Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Apr 1935

Vol. 55 No. 14

Estimates for Public Services. - Vote No. 41—Local Government and Public Health.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £733,058 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1936, 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, Ildeontaisí Ilghnéitheacha agus Ildeontaisí i gCabhair, agus costaisí áirithe bhaineann le hOispidéil.

That a sum not exceeding £733,058 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, 1936, 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, Sundry Miscellaneous Grants, and Grants-in-Aid, and certain charges connected with Hospitals.

The Estimate makes provision for an expenditure on social services of a sum of £983,374, of which two-thirds will be directed to the provision of improved housing accommodation. The cost of this service is going to increase annually until we have completed our full programme for slum clearance. I have on several occasions addressed the House on the magnitude of the problem that lies before us, and at times I have expressed some dissatisfaction at the progress that was being made by local authorities. I am glad to say that the results of the past year have been on the whole satisfactory. The number of houses actually completed by local authorities within a period of 11 months from the 1st April, 1934, to the 28th February, 1935, was 6,055, which constitutes a record for new housing unsurpassed in any previous year under either the urban or rural housing codes. There is every prospect that the programme for the elimination of slum conditions and their replacement by homes in which families will have the necessary amenities of life will be fully achieved within the time we have set ourselves to accomplish it. Good housing is at the foundation of all the social services. I have been much impressed with the houses that are being built throughout the country to replace insanitary dwellings. They provide all the conditions necessary for well-ordered family life. An improvement in home conditions will be of immense benefit to our social system. The work is one worthy of the best efforts of the local authorities and the State.

Since the passing of the 1932 Act, 10,974 houses have been completed by local authorities. Of this number 7,446 are in urban areas and 3,528 in rural districts. The number of houses in course of construction is 7,190 and of these 5,217 are in urban areas and 1,973 in rural districts. Schemes that are being promoted, some of which are already well advanced, include provision for 18,489 houses, and of these 6,449 will be erected in urban areas and 12,040 in rural districts.

Seventy-three Orders have been made and confirmed for the clearance of unhealthy areas comprising 2,500 houses. Forty-five further Orders have been made and are awaiting confirmation.

The number of houses completed since 1932 by the Corporation of Dublin in connection with slum clearance is 2,000 and schemes are in various stages of progress for 3,554 houses. Cork Corporation have built 330 houses for re-housing and have schemes in hands for a further 400 houses. Limerick Corporation have built 74 houses and have schemes in progress for 628. Waterford have built 185 for re-housing and have schemes in hands for a further 130. Other areas where considerable progress has been made in building houses for slum dwellers are the boroughs of Dún Laoghaire, Kilkenny, Drogheda, Clonmel, and Sligo, and the urban districts of Ballina, Dundalk, Galway and Thurles.

The number of houses completed by private persons and public utility societies between the 1st April, 1934, and 28th February, 1935, was 4,452. The total number built since 1932 is 8,356, and of these 3,877 have been erected in urban areas and 4,479 in rural areas. Of the number erected in rural areas 603 are for agricultural labourers, 1,670 for farmers with a valuation not exceeding £15 and 295 for farmers with valuations between £15 and £25. The number of houses in course of construction at the end of February was 6,713 and of these 2,354 are being erected in urban areas and 4,359 in rural areas.

I am particularly gratified at the progress made in improving the housing conditions of the farming community. In the counties in which the 1926 census of population showed that the housing conditions were worst there is a greater proportion of houses being built, and the grants which are being made are serving a really useful purpose.

The general public health continues to be satisfactory. There was a distinct improvement in the incidence and death rate from the principal epidemic diseases during the year; 667 deaths were recorded as due to influenza as against 1,791 in 1933, the average for the previous five years being 1,438.

There was a fall in infant mortality, the number of deaths of children under one year of age per 1,000 births registered being 63 as compared with 65 in 1933 and an average of 69 for the previous five years.

The death rate for maternal mortality was the same as for 1933, being 4.4 per 1,000 births. There was an increase in the incidence of puerperal sepsis, 92 deaths being attributed to that cause as compared with 80 in 1933. The number of deaths due to other puerperal conditions was 164, or six less than the number registered for 1933 under this heading, and 14 less than the number for 1932.

