Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Jul 1933

Vol. 48 No. 12

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Local Government and Public Health (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
Go ndeontar suim náa raghaidh thar £529,991 chun sláanuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí, maraon le Deontaisí agus Costaisí eile a bhaineann le Tógáil Tithe, Deontaisí d'Udaráis Aitiúla agus Ildeontaisí i gCabhair, agus costaisí áirithe bhaineann le hOispidéil.
That a sum not exceeding £529,991 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities and Sundry Grants-in-Aid, and certain charges connected with Hospitals.

I understand that there is a great scarcity of slates especially in the Gaeltacht, where houses are being built. A great many builders are held up because they cannot get supplies. I am informed that free grants for houses cannot be given unless Irish slates are used. I hope the Minister will look into the matter to see if it is possible to convenience these builders. I know houses in which the stone work and the timber work has been finished for a couple of months, but the builders are still waiting for slates. Something should be done to remedy that state of affairs.

A large number of appeals affecting old age pensions are pending, up to 200, I understand, in County Mayo. These appeals were sent in last October, November and December but the poor people are still waiting for decisions. I know several cases where the applicants have died since the appeals were sent in. I reminded the Minister about this matter previously in questions, but I got the usual stereotyped reply, that the Department was too busy, or had an insufficient staff. The Minister might now be able to borrow some staff from the collection branch of the Land Commission. I do not know what the people there have been doing for the last five or six months.

A considerable amount of money has been spent on roads out of relief schemes and unemployment grants. I understand that the roads dealt with were already under contract. The roads that want looking after are not roads under contract, because they are in perfect condition, but bog roads, cul-de-sac roads, as well as roads leading into villages which are not under contract. The Department has done nothing for that class of roads. In the next grant I hope the Minister will include these roads.

A good deal of money has been spent on sewerage schemes in the West. Some of the Boards of Health state that they have sent on plans and specifications for other schemes, but that the Department has held them up for a year or more. In Claremorris plans for a sewerage scheme were submitted, the cost of the work being inside £1,000. The Board of Health gave the necessary approval by passing the statutory resolution, but the county council state they heard nothing about the matter since from the Department. As 15 new houses were erected in Claremorris last winter, for which no sewerage accommodation is available, a danger arises from the lack of the necessary sewerage extension.

Complaints are also made about the delay in building hospitals. It appears that arrangements were made by the county council and the board of health to build hospitals in the county, particularly in Claremorris. The plans were approved by the Board of Health and were forwarded to the Department some time ago. Nothing has been done since. Even the sites for the hospitals have not been acquired. I hope the Minister will see his way to expedite these matters.

I wish to emphasise the point raised by the last speaker, and to say that it is only fair to the building trade, and to the country generally, that there should be an equivocal expression from the Minister in reference to the use of Irish slates. I am in a position to know that the Minister is aware that no matter what money is put down, when ordering Irish slates for delivery within the next three weeks, the builder is not going to get them. Probably he would not get them within the next three months. I know of a case where a dozen terrace houses were being built within the last six weeks. The material for the first house controlled what was to go on the last one. The builder was anxious to use Irish slates. He tried Killaloe, Carrick, a quarry in Wicklow, and finally Donegal. He could not get any slates from the first three places. A traveller from one of the principal firms of builders' providers in the city assured him that he could get Donegal slates if he did not mind using small slates 11 x 8 in. The builder agreed and prepared the roofs to receive 11 x 8 in. slates. As the lathing for such would be very close the builder decided to sheet the roofs. Having gone to that expense the traveller informed the builder that there were no slates on hands. Although the Dublin firm wrote and wired to the slate quarry they could get no reply. In order to get on with the work, and not to have to turn 50 or 60 men away, the builder then ordered Bangor slates and he had not to wait 24 hours for all the blue Bangor slates he wanted. This State is providing money for alleged slate quarry men. I do not know if that portion of the matter relates to the Department of the Minister for Local Government but, in any case, the Minister has that information and he can bring it, at the meetings of the Executive Council, before his colleague of the appropriate Department. While the State is giving money to run those quarries, the policy of the State of using Irish slates, with which I agree, is providing customers. Having provided the finance, the Government also provides the customers for these quarry workers, and yet we cannot get delivery of the goods. I was speaking recently to an authority on Irish slates—I do not mind stating who he is; he is the architect to the Dublin Corporation—and he informed me that he had it from better authorities than himself that, in the Killaloe area, there is a slate which is better than the best known British slate. The best known British slate is what is known as "Westmoreland Green" but he informed me that there is a nicer and a better slate at one-third of the price in that seam from Nenagh to Killaloe. These people are getting money and getting customers for their product and yet men are idle. There is no use in labouring it. I am sure the Minister will inquire into that aspect, the industrial aspect, of this matter. From the building standpoint, surely it is manifestly unjust, that, if a builder does all, from the business standpoint, that can reasonably be expected of him, to procure the Irish product and if he cannot get it, and if a wait would upset his whole business and throw his men out of employment and, perhaps, bankrupt him—and I am sure the Minister would be one of the last persons to do an unfair act though if I were talking politics I might say the exact opposite——

That is nice morality.

I did not think the Deputy was here or I would not have said it. In business matters, the Minister is a reasonable man, and when a fair case is put up to him he will deal with it on its merits. There is another matter on which I would not speak of the Minister in such glowing terms and it is the manner in which he is handling grants from his Department. It struck me, from the correspondence which passed between the Minister and the County Council of Dublin, that the Minister looked upon agricultural grants as some kind of a dole to agriculture, that, at some time or another, a charitably disposed Government said: "We will give a gift to agriculture to keep it from growling or we will give it a dole as it is in a bad way." I should like to remind the Minister that the agricultural grant, in its origin, was not a dole. The agricultural grant had its origin in the fact that, when our ancestors got their lands as tenants at will from the landlords, they contracted, as part of the tenancy, to pay rents and, broadly speaking, the landlords contracted to pay half the local rates. That system obtained up to the passage of the Local Government Act of 1898. In that Act there is a section which indemnifies the landlords. They have not to pay any more, but the Government assumed the landlords' responsibility and, for the first time, that responsibility of the landlords is called an agricultural grant. Strictly speaking, however, it was a landlord relief grants. It was never a farmers' relief grant. It was given to meet a liability that, heretofore, was met by the landlords and not by the farmers. I hope that my friend, Deputy Kelly and others, who boast of many generations with an outlook circumscribed by the City of Dublin, will drink that in.

I will not drink it.

Under that Local Government Act of '98, the agricultural grant was standardised at half the rate on agricultural land for the year 1898 and, although the rates increased every year, up to 1924, that agricultural grant remained stationary at that rate. Even though we had a common Exchequer with Great Britain up to 1922, in Britain they got an agricultural grant not standardised at the rate that obtained in 1898 or 1896, when, I think, their Local Government Act was passed, but actually half the rates on agricultural land each year was met by the British Government for Great Britain and, in 1923, 75 per cent. of the rate was met by the British Government. In 1928, 100 per cent. of the rate in Great Britain was met by the British Government. For the time we had a common Exchequer with Great Britain, if agriculture in this country got the same treatment by way of agricultural grant as agriculture got in Great Britain, agriculture here would have received £16,850,000 more in grants and, if the land purchase system had not taken place and if the landlords had to foot their liability up to 1922, the landlords would have paid that sum and the farmers would have benefited to that extent. I hope that the Minister will not look on the agricultural grant in future, as, apparently, he has in the past, as a kind of dole to the farmers. It is a debt due by the landlords or the successors in title to the landlords. The British Government was first and our own Government succeeded the British Government, so that the Minister should realise that the agricultural grant is not a kind of relief to the farmers. When he took office he found that the original agricultural grant had been doubled. In 1924, roughly £1,200,000 was given for the relief of rates on agricultural land and he found, just before he took office, that £75,000 more had been given making, roughly, £1,950,000——

That was mine.

No, sir, it was not. It was the result of the agitation of the farmers organised by the Agricultural League and, when President De Valera thought it was coming over, he put down a motion in this House asking for £1,000,000—nothing else would relieve the position of agriculture in 1931, but to increase the agricultural grant by £1,000,000. At the time when the agitation for derating was coming to its climax— when this Government came in it reached its anti-climax—it was common knowledge that relief was coming. The extent of the relief was not known, but was expected to be about £1,000,000. President De Valera, obviously trying to anticipate events and in the hope of advancing the interests of his Party though they had done nothing to advance derating except to promise it—as was promised by President De Valera himself in Collooney in May, 1929—

I suggest to the Deputy that the events of 1929 have nothing to do with the administration of the Local Government Department.

