlier discussion, and promised to come back to it when we came to the general discussion. He dealt with the inadequacy of the payments to district nurses, and of the unfairness of asking nurses to attempt to do their work on the inadequate salaries they are paid. I admit that the problem is not quite the simple one of a living wage for an individual, or of a rate for nurses in all parts of the country. The matter, though, is one of concern to all parts of the country, and is of particular concern to the poor in the more thickly populated districts. These nurses have been under the local Boards for a great many years and were quite inadequately paid. Four or five years ago the fact that they were inadequately paid was brought home to the Local Authorities responsible, and the agitation of the nurses themselves to be placed in a position where they would be able to devote proper attention to their patients, what I might call their official patients, was met in some respects by the acknowledgment on the part of their employers, the Local Authorities, that they should be paid. Some of these Authorities agreed to a scale ranging from £60 to £75 per year for a nurse. In some cases the advances made were sanctioned, and the nurses have been receiving the higher scale for the last two or three years. The Local Government Ministry now informs the Unions, the Dispensary Authorities, that these rates will not be allowed, and state that they have fixed the maximum at £52 a year with a temporary bonus of £15. Drastic reductions have been made as I think, and the nurses and the Local Authorities think, without anything like reasonable notice to the midwives concerned, and without proper consultation with the Local Authorities responsible. The Rathdown Guardians, in a letter which was submitted to the Department in April of this year, gave reasons which led them to advance the salaries to the rate that is now being disallowed. I think it is not asking too much to quote from this letter, because it quite succinctly states the case for the midwives. They state that the objects which the Board had before them in adopting the present standard were to bring each expectant mother among the poor, at a period of great anxiety, a helper of the highest qualifications and character; to enable persons with a full sense of their responsibility to two lives, each dependent upon them, to carry on their work; to raise maternity nurses above the need for pressing for fees at a moment of increased expenses in the homes and at a period of high prices, and to balance the frequent difficulties and discomforts under which the nurses carry out their work as compared with the facilities they enjoyed in their training for medical and nursing certificates. It is noted that the nurses have to be on the spot, whether the cases be many or few, and that they are thus entitled to a living wage. They say they view with great importance that all danger of return to the old days should be avoided. As is well known, the poor suffered a great deal from the incompetence of those willing to work for the poor salaries then offered. The case for reasonable payment for such nurses is, I think, a very clear one. It must be borne in mind, especially in the urban areas or more thickly populated rural areas, that when a nurse is bound to take up a district case there is a smaller chance of these nurses getting outside or private cases. They are bound to be at the call of the ticket holder and those who are able to pay a private fee are not inclined, when they can find a competitive nurse, to call in the district nurse because she is always bound to give precedence to the district cases. I submit that the demand of the nurses for a revision of the attitude of the Department is a good one. They do not think it is feasible that there should be one single rigid system imposed over the whole country. They think there is room for some elasticity, and it is felt by those who have considered this matter closely that there should be some extension perhaps of the responsibilities of the district nurses so that their whole time may be occupied in doing one or other of the duties which such a person is capable of fulfilling. We were speaking a little earlier about the necessity for attending mothers before childbirth, and of other matters of medical attention. I think that the Minister and his advisers can find many opportunities for utilising fully the whole time of the district nurses, and at the same time ensure that they will be available for cases of need amongst the poor. In the case of the complaint that where local authorities, recognising their responsibilities, voted salaries that seemed reasonable, the decision of the Ministry to disallow these increased salaries has, I think, caused undue hardship and cannot be justified by the facts. To cut down the salary by £20 or £25 a year or more, which has once been sanctioned, with practically no notice, is certainly not considerate. I think it is unjust, and I think, where the local authority has determined that such a scale is required in the circumstances of that locality and have persisted in that view after full consideration, that the Minister ought not to deprive them of the right to pay such a reasonable wage, or salary, or retaining fee, whatever it may be called, to those nurses. It seems that the Ministry has taken a hard line and is trying to insist upon a severe reduction in the pay, with too little consideration for varying circumstances. That is driving the district nurses, who ought to be encouraged to devote their full time and the whole of their attention, when necessary, to their poorer patients, into competition with the private nurses and generally causing dissatisfaction with results that are detrimental to the general health and the lives, very often, both of mother and child. I would plead with the Ministry for a very generous appreciation of the position of these nurses. They are, themselves, very anxious to improve their usefulness, to improve their training, to raise their status and, generally, to make themselves more useful servants of the community. I think that that desire, which has been very widely expressed since they became vocal as an organised body, should be encouraged and not repressed. This action of the Ministry does tend to repress that aspiration. There is not much need—there is no need perhaps the Minister might say—for me to enlarge upon the case, because he is fully aware of the whole circumstances. But I think it is desirable that the Dáil should have its attention called to the case that has been made by the nurses, and I think the Dáil will support the view that the case is one which calls for generous consideration and encouragement of these women in their very responsible and arduous work—in many cases very arduous work indeed—and I hope that the Minister will relent somewhat from the hard lines that he is alleged to be taking.
