Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Apr 1936

Vol. 61 No. 8

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

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £804,652 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íóctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar crích an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1937, 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 hOspidéil.

That a sum not exceeding £804,652 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, 1937, 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.

De réir an Mheastacháin so, soláthróchthar £1,204,652. Caithfear furmhór de (£1,052,990) ar sheirbhísibh i gcóir sláinte an phobail. Tá gádh le £95,400 sa mbreis seachas an méad do caitheadh anuiridh ar son na seirbhís sin. Deóntaisí i gcóir tógála tighthe is eadh is mó atá fá ndeara breis airgid do bheith riachtanach. Is dócha go mbeidh gádh chomh maith le breis airgid ar son na seirbhís leighis speisialta atá luaidhte ins an Meastachán. Tá na seirbhísí so ag dul i méad ar fud na tíre agus do réir gach deallraimh is mór an dul ar aghaidh fós déanfar ins na bliadhantaibh atá romhainn amach chun feabhas do chur orra.

Tá mórán déanta le deich mbliadhain anuas chum réim foghanta i gcúrsaibh sláinte an phobhail do leagadh amach. O thús na bliadhna so chugainn, beidh Oifigeach um Sláinte an Phobail ag obair i ngach conndae agus soláthrochthar dhóibh sin gach a mbeidh riachtanach chum go mbeidh sé ar a gcumas sláinte na ndaoine do chosaint. Tiocfaidh linn feasta réim do chur ar bun i ngach conndae chun leanbhaí scoile do chur fá scrúdú dochtúra agus gach rud eile do dhéanamh a bheidh riachtanach chum galair do ruagadh, agus muinntir na tíre do chur ar a leas maidir le cúrsaí sláinte.

Níl aon chúis le bheith mí-shásta mar gheall ar shláinte an phobail fá láthair acht táim cinnte gur féidir feabhas mór do chur uirri fá réim cliste ealadhanta. Má deintear scrúdú ar statistic bheathadh agus bháis na ndaoine, is léir go bhfuiltear ag dul chun chinn go mór, mar atá sé le cruthú asta gur rugadh níos mó daoine agus gur cailleadh níos lugha díobha anuiridh ná athrú anuiridh. Ba lugha an ráta bháis ná in aon bhliain go dtí so a bhfuil statistic le fagháil mar gheall uirri.

Ins an mbliadhain 1933 cailleadh 65 naoidheanáin ar gach míle naoidheanán a rugadh. An bhliadhain 'na dhiadh sin, cailleadh 63 fá'n mhíle, agus is lughaidhe um 10 per cent. an uimhir sin ná an meadhon-uimhir ins na deich mbliadhantaibh roimhe sin (1924-1933). Ní misde a rádh gur ins na bailtibh amháin a thárla an laghdú ins an mbliain 1934. Ar na ceithre cathrachaibh is i mBaile Atha Cliath is mó' a tháinig an feabhas. Táim deimhneach gurb' iad na scéimeanna i gcóir máithreachais agus leas na leanbh atá fá ndeara an scéal do bheith amhlaidh. Do réir tuairime an dochtúra atá i bhfeidhl na hoibre sin, is iad na neithe so im' dhiaidh is mó atá freagarthach leis an bhfeabhas—(1) Teagasc i gcúrsaibh máithreachais fá'n scéim um leas na leanbh; (2) Iomad deagh-bhainne atá le fáil anois i gcóir naoidheanán; (3) An feabhas atá tagaithe ar thighthibh na ndaoine.

Is oth liom ámhthach a rádh nach bhfuil aon laghdú tagaithe fós ar uimhir na máthar a cailltear gach bliain le linn breithe cloinne dóibh i naimhdhéóin a bhfuiltear ag déanamh chum sláinte na máthar do chosaint. Tá gach dream ar aon intinn mar gheall ar an tairbhe atá ag dul do leanbhaibh as ucht an bainne a gheibheann siad gach lá fá'n deontas £90,000. Do bhí an scéim so i bhfeidhm i rith na bliadhna so caithte ar fud na tíre acht amháin i ndhá bhaile. Tugaim fá ndeara go bhfuil ughdaráis aitiúla ann a chaitheann furmhór de'n deontas i rith an tsamhraidh. Níl aon amhras ná gur mó an tairbhe do na leanbhaibh an bainne saor a bheith le fáil aca ins an geimhreadh nuair bhíonn an bainne daor agus gann, agus atáim ag iarradh ar lucht ughdarás áitiúla an t-airgead so do chaitheamh ins an t-slighe ar mhóide a leas.

Do bhí scrúdú leanbhaí scoile tré dochtúirí ar siubhal sa bhliain 1925 i nocht gconntae deag agus i gceithre cathracaibh, agus do cuireadh 80 per cent. de leanbhaibh scoile na tíre fá'n scrúdú sin. Leathnóchtar an scéim so ar fud na tíre go léir i mbliana. Do soláthruigheadh béilí scoile ag trí is dachad de lucht ceannais baile agus ag a sé cinn do choimisinéiribh baile. Do b'é meadhon uimhir na leanbhaí a tugadh na béilí dóibh go laetheamhail 24,047. Tugadh béilí go laetheamhail i 316 de scoileannaibh sa nGaedhealtacht comh maith agus do b'é meadhon-uimhir na leanbhaí do bhí ag freastail ar na scoileannaibh sin 17,717.

Táim ag iarradh breis £4,500 i gcóir leighis na heitinne. Táthar chum scéim leighis do chur ar bun i gConndae Longphuirt agus annsin beidh scéimeanna dá leithéid i ngach conndae agus i ngach cathair. Táthar taréis osbidéil speisíalta i gcóir na heitinne amháin do chur ar bun i bhfurmór díobh agus le déidheannaighe, d'osglaighead a leithéid d'osbidéilibh i Ráthdroma agus i gCathair Luimnighe.

Táthar ag dul ar aghaidh go maith leis na scéimeannaibh a bhí ann cheanna agus tháinig méadú beag ar an méad daoine tháinig futha anuiridh seachas an bhliain roimhe. Do b'ionann ráta báis do bhárr an ghalair so ins an dá bhliain. Má's rud é nach ndearnadh aon chéim ar aghaidh le ruagadh an ghalair ó n-ár measc, is é mo thuairim nach bhfuighfear luach saothair ár niarrachta go hiomlán go dtí go mbeidh a mhalairt de scéal ar fad againn maidir le cúrsaibh comhnuidhthe an phobail i gcoitcheannta. Mar adubhairt mé go minic cheana, is iad tighthe maithe bun agus bárr na seirbhísí i gcóir leas sláinte an phobail. Tá sé riachtanach orm mar sin iarradh ar an Dáil bheith fialmhar arís fá'n gceist so. Admhuighim gur ualach mór ar an bpobal é an t-airgead atá 'ghá éileamh agam chum tighthe nua do sholáthair acht ní mór do'n ghlún atá anois ann an t-ualach so do ghlacadh orra ar leas an ghluin a thiocfaidh 'na ndiaidh.

Thugas eolas cruinn do'n Dáil le déidheannaighe mar gheall ar thighthibh a tógtar le daoinibh priobháidheacha agus le cuideachtaí maitheasa puiblidhe. Mar sin, ní gádh dhom anois acht tagairt do dheanamh do na tighthibh atá 'ghá soláthar ag lucht ughdarás aitiúila. Go dtí deire Márta do tógadh 11,455 de thighthibh i mbailtibh agus i gcathrachaibh fá'n Acht do ritheadh sa bhliain 1932. Díobh san cuireadh 7,140 ar leathaoibh i gcóir daoine do bhí 'na gcomhnuidhe roimhe sin i dtighthibh ná raibh oireamhnach do'n chine daonna.

Tá oifigigh leighis na gCondae ag cur suime mór ins an scéal so agus bím féin ag tafaint gan staonadh ar lucht ughdarás aitiúila na droch-thighthe so do leagadh comh luath agus atá áit chomhnuidhthe eile réidh i gcóir na ndaoine do bhíodh ionnta. De ghnáth bíonn cíosanna ó leath-choróin go dtí ceithre scillinge (gan rátaí) le díol as tighthibh a tógtar i gcóir daoine mar sin agus socruighthear an cíos i dtreó is go mbeidh sé ar chumas na ndaoine an cíos atá leagtha amach do dhíol agus gan ualach ró-throm do leagadh ar ráthaibh na háite.

Bíonn ballaí stroighne agus slinnte stroighne ar fhurmhor de's na tighthibh seo. Atá ballaí saoirseachta i gcuid aca agus ballaí brící i gcuid eile agus atá slinnte nádúrtha ar chuid mhaith díobh. Táim toilteannach i gcomhnuidhe glacadh leis na rudai so muna mbíonn a luach go ró-árd. Ní mór a rádh amhthach go bhfuil breis ó £18 to £29 i gcóir ballaí agus ó £8 go £12 i gcóir ceann slinnte ins na tairiscínti tógála a fuair lucht ughdarás aitiúil le déidheannaighe. Nuair cuimhnighthear gur ionann £10 i luach tógála an tighe agus trí pingne sa mbreis ar feadh cúig bliain triochad, béidh sé léir do chách go gcaithimíd bheith socair i nár n-aignibh nach bhfuil aon dul as againn luach na dtighthe do laghdú an oiread agus is féidir linn chomh fada agus beidh obair mhaith agus ádhbhar maith ionnta.

Do cuireadh fiosrucháin speisialta ar bun ar fud na tíre chun deimhniú d'fhágháil ar an slighe 'na sheashamh na tighthe a raibh slinnte stroighne mar cinn orra i gcoinne doininn an gheimhridh. Is é toradh na bhfiosruchán sin gur sheas na slinnte go maith daingean i naimhdheóin na fearthainne agus na gaoithe. I dtrí áiteannaibh ámhthach, do deineadh tubaiste le linn na sneachta. Do b'é cúis an tubaiste sin ná nach raibh na slinnte go maith agus atáim sásta gur ceann tighe foghanta slinnte stroighne má's rud é go ndeintear na slinnte do réir na rialacha oifigeamhalla agus go leagtar iad ag ceárdaibh cliste.

Chuaidh costas tógála tighte i laighead anuiridh acht tá comharthaí ann go bhfuil sé ag dul beagán in aoirde arís. Go dtí deire Márta tógadh 5,837 de thighthibh sclábhuidhe fá'n Acht a ritheadh sa bhliain 1932. Bíonn cíos dhá scilling sa tseachtmhain nó mar sin ar na tighthibh sin.