It is significant that the aggregate urban district death rate from all puerperal conditions has improved from 4.20 per 1,000 births in 1932 to 3.5 in 1934, while the aggregate rural district death rate from such conditions has increased from 4.76 per 1,000 births in 1932 to 5.0 in 1934.

Diphtheria has also shown a decrease from 3,379 cases notified in 1933 to 3,292 for 1934 with a corresponding decline in the death rate from this disease, the number falling from 418 in 1933 to 340 in 1934, the lowest figure recorded since 1931. This result may, I think, be largely attributed to the value of the immunisation campaign which is being pursued all over the country. In Dublin alone over 1,700 children were immunised last year and the work is being continued. Immunisation schemes are now in operation in every county in which a county medical officer of health is functioning. Several new schemes of immunisation were put into operation during the past year.

The number of cases of scarlet fever notified during the year amounted to 3,271 as against 3,369 in 1933, a drop of 98 cases. There were, however, seven more deaths from this disease than in 1932.

Enteric fever showed a sharp rise in incidence from 440 cases in 1933 to 590 in 1934 and the number of deaths increased by 14.

Our public health organisation has been advanced by the appointment of county medical officers of health for the Counties of Laoighis, Kilkenny, Tipperary S.R. and Waterford. The County Councils of Leitrim, Longford, Sligo and Tipperary N.R. are proceeding to make appointments and we will then have county medical officers in 26 counties. Steps are being taken to compel the remaining county to make an appointment.

The public health services for which grants are included in the Estimate continue to be administered satisfactorily. Maternity and child welfare schemes are in force in the four county boroughs and in the Boroughs of Clonmel, Dún Laoghaire and Wexford and 15 urban districts. In addition 103 voluntary agencies are engaged in this work and are subsidised from the grant.

The arrangements for the provision of free milk were administered during the last financial year by all the county boroughs and borough councils and by 52 out of 55 urban councils and by all the boards of health. The reports of the county medical officers of health testify strongly to the benefits derived by the children from the daily ration of milk provided at the cost of the grant, and many district nursing associations have given similar testimony.

School meals were provided by 48 local authorities in urban areas and towns, being an increase of six as compared with the previous year. In the Gaeltacht meals were provided by five boards of health.

Schemes for the welfare of the blind are now in operation in all districts. In the past financial year blind persons to the number of 1,902 were afforded assistance in their own home; whilst 230 were maintained in approved institutions.

Schemes for the treatment of tuberculosis are in operation in every area with the exception of Longford County. A scheme will come into force in this county upon the appointment of a county medical officer of health. Institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis are being provided in Limerick City, County Wicklow, County Kerry and County Galway, and the provision of sites for local sanatoria is under consideration in seven other counties.

There was no addition during 1934 to the districts in which school medical service schemes were in operation, viz., in the four county boroughs and 18 counties. The development in the public health services which will result from the appointment of county medical officers of health will bring the benefit of the school medical service to all the elementary school-going population. During 1933, the last year for which figures are at present available, the number of children examined by the school medical officers was 107,954. The following defects were ascertained:—Dental defects, 40,140; tonsils and adenoids, 23,234; defective vision and other eye defects, 18,333. Treatment was provided for:—Dental cases, 31,110; tonsils and adenoids, 6,553; defective vision and other eye defects, 10,954. A considerable proportion of the children with enlarged tonsils and adenoids have been placed under observation. Operative treatment for tonsils is only resorted to in cases that show great enlargement or where the tonsils are septic.

Progress was well maintained in the carrying out of essential public health works. Grants amounting to approximately £100,000 were allocated for water supplies and sewerage schemes. Loans advanced for the purpose amounted to £150,000.

Under the Allotments Act of 1934, 800 plots were provided last year for unemployed persons in the four county boroughs and eight other towns. This year 2,384 allotments are being provided in the four county boroughs, two boroughs and 28 other towns. In most cases the rent has been fixed at a nominal amount of 1/- per plot.

