Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Mar 1939

Vol. 75 No. 3

Vote 41—Local Government and Public Health.

Tairigim:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £899,834 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Riaghaltais Aiteamhail agus Sláinte Poiblidhe, maraon le Deontaisí agus Costaisí eile a bhaineann le Tógáil Tithe, Deontaisí d'Udaráis Aitiúla, Ildeontaisí Ilghnéitheacha agus Ildeontaisí i gCabhair, agus muirearacha áirithe mar gheall ar Osbidéil.

That a sum not exceeding £899,834 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, 1940, 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.

Sa mheastachán so táthar ag beartú milleon, trí chéad agus naoi míle is dachad, ocht gcéad agus ceithre púint tríochad ar fad do chaitheamh. Baineann dá dtrian den tsuim seo le tithe.

Tá fás agus feabhas ag teacht ar chúrsaí na sláinte puiblí ó bhliain go bliain, go háirithe de bhárr na scéimeanna uisce agus camraighe atá dá gcur i bhfeidhm ar fuid na tíre, agus is féidir tairbhe na hoibre a mheas ón laigheadú atá ag teacht ar réim na ngalar dtógálach; cailleadh a dhá oiread daoine de dheascaibh na n-aicídí seo sa bhliain 1922 seachas mar a cailleadh anuraidh.

Fuair trí mhíle, cúig céad agus dhá dhuine thríochad bás den aillis anuraidh. Cuireadh Comhairle fá leith ar bun bliain ó shoin le cur in aghaidh an ghalair mhilltinigh seo agus tá súil agam nach fada go mbeidh feabhas mór tagaithe ar an scéal. Níor deineadh aon staonadh sa troid atá ar siubhal againn in aghaidh galaracha máithreachais agus aicídeacha an aosa óig.

Tuigimíd gur fearr an droch-rud a sheachaint ná a leigheas agus táimíd i gcomhuidhe ag iarraidh na leanbhaí a bhreith slán ó bhaol na hóige. Tá eigireacht á dhéanamh ins na scoileanna maidir le fiacla, scórnaighe agus súile na scoláirí agus is breagh liom a rádh go bhfuil deigh-mhéinn lucht ceannais na scoileanna againn san obair seo. Tá béilí bidh le fáil in aisce in a lán de na scoileanna agus bainne freisin.

Nuair a bhí an Bhóta so os cóir na Dála anuraidh labhair mé i dtaobh an Acht Bainne agus Déirithe. Tháinig an tAcht so i bhfeidhm i mbliana agus tá mé cinnte gur fearr agus gur folláine an bainne atá le ceannach ag an bpobal anois de thairbhe an Achta so acht 'na thaobh san is uile is cosamhail go mbeidh sé tamall sara dtuigfear i gceart cadiad buntáistí na reachtaíochta so.

Maidir le ceist na heitinne is taithneamhach liom a rádh go dtáinig tuitim ar réim an ghalair seo i rith na bliana. Tá scéimeanna leighis ar bun i ngach áird den tír agus, i gcomparáid le tíorthaibh eile, is mór atá an galar tar éis dul i laighead in Éirinn.

I rith na bliana do críochnuíodh trí óisbidéil chonndae agus óisbidéal amháin fiabhrais: sin trí óisbidéil is fiche do críochnuíodh ó tosnuíodh ar an obair. Deisíodh agus méaduíodh cuid mhór eile, agus díoladh a lán deontaisí i leith an mhéid airgid a cailleadh ins na h-óisbidéil i rith na bliana. Tá socruithe againn óisbidéil áirithe i mBaile Átha Cliath a chur le chéile agus a mhéadú agus tá súil agam go mbeidh bille agam 'na thaobh so os cóir an Oireachtas sa tSamhradh.

Mar adubhairt mé cheana, is le cúrsaí tithe bhaineann dhá dtrian d'airgead an Bhóta so. Nuair a réitíodh an staile a bhí ann anuraidh, cromadh arís ar an obair go fuinneamhail agus is cosamhail go dtóg-faidh na húdaráis áitiúla beagnach seacht míle teach i mbliana. D'iarr an Bárdas orm fiosrúchán fé leith a chur ar bun i mBaile Átha Cliath i dtaobh cúrsaí tithe sa chathair agus beifear ag pléidhe na ceiste seo gan mhoill. I rith na bliana thugamar céim mhór eile ar aghaidh maidir le cúrsaí tithe ar fuid na tíre. Críochnuíodh tuairm cúig is fiche míle teach—deich míle acu i mbailte—agus, maidir le haththógáil agus deisiúchán tithe, tugadh deontaisí i leith beagnach fiche míle teach go deireadh na bliana.

Dubhairt mé go minic cheana go raibh sláinte an phobail ag brath ar a dtithe comhnuithe agus ní bheidh mé sásta go mbeidh tosnuithe i gceart ar an obair againn go dtí go mbeidh gach teach comhnuithe—ins na bailte agus fén dtuaith—curtha i dtreo agus ar ordú shláinteamhail.

Maidir le cothabháil na mbóithre, chuir na húdarais áitiúla beagán níos mó airgid ar leath-taoibh 'na chóir i mbliana ná mar chuir siad anuraidh agus caitheadh níos mó ná leathmhilleon púnt as ciste an Bhóta Dhíomhaointis ar oibreacha bóthar. Is cosamhail dá bhrí sin gur mór an feabhas atá ag teacht ar bhóithre na tíre ó bhliain go bliain.

I rith na gceithre mblian a ghaibh tharainn bhí biseach ag teacht i gcomhnuidhe ar bhailiú na rátaí agus tá súil agam gur mar seo a bhéas an scéal feasta.

Tháinig feabhas freisin ar bhailiú na mblianacht talmhan agus thainig laigheadú ar iasachtaí gearr-théarma na n-údarás n-áitiúil.

Is breagh liom a rádh gur beag rud dá bhfuil fé n-ár gcúram a chuaidh ar gcúl i rith na bliana le n-a mbaineann mo chunntas.

The Estimate makes provision for a net expenditure of £1,349,834. Grants for housing amount to £852,919, and for health services to £340,350, making a total sum of £1,193,269 for the social services included in this Vote. The public health services are being gradually developed each year. There has also been a considerable increase in public health activity throughout the country. A higher standard of public sanitation has been secured by an extension of the environmental services, such as water supplies, sewerage systems and disposal of house refuse.

In considering the progress achieved by the various remedial measures it is wise to take as a criterion their effect on the incidence of infectious diseases and on the general death rate. A considerable period may elapse after the adoption of public health measures before their effect is reflected in the vital statistics because some other factor may arise to neutralize or conceal the actual progress attained. A particular instance of this kind is the large number of deaths attributable to influenza in the year 1937. The number recorded was 2,772, as compared with 683 in the year 1936, and an average of 1,248 for the decennial period 1927 to 1936.

In the year 1938 the total mortality from the principal infectious diseases was 1,241, including 667 deaths from influenza. If the deaths from influenza for the past four years are excluded, the mortality due to the principal infectious diseases shows a steady decrease from 941 in the year 1935 to 574 in the year 1938, which is approximately one-half of the number of deaths from such diseases in 1922. The vital statistics for the year 1938 are at present only provisional and may be subject to slight modifications, but they indicate a definite advance in the control of infectious diseases. The number of deaths from these diseases, excluding influenza, provisionally recorded for the year 1938, viz., 574, will very likely mark the lowest mortality record yet attained for these diseases.

An outstanding feature of the statistics for the year 1938 is the absence of any death from, or notification of typhus fever. This is the first year in which this has occurred since registration of deaths and compulsory notification of infectious diseases came into operation. The deaths attributed to typhoid fever in 1938 were 47, the lowest number of deaths attributed to the disesase in any year. The number of cases of typhoid notified in 1938 was 254, as compared with 413 in 1937, and is the lowest number of recorded cases since the notification system was efficiently enforced. As the incidence of this disease is to some extent an index of the standard of sanitary services in a country, the decline in mortality in 1938 is significant of the advance which has been made in public health administration. For the decennial periods 1911 to 1920 and 1921 to 1930 deaths from typhoid averaged 195 and 108, respectively.

The number of deaths from diphtheria in 1938 was 308, being 15 in excess of the number in the year 1937. The number of notifications also increased from 2,511 in 1937 to 2,983 in 1938, but almost a third of that number is accounted for by an epidemic of the disease in Dublin City. The average mortality from the disease for the preceding five years, 1932-36, was 373. The total number of deaths from scarlet fever in 1938 was 80, as against 128 in the year 1937 and 173 in the year 1936.

The number of deaths from cancer in 1938 was 3,532. The disease continues to exact a very heavy toll on human life. The Provisional Cancer Council which was set up last year will investigate and report on such aspects of the problem as the council thinks fit and submit proposals for the provision of a radio therapeutic institution for the modern treatment of cancer. The expenses of the council will be met out of the Hospitals Trust Fund.

Much attention has been directed in recent years to safeguarding the health of expectant mothers and removing as far as possible the preventible dangers attendant on childbearing. The mortality rate from puerperal sepsis which is the chief factor affecting the maternal mortality averaged 1.49 per 1,000 births for the period 1927 to 1936. In 1937 the rate of mortality fell to 0.9 per 1,000 births, and for the year 1938 a further decline to 0.7 per 1,000 births has been provisionally recorded. It is significant that while the aggregate urban death rate from all puerperal conditions including puerperal sepsis decreased from 4.2 per 1,000 births in 1932 to 2.6 in 1937, being a reduction of 39 per centum, the aggregate rural death rate only decreased from 4.76 per 1,000 births in 1932 to 4.26 in 1937, or a reduction of 10 per centum.

Special attention is given by school medical officers to the disease of the eye known as trachoma. It is a disease generally associated with poverty and unhygienic conditions of living. Recently it was stated that trachoma is assuming alarming proportions in this country. The investigations made by the county medical officers of health do not support any such allegation. Of the school children medically examined in the four county boroughs during the past three years, about one per 1,000 was affected with the disease. In the rest of the country the disease is rare amongst school children, the incidence being on the average one per 25,000 in 1938.