B'é 6,500 meadhon-uimhir na bhfear a bhí ag obair ag tógála tighthe do lucht ughdarás aitiúila gach mhí i rith na bliana agus bhíodh timcheall 5,000 fear ag obair ag tógáil tighthe eile. Chomh maith leo sin, bíonn timcheall cúig míle eile ag obair ag deanamh ádhbhar tógála agus gléas tighthe.

Is maith liom a rádh go bhfuil feabhas mór tagaithe ar chursaibh airgid na n-ughdarás áitiúila toisc go bhfuiltear ag tabhairt níos mó aire do bhailiú an airgid atá ar dul dóibh. Do b'fearr an cor do bhí ar an scéal ag deire mí Nodlag ná a bhí ins an dá bhliain roimhe sin ag an am cheana. I rith ráithe deiridh na bliana so caithte, bailigheadh níos mí ná milliún púint do sraiteannaibh do bhí amuigh. Ag deire Mí Nodlag bhí 57 per cent. des na sraitheannaibh amuigh i gcompráid le 66 per cent. ag deire na bliana 1934 agus le 60 per cent. an bliain roimhe sin.

Ag deire Márta, 1936, bhí 28½ per cent. des na sraitheannaibh amuigh i gcomparáid le 31 per cent. an bhliain roimhe sin. I gconntae is fiche bhí an bailiúchán níos fearr ná mar a bhí sé an bliain roimhe sin; i gcúig conndaithe, bhí laghdhú beag san mbailiúchán, agus san gconntae eile ba bheag an difríocht a bhí ann.

This Estimate makes provision for a net expenditure of £1,204,652, of which a sum of £1,052,990 will be spent on social services. The provision for such services shows an increase of £95,400 as compared with the past year. The main increase under this head is in respect of grants for housing. I have on previous occasions made it clear that the provision of improved housing accommodation will necessitate increased demands upon the State for some years to come. Increased provision is also likely for the special medical services for which grants are provided in this Estimate. These services are expanding throughout the country, and I expect that in the next few years considerable progress will be made in bringing them up to a higher standard. During the past ten years a good deal has been done to lay the foundation of an up-to-date public health system. From the commencement of the present financial year the services of county medical officers of health will be available in every county. Under the direction and supervision of those officers there will be provided the requisite machinery for safeguarding the health of the community. Henceforward it will be possible in every county to institute measures for the medical inspection of school children, to establish maternity and child welfare arrangements, and generally to promote schemes of housing and sanitation and take such other measures as are necessary to combat disease and improve the health of the people.

The state of the public health is not unsatisfactory, but I feel that a considerable improvement can be effected under skilled medical guidance. The vital statistics of the year 1934 which are the latest available, indicate improved conditions as they disclose a rise in the birth-rate and a fall in the death-rate as compared with the preceding year. The number of deaths in 1934— 39,083—was 1,456 less than the number registered in 1933, and the deathrate—12.97 per 1,000 of the population —constitutes a new low record for this country. This is all the more encouraging in view of the fact that the incidence of mortality in this country has since 1927 shown a practically continuous downward trend, subject to some temporary setbacks. In comparison with the above-mentioned figure for 1934, it is to be noted that the average death-rate for the decade 1924-1933 was 14.39 per 1,000 of the population.

The order of greatest incidence in regard to mortality for the year 1934, as disclosed by the standardised death-rates per 1,000 of the population was as follows:—Cork County Borough (17.98), Dublin County Borough (17.03), Limerick County Borough (16.49), Dublin County (15.87), Waterford County Borough (15.60), Louth County (14.65), and Wexford County (14.13). The lowest standardised death-rates were recorded in the following counties:— Mayo (10.14), Clare (10.39), Leitrim (10.73), Roscommon (11.22), Donegal (11.44), Sligo (11.51), and Cavan (11.60).

The infant death-rate in the year 1933 was 65 per 1,000 births. For the year 1934, the rate was 63 per 1,000 births for the whole country, which is 31 per cent. lower than the average rate for the ten years, 1901-10, and almost 10 per cent. lower than the average rate for the decennial period from 1924 to 1933. The improvement in the year 1934 as compared with 1933 was entirely in the urban areas, the respective rates for the urban and rural areas being 78 per 1,000 births in the urban, and 55 in the rural areas. Of the four county boroughs, Dublin City shows the greatest improvement since 1931. In that year the rate of infant mortality was 94 per 1,000 births as against 80 for the year 1934. It has to be borne in mind that the boundaries of the city were enlarged in 1931, and it is not possible to say to what extent that extension may have contributed to a lowering of the death-rate. I am satisfied that a good deal is due to the work of the maternity and child welfare service in the city which has developed very much in the past few years. The medical officer in charge of the scheme, in his report for the year 1934, expressed the opinion that the principal factors which contributed to the improved conditions were: (1) Educative propaganda in mother-craft under the child welfare scheme; (2) the large quantity of good quality milk now available for infant feeding; (3) improved housing conditions.

Up to recent years, public health as a subject was not much considered, and, therefore, not much attention given to and very little advantage taken of measures which are conducive to public welfare, especially those connected with child welfare and safeguarding the health of mothers during pregnancy and confinement. Much valuable work has been done by health visitors under child welfare schemes to induce mothers with children requiring treatment to avail of the services afforded under the schemes, and the increased attendances at welfare centres in the large centres of population are evidence that the services provided are being more fully availed of.

In Dublin, there were 20,198 mothers and 32,747 children on the visitation registers at the commencement of 1935 and 4,390 additional mothers and 16,829 children were added in the course of the year, making the total numbers dealt with under the scheme 24,588 mothers and 49,576 children. The attendances at the babies' clubs comprised 39,038 in respect of mothers and 45,194 in respect of children. The aggregate number of visits paid by health visitors to mothers and children in their homes during the year was 218,145. In the Cork, Limerick and Waterford County Borough scheme, there were 3,920, 2,672 and 1,157 mothers dealt with during the year 1935, whilst the numbers of children treated were 5,213, 5,868 and 2,295 respectively. The number of visits to mothers and children in their homes in these districts during 1935 were 13,508, 9,499 and 6,203.

The increased attention which has been devoted in recent years to safeguarding the health of mothers has not, however, succeeded in reducing the death-rate for maternal mortality. The chief factor affecting maternal mortality is puerperal sepsis and 104 deaths were attributed to that cause in 1934 as compared with 80 in 1933. The increase in mortality was common to both urban and rural areas. In one urban district, the death-rate reached as high as 10.03 per 1,000 births, but this was due to an epidemic which originated from the admission to the maternity ward in the county hospital of an expectant mother who was subsequently found to be suffering from a mild attack of scarlet fever. The county medical officer of health took active steps to combat the outbreak and with the co-operation of the local medical practitioners the disease was arrested. The outbreak resulted in six deaths.

The aggregate death-rate in urban areas from all puerperal conditions was 3.71 per 1,000 births in 1934, as compared with 3.19 in 1933, while the aggregate death-rate in rural areas was 5.25 per 1,000 births in the year 1934 as against 5.17 in 1933. The problem is a difficult one, and is common to most countries. It is in the fuller development of our hospital system, and in the provision of greater facilities for prenatal and post-natal care that we can hope to bring about a decided improvement.

Many reports continue to be received on the benefits derived by young children from a daily ration of milk provided under the grant of £90,000. The approved schemes for the distribution of free milk were administered during the past financial year by the sanitary authorities with the exception of two urban areas. There has been a tendency on the part of some authorities to spend the greater proportion of the grant allocated to them in the summer months. A supply of free milk is of greater value in the winter period, when milk is scarcer and dearer, and local authorities are being asked to secure the best results possible in the administration of the grant.

The conditions embodied in the free milk supply scheme as regards preference for tuberculin-tested milk, frequent inspection of milk contractors' premises, dairy cattle and methods of milk production, and the carrying out of tests for cleanliness and quality of the milk have had a very beneficial effect in educating milk producers as regards the necessity for improvement in their methods of handling and distributing milk. It has also educated public opinion as to the desirability of obtaining a purer and better milk supply, and has, therefore, prepared the way for the operation of the legislation recently passed. Regulations under the Milk and Dairies Act, 1935, are being prepared, and I hope to be in a position shortly to fix the appointed day bringing into operation the major portion of the Act.

Approved school medical inspection schemes were in operation in 1935 in the four county boroughs and 18 counties. The number of school children who came within the ambit of the schemes represented over 80 per cent. of the elementary school-going population. The extension of this service to the whole country will be completed in the present year. The number of school children inspected in 1934 was 114,087. The following defects were ascertained: Dental, 36,786; tonsils and adenoids, 23,514; defective vision and other eye defects, 17,459. The number of children treated for dental defects were 35,183; for tonsils and adenoids, 5,943 and for defective vision, 8,788. The schemes are developing along satisfactory lines and are proving of great value to the school-going population by removing many defects which would otherwise remain unattended to.

School meals were provided by 43 urban authorities and 6 town commissioners. The average daily number of children provided with meals was 24,047, and the total number of meals supplied was 4,275,169. In the Gaeltacht meals were provided in 316 schools and the average daily number of children in attendance was 17,717. The total number of meals provided was 3,003,985.

For the treatment of tuberculosis an additional provision of £4,500 is required. A scheme is about to be started in Longford County. There will then be in every county and county borough approved arrangements for the domiciliary and institutional treatment of the disease. Extended facilities for treatment have been made available by the establishment of local sanatoria in most of the counties and county boroughs. New institutions have been opened recently in Limerick City and at Rathdrum.

The existing schemes are being administered satisfactorily. The number of cases treated during 1934 was slightly greater than the previous year. The rate of mortality was the same for both years, being 1.17 per 1,000 of the population. The progress made in combating the disease seems to be slowing up, and I am inclined to the view that full benefit from the expenditure on tuberculosis and other public health services will not be derived until a radical improvement has been brought about in housing conditions. As I have said on previous occasions, good housing is at the foundation of all the social services. It is well, therefore, that this Estimate includes a generous provision for the furtherance of housing schemes in the present year. There is a heavy financial obligation being incurred, but it is a burden that the present generation should willingly bear for the benefit of the generation to follow. It is essential, too, that increased attention be given to sanitary improvements. In this respect progress was well maintained in the carrying out of public health works. Grants amounting to approximately £100,000 were allocated for water supplies and sewerage schemes. Loans advanced for the carrying out of such schemes amounted to £214,000.