I desire very cordially to support the plea made by Deputy Johnson for the ladies engaged in midwifery. I am sorry that Deputy Sir J. Craig is not here to give us the benefit of his technical views in support of this plea. There is no need to go over the ground which Deputy Johnson has traversed so fully, but I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. In view of the fact that he contemplates introducing a Public Health Bill very soon, and that when that Bill is introduced Councils will be in a position to deal with maternity benefit as well as inspection of school children, the moment is coming very rapidly when it would be quite easy to give more employment to those nurses. It would be better, in view of the gravity of the matter to the ladies, to postpone any action in the way of reduction until such time as schemes of that kind can be put into force, which will obviously give an opportunity to Councils to avail of the services of nurses in a way they cannot do now. I ask the Minister to consider in any case where schemes have been already submitted, as he is contemplating the introduction of this Bill, whether he could not postpone any action of that kind until the Councils are in a position to act under the Bill which he has in contemplation.
I would like to ask the Minister for Local Government whether it has come under his notice that the Athlone No. 1 Council, owing to the action of the Local Government Department in not sanctioning a payment for the midwife for Glasson, has resigned in a body as a protest. It appears that some time ago, owing to the amalgamation of workhouses, a County Home Committee was appointed in Mullingar, and a Sub-Committee has been appointed to look after the District Hospital in Athlone. This District Hospital is solely maintained by the district in which it is situated. It is not on the county-at-large rate to all. The people living in that district are of opinion that this Sub-Committee should have power to make these payments as they have done hitherto. It appears that this vacancy occurred in Glasson owing to the resignation of the midwife, whose health broke down. The Local Government Department sent a letter saying that they could not sanction the payment proposed by the No. 1 Council, and that the salary given to this nurse should be £40 per year. £40 a year to a person who has often to travel a distance of from eight to ten miles, and sometimes has to go out two or three times in the night and, probably, every night in the week! It is too much to ask a person receiving £40 a year to attend patients nearly every night in the week. Probably the Minister will take the view that as these persons are employed in the country districts they may be able to add to their income by attending cases of people who may be able to pay them. I am speaking now solely of the maternity nurses who are paid this enormous salary of £40. In my district there is a nurse who has to cover a district with a valuation of some £25,000, and that must cover a very big area. The Local Government Department does not subscribe one farthing towards the salary of the nurse in this particular district. I know that this money is raised from the rates. Surely, when this money is paid out of the rates the representatives of the people who pay the rates should have an opportunity of saying how the money should be spent. The Athlone No. 1 Council are not at all satisfied, and I, as a member of the County Council, am not satisfied with the way in which the amalgamation scheme is working in Westmeath. It is not a paying proposition. I think that the Minister is doing a great injustice to the poor and infirm people in the Athlone No. 1 District by refusing to sanction this payment. As a result of his action the Council has resigned, and the people who are solely dependent upon the Council for help in one way or another are being deprived of that help.
I hope the Dáil will take this matter into account when the Minister introduces the Bill that we are so pleased to hear of, and will see that midwives get a decent salary so that the poor people in the country will be able to receive as good medical treatment as those who can afford to pay specialists. No young lady with any decent qualification would take up the position of a maternity nurse at £40 a year. I think it would be better to give her her passage and to send her out of the country.
I desire very briefly to support the case put forward by Deputy Johnson. I think the matter might be looked at by the Minister from the points of view both of nurses in rural areas and the nurses in towns and cities. In rural districts, no doubt, the hardship is far greater than in towns, because of the wider area they have got to cover and because such a nurse is the only one there. I contend that in such circumstances the nurse's services are as essential as those of the doctor who serves under the same local authority. The matter might be looked at in that light by the Minister when he comes to introduce the Health Bill. In the cities and towns there are generally a number of private nurses in addition to those who are serving under the local authorities. As far as I can gather from representatives of the private nurses, and from my own knowledge of the circumstances, there is a tendency on the part of the nurses employed by the local authorities to go on private practice and take up work which in the ordinary course should go to the private nurses. Seeing that the work of nurses under a local authority is generally to serve the poor I think they should be given a salary which would prevent them undertaking any work of a private character, and leave that work to private nurses who depend on it for a livelihood. From that point of view I think that in rural areas and also in towns and cities nurses serving under local authorities, and subject to the supervision of the Local Government Department, should receive something in the nature of a standard salary, something approaching what is considered a living wage. The Deputies who have spoken have covered the ground but I think the suggestion made by Deputy Gavan Duffy to get over the difficulty for the moment is an admirable one, and one with which I thoroughly agree.