I want to trace the history of the Agricultural Grant and to impress upon Ministers' minds that when they are giving an Agricultural Grant they are not giving a dole from day to day.

The Deputy might skip a few years.

If I could skip a few of my debts, I should be glad to skip a few years. If the Minister would promise that for every year we skip in debate, we will be forgiven a year's arrears of land annuities and rates, I should be glad to skip them. Unfortunately they will not let us skip the arrears. The Minister, of course, is aware of the recent events. Unfortunately we have been made painfully aware, by his Department, of these events. Only this morning I was furnished with a bill by his Department for £222 19s. 1d.

Is that all? I thought it would be ten times as much.

This economical administration, these enemies of big salaries, only asked for the member of the Government whose salary is somewhere between £1,500 and £2,000, 20 guineas a day for his appearance, to look on, and ten guineas refresher. In these days of depression, they asked only for £222 19s. 1d. I do not know where the penny came in.

That is the tram fare.

This was to respect the law. This was to remind the wreckers that they must not wreck, to quote the words of President de Valera in College Green. This was to keep the wreckers quiet. He tried afterwards in an appeal to put out the wreckers, but the appeal passed by unheeded. The wreckers were not put out. I wonder who has broken the law? I wonder is it these alleged wreckers, or the Minister for Local Government? The country wants to know where we stand in the matter of local government. On the 1st February last the county councils received a stock circular from the Minister's Department saying that it was proposed to hold the triennial elections for the county councils for this year at the usual times—between the statutory limits of the 23rd June and 1st July—and asking the county councils to state what date would suit. The Dublin County Council suggested 28th June, and then there was a long silence until the end of May, when we got another circular.

The other circular stated that it was not proposed to hold the elections in June this year, but that they would be held in November. Apparently the Minister was not aware of the clause which the late Mr. Tim Healy got into the original Local Government Act fixing the holding of those triennial elections in mid-summer, instead of mid-winter. The Minister, being a hardy bird, wanted these activities in mid-winter. In that circular, along with the postponement to November, it was also stated that the election of chairman of the county council, which it is mandatory on the county council to hold between 23rd June and 1st July, was not to be held this year, until after the elections in November. At our meeting in May we queried this circular, and the question was discussed—was the Minister serious about it? The Minister's circular on that matter carried no more weight than if the circular were posted up by a man in the street. He had powers, if he exercised them to make an Order fixing the date of the elections within the limit of July of next year. He did not do that act which it is prescribed by law he should do. He told the county councils they were not to elect their chairmen. We sought counsel's opinion on the matter, and counsel's opinion to the Dublin County Council was to the effect that we should hold our statutory meetings between the 23rd June and 1st July and elect a chairman in the absence of an Order from the Minister.

I understand that the Local Government Department knew what the Dublin County Council was doing. They knew the nature of the advice which they got from counsel, and yet they did not make the Order or the Order has not yet been made. If that advice to the Dublin County Council is right, if the Dublin County Council, acting on the advice of counsel, is right —that it was mandatory on them to hold the statutory meeting under the Act between the 23rd June and 1st July, and elect a chairman—then what about the other 26 county councils who did not hold a statutory meeting? Are these county councils legal bodies? If it was a statutory obligation on one council to hold a statutory meeting and to elect a chairman, it was equally mandatory on the other county councils to hold a statutory meeting. There is only one council in the Free State who held a statutory meeting. Not only does the Minister know that, but it is upon the Minister's advice that no statutory meeting was held in the case of the other 26 counties. He comes now and asks £800,000 to administer local government, but notwithstanding that 26 out of 27 county councils have not functioned according to law, does he say that they are legal bodies? If they are local bodies what is the need for the farce of electing a chairman annually? I hope there will be public-spirited people in the other 27 county council areas to take mandamus proceedings against the Minister and make him obey the law. Perhaps next time I have the pleasure of confronting him here it is he, and not I, who will have the Bill for £222 19s. 1d. in his pocket.

Why did not the Dublin County Council do it?

Do what?

Not hold their statutory meeting and then take mandamus proceedings.

The Dublin County Council is composed of law-abiding citizens.

They pay for learning the law.

See the good example we set. See all the law we taught the Front Bench. We are promised a big drive in housing by the Minister—the housing of the working-classes. My friend, Deputy O'Kelly—or Deputy Kelly, as he objects to the "O"—is strongly interested in that point of housing the working-classes, particularly the cellar dwellers. I am equally interested. I am also interested in housing the agricultural workers, who get 24/- a week or less. At the present time there is a scheme before the Minister for about 900 cottages for rural County Dublin, to house the agricultural labourers. The spokesmen of the Government, including the Minister for Finance, that well-read, well-fed and well-bred gentleman who adorns those Front Benches—unfortunately he is absent at the moment—have gone around the County Dublin and at various cross-roads have told the agricultural labourers: "Why are you living in bad houses? It is your county council is at fault. The money is there: you have only to ask for it?" Let the Minister work out what a cottage for an agricultural labourer would cost, even though his Department meets 60 per cent. of the cost, at the rate he is advancing money. Only to-day, in a minor scheme, we had approval from the Minister's Department for 27 cottages —a minor scheme or the trimmings of a larger scheme which we have put through. We are paying 5½ per cent. for that money. I hope, when the Minister is concluding this debate, he will be able to promise us cheaper money. If he is able to promise cheaper money he will solve the problem which I cannot see solved without cheaper money. I hope the Minister will be in a position to offer us cheaper money.

Take even the cottages that came before us to-day, which the Minister Department sanctioned in the course of the week; I forget the amount involved, but it is at the rate of 5½ per cent. No local authority can build a cottage for an agricultural labourer and let it to him at a price he can afford to pay if money cannot be made available at less than five and a half per cent. What case can the Minister make for five and a half per cent? He is aware that the Dublin Corporation borrowed money at £4 8s. 6d. per cent. last year, and it could be borrowed more cheaply now. He knows that the British Government is borrowing money now at two per cent. on long-term loan. Why cannot we get money for housing the working classes at two or three per cent.? Pious hopes of building houses, and the mythical houses that have been built on political platforms, may fool people at one time, but they will not fool them all the time. The housing problem is a financial one, and the only way to solve it is by getting cheaper money. In the City of Dublin we have facilities for getting cheap money. We have our own separate credit in the city, and if a sensible corporation maintains that credit it can borrow money at market price. The rural local bodies have no such borrowing power. They have no authority to borrow. They have no authority to issue stock as the Dublin Corporation have.

I want to remind the Minister of a matter that he probably is aware of. Just about a year ago, when the Dublin Corporation decided on working the extended Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, passed in 1931, we asked the Minister for money. We asked him for a quarter of a million pounds, and he refused. He said: "I will give you £50,000, and the rate will be five and a half per cent." We promptly refused that for two reasons, that £50,000 was hopelessly inadequate, and that the rate of interest was too high. We then put a loan on the market. We were getting half a million pounds for ordinary capital works in the city. We added to that £50,000, and we borrowed that money at £4 8s. 6d. per cent. We have an anomaly in house building and purchasing around the suburbs of Dublin. Take Upper Ballymun Road, for example. One end is in the city, and the other end is in the county. The Board of Health is working the Small Dwellings Act, as is the Corporation. A man who wants to buy a house in the county end has to pay the Board of Health five and a half per cent. for the money, plus charges for administration, while the man who buys a house ten yards down the road, within the city portion, can borrow money from the Corporation at £4 8s. 6d. per cent., plus charges of administration. In the one case you have the credit of the State; in the other case you have the credit of the Government, for the Board of Health cannot float a loan. I am not urging that it should get that power, although some local authorities think they should have it. It is a matter that does not exactly come into this discussion. I have an open mind on it, and do not want to interfere. The point is that the Dublin Corporation is able to provide, has provided, and is providing money for house building and house purchase within the City of Dublin cheaper than the Government has provided money for house building and house purchase anywhere. I am sorry that the benches behind the Minister are so thinned out of all the statesmen and orators who tell us of the thousands of houses the Fianna Fáil Government have built since they came into office. We heard in the campaign that was carried on of the thousands that were built.

Look at all the Deputy has behind on his own benches.