The position with regard to road administration has been in general satisfactory. Road authorities and their surveyors have maintained that spirit of co-operation with the Department to which I referred last year. Speaking generally, all concerned have tried to expend the moneys available to the best advantage, and there has been no outstanding point of difference between them and the Department. There are a few counties, however, where I am not fully satisfied that better results could not be obtained, and I hope to apply some pressure in these cases. It is also intended to see what can be done and in some of the urban areas in which the urban roads are maintained in a manner which leaves considerable room for improvement.

The provision made by county councils for the maintenance of roads in the present year is considered satisfactory. The amount provided for the upkeep of main and county roads shows a net increase of £57,216 over the provision made last year. There is also an increase of approximately £26,800 in the amount voted for surface dressing of main and county roads; the mileage of roads to be treated in this manner is 2,141 as compared with 1,951 last year.

It is gratifying to be able to say that so far as the Department are aware the compulsory insurance provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, are working satisfactorily. It will be remembered that the insurance interests undertook to investigate, if requested by the Department, any case of refusal of insurance or any case where insurance was offered on onerous conditions. In the past 12 months only four cases of specific complaint came before the Department; two of these were referred to the companies for investigation and in each case a reasonably satisfactory settlement was arrived at. When it is remembered that there are about 60,000 motor vehicles in use it will be realised that there has been no difficulty as to insurance. Arrangements have been made by the Department that the Gárdaí are given seven days' prior notice by the licensing authorities of the expiration of policies. This enables the Gárda authorities to check up against possible defaulters.

In April last we thought it desirable to make additional regulations to tighten up the matter of the keeping of records by insurance companies and to facilitate insurance in respect of motoring visitors to the Saorstát. Under these regulations it is possible for the visitor to obtain the requisite insurance certificate before he comes here.

On 2nd July last we brought into operation the following Parts of the Act, viz.:—Part II—the classification of vehicles, including provisions as to contruction, equipment and use; Part III—the driving licence, including the disqualification and endorsement provision; Part IV—speed limits, including the dangerous driving sections; Part VI—the provisions with respect to competency and fitness to drive; Part X—the provisions relating to the lights to be carried on vehicles.

The bringing into force of these parts of the Act involved the making of detailed regulations covering 49 sections of the Act. Suitable instructions were issued to the licensing authorities where necessary.

Section 36 of the Act cured a defect in previous legislation in regard to notice of disqualifications and endorsements. The courts must now notify the Department in each case, and the Department must circulate the information to all licensing authorities. Up to the present we have received and circulated 67 such notifications. The new procedure renders it much more difficult for a disqualified person to obtain a driving licence than under the old system.

On 9th March, 1935, the remaining portions of Part IX of the Act, with the exception of one section, were brought into force. These relate to the regulation of traffic under by-laws made by the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána. These by-laws have been recently received and are at present being examined in my Department for the purpose of confirmation.

There still remain to be brought into force Parts VII and VIII of the Act relating to public service vehicles. The drafting of the requisite regulations as to the construction and equipment of such vehicles has been now almost completed, and it is hoped to bring in those Parts at an early date. The position with regard to some of those provisions of the Act became somewhat altered by the amalgamation of transport services. When these portions of the Act come into force their operation will involve the making of a considerable number of statutory regulations.

With an Act of such magnitude as the Road Traffic Act, on the one hand, a consolidating measure, and, on the other, an Act containing much new material, it was inevitable that it could only be brought into force in stages. On each occasion ample publicity is given.

The collection of revenue by county councils was very backward in the first half of the financial year, largely due to the delay in the issue of the rate warrants. After October the position began to improve, and by December over £1,000,000 had been collected. Since December there has been continuous improvement. The complete returns up to the end of March are not yet available, but there are indications that in some counties the position will be better than at this time last year. Of eleven counties in which returns are available to-day there is improvement, a marked improvement, in six cases, and in the remainder there is no disimprovement. In many cases a good collection is largely a question of securing payment of rates at an earlier date. There is an increasing tendency amongst ratepayers to defer payment until late in the financial year. It would be a great advantage to the county councils if ratepayers realised the necessity for earlier payment of the rates. Most of the county councils are well advanced in the making of the rates for the present year, and I will ask them to press forward with the collection as soon as the demand notes are served.