I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister to the position in my area at any rate concerning direct labour on roads. I happen to represent an area where that question has been a bone of contention for the past two years.
An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair at this stage.
The position has become very serious there, by reason of the fact that contracts were given by the local Council to big farmers and small farmers and as a result large numbers of men were thrown on the unemployed list. Take the case of Tullamore Rural District Council. At the present time I am reliably informed that in that area, the County Council of Offaly, and in the first instance the Rural District Council, agreed to let all the roads by direct labour. The County Council sanctioned that proposal but in spite of their decision the County Surveyor, who seems to run the show, gave practically all the roads out to contract. As a result there are in Tullamore area 240 men thrown out of employment. I venture to say that these 240 men are drawing roughly £200 weekly from the Labour Exchange. One could question the economy effected in that area by the attitude of the County Surveyor, who is apparently acting on his own and in this instance directly against the wishes of the County Council which is the responsible body. A somewhat similar position exists in the Leix division. In one particular district recently the Council responsible gave a road contract to a farmer who has 70 acres of land. By giving that work to contract, which was originally done by direct labour, 20 men are thrown out of employment. I think the time has arrived, in view of the recommendations of the Reconstruction Committee, and the period given the Minister of twelve months, to look into this matter, that he should now make some declaration to the Dáil as to whether or not it is in the interests of the nation and the taxpayers to adopt a policy of direct labour as against the contract system, with all its sins. I raised this question on the Estimates last year, and I think it is not unfair to press the Minister on this occasion for some indication as to the views of the Government. Having made the declaration, especially if it is in favour of the direct labour system, whatever authority is necessary should be taken by the Local Government Department to see that that policy is given effect to by local bodies. This is a very serious question in that area. Unlike other areas where there has been a fairly reasonable attitude adopted and a desire shown to meet the situation, in the area I represent there is a very considerable conflict of opinion on the matter. I direct the Minister's attention to the Offaly case, where the County Council decided in favour of the direct labour system, and where the County Surveyor has turned down their decision. I do not know whether it would be right on this occasion to direct the Minister's attention to the refusal of the County Surveyor in the Offaly area to put the new time into operation so far as the employees there are concerned. I hope that if anything can be done in this matter it will be done by the Minister. With regard to the question of providing houses for ex-soldiers who served in the European war, I have seen that in many districts numbers of houses have been built for these men, but I am not aware whether such houses have been erected in the area I represent. I would like to know the actual position, as I understand many men who believe they are entitled to such houses have signed the necessary forms and sent them to the local authorities.
I congratulate Deputy Johnson and Deputy Gavan Duffy, who has gone, on the noble plea they made for their constituents. The question of the particular midwives, whose salaries have been reduced, is one which is being used as a stick to beat us with. I feel it is just because there are certain special features that enable a great deal of play to be made with it that we do happen to hear so much about it. Under a misapprehension, certain salaries were sanctioned by the Local Government Department. That misapprehension arose owing to action taken at a time when the old Dáil Department was carrying on without records, or without the opportunities of supervision that an ordinary Local Government Department, functioning in the regular way, would have. Recently the mistake was discovered and the sanction was withdrawn. Now, if that sanction had never been given we would never have heard so much about the case of those particular nurses. The fact that they had already got it enabled a certain sympathy to be gained for them. I looked into their case, I met them, and I found that when they put their case to me—I do not want to add insult to injury—they did try to put their fingers in my eye to some extent; at least one of them did. I do not think there was the hardship they represented. This system of paying midwives what is practically a retaining fee has worked fairly satisfactorily through the country. I have not heard any very great complaints, nor do I see how, without imposing a very heavy and unnecessary burden on the rates, we could change it. There are cases where midwives have not had more than six or eight ticket cases in the year, and those were in districts in which the retaining fee system worked very well. There is no doubt in practically any district a midwife can earn enough from paying cases to bring the retaining salary which she is given by the local authorities up to a reasonable wage. I am satisfied that the same could be done in the Rathdown district, and I feel, moreover, that in dealing with matters of salaries, the Local Government Department stands in the same relation to the local bodies as the Treasury stands in relation to Government Departments. We always have to beware of doors being opened. They might be pushed very wide if we allowed them to be opened. There is no doubt, if we sanction scales of salaries on the assumption that fees were not to be accepted by the nurses, we would not go very long until we would have fees being generally accepted. We would be in the position of being unable to prevent them being accepted. We would have salaries based on the supposition that no fees would be taken, while at the same time fees would be very generally taken. I have no doubt that is the position we would arrive at. We have to assume that while we might have in some districts a condition where nurses would not take fees with a view to carrying on the campaign for higher salaries, we would have equally a campaign productive of all sorts of figures showing the necessity of allowing them to take fees and the advantages to be so derived. The "to-do" arises largely from the fact that in error a sanction was given. For myself, I would like to deal with the case just as I would have to deal with representations for an increase.