I am speaking, and I am quite enough here. I hope that the back benches opposite will get filled up, that my argument will be replied to, and knocked out, if that is possible. I know the Deputies opposite will not attack it, and that it will not be knocked out because it cannot be. I am stating facts. We were told about the thousands of houses that were built since the Fianna Fáil Government came into office. I want to say that in the City of Dublin they were built on money raised on the credit of the Dublin Corporation on which our Party held a majority. The Dublin Corporation, by the good administration of our Party, was able to provide money, aye in millions, for house building and house purchase at one per cent. cheaper than the Government were able to supply money. Would the Minister tell me if he has given as much as one £5 note to any local authority to operate the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act under 5½ per cent.? The Dublin Corporation have put up £400,000 at £4 8s. 6d. per cent.? The housing schemes they are carrying out are financed by money at the same rate within the city, while the agricultural labourer in the county has to pay 5½ per cent. on the money the Minister provides. If the Dublin Corporation is able to provide money at 4½ per cent., why are the Government not able to do it? There is no use in telling us that there is any amount of money available for housing unless it is available at the market price, and 5½ per cent. is not the market price now. No local authority can use that money to carry out large schemes of building without inevitably bankrupting itself if it has to pay 5½ per cent for it.

If the housing problem, particularly in the rural parts where the local bodies have no power to borrow money in the open market, is to be solved, it can only be solved by the Government putting cheap money at their disposal. I hope the Minister will not reduce—I am sure he will not—the amount of money that he proposes to give for housing. I would be glad to see him increase it. From my experience of housing administration in the County and City of Dublin, both by the Board of Health and the Corporation, the housing problem cannot be solved, especially in the county, unless money is made available at a cheap rate, and it cannot be made available either under the Labourers Acts or the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts except through the Minister. It is for the Minister to get the money for the local bodies at a cheap rate and hand it out to every county body to build houses for the workers: to help people who want to build houses for themselves under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act.

In passing, I may say that the only industry that gives any considerable employment at the present time in the City of Dublin is building. I guarantee that it is giving more employment in Dublin than the 300 odd factories that we hear so much about from the Front Bench are giving. These 300 odd factories are like the agricultural markets that the Minister for Agriculture speaks about but will not let us know where they are. The building of houses is giving more employment in the City of Dublin at the present time than all the new one-horse factories that have been established since the present Government came into power. My colleague, Deputy Minch, has flown. He wants some of the factories that we have in Dublin brought down to Kildare. As far as I am aware, if he got a present of the lot of them he would not have much. There was one big factory near my place—Gallaher's factory—but since the present Government came into office it has been closed up. Deputy Minch had in his own constituency a specimen of one of the factories that we very frequently hear boomed here—a sausage factory. Well, the Deputy can keep that. I do not know whether he has it now or not.

What is keeping the building trade going in Dublin? The money that is being made available by the Dublin Corporation for housing. The builders who are giving employment in the building trade in Dublin are known as speculative builders. They build a few houses and sell as they go on. If the sale of new houses ceases, then they have to cease work. They are men of limited capital. What helps the sale of houses in Dublin is that the Corporation provides 80 per cent. of the purchase price. That 80 per cent. has been made available by the Corporation floating a loan at £4 8s. 6d. per cent. There is a charge of 10/- for administration, but there is no charge in the way of a profit. That is what is keeping building going in Dublin. One per cent. on top of that would stop building in Dublin, and it is I per cent. on top of that that represents. the best the Government can do. If the Government want to help people who are making a great effort to help themselves in buying their own homes, it would be well, I think, for the Minister to think out a solution by providing cheap money for building, taking perhaps a little more risk than the 80 per cent. in making advances. I know that the Act provides for 90 per cent., but the Minister will appreciate the danger of a local authority taking an all-round 90 per cent. risk. I may inform the Minister that although I am interested in building, as a corporator I opposed going beyond the 80 per cent. margin because I hope to see the Act extensively worked. If it is extensively worked it might be very serious for the Corporation, as a result of a depression in business or some other cause, to have a lot of house purchasers thrown on its hands, people who were not able to pay their instalments.

I think the Minister should try to devise some means of increasing the percentage and let the State shoulder some risk. He will appreciate that it would be a very serious matter for a local authority to undertake a bigger risk than the present 80 per cent. If the Minister could have a scheme that, say, the local authority should have first claim of 80 per cent. and the national authority would take another 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., as a second charge, so to speak, on the property, thereby reducing the money that the house purchaser is to find to about 10 per cent. or 5 per cent., it would be going a long way to solving the housing problem. I believe such a system operates in the big cities in England. Such a system would solve the housing difficulty for the working classes, too. As the Minister is aware, as an ex-member of the Dublin Corporation, there are people living in houses built by the Dublin Corporation for workers and let at 12/- to 15/- a week. There are people occupying these houses earning £6, £7, £8 or £9 a week. If such people were facilitated to purchase their own homes by the State, the local authority advancing between 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of the actual market value of the houses, they would buy their own houses instead of taking up the houses occupied by the workers.

There are many other points that I would like to raise, but if I raise too many points I am afraid the Minister will get away and not answer the salient points. I will just go over them again. I want to stick him to the agricultural grant. I hope he will not fall into the mistake into which he has so often fallen of looking on this as charity. It is a debt that is owed to the farmers, and if everybody was to pay his debts down in the line of succession this is a debt due by the Minister as successor to the landlords. Of course, I do not mean that personally. I mean it in reference to his office.

There is another point with which I should like to deal, and that is the question of Irish slates. I do not suggest that the Minister should relax his efforts in pushing the use of Irish slates and Irish material, but I do want him to consider the case where the producer of the material has not obviously done his part and where the people who wanted to use that material have done all that could reasonably be expected of them. But they could not use the material because it was not available when wanted. The Minister has discretionary power in that matter, and I am sure he will use it in the right way.

I should also like the Minister to tell us whether the Dublin County Council is a legal or illegal body, and whether the other twenty-six county councils are legal or illegal bodies. Surely the whole twenty-seven county councils cannot be legal if the Dublin County Council is in a different position. If one is right the others are not. I hope the Minister will tell us which is which.

There is another point, and that is in order to facilitate the local authorities both in urban and rural areas, it is up to the Minister, as soon as he possibly can, to provide cheap money on loan to the local authorities. If the Minister wants his grandiose housing schemes to get beyond the architect's office, or even to get as far as the architect's office, he must deal with this matter.

The last point is to consider whether the Central Government should not shoulder some of the risk anyway that the local authorities are asked to shoulder under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, and thereby increase the percentage of advance that would be made to house purchasers and consequently diminish the cash payments required from the house purchasers. The question of building is a question of the builders getting the houses off their hands. There is no trouble in building your house, but it is hard to get paid for it. There is no trouble in producing an article of any kind. The whole trouble is to get a market for it. Anybody who has any business experience knows that. The Minister can do the whole thing on the lines I have suggested, but the principal point of all is the provision of cheap money. I hope the Minister will refer to that and hold out a substantial hope that cheap money will be made available for local authorities, urban and rural, in the near future. If he can do that regardless of the number of houses that have been built he will have gone on the right road and the longest possible way that anybody has yet gone towards solving the housing problem.

The Minister might, if he can spare a moment after answering Deputy Belton's questions and problems, devote a minute or two to the few minor points I want to put before him. I want, in the first instance, to refer to the milk distribution scheme and ask him if he can indicate what machinery he is setting up by which investigations can be conducted and the scheme carried out in a proper fashion. The sanitary authorities are now, I understand, to be the authorities for distributing milk. I want to point out that in a lot of cases there is not that machinery necessary for the proper investigation at the disposal of sanitary authorities. Take an urban district, for instance. The sanitary authority there has not available the services of the home assistance officer. It has no machinery by which it can say who are entitled to the milk. Under the county sanitary system the home assistance officer is not always the proper officer to administer this. In many cases it will be difficult to make the necessary investigations to see that a proper distribution is carried out.

With regard to labourers' cottages, I know that the Minister has got into a good deal of difficulty with reference to Irish material, and I quite see the point that a good many people were not able to get Irish slates in the building of their houses. Possibly there will be a difficulty in getting Irish materials for cottages, but there are in many places in the country the kind of material that could be used and that would give employment if it were used in the construction of these labourers' cottages. For instance, a certain percentage of them might be erected of stone and a certain percentage of them might have their back kitchens flagged instead of having title or cement floors. There are many places where there are flags available by which the kitchen could be stone-flagged. In my own county there is available a certain quantity of stones that are quarried and ready for use, and I think the Minister ought to indicate to the authorities that these flags should be used in the way I suggest.