There is one other matter to which I desire to refer and that is town and regional planning. The Act of last year was circulated to local bodies in November last together with a summary of its provisions and a copy of the regulations made thereunder. So far very little action has been taken by local bodies. A reasonable time must be allowed for a proper study of the provisions of the Act and of the procedure to be followed. Two local authorities, the Corporation of Dún Laoighaire and the Urban District Council of Killarney, have passed resolutions for the making of planning schemes. The Mallow Urban District Council rejected a resolution for the making of a scheme. The adoption of the provisions of the Act is being considered by the Bray Urban District Council, and by the Dublin County Council as regards the northern portion of their area. The local authorities in County Wexford have also the matter under consideration. It is important that the development which is taking place particularly in urban centres should be controlled with due regard to modern traffic requirements, sites for housing and the provision of modern sanitary services. I propose to take this matter up again with the local bodies with a view to encouraging them to give effect to the provisions of the Act.

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. We have heard from the Minister a recital largely of the activities of local authorities and the success of their activities. We heard very little from the Minister about the activities of the Department for which he is responsible. While the Minister took the opportunity to point out that it would be a great matter for county councils, and local authorities generally, if ratepayers realised the necessity for prompt payment of rates, apparently he did not realise that there was cast upon himself a very grave and a very serious obligation, that of seeing that the ratepayers were in a position to discharge their heavy obligations. The Minister has a responsibility in that direction that he cannot shirk. I do not think there is any Department that really has the same responsibility towards the people as the Minister's Department. One could not contemplate a greater disaster than the breaking down of local government. It would be a grave disaster if it happened. Yet, we find that local authorities are struggling with a desperate situation, one that is not of their own making but that is of the Government's making. Apparently the Minister is not endeavouring or has not been successful in influencing his colleagues in coming to the relief of local authorities. When he was in Opposition a few years ago I remember listening to the present Minister complimenting the then Minister on the fact that there was a reduction in the number of officials employed in the Department of Local Government, and in the amounts being paid them. That was when the present Minister was in Opposition, and when people like Deputy Corry were crying out against certain salaries that were being paid to officials, particularly Government officials. Now we find a rather alarming increase both in the number of officials and in salaries. Taking the figures in this year's Estimate and comparing them with those of last year, we find that they have gone up considerably. I make full allowance for an increase for housing of £235,493. Last year we had the alarming increase of £31,000 under this heading, and this year we find it up by another £17,000, or practically by £50,000 in two years.

Taking the sub-heads (a), (b), (c), (d), (h(1)) and h(2), these deal with salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors, salaries of auditors, travelling expenses of auditors, travelling and incidental expenses, telegrams and telephones. These are practically all at headquarters and the amount involved is £126,388, or divided by 26 it is costing the Twenty-Six Counties practically £5,000 per county to run headquarters. That is a large amount of money. I think the case was made from this side of the House when the present Minister was in Opposition, that the local government machine we have is a heavy and a cumbersome one. I was told recently from an authoritative quarter that as a matter of fact local government here was very inexpensive. I wonder if it is. I do not know what steps were taken here in the past, or are in contemplation, with regard to having a study of local government in other countries made to see whether the machine we have might not be considerably lightened as far as expenditure is concerned. To pay £5,000 per county in the Twenty-Six Counties is a very large amount of money to provide for headquarters administration. In view of the Minister's previous pronouncements from this side, I do not know how he could justify that sum, or how he proposes to justify the increases, both in salaries and in personnel, which this Estimate discloses.

Last year we had 17 junior executive officers and this year we have 21; last year we had 64 clerical officers and this year we have 79; last year we had 28 writing assistants and this year we have 21; last year we had 25 shorthand typists and this year we have 27; last year we had 16 typists and this year we have 19. I presume the Minister will say that a great part of this increase is due to housing activity, and it probably is; at least some of it may be, and, of course, we are all anxious to go ahead with housing, but whether we are justified in creating a permanent machine, a heavy expensive machine for the purpose of housing which, after all, can only operate for a temporary period, is a matter that requires consideration.

