Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 5 Apr 1935

Vol. 55 No. 15

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
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 i 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.—(Minister for Local Government and Public Health).

I listened with a good deal of interest to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health introducing this Estimate last night. The Minister's statement, so far as it went, was fairly comprehensive, but it was rather unique, I think, in the way of speeches introducing Estimates. The Minister's statement consisted, so far as I could follow it, of reading the reports submitted to him by the heads of the different sections of the Department, and, as I say, so far as those reports went, they were fairly satisfactory. The Minister, however, devoted no time at all to the Estimate itself. He did not deal with the finances in the Estimate, the increases or the decreases, nor did he give us reasons for the increases or decreases either in personnel or in the amount of money. The Minister, quite naturally, devoted the principal part of his statement to housing and housing activities —quite naturally, as I say, because the Minister's main activity during the year and the activities of the Department have been in regard to housing. I had hoped, however, that we would have got a fuller explanation of these activities from the Minister, and that he would be able to give us some details as to the work which is being performed by the National Housing Board: whether that Board concerns itself altogether with getting houses built or whether it concerns itself with the question of the provision of building material.

I had hoped to hear something from the Minister with regard to, say, the slate industry. I should be glad if he could tell us, when he is concluding this debate, in how far Irish slates are available for house building in this country, and what percentage of the houses built during the last 12 months have been roofed with Irish slates. I think it is agreed that there is in this country almost an unlimited supply of good slate, and I am anxious to know whether the Housing Board or the Minister's Department are taking any action towards the further development and production of Irish slate. I think it will be agreed that the slated roof is the best roof—the most lasting and most suitable, and perhaps the most waterproof and weather proof, of any type of roof. As I say, it is accepted generally that our Irish slates are equal to those produced in any other country in the world.

I am quite satisfied—and I do not intend this in any way as a criticism of what is being done at present by the slate quarry owners, because I am sure they are providing slates as fast as the limitations will permit—but I am satisfied that the main reason we are not able to meet all our demands, both for home and for a fairly considerable export market, is the lack of capital for the full development of the slate quarries. The principal slate quarry in this country, as we all know, is the Killaloe slate quarry. It has a very valuable export market and is worked, so far as I know, in a very efficient way. I am satisfied, however, that if it were properly developed and if sufficient capital were available, the production of that quarry could be quadrupled at least. I have been informed that contractors for housing schemes promoted by the Department and the local authorities have found it very difficult and in some cases impossible, to procure Irish slates.

That is my information.

They probably find difficulty in getting certain sizes of slates.

Well, that is my information, and even where the question of size was got over, I understand that there was then the question of long delay in delivery of the slates. I have been informed that contractors would get a supply of slates and that when they were put on the roof they would be left waiting for a further supply. I have heard also that in some cases contractors had been supplied with different sized slates for the same scheme, and I am sure the Minister will agree that that is not desirable. Another very important matter, apart from the question of the houses and good roofs, is the question of employment. I am subject to correction here, but I understand that there are 140 or 150 men employed in that quarry at present. I am quite satisfied that if the quarry were properly developed and sufficient capital provided, it could absorb four or five times that number of men, particularly in view of the fact that that quarry has a fairly valuable export market for their slates. As I say, I should like the Minister to deal with that matter in his reply, and also to tell us to what extent, if any, the National Housing Board concerns itself with building materials and the provision of those building materials, and their quality.

There is another matter to which I want to refer, and that is with regard to the design of the houses—not so much the design, perhaps, as the construction and the size of the windows and doors. I do not know why we should have those very narrow doors in these houses, some of them no wider than the door of an ordinary wardrobe, making it impossible to get furniture into the house. There may be a very good reason that is not apparent to the ordinary man in the street.

It seems to be fairly general in the housing scheme that the doors and windows in many places are not suitable. It was reported in the Press recently that in one place where a death took place, the door was so small that the coffin could not be got into the house. I do not know if that is true, but if it is true, it is something that should be remedied. It seems to me that there should be no great difficulty in having the doors five or six inches wider than they are at the moment.

Then there is the question of the proper inspection of those houses during the course of erection. I read in the papers within the last fortnight where an inspector of the Department of Local Government and Public Health in a certain county was inspecting houses that had been completed. I understand from the paper report that he said that they were—I am not sure if he said, disgraceful—but at any rate that they were most unsatisfactory and that he did not know what action the Department would take on the matter. It seems to me to be rather late in the day to be finding out about that when the houses were completed, and I think that there should be more frequent contact between the inspectors and the Department.

There is another matter to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. I want to suggest to him that there is not very much use, from the health point of view, in building houses if you have not proper sewerage systems. In many towns of fairly substantial size the sewerage system is of the most primitive type, and there are many villages and small towns where there is no sewerage system whatever. It seems to me that that is a disgrace at this period. I know of towns where you have what is called an open sewerage system. I know of one town where the sewage flows on the very edge of the town into an open river. In winter time that river overflows and the sewage is spread over an area of probably 500 or 600 acres. That obtains in a fairly important town at present. In that particular town the sewerage system, such as it is, covers only about half of the town and in nearly half of the town—and unfortunately that half is what you might call the poorer or slum area, where the bad houses are— there is no sewerage system whatever.

That is a matter with which the Department might concern itself, and I would be glad if the Minister would take the matter up, both from the point of view of public health and of providing employment. It is necessary for the Minister to concern himself with the question of employment because very many excellent housing schemes in progress for the last two years are drawing to a close and a great number of men who found employment on these schemes will be thrown on the streets again and left unemployed. It would be a good thing if we had a continuation, a linking-up so to speak because after all the questions of housing, sewerage and waterworks are all bound up together.