It is all very well to say that one is boosting one's own district. One has to boost one's own district, and this is the only way you can get a Government Department to realise that there are opportunities in that district. There are opportunities in Clare at the present time for the production of flag stones. They are far better flooring than some of the floors I have seen in houses both in urban and rural districts. If you want to have your kitchen clean and kept clean, you have got to brush it, and in brushing it, in the case of a cement floor, you raise dust and you have a bad atmosphere, whereas if you have flags you will not have that difficulty and you will have none of that dust that is so injurious to the membranes of the children in the house. I know that already the Minister has done something in that direction. He has done a good deal, I know, with one authority that was likely to do anything in the matter. I would like if he would do more. I would like if he would get the local authority in the county and some other local authority also to use a percentage of these local materials. That would get some people employment in the area. I believe the Minister's intention is to give as much employment as possible. Where these things are available for building, that is the place to start giving the employment. Where grants are made in the matter of erecting county institutions, there ought to be no unnecessary delay in releasing the money and starting the work. We have a distinct grievance in County Clare. We have a big unemployment problem, and the Minister should see to it that when grants are available this scheme should be put into operation at once with the object of relieving that unemployment.

I should like to refer to road-making. Road-making is becoming more or less a national concern, and probably that is the correct form it should take. Most of our county council yards at present resemble a miniature Harland and Wolff's, with machinery of all kinds—stone crushers and all sorts of things. Farmers are selling stone walls to county surveyors for the purpose of supplying materials for road-making. Surely where quarries are available—and they are available in practically every county— it ought to be possible for the Minister, when grants are made available for road-making purposes, to insist strongly that the road material should be quarried so as to give more employment. The Minister ought to give attention to these matters. By so doing he will extend employment, and, in some cases, relieve local rates. He will, at least, have the people doing something that is reproductive. Finally, I would like to know if there is any information available regarding the probable cost of immunisation. Has the Minister considered the extension of that scheme, and has he considered whether it would repay the cost? I believe it is necessary at present, and there is a good deal of opinion hardening in the direction that it might be desirable to have the scheme extended.

I will start off by making a confession. I was going to go to the "dogs" to-night, but I heard Deputy Belton speaking and I decided to stay. You get more fun out of Deputy Belton than you would at the "dogs" any night in the week, even though you have him with you. Deputy Belton started off by telling us how the agricultural grant originated, and he followed that down along the road. The Deputy is in the wrong place. When he becomes a member of a Party——

Forgive him and make up your mind to speak on the motion.

——he accepts all the sins that Party committed.

Let Deputy Corry talk away; he has nothing else to do.

Deputy Belton accepts them all with their faults.

Talk to the motion.

Order who?

This is not the Corporation.

I would like to ask Deputy Belton how many labourers' cottages the Dublin County Council built from 1922 to 1932?

How many did your crowd knock down?

We had not them all knocked down when you came to us.

And we paid sixpence in the pound in County Dublin for six years for the damage you did. That would build a lot, Martin.

The number of houses built in Dublin since 1922 has nothing to do with this Estimate.

Deputy Belton went back to the origin of the agricultural grant. I am going back only to 1922.

I am not now concerned with what Deputy Belton did. I am informing the Deputy that a discussion about Dublin houses erected since 1922 is out of order.

I accept your ruling. Deputy Belton tells us about the number they are going to build. He says they will build 900 this year. Why are they able to build them? Because this Government has made it a practical proposition to build them; the Government is putting down 60 per cent. of the cost of building them.

Why did you not come in to do that in 1922?

That is the reason why Deputy Belton's Council is building 900 labourers' cottages. He knows very well that if Cumann na nGaedheal were in power for the next 20 years there would not be a labourer's cottage built in the country. This is a point I would like to sink home on Deputy Belton. He came in here wrapped in the cloak of a Party that for the last ten years left plots vacant and left labourers without houses. He came in here to advocate that policy. We are building 1,200 labourers' cottages in Cork. We are getting £250,000 for their construction and the Government are contributing £150,000 of that amount. That is the main reason why we are able to build them. When Deputy Belton complains about the agricultural grant that is one of the things we should remember. We lost something between £45,000 and £50,000 in the reduction of the agricultural grant, but we gained £150,000 for the erection of labourers' cottages with the guarantee that if we build 1,200 more cottages next year we will get another grant of £150,000.

What do you make out of them?

We are building houses for our people. You and your Party left those people without houses.

You do not make a sufficient profit on them to counterbalance the loss of the agricultural grant.

I certainly must agree with Deputy Belton in regard to the loan charges. They are too high. I think the local bodies are as well entitled to a cheap rate of money as those who get loans under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act.

It is Deputy Corry who is with the wrong Party.

I agree with Deputy Belton that we should get loans at cheaper rates. We are entitled to a cheaper rate of money and we should get it. I hope the Minister will see that his Department advances money as cheaply as the Department of Industry and Commerce.

It should be cheaper.

When Deputy Belton talks about labourers' cottages he should remember that he is a member of a Party that gave no money to build labourers' cottages. If they had been elected as a Government at the last election they would have built labourers' cottages, and if they were the Government to-day Deputy Belton would be defending their action in building no labourers' cottages and providing no money for housing. He told us all about the agricultural grant. He started tracing the history of the million pounds given here, but he knew little about that. He told us about the Agricultural League, as if anybody in this country takes notice of half the leagues that spring up in Dublin. These leagues are like snow in the sun, they melt away under its first rays. I do not know how many leagues Deputy Belton started.

You will not forget one of them—the league that brought you in here.

You came in here, on your account, and we kicked you out, and kept you out for a long time in sackcloth and ashes. You should not forget that.

Deputies should not address fellow-Deputies in the second person in this House.

I bow to your ruling. Deputy Belton, as I say, knew very little of the position in regard to the agricultural grant, or the means by which the Fianna Fáil Party wrenched out of the reluctant Government which was then in power £750,000 for an agricultural grant.

And your Government took it back this year.

We had the admission here by an ex-Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, and Deputy Morrissey also, giving me the credit for getting that grant. I succeeded in getting that £750,000 out of them and we added to it £250,000 more last year.

And took back £450,000 this year.

If the Cumann na nGaedheal Government returned to office the £750,000 that they gave might, or might not, have remained, but the £250,000 would not have been added to it, and the one and a half millions, or something over that, that the farming community are getting in the 50 per cent. reduction in their annuities would still have to be paid.

Are the farmers not paying that twice over to England to-day?

The Deputy should not talk trash. When I weigh up the difference between complete derating of agricultural land, as it exists in Northern Ireland and England, against the 50 per cent. reduction in annuities, I plump for the 50 per cent. reduction. I stand over that, and I contend our people gained well by it. I believe we will have to go ahead more quickly with the housing scheme, and I would ask the Minister's Department not to be so fond of holding matters up for months when they get to the Department.

May I remind the Deputy of one point which he has forgotten? Is the County Council of Cork a legal body or not?

Deputy Belton, although he paid £220 for law, does not seem to have had enough of it. If I were a ratepayer in the County Dublin, I would not like to see the money that the Deputy says I cannot pay spent on counsel for learning a law point, especially when they were drawing £20 and £10 additional for retainers.

One of them served Hamar Greenwood for seven guineas a day.

What did the Deputy lose in Cork last week?

Order. Deputy Belton spoke for 50 minutes without interruption. He should not now interrupt other Deputies.

Deputy Mulcahy is interested in someone that served Hamar Greenwood, but the Deputy was far worse than Hamar Greenwood. I went to jail under both of them, and the Deputy was the worse jailer.

I might be a better judge.

You were not. It is a very bad judge that shoots men without trial.

You are not referring to Deputy Anthony's point?

I am referring to your point and you ought to know it. But to get back to the Local Government Vote, Deputy Mulcahy is rather vocal upon it now. I am sorry I did not wait until he had spoken. I would like him to say something on the matter.

I raised my points when the Estimate was before us.

I would like the Deputy to tell the House the reason why there were 900 labourers' cottages built in County Dublin this year and why none were built for the ten years previously. I know that there are 1,200 built in Cork, and none during the period that Deputy Mulcahy was in office, and I know the reason why. I know that appeals were made to Deputy Mulcahy when he was in office to give the agricultural labourers some chance to get sanitary houses, and he turned a deaf ear to that appeal, and he also turned a deaf ear to the appeal of the small farmers. When we made appeals to Deputy Mulcahy, when he was Minister, to give the small farmers some grant to keep the rain from coming down upon them in their hovels, Deputy Mulcahy had a special clause brought in, specially framed, to see that agriculturists, whether farmers or labourers, gained nothing out of the money from the Central Fund here. Deputy Mulcahy took care of that.