In the recent discussion of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I gave full particulars of the progress made in the erection of houses by private persons and public utility societies. I will now deal with building by local authorities. The number of houses built up to the end of March last, under the 1932 Act in urban areas was 11,455, of which 4,099 were completed during the previous 12 months. Of the total number completed, 7,140 were for the rehousing of persons removed from clearance areas or from houses unfit for human habitation. The total number built by the Dublin Corporation was 3,573, of which 1,244 were for rehousing. Cork Corporation built 646, of which 507 were for rehousing. Dun Laoghaire Corporation built 403, of which 339 were for rehousing. Limerick Corporation built 412, of which 405 were for rehousing, and Waterford built 300, of which 194 were for rehousing.

Considerable progress has been made by urban authorities in connection with the clearance of unhealthy areas and the demolition of unfit houses. Up to date, 3,564 houses have actually been demolished, and the number in respect of which clearance orders or demolition orders have been made is approximately 5,000. The county medical officers of health are taking a keen interest in the elimination of the slums and unfit houses, and the necessity for ensuring that all unfit houses are demolished as soon as alternative accommodation is provided for the occupants, is being continually impressed on local authorities. The rents charged for houses provided for rehousing usually range from 2/6 to 4/- per week, exclusive of rates. Careful consideration is given in all cases to the fixing of rents so as to ensure that the weekly payments will be within the means of the prospective tenants and at the same time secure that an undue burden will not fall on the rates. The houses provided for persons who cannot pay the full economic rent are generally let at 5/6 to 7/6 per week. In Dublin, rents are usually at the rate of 2/6 per room.

The form of construction used is generally concrete walling with concrete tiled roofs. In certain cases masonry and brick walling have been approved, and native slates have, in a number of cases, been used. I am always prepared to approve of the use of brick, stone or slates, where the prices quoted can be regarded as reasonable. In recent tenders received by local authorities, the extra cost for brick walling averaged £18 to £29 per house, and the extra cost for slated roofs was £8 to £12 per house. When it is remembered that every £10 of capital cost per house means a weekly charge of 3d. over the loan period of 35 years, the necessity for ensuring that building costs are reduced to a minimum consistent with durability and good workmanship will be apparent.

Special reports have been obtained in all areas showing the effect of the recent severe winter storms on houses roofed with concrete tiles. It has been found that the roofs satisfactorily withstood the rain and wind storms. In the case of three schemes, serious damage was reported as the result of snow blizzards. These cases have been specially examined, and it has been ascertained that the damage was caused by defective tiling. I am satisfied that concrete tiles, when manufactured in accordance with the official specification and fitted by competent tradesmen, make a satisfactory roof covering.

Building costs for 1935 were lower than in previous years, but recent tenders received in a number of areas show an upward tendency of from 5 to 10 per cent. on 1935 figures. The number of labourers' cottages built under the 1932 Act up to the end of March was 5,837, of which 2,091 were built during the previous 12 months. These are being let at about 2/- a week. The number of men employed on schemes promoted by local authorities averaged 6,500 per month. On houses that are being built and reconstructed by private persons and public utility societies, employment is being afforded to about 5,000 men, making approximately 11,500 men directly employed on house-building. About 5,000 additional men are employed in the manufacture and preparation of building materials and appliances.

Increased provision has been made in the Estimate for the cultivation of allotments. There is likely to be a considerable increase in the number of plots to be provided during the 1936 season. To date schemes have been confirmed in 58 centres, embracing 4,000 allotments. The total number to be cultivated will be about 6,000. The general increase in the activities of local authorities under the Allotments Act may be attributed to the increased publicity afforded the schemes by the Press and local agencies, and also to a keener interest by unemployed persons in work of this kind.

For the financial year just commenced increased provision has been made by county councils for road maintenance. The amount to be raised for the maintenance of main roads is £845,357, being an increase of £10,749 over the amount provided last year. The amount to be raised for county roads is £686,676, which is in excess of last year's provision by a sum of £4,181. There is also an increased provision of £34,985 for the surface dressing of main and county roads. I am glad to say there has been no falling off in the attention that is being given by local authorities and their staffs to this important branch of the public services. Throughout the year there was close co-operation with the Department to secure the maximum value for the expenditure incurred from rates and grants. The condition of streets in towns has been receiving special consideration, grants having been made in a number of cases. This matter is being pursued and reports are being prepared as a guide in the allocation of future grants. The receipts from motor vehicle duties for the year ended 31st March, 1936, amounted to £1,000,000 as compared with £942,000 for the previous year. Road grants allocated last year totalled £766,000, and it is expected that grants of a similar amount will be made during the current financial year. During the past year further regulations were made under the Road Traffic Act, 1933. These regulations, entitled the Large Public Service Vehicles Regulations, 1935, are applied to large public service vehicles in addition to the regulations made in 1934 as to construction, equipment and use of all mechanically propelled vehicles. The 1935 regulations deal with a variety of matters such as the calculation of passenger accommodation, the size, stability, turning circle, springs, brakes, steering mechanism, tyres, steps, entrances, seats, internal lighting, ventilation, etc., of large public service vehicles. The regulations deal also with the equipment of such vehicles and require them to carry first aid dressings and fire extinguishers. Court clerks notified the Department of 125 cases of disqualifications or other endorsements under the driving licence provisions of the Act during the past year. The notifications were duly circulated to the licensing authorities. Under the compulsory insurance clauses of the Act there were only three cases during the year of specific complaint as to refusals by companies except on onerous terms. In two of these the Department took the matter up with the companies concerned and a reasonable settlement was arrived at. In the third case the complainant dropped the matter.

There has been a general improvement in the financial position of the county councils due to a better collection of their revenues. At the end of the December quarter the position of the rate collection showed an improved position as compared with the preceding two years. In the months of October, November and December the outstanding rates were reduced by over £1,000,000, and at the end of December 57 per cent. of the rates was outstanding as compared with 66 per cent. at December, 1934, and 60 per cent. at December, 1933. At the end of March, 1936, the percentage outstanding was reduced to 28½ per cent. as compared with 31 per cent. outstanding at March, 1935, and 36 per cent. for the year before. In 21 counties the collection was better than in the previous year, in five counties there was a slight falling off, and in the remaining county the proportion outstanding was much the same as the previous year.

Preliminary steps for the preparation of planning schemes were taken during the year by the Corporation of Dublin; the Corporations of Clonmel, Dun Laoghaire, Sligo and Wexford; by the councils of the urban districts of Arklow, Bray, Ennis, Galway, Howth and Killarney, and the councils of the Counties of Dublin and Waterford. With the exception of these areas there appears to be a lack of interest in planning. Useful discussions on the subject have taken place amongst the professional associations, and the prominence which has been given in the Press to the matter helps materially to bring about increased interest in and a better appreciation of the public advantages to be derived from a careful planning of the growth of our towns. The preparation of a planning scheme is a slow process. The social and economic conditions of the district to be planned have to be carefully surveyed and careful forecasts made of future development. Consultations between the planning authority and the owners of land and others interested in development will be necessary so that the planning scheme may secure as full a measure of agreement as is possible.

A large measure of control follows upon the passing of a resolution deciding to make a planning scheme. The planning authority has from that time the power to grant permission for works to proceed, or it may prohibit any particular work which would be likely to contravene any of the provisions which it is intended to embody in the scheme. Only in two cases of special prohibitions have appeals been made to me. In one of these the prohibition, not being validly made, was inoperative. The other case, which is concerned with the prohibition of the inclusion of a shop in the plans for the reconstruction of a house in a public square, is at present being investigated. The small number of appeals would indicate that a considerable measure of agreement is being secured. In Dublin City and Dun Laoghaire Borough a good deal of necessary control over development has been secured since the passing of resolutions deciding to make planning schemes with the assent of those engaged in constructional works.

Deputy Brennan has a motion on the Order Paper that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. There is also a motion in the names of Deputies Everett and Pattison that the Vote be reduced by £100 in respect of item F1. That motion does not appear on the Order Paper through an oversight and not through any fault of the Deputies. There are, therefore, two motions. In theory the motion which has been submitted by Deputy Brennan affords an opportunity of discussing the policy of the Government, but, as Deputies have realised, it is impossible to separate such a motion from the Vote itself. Hence the established procedure is that the discussion on the Vote and on a motion to refer back proceeds together. During that discussion Deputy Everett and Deputy Pattison will be afforded an opportunity of raising the matter set out in the motion which stands in their names. When the Minister has concluded the debate a division, if required, will be given on the motion to refer back—that is, on the question of policy—and, when that has been disposed of, an opportunity will be given to Deputy Everett of having a division on the point raised in his motion, and finally on the Vote itself.

Are the two motions being taken together during the discussion?

That is the usual procedure. Any other course would lead to repetition and duplication of debate.

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. I am doing so for various reasons which I shall endeavour to set forth. Firstly, let me say that it seems an extraordinary thing that while last year I felt obliged to complain of the enormous increase in personnel and in salaries, wages and allowances, I have to make the same complaint this year. It would appear that the Minister for Local Government, as well as other Ministers, feel that the right policy is to appoint any amount of officials and pay them at the public expense. We have had ample evidence of that. Of course, the Minister may think that it is perhaps one way of redeeming the pledge of providing employment, but it is a very expensive way of doing it.

This year we have an increase in the actual number of persons employed at what I might call headquarters of 44, in addition to an increase of 39 last year. That increase includes various types of officials from high-salaried officials down to messenger boys. The Minister has seen fit even to increase the messenger-boy staff. Last year there was an increase in salaries and wages of £7,810 and, in addition to that, this year we have an increase of £9,406.

The Minister has not endeavoured to justify that increase in any way. He said, of course, we have social services, but he has provided this increased money almost entirely for housing which ought not to increase the personnel at headquarters. The whole thing, as presented here in this Estimate, with its list of officials and salaries, gives the lie direct to what the Minister and his Party promised when they were seeking for power in this country. Then they gave the impression that they were going to cut down expenses, particularly those of the big-salaried people in this country, and that they would give equal efficiency at a lesser cost. They told us they were going to provide various local services, including de-rating, which if it had been provided would alter this Vote and the liabilities of the people to an enormous extent. We have not had any of these things. On the contrary, we have a piling up of officials and a piling up of salaries.