There was a reduction in the number of infant deaths in 1938 as compared with the years 1937 and 1936. The total number of deaths was 3,757, a rate of 66 per 1,000 births, and the corresponding totals in 1937 and 1936 were 4,121 and 4,309, representing rates of 73 and 74 per 1,000 births, respectively. The infant mortality rate for 1938 is still above the rates for the years 1933 and 1934, when the infant death rates were 65 and 63 per 1,000 births, respectively. The latter rate, however, was the lowest hitherto recorded in this country.

There are as yet no reliable figures as to the distribution of infant mortality in respect of 1938, but in 1937 the rate for all urban areas was 91.5 per 1,000 births as compared with 98.6 in 1936, and in rural areas 60.7 as compared with 58.9 in 1936.

In the County Boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford the recorded infant mortality rates per 1,000 births in 1937 were, respectively, 102, 103, 68 and 97. The main causes of infant deaths in the county boroughs were diarrhoea and enteritis, pneumonia and premature birth. With the development of maternity and child welfare schemes, it is hoped that it will be possible to reduce avoidable infant mortality to a great extent in these areas. In the counties the highest mortality rates per 1,000 births in 1937 were in Dublin (109); Wexford (89); Kilkenny (85); and Carlow (84). The lowest mortality rates were in Leitrim (46); Mayo (46); Clare (49); Offaly (49); and Cavan (50).

The number of deaths from measles in the year 1938 was 99 as compared with 126 in the previous year. As measles is not a notifiable disease, it is only possible to adjudge as to its incidence by the mortality attributable to it. This further decline in mortality is encouraging. The average number of deaths for the decade 1911-20 was 383, and for the decade 1921-30, 253, whilst the seven years 1931-37 give an average of 210.

Maternity and child welfare schemes are being carried out in the four county boroughs, in 20 urban districts and five county health districts. In addition 115 voluntary associations are engaged upon this work throughout the country. In Dublin City there has been a very large expansion in the maternity and child welfare services. Several pre- and post-natal clinics have been established and valuable assistance and advice are being given to mothers and children. In the report for the year 1937 the medical officer states as follows:

"Pre-natal work has progressed to an extraordinary extent in the city. Ten years ago the pre-natal departments of the maternity hospitals were poorly developed and very poorly attended. There has been a sustained improvement over the last few years and for 1937 it has been found necessary to specially enlarge these departments and extra medical assistance will soon be necessary. At these departments 6,706 expectant mothers, all new cases, were seen, which represents 60 per cent. of the city birth rate. In the year 1927 only 850 mothers so attended. Unquestionably this increase has been largely due to propaganda and advice given under the city maternity and child welfare scheme by both health visitors and the medical officers."

Each successive year shows progress and expansion in school medical inspection schemes. The system of inspection carried out in the schools has the approval of school managers, teachers and the parents of the children. It offers great scope for the detection and treatment of disease in its early stages. Already there is evidence of improvement in the general health and physique of the children who have received advice or treatment, and of greater attention on the part of parents to the personal hygiene and the physical health of their children. The total number of children examined in the year 1937 was 124,256. The following defects were ascertained: dental defects, 54,118; number of children treated, 37,952; tonsils and adenoids and affections of nose and throat, 27,821; number of children treated, 7,199; defective vision, 16,200; number of children treated, 11,871; other eye defects, 5,460; number of children treated, 527.

School meals are provided in four county boroughs, 41 urban districts and seven towns under town commissioners. The meals are provided in 227 national schools. For the year ended 31st March, 1938, the average daily number of children in receipt of meals was approximately 28,000. The total number of meals provided was approximately 4,830,000.

School meals are also provided in rural areas of the Gaeltacht by the Board of Health for West Cork and by the Boards of Health for the Counties of Galway, Donegal, Kerry and Mayo. The total number of meals provided in the financial year ended 31st March, 1938, was approximately 2,800,000. In the majority of districts the school meal consists of milk or cocoa with buns or bread and butter or jam. Local authorities have been advised from time to time to make tuberculin tested or high-grade milk as far as it is available at a reasonable price the basis of the school meal. The importance of milk as an article of food cannot be too strongly stressed. For young children especially it is an essential part of diet.

The arrangements for the supply of free milk, for which a sum of £90,000 is provided in this Estimate, were continued during the year in urban and rural areas with the exception of two urban districts in which the councils again declined to co-operate on the grounds that the amount allocated for their districts was inadequate. The conditions governing issues from the grant were the same as in previous years. The allowances of milk are limited to children under five years whose parents and guardians are in receipt of assistance or are unable to provide from their own resources an adequate supply of milk for children under this age. The general supervision of these schemes is entrusted to the chief medical officers. The local veterinary inspectors inspect the premises of suppliers of milk to ensure that the methods of production are satisfactory. Tests as to the purity and quality of the milk supplied are made from time to time.

The Milk and Dairies Acts and Regulations thereunder form a comprehensive code for securing effective administrative control by local authorities of the supply of milk for human consumption in their areas. Any person who intends to supply milk for public consumption must be registered. A number of persons accustomed to sell milk were refused registration on the ground that their cowsheds did not conform to the requisite standard for the clean production of milk. The reduction in the number of registered dairymen affected to some extent the supply of milk under the Free Milk scheme. In some cases, too, increased prices were charged for the milk supplied on the ground that the carrying out of structural alterations to cowsheds before registration could be secured involved increased costs in production.

There was a scarcity of suppliers of milk in the rural areas of Donegal, Kerry and Limerick and, to a lesser extent, in the counties of Galway, Mayo and South Cork. In certain areas the experiment of issuing supplies of dried milk powder was resorted to as a temporary measure so as to obviate as far as possible any hardship on the children eligible for a supply of free milk. Before such action was taken an analysis of the powder was made and it showed that the powder when reconstituted as milk contained as high a percentage of milk fats as is laid down in the regulations for new milk.

In some areas the sale of milk by unregistered dairymen has been continued in defiance of the law without appropriate action being taken by the sanitary authorities, and in such cases it became necessary to draw special attention to the necessity of securing full compliance with the provisions of the Milk and Dairies Act. Generally speaking, however, the Act and Regulations thereunder are being more widely complied with, due in a large measure to the enterprise and efforts of the medical and veterinary staffs of the local bodies. During the past year 1,119 orders refusing registration under the Act were made by sanitary authorities. Formal appeals against these orders were received in 35 cases. In every case the appeal was disallowed after investigation of the circumstances.

There are now in operation those parts of the Act governing the designations which may be used in connection with the sale of milk. Special designations are, highest grade milk, standard milk and pasteurised milk. The general designations prescribed are, milk, new milk and fresh milk. No licence is required in respect of the use of a general designation in connection with the sale of milk. The use of any descriptive words or signs other than those coming within a special or general designation which indicate or are intended to indicate that the milk is of a particular quality, or prepared in a particular manner, or suitable for a particular purpose, is prohibited. So far 99 applications for special designation licences have been received under the following categories:— Highest grade milk, 45; standard milk, 32; pasteurised milk, 22. There have been 12 applications withdrawn and the total number to be considered is therefore 87.

Under the Milk and Dairies (Special Designations) Regulations, 1938, the minimum milk-fat content for any sample of highest grade milk and standard milk had been fixed at 3.5 per cent. Representations were made in this matter by representatives of the milk trade that the percentage of milk-fats was too high. After due consideration it was decided to modify the milk-fat standard, and amending regulations entitled the Milk and Dairies (Special Designations) (Amendment) Regulations, 1939, have been made. The new standard fixed is a minimum of 3.1 per cent of milk fat for any sample of highest grade and standard milk and an average content of milk fat of at least 3.25 per cent. for all samples taken from the supplies of the same dairyman over any continuous period of six months.

Schemes for the treatment of tuberculosis are in operation in each county and county borough. The slight increase in mortality from tuberculosis reported in 1937 has been followed in 1938 by a definite decrease to 2,464 deaths from pulmonary tuberculosis as compared with 2,854 in 1937, and 686 deaths from non-pulmonary tuberculosis as compared with 785 in 1937. The figures for 1938 represent a rate of 0.8 per 1,000 of the population in respect of pulmonary tuberculosis, and 0.2 in respect of non-pulmonary tuberculosis, making a total of 1.00 per 1,000 of the population for all forms of tuberculosis, which is the lowest rate recorded in this country.

The progressive development of institutional treatment of all types of tuberculosis on modern lines is proceeding throughout the country. On a previous occasion there was some adverse criticism of the form of treatment which I do not think was fully justified. Under a typical tuberculosis scheme treatment may be obtained in an institution or at a dispensary or in the patient's own home. There is usually a central dispensary and a number of branch dispensaries selected as far as possible with reference to the centres of population in the various areas and to the means of transport from outlying districts. In these dispensaries patients are examined on fixed days by tuberculosis officers, assisted by trained nurses.

Medical officers of dispensary districts are encouraged to send patients whom they suspect to be suffering from tuberculosis for examination at the central or branch tuberculosis dispensaries and any doctor sending a patient for examination may attend for a personal consultation with the tuberculosis officer if he so desires. Specially trained nurses visit patients in their own homes, including patients who are able to attend dispensaries. Sputum examination may be carried out locally or by specialists in the laboratories of the medical schools. X-ray facilities are available locally in many areas, and where they are not available patients may be sent to the nearest hospital possessing the necessary apparatus for x-ray examination. Sufferers from pulmonary tuberculosis who can benefit from active treatment of the disease by modern methods are sent to sanatoria. For the non-pulmonary forms of tuberculosis, treatment is available in the various county hospitals and in public hospitals in the larger centres of population. The special needs of child sufferers from surgical tuberculosis are catered for in four open-air hospitals. The reduction in the tuberculosis death rate in this country over the past 20 years compares favourably with the decline in mortality in other countries. In the year 1904 the death rate from all forms of tuberculosis was 2.77 per 1,000 of the population, and in 1908, the date of the passing of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, the death rate was 2.5 per 1,000 of the population. The corresponding rates in 1936, 1937 and 1938 were 1.17, 1.23 and 1.00.