The labourer had wages when we were in office that he has not got now.

Deputy Mulcahy says that the labourers had wages when he was in office. They had. I saw the wages that were paid them, and I know the means I had to adopt to circumvent the wages paid. Twenty-nine shillings a week was paid in the town of Cobh out of relief grants under the Deputy's Government to men who, this year under our relief grants, are getting 37/6 and £2.

That will be news to some people.

What kind of work?

Road work in the town of Cobh.

What about the circular?

The circular was well worn before we came into office. It was after going the rounds for a long time. No man in my constituency worked for that wage. It is rather amusing to hear Deputy Mulcahy on wages. The town of Cobh benefited under Deputy Mulcahy's rule to the extent of £1,000 in five years and that town got £4,500 last winter. Deputy Mulcahy makes out that the men there were working when he was in office. They were not. It did not matter then whether a man had been idle for ten years, five years or three years or whether he had a wife and six or seven children or not. A young jackeen who had come out of the National Army after three months' service was entitled to a preference over a man who had been idle ten, five or three years. That man might have a wife and five or six children but the preference would go even to an unmarried man. The men have, at least, fair play now.

They can all starve together now.

Deputy Belton does not show much sign of starving yet. He backed the wrong horse at the general election. He was so sure of Cumann na nGaedheal coming in——

I must ask the Deputy to get down to the Vote which is under discussion.

I have been dealing with it all night.

The Deputy will not be permitted indirectly to challenge the Chair in that way. He must either get back to the Vote before the House or resume his seat. A few Deputies are developing a habit of implicitly challenging the ruling of the Chair. That must cease.

I regret that I was taken as doing that. I had no intention whatsoever of challenging the ruling of the Chair. I am sorry I was led away by Deputy Mulcahy's interruptions. Those are the two points with which Deputy Belton dealt. I am anxious that the Minister should take note of a couple of matters which I shall deal with as quickly as possible. One is the delay in his Department in issuing sanctions Another is the very great delay in regard to reconstruction grants. Reconstruction forms are sent up to the Local Government Department and are delayed there for months. Nobody hears anything about them, and an applicant does not know whether he should proceed with the building of his house or not. There is too much delay in regard to these matters, and it is delay for which nobody can stand. A man who fills a form of application for a grant for a new house or a grant for reconstruction expects to get word within a couple of months as to whether he can proceed with the work or not. He should have not to wait until next year or until Tibb's Eve. We expect that the Local Government Department will not be so lax in future. If it is, there is only one way of curing it. That is to hold the Minister here until 11 o'clock on a couple of nights, answering questions on the adjournment. We hope that we shall not have to adopt that course, and that whatever the cause of the delay is will be rectified. We do not want to be writing five or six letters. one after the other, to the Local Government Department asking when an applicant's house is going to be inspected, or when he is going to get a grant for building. A man who is anxious to start building operations in April or May should not be kept waiting until November.

Deputy Corry stated that, under the Cosgrave Government, there were scarcely any houses built. I should like to tell him that under the Cosgrave Government in 1923—immediately after the Civil War—one of the best grants ever given for housing in this country was provided. That was that for every £100 or £1,000 a local body would subscribe, the Government would give a free grant of double the amount. If a rate of a shilling in the £ were struck by a county council or urban council for housing, the Government would give a free grant of double the proceeds of that rate. I happened to be chairman of an urban council at that period, and I should like to tell the Deputy of the co-operation we got from the Party to which he belonged. A circular was sent out from the Local Government Department, and the advice of the followers of the Deputy's Party was: "Throw it in the wastepaper basket; we will not co-operate with those traitors in Merrion Street." That was the co-operation Deputy Cosgrave got. As Deputy Belton said, he has done good work in bringing the Deputies opposite in here because now there is decent co-operation. We will co-operate and help in every way as regards the building of houses. But to say that no houses were built until the Deputies opposite came in here is a bit of a joke.

Would the Deputy mention where they were built?

County Dublin.

In the Pembroke Urban District, where I was chairman of the council.

And Dublin City left you in the lurch after all you spent on it.

We wiped the boards with you last week.

The Department of Local Government is responsible for the supervision of the expenditure of a good deal more money than is shown in this Estimate. The two big things done by this Government since they came into office in 1932 have been done by this Department—the passing of the Housing Bill, which came into operation in October, and the passing of the amending Old Age Pensions Act, which scrapped the red-tape regulations which prevailed under the Minister's predecessor and which prevented many deserving people over 70 years of age from getting what they were entitled to—the maximum pension allowance of 10/- per week. I should like to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that he has at his disposal in his Department—a well-organised Department with a very efficient staff —the necessary number to enable him sympathetically to administer the Housing Act and the Old Age Pensions Act.

I was glad to hear Deputy Belton encouraging the Minister to go ahead with the policy enshrined in the Housing Act of 1932. I am certain that if he had been ten years a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party he would not have criticised the Minister in the language he did this evening. At all events, before attempting to do so, he would have looked up the housing record of the Cumann na nGaedheal Ministry and compared it, if he were able to get the figures, with the record of this Ministry since they came into office in 1932.

It is not necessary to be a member of the House in order to get the record.

If the Deputy had been continuously a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party for ten years he would have hesitated before he criticised the Minister for failing to take advantage of all the opportunities for house building. You can pass the best measures possible, but if not sympathetically administered they prove useless to the people whom they were intended to benefit. I have only a limited experience—the same perhaps as any other active Deputy in the House—in answering communications addressed to me in connection with applications for grants under the housing scheme, but there has been an increase in such applications, and also a very large increase in the number of applications for pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act. There is a certain amount of delay in dealing with these applications which, I think, is due to the fact that the sections of the Department concerned with the administration of these two Acts have not at their disposal the necessary number of staff to do the work of dealing with the applications within the time in which it should be done. If that is the case, I think the Minister should give an assurance to the House that any further staff that may be necessary will be forthcoming in so far as these Acts should be administered in a proper and sympathetic spirit.

Grants are available for the carrying out of public health works to a greater extent, I am glad to say, under the Fianna Fáil Government than they were available under the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. I should like to ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he could say, when he is replying, what is the amount that will be made available out of the Relief Vote, passed by the Dáil last week, in order to enable local authorities to undertake the carrying out of sewerage and waterworks schemes. I understand that the Minister has promised that he would allocate a higher percentage for the carrying out of such works than his predecessor allocated. Could the Minister indicate what is the minimum percentage allowed to local authorities for the carrying out of public health works and also what is the maximum, if there is a maximum, in connection with applications of that kind? I am aware that a number of such schemes are under the consideration and have been for some time past under the consideration of the Minister's Department. Now that the Vote for the relief of unemployment was passed last week, I hope no further unnecessary delay will take place on the part of the Minister's Department in conveying this information to the boards of health, who can undertake this kind of work better at this time of year.

The Minister's Department is responsible for the setting up of two Commissions since the Minister came into office. The purpose of one of these Commissions was to inquire into the conditions under which it might be possible for agricultural labourers, living in labourers' cottages, to purchase their houses. I should like to know from the Minister what is the cause of the delay in publishing the report of this Commission which, I understand, was submitted some time ago to the Minister's Department for that purpose. The reason I ask is that during the course of the last general election it was stated in a paper, which has the ear of the Minister, that an Interim Report had been submitted. As a result of that report, certain suggestions were thrown out in the "Irish Press" as to what was likely to be done by the Government following the recommendations contained in the Interim Report. Now that we know the Final Report has been submitted to the Minister some time ago, I think Deputies are entitled to have it circulated at the earliest possible date. Perhaps the Minister will say in his reply when it is intended to circulate the report and when the Government expect to put the policy, recommended in the report, into operation.

The Minister is responsible for the setting up of another, and, perhaps, equally, if not more, important Commission; namely, a Commission for the purpose of drafting a scheme or schemes for the provision of pensions for widows and orphans. Again, I am informed that the report of that Commission is in the hands of the Minister's Department and has been for some time. The members of this Party and, I am sure, the members of all Parties in the House, as well as the people in the country, who were promised a scheme of this kind by the Minister for Finance, would like to have access to the recommendations of that very important body at the earliest possible date. I notice that the small amount set aside for the travelling expenses of the Housing Board is much less this year than the amount which was provided last year. Am I to understand that it is not the intention of the Minister or his Department to allow the Housing Board to go around as and when required, or what is the meaning of the reduction in the very small amount allocated for that body this year as compared with last year? I think it is very desirable that the members of this very important body should go where and when possible and meet the boards of health as a body and give them whatever information they have at their disposal in order to expedite the operation of housing schemes on a more extensive scale than up to the present time.