The Minister dealt last night with the question of roads and on the whole expressed satisfaction with the way in which the different counties, with a few exceptions, were performing their duty in that respect. On the whole, I think we have reason to be satisfied with our roadways, particularly with the trunk roads. I want to suggest to the Minister, however, that it is a considerable time since some of these trunk roads were rolled and they are beginning to show very definite signs of wear and tear. On one of the principal trunk roads in the South of Ireland, which I know well, pot-holes are making their appearance, and putting on chippings covered with tar is not satisfactory. I think that certain capital expenditure will have to be undertaken very soon and that these roads will have to be re-made. I should like to know whether the Department are keeping that in mind.

With regard to the allotments scheme, it seems to me that that scheme has proved a failure. It is now two years since the Act was passed. The Minister read out a number of county borough councils and urban councils which have taken advantage of the scheme, but the actual number of persons who have received allotments is very few. As a matter of fact, I am informed that in some urban areas there are no applicants whatever and in others only two, three or four. I know of one or two where the applications came in so late that it was impossible for the local authority, where they could not acquire land without a compulsory order, to go ahead with the scheme this year. I am not suggesting that the Department is to blame or, so far as I know, the local authorities. I am afraid that the blame must largely fall on the unemployed themselves, because the Act is there, and land is provided as well as implements and seeds practically free. I suggest to the Minister that he might consider some way of bringing home more forcibly to these persons the necessity, because I think it is a necessity from many points of view, that they should take advantage of that scheme. Apart from the very laudable object of providing vegetables for themselves and their families, it would provide a certain amount of healthy exercise, during the period in which they are unemployed.

There is another matter in which I am interested and I am sorry the Minister did not give us some explanation of it, namely, the blind welfare scheme. I confess that I do not know very much about that particular scheme. Is it left to each county board of health to plan their own scheme, or is there a general scheme drawn up by the Department and submitted to the boards of health? Is there any standard to which the different county boards of health have to conform or does it vary? Is there any particular rate which must be struck, whether minimum or maximum? Do the Department insist that the benefits should take a particular form, or do they vary? I ask that for my own information, but I think it would be no harm to make that information public, because I am not satisfied that a number of blind persons who would be eligible to take advantage of this scheme for their welfare are aware of the fact that the scheme exists.

There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer and that is the question of audits. It seems to me, from what has been happening in the country and from the reports in the papers from time to time, that the local government audits are not made frequently enough. From my own knowledge of local administration, and from reading the proceedings of different local authorities, I am satisfied that, if these audits were made more frequently, many things which have happened, particularly during the last couple of years, would not have happened. I think that is unfair, not only to the ratepayers, but to the officials in charge of the administration of local authorities. It must be remembered that the work of local authorities is very much greater and very much more varied now than it was a few years ago and, in many cases, the same staff from the point of view of numbers are expected to do about three times the work that had to be done 12 or 14 years ago. As the Minister is, no doubt, aware it is not easy to induce local authorities to make additions to their staffs, particularly since we got the Appointments Commission. I should be glad if the Minister would give attention to the question of having more frequent audits. I should like to stress upon the Minister what I said regarding housing. The housing scheme is certainly a very fine one, and it is going ahead in a manner that I think is creditable to the Minister and to the Department. I would be sorry indeed that such a scheme should be spoiled by bad materials or by crimping doors and windows for the sake of a few extra inches. The houses should not be jeopardised for want of supervision of bad material or slipshod work. They will continue to cost a great deal of money but, in my opinion, it is money well spent. I should be very glad if an effort was made to get full value so that those living in them will get the full benefit of these houses.

I was pleased to hear Deputy Morrissey pay a tribute to the activities of the Minister in connection with housing. He said that the Minister's main activities were confined to housing. Anybody who takes a survey of what was done by the Department of Local Government in the past 12 months will agree that in practically every phase of its activities the Minister was just as active as in housing. Deputies who know housing conditions in the country realise that they have been improved out of all recognition within the last few years. They know that if delays have taken place in improving housing conditions in some counties, the fault has certainly not been the Minister's. I thoroughly agree with Deputy Morrissey, that there is not much use in providing decent houses, particularly in urban areas and in towns, unless they are linked up with proper water and sewerage schemes. There, again, I do not think that any Deputy can charge the Department with responsibility for the lack of provision of proper sanitation in towns. The fault rests primarily with the boards of health, which have not been as active in the promotion of these schemes as they could have been. I think I can assure the Deputy that when Fianna Fáil gets control of most of these boards of health there will be an improvement in that respect.

You will want the money as well as the desire.

The money will be all right.

Give an example of their enterprise.

Give them time.

I should like to draw attention to some matters relating to the public health aspect of the activities of the Department. While we all appreciate the efforts being made by the Department, and by the officials of local authorities, to increase the immunisation of children of school-going age and of pre-school age against diphtheria, much more than is actually being done could be done. For instance, I do not think immunisation is being carried out in the country except when there is an outbreak of diphtheria. The time to immunise children against diphtheria is at the pre-school-going age, so as to immunise against the risk of an outbreak. Why should we wait for an outbreak of diphtheria to immunise children who have not contracted the disease? The way to eradicate the disease is to immunise all the children at the proper time, at the pre-school-going age.