I drew attention, last year, to one particular Estimate which struck me all the time as a kind of sinecure—that is the Housing Board. If it was a sinecure last year it is more of a sinecure this year. It would be a joke except for the fact that we have to pay for the joke. I have been endeavouring to find out, for the last couple of years, what the Housing Board is doing and I cannot find any record of work for which they are responsible. The board consists of a chairman with £1,000 a year, and two part-time members with £500 each, inclusive. I do not know whether my memory serves me rightly, but I think that one of those members for whom we are providing £500 a year has ceased to be a member of the Housing Board for some time. People will remember a kind of scare, or perhaps I might call it a kind of housing scandal, that occurred at Castlebar. One member of the board became very critical of the Minister and his Department, and I think that that gentleman has ceased to be a member of the board, and I do not think his place has been filled. But not only are we making provision for his salary, but we are increasing the travelling allowances. Last year it averaged £225. This year the figure is £250. I think the Minister ought to tell us what really this Housing Board is doing. The Minister has his legal advisers, and prominent officials, and I do not think there is any necessity whatever for this board beyond providing jobs for three or four people. That was always my impression of the Housing Board, and that is still my impression. But having placed people in these positions the Minister does not know how to get rid of them. I maintain they are an expensive luxury, and unless they are serving a definite purpose their services ought not to be continued, and they ought not to be left as a drain upon the public purse.

Looking through this Estimate it seems an extraordinary thing that the Minister and his Department find it necessary to increase, to such an alarming extent, the number of officials required. The Minister has not told us anything about that. But we have a kind of rehash as to the type of offices that certain officials fill. Perhaps that is all to the good. Perhaps the Minister has very good reason for that. We find people who were "principals" last year are "heads of sections" now, and vice versa. Their salaries are altered and increased. Junior executive officers have been increased; clerical officers have been increased, and other heads have been reduced. As a kind of adjustment that may be all right, but I think the Minister should have told us something about it.

The Minister endeavoured to tell the House that the position of the local authorities in the country has improved generally. I would very much like to feel that that was so. But I am afraid, when we consider the real situation which exists in the country, on reading the reports of the meetings of the local authorities, we cannot feel reassured that local government is out of danger. The Minister might also have told us that, partly because there were large withdrawals or withholdings of money from the local authorities last year, the Exchequer felt obliged to make certain advances to local authorities which will not be forthcoming again. Some time ago, speaking on the question of the amount of money withheld from local authorities for annuities, the Minister for Finance told us that the sum of £550,000 was made available to the local authorities partly because that money had been withheld. Of course the money really belonged to the local authorities, but according to the Minister for Finance it was not mature for release at the time. If the Minister for Finance felt last year obliged to release £550,000 to relieve, in some way, a very serious situation that existed in the country at the time, and if there is no such sum of money or income of that nature coming to the county councils in the future, I am afraid the position we see in the country is not very encouraging.

Last year, notwithstanding the fact that £716,000 had been withheld from the local authorities, there were still 18 or 19 of the 27 county councils who had to have a further curtailment of the agricultural grant this year, due to unpaid annuities. I do not think, in view of some of the disclosures made to the House quite recently, particularly by Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Morrissey with regard to certain people who had not paid their annuities, that the Minister for Local Government or any of his followers would say that the unpaid annuities were due to a rates or annuities campaign; because Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Morrissey said in this House that when the Longford and Tipperary County Councils made investigations as to the councillors in both these bodies who had unpaid annuities it was found that it was only Fianna Fáil councillors who had not paid their annuities. I am not saying that they were dishonest, although I have before me a statement from the Fianna Fáil chairman of the Meath County Council saying: "These people were public defaulters out on a campaign of plunder."

Will the Deputy permit me to interrupt him for a moment? He has mentioned three cases in Longford. In one of these cases the roof was off the house and the man was rated for the house as a place of residence. In another case there was a legal dispute between the man concerned and his brother about the division of land and, therefore, these cases were awaiting decision. That explains some of the cases mentioned by the Deputy. I made inquiry since the charge was made in the House.

A charge was not made in the House and I am not making a charge now. I am merely repeating the statement made by Deputy MacEoin that the only members of the county council who had not paid their annuities were Fianna Fáil members. I did not say that they were dishonest. I took very good care to say that, in my opinion, they were not dishonest. We cannot be out of the wood even yet when, out of 27 county councils, only eight or nine have improved their annuity position since last year. Eighteen or 19 county councils had additional money withheld this year as compared with last year. We have various indications in the newspaper reports of local authorities that expenditure is on the increase. If it were expenditure of a type which would be reproductive or non-recurrent—expenditure for which there was some special reason—it would not be alarming, but we get an example in Offaly, as reported in the Westmeath Independent of 30/1/36. The chairman of the council stated that the present rate of expenditure on home assistance was £11,531 for the current year, or an increase of £2,500 on the estimated amount. That is not very encouraging. If there is one thing more than another which points to the inability of the people to meet their demands, it is the fact that we have got to increase home assistance. Notwithstanding that, we have additional demands. Deputy Donnelly told us recently that, in the county which he represents, the rate is down.

Yes, Laoighis.

In what respect has it come down? Is it on road expenditure?

It has come down 2/9.

I know of county councils and county councillors who have endeavoured to take down road expenditure at the expense of the labourer. The Minister commended to-night the action of county councils which have maintained or increased their road expenditure. I can tell the Minister that that is not due to any desire on the part of the county councils to make better roads. It is due to the fact that they do not want to let down the labourers who cannot get any other work, notwithstanding that Deputy Donnelly and his Party were to call people back from America to do the work available here. If Deputy Donnelly's council or any other council has reduced its rate by reducing road expenditure, I do not think it is good policy. I am afraid they will pay the money out in some other way. If they do not do that, somebody else will.

I notice by the Echo of January 26th, 1936, that the estimate of the board of health in Wexford involves an increase of 2½d. on the rates. That is very discouraging from a county like Wexford, which has been held up here as a model county, a county which has gone in more than any other county for the tillage policy advocated by Fianna Fáil. According to the report of a meeting held on some date prior to January 25th, 1936, the extra burden placed upon the board of health will mean an increase of 2½d. on the rates in Wexford. That, the paper states, is partly due to the fact that the average cost of the 4lb. loaf in the five institutions in which bread is bought for the half-year ended September was 6.75d., while the average price for the half-year ended March, 1936, was 7.67d. There was a steady increase in the average cost of maintenance in the county home for the past 1½ years, the cost having risen from 2/11¾ during the half-year ended March, 1935, to 3/7½ during the half-year ended September and to 4/1 for the three months ended December, 1935. That is a situation which the Minister ought to take into consideration. When some of his fellow-Ministers come into the House and tell us that the cost of living is not going up in this country at an alarming rate, I would refer them to the report of the meeting of the Wexford Board of Health. One of the members, Miss Ryan, said: “None of the items in the estimate can be reduced. They all knew that the cost of living had gone up.”

I have also here the estimates of various other bodies, including mental hospitals, and they have all gone up. In the reports of these meetings all over the country you find that three-fourths of the time is spent in discussing the rate situation, the collection of cottage rents and the annuities situation. The Minister has had on various occasions, as disclosed by these publications, to warn local authorities that they must use the whip—and use it hard—to get in the rates. On one occasion I saw where an inquiry was made as to whether the rate collectors were seizing the stock of the farmers. Perhaps it is necessary on some occasions to do that. I have here a report from the Tipperary Guardian of a meeting at which the arrears sheets were presented to the county council. The report states: “In the examination of the individual cases, attention was drawn to the fact that two rate-payes who owed large sums were tillage farmers and had sold wheat and beet.”

Was that the reason they were hauled up?

No, not likely, because at least two of these farmers adopted the Fianna Fáil progressive policy. They were two of the people who went in for the policy that the Minister for Agriculture and that Fianna Fáil generally say is paying, and paying well.

"It was suggested that cheques from the sugar company and for wheat belonging to these farmers should be garnisheed."

None of these, as far as I am aware, were Blueshirt farmers. They were two of the people who are farming after the Minister's own heart, and in the way that Fianna Fáil would like them to farm. Apparently they had not paid their rates or were not inclined to pay them. Perhaps the money is not in beet and wheat that we are told is in these crops. Perhaps Deputy Donnelly knows as much as I do about them, or as little. I grow wheat, not beet, and I heard complaints in my district that there is no money in beet. They do not appear to be of any great help to the farmers of Tipperary to pay their rates, though they have been beet growers and wheat growers. Practically all local authorities in every corner of the country, from Killarney Mental Hospital to Monaghan, are complaining that the estimates are up, that money, and more money, is demanded. That being so, I do not know how it can be said that the capacity of the people to pay is increasing. If we take the farmers from Tipperary as the standard, men who are farming after the Fianna Fáil idea of farming, I am afraid even they do not feel that the capacity to pay is increasing.

There is another matter to which I wish to direct the Minister's attention. I do not know if the Minister referred to it, as he made his speech partly in Irish and partly in English, but I understand from the Ceann Comhairle that we can include in the discussion the administration of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act.

I think it is covered by Vote 41.

I expected that the Minister would inform the House, owing to the fact that the administration of that Act was very unsatisfactory, that it was his intention to introduce certain proposals for changes that are sadly needed as regards the widows of artisans who had not agricultural holdings, and of others who had small agricultural holdings but got rid of them. The Minister knows that the position I am referring to is a very glaring injustice.

It is legislation?

I thought, owing to the grave injustice that exists, that the Minister would tell us he was about to amend the injustice.

The Deputy can ask a question, but he should not spend time in advocating legislation.

Coming to the housing problem, the Minister, I presume, expects to have bouquets thrown at him.

I would be very foolish if I did.

I do not think you would. I would like to give credit where credit is due, and I would like to have the opportunity of throwing bouquets at the Minister. I would not have the smallest objection to doing so.

You would not put a brick in them?

No. The building of labourers' cottages is going on apace all over the country and I am sure the Minister has had various complaints about faulty construction, due possibly to faulty supervision. As I referred already to what I may call the discreditable affair at Castlebar I do not think there is any need to elaborate on it now. Everyone knows what I was referring to, and the situation that existed there. It was certainly a situation that was not creditable, in my opinion, to anyone concerned, either in Castlebar or in the Department. I am afraid there will be a recurrence of that type of work all over the country. I have here a report of a meeting of the Galway Board of Health, which was presided over some time ago by Deputy Beegan. I presume this report is from the engineer in connection with contracts. The following are some of the items:—

"Ballinasloe: I am convinced that the supervision was not sufficiently stringent in this area. I have been continually making adverse reports on these cottages, but, so far, no improvement is noticeable. The finish is definitely bad."

"Ballybrit (Oranmore): I found it necessary to have a number of walls knocked. Work on this site carried out in a very careless manner."