A sum of approximately £350,000 is being spent on new public health works in the present financial year, apart from the new scheme of water supply for Dublin, on which work is proceeding. The total number of hospitals provided by boards of public assistance to date is 21, viz., five county hospitals, 11 district hospitals, five fever hospitals. Two nurses' homes have also been provided. Improvements have also been carried out at seven other institutions. The erection of eight county hospitals is proceeding. They are being erected at Cashel, Ennis, Mallow, Kilkenny, Portlaoighise, Tullamore, Roscommon, and Sligo. The buildings at Cashel, Ennis and Mallow are almost completed, while that at Portlaoighise is well advanced. There are also in course of erection district hospitals at Gorey, Killarney, Listowel, New Ross and Schull, and two fever hospitals at Killarney and New Ross. The expenditure from Hospitals Trust funds on the provision of county, district and fever hospitals up to 31st December, 1936, was £1,142,164.

Works for the improvement of accommodation in mental hospitals have been completed at five institutions. Improvements at seven institutions are in progress. The expenditure out of Hospitals Trust funds on mental hospitals up to 31st December, 1938, amounted to £788,597. On the provision of new sanatoria, public health clinics, the expenditure to 31st December last amounted to £198,825. The total grants made within the same period to nursing associations amounted to £56,020, to the Library Council £6,104, to the Medical Research Council £10,000, and to the Provisional Cancer Council £500.

Applications were made to the Hospitals Commission on behalf of 42 voluntary hospitals for grants towards meeting expenditure in excess of income for the year 1937, and on the recommendation of the commission payments amounting to £106,541 were made to these hospitals. The commission pointed out in their general report for the year 1937 that voluntary hospitals are becoming every year more dependent on the proceeds of sweepstakes and that the payment of the annual maintenance deficits has had a decided effect on hospital methods of controlling expenditure.

In 1934, when hospital deficits amounted to £65,000, it was estimated that £2,000,000 would be sufficient to set aside for endowment. Since that year the total deficits of the voluntary hospitals have gradually increased to £106,541 in 1937, and the amount set aside for endowment has had to be advanced to £3,000,000. The additional provision necessary for endowment involves a corresponding decrease in the amount available for the erection of new voluntary hospitals and the extension and improvement of existing voluntary hospitals.

Unless it is possible to control the expenditure or increase income so as to keep the annual deficits of voluntary hospitals within a reasonable limit new projects will be seriously affected. There is £8,000,000 available from Sweepstake funds but, as I have indicated, £3,000,000 must be earmarked for endowment. Any provision for endowment above that amount would affect the building programme to be undertaken within the next couple of years, and I trust that the occasion for any further such provision will not arise. It will be readily agreed that it would be unwise to enter into any large commitments until they are adequately covered by funds in hand.

The future hospital requirements for Dublin City are to be met by an enlargement or replacement of three of the existing principal hospitals and by the erection of a new hospital to replace Sir Patrick Dun's, Mercer's and the City of Dublin Hospitals. The three existing hospitals to be enlarged or replaced by new hospitals are the Mater Misericordiae, St. Vincent's and the Richmond, Whitworth and Hardwicke Hospitals. The arrangements for the amalgamation of Sir Patrick Dun's, Mercer's and the City of Dublin Hospitals are well advanced. Proposals which will be necessary to give effect to the arrangements have been discussed with the representatives of the controlling authorities of these hospitals and a Bill will be introduced in the early summer, I hope.

The provision of additional bed accommodation and other improvements to be undertaken at the Mater Hospital and the building of a new hospital at Elm Park in place of the present St. Vincent's Hospital are at present being considered by the respective governing bodies of those hospitals. In regard to the Richmond, Whitworth and Hardwicke Hospitals, I understand that the board of governors as an alternative to carry ing out extensions at the present site are considering the erection of a new hospital on the outskirts of the city. I hope to have an opportunity of discussing with them their final plans at an early date.

In addition to the provision of adequate facilities for medical and surgical treatment, there is an urgent need for the provision of a chest hospital, an extension of orthopaedic facilities and psychiatry clinic for research into mental disease. It was schemes of this nature that I had in mind when I adverted to the possible postponement of some works owing to the increased demands on the funds to meet hospital deficits.

The Medical Research Council received 29 applications for grants for work on medical research. Eighteen awards were made. Six of the grant holders are occupied full time in connection with research, one of whom is undergoing training in juvenile rheumatism to be followed by a six months' survey of the disease as it occurs in Dublin and district.

The hospital library scheme which was put into operation in 1937 under the general control of the Hospital Library Council now extends to 57 hospitals with over 4,400 beds. Under the scheme 11,678 books were supplied for the use of patients. The council have rendered valuable assistance in the work of administering the service within the hospitals by advising on the provision of suitable accommodation and equipment and giving instruction in the method of issue of books to patients.

The provision in sub-head S for payments to local authorities in respect of housing schemes under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932, and grants to private persons and public utility societies for the erection of new, and the reconstruction of existing, houses amounts to £826,590. The number of houses built by local authorities in the present financial year is likely to reach 6,600, which is the largest number of houses erected by these bodies since the 1932 Act was passed. During the year 1937 there were strikes in the building trade in Dublin and Cork and the total number of houses built by local authorities in the financial year ended 31st March, 1938, fell to 4,890. During the financial year ended 31st March, 1937, the total number of houses built by local authorities was 6,094. In the previous year the number was 6,245. Of the 6,600 houses estimated to be completed between 1st April, 1938, and the 31st March, 1939, there were 3,750 houses built by urban authorities and 2,850 by rural authorities.

In Dublin County Borough the total number of dwellings completed during the year is likely to reach 2,300, which would be a record number of houses provided by the Corporation of Dublin in any year. The number of dwellings at present in progress in Dublin is almost 2,000. In response to a request made to me by the Corporation of Dublin for an inquiry into housing shortage in the State with particular reference to the position in Dublin, I have directed an official investigation to be made into all aspects of the housing question in Dublin. The investigations will be begun at an early date.

Last month in introducing a Housing (Amendment) Bill I gave statistics of the number of new houses completed by private persons and public utility societies, and of houses reconstructed with the aid of grants. The number of new houses was 25,835 of which 10,383 houses were erected in urban areas and 15,452 houses in rural areas. The total number of houses reconstructed by farmers and agricultural labourers was 19,946. The amount paid in grants up to 1st March, 1939, was approximately £2,500,000.

In the rural areas the largest numbers of houses were built in the Counties of Mayo (2,361); Kerry (1,842); Dublin (1,748); Cork (1,727); Galway (1,304); Monaghan (751); Roscommon (744); Sligo (635); Limerick (623); and Clare (584). The largest numbers of houses reconstructed were in the Counties of Cork, Mayo, Galway, Louth, Longford, Kerry, Rescommon and Monaghan.

The Housing and Labourers Act, 1937 made provision for State assistance towards the reconstruction of houses in urban areas. The regulations under that Act governing the payment of grants were circulated to the urban authorities in October last and they were requested to make a careful survey of all houses in their area that are defective in sanitary accommodation, and if such houses can be repaired at reasonable expense and made suitable as working-class dwellings, to take stops to serve notices on the owners thereof under Section 19 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931. The survey of insanitary dwellings which urban authorities were asked to make would form part of a general survey which they had been requested to undertake earlier in the year with the object of ascertaining definitely the extent of the housing problem in each area and the number of new houses required to eradicate slum dwellings.

Only one-half of the urban authorities has yet completed the necessary returns in respect of the general survey. With the limited information at the disposal of the Department no comparison can be yet made with the surveys of requirements made in the year 1929. It is again being impressed upon urban authorities to complete the survey of insanitary dwellings for the purposes of the 1937 Act and to institute the necessary proceedings for the reconditioning of dwellings which are structurally sound but otherwise unfit for human habitation. Already these authorities are bound under the Act of 1931 to compel owners to put houses suitable for the working classes into a proper state of repair. The Act of 1937 provided a grant up to a quarter of the cost or £40 and enabled local authorities to operate the Act of 1931 with the least hardship to the owners.

Grants will only be made in respect of houses which can be converted into suitable family dwellings and in respect of houses situate outside places that will require to be cleared under the provisions of the Act of 1931. Normally no grant will be allocated in respect of any such house unless the separate dwellings are self-contained. In such cases, however, the entrance door to the separate dwelling may lead off a staircase, landing or passage used for access to other dwellings.

It is obvious that if houses which are structurally sound can be reconditioned at reasonable expense to conform with modern standards of comfort and sanitation, a good deal could be done to remedy bad housing conditions in urban areas and thereby help towards a solution of the slum problem. The preservation of existing dwellings which are capable of reconstruction should also reduce the need for new houses and to some extent lessen the charges on ratepayers.

There has been a new sub-head introduced in connection with the Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Act, 1933. Under that Act the Government undertook liability for one-half of any loss incurred by county councils in 1933 on seeds and fertilisers supply schemes. The maximum liability was limited to £25,000 apportioned between county councils. Sixteen county councils adopted schemes at a cost of £13,466. It is anticipated that claims for recoupment will be received from 12 counties and that in the aggregate these claims will not exceed £600. Except in Kerry County the loss did not in any county exceed £63. In Kerry it is expected the loss will be about £200.

The net provision made by county councils for road maintenance in the coming financial year amounts to £1,274,257, which is slightly in excess of the net provision made in the present year. The provision for main roads shows a decrease of approximately £12,000 and an increase of £25,170 for county roads. During the present financial year grants were made from the Employment Schemes Vote for road works in urban and rural areas. A sum of £243,324 was allocated to urban authorities and £390,970 to county councils. At the middle of last month employment on a rotational basis was afforded to 16,000 men on these works.

During the past four years there has been a gradual improvement in the collection of the rates in counties. In the present financial year the collection will show a further improvement.