There are a few anomalies to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. So far as I am concerned, persons do not enter into this; I do not know who are the persons to whom I am going to refer. I see that as regards the inspectorial staff we have five general inspectors at salaries of £700 each. One of those, I understand, is acting as a commissioner down the country and apparently the nation is paying for that. Then there is an engineering inspector who is acting in the same capacity in some other place and we are paying for him also out of this Vote. We have five general inspectors at salaries of £700 each; one general inspector at a salary of £350, a general inspector at £650 inclusive, and another general inspector at £500, or close on that amount. I do not know who those persons are, but it appears to me that there is something really wrong there. I do not know why some of our general inspectors are considered to be worth £700, while others are paid £650, £500, and in one case £350, although according to the place he gets there, he is not a young man.

As regards the travelling and subsistence expenses of inspectors, that is possibly also due to housing, but the amount has increased from £8,550 to £11,225. Then we have the travelling expenses of auditors. We have the same number of auditors, but their salaries have been decreased from £11,283 to £10,927. Their travelling expenses, on the other hand, have gone up from £2,000 to £2,300. I do not know how those things occur. We have a National Housing Board and I do not know exactly what are its functions. It is very hard for us down the country to know what the Housing Board is doing. We are paying the Chairman £1,000 inclusive, and we are paying two part-time members £500 each; that makes £2,000 in all. In addition to that, we are paying them travelling expenses. In view of the fact that there is an explanatory note by the Secretary of the Department in the Appropriation Accounts to the effect that a certain amount of the money allocated for housing was unexpended for the reason that material, particularly of Irish manufacture, was not to be had at the time the contractors wanted it, I would like to know what the Housing Board is really doing. Are they not able to meet the wishes of the contractors or to coordinate the services in such a way that building operations will not be held up? The money we voted for housing is not being utilised for that purpose and it is being held up through lack of co-ordination between the manufacturers and other people.

There is an important point arising out of the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act. The head of the section is drawing £1,000. In a footnote it is stated that the salary is to be reconsidered on a vacancy and this officer receives a temporary and non-pensionable allowance of £275 for special duties from Vote 3, which happens to be concerned with the Department of the President of the Executive Council. I do not know who this person is, but frankly I do not understand the position as set out there. According to the figures set out in the Estimate, the administration of the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act is costing us £3,240. On page 143 of the Estimates it is stated that the Minister expects receipts from County and County Borough Councils in respect of the combined purchasing scheme to the amount of £4,500. I do not know why local authorities should be fleeced in this way. It is not really a popular Act in the country, because there is a feeling amongst local authorities that combined purchasing has militated against local contractors. I always felt there was something of that type of scheme wanting, but at the same time I cannot see why the local authorities should be asked to pay £4,500 for a service the administrative cost of which is £3,240. I do not know what the head of the section does for the money he receives. Generally speaking, I do not think that the administrative machine at headquarters is worth all it is costing the country.

There is another matter with regard to a type of—I will not call it administration, but political virus, if you like—that has been introduced into local authorities through the instrumentality of local government. When I say that, I mean that the present Minister went out of his way, as far as he possibly could, to advise the people of this country to elect, not businesslike county councils, businesslike local authorities, but political local authorities, and to a very large extent he has succeeded in doing that. I do not consider that that was wise. I do not consider it should have been done at any time by anybody. Politics are all right in their own place, but they ought never to have formed part of the ordinary routine business of local authorities. Down the country we generally have a Party vote at county councils, boards of health and other bodies on matters which are not political at all, on matters that have no bearing on polities good, bad or indifferent. Even when it comes to the selection of a labourer for a cottage, there is a vote on Party lines. I think that is simply disgusting and it certainly has not helped to raise the standard of local government in this country. I have here a statement which was published in a paper called the Midland Tribune on the 9th February, 1935. It relates to a meeting of the North Tipperary Board of Health, where a lady named Miss Mahon, in making a proposal, used these words: “The Fianna Fáil Party which we represent have instructed us to submit this resolution, and with us Fianna Fáil comes first.” Now, is that good for local government?

Is the Minister responsible for what this lady said?