Is the Minister now approving of the action of Dispensary nurses claiming fees from their patients?
I do not want to say that, but there is no doubt that fees are paid and accepted. I do not think a Dispensary midwife can claim fees.
Would it be a complaint and a mark against her record if it were reported that she had claimed fees?
I think so, if she should claim fees.
Then you are basing your case upon the assumption that they will break the law?
No. There is one other thing to be said about this. It is that in the matter of midwives we are not giving our attention solely to the question of reducing salaries. As a matter of fact, we have induced various Councils to increase them, and we are inducing others. We represent to others that they should improve the scales where we thought they were very inadequate. So that in this matter we are very largely dealing with one particular set of people who find themselves in an advantageous position from the propagandist point of view because of the error that was made. With regard to direct labour, I do not think it would be desirable to change the position greatly from what it has been. I do not think it would be desirable to take the discretion out of the hands of the County Council. I could not answer Deputy Davin at the moment about the question of the County Surveyor of Offaly having acted contrary to the directions of the County Council. I have nothing about it at the moment before me, but I think it is a matter that there had better be flexibility about. I know of the things that can be said against the contract system. I know, on the other hand, that it has been alleged, and recently I have heard it from people who were enthusiasts for direct labour, that as good results have not been got from the direct labour system, that there is a greater difficulty than there used to be of getting work fairly done. Of course, in these matters it is difficult to know how much is substantiable fact—a fact that can be actually substantiated on the strictest inquiry— and how much of it arises from the feeling of the individual. I have heard from several sources that there are greater difficulties. Now, that seems to me to point to the desirability of leaving it open —leaving an alternative. There was very great success in many districts from direct labour, and there is no doubt very much better roads were got as far as the main roads are concerned. If you have the direct labour system working properly and not too much fighting carried on around it, you will get better roads from it than from the other system. But I would not be inclined to say that we are going to take up the position that there must be direct labour.
Does the Minister admit that the contractor in all cases undertakes work with the object of making a profit.
I presume he is not a philanthropist. In regard to the provision of houses for soldiers and sailors who served in the British Army, that is a matter in regard to which I have no responsibility. Certain of the staff of the Local Government Department are lent to the Soldiers and Sailors' Department, but I have had no responsibility for their work at any time. However, a Bill has been introduced which will enable the Soldiers and Sailors Trust to be set up, and I believe the work will go ahead more rapidly. There was delay owing to the fact that there was no legal means of acquiring land or carrying on in the interim period. The Trust will consist of a majority of three from the British Treasury, one representative of ours, and one representative of the Northern Government. A considerable sum of money is being placed at its disposal. I know that schemes are prepared in regard to quite a number of localities. I think that certainly once legislation is passed and the Trust definitely established, that further progress will be made. Schemes that had gone to a certain stage are being carried on until the new schemes will have been made.
Does the Minister admit that where direct labour has been adopted much better roads are made than by contract? Or does he believe that contract roads are more economical than roads made by direct labour? I have a knowledge of roads where direct labour schemes are carried out, and I know that the roads are much better, and when you have all the roads like these you will be much better able to collect your motor tax than in the other case.
I have no doubt that the best roads have been made by direct labour, but there are a number of factors in the situation. There is the fact that I have pointed out, that people who have been enthusiasts for direct labour have told me that they are having increasing difficulties in having the work carried on satisfactorily in the last few years. For that reason it is, perhaps, well that the system should stand on its merits, and not be put in the position of a statutory system, excluding other methods.
In other words, you give the Council a free hand?
Yes.
I take it that if the Minister is given information that where a County Surveyor is trying to override the decision of the Council, he will see that the County Council's decision is given effect to?
I will see to that.
Question put and agreed to.