The boards of health know more about it.

I will not admit that. Deputy Belton, of course, is a member of what he, no doubt, regards as the most important board in the country. I am satisfied that the Housing Board, as a result of their access to Departmental records, have information at their disposal which would be very useful to members of a board of health, and I hold the view— I may not be correct in it, but I think I am—that the presence of members of the Housing Board at meetings of the boards of health would give far greater encouragement to these bodies to go ahead than perhaps the presence of a minor official of the Minister's own Department. With regard to the housing policy of the Minister, in so far as it concerns the provision of material to be used in the erection of houses—I know that I may be speaking as a voice in the wilderness in making the suggestion—I think that encouragement should be given, where possible and where the material is available, to local bodies to build houses of brick rather than of cement. There is one urban council in my constituency, the most progressive council in the locality, which always insists when inviting tenders for houses that they should be of brick or stone. I think the Minister may know that that particular body has built houses of brick which has been got from a local brickyard. The cost of the erection of the houses by brick is not any greater than it would be to build the same houses with cement, and the result is that in this year it has led to the opening of an old brickyard and given a lot of employment. There are four or five brickyards in my constituency, and I think it would be advisable that the Minister at least should not discourage any such cases where the local body can get material within a reasonable radius and at the same cost as cement or stone. I am not an expert on the question of house building, but I have heard some very prominent medical men, who are members of this House, say that a house built of brick has a longer life and is healthier to live in than one built with cement blocks and things of that kind.

It is a drier house.

If it is, it is a healthier house.

It is certainly not worse.

There is another matter that it is desirable I should bring under the notice of the Minister and, particularly, under the notice of his Parliamentary Secretary who has been dealing with this particular matter. There has been a dispute going on in the County Offaly for the past four years as to the site upon which a local county hospital should be erected. For the past one and a half years, however, the question at issue is the simple one as to whether it should be built in this field or that field. I have reason to believe that the Parliamentary Secretary has made a very careful study of this question and I believe he has seen deputations representing the board of health, or different sections of the board at least two or three times in connection with the issue in dispute. The matter I am concerned with is the necessity for the erection of a proper county hospital when the money is available and also for the erection of suitable district hospital accommodation in the same county. The people who are looking for and entitled to have modern hospital accommodation are not concerned as to whether the hospital will be erected in this field or that field. This particular county board of health is involved in the payment of heavy charges for people who have to be sent to Dublin for treatment as a result of the failure of the local authority to agree to the scheme for the expenditure of this money. The money is there. The sick poor are entitled to the accommodation. The workers who are looking for work are entitled to the work and no better work could be undertaken. I, therefore, suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, and it is the view of the majority of the local people, that having studied all the facts and figures, and having the expert knowledge which he undoubtedly has as a medical officer, he should take such action without further delay as will enable that very necessary work to be started without any further squabbling between the different sections of the board of health as to whether the hospital, which is so urgently necessary, will be built in this field or that field.

There has been very little criticism levelled against the Minister or his Department. I am not going to offer any criticism, because the Minister, since he came into office, has done a good deal by way of helping with housing, and he has been ably assisted by his very efficient staff. There is, however, a matter to which I should like to refer, which has been already dealt with by Deputy Davin, and that is in connection with bricks. We, in Dundalk, are very near the Border. Unfortunately, at the moment there are no bricks manufactured locally, although some years ago bricks of a very fine quality were manufactured there and at an economic price, which is the main factor with regard to bricks. At the same time, in Northern Ireland there are many brickyards at present manufacturing large quantities of bricks of good quality—ordinary stock bricks—which could be delivered in Dundalk and towns immediately adjoining the Border at a price varying from 63/- to 70/- per thousand. The price asked for ordinary stock bricks manufactured in the Free State, as far as my information goes, is in the neighbourhood of £5 per thousand. Even allowing that the average price of Northern Ireland bricks is 70/- per thousand, there is a difference of 30/- per thousand between that and the price of bricks manufactured in the Free State. That difference of from 30/- to £2 in the price would mean for an ordinary house, which would take 15,000 to 20,000 bricks to erect, that there would be an increased charge for rent, if such a house were rented by a public authority, of anything from 1/6 to 2/- per week, which is a very important factor when one considers the capacity of people to pay high rents at present.

There is also the other point of view which I should like to put before the Minister, and that is the very large number of craftsmen who have followed the trades of bricklayers and stone masons. It is a very ancient craft. The craftsmen engaged in this trade have been responsible all down through the ages for erecting great buildings in different countries, buildings which have excited the admiration not only of the people who lived in these particular countries but also of the people who happened to visit them. If this system of forcing people to use cement as the chief commodity in the erection of the houses as against brick or stone is persisted in, there is a great danger that in a few years we shall have no bricklayers or stone masons in the country at all. Again, as Deputy Davin pointed out, there is a very serious difference of opinion not alone amongst architects and engineers, but also amongst medical men, as to the relative value of cement houses and brick houses. The general opinion amongst the ordinary public is that a brick house is much drier than a concrete house. Anyone who has any experience of building knows that it is very difficult to make a flat roof of cement waterproof. If you walk along the streets on an ordinary damp day, even when it is not raining, you will notice a sort of sweat appearing on footpaths made of cement. That also occurs in kitchen floors made of cement. You can visualise what it means to little children coming down on a cold winter's morning to a kitchen with a cement floor. According to medical testimony, it has been the cause perhaps of a great increase in that terrible disease, tuberculosis. I would impress upon the Minister the advisability, if it is at all possible, of allowing public authorities to erect brick houses when they are willing to do so. The difference in the cost of erection of a brick house and a house built of solid concrete or concrete blocks, say, 4½ by 4½, with a cavity between, is very slight. The difference in the cost would be from £10 to £15, and I know from experience that, as far as the people of Dundalk are concerned, they are prepared to pay 6d. a week extra for brick houses as against concrete ones. I know that the Minister's policy, representing that of the Government, is "all out" for increasing industries in the Free State, a policy with which, to a certain extent, I agree, still, in connection with house building the Minister might, without militating against the manufacture of bricks in other parts of the Saorstát, allow a certain quantity to be imported from Northern Ireland.

The same argument holds regarding the prices of other commodities used in the erection of houses. I am bringing these facts before the Minister, because I know that he is doing all he possibly can to have houses provided as cheaply as possible, in order that the rents may be low. Sometimes, I think, he does not get that co-operation that he should get from all concerned in the building of houses. It is with a view to assisting him that I suggest it would be no harm if he, or some of his officials, gave some attention to the great difference that exists between the cost of timber in Northern Ireland and in the Free State. As regards mouldings, floorings, scantlings, and timber used in the manufacture of windows and doors, the difference in cost is enormous. It is possible to import timber for these articles from Northern Ireland, and to pay the duty, and to have it cheaper than it can be got in the City of Dublin, or in any other city in the Free State. The same may be said about slates. It is well known to everyone who reads the newspapers, and who takes an interest in local affairs, that as regards the supply of Irish slates, the thing is a joke. Where orders were given to Irish quarries six or eight months ago, there is no hope, even to-day, that they will be fulfilled. I am not decrying the work of the Irish quarries. I know that they have been inundated with orders from all parts of the country, and that it is impossible for them to meet the demand. That being so, the Minister there, as in the case of bricks, should consider the question of allowing a certain quantity of slates to be imported, so as to enable builders, or private individuals, whose operations are being kept back on that account, to proceed with their work.

Anyone who has experience of the building trade knows that any little delay means more cost in the erection of houses. Once a builder starts with his work he likes to have the stuff coming along in rotation, because delay means that the work is going to cost him more, and incidentally the person for whom the house is being provided. I hope the Minister will give these matters serious consideration, especially in the case of bricks and slates.

A good deal has been said regarding the erection of cottages. I am not going to dwell on that now, except to say, in answer to Deputy Corry, that I would like to see the rate of interest as low as possible. It is not easy sometimes to secure that. The Minister has to borrow the money, and sometimes he has to pay a rate of interest much higher than he would like to pay. I cannot see much hope of a reduction in interest charges at present unless, in the near future, it is possible to float a loan, which would enable local bodies to reduce interest charges by one per cent. or two per cent.