The Minister is responsible for advising the people of this country when electing people to local authorities to elect them on a political ticket.

The Minister may possibly have done that as a member of a Party. We can discuss here only his activities as Minister.

Would the Deputy quote any statement of mine to that effect?

It would not be a bit of use.

Would the Deputy quote it? If he had it he would quote it.

It would be like previous quotations in regard to derating which we gave the Minister—he would not believe it.

If the Deputy had it he would quote it.

The Deputy could quote it quite easily.

Quote a few of your own.

A Deputy

Would the Deputy admit that what is under consideration at the moment is a statement——

The Deputy will admit nothing about it, because the Minister is not responsible for what any member of a public board said.

He has at least succeeded in making political divisions all over the country in local authorities.

He is a very powerful man.

If he is satisfied with it—having advised the people to do that—all I have to say is that I am not.

I did not set out to please the Deputy, I am sorry to say.

I did not expect that the Minister would. We will not fall out over that. The Minister must at least accept responsibility for having introduced into the local administration certain innovations with regard to the application of the Agricultural Grant. I have not been convinced at any time that it was a good system, and I am still unconvinced that it is a good system. We had the credit note system, and although it has been stated in this House on various occasions that it is an inducement to people to pay within a certain period, because if they do not pay within a certain period they will lose the value of the credit note, I maintain that it has not in fact done that. I think that the Minister himself, if he examines the position, will be bound to agree with me.

I have here before me a statement issued by the Department last January with regard to the position of rates in the various counties of the Free State, showing the amounts outstanding on the 31st December, 1934. I have also ascertained that there are certain counties in this State which did not operate a credit note. Certain other counties operated credit notes very extensively, and as a matter of fact made the greater part of the grants by credit only. We had the counties of Cavan, Dublin, Longford, Offaly and Westmeath which did not adopt any credit note system. That is my information from the Department. Taking those counties on the 31st of December, 1934, with regard to the amounts of rates outstanding they did not compare unfavourably with other counties. Carlow, for instance, had a credit note system, and there was 62.9 per cent. outstanding. In Cavan, where there was no credit note, 52.3 per cent. was outstanding. We had Clare, with a credit note system, having 75.8 per cent. outstanding, and in the case of Cork the figure was 79 per cent. In Donegal, where the credit note system operated, 52.1 per cent. was outstanding; and in Dublin, with no credit note, the figure was 62.4 per cent.

Reading down through the whole list, there is not, to my mind, any justification for the issuing of credit notes in the way in which it has been done, particularly as the credit note system has served to operate against the very poorest people in each county. I think that in itself ought to be quite enough to convince the Department that it should be discontinued. I admit that it was optional with county councils to accept the credit note system or to reject it. The council that did reject it gave full credit in their rate books for the whole amount of the grant. In the case of a man who owed a certain amount of money, say £8, and who was entitled to, say, £2 of a reduction, that brought him down to £6. When it came to the 31st of March, or the 30th September, or whatever the date was on which the credit note ceased to operate, if that man were living in a county where the credit note was operating there would be carried forward against him not £6 but £8. That has been done all over the country, whereas, if the man happened to live in a county where the credit note was not operating there would be only £6 carried forward against him.

I maintain, Sir, that as far as local authorities are concerned they have endeavoured, as far as they possibly could, to honestly collect the rates, and they have not carried forward uncollected rates except in the case of people whom they were convinced were not able to pay. If a man is not able to pay, surely it is not fair that a system should be in operation which would militate against him, and which would increase his obligations. That is really what has been happening. The credit note system, as I have endeavoured to point out from this return which I have here, has not served to operate in favour of the collections—at least not to any marked extent. Generally, taking one county with another, they are where they always stood in relation to each other, irrespective of whether they operated credit notes or not. That seems to be the general state of the rate collection. Taking one county against another you will find that the position is practically the same this year as it was last year or five years ago, so that the counties which had in operation a credit note system are not any better off than the counties which did not have a credit system in operation, but the poor people in the counties where it was in operation, and where rates are carried forward as irrecoverable for the time being, are being "had." If there is to be any scheme of that kind it should be a uniform one which would be applicable to every county, and which, at least, would not operate against the very poorest people in the country.