How long will immunisation last?

Permanently. In cities and towns immunisation has been carried out in the schools. I think children of well-to-do parents should be immunised by their private doctors. It is not a proper practice that such parents should have their children immunised by public officials at the public expense.

That is a business point.

It is. I think representations have been made to the Department in that respect. Certainly, children whose parents could not make provision for their immunisation in other ways, should be immunised in the schools. Another point in connection with immunisation is that in some counties and cities medical officers had, no doubt, the maximum number of children immunised. We submit that children of parents who are entitled to free medical treatment under the Medical Charities Act should be immunised by dispensary doctors in the districts in which they reside. If that was done by local medical officers of health and local dispensary doctors, who are more in touch with the children of these parents, if that system were adopted throughout the country, I submit to the Minister that immunisation would be carried out to a far greater extent than at present.

Another matter to which I want to draw attention is the question of vaccination. Every three months each dispensary doctor is asked to draw up a list on Form P and to submit it to the local board of health, after which the relieving officers notify the parents that they should present their children for vaccination. No matter what returns are made on Form P the number of defaulters is increasing quarter by quarter. The actual returns in the Department may show that the number of defaulters is decreasing, but that is because of the fact that doctors, having reported the same children very often, leave them off the list next time, because they feel there is no use reporting them from year to year. I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should either introduce a Bill to repeal the vaccination laws or otherwise enforce them. There is no use in having vaccination laws if they are not enforced, and giving everyone trouble. The people will not carry out the vaccination laws unless they are enforced.

Does the Deputy suggest the repeal of these laws?

I stated that a Bill should be introduced to repeal them or to have them enforced. It is only a sham at present.

Do you approve of them?

That is another matter.

No conscientious objectors.

As I am asked the question, I may as well say that the reason we have no small-pox is because we had compulsory vaccination in the days of our childhood. Because of the beneficial results of compulsory vaccination laws in the past people are lax in having their children vaccinated. An outbreak of small-pox would bring them to their senses. Once there is an outbreak then everyone who conscientiously was an objector would go to the doctors and surgeons, while people who always believed in vaccination would not get a chance of being treated.

I was vaccinated when I was very old and I know what it is. Deputy Belton was not.

I want to say a few words about the hospitals. While we are all naturally very pleased with the great progress that has been made in improving and in building hospitals, and while I hope, in two or three years' time, we will have hospitals second to none, there are certain areas in which the need for hospitals is still very urgent. For instance, take the City of Dublin. Whether people believe it or not, it is a well-known fact that persons entitled to free treatment under the Medical Charities Act, when they go to a dispensary or to a dispensary doctor for treatment, when informed that their case is one for hospital, the first question they ask is: "What hospital will I go to?" The only answer the dispensary doctor can make is: "You can go to any hospital that will take you in, but the only hospital I can send you to is the Union Hospital." In 99 cases out of 100, the patient will tell you immediately that he will not go to the Union Hospital.

That is not the name given to it now.

No matter what name is given to it, they look upon it as the Union Hospital. You may point out that it is one of the best hospitals in town, that in equipment and the way it is conducted it is second to none in Dublin but you will not succeed in convincing the people that it is other than a Union Hospital so long as it is inside the walls of the Dublin Union. At present, there is not sufficient accommodation, or anything like sufficient accommodation, for the number of fever cases in the city. You may get in touch with a case of diphtheria or scarlatina on Saturday evening. The Public Health Department closes down at 1 o'clock on Saturday. You may ring up Cork Street and you will find it full. You ring up every fever hospital in the city and you are told that there is not a bed available. That has happened to me personally four or five times during the last few weeks. It is well known that the hospitals are not to blame, that the trouble is due to lack of accommodation. Children of five, six or seven years have had to sleep two in a bed in Cork Street Hospital during the past two years because there was not sufficient accommodation. With all the money available from the Hospitals' Trust and other funds, the urgent need of the City of Dublin is a new central hospital for the people entitled to gratuitous medical treatment and, secondly, a new central fever hospital—both to be built somewhere outside the walls of the Dublin Union.

There are a few matters on which I should like to touch on this Vote. I am glad that Deputy O'Dowd is looking after the interests of the doctors. I can assure him that the Local Government Department appear to be looking after their interests also. Anywhere they can, by any means or any chance, create another vacancy for a doctor, in he goes, no matter what expense is put on the local authority. I have before me a letter sent down to our board recently. There have been created in the last month in Cork County three separate boards of health, as contrasted with the old system of one board for the county. I am glad to say that, after two or three years' pressure, we succeeded in getting that matter through. I cannot see for the life of me why that should carry with it a penalty that seems always to attach to Cork and Corkmen so far as Dublin officials are concerned. Dublin officials seem to think that every morning a Cork ratepayer gets up he finds a leprechaun under a tree with a bag of gold. That is the way it is working out. Each board of health is bound to have a county medical officer of health. In Cork, this particular branch of the health service is to be distinguished by four medical officers—one lad to look after the other three at a £1,000 or £1,500 a year. This was the communication we got from the Department:—

"With reference to your letters of the 30th January, 20th ult. and 20th inst., relative to the scheme submitted by the Cork County Board of Public Health in pursuance of Section 22 of the Local Government (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1934—

I shall quote only the portion of the letter that concerns us at the moment.