In reply to Deputies who made a comparison between the number of cottages built by the late Government and by the present Government, I would remind them that some years ago, when the late Government was in office, it was much more difficult to build houses than it is now, even though it is difficult now. The rate of interest some years ago was much higher, and the cost of building was higher than it is now. I would go as far as to say that if houses had been erected on a large scale some years ago an intolerable burden would have been placed on the finances of the State, as well as on the people for whom the houses were built, in the form of higher rents. When making a comparison of the houses built by the present Government and by the late Government many circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I take the view that all Governments would like to build as many houses as possible, because they know very well that good houses are essential for the welfare of the people.

The Minister is aware that numbers of tenants of houses built by public bodies would like to purchase their houses. It seems that under the last Housing Act passed by the Government urban councils are precluded from selling the houses to the tenants. As these bodies were empowered to do so in previous Housing Acts, a certain amount of dissatisfaction exists. I know that to be the case in Dundalk. The Minister was in that town lately opening new houses—I am sure he was pleased with his visit, as we all were— and I think one of the matters referred to was the question of the purchase of the houses by tenants. As far as I know the tenants are anxious to purchase in the same way as the tenants who occupy houses erected under previous Acts. As ownership creates a spirit of civic responsibility, it would be appreciated if it was at all possible for the Minister by order to allow urban authorities to sell these houses. It would relieve local bodies, such as urban councils, from a heavy item of annual expenditure on repairs. If a person knows that his house will be his own he will take greater interest in it, and will carry out certain repairs at much less cost than they could be carried out by local authorities.

Some confusion exists as to whether persons who are not drawing home assistance at present will be entitled to a supply of free milk under the milk scheme. I do not know if the Minister for Finance has decided that question. I do not think the Minister has made any regulation as to whether persons who are not receiving home assistance are entitled to free milk. I know that next September the carrying out of the scheme will be entrusted to the authorities in the urban areas, and that other changes will be made. Pending that, I would like the Minister to let the House know what is the exact procedure regarding the distribution of milk.

I have not very much more to say except to mention, in reply to Deputy Davin, that I do not think that a housing board would be of much assistance to public bodies. I think that public bodies will be able to carry on very well. The only thing that I can see that militates against housing at the moment is the cost, and there, again, I would like to see a little more co-operation in endeavouring to reduce the cost of building. That seems to be a point that is not adverted to by very many people. It might be a rather unpopular point, but it does seem strange that the cost of house building to-day should be three times what it was in pre-war days. What the cause is I do not know. I know that the State is doing all it possibly can, and I think that there should be some reduction in the cost of building. It would be to the interest of all concerned and might make for more continuity. It would also, amongst other things, mean more constant employment and more houses. The Government has done its part and I think the general public should do a little as well in order to help this very worthy object of the provision of houses for the people. I hope the Minister will do all he can to meet the points I have raised, especially in regard to the imports of bricks and slates. They are two very important things in connection with the erection of houses. Bricks and slates are two building commodities, at the moment, which are agitating the minds of those engaged in house building in the towns situated along the border, and I hope the Minister will give that matter favourable consideration.

A great variety of matters has been dealt with in the course of this debate. I do not know whether I am expected to go, in detail, into every one, but I will try to cover as many of them as I can. First, with regard to the question of housing, it is undeniable that there are a great many more houses being built, especially by local authorities now than hitherto, and my ambition is to see more built. I think I can say for the Government that, whatever money is required to finance, under present laws and regulations, the building of houses will be forthcoming for local authorities.

Hear, hear.

At what rate?

Several Deputies have mentioned the subject of the material used in houses that have been built or that are being built. We have no idea at all of prohibiting anybody who is getting a grant from us, or whose house is being financed out of Government, or local funds, from building it of brick, stone or cement. We make no regulations on the matter except one and that is, that the cost of the house must be reasonable. If a local authority desires to build in brick, and if it can produce a house that compares reasonably in cost with the cost of the house of cement—whole cement or cement blocks—we will not put any obstacle in the way of such a local authority or individual. The same is true with regard to stone and there have been, in the last year, housing schemes—I cannot say how many—in which brick was entirely used and there have been one or two cases in which stone was used—so far as I remember, in West Cork. It is all a question of finance. We are anxious to have houses built and the more houses, as I said already, that are built, the better we will be pleased, but, if the cost is going to go up by £15, £20 or £30 a house, as it might in some cases, in building in brick or in stone, it becomes a serious consideration where you have to build a large number of houses and where you have thousands of people clamouring for houses. I think Deputies have read, as I read, of a meeting held in Cork, within the last few days, at which a couple of hundred houses were available and a thousand people were clamouring for them. So long as there is such a terrible dearth of housing accommodation and money is not very flush, even with the Government, we have to measure out our money and scrutinise every penny to get the best value we can and build the greatest number of efficient and proper houses. Remember, also, that the rents that people have to pay for these houses is a serious consideration. Every £10 added to the cost of a house is a serious consideration in the rent.

Bearing these considerations in mind as to the cost and the rent, I should like again to impress on the House that we have no desire to hinder anybody in building of any building material he wishes, provided he turns out a reasonable house, according to the plans and specifications approved of, and at a cost that will bear comparison with other types of houses. Deputies have mentioned the subject of the cost of money. That is a subject that gives us a great deal of reason for thought and consideration. Money has been dear—money for local authorities, for housing purposes and for public health purposes—but, unfortunately, the money that is now being given out on loan to local authorities by the Government, through the Minister for Finance, has had to be borrowed, as Deputy Coburn rightly said, at a high rate of interest. I do very sincerely hope from my own particular point of view, and from the Departmental point of view, particularly with regard to housing and public health schemes, that when the next loan comes to be floated by the Government—I do not know when that will be but the Minister for Finance might be able to tell us—the money will not have to be borrowed at a high rate. Deputy Belton says that the money market is cheaper now and I believe, or, at, least, we are told, that he is a great authority on finance. He says that money can be got at charges two per cent. cheaper now that it could be got a year or two ago. I hope that will turn out to be true.

It is true.

If it is true, it will certainly have a very beneficial effect on housing in the country and in stimulating public authorities to build more houses and to go in more for public health works as we would like to see them doing. It is not true to say that the high rate of interest is responsible for housing being uneconomic. If there were no such interest at all to be paid on the money loaned for housing, housing for the working classes, for the poorer classes, would still be an uneconomic proposition for local authorities and for the Government in these days. Take an example.

Will the Minister explain that.

In respect of a house costing £500 on which no interest has to be paid, the repayment of the principal per annum of a loan for 35 years will cost £14 5/- per year. Repairs will cost £2—that is a very low figure— insurance 4/6, rent collection and other minor charges, say, 15/6 per year. That gives a total of £17 5/- per year or 6/9 a week for rent. The poor people in Dublin, the working classes who are getting houses to rent, are not able to pay 6/9 and the local authority and the Government have to come in with subsidies.

Might I correct the Minister——

I refuse to be interrupted.

The Minister's figures are not correct.

I stand by them and the Deputy will have plenty of opportunities of correcting them if he is able to do so. We are quite anxious to get cheap money, as anxious as the Deputy is. I am sure he is anxious. He is building houses. I do not know, but let us say he is financing them out of loans. He may have to borrow money. I am not suggesting he has not enough capital, but let us say he has to borrow money. The money market, being as it is, has naturally a very important bearing on the number of houses he can build and even perhaps on the quality of the houses he is building. It has certainly a very important bearing for the people who will occupy these houses when the houses are there. I do hope that in the course of the next year there will be a considerable drop in interest rates. As the Deputy reminded us, money has been got in the City of Dublin and in Cork within the last couple of months at much cheaper rates. Not lately, perhaps, but within the last six or eight months, in Dublin money has been got at a cheaper rate than for a number of years. If the present economic conditions continue it is quite possible that the rate of interest on loans may be still lower by the time large loans come to be floated next year. If so we shall all benefit. The people, especially the poor people with whom we have to deal, in housing will, let us hope, benefit most.

Deputy Murphy was interested in the improvement of county homes, the buildings, at present, he says being cheerless and desolate. We are very much interested in the same subject. We should like to see better types of buildings, better accommodation inside the buildings, and better equipment— equipment of a brighter kind and not the old-fashioned workhouse appear ance that so many of our county homes even now have. An effort has been already made in County Cork to introduce a new treatment for these aged and infirm people who are usually the inhabitants of the county home, and we are watching the developments of that with great interest. We are hoping that the example given in the Nazareth Home near Mallow will be such as to induce other local authorities to improve the surroundings as far as county homes are concerned, and perhaps to model themselves on the excellent example given by the Nazareth nuns in the home of which I have spoken.