There is a further matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. To my mind there has been a great amount of remissness on the part of the Minister for Local Government in looking after the paramount interests of local authorities in this country. It is very important indeed that local authorities should carry out all the duties which are imposed upon them, but they cannot carry out any of the duties imposed upon them without the necessary finance.

The financial situation in this country has been very bad for the last two years and it is particularly bad for the last twelve months. Notwithstanding that we find that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who should be the champion of the local authorities, does not appear, so far as we can see, to have made any fight for these bodies in regard to their rights. The Minister has done nothing to protect the rights of the ratepayers in the matter of grants that are ordinarily made to the local authorities. Apparently the Minister for Finance rules the roost and, so far as we know, there is no friend in the Executive Council to champion the ratepayers. The Minister for Finance can come in here and put new duties and new expenses by way of stamp duties on the local authorities. He can cut down grants or withhold grants altogether, and nobody budges. I do not want to go very closely into that matter now, for it will be decided in another place. But I do say that the local authorities should have been able to count upon the Minister for Local Government and Public Health as a friend, as one who would stand up for their rights, and as one who would say that they are not going to be unfairly and unjustly treated by the Minister for Finance. This year when the local authorities were in financial straits their grants were further cut down. I will not mention the with-holding of grants altogether. The main grant has been further cut down this year. One would imagine that the position of the ratepayers in this country was of such a beggarly type that they were looking for crumbs and doles from the Government. But as far as the grants are concerned they are doing nothing of the kind. They are justly entitled to them. The farming community of this country who comprise the greatest number of ratepayers and on whom the whole machine rests has, since 1933, contributed into the Exchequer £7,100,750. That has been transferred from the Land Annuities Fund into the Exchequer, and yet the Exchequer grudges the county councils the ordinary grants to which they are more than entitled. The Minister for Finance further proceeds to collar the moneys that are ordinarily due to the county councils as against the unpaid annuities. That is the type of juggling we see as far as finance is concerned and it presses hard on the ratepayers. We have the land annuities being paid into a particular fund, and when a deficiency exists there the Government comes along and the money that is ordinarily due to the county councils is taken from them to fill up the deficiencies and the whole lot is taken into the Exchequer. Afterwards the Minister for Local Government and Public Health comes along and tells us that the Government has made certain grants to the county councils. He stated recently that the figure was £1,600,000. But the local authorities never saw this money at all. It was in respect of sums that were written off under the 1933 Act. This was paid by the Exchequer into the Guarantee Fund, and then paid back again. That was supposed to be put to our credit and we are supposed to have the benefit of it. Up to August 1933 there were £2,968,794 17s. 8d. of the farmers' contribution taken and paid into the Exchequer. There was in August, 1933, a further sum of £1,505,056 19s. 11d. taken and paid into the Exchequer. In March, 1934, the sum was £865,659 18s. 10d., in August, 1934, £881,293 18s. 2d., and in February, 1935, the amount of the farmers' contribution taken and paid into the Exchequer was £879,944 7s. 1d. The whole of these items make £7,100,750 1s. 8d. The last penny that there was in the Purchase Annuities Fund was taken into the Exchequer. That is all the farmers' money, every bit of it. In addition to paying that, the farmers are already paying the annuities to Great Britain. Not alone are they paying to Britain the annuities, but they are paying other millions as well.

I want to ask the Deputy what has this got to do with the Vote for the Department of Local Government and Public Health?

The result of all that has been that the farmers, the agricultural community, the ratepayers of this country, are reduced to such a state that they cannot pay their way. A certain state of affairs exists here for which I maintain the Minister for Local Government is responsible. Notwithstanding that, nothing has been done to alleviate their position. The Minister ought at least to be a watch dog for the local authorities. It is not fair to expect them to shoulder all the burdens while the Minister for Finance comes along and collars the money. The Minister, it will be seen, collars the grants which the county councils are supposed to get.

The Minister for Finance is not responsible for this Vote.