Upon the clearance in February last of the Land Purchase Guarantee Fund to which local taxation grants are hypothecated, there was a net issue to the local taxation account of £63,368 over and above the amount of the grants paid to the fund during the year, owing to the amount of arrears of annuities recovered during the year being in excess of the net amount of new arrears that accrued in the same period. Fourteen councils received £85,760 in addition to their full grants, whilst in the remaining 13 counties the aggregate amount absorbed in the fund was £22,392.

There has been a steady and substantial reduction of temporary borrowing by county councils for revenue purposes, and with two or three exceptions their financial position is very satisfactory.

Mr. Brennan

In introducing this Estimate, the Minister, very properly from his own point of view, left to the last information with regard to the rates. That, in my opinion, was the most important matter he dealt with, and we ought to have been told of it in detail. The Minister did not tell us anything about the position in which the ratepayers find themselves with regard to the increasing burdens which are being placed upon them. He did not tell us how he thinks they are going to carry these burdens or attempt to carry them. This year, 1939, in comparison with 1932, there is an all-round increase of 34 per cent. in the rate burden which the people have to carry. In the Minister's Estimate, we do not find any encouragement as to a reduction of the total cost of local government or an easing of the burden so far as the central authority is concerned. As a matter of fact, there seems to be a tendency to extend the local government machine. Last year and other years, in speaking on this Estimate. I expressed doubts that the local government machine which we have is the most suitable one we could have in this country. The Local Government Department stretches its tentacles over the people in a way in which no other Government Department does. It is a very important Department, and it has to take cognisance not only of the medical and other needs of the people but of their ability to pay for and maintain the public services. We find that the machine is going to cost us more this year than last year. Year after year, there is an increasing demand upon the country for the maintenance of the Local Government Department itself. This year, salaries, wages and allowances are increased by £7,772. They have been increasing gradually since 1931. The figures of Departmental costs for 1931, as compared with these figures, constitute a terrible revelation. They are increased by three to one. Of course, there are certain reasons for that, housing, for instance. But, outside that altogether, there seems to be no limit to the increases being placed upon the public to maintain the Department of Local Government.

It is satisfactory to hear from the Minister that the rate of mortality from notifiable diseases has decreased. That is a tribute to the system of county medical officership which was established here. It is also very satisfactory to learn that the number of deaths from pulmonary tuberculosis has decreased. I do not think that the Minister is entitled to say—if his information is correct he would, of course, be entitled to say it, but his information is not correct—that non-pulmonary cases are specially provided for in the county hospitals all over the country. That is not my experience. Our experience is that there is not accommodation even for pulmonary cases. We put up a scheme for reconstruction of the County Home and Hospital at Roscommon last May in order that we might be able to deal in some way with this matter, but we have not got sanction for the scheme yet, nor has any reason been given for failure to issue sanction. We had reports from inspector after inspector at the board of health in Roscommon telling us that our building was not in a condition to receive patients. Some ceilings were falling and various repairs were required. We were advised to put up a scheme to alter the whole position. We did that last May. We engaged the services of an architect and we sent forward our plans in May, 1938. We have not yet had a reply from the Department. Since then we have been having reports from inspectors complaining of the non-segregation of patients and of the inadequate provision made for patients. Still, the Department has not moved. Recently I raised the matter by way of question, and the answer I got from the Parliamentary Secretary was that they did not know how many patients for the new hospital were going to be taken out of the old one and, consequently, could not deal with the matter. In my opinion, that reply was thought of on the spur of the moment for want of a better reply. The alteration we wanted in connection with the hospital was for patients who would not, in any circumstances, be transferred to the new county hospital. When the Minister comes into the House and tells us that special arrangements are made for tuberculosis cases, I must tell him the circumstances in Roscommon.

On the question of hospitalisation generally, the Minister told us that 24 hospitals were built. I wonder does that number include the two hospitals in Boyle, County Roscommon? Some time ago, I put down a question with regard to Boyle hospital and the Minister gave me an answer that the scheme was now passed. I found later that the story was being circulated in other places that the Boyle hospitals were being built and some enterprising gentleman in America who had an interest in Boyle wrote for a photograph of the two new hospitals. That started it. The cause of the delay with regard to the Boyle hospital has been inexplicable; so far as we are concerned we do not know why it has been held up. I know that the Boyle people are not at all pleased, either with the Minister or the Roscommon Board of Health, with regard to the way in which this matter of the hospitals has been mismanaged.

Dealing with hospitals generally, the Minister referred to the Sweep money. I do not want to go very deeply into this matter; it is a very sore one in the City of Dublin, but it does appear that, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has yet under his control this money, there has not been one new bed added to the Dublin hospitals. That is a very serious thing. I think the sooner the Minister wakes up to the fact that he will have deficits the better it will be. He will not find any way of ending that state of affairs until he produces some scheme to deal with it.

The Minister told us that he expected to have a Bill for the amalgamation of three Dublin hospitals—Sir Patrick Dun's, Mercer's and the City of Dublin Hospital. I understand that those people had three years ago a Bill of their own. They were asked to withdraw that Bill by the Minister, but the Minister has not yet taken the matter in hand himself. I hope he will take serious steps to do so without any more loss of time. If the Minister requires the assistance of the medical profession in this very important matter I hope he will ask their assistance and I am sure that it will be willingly given.

Now we come down to the Estimate and I find there the old hardy annual —the National Housing Board. We have always been trying to find out what the functions of this board are. The Minister never told us what they were. I am very anxious to know what the activities of the Housing Board were—what they were doing. We are paying the chairman of that board £1,000 and two members, part-time, £500 a year each. Other Deputies like myself were always very anxious and intrigued to know about these activities, but we never could find out what they were. Surely if the members of the Housing Board were doing something useful, the Minister would not be compelled at this hour of the day to set up a commission consisting of these very people plus a couple of other people to find out what the housing position is. If these people had been active as a housing board—and we never had any evidence of that—surely they would be able to find out this information through the local authorities and they would be able to put their fingers on every want that existed. Apparently they have not been active, for if they had we would know about it. At any rate we have the situation that the Minister feels obliged to set up a commission to find out the position with regard to housing in this country and particularly with regard to housing conditions in the City of Dublin.

There is apparently some difference of opinion between the Dublin Corporation and the Department of Local Government and Public Health with regard to the manner of financing housing and also with reference to the assistance that ought to be given to private builders. I am informed that through the operations of public policy there is at the present time an increase of 30 per cent. on housing costs, and this increase has arisen within the last two and one-half years. That statement was made here by a Deputy yesterday evening, and I am informed it is correct. Surely if that is the situation it is something to which the Minister should direct his attention. If housing costs have increased by 30 per cent., how can we have private building in a prosperous condition? How, in fact, can we have any building? If Government policy has forced up the price of steel, cement, timber, and all those other things by protective tariffs and, as a result, forced up the housing costs by 30 per cent., it is useless to expect activity in the building of houses.

In dealing with that matter I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to some figures that have been before me with regard to the houses that had been built by the local authorities, particularly within the last five or six years. Charges have been made from time to time that a good deal of the building was inferior work, that, in a word, inferior work was being done in the building of houses. I think the Minister himself was forced to admit that. Everybody regretted that that was so. I find from the figures that have been supplied to me that the repairs to labourers' cottages since 1931 have increased so largely, even in the case of the cottages quite recently built—even within the last six or seven years—that it is clear that the workmanship put into them and the materials put into them have been very defective. So much has that been the case that these cottages are now in need of repairs. That is a very alarming state of things. In the year 1931 the repairs of cottages cost the local authorities £26,295. In 1938 the cost of these repairs came to £83,376. These are very alarming figures and I am afraid they show great deterioration in the building and in the construction of houses. The depreciation is certainly not creditable. On repairs to labourers' cottages there has also been an increase, but not to the same extent. In 1931 the cost of repairs to these cottages was £50,000. In 1937 the cost had risen to £68,500. The figures for 1938 were not obtainable. Taking the whole lot together, I am afraid that there is a great deal to be said for the charges that have been made with regard to constructional work. It may, of course, be argued that some of the labourers' cottages might be expected, as the years advanced, to show the need for greater and more repairs. But, still, that could not account for the huge increase that has occurred.

I would like to ask the Minister what steps, if any, he is taking or intends to take with regard to the recommendations of the Banking Commission in connection with repayments on the local loans. Personally, I think that the recommendation of the Banking Commission on that particular matter—I am sure the Minister has it in mind; I am sure he has read it and studied it—calls for very serious consideration by the Minister. The Government is paying, say, roughly 60 per cent. of the repayments of the loans on the cottages. The Banking Commission pointed out that in fact it would be better if the Government wrote off those debts altogether—if they regarded this money as a grant to the local authorities—and that in fact there was nothing being gained by having this appearing year in and year out as a liability against the State, because that is what it is. You have also that other situation, that the sum of say £6,500,000, which has been borrowed from local loans for the building of all those houses, may appear on the face of it as a State asset. It may appear as a sum of money which is due to the State by the local authorities, and which has the backing of the local authorities for payment. Of course that is not true at all. As a matter of fact to the extent of 60 per cent. it is a State charge; it is a State liability; it is a dead-weight debt to that extent.

This year we have the Minister estimating for a payment of £381,590 under sub-head S (1)—Contributions towards Loan Charges under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932. As was pointed out by the Banking Commission, if those payments are being made by the State towards this fund there must be some object in view. Is it anticipated that there will be for all time the same need of housing that there is to-day? Does the Minister now feel that after his seven years endeavouring to clear the slums he still has not even made a start? Even if the Minister feels, or if the Government feels, that that fund ought to be kept up, I do not think that is the way to do it, because surely if there is a need for further accommodation in that way it will be an immediate need—at least within, say, the next eight or ten years—and you will not get it filled up in that way. I do agree, of course, that there is this other point—that the Minister can say to the local authorities: "Well, unless you do so-and-so, we will not make a repayment for you this year." He has used that whip, if I may say so, down the country, and used it effectively and rightly. He has told the local authorities that unless they put the proper tenants into the cottages he will not be responsible for the repayments. I think he is right in that. Nevertheless, I do not think that this State recurring charge year in and year out, which is an increasing charge up to a point—possibly for another couple of years it will be an increasing charge— is getting us anywhere. I think it would be much better for the Minister simply to write it off as a grant, because that is what it is. If he wants money for the immediate needs of housing again he will have to borrow it, and he will have to borrow it even if he continues that, because that is too slow.