To get back to the question of housing, several Deputies mentioned the delay in the giving of grants for reconstruction and grants to private individuals for the building of new houses. When the present Housing Act came into operation late in the autumn of last year, we were absolutely flooded with applications from private individuals for grants. Probably 100,000 forms were sent out to people who applied for them to make applications for reconstruction grants and other grants. It was certain then that we had not a staff big enough to deal as rapidly as we should like with these applications, with the inspection of sites and other matters to which it is necessary to attend, so that these grants could be made available quickly. Since the Act came into operation we have very largely increased the staff. Even inside the last month, six new temporary inspectors have been put on to speed up the work of reconstruction inspection.

I believe Deputies will find that, as time goes on, there will be, as there has been already to a certain extent, a considerable speeding up of the work of inspection both in the case of reconstruction and other housing grants. Some Deputy complained of delay at Local Government headquarters, in the giving of sanctions to plans. There again we have had a considerable increase of work, but I do say that no unnecessary delay has arisen in the Housing Department with regard to the sanction of plans and schemes of housing. Where there has been delay, if the matter is enquired into, it will be seen that the delay has very frequently arisen from bad handling. I know cases in which plans have to be sent back to architects and engineers as frequently as half a dozen times. That, of course, caused delay. If officials of local authorities would be more careful in drafting their plans and in seeing that these plans comply with the regulations, there would certainly be less unnecessary delay on all sides in getting the work in hands.

Deputy Murphy, as did some other Deputies also, spoke of delays in regard to old age pensions claims. There again I have to make the same explanation for delay. Last year when the Old Age Pensions Bill was passed it meant that probably an additional 10,000 claims came into the Department. There are at present, I think, something between 8,000 and 9,000 cases of appeals awaiting hearing. We are getting through them as rapidly as we can. It has happened before, as it happened this year as the result of the passing of the new legislation, that a modification or an amendment of the law brings people to raise cases that have been decided before, or cases that have been dealt with already. In any case a great many claims, some old cases, some new cases—people who would not ordinarily have been entitled to an old age pension or who would now, because of the amending of the law, become entitled to a pension at a greater rate—have been made and these claims are being examined. That necessarily means delay. You cannot always rush in and increase your staff or you cannot always get people who are technically qualified to deal with matters of that kind in a hurry. If you do increase your staff, at the end of the year, when you have disposed of the large number of claims on hand, you have got a staff of hands for whom you have no work. We have to bear all these factors in mind. The appeals are being examined as rapidly as possible and there will be no unnecessary delay in dealing with them.

Deputy Dockrell asked about the Town Planning Bill, a subject that has been very frequently mentioned here since I came into the House. On many occasions I asked questions myself as to when the Town Planning Bill would be introduced. I have to say that I hope to be able to introduce it for First Reading before the adjournment, and I trust the House will not be disappointed once more.

I hope you will never introduce it. Nobody seems to know what town planning is.

Wait until you see this Bill. A good deal has been said on the subject of slates. Slates have given us a lot of trouble since the 1932 Housing Act was passed. I think it would be the wish of the House that we should, as far as possible, push Irish manufacture, and see that our houses are built of Irish material. We are trying to do that as far as we can, but we are certainly hampered in so far as slates are concerned. The output is not at all commensurate with the demand. Wherever it has been proved to us that people have tried to get Irish-made roofing material, and have not been successful, we have—unwillingly, but we had to do it—issued permits to those people to get material made elsewhere than in the Irish Free State. The full output from all the slate quarries is being used up. We have asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce to look into the matter and see how slate production can be increased and speeded up. We know that the matter has been under examination over a number of months, but so far, strange to say, although there is a fine field for investment of capital in slate quarries, there has not been the activity by our capitalists or investors that we should like to see.

Deputy Nally complained of delays in public health schemes in his area. In particular, he mentioned the Claremorris sewerage scheme. I understand that the Department is not at all responsible for the delay that the Deputy referred to there. Certain plans were sent up to the Department and could not be approved of. That fact was made known long ago to the local authority concerned, and they were asked to send up amended plans that would harmonise with the general sewerage requirements of the town. The Department is still awaiting the submission of those plans. As soon as we get them they will be rapidly dealt with, and, if they are suitable, approval and sanction will be sent on to Claremorris.

Deputy Anthony referred the other night to the subject of sewerage in Blarney. The Department are waiting for the Cork Board of Health to make up their minds on that scheme. As soon as the local authority has made up its mind on the matter—there seems to be some difference of opinion locally— the Department will lose no time in doing its share to help along that public health project, as all other public health projects, as far as money is available.

Deputy Coburn and some other Deputies were interested in the milk distribution scheme. The Deputy is aware that last year, and up to 1st October, the scheme is that the milk be given to the children of families on home assistance in each area. The experience gained in the last year has shown that that, perhaps, was not the best possible way of distribution, and that people who would not like to ask for home assistance but who would be entitled to and could make very beneficial use of the milk for their children were excluded. We have decided to recast this scheme, and after 1st October the distribution of the milk will be in the hands of the local sanitary authority. Where there are county medical officers of health the organisation will, I believe, be easily attended to. It will not be so easy and will involve much more patience, trouble and attention in the counties where there are no medical officers of health. There, too, the new organisation will be set up, we believe, and will be in good working order by 1st October.

I presume the Minister would be satisfied with the distribution of the milk through the medium of the Child Welfare Organisation?

Yes, certainly. Deputy Hogan mentioned a matter of particular interest to his own neighbourhood, and perhaps of interest in other places, the question of the use of fiagstones. I have been hearing a good deal about those same flagstones since I came into office. I have had I do not know how many letters from Deputies for the County Clare and other individuals impressing upon me the beauty and utility of the County Clare flagstones. We know that they are very useful, and certainly have been in times gone by used to a very considerable extent for flagging the City of Dublin. They are not so used now to any great extent I believe. I think the Deputy is aware that we did call the attention of local authorities in Clare and surrounding counties to the value of those flagstones, and as opportunity arises we will perhaps be able to do the same again.

I think I have covered fairly well all the points that were made. Deputy Coburn mentioned one point on the subject of the sale of the houses built by local authorities, to the tenants. There are difficulties there, where the houses are the subject of a very heavy subsidy by the local authority. If the Government gives 66 per cent. of the loan, and perhaps the local authority subsidises in its own way, it would hardly be right—especially when our urgent desire at present is to build houses for the lowest paid workers, and for the really uneconomic people— to sell those houses to people who would have money to buy them. Our anxiety at present is to build houses for the people who cannot do anything for themselves in the way of provision of money. The Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act we do hope will be used for the provision of houses for the type of people who are able to buy their own homes. Deputy Belton asked the Government to increase their own responsibility in so far as the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act is concerned. I do not think the Government are called upon to do any more than they have done in that way, except in so far as it may be possible, at a future date, to provide cheaper money. The last Act that was passed enabled the local authorities to give up to £1,000 on loan to help individuals to build their own houses, and to give them up to 90 per cent. of the value of the houses. I think beyond that it would not be fair to expect either the Government or the local authority to go. The local authorities have not, as a rule, taken full advantage of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act in giving up to the full 90 per cent. to the borrowers. But that is a matter for the local authorities. We would not like to interfere with them in their discretion as to how much they should give to their own citizens, but I would urge again on local authorities that have the power to do so, but have not yet adopted the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, that it would be a good and wise thing for them to use the Act and put it into operation: to use the laws that are available to scatter that money amongst their own people and encourage them to build and own their own houses. As Deputy Coburn and other Deputies said, the greater the number of citizens who own their own houses the better the civic spirit will be, and the better and healthier their own homes will be, too, I believe.

Could the Minister say when he hopes to be able to publish the report of the Cottage Tenants' Commission and the report of the Commission that was set up to deal with the question of pensions for widows and orphans?

The report of the Cottage Tenants' Commission is in the printer's hands at the moment. The report of the Commission dealing with widows and orphans pensions has not yet been received. The Commission, I understand, has not yet finished its sittings, and I have no idea at the moment when they are likely to finish.

The Minister said nothing at all about Deputy Belton's bill of costs.

I think the less we say about it the better.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share