I agree, but my point is that there has been no fight made on behalf of the local authorities of this country by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. There is another matter to which I should like to draw attention and which I maintain the Minister is not looking after as he should. There is a section in the 1927 Land Act which makes provision for the purchase from the local authorities by the Land Commission of cottages and plots. The purpose of the insertion of that clause, I understand, was that the Land Act was to give the Land Commission an opportunity of giving land to people who lived in labourers' cottages without at the same time making the occupiers ineligible to hold a labourer's cottage. That was because, of course, once you give a person living in a labourer's cottage a plot of land, making him a farmer, he becomes ineligible as a tenant of the board of health and in the ordinary sense he would be supposed to be evicted. I would like to know from the Minister how far he has insisted on having that clause carried out and how far it is carried out, or is it carried out at all? Is there not some connivance there between the two Departments which has deprived the local authorities of their rights. We have several cases of this in our county. Apparently the Land Commission are giving holders of labourers' cottages parcels of land as a matter of convenience to themselves in their division of estates. What I want done is that the Local Government Department insist on this thing being carried through properly and that the boards of health should have these cottages taken off their hands and be paid for them and the money given to them which would pay for other cottages.

Put out the other fellow—is that what the Deputy suggests?

Nobody wants that. The Minister does not want it.

It is the board of health that must do it.

Nobody wants evictions, and that section was put in to prevent evictions taking place. We do not want evictions. All we want is that the board of health should be paid for those cottages. If that is done, it will leave us money in hand to build a much-needed cottage for a labourer. Nobody, however, seems to bother about it. We have another instance in the House for the last week of a further imposition about to be made upon the local authorities through a Bill promoted here by the Ministry of Local Government. I refer to the Milk and Dairies Bill. There, again, the local authorities are expected to shoulder all the burdens.

The merits of legislation may not be debated on an Estimate; neither may a motion recently decided on by the House be again debated.

I quite agree, Sir, but my point is that at every point local authorities are being asked to bear greater burdens, while there does not appear to be any effort made by anybody to see that they are able to carry the burdens. Further than that I do not want to go. There is no use in local authorities building houses in this country and going into debt in order to build those houses unless they see that there is some possibility of being able to pay their way. That ought to be the first consideration of any Minister for Local Government and Public Health. As I said on a previous occasion, he has a kind of dual responsibility which no other Minister has. He does not provide the finances, or at least, he does not provide all the finances. The greater portion of them must be provided by the people and the Minister ought to see that his Government, or the other people who are concerned with the matter, do not take away the only way these people have to live. There is no use in taking up the attitude that people are not paying their rates and are not paying their annuities because of an agitation or conspiracy in this country. Perhaps Deputy Corry would like to see that.

I find here in the Irish Press, on the 13th February, 1935, that from the Kerry County Council was withheld the sum of £61,473 of the Agricultural Grant because of uncollected annuities. That county council has boasted that in that county there was no opposition to the paying of rates and no organisation or conspiracy against their payment.

The question of an anti-rate campaign does not arise on this Estimate. The House may recollect that that subject has been debated very recently.

Undoubtedly, Sir, the question of rates arises on this Estimate, and arises very seriously. The question of the people's capacity to pay their rates is a very serious matter.

You will have time. Do not give up anyway.

I have never tried to speak against time. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of gentlemen here dying to talk about it.

Not very many, I am afraid.

Well, I certainly cannot compliment the Minister on the number of Government Deputies who attended to hear his statement on local government. If he looked back, he would find only three there. They all had to leave while the Minister was speaking. Bad and all as I am, they at least came in to hear me, but they went out when the Minister was speaking.

Oh, well, Deputies on this side of the House are always very courteous to the opposite side.

At any rate, I do not think that, on the whole, any decent effort is being made by the Department of Local Government to help the people who have to run local government in this country. Certainly, the returns of the rates all over the country for the last six months are not very encouraging. I should be anxious, indeed, that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health would feel that the responsibility rests upon him as the father of local government and public health at the present time in this country—the man who ought to be the champion of the local authorities in this country. The responsibility rests on him to see, as far as he possibly can, that the ratepayers in this country are able to meet and discharge their very heavy obligations.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Friday, 5th April, at 10.30 a.m.
Top
Share