I remember drawing the Minister's attention here some time ago to the engineering inspectors. At that time there was certainly an outery, and I think it was justified, for some prompt dealing with matters relating to housing grants generally. It was felt that the engineering staff was short, but I remember pointing out to the Minister that, after all, housing needs were not, I hoped, a permanent feature of the country, and that in appointing inspectors for this particular purpose we ought to be careful that we were not creating permanent jobs for what is after all a temporary need. I find this year that we have abandoned all our temporary engineers—that we have made them all permanent. Is not that so? Twenty-four temporary housing inspectors still remain temporary, but we have added three, two, four, and three in another place, and we have taken off one further down as temporary. Of course the Minister may have some very good reason for doing that, but I hope he has not lost sight of the fact that after all we hope that the need for services of this kind is only temporary, and that we ought to ensure that we are not creating permanent jobs in order to deal with a temporary matter.

Last year I drew the attention of the Minister to what I considered was a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the Minister agreed with me, with regard to county boards of health. I thought then, and I have thought since as a matter of fact from some statements of the Minister himself, that the Minister had in mind some system which would either supersede or assist the present system whereby county boards of health are supposed to deal with all the matters that come before them. The Minister, of course, knows perfectly well that the county boards of health cannot adequately deal with them. It is not within human reason to expect ten members of a county board of health, ten men scattered all over the county, to come in once a fortnight from their work and to deal with 60 or 70 or 80 items on an agenda. It is impossible. It cannot be done. I drew the Minister's attention to that last year, and I thought he felt as I felt about it. I am a member of a county board of health, and I know what happens. Certainly the members are deserving of great sympathy and great consideration. They come in there at their own expense, and in their own time, and they have got to try to muddle through 20 or 30 items, and to get them done anyhow. That is not satisfactory. Something ought to be done by the Minister to ensure that public services are properly done. We want to do them, and the boards of health want to do them, but they cannot; it is impossible.

The Minister referred to road grants that were made available. I have always looked upon the Department of Local Government as the ratepayers' bulwark, as the great safeguard the ratepayers had with regard to expenditure. I always felt that between the sanctions of the Minister, the inspectorial staff, and the audits, the ratepayers were quite safe, and that nothing illegal, nothing outside the law, could be done or would be done or would be tolerated. I am afraid that, with regard to road grants, my confidence has been badly shaken, very badly shaken. Firstly, let me say that the Department of Local Government, particularly, should be entirely above any kind of Party or politics. There should not be anything of that kind in it. Even if the Government Party wanted to redeem their promises or wanted to pretend to redeem their promises to the people of this country, the Local Government Department, at least, should stand fast in defence of the ratepayers.

What I am referring to is this. When the present Government were seeking office one of the things promised to the people was that they were going to put every man in the country into employment. That was, of course, merely a promise. It was never meant to be kept or else the people who made it were so far from understanding the position that they thought they could carry it out. However, they have found that they could not do that. Then we find that the Road Fund, which hitherto was always operated in the interests of the ratepayers, was allowed to be raided by other people in order to pretend that the Government were redeeming their promises to provide employment for every person in the country. Not alone was that done, but when grants were made available for local authorities, the local authorities were compelled to fleece the ratepayers of their own county before they could avail of the grant, so that to some extent the Fianna Fáil promises to provide employment for all would be redeemed. Even then, it was not done at a time or in a manner which gave any consideration to the people who had to pay, the ratepayers. Not alone was the money pilfered from them, but it was given back only on condition that they made a further contribution from the rates and the time and the manner in which that notification came was as follows: The county council met at its roads meeting in January, passed all the road works which they could, rejected some others, and said:—

"There is our budget; that is as far as we can go. There is not any more we can do, because we cannot ask the ratepayers to carry a bigger burden than is provided for there, as far as roads are concerned."

Then a week or a month after that we had a letter from the Minister for Local Government informing us that a grant would be made available for the county out of the E.S.V. grant, provided we put up a certain sum of money. There we were then between the devil and the deep sea. We did not want to refuse the grant notwithstanding the fact that it would put anything from 3d. in the £ to 5d. in the £ on the ratepayers. It would be at least 3d. in the £ in our case. The least one would expect was that we should have been informed of that grant before our roads meeting, so that we would know exactly where we stood.

Then we have a situation which is entirely new to me at least, a matter to which I regret having to refer. We have two classes of these particular grants, the E.S.V. roads rural grant to which the ratepayers make a contribution and the minor relief grant to which the ratepayers do not make a contribution. The minor relief grants are supervised by the officers of the local authority and a certain percentage is allowed for the administration of that. Notwithstanding that, we find that permission was granted to appoint an extra engineer to superintend the ratepayers work, that is the E.S.V. grants, the road rural grants, and the county council had to pay its contribution to that. The next thing we found was that that man was doing minor relief work and that his travelling expenses were being charged to the county council fund. I wonder who connived at that? I am informed that there was a complete understanding that that was to happen. It was most irregular in my opinion, a thing that should never have happened. It was a thing that was never known to have happened before in the Local Government Department. Surely if the Local Government Department was ever regarded—as I did regard it—as the great safeguard of the ratepayers, it has lost that reputation. The people have been pushed into a position which they never thought they would occupy. I do not want to say anything more about this matter. I feel very strongly about it and I think there is somebody very gravely and very seriously at fault.

With regard to audits, I should like to know from the Minister when replying if audits are kept up to date. I think it is a very important matter that they should be kept up to date. It is very unsatisfactory to find occasionally that when the auditor comes down to audit the accounts of a local authority he has to go back four, five or six half years. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and, even if it were to cost more, I think it would be much more satisfactory for the Department, for the councils and for everybody concerned, if audits could be kept up to date or at least fairly up to date.

Coming to rates, I have some newspaper cuttings about them, but I do not want to tire the House by reading expressions of opinion all over the country by members of various county councils. Certain relief from rates is granted to people who employ labour or who happen to have sons 17 or 18 years of age in their homes. That was a kind of gesture to induce people to employ labour on the land. I do not know if the Minister has ever had any examination made to find out to what extent that has happened. I am afraid if there was an examination he would be sadly disappointed, as it has not induced people to employ more labour. It has resulted in some cases of very grave hardship on fathers of young families who are not able to employ anyone, and who have no children of 18 years of age. I have had instances brought to my notice of people who have no sons, but have daughters. These people have to muddle along, while neighbours who may have no families and who may be well able to employ labourers or pensioners of some sort get an allowance. The poor unfortunate man with a houseful of children, none of whom is up to 18 years, gets no consideration, The Minister ought to have an examination of the position to see if any assurance whatever could be got that the inducement to employ more people on the land has been a success. I remember drawing the Minister's attention a few years ago to the position created by the issue of credit notes for rates. I pointed out that the introduction of that system was a distinct disadvantage to a man who was not able to pay before a particular date. I notice with satisfaction that that system has been dropped practically all over the country. I wish that the Minister would direct his attention to the other matter, to see to what extent cases of hardship exist with regard to allowances for labour employed on the land.

The Department appears occasionally to get into a groove or perhaps some section of it or some of the officials, and they stick there, and no consideration can move them out of that attitude. We had a rule or an order made by the Department that dispensary doctors must live in their districts. That is a very reasonable regulation, and I think it is an essential one for the sake of the people, but there are cases in which discretion ought to be exercised. However, no one appears to think that any discretion should be used. We had a case in Roscommon recently, in a particular rural district, one end of which is behind a bordering town, and we were asked to build a residence there for a doctor. The people say they do not want the doctor in that district, that he is nearer where he is now, taking the whole district into consideration, and the doctor also does not want to go there. There is no residence available, but he has the telephone and there are two Gárda barracks at each end of the district. Notwithstanding that, the Department wrote down to the board of health at meeting after meeting that the residence must be built for the doctor, although the people do not want it there and the doctor does not want it. There ought to be some discretion in a case like that. We have what is practically a similar case bordering on another county, where the Minister is insisting on a dispensary residence being built, although the position is that a small portion of our county is administered by a doctor from a neighbouring county, who will be retiring shortly, and then that small portion will come into our county for administration, and will naturally be attached to this particular district. If we build the residence, as is suggested, that will be the end of it, yet the Department insists on it. We offered to send a deputation to the Department to explain the matter, and the reply was that they did not see what good a deputation could do, as no evidence was supplied to the Department. The board wrote back that the deputation would give evidence, but the reply again was that they would not have it. These are matters that want looking into, because they cause annoyance down the country. Anything that would make for the smooth working of the Department should be insisted upon. I strongly advocate that there ought to be some kind of systematic examination of dispensary districts, as some of them are unwieldy, irregular, and not conveniently placed. Some of them have arms going out for miles from where the doctor lives, and others may be at his backdoor. That is the position all over the country, and I do not think it would take very much time to have a new allocation of dispensaries in electoral districts, villages or townlands, and to have boundaries straightened.