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to state that he has confirmed the proposed scheme subject to the following modifications: (a) Doctor R. Condy is to continue as County Medical Officer of Health, Chief School Medical Officer and Chief Tuberculosis Officer and to act in that capacity in respect of each of the new county health districts and the joint districts, including such new county health districts, and to supervise the work of the assistant county medical officer of health and medical, nursing and sanitary staffs in each of such districts in the same manner as heretofore; (b) each assistant county medical officer of health, medical officer of health, public health nurse, veterinary and sanitary officer is to continue to carry out his or her duties under the supervision of the county medical officer of health."

We have sent that proposal back. With all due respect to the legal luminaries of the Department of Local Government, they do not seem to know the law.

They seem to have a new free state down there.

I find that Section 21 of the Local Government Act, 1925, under which those county medical officers of health are appointed, states:

The council of every county shall appoint, with the approval of the Minister, for every county health district in such county, a medical practitioner duly qualified as such, and with such other qualifications as may be prescribed, to be the superintendent medical officer of health of such county health district and of every urban district in such county situate in or adjoining such county health district and such officer shall be known as the county medical officer of health with the addition of the distinguishing name of such county health district.

That provides for the appointment of a county medical officer of health for each health area. It does not provide for a county medical officer of health to be called an assistant and it does not provide that a county medical officer of health shall be subject to a spare part, calling himself a superintendent, who is to waltz around the three areas and see that the other medical officers do their job. He will either do his work or he will get out. The salary is good enough even if he had to do the job three times over. If we are to get capable men—as I expect we should get at the salaries laid down—I see no reason why the Local Government Department should be so much in dread as to insist on supervising the men they are sending down in order to see that they do their job. The ratepayers are not so loose in the pocket that they can afford to pay an extra £1,000 or £1,500 a year to a gentleman to waltz around the three health districts. If the county is to pay an extra £1,000 or £1,500 to a medical man, he ought to do his job. I hope that there will be no occasion for further wrangling about this matter. I am glad that this arrangement for a county medical officer of health has been brought in. He does good work but you can have too much of a good thing. This section states that the man who is appointed to a county health district shall be known as county medical officer of health and not assistant county medical officer of health. This Act makes no provision whatsoever for the appointment of a superintendent to carry on and look after three of them together, and if the Local Government Department considers that that policy is right, then they can turn around and have three areas in one, and appoint a superintendent over every three, just the same as they propose to do in Cork. There is going to be this blister inflicted on Cork—and we are not standing for any blisters in Cork.

It is nearly two years ago since the Housing Bill was brought in. The County Council of Cork has done its part. It has passed two sums of £250,000 each time for the building of labourers' cottages; that was the county council's part of the work—to pass the money. They have passed £500,000 of money for labourers' cottages, yet the only cottages that have been built were built on plots that were passed under the 1914 scheme or before 1914 — before the war. There seems to be a swopping of blame. The local boards say it is the fault of the Local Government Department, and the Department says it is the fault of the local boards. Between the two it is, anyway; and that is very little use to the labourer who is waiting for his house, and who sees that the money has been passed nearly two years ago by the Cork County Council. I am prepared to pay every tribute to the inspector who came down from the Local Government to inquire into it. He did his work and did it well. I would like that the Department of Local Government would now get ahead with the reports—let us have them—let us get to work this summer, and see that the houses are built, and not be clapping them on to us, when it is raining, next winter. We want to build houses for the rural labourers of the county. We are anxious to do it. We have proved our anxiety by passing £500,000 for it. It is up to the Local Government Department if the boards are slow to get them going ahead. We will guarantee to help them anyway; but if it is the fault of the Local Government Department in any way, we want that to be wiped out at once.

Deputy Brennan here last night alluded to the use of credit-notes, and he said they served no useful purpose whatever. He dealt with the persons who were unable to pay. Now the credit note was used for the first time, last year. One thing it did. It smashed the most wretched, filthy conspiracy that ever existed in Cork County. It smashed it. It brought in £74,000, in the last week of March, in rates; and mind you, it was only a 19s. 10d. credit note. Yet a 19s. 10d. credit note smashed the secret society, and it brought in £74,000 or £75,000 in the last week of March. They sold all the Blueshirts in the Free State for 19s. 10d.; came in, and brought their rates rather than lose the 19s. 10d. I consider the credit-note system a fairly good one. I consider a better system still, the system under which the farmer who is tilling his land and employing labour gets credit for the labour, and gets relief in his rates for the labour. I would like that the credits that are being given would be given direct, on those lines.

Another particular matter I would like to touch on here is in regard to agricultural grants. I honestly think, and say this straight to the Minister, he should, in the Executive Council——

How does the agricultural grant arise on this Estimate?

You are considering local government grants.

It does not arise on that.

You are on the grants part of local government.

It does not arise on this Estimate. I have a vague recollection of the grant being discussed in this House within the last couple of weeks, and certain things were decided.

You have a bad recollection.

Mr. Kelly

We have heard enough about that grant anyway.

Since I cannot touch on that matter, I am not going to. I do not want to delay things, but those are a few points I wish to put forward, and I hope, as regards the county medical officer of health, there will be no occasion for further complaint, and also with regard to the housing schemes generally.

One other matter. We were expecting—it was guaranteed in fact—that some Bill would be passed that would help us in regard to small dwellings. There seems to be some delay that is holding up assistance for building, in the Cork County, at any rate. These who wish to build them are needing help in the shape of loans or otherwise from local councils, and I would like the Minister to let us know in his reply when that Bill is going to be introduced, and when we are going to have an opportunity of helping out the grants that are given for the building of houses, with loans from local bodies —and if he thinks that can be done at present will he let us know how. We are held up in Cork County for the last 18 months or two years, in that particular matter, and we are anxious to know how we can get over it. I regret delaying the House. I wanted to bring these few matters up.