"Ballyquirke: This job is being carried out in a most unworkman-like manner. Some of the work is not plumb, and every species of block from broken bats to 12-inch blocks were being used. The proper detail was shown on the plan, and I fail to see why the matter was not noticed and rectified before my inspection."

Taking the report from Templemore, where the tenants attended the meeting and complained of the cottages, this discussion took place:—

"Mr. Harrington: I was in these houses, and I can tell you they are in a bad way. I think we should receive this deputation. The rain is coming down in these houses."

Further on the report says:—

"Mr. Fitzgerald: The tenants undoubtedly have a grievance. There were two or three of them in with me, and from what they told me they are suffering a great hardship. The mattresses were actually wet from the rain coming down."

These houses were built at an enormous cost to the State. As a debt is left hanging on the State, the Minister or his Department should see that such a type of house is not put up, and that all houses are properly built. Certainly houses such as are referred to in the reports are not an asset. I am afraid those who come after the Minister will not be inclined to throw bouquets if there is going to be an enormous charge for repairs. Every newspaper contains reports of board of health meetings at which there are complaints about houses and about them being smoky. I suppose that cannot be remedied by inspection in the first instance, but I know that people are suffering very grave hardship owing to the fact that the chimneys are defective and that the outside structure is bad. That is especially the case when an engineer comes along and has to get walls knocked down, and as in Templemore, where members of the board were forced to admit that even the mattresses were wet.

Were these new houses?

Yes. Then we have in other places a threat from some of the weekly tenants of the new houses to refuse to pay rates. The result is that the collection of rates is backward. The whole matter is discreditable and it is tying a kind of mill-stone around the necks of future local authorities. On the whole, I am afraid we cannot compliment ourselves on the efficiency or the capable manner in which those houses are finished.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer and on which I really would feel obliged to move here that, because of the type of administration carried out by the Department, this Vote should be referred back for reconsideration. The Department of Local Government, possibly in conjunction with other Departments, notably the Board of Works—possibly it is general Government policy—have notified local authorities that certain grants are being made available to them for certain works, provided no person is given employment on them unless he is on the dole. To my mind there is nothing more likely to cause downright demoralisation than that kind of instruction and the imposition of that type of condition upon local authorities. Has it come to this, that decent young men in this country who have refused to go on the dole, who have refused to draw public money or to accept free beef, are going to be denied employment simply because they have refused to do these things? Is that what we have come to?

I am sure that Deputy Donnelly and the Minister for Local Government well remember the old Sinn Féin days and the period later on when the Free State Government was set up. They will recollect, I am sure, that one of our greatest ambitions at that time was to wipe out the workhouses, the poorhouses as they were called, to wipe out the stigma which was supposed to attach to the inmates there, to take the brand off the clothes of the inmates of the workhouses. Now it would seem that we are getting back on all that. The Minister, in conjunction with other gentlemen in the Government, thinks that our self-respecting, decent young men ought not to get employment on public works where a grant is made unless they are already drawing the dole. I say that such a state of affairs is scandalous, yet that is the type of thing that Fianna Fáil has given us. In this country latterly we have the type of mind that feels that money ought to be got for nothing. It does not matter how it is got; it does not matter whether people have to make wrong statements or whether affidavits have been made which are not correct. The main thing is to get on the list, draw the dole, and once you become a mendicant at the State's door you can get employment, but not otherwise. I had hopes that at least the Local Government Department would not descend to that type of thing.

The situation is that the people who tried to wipe out the workhouses and to abolish the old conditions that prevalied here are wondering have their efforts been worth while. I remember, when first I became a member of a local authority, poor people in need of relief would come to the back door at night so that they might not be seen by their neighbours, and so that it might not be known that they were a drain on the rates. The people had self-respect then, and they felt the stigma of being publicly supported. They felt keenly having to look for anything, no matter how needy they were, in case it might cast a slur on them or that it might be said they were depending on charity. What do we find at the present day? All over the country we find at the employment exchanges men lined up from dawn till dark endeavouring to get their names on the unemployment list, or endeavouring to draw the dole, partly because some of them want money, and partly because some of them want employment and cannot get it otherwise.

This is a matter upon which I feel very strongly. It is a matter in regard to which the Government ought, even now, to pause and consider. If the people are to be deprived of their initiative, if they are simply to wait to be told by the Government what they are to do in every avenue of life, if they are told to wait around the corner to see if they can get the dole before they are entitled to get work, then you have surely destroyed the best characteristics of the Irish people. I do not think the Minister can offer any kind of satisfactory explanation for that condition of things. I think the sooner he and the other members of the Executive Council realise that that condition of things is going to create in this country a type of person who will not be a good citizen, who will be other than a good citizen, the better for everybody. When they come to realise that fact, it may possibly lead to a decision on the part of the Minister to alter the condition accompanying those grants, and if he does alter that condition, then he will have done something in respect to which I will be inclined to throw him a bouquet.

I agree with the Minister in one respect. I am glad that the county medical officers of health are being installed in every county. I believe that that type of administration will do a lot of good. I suggest that, in so far as he can do it, the Minister should facilitate county medical officers of health. I do not think there is very much more that I want to say. I desire to emphasise the two matters upon which I have dwelt. One is the inefficient manner in which cottages are being built, and the other is the question of the conditions applying to the grants.

There is one matter upon which, possibly, the Minister feels there is very divided opinion. That is the proposed regulation with regard to the retiring age. Local authorities do not really know where they are in regard to that matter. In my own county we have had a discussion about it, and there are varied opinions as to what the Minister is going to do, whether he is going to do anything, or whether he has done it already. The Minister, in reply to a question in the House, said he was quite open to accept and consider the opinions of local authorities. I think that we are all convinced that he has already fixed the age at 65 years. Personally, I think that 65 is an age which ought not to be fixed. I think it is too young. Some of our best men are still good, long after 65 years of age. I trust that, if local authorities do give the Minister the benefit of their opinions in a matter like this, he will give them the fair consideration which they warrant. I am moving, for the reasons I have stated, that this Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

Mr. Hogan (An Clár):

The Minister is in this favourable or unfavourable position, that I should like to find fault with him for the things for which Deputy Brennan probably would praise him. Deputy Brennan told us that the erection of cottages is going on apace throughout the country. The trouble is that it is not going on half as fast as it should. One can only argue in these matters from the known to the unknown. I want to say that the Minister ought to be very well aware of the housing shortage in my own county. I have repeatedly brought to his notice by way of question and by way of letters to his Department that, notwithstanding the fact that there were about 1,000 houses asked for in the three schemes initiated—I should rather say, adumbrated—by the Clare Board of Health, there are not 100 built yet. That is to say, that where there were 1,000 cottages needed, the Minister has not taken sufficient steps or precautions to see that more than 100 were built after the three years. It is nearly time that the Minister woke up to the realisation that we do want these houses, and there is legislative provision by which he can force the board of health to build these houses. It is all very well to say to me, when I set down a question and follow it by supplementary questions, that the board of health are doing certain work, that they have initiated three schemes and that they have had difficulties in respect of contractors, materials and many other things. These difficulties will not smooth the lot of the people who are living, perhaps, six or ten in one room. It is all very well for the Minister to tell us about the slums in the Coombe and in Gloucester Street, or in the cities of Waterford and Limerick. There are some slums in the country districts in my county which are just as bad as the slums in these industrial centres. I want to avail of this opportunity to put it to the Minister that it is high time he took upon himself the power conferred on him by legislation, to come in if necessary over the head of the board of health and build houses for the labourers of the county. I want to put it to him that he has sufficient power under legislation to come in and build houses over the head of the local authority. I want him to take the necessary steps to do that, or at least to take the necessary steps to force the local authority to build houses where they are necessary.

Deputy Brennan made the most amazing statement I have ever listened to regarding the employment of people for works carried out under grants. He said that there should be no regulation that these people would be recruited from the lists of those registered for unemployment assistance. He told us that it was demoralising to recruit these people from the unemployment list. Does he think that it would raise the standard of morality or the moral tone of these people to leave them longer on the unemployment list? My fault with the Minister is that he is not insisting sufficiently strongly on these people being taken from the unemployment register. There again I argue from the known to the unknown. I argue from what I know definitely and specifically that there are people employed on these works who are not taken from those on the unemployment register. Representations have been made to me from various parts of my county that in various districts, small villages and towns where there are 40 or 50 people unemployed, farmers with 40 acres, 30 acres and 20 acres are brought in to work on roads and schemes carried out on grants given by the Local Government Department and operated by the board of health or the county council. If Deputy Brennan thinks that the people about whom I have spoken, farmers with 40 acres, 30 acres or 20 acres, should be allowed to compete with poor people on the unemployment register, I would sooner have the present Minister in office than Deputy Brennan. I want to see these people taken off the unemployment register and put to work on these schemes even at the inadequate wages which they are getting under these grants. I want the Minister to bear in mind that these people are not even put in competition with farmers. They are often passed over by the local authorities, and his Department is not unaware of that. His Department is not at all unaware of it.

The Minister's method of investigating complaints forwarded to his Department in this respect leaves much to be considered. When a complaint is made to the Minister that on certain work carried out under the board of health or the county council people in receipt of unemployment assistance are not being employed as against people with visible means of subsistence— land, property and other means—the Minister's Department sends down a questionnaire or a letter of some kind to the local authority. That list of queries or complaints, whatever form it may take, finds its way into the hands of the person responsible for doing the thing that is complained of. One finds an engineer in charge of a water scheme, a housing scheme or some such work under the board of health or the county council, and that man, for some reason best known to himself, employs people who are not intended to be employed under the Government regulations. Somebody makes a complaint to the local public representative or somebody else, and a report reaches the Department. What happens? A copy of that person's letter or some remarks from it are sent down to the local authority. The local authority invariably sends that to the engineer against whom the complaint is made to investigate his own delinquencies. The result is that you get a letter in about a fortnight or three weeks saying that the complaint has been investigated and that everything is done according to regulations.

That is not the way to investigate these complaints, and I have told the Department that I shall take every opportunity in this House and elsewhere to raise this matter until that method of investigation is done away with. Either a senior officer of the Department, somebody who is capable of weighing the pros and cons, must be sent down to make the investigation or the Minister must say definitely that he is not going to investigate the complaints. In the first instance I make the charge that people are not taken from the unemployment assistance list to work on these schemes. I make the further charge that there are 1,000 working people in County Clare, some with families of three, four, five, six and seven children of different sexes, living in one room—some of them adults, fully grown. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been 1,000 applications for houses in the county, the board of health has not yet built 100 cottages. I ask the Minister does he think that that is a proper way to administer the Act passed through this House, or is he going to allow these people to rot in these slums much longer? If he is, then he had better say it, but if he is not it is nearly time that he took the action that this House gave him the power to take, and go in over the heads of the local authorities and build houses.