Before concluding, I must say that I do not think it would be fair if I did not pay a tribute to the unfailing courtesy that I have always received at the hands of the officials of the Department. That has been the experience of everyone. Occasionally, of course, we complain, but we are invariably met with courtesy and with the desire to help. The complaints I generally go in about concern housing grants. These grants are being held up unduly, and I never found that the fault was at the Custom House, but attributable to some of the officials down the country. I know of cases where people got goods and building materials on the strength of certificates, and where shopkeepers are pressing people who have been living in the houses for two years for payment, but who have not yet got certificates. That is a scandalous state of affairs. It is not due to the officials in the Custom House, but to officials in the country. I am not so sure that some of the officials in the country are just playing a straight game at all. I remember asking the Minister a question last year about the fees an inspector was entitled to ask from persons in order to give the initial certificate and I was told that it was £1 or £1 1s. I know that certain people were demanding £3 3s. Of course, they are entitled to charge for plans. I also know that when they supply plans in duplicate they are entitled to charge £2 2s., at least they say they are, but even where they do not have to supply plans they expect to get £3 3s., and inspections are held up. I think the Minister ought to look into it. I have not much more to say, but I am going to end on this note, that, so far as the officials in the Department are concerned, I have always been treated with the greatest courtesy and given the greatest help. If we bring our grievances to their attention they assist us as far as they can. That is the right spirit. That is what we want, and I do not think there is any other Department in which it is so essential to have that spirit. I am glad to be able to pay that tribute to them.

I take it that we are confining ourselves to the Minister's main Estimate, because the Minister, in his statement, did not deal with any Votes except Vote 41.

There is a motion to refer back No. 44, and I think national Health Insurance should not be discussed on 41, as there would be inevitably a duplication of debate.

Mr. Morrissey

I am all for that arrangement, Sir. I want to deal, first, with the question of the new hospitals that are being erected under the Hospitals' Sweeps scheme. Hospitals are being erected throughout the country and very large sums are being spent on them. My experience is that they are magnificent buildings, very elaborate and very ornate—perhaps too much so—but there does not seem to be, from the point of view of the people who will have to go to those hospitals from time to time, very much improvement. I do not mean to say that the hospitals are not vastly improved from the point of view of equipment and such things, but I refer to the number of beds available. I do not know whether other Deputies have the same experience. Let me give a case of a hospital in my own town with which I am perfectly conversant. We have a splendid hospital built there—a magnificent building, equipped, so far as I understand, as well perhaps as any hospital in Europe—but so far as the people of the town and district are concerned, there is only the same number of beds as was in the old hospital, if there are not fewer, and only a percentage of the people who have to seek hospital treatment can be accommodated there. The position is that the hospital, so far as ordinary sickness cases are concerned, is not there for them, and people have to be sent 20 or 30 miles to an outside hospital.

I must confess that I was always against this amalgamation scheme from the beginning. I could never see very much in it, and I am strongly against taking people away from their own localities, because there is something in the human touch, and people should be kept as near as possible to their own homes, their friends and relatives, if they have to go to hospital. Many people will not agree with me in that, but there is a lot in that human touch, that a person who is unfortunate enough to have to seek hospital treatment should be able to have visits from his friends, relatives and perhaps his children. There is another aspect of it which is more serious. There is a sort of centralisation of fever hospitals, and that is, in my opinion, even more serious because parents will not, in a great many cases, notify disease, if it means that they have to send a young child, 30, 40 or perhaps 50 miles away from home, and in attempting to cloak the disease a real danger arises. I could elaborate on that, but I merely make the point, because I am sure that there are other Deputies who look upon these matters as I do and who perhaps will elaborate on them when they come to speak. I think it is absolutely essential that the Minister should consider the question of the number of beds available in these new hospitals. They are, as I say, very fine buildings, of which we have every reason to be proud, but we ought to see that the maximum number of people are going to get the benefit of these buildings and the equipment in them.

With regard to roads, I look upon this matter as a very big matter, and I think it is one of the questions to which the Government will have to apply themselves in respect of stemming what is called the flight from the land. As the Minister knows, road work is one of the principal employments available in rural areas. Outside purely agricultural work, there is scarcely any other work available, except in the last couple of years, and probably for a few years to come, whatever employment is given in the building of labourers' cottages and minor relief schemes. The main work in rural areas outside the land itself is road work. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Hugo Flinn, speaking here recently on a motion, said that the problem facing them was not so much a problem of finding the money as of finding the work upon which to spend the money. I should be the last to deny for a moment that there has been a very substantial improvement in our roads, and that very good and useful work is going on in the removal of dangerous corners and so on, but I am not satisfied that a great deal more could not be usefully done. This is useful work and work which absorbs unskilled labour. It is the sort of work on which you get the highest wage content, so to speak, because the percentage of the amount available which has to be spent on materials is very small indeed.

While our roads are good and, in many cases, very good—I am talking for the moment of our main trunk roads—some of them are definitely deteriorating and there are stretches of our trunk roads that are not what they should be. When you come to the county roads and the smaller roads, I am afraid we cannot say that they are good. I am not now thinking of my own county. The roads there, generally speaking, are as good as they are anywhere else, but I have in mind —I am sorry Deputy O'Loghlen is not here—roads in other counties of which I have experience. Last year, for instance—this, perhaps, is bound up with the question of tourist development—I spent a couple of weeks in the County Clare, and I must say that some of the roads in the County Clare are a scandal and, far from attracting tourists to that county, which should be one of the best tourist centres in Ireland, these roads would frighten the life out of any tourist so that he would never go back there again. That is true even of some of the main tourist routes. There is a road from Lisdoonvarna, around by Blackhead, into Ballyvaughan, and the tourist who would bring his car there would never bring it again.

I was there last August, and I hope to go there again.

Mr. Morrissey

I am sure the Minister was there, and I hope he will go again.

I found it all right.

Mr. Morrissey

Well, perhaps the Minister has a better car than I have; but I hope the Minister also paid a visit to the Cliffs of Moher——

Mr. Morrissey

——and that he was satisfied with the road going up to them.

Mr. Morrissey

Perhaps the Minister extended his journey a little bit farther and considered travelling from Lisdoon varna to Kilkee.

Yes, I did that also.

Mr. Morrissey

The road is fairly good as far as Lahinch.

A Deputy

He must have been following you around.

Mr. Morrissey

Well, evidently, he was near me. However, I only mention that to show that there is plenty of work available in this country, plenty of work that not only is useful but necessary to be done, and, God knows, we have a sufficient number of men to do that work. I confess that I have looked to the Department of Local Government and Public Health, perhaps, more than to any other Department, to be able—I shall not say to provide work, because I know they cannot do that—to administer the type of schemes of work in this country that will employ the people we want to have employed. Take the question of sewerage. Under the Minister's housing scheme we have houses going up, generally, all over the country, both in rural areas and in the towns, and we find some of our provincial towns— I was going to say, with a sewerage scheme—without any sewerage at all. Some of them have only partial sewerage, that is, sewers only in part of the town, and even those sewers of a very primitive type indeed. It seems to me that there again you have necessary work that requires to be done, and again the men are available to do that work.

I have no criticism whatever to make of the housing schemes—none whatever. The only criticism I could make in connection with them is that I am not at all sure that it is wise—and this is an aspect of the matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention; I may be a bit late, but it might not be too late—I do not think it is wise, in connection with the slum clearance schemes, to be huddling all the houses into one little corner of a field as if it were in the City of Dublin, where no land is available, rather than in the country where there is plenty of land; nor do I think it is at all wise, from any point of view, that all the people from the slums should be huddled into one place and treated as a class apart from the rest of the community. I think, moreover, that it is a danger because I am afraid that, if we are not creating new slums, at least we are creating new slum conditions.

There is another aspect of that to which I should like to refer. In the demolition of slums there has necessarily arisen, in our towns and villages, a number of very unsightly gaps in the streets and at the entrances to our towns, and at the moment one would be almost ashamed of them. As far as I know, at any rate, I do not think the Minister's Department is doing anything whatever to encourage local authorities to build upon such cleared ground or where these particular gaps occur in streets. I can see, of course, arguments against doing that on the ground that the cleared place concerned may not be able to provide garden or even yard space. Personally, I prefer, so long as one does not remove the tenants too far away from their work or from their means of livelihood, that they should get out as far as possible into the open. Notwithstanding that, however, there is undoubtedly a problem with regard to those gaps and cleared spaces to which I have referred, and I should like the Minister to give his attention to that matter.

My main reason, however, for speaking on this particular Estimate is to show, even under a few heads, that there is no foundation whatever for the statement made by Deputy Hugo Flinn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, that the problem is not so much to find the money as to find the work. There is plenty of useful and very necessary work to be done in this country. There is no question at all about that. I do not think that any person who is at all conversant with this country would deny for a moment that there is work to be done here, useful work, and work that, in my opinion, can be done. I do not think there is any question of insolvency from the financial point of view. I do not believe it, but I do believe that any money that is spent on useful and necessary work, and that is used in paying wages to the unemployed, is money that is well spent and money that any Government would be justified in raising by way of loan if that were necessary. As I say, I do not want to elaborate these points any further. I just raised them in order to bring them to the Minister's notice, and I daresay they will be dealt with by other Deputies who desire to speak. I think that, on the whole, the Minister's opening statement was a satisfactory one—satisfactory, particularly, in so far as he dealt with disease in the country. It is certainly a good thing to know that there is a steady decline in mortality from disease, and particularly from notifiable diseases.

Mr. Broderick

Unlike Deputy Brennan who, in his closing statement, bore testimony to the unfailing courtesy of the Minister and his Department, I wish, at the beginning of my remarks, as one who possibly has more intercourse with that Department, through the offices I have the honour to fill, wish to join with the Deputy in support of that tribute to the unfailing courtesy and helpfulness of that Department. I, too, have to compliment the Minister on the statement he has presented to the House to-night, particularly as to the points dealing with public health and the prevention of disease. Previous speakers have gone over the details of the administration and have commented upon and criticised the matter sufficiently, I think. I would rather take the line, although paying tribute to the Minister and his Department in that way, that I disagree with some of the principles on which the Department is administered—some in degree, and some fundamentally. For instance, I shall take the first item—grants in aid of local authorities for unemployment. These grants-in-aid are given on a contributory basis to the local authority. The local authorities, in their desire to help the unemployed, are stretching themselves beyond their capacity in order to comply with the Minister's request or the Minister's conditions. Is that condition absolutely correct?