I think it is appropriate on this Estimate to draw the Minister's attention to conditions that were revealed here when a recent Bill was going through this House, namely, that all that law that he has under the Public Health Acts—it was quite evident from revelations here on the Milk and Dairies Bill—is not being enforced throughout the country. It would not matter that I or any Deputy from around the City or County of Dublin would want to make a special point of mentioning here, if the neglect were uniform. But surely the Minister and his Department ought to take steps to have uniformity in the administration of the Public Health Acts throughout the country.

I do not want to discuss a Bill that has only just gone through, but I am afraid that there is temporising with a certain section of that measure, which will continue, with lack of uniformity in administration throughout the country. The Parliamentary Secretary hinted at getting around an important section of that measure which is being fully administered at the present time in County Dublin and the City of Dublin.

It is not fair to people who have gone to the expense not only of that administration but also gone to the expense of producing certain articles under the conditions required by the Public Health Act and the Dairies' and Cowsheds' Order that these people who cannot produce that article as cheaply because it is a better article—and to produce a better article requires more money—should be penalised when in competition with people who are not required to produce the article under the conditions I have mentioned.

I would call the Minister's attention to the veto which I understand he exercised over a form of tender that was advertised for the supply of a considerable amount of milk to the Dublin Union. In that tender it was specified that the milk required should be produced in the areas contributing to the upkeep of the Dublin Union, and I understand that the Minister for Local Government or his Department vetoed that proviso and insisted that the Union should accept the cheapest tender. I would not have objected so much to that if the Minister or the Local Government Department would add to such specification "provided that the milk is produced under the same conditions that obtain throughout the areas contributing to the Dublin Union." If he agrees to that, he agrees to something he has already rejected. In no other area in this country is milk produced under the same hygienic conditions and supervision as it is in Dublin City and County. I think that it is very unfair when we are rating people to pay for the services that the legislature requires us to provide that we should penalise these people. I say that the Minister for Local Government should insist that these Acts be administered uniformly throughout the country and see that the machinery for their administration is set up. If that machinery is too cumbersome or expensive, the counties that want to go forward should be held back until the other counties are ready to advance with them step by step. There is no use one county moving ahead while another stays behind, because there is a great deal of intercommunication between the counties. I am sure that the Minister will take cognisance of that fact and that he will say that his Department was not dealing in an equitable manner in rejecting that form of tender.

Those who carry out the laws should not be penalised. We should encourage the people who produce the best article under the best conditions instead of penalising them. They should be induced to produce the best milk. In the item of Local Government there is an increase of roughly about £250,000. There are not many variations from last year except in housing grants. I think it is in the matter of housing grants contributions—the annual loan charges of local authorities for the equipment, building and reconstruction of dwelling houses—that there is an increase of from £500,000 to £200,000. In item 2, grants to private persons, local authorities, public utility societies and philanthropic societies for the equipment, building and reconstruction of dwelling houses there is £250,000 increase. There is £150,000 for local authorities and £100,000 for grants to private people or private speculators. There are big implications in that increase in the grants, and they must foreshadow a certain definite policy, and the Minister and the Department are apparently satisfied that an extension in that policy will take place and is quite feasible this coming year. I regret I did not hear the Minister's entire statement in asking for this Estimate, but I do not think that he dwelt over largely on that particular item. I am not going to criticise that item or the policy indicated, but my remarks will be more in the nature of an inquiry as to how the Minister intends to implement the policy fore-shadowed in this increase of £250,000. I take it that he does not contemplate an increase of the annual grants. Now the only way he can absorb or consume the £100,000 increase to private builders or speculators is in a corresponding increase in the number of houses to be built during the coming financial year. Seeing that the Minister nodded assent to my suggestion, I do not think that the annual grants are going to be increased. I should like the Minister to dwell at some length on that Act when he is winding up this debate and inform the House what are his grounds for expecting an extension of building operations in the coming year, when he is aware that, in the last few months, building operations have appreciably declined, and appreciably declined from causes which made that decline inevitable and of which the Minister is well aware. If he contemplates using up the increased £250,000 in the form of grants in this coming year, he must see where the finances are to come from to build that increased quota of houses and where the finances are to come from for the purchase of those houses, when built.