I am intervening in the debate on this Estimate for this reason, that a few weeks ago, in reply to Deputy Dillon, who stated that he could see no evidence of slum clearance on the north side of the city—I think if the Deputy opened his eyes he would have seen some evidence anyhow—the Minister said that he was not at all satisfied with the rate of progress made, and that if such continued the slum question in Dublin would not be settled in his time. He made much the same remarks in the Seanad. These remarks implied, whether the Minister meant it or not, a charge of negligence, more or less, against the municipality of Dublin. I do not think he really meant that. I think that his own eagerness to see the slum question settled, at any rate in his time, prompted him to make remarks that more or less insinuated that the corporation was not doing its work as well as it might.

These remarks of the Minister got very widespread attention from the Press, and in consequence of that a feeling of uneasiness began to spread amongst the people who are most interested in the abolition of the slums: that is those who have to live in them. That might easily bring about in this city a set of circumstances that we would all regret, because we, and by we I mean the municipality, have by our efforts in recent years, at any rate, brought home to almost every tenement room in Dublin that there was good hope of relief, and relief soon. Consequently, it became my duty as chairman of the housing committee to have circulated in the Press a statement to the effect that I proposed, when the Estimate for the Minister's Department came up, to bring the question of housing in Dublin before the Dáil. In doing that I would like to point out that the corporation was restored, if I can call it a corporation, in October, 1930, after, I think, a six years' reign of commissioners. It was on the day after Stephen's Day of that year that the corporation housing committee had its first meeting. That housing committee is simply an advisory body. We have no power to say "do this or do that," or "do not do this or do not do that." Our function simply consists in making recommendations to the City Manager to do such things as we think he might do. At that particular period there was a Housing Bill going through this House. It was introduced by the late Government and was not passed into law until August or September of 1931. Under it certain additional powers were given, but not sufficient to enable us to surmount the difficulties with which we were faced. By the time it came into law and we had its provisions examined, the present Government came into office. They immediately introduced a Housing Bill which was much more comprehensive than the one that preceded it. That Bill took some months to get through the Oireachtas. I do not think it became law until eight or nine months later, so that, practically speaking, at least a year and a half of our tenure as a housing committee was more or less concerned with making plans for the future.

I should explain to the House that when the British were in power here and had the old Local Government Board at their disposal, the old housing committee, of which I also was chairman, prepared a chart for its members in order that they might see at a glance how long it would take to have houses built on a slum area in the city, acting as quickly as possible under all the Acts of Parliament which then governed house building and which were administered by the old Local Government Board. That chart showed that from the day the medical officer of health declared an area a slum area, one that was not fit for human habitation, until the first brick of the new house was laid, a period of three years elapsed. The Bill which the present Government introduced and passed into law reduced that period to about 18 months or a little less. That is the period that now elapses from the date on which an area is declared a slum area and the date on which the corporation can give a contract for the building of new houses. It takes almost 18 months before all the legal formalities are complied with: for the checking of every room in that slum area, finding out who are the owners entitled to compensation, the assessing of compensation and the payment of it. I remember that long ago I advocated in the corporation that the proper way in which to handle the slum question was this: that the moment the medical officer declared an area insanitary, the corporation should step in immediately, take possession of the site, and leave all the acts prescribed by law to be carried cut afterwards. The question then arose as to what we really had to contend with. In March, 1932, the City Manager inserted an advertisement in the papers asking people who might require houses to apply to the Dublin Corporation for those that were then being built or which had been built in portion of Cabra and on Ballybough and Clonliffe roads. I do not think the City Manager had any idea of what he was going into. Perhaps it was foolish of him to do it, perhaps it was not.

There were then about 500 houses altogether to be let, and in response to his advertisement he received 8,659 applications. These 8,659 applications took many months to investigate and to schedule. When that was all done we found that nearly all of them lived in one room and that 752 of them were tuberculous families living in one room in basements. And we had only 500 houses to deliver. Goodness knows that was bad enough but there was worse. We found it necessary, out of the 500 houses that we had to deliver, to hand over 246 of them to tenants of the purchased houses belonging to the corporation. These were houses that had been built during the previous years. They were purchased houses let to people at payments from 11/1 to 17/1 per week, the tenants to pay the rates, keep the place in repair and to pay the insurance. That was all very well in theory but when it started to be worked out in practice it was not so well, because the amount of money that the working man had to spend every week in the way of rent and other charges was too much for his wages. The tenants, therefore, got in arrear. Some of them got into arrear through misfortune, unemployment and sickness. However, it was necessary in order to relieve the City Manager of the responsibility of having wholesale evictions on these city estates where there were purchased houses to hand over 246 of these 500 new houses to these people who were in arrear. We then had to divide the remaining 254 between 8,659 families who were applying for them. In the Seanad recently a member said—and I thought the Seanad was dead or dying——

It is almost dead.

Well, as I say, I met one of the members some time ago and I asked him how they were doing. He said: "We are doing all right and we are dying like gentlemen."

Or like the republic?

Mr. Kelly

He proved that by saying that they were going to die like the old French aristocrats who, when ascending the steps of the guillotine took off their hats and saluted that particular instrument. That member made a courtly bow, took off his hat to show how he would do it. I would have returned the bow myself only that I am a bit stiff in the back. Well, if they are dying like gentlemen I hope they will get a good wake and that all their friends will turn up to kiss the corpse and that they will be buried like gentlemen. Here is what one of them said some time ago: "The Dublin Corporation are putting up very good suitable houses. Their contractors are not faced with any great difficulty in the matter of using a large proportion of Irish materials. I agree, of course, that as far as the Corporation houses are concerned, there is a good deal of supervision to ensure that the right quantity of Irish material goes into the houses. As regards the people who require the houses I must say that the slum dwellers—those to whom many politicians owe their positions—are fairly well catered for. I want, however, to put this to the Minister—that it is about time that the old citizens of Dublin should get fair treatment in the allocation of the new houses. It is not fair to other residents, born and reared in the slums, to see men coming up from the country and getting Corporation houses in preference to them." He went on then to give examples of families who could count fifty years' residence in the city and who, from the number of children in the family, were entitled to get Corporation houses. He mentioned one case where the mother was delicate. The apartments in which they were living were condemned by the medical officer of health as unfit for human habitation. "As a matter of fact," he said, "these people were living in a slum in Mountjoy"; and then he went on to say: "I did everything in my power but without success to influence the Corporation to give one of their houses to this family. We can all see Civic Guards getting Corporation houses. They get them in preference to people living in slums and to people with small wages. As a result of the refusal of the Corporation to give that family a house the mother has since died and the children are now motherless." That case was carefully investigated by an official of the Corporation and there is no substance in it. The family never lived in a basement. The poor mother died, it is true, but it was from heart failure. There were not a large number of children; there were two boys and a girl who were living in a fairly airy room, which was divided by a partition for sleeping purposes. The City Manager could not deal with the case at the period. Since he is only dealing with cases where a large number of children with their father and mother are living in one room he could not deal with it. I think he is now dealing with seven children cases. At that time he was dealing with cases where there were 12, 11, ten and nine children in the family. I give that as an illustration of the class of talk that is going on. When a Senator makes a statement like that what can you expect from people who are not Senators? We have this class of talk going about that there are people coming up here from the country and getting houses, and we have it that Civic Guards are considered before other citizens. I submit that a Civic Guard is entitled to a house the same as the next man or at least his wife and children are. Because, after all, this housing question is a woman's question and a Civic Guard's wife and family are entitled to get a house if they comply with the conditions laid down by the City Manager. I do not think many Civic Guards have Corporation houses. Where they are occupying such houses I think they are purchased houses from the Corporation. Now, this question of the country people coming up to Dublin and walking into a house brings me to this point, that it would be well for the representatives here from county constituencies to warn their people to secure habitation, at any rate, before coming to Dublin. I say that because the conditions under which they have to live if they sink down to the slums in Dublin are infinitely worse than they would have to endure in the country notwithstanding what Deputy Hogan stated here a few minutes ago.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Kelly

The Irish Press of February 20th, dealing with the Minister's statement, says:—

"Mr. O'Kelly said that, taking into account that only about 1,000 houses were being built in Dublin yearly for the accommodation of slum dwellers, he could not see any prospect of the Dublin slums being wiped out within his time. Those are grave words, and they will have the effect of bringing the Corporation face to face with its responsibility in the matter."

It went on to say:—

"It is for the Dublin Corporation now to say whether they are prepared to take the needful steps to accomplish the object so eminently desirable from the points of view of public health and the well-being of a considerable proportion of its denizens."

Bringing the Corporation face to face with their responsibility in this matter! I do not think there was ever any body constituted in this city or in any other city in the world which was ever brought face to face with any problem, so constantly and so terribly, every day of its life, as is the Corporation with this question of the slums. There is scarcely a member of the Housing Committee of the Dublin Corporation, except, I might say, those who live well outside the city, who has not, day in and day out, for at least six days in the week, a constant stream of people coming to him looking for Corporation houses—all sorts and conditions of the poor, many bringing with them terrible evidences of the conditions under which they live. Many of them come in with clear glass bottles in their hands in which are filthy sewer slugs that crawl up the wall at night, and horrible looking beetles of a colour that I could not describe. The children are brought in with their faces all marked with bug bites. At night the mothers have to tie a cloth over their faces in order to protect them. As for evidence of sewer rats, over and over again have I got it. Over and over again have those people implored me: "Mr. Kelly, do not let us have to put in another summer here." Just imagine, when all other civilised people live under decent conditions and enjoy the summer, that is the time the slum dwellers hate most, because that is the period when the vermin are the most active. Face to face with our responsibilities ! Every day in the week most of the members of the Corporation are faced with those things. They are faced with the imploring cry: "Take us out of this terrible place." Why is this happening now? It is because they have become alive even now to the terrible conditions under which they have lived for years. When asked "How long have you lived in that place?" the reply very often is "20 years," or perhaps "15 years." In reply to the question "Could you not have got a place out of it?" They often say, "Oh, we did not think of it; we tried and failed; we did not know." They know now. It has been brought home to every one of them in every room and basement in Dublin. They are all anxious to get out of them, and we are anxious to help them. Now, I am blaming nobody; I am only stating the conditions under which the Corporation had to work and has worked. This very same newspaper published at least one article from me in connection with the conditions under which people live in the slums of Dublin. Now their memories are so short that they want to make out that we are not face to face with our responsibilities in the matter.