The burden of rates on a contributory basis is now getting beyond the capacity of many of the local authorities, particularly in small urban areas. The weight of rates in trying to carry out this agreement with the Minister is bearing down on the unfortunate residents like a penal burden. But that is not the point I wish to raise, although that matter is entitled to serious consideration. The point I wish to raise is that I have a distinct recollection of the House carrying through, by way of resolution, a proposal that every citizen of the State is entitled to work or maintenance. I submit that that resolution was the father of the Unemployment Assistance Act. It never referred in any way to the application of a contributory basis to local authorities. It took it over as a complete national charge and such, I think, it ought to be, because on the contributory basis it has induced, I should say in some respects seduced, the local authorities too far from their duty to local ratepayers by imposing on them to comply with the grants-in-aid by levying too high a rate on the local authorities. I think that for the future those grants should be given, and if the resolution passed by this House, the resolution which was the father of the Unemployment Assistance Act, is to be interpreted as it was conceived on the first night, unemployment grants will, in future, be given to the local authorities in proportion to the requirements of the unemployed in the area without local contributions.

I merely wish to refer to the principles with which I disagree and I leave it to the Minister to remedy the matters complained of. We have heard a good deal about anomalies under another Act. The time has come when they ought to be rectified. I would like to call attention to an anomaly that exists in one county where agricultural land inside an urban area was deprived of the agricultural grant and, in other areas in the same town, land was getting the benefit of the grant. Worse still, you have urban areas, portion of which get the benefit of the agricultural grant and the other portions do not. To pretend that I do not understand that would be wrong. It is quite clear that everything that was in the urban area, under the Local Government Act of 1898, is not entitled to the agricultural grant, but urban areas created since are entitled to it and any extensions of the borough boundaries of an urban area are entitled to it.

There is another anomaly, something that I might call an injustice, for which the Government are not in any way responsible. I refer to an inherited accidental liability. I have in mind the report of the Derating Commission, on which I had the honour to serve. It was there discovered that there were four counties in the Saorstát that were not getting the benefit of the agricultural grant, when they should be getting some benefit from it. I do not know whether I am quite in order on this question, but I am dealing with a matter that comes directly under the administration of the Minister. In the county that I have the honour to represent there is a very substantial loss suffered. The Act came into operation in 1898 and the relief in aid of rates was made operative two years previously. We were then in the United Kingdom. It was applied in a haphazard way in this country. When the Local Government Act was put into operation they applied its provisions to the estimated and not to the actual expenditure. Any counties that had exceeded their requirements as estimated benefited more than they were entitled to. In counties that were economical and that cut down their estimates below their actual requirements, they suffered. One of those counties is County Waterford. Their estimate was £39,384 and their expenditure was nearly £47,000. They lost the refund of the agricultural grant of £3,600. That loss continued until 1926 when the double agricultural grant came in. Then they had to face double the loss.

Would the Deputy please inform the Chair from what Department the agricultural grant comes?

Mr. Broderick

I am suggesting that this is an inequality that the Minister can rectify. Just two words more and I am finished.

I will hear the Deputy on that point, but only if he brings the responsibility home to the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Broderick

I cannot accuse the Minister of being responsible for it, but I will give him the credit of believing that he can remedy it.

That is a nice point.

Mr. Broderick

When the recommendation of the commission was put into operation there was a sum involved of £750,000. That was not distributed on the basis of the valuation; it was distributed half in relation to the population and half on the valuation. That brought the loss up to £10,000 a year. That remains there still and there is an accumulated loss over the year of £229,000 and it continues year after year to the extent of £10,000. It is not hard in these circumstances to visualise the difficulties of the ratepayers. They are being deprived of grants-in-aid to that enormous extent. They are deprived of £58,000 which has been withheld in respect of annuity payments. The sums withdrawn from Waterford, the accumulated arrears, amount to £229,000, together with £58,000 in lieu of grants. I leave that matter to the Minister to investigate and, if it is possible, I should like to see a long-standing grievance of that kind, affecting three other counties, remedied.

The next point with which I would like to deal is the question of the capitation grant to mental hospitals. I hold, if you do not consider it presumptuous, that this has not been administered by the Local Government Department strictly on the interpretation of the Act. The Act was set up providing for a 50 per cent. refund on the capitation grant. The sum at that time was approximately 8/- per head and that meant 4/-. The actual words of the Act of Parliament are "a sum of 4/-, or the expenditure, whichever is the lesser." There you have two principles accepted. You have, first, the principle of 50 per cent. of the capitation grant, and to make that doubly sure and to save the Treasury in the event of the mentally afflicted being able to be maintained at less than 8/-, it adds the words "or whichever sum is lesser than 8/-."

My next point is in regard to main roads. I am quite aware that the Minister's Department is merely concerned with the licence duty. I hold that by way of grant and direct refund the entire amount, less administrative costs, is returned. I do not think that is fair, and I put this point, that the entire revenue from main roads, between petrol and licence duty, is £3,250,000. I need not remind you that those roads were built by the ratepayers. They are now taken over by the motor trade. Is it not most unfair that, after taking over those roads which the ordinary ratepayer or agriculturist cannot use now unless as a motorist, that he should be compelled to pay 60 per cent. of the cost of maintaining those roads for another traffic? I think it is unjust. If you go back to visualise this thing in its proper perspective, to when you had no motor traffic, you will find there was no difficulty in maintaining the roads. Now a traffic has come on the scene that has, possibly, quadrupled the expenditure. The Government monopolises all the revenue from that traffic, and compels the man who built the roads, whose roads they have taken from him, to contribute 60 per cent. of the upkeep of those roads. I think it is unfair. I think the least he is entitled to, and which would leave the Treasury plenty of revenue afterwards, is that the full amount of money should be granted to the maintenance of main roads.

Another point that I find very difficult is the withdrawal of grants from local authorities. I know I may not refer to the reason, but we all know the reason why they were withdrawn. When they are withdrawn the burden is placed on the man who pays. He has to pay the entire amount. Is it not an extraordinary position that the struggling, hard-working man, the energetic and enterprising man, must pay, not only his own debts, but he must also pay for his spendthrift, reckless or improvident neighbour? I know there are cases of domestic tragedy where people are entitled to consideration. I am not dealing with isolated cases, but with the general case. A still worse feature of this case, Sir, is that it comes on unurbanised townspeople, who have no connection whatever with the land and who have nothing at all to do with the rates on land. They are held responsible for the unpaid liabilities on land. In the county that I have the honour to represent, we will take Tramore, Cappoquin——

If I may interrupt the Deputy for one moment, I think he is referring to the application of the agricultural grant and, as far as I can understand him, he is criticising something that is done in accordance with existing law. It is something that the Minister, as far as I can see, cannot do without legislation or cannot change without legislation. If that is so, it is a matter which cannot be raised on Estimates. You cannot advocate legislation on an Estimate discussion. You must merely discuss the administration of the law as it stands. I think that the Deputy is going off on a line in which he is advocating a change in legislation. I may be wrong.

Mr. Broderick

If I may be permitted to explain, Sir, I am pointing out to the Minister the reactions of his administration and the reactions in this particular connection. I have made no reference to what the money was for. I am merely pointing out to the Minister that there have been deductions from the Grants-in-Aid in respect of local rates and I have been pointing out the reactions to that. I think just two minutes more will finish it.

I am afraid that has no bearing on it.

Mr. Broderick

Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I do not think it is out of order to point out to the Minister the reactions following any deduction in grants.

So long as the Minister is responsible, through administration of the existing law, and so long as what the Deputy is saying is not in any way, by implication or otherwise, advocating a change in the existing law. The Minister may be bound by the existing law in connection with these matters. If he is, the Deputy may not refer to them.

Mr. Broderick

I may not even point out the reactions to that?

I do not think so.

Mr. Broderick

Two minutes more will finish me, Sir.

I do not want the Deputy to create a precedent here for discussion, for instance, on Local Government, of the whole Agricultural Grant.

Mr. Broderick

My whole point is that I want to make known what is the effect of these withdrawals. I want to point out to the Minister that it was the general belief that the people who had to pay this liability, or who were deprived of these grants, were the agricultural community. I want to point out to the Minister, for his consideration, that the people who suffer most are the people in unurbanised towns, because they pay their full rate and any deductions that are taken from that grant are put on that full rate, with no reductions for agricultural land or anything else. I do not want to be unparliamentary, and I rarely use exaggerated language, but I think it is legalised robbery to make a man, who is struggling to pay his own liabilities, nationally and locally, and struggling to keep his family and give them a decent chance and a decent outlook on life, responsible for his next-door neighbour's liability for land 50 miles away from him.

I have been touching possibly, even by implication, on points that it is only the indulgence of the Chair allowed me to develop. I have made the points as strong as I can. My first question is the question of the distribution of the grants-in-aid of unemployment. There ought to be a full grant from the Ministry so as not to reduce local authorities to their own destruction, particularly in small urban areas. The second is that on the interpretation of the Act the grant is clearly defined as 50 per cent., but that the revenue for main roads justifies the full amount of money being given to maintain main roads. Thirdly, the Minister ought earnestly consider, as Minister for Local Government and Vice-President, the full reactions from any deduction in grants.

I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House. My apology can be that I do not very often rise to speak. In a general way I would like to compliment the Department of Local Government on the work that has been done, and I would pay that compliment to Local Government no matter from what Party the Minister might be.

In respect of public health, the wiping out of disease and so on, I think this Government Department is doing excellent work, but I certainly am not going to say that I am going to throw bouquets all the time at this Department. I think there are certainly many items in which great improvement can be made. One of the things mentioned by the Minister was the treatment of tuberculosis. I am very sorry to say that in the constituency I represent we are very far from satisfied with the present position. There is no sanatorium in County Roscommon and those patients who cannot be catered for in Peamount or elsewhere—and there are a good many of them—have to stay in their own homes. It is now two or three years since representatives of four counties met in the town of Athlone and unanimously agreed to have a four-county sanatorium. This proposition was put up to the Department, and as far as I am aware no answer has since been received to it. On the last occasion that this Estimate was under discussion I inquired what had become of that proposition. I have heard nothing about it since. I think it is an excellent proposition, one that would I think prove economical for the counties concerned. I know that we in Roscommon would be very glad to have such a scheme. I am personally aware of many patients who have to be kept in their own homes because the county medical officer of health is not able to get accommodation for them outside. Even if he did succeed in that it would mean the payment by the board of two guineas a week for each patient, and that would be a heavy charge on the county. There is no need to stress what a terrible thing it is to have to keep young boys or girls who are affected in a home where there are other young boys and girls, or where a parent is affected, and has to be kept at home until death takes place. I am not speaking now at random but of what I know to be a fact. I hope, therefore, that the Minister and his Department will make an examination of the scheme that I have referred to and have it put into effect.