He knows that the most potent machinery for the purchase of houses broke down when the market was tested. He knows that the authority which administered, to a greater extent than all the rest of the country put together, the Small Dwellings Acts has now no money to administer them. He knows that that authority places a loan on the market through underwriters and he knows that that loan was not subscribed by the public, not-withstanding the fact that it was offered on terms at least one per cent. better than the terms on which loans were offered in similar, but not as big, cities and towns in Great Britain. We offered it at one per cent. more than the terms upon which the money was subscribed—in fact, more than was required was subscribed—in Great Britain and we did not get our loan. Housing has suffered accordingly, and the housing programme for 1935 is not there because there is no money to warrant the formulation of such a programme. House purchase under the Small Dwellings Act has ceased in the City of Dublin but it is operating in the County of Dublin. A nice matter arises there. It is operating in the county and we have to use money there from the Board of Works for that purpose, which costs us approximately one per cent. more than the money for similar purposes costs the Corporation. When the Corporation, on the strength of that economical administration and that comparatively lavish use of money, administered the Small Dwellings Act, and with the acquisition of property to city rating, on the £800,000 or £900,000 administered by the Corporation to purchase houses in the last two and half years, there has been no loss whatever. There has been no default under the Small Dwellings Act in this city, yet, when they tested their credit on the market and asked for a loan on terms one per cent. better than British municipalities were then offering, while the British municipalities got their money, the Dublin Corporation did not. It puzzles me how, in face of that situation, the Minister contemplates another £100,000 more for housing grants this year than last year, when I, who have experience of local administration both in the Corporation and the County Council, and who have a little experience as a builder, cannot see where the money to purchase houses is to come from. Nobody in this House would be more pleased than I if the Minister would disclose where the mint lies. I know builders who have 20 or 30 houses sold in anticipation of the Small Dwellings Act being available to help them purchase their houses, and if it is not available those purchases cannot go through. Some of those houses are built and some are not yet built. Assume that there are 20 such houses, representing £1,000 in grants. That represents £1,000 of the £100,000 increase which the Minister contemplates. A year ago these builders were able to sell their maximum output but now none of them is working to capacity. Many of them are standing with houses built—some with a dozen houses completed—contracts signed, deposits received for those houses, and people ready to go into those houses if, under the Small Dwellings Act, the offer can be made: "Here is the usual percentage of the purchase money."

All these people can be accommodated if that purchase money can be offered under the Small Dwellings Act. The money is not there, and, if that money is not there, those houses will lie on somebody's hands. Some kind of a deal will have to be made. The Corporation will come along and charge those people rates for those houses which they built on the expectation of selling and which they cannot sell because the source of the money has dried up. I should be glad if the Minister could inform the House how that source of supply can be replenished, or if he has in mind a new source of supply. If he has not I regret that my view of it must be that, instead of requiring £100,000 more, in this coming year, for grants at the same rate per house, he will want considerably more than £100,000 less, for a grant is no inducement to anybody to build houses and to speculate with those houses. A grant of £50 is no good if you cannot sell your house, when you have it built, and I am speaking with some bitter experience.

There is another matter in this Estimate which is somewhat illuminating. The grant in respect of supply of native fuel for necessitous households was £4,500 last year, and there is a blank under that heading this year. Was there £4,500 worth of wisdom bought last year? There is also another matter to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. I suppose he is aware—I do not want to labour it too much, and the Ceann Comhairle need not be afraid that I am going to look for a discussion on this—of the result of the coal-cattle pact. It has put up the cost of institutions considerably. In the case of Grangegorman, that pact has been responsible for increasing the existing contract by £1,454. With another increase of 1/- per ton on coal since last Saturday, the price to the Committee will go up still further. It is all to the good that the Ceann Comhairle will not permit an extension of the discussion on that, because to try to labour the point would spoil it.

During the last year the Minister, in the onward march of democracy, has taken the control of allocating houses out of the hands of the boards of health. Of course, the Minister can say that is not true. If he did his statement would be true and it would not. He has, in effect, done what I have said in this way: that if his veto is not recognised in the allocation of houses he will refuse to sanction the yearly subsidy of in or about 66 per cent. That, of course, is a very big consideration with local bodies, so that the Minister's veto is as effective as a direct order from him saying: "Do as I direct or get out." The Minister, by the use of pen and ink, can do something that the previous imperialist administration did not do, and that the previous tyrannical British Empire did not do when they controlled local government in this country. We had to wait until we got a democratic republican administration to take that kind of democratic control of the democratically-elected bodies of the country. I would be glad if the Minister would give some indication of the policy that local authorities should adopt as regards the allocation of houses. Though I often find fault with the policy of the Minister on that, there is, I admit, much good in it. At the same time I would like to have some indication of policy from the Minister on the matter of allocating houses to people in receipt of home assistance. The Minister is aware that the medical officer of health comes into this. He is given a list of the applicants for houses. He inspects their dwellings in company with the sanitary officer. The medical officer, of course, is not concerned as to whether an applicant is qualified for a house under the provisions of the Labourers' Acts or not. It is no concern of his whether an applicant is a £1,000 a year man or a beggarman. His only concern is with the condition of the applicants' houses.

We are carrying out building schemes on borrowed money for which, in the last analysis, the credit of the rates is pledged. We fix the rents for the new houses. When we do that we have not any particular tenant before our minds. When the houses are ready for occupation and the rents fixed, people make application for them. How are we to deal with applicants in receipt of home assistance? If we give the houses to such people it means that we are building houses for them, and that if they pay us rent we must first give them the rent. It is very difficult for public health boards to handle those cases. If we give them houses and find that after three or six months they are not able to pay the rents, then if we face up to our duty we have to put them out again. I think we should have some indication of the Minister's policy on that question as to how we should deal with such cases, and so that agreement might be reached between the Minister and the public bodies. They do not want to be at variance with the Minister, and it would be well if we could have an understanding about it.