The same issue of the Irish Press says here under the heading, “Poets at Tyburn”:—

"At 9 o'clock on the morning of February 20, 1749, six men were hanged, drawn and quartered on Tyburn Hill. Of these, one was a smuggler, one was a highwayman and two were forgers. The remaining two, whose names were Usher Gahagan and Terence Connor, suffered for the crime of filing guineas. Gahagan was a native of Westmeath and had been educated at Trinity College."

The other was a cultured man too, although it did not state that Connor was educated at Trinity College. Those two men along with two others were executed for filing guineas, or coining money. It would be a good job if there were two journalists killed along with them. It would make room for others.

There was one flaw in the Bill, and I am sorry the Minister was responsible for the Bill. The Minister was a member of the Corporation for years, and he knows as much about housing conditions in Dublin as I do, or very nearly as much, but there was one flaw in his Bill, and I said so in the Corporation when it was up before. The flaw was that the Bill should have contained a clause providing that the Corporation should have a steady supply of money. It should have guaranteed the Government's credit to the Corporation to get money. We agreed to build 2,000 houses a year for five years if it were possible, but that agreement was conditional. It was conditional on getting money, on getting materials and on getting men—three conditions necessary for most enterprises in this world. Those three conditions were defaulted in.

Actually you might say that the present Housing Committee did not begin to operate properly until 1933. A loan was floated then for £650,000. The stock was issued at 96, at 4¼ per cent. interest. There was over £3,000,000 subscribed for that loan in less than two days, and we wanted only £650,000. That was a good start. The next loan was for £1,000,000. It was offered at 96, but the interest was reduced to 3½ per cent. The public subscribed 88.2 per cent., and the underwriters were left to find the balance. The next loan was in March, 1935, and this was for £1,350,000, at 3½ per cent. interest, and issued at 93. Only 56½ per cent. was subscribed, and the underwriters had to bear the remaining very large portion. The banks then decided in effect—they did not use the blunt words I am going to use—that they could not be expected to saddle such responsibility if they were to do their duty to their depositors. There was the difficulty. Our 1935 programme involved an expenditure of £1,090,000 to get on with our jobs. We could not do it. All the loan that we asked for, £1,350,000, was mortgaged. Contracts had been placed and builders were working away. We never laid a brick of the 1935 programme, because we could not get the money. We tried every resort. We had a deputation to the Minister for Finance last July, and I think he stopped with us for nearly an hour and a half discussing ways and means of raising money. He advised us to try every means. I asked him whether, if we failed, we could look to the Local Loans Fund for relief. He said "I think you can," but he advised us not to be in too great a hurry. I remember making the remark to him, as we were coming away that his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, would not be pleased to hear him give that advice, and that he was all for hurry.

We members of the Corporation have some control over finance—not complete but some control—and the Finance Committee of the Corporation decided they would not look to the Local Loans Fund. They sent applications to various insurance companies in England asking if they would lend money to the Corporation for housing purposes. I believe they got one loan of £250,000 at 4 per cent. The other companies stated that they could not lend money as they had not the means, and I believe one company was blunt enough to say: "Even if we had the means, we would not give it to you." Every effort was tried, and I believe the City Manager, who had £350,000, £360,000 or some big sum like that on deposit for the payment of contractors as bills became due, and which was not wanted for some time, made application to the Local Government Department for leave to use that money for the time being, and stating that when things would settle the matter could be made right. I believe the Department would not agree to that as it was not legal.

I am merely introducing that as evidence that we tried everywhere, but we got no money for the whole year, and we could not build the houses. Fortunately, the Minister for Finance turned up trumps in the end, and our last loan in January, 1936, for £1,000,000 at 4 per cent. was oversubscribed in a few hours. More power to him. So far, the outlook now is all right, but what have we to do? In March, 1934, it was estimated that 18,000 families, almost entirely housed in one-room dwellings, were in need of better accommodation. Since that date the Corporation have provided 2,600 dwellings, and it may be assumed now that the number awaiting improved accommodation is approximately 15,000 families who are living in one room and basements in this city. There are 1,600 basements in the City of Dublin occupied to-night. I do not suggest that the whole 1,600 are unfit for human habitation, but I do say from my knowledge that the larger number are and should be closed up. Life in them, and the conditions under which the people live in them, are beyond description.

In the tenements themselves, especially where the young men and women are growing up, the situation is very bad. A sheet has to be hung across the room at night to divide the sexes, and sometimes the boys have to go out on the lobby while the girls undress and vice versa. Sometimes the overcrowding is so dreadful that the very smell of the room sickens one. A reporter came to me one day, after hearing me make some statement on this subject. He asked me was it really true, and where would he go. I recommended him to go to a certain street on the north side. He went there and he came back the next day and told me: "I got sick." I asked: "Do you mean figuratively?" and he said: "No, physically sick; I had to leave." That is our job, and when that job is completed we will probably have the position the Minister would like to have.

But how are we going to do it? Are we sure the money will be there to carry this out, and, if we are sure of the money, what about the other difficulties? What about the difficulties of labour? I have a report dealing with that very matter from the city architect. I cannot lay my hand on it just at the moment, but he points out the difficulties he had, firstly, with regard to the supply of materials, and, secondly, with regard to the supply of labour, more especially in connection with plasterers. It was very difficult to get plasterers. They worked all right, but the supply was not available. I am sorry to say that some of the speculative builders in this city offered better wages and better terms to plasterers, and, naturally, these men worked where they got the best money. You cannot blame them for that, but that brought about a fairly long delay in some cases. This report states:—

"I have been advised by the housing architect that an extension of the contract period was granted on the Mercer Street, Hanover Street (Section 8), Donnelly's. Orchard and Greek Street contracts, owing to the delays experienced by contractors in obtaining delivery of materials. The contract period was extended by five months on Crumlin (Section 1 and 3 contract), and an allowance of ten weeks was made on Greek Street contract, due to the shortage of plasterers. Also on the North Lotts and Hanover Street (Section 2) schemes permission was given for the employment of plasterers without the necessary residential qualifications, and on Crumlin (Sections 2 and 4) for the employment of non-local carpenters and plasterers. At Cook Street, apart from the extension granted to Messrs. Meagher and Hayes on account of extra works, an extension was also given to the contractors on account of the dispute with the plasterers and the delay experienced by builders in obtaining delivery of materials.

"Mr. Sims further advised that if the difficulties with regard to finance and labour had not arisen, and further contracts could have been placed early in 1935, the seriousness of the situation which arose during that year of having semi-completed houses on hands owing to shortage of skilled labour, would have been avoided."

I have material here that would probably keep me speaking for an hour, but what I want to make clear here to-night is that the Corporation has done its work, and if causes over which it has no control have operated to prevent further building being carried out, the Corporation is not to blame. I say, unhesitatingly, that I never worked with a more competent body of men and women, or a body of men and women so wishful to do this work, so anxious to avoid all delays and so earnest in their job, as the present housing committee of the Corporation. Nothing has ever divided us. We all recognise that this question is a great human question, because this blot on Dublin has lasted for generations.

During the rebellion year of 1798 an order was issued from Dublin Castle that on the hall-door of all houses within the city there should be either a printed or written list of the inhabitants, so that officials of the Castle, soldiers or others, could see at a glance who lived in the house. The Reverend Mr. Whitelaw, who was then Rector of St. Catherine's Protestant Church, sought permission of the Castle authorities to go into these houses himself, because, he said, he was so interested in the names on the doors as he was passing through the streets—especially the streets of his own parish—that he was anxious to see the people who lived in them. Sometimes these names were so badly written that they were hard to decipher. Permission was given to him by the Castle authorities, and from that May until December he pursued that job in the city, and went into all those old tenement rookeries that then existed and that still exist, and took down notes of the conditions under which the people lived, and of their surroundings. As a result of this, he published an account of the horrible conditions under which the poor people lived, and I am sorry to say that some of the old lanes and cul-de-sacs that he then described are still in existence, and still inhabited, and that the same conditions are there, only that they are 100 years worse. You can count that up— 100 years worse. No attention was paid at all to the people living in the slums of the City of Dublin during the century. There was agitation for Emancipation, Repeal of the Union, and a whole lot of other things, but no attention was paid to the people living in the slums. Now and again some philanthropic man or woman endeavoured to direct public attention to those conditions, but never with much success. After one of the cholera epidemics with which the unfortunate city was afflicted about 100 years ago, a Doctor Willis tried his best, in his time, to get something done, but nothing was done, and I have a cutting from a newspaper, published so late as 1886 or 1887, when the then Corporation built the first block of Corporation buildings in Benburb Street, and wonder was expressed at the idea of a council going in for Socialism. It was held at the time that the provision of places for the poor to live in was a matter for private enterprise, and it was not until an Act of Parliament was passed by the British House of Commons for the housing of the working classes that and kind of genuine attention was paid by local bodies here to that matter of the housing of the working classes.

I have so much information here that, probably, to-night I shall be lying awake thinking of a lot of other things I should have said. However, I cannot help that. Take the case of Aldborough House, which is at present in the occupation of the postal authorities. I think it occupies about 2½ acres. A deputation waited on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs about three years ago in connection with its acquisition. The Minister received us very warmly indeed, and his officers gave us every encouragement. In fact, so much was I delighted with the interview that, although I seldom shake hands with anybody, I shook hands with the Minister when we were leaving, and I think I shook hands with his assistants also. I shook hands with the whole crowd. Well, that was three years ago, and we have not got it yet. The last thing I heard about it was that they want £7,000 an acre for it. Well, the Corporation is not going to give it, and I now publicly withdraw the shake-hands. It is the only thing I can do.

I say this to the Minister: You say you are not satisfied; well, then, take the job on yourself. You have a Housing Board. You have engineers. You have staff and everything else at your command. I can say this without the slightest hesitation: you will not get the job done better. The men who are working under the City Manager or the officers of the Corporation could not be excelled in the work they are doing in that direction. However, as the Minister is the man to be pleased and as he has a natural anxiety, as I have, to see this infamous blot wiped off our city, which is the capital of our country, then let him take on the job himself. He could take over the Corporation staff. He could not get better men. Speaking for myself personally, and I am sure I can speak for every member of the Housing Committee—certainly for every member who attends to his job—we would be very glad to be relieved of the responsibility. From the City Manager down to the porter who receives messages, or the three or four porters at the door, who are overwhelmed every day with people coming from all parts of Dublin looking for houses, we would be all glad to be relieved of the responsibility. We do not want to be relieved of it, however. We are not anxious to be relieved of it. We are willing to go on, but we want recognition that we are doing the work and that it is no fault of ours if it has not been done.