There is one matter affecting the County Dublin Board of Health—it affects it more than any other similar body in the country—and that is, that a lot of those looking for labourers' cottages in the County Dublin have, strictly speaking, ceased to be agricultural labourers, and, if in employment, are getting somewhat more remunerative employment than the strictly agricultural labourer. Some cases have arisen where we had, so to speak, to fight the Local Government Department on the question of allocating houses. We showed generally a preference for the agricultural labourer, because, on the whole, he is not as well paid as the other labourer, when the other labourer is working. We had passages at arms with the Department in a quiet way. We sent forward a recommendation and it was vetoed; we sent it back again, and in the end no blood was shed and we settled the matter up. We would rather minimise the necessity for vetoes than increase them. It is the unanimous view of our Board of Health that bona fide agricultural labourers should get a preference, and I would like to hear the Minister on that. I am afraid that is the line we are more or less prepared to fight on, though we want peace with the Ministry, and we would be very glad if the Minister and his Department were substantially in agreement with us on that.

As regards the Housing Board, I have heard from people who have a practical knowledge of things that the Housing Board has done good work. I cannot personally say whether it has or not, because we have not been put into a position to judge. I have not met it anywhere doing any sort of work. As I have said, people who have more practical experience than I have tell me it has done good work, and I will say that before I offer a little criticism in regard to it. Why is there not some kind of an effort made so that when the Department insists, by making grants conditional, on using certain materials, it would at the same time endeavour to get a spurt on with the Housing Board, if that is the proper board, to exert the pressure to get us the required materials? I am thinking particularly of slates. Many people have a prejudice against any other roofing than slates and, when we have very rich deposits, as I understand, very rich slate quarries in this country, why is there not a better attempt made to exploit them so that those engaged in building can have a better range to show? I think the Minister should realise that there is a preference for a slated roof, no matter where the slate is got, as against another form of roofing material, no matter where that other material is got. That preference for slates and that prejudice against any other materials is a very big element, a very major element, and the Minister would be well advised, if an increase in the production cannot be made to meet with the demand, to modify his view on the question of slates.

The Minister may take it that I do not make a suggestion of that kind for the purpose of getting in, by the backdoor, some foreign material, because I use nothing else but Irish slates, even whether it pays me or does not pay me. As a choice I used them before it meant one penny whether I did or did not, before the grants were conditional on using them. This affects local government administration also. Grants are withheld because certain other housefittings are not of Irish material. I am afraid there is a tendency among people who produce house fittings, such as mantelpieces, fire surrounds, grates, rain pipes, gutters and so on, for new manufacturers to try to be the Jack of all trades and to make everything. I do not think that is treating house-building fairly. I have in mind one firm that makes certain fittings. I will not say what they are, because I would be only identifying the firm. It is a pretty large firm and it has a monopoly of some of the things required in the building trade. I think they would be very well advised to stick to that line and not try to be specialists in a hundred lines, because that would be an impossibility. I know it has come to the knowledge of the Housing Board, if not to the knowledge of the Department, that many builders were held up because of delay in the delivery of certain lines that this particular firm makes.

It is all very well to be talking of the good work that has been done and of what remains to be done. With the remarks of Deputy O'Dowd, I am in entire agreement. Of course, he is aware that provision is being made as rapidly as possible for a new fever hospital in Dublin. All he has said about the shortage of beds, we hear every fortnight at our board meetings —the want of hospital space, and so on. A southern Deputy, who, up to now, saw nothing but prosperity all around, had to remind the House that there is a limit to what can be paid. I was glad that Deputy Corry informed the House that there is not a leprecaun at every door in the County Cork.

Hands off Cork.

We all knew that long ago, and I am quite sure Deputy Corry knew it, too, but he has admitted today that he knows it now. The position in regard to ratepaying is a serious one. We have only got to the extent of determining the rate in the county, and I have got shoals of letters from people all over the county asking how we expect the people to pay those rates. The position is serious, because even our live-stock breeding schemes are affected by an order made by the Minister last year to the effect that nobody would get a mare nomination, or that nobody could keep a stallion, unless the rates were paid up to a certain time. That has dislocated the whole thing.

Because they were not offered the proverbial 19/10 which the Deputy mentioned a moment ago— because they were not able to pay.

Because they wanted the people who paid their rates to pay for the stallions for them.

The Minister, I am sure, is aware that under the heifer scheme the year before the last current year, loans of about £75,000 were granted. There were more applications last year than in the previous year, but because of the Minister's order—I am not saying now whether the order was right or wrong; I am only giving this instance to indicate the economic position and the rates position—the loans under the heifer scheme amounted to only about £4,000 last year. That is a serious position. I am merely offering that as knowledge which has come my way. I am not offering it by way of censure of or opposition to the Ministry, but it is as well that we should know all those things and bear them in mind when we are contemplating not a saving but an increase of £250,000 this coming year.

Deputy O'Dowd wanted to throw some bouquets at the Ministry. I have no thorns to throw at them. Any business which I had with the Ministry of Local Government last year could not have been better done for me if I owned the place myself. Deputy O'Dowd suggested that if the public had any fault to find with local government administration in this country that fault lay with the local authorities and not with the Ministry. Being a doctor, he was naturally concerned with matters that a doctor is concerned with in his profession. He talked of sewerage, water supplies and so on. No rural housing authority has spent more money on sewerage systems and water supplies than the rural housing authority of County Dublin has spent in the last few years. I think the Minister will readily accept that. In one place we were tormented with applications to put in water supplies and sewerage systems. We put in a sewerage system at a cost of nearly £5,000. How many connections did we get? We got four. Now, at the present moment we have to use whatever compulsory powers we have to make people connect with that—the very people who were clamouring at our doors to be given modern sanitation.

There is another experiment which we are considering, and nowhere, I think, is there as good an opportunity of making a case for it as here. I think it is quite in order. Around the City of Dublin there are areas which, perhaps, if the thing had to be done again, might have been brought into Greater Dublin. I have in mind one area in particular, and that is the Finglas area. Taking it all, from Ballymun to Ashtown, there are not worse housing conditions anywhere in Ireland than there are in some of the old glens around there. The nearest point of that area is not more than two or two and a half miles from where we are standing, and yet that area cannot get a city water supply. It is no fault of the City authorities. The City Manager would be prepared to give it if he were satisfied that the areas for which he has a statutory obligation to supply water would be assured of a water supply even if the worst happens. While he is not in a position to satisfy himself that, in all contingencies which may arise, he will have a supply for the areas under his charge, he cannot take the risk of supplying water to an area like the Finglas area. To relieve the housing position there we have sought compulsory powers to take over about 20 acres of land. Instead of putting in ordinary labourers' cottages there we contemplate putting up about 200 houses of the artisan class. We could accommodate labourers of a poorly paid grade in perhaps a dozen or two dozen houses. We cannot, however, run that scheme without a water supply. The City authorities will give us a sewerage connection, and the Board of Health is prepared to do its part, but the snag in the whole thing is the water supply. Of course, to carry it further, the snag in that whole idea is the shortage of water for the City. In regard to the Poulaphouca scheme I wonder would the Minister give us any information as to whether anything will be done with it in the coming year, because I am afraid that that governs the whole situation in regard to housing developments. I do not understand the engineering technicalities of it, but some further apparatus is required to drive water to the north side in any quantities.

Is there not an available supply there?

In the pumps.

I did not mean that.

What do you mean?

I wonder does the Deputy suggest a bucket and rope?

Where was Deputy Belton born? One would think he never heard of such things.

That is why I made the statement I made. I was born where these things were used. The Deputy was born beside a tap. He had only to turn on a tap all his life.

As a matter of fact the people of the locality know where there is an available supply.

This is most interesting indeed.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy is sorry he spoke now.

No, but the Doctor-Deputy who spoke will be sorry when I am done with him. This gentleman has been there for a little while after we have been trying for years to get a water supply for the district of Finglas. We agreed that the village and district should have a water supply. There was no supply there for the houses built. Nobody in Finglas will drink the water of the Tolka. There was a public meeting and not one hand was raised for using that water or one who agreed it was fit for use. No doctor, not even Doctor O'Dowd, gave a certificate of immunity for that water. The Deputy is aware that from Blanchardstown to the village of Finglas there are 50 or 60 big or little sewers draining into that river. The ordinary individual there would walk to the Shannon before he would take a drink out of that stream.

Mr. Kelly

I thought the Deputy was a water diviner.

No. Another alternative supply that was suggested was the canal.

This seems to be a matter for the Dublin County Council and not for the Minister.

He is Minister for Dublin as well. I would not think of developing this were it not that Deputy O'Dowd threw in an interjection.

Deputy Belton should not be so easily led.

Deputy Belton is not so easily led but he does not want to be bled such as is suggested by Deputy O'Dowd's remarks. The people of Finglas would not have the canal water and we tried to get water from the quarry at St. Margaret's but that was no use. To develop a building site there without sanitation would be foolish. There is only one source of supply and I will give this undertaking to Deputy O'Dowd—that the board of health will put in a water supply for Finglas if the Deputy finds a source of supply. There will not be a dissentient voice at the board against that. But there is no source of supply. There is no use in trying to develop an area with a bucket and a rope.

Send out a consulting engineer. It is his job.

There is a consulting engineer on the job, and he has not found it yet. The cobbler should stick to his last. Deputy O'Dowd is a dispensary doctor for an area in the North City and he should not attempt, in effect, to tell us that the board of health in the county were not doing their job or that they did not want to do it. Neither should this young solicitor, who blew into Finglas a few months ago, step in to organise the local people and suggest to them that the board of health is not doing its work.

This has no reference to the Estimate.

But that is what it amounts to. I would like the Minister in connection with the anticipated scheme for the city water supply which is estimated to cost £500,000, to remember that a consulting engineer was over here from Switzerland some six months ago. I understand that the principle of that scheme is adopted. I would like if the Minister would give us any indication if, when that scheme will be gone on with, that there would be a chance of something being done for Finglas. I wonder would the Minister be prepared to relieve the City Manager of any responsibility he has of conserving the city water supply— say, in case the City Manager gave authority for an extension of the water supply from the city to Finglas so as to help out this housing scheme in Finglas, and there was any shortage of water coming to the city, would the City Manager be relieved of his responsibility in the matter? If that were done it would, I think, case the situation and ease the limit on house building there. Our limit of house building would not remain at a couple of hundred houses. We know that a couple of hundred houses would not meet the housing needs of that area. If the Minister takes a mental view of it he will see that Finglas is in close proximity to the City, just as near to it as Cabra and much nearer to it than the big development that is taking place in Crumlin, and for that reason perhaps he would agree to my suggestion. The county authorities are prepared to go on with the housing scheme at Finglas. The Minister could give the open door to that development, for it is now more or less in the Minister's hands. I do not say that the Minister should do it or that he should not do it, but I would appeal to him to consider the possibility of allowing the water from the City to be connected up with that area at Finglas.

Mr. Kelly

Will the Deputy be on the job next Wednesday?

No. If any other Deputy wants to speak now I will give way to him and he can move the adjournment. I move to report progress.

Progress reported.
The Committee to meet again on Wednesday.
The House adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, the 10th April, 1935.
Top
Share