In concluding this rather lengthy statement I have made, I wish to give figures as to the slum areas to be dealt with now—this is dated 27th March. The number of families to be dispossessed immediately amounts to 4,519. The number of houses to be demolished amounts to 17,094, and the number of houses proposed for erection is 4,678. That is the immediate job we have now settled to go on with. I hope I have conveyed to those who were good enough to listen to me for so long that this is a terrible evil in this city and that it is up to us all, no matter from what part of the country we come, to help to have it wiped out. As I said, it has been a reproach for centuries, but it is a great work. No men could be at better work, and that is why we wish to continue. We do not want to try to continue unless we are assured that we are going to get the help that is needed, principally that to which I have alluded. I do not think any Deputy will refuse to vote any money to get rid of the conditions which exist in our capital city. Believing that, I have made my statement. The Minister has the right to reply to what I have said and to what other Deputies will say.

I am not in favour of the principle of city managers. I believe in democracy and democratic government of the city by the citizens. Of course, it is very hard to know what democratic government is. I looked up the dictionary the other day and I saw that democracy meant government by the people. That is the same meaning as it had when I looked it up a few months ago—it has not changed. I do not really know what democracy is. We on this side of the House were elected by the people. Deputies on the opposite side say that we are the worst Government that ever existed, and they were elected by the people. Some other Deputies are more or less nondescript, and they also were elected by the people. There are four or five such Deputies.

Including the nondescript one.

Mr. Kelly

However, I wish to close my remarks by paying this tribute to the City Manager. He has done everything that mortal man could do— working under certain physical difficulties, I regret to say—by action, by words, by advice, by warning to solve this housing problem. He has acted a great part in this housing campaign that we have gone on with for the last few years. As I have already said, his officers have also done well, and my last words are a tribute of respect to the devoted men and women who act on the housing committee.

Deputy Kelly has told the House that one of the difficulties, in fact the difficulty, of the corporation was its inability to raise money. He turned to the Minister towards the end of his speech and said: "If you do not like the way we are doing the job, take it on yourself." Did it ever occur to Deputy Kelly that he and his colleagues might put the Minister in the same position, might put the national Exchequer in the same position as he finds himself in the Dublin Corporation to-day? Does he ever realise when protests are made against extravagance along other lines that those who protest against extravagance protest because they are thinking of the very problems that are perplexing and overwhelming Deputy Kelly and his colleagues at the present time? Is he now beginning to realise that unrestricted national extravagance may be pleasant for the time being, but it makes it impossible to carry out reforms which Deputy Kelly and I know must be carried into effect, if a peculiarly pernicious type of revolution is not to be precipitated in this country?

Deputy Kelly says: "Where are we going to get money?" Give me the money that is squandered on the cultivation of beet at present and I will wipe out every slum in Dublin in five years. I do not want to stray outside the relevance of this Estimate, but I want to point out to Deputies on the far side that folly in one Department of State may result in tragedy in another. Reckless spending on worthless enterprises by the Government for the purpose of purchasing a transient popularity, or for the purpose of covering up defects in their general political policy, may result in depriving the persons, who are living among the lice, the rats, and the bugs described by Deputy Kelly, of the opportunity of protecting their children from the diseases and death that follow on accommodation of that kind.

It is six years ago since I invited some of the Minister's colleagues to the King's Inns, standing in the centre of one of the worst slums in this city, to join with me in advocating radical reform in the matter of the housing of the tenants of the slums of this city. I said recently in this House, to the great indignation of the Minister for Local Government, that I can see very little improvement in the tenement problem of this city since the Government took office. To-night Deputy Kelly tells us that there are 15,000 families—not individuals but 15,000 families—living in one-room tenements in this city alone, and he goes on to tell us that there are 1,600 families living in basements, with sewer slugs, as he describes them, rats, lice, bugs and vermin of all kinds, making it necessary for mothers to wrap the heads of their children in cloths before they put them to bed. Does that represent any material improvement on the conditions obtaining in this city when I spoke about them six or seven years ago in the King's Inns? I do not think it does.

Now, tributes of a pretty generous character were paid to the Minister and his Department over his housing policy in rural Ireland during the last four years and he certainly deserves credit for the energy with which he pursued that policy. But it is time that this House faced facts. The building of houses in rural Ireland is a perfectly simple business. All you have got to do is to go out into the open country, take the land and put the men to work. The money is raised from the rates and from the moneys made available to the Minister by this House for the purpose of making grants. There is no complexity in the problem at all. That easy task has been vigorously prosecuted by the Department of Local Government. But if I may compare the whole housing problem of the Government to a dam across the river of progress, one half consists of silt and mud and that represents the rural housing problem. That can be dug away without any serious bother or difficulty. The other half of the dam is represented by rock, and that is the problem of city tenants. To remove that requires blasting and it requires hard work. I say that up to now it has been tackled with nothing more formidable than a blunt pickaxe and it is time that that half of the dam was tackled with the resolution to dispose of it finally and for all time.

Deputy Kelly wails, and properly wails, about the want of money. We have spent £20,000,000 sterling in the prosecution of the economic war during the last four years. Could we not have solved the whole housing problem of the City of Dublin for less than that? We could have taken every one of these people out of their basements; we could have levelled every tenement house in this city and we could have provided every tenant with a room in a flat building or a house on the outskirts of the city for less than £20,000,000.

Why did you not do it when you were in office for ten years?

I was never in office.

Your Party was.

£20,000,000 have been squandered. Does Deputy Donnelly now understand the measure of his own crime in being party to that squandering? Does he now understand what that crime has cost this country, when he hears the description given by Deputy Kelly and when he hears from Deputy Kelly that the only thing that is preventing the remedying of that state of affairs is the lack of the money that Deputy Donnelly and his colleagues have thrown away? It is a poor thing to-night to read of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British House of Commons triumphing that he has got £400,000 more than his estimate out of the Irish people. And because he has got it, there are people being plagued with rats and eaten with vermin in the basements of tenement houses in Dublin. Deputy Kelly says that there is a body of earnest men ready to do the job if they have the facilities. Deputy Kelly rightly says that every Deputy in this House is prepared to vote any money that is necessary to do the job, but the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance meet Deputy Kelly when he goes to them on a deputation and, with devious answers, they put him off, and, suggesting that he should seek for the money here, there and everywhere, will not tell him why they cannot provide it.

Did Deputy Kelly ever ask himself why the Minister for Finance puts him off? Did he ever ask himself why the Vice-President of the Executive Council does not feel himself in a position to insist that Deputy Kelly will not be put off? Does he not know as well as I do that Deputy MacEntee, the Minister for Finance, does not relish the thought that his own neighbours live in the vermin-ridden rooms that Deputy Kelly has described? Does he not know that the Minister for Local Government is as anxious as I am, or as he himself is, to get these people out of these rooms? Does he ever ask himself why they will not give the one thing that will make it possible to get these people out within the next 12 months? They cannot do it, because Deputy Kelly and his colleagues are squandering the national resources, and the money that ought to be spent taking these people out of the basements and the tenement rooms is being spent fighting President de Valera's war. I am not going to dwell on that aspect of the situation any more.

The Deputy had better not.

I believe I would be fully within my right in so doing if I desired, but it is unnecessary to argue it any further, seeing that I have said what I wanted to say. There is force and there is substance in Deputy Kelly's final words. He said that if the Corporation of the City of Dublin are unable to grapple with this problem, albeit that they have the goodwill to deal with the problem had they the means, I say is the Government's duty to take the solution of that problem upon their own shoulders. Let not this House forget that, grim as is the situation in the City of Dublin, it is not peculiar to the City of Dublin. I was recently in a small city like Limerick, and I walked down one of the quays there, and I found on the side of the river in Limerick tenement houses just as bad as you would find in Gloucester Street or Lower Gardiner Street in this city. Limerick is a city to any part of which you could easily walk from the outskirts in 15 minutes. If they cannot get land in the city it does not seem to be conceivable that any workman would object to taking a house on the outskirts of the city if the alternative was to live in one of the tenement houses that I saw. The Minister has been in office for four years. He cannot acquit himself of the failure to deal with the slum problem in a city like Limerick, because there the extremely complex question of acquiring vacant land within the city boundary, which afflicts the Dublin Corporation, cannot possibly arise.

I am informed that the slum conditions in the City of Cork are extremely bad in certain areas. I think I am right in saying that one of the parochial clergy, certainly a clergyman of standing in the City of Cork, used language about the Cork tenants which was sensationally strong. Does the Minister feel that he has discharged his duties in this regard by sitting silently by? Does he think that exaltation of the local authorities is enough when he is well aware that the local authorities are faced with the problem of being unable to get the money, as is the case in Dublin? Deputy Kelly very fairly says: "I do not desire to blame anybody." There is no suggestion that there is some dark and horrible Fine Gael conspiracy in the Dublin Corporation to discredit the present Government. Of course, some people might say: "These wicked people are desirous of keeping the people in the slums in order to promote dissatisfaction with the Government." Deputy Kelly acquits them of that. He says: "I know them and I think they are doing all they can, all that is humanly possible, to get these people out of the slums, but they have not the money."

If this country presents a solvent exterior to the world, can anyone doubt the capacity of the national Government to raise any money that may be necessary for the abolition of the slums? If this country has the external appearance and the internal reality of solvency, can anyone believe that there will be a word of criticism from any part of this House to any proposal by the Minister to raise whatever money is necessary to get rid of the slums? Does anyone doubt that there is any section of our community in Ireland who would object to any sacrifice that they would be called upon to make in order to satisfy themselves that no woman would have to wrap her infant's head in a cloth to prevent its being eaten by vermin in the night? I am prepared to say now that if we can see solvency in front of this country, the Minister may rest assured that he will get from every side of this House all the help and co-operation he wants in taking every step that may be necessary to abolish the tenements of the City of Dublin and other cities throughout the Saorstát, and substitute decent houses for the people. I think the time has come to realise this, that decent houses are as urgent a necessity for the people of this State as any other social service that can be named. Nobody would dream of leaving a pump in a rural area which was well-known to be poisonous. No question of money would be raised by anybody if the problem was to remove that source of disease. I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 22nd April, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share