There are some other matters that I have also to complain about. Deputy Brennan mentioned one—the district hospital in Boyle. A proposition in connection with that has been under consideration for years, but it appears that no finality has yet been reached on it. There is great discontent and vexation, I may say, in that district, which is a very large one, over the delay that has taken place. To my mind, a lot of it is unnecessary delay. I do not think that anyone can explain away this delay of over three years in connection with the putting into operation of a £30,000 scheme.

Turning to housing, speaking generally, I do not think any one can do otherwise than compliment the housing section of the Department of Local Government on what they have achieved in this direction. There are, however, a few things that I would like to put before the Minister with a view to the bettering of conditions. I found recently—I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it or not— that there is a tendency to reduce reconstruction grants. For example, I have seen estimates up to £60 and only about £25 offered instead of the £40. Possibly, the Minister may not be aware of that. I suggest that is a very wrong thing to do. These reconstruction grants have been availed of to a very great extent in my own county, throughout the province of Connaught, and I am sure in every other county in the State. I think they have been a great blessing. They have had the effect of improving conditions wonderfully throughout the county. I think it would be a very bad policy—it may possibly be a saving policy, but I do not think it would be a wise or a good policy—to have a reduction of these grants especially in cases where the estimates are rather high. There should be no coming down of the grants in these cases. I hope that policy, if it is a policy, will be reversed.

There is another type of individual in this country for whom, apparently, no provision has been made under the Housing Acts. They are those who are in poor circumstances, who live on small patches of land or on bog land. I refer to cottiers for whom grants of £80 are available if they can use them, but they cannot because they have no means of their own to supplement the grant in any way. If they apply to the Land Commission they can get very little by way of a loan because the value of their holding is so small that the chance of a repayment of it would be small. In the County Roscommon, at the moment, I believe 160 demolition orders have been issued to people of that type. When the county medical officer of health condemns a house the board of health is obliged to issue a demolition order. The houses that these people occupy cannot be demolished unless you first turn them out on the roadside. That is a situation that the board of health could not face very well. I do not think that it would mean a very big charge on public funds if special provision were made to meet cases of this kind. To do so would, I imagine, require an amendment of the Act.

The Deputy cannot advocate that on an Estimate.

Anyhow, I put forward the suggestion to the Minister. There has undoubtedly, as various speakers have pointed out, been a very big increase in the rates. I have a great deal of sympathy with the last speaker who spoke on this matter. I imagine that the Minister for Local Government will tell us that it would be impossible for the Government to take over the entire burden of the cost of the main roads. From what I know of the situation I do not think that this increase in the rates is going to be continuous or that the present burden will go on increasing, because we have to remember that the loans obtained will eventually be paid off. I do not think that any ratepayer is going to have any reason to regret having to pay for what is being done. The County Roscommon has not many large towns, but I think I am safe in saying that in every fairly large town in the county a new sewerage scheme has been installed, or is about to be installed. That indicates, I think, that the provision of an amenity of that kind was neglected for a very long time. Therefore, in all fair play, we should bear in mind that even though we have an increased burden to bear that it arises largely from neglect of that kind over a very long period of time. I happen to belong to a local board, and I am satisfied that after a period a lot of this expenditure will disappear and that it will then be possible to reduce the rates. Of course, the road estimate has been increasing year after year.

I am sorry to have to refer to some matters that were mentioned by Deputy Brennan. First of all, he mentioned the vastly increased cost of repairs to labourers' cottages. I do not think that any part of that increase is due to Government policy. I should say that those cottages, so far as repairs are concerned, were badly neglected for a long period. Further, in our county at any rate, within the last few years, more attention has been given to the repair of cottages than previously. In addition, within the last couple of years, in view of the purchase scheme that was about to come into operation, repairs were carried out on a much larger scale than heretofore. I believe that all these factors account for most of the increased expenditure on the repairs to labourers' cottages.

There was another matter that Deputy Brennan referred to. To his eyes it appeared to be a mountain, but I think it is simply a molehill. He delivered a terrible onslaught in connection with the appointment of a temporary engineer for a few months to supervise E.S.V. works, and using the time of that engineer for a period on minor relief jobs. That happened in the County Roscommon. In view of a big amount of increased work on the roads in a certain area in the county, it was indicated to the county surveyor that an assistant might be appointed. An assistant engineer was appointed. After his appointment there was no work for him on the E.S.V. jobs. They had not begun, with the result that for a month or slightly more he was employed on the supervision of minor relief works. I do not think there was any scandal at all about that. I believe that it is all part and parcel of the ratepayers' work, even though, technically, there may have been a departure from the rules. Nevertheless, I do not see that there was any scandal about it. Further, I do not think that it is a matter that should have been brought up here. It is really one that might easily have been settled between the county council and the Department.

These are the only matters that I want to deal with. I consider that some of them are very important, particularly the one relating to the condition of those who are not able to avail of any grants for the building of houses or the reconstruction of houses. I especially commend that particular matter to the attention of the Minister and his Department.

There are a couple of matters of general policy in connection with the Department to which I want to refer. But before doing so I propose to follow the Minister in his opening statement, because he raised in that some important points about which I do not see eye to eye with him. I am sorry that he is not here just at the moment because I think it would be for the good of his soul to ask him a question. As I listened to my colleagues on these benches gladly acknowledging that in some particulars his administration came up to their expectation, I could not help wondering when he was sitting here and Deputy Mulcahy occupied his position, how many of his colleagues ever said in public that anything that Deputy Mulcahy ever did as Minister was done for any other purpose than for the purpose of solacing John Bull and stamping down the long-suffering Gael.

I direct his special attention and that of his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, to the attitude taken by the Opposition in discussing this Estimate, because I think it is a part of their political education. To-day I heard nothing from any side of the House but helpful suggestions for improved administration, and where the Minister appeared to be doing his best, congratulations on the measure of his achievement. I trust that when he retires, as I suppose in the due course of democratic politics he will retire to Opposition, he will turn frequently back to the Official Report of to-day's debate so that he and his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, may learn a lesson on how to conduct a useful and constructive opposition in a democratic Parliament. I have no doubt that when the Minister has an opportunity of studying the Official Reports he will regret his temporary absence which denied him the pleasure of hearing my introductory remarks.

The Minister referred to the matter of supplying milk powder where grade A milk was not available in a rural area for children's milk schemes. We had some experience of that in the county where I belong to the local authority. When the grade A milk men came before the board and sought what appeared to be an extortionate price we learned that it was impossible to get grade A milk from anybody but the members of the deputation who were before us. I recommended to the board that these men should be sent about their business and milk of some other character supplied. Then there came this proposal from the Local Government Department that we should supply milk powder. How on earth has the Department come to the conclusion that milk powder is superior to pasteurised milk? I would like to see a local authority which is held up by a ring of grade A milk producers instal a pasteurising plant, and where an attempt is made to hold them up in future, buy milk freely from registered milk suppliers anywhere, pasteurise it, and then distribute it.

The Minister spoke of the fat content of milk, which I admit is a very important criterion; but I should think that for children a further important criterion is the vitamin content of milk. I do not know what the vitamin content of milk powder is; I have never heard it described. I am aware that there are those who hold that pasteurisation may reduce the vitamin content of milk, but it certainly does not destroy it. I think it is true to say that if you pasteurise milk and bottle it under proper hygienic conditions you get it to the consumers in as safe a condition as it is humanly possible to get milk to them. Though you may have people holding themselves out as grade A producers—many of them may produce grade A milk, but we have reason to apprehend that some of them do not —you create a false sense of security if you tell people that they are getting grade A milk unless you have means of making absolutely certain that it is grade A milk.

I think that in that matter of milk supply we are making a serious mistake. With the resources at our disposal at present, I do not think it is possible to secure adequate supplies of grade A milk in this country. It would be a great mistake if, in that circumstance, we rejected pasteurisation as an imperfect method of securing pure milk. We would fall into the same error that certain surgeons fell into through the 19th century. They recognised that if you use Lister's carbolic spray effectively you reduce postoperative septicæmia, but they said: "It is an extremely imperfect method of antisepsis, and until something more satisfactory emerges we shall just go on in the good old way." If all the surgeons had taken that attitude, thousands of people would have died of blood poisoning whose lives were in fact saved. It is true that now the general practice of surgery is aseptic surgery, but if we had waited until the methods of aseptic surgery had been perfected immense human suffering would have resulted.

Pasteurisation is, in the sphere of milk, what Lister's carbolic spray may have been in the sphere of surgery. Perfect production of grade A milk may be the equivalent of aseptic surgery, but I do not think we have reached the stage of aseptic surgery in the milk sphere. Therefore, I press on the Minister the desirability of making the universally available method of pasteurisation more attractive to local authorities and other persons who are charged with the responsibility of making available supplies of pure milk for the poor. I do not condemn milk powder, because I do not know anything about it; but I should like the Minister to examine its value from the point of view of vitamin content and if, as I suspect, it is unsatisfactory, to press on the local authorities the advantages of pasteurisation where guaranteed and adequate supplies of grade A milk are not available.

I noticed, with some alarm, in recent reports that we are confronted with an increase of infantile mortality in this country. That is strange. I cannot think of any good reason for it. In many countries, if there are no extraneous identifiable reasons, it is interpreted as evidence of general malnutrition. I am afraid that if we examined the facts in the City of Dublin—possibly it is the same in Cork; I do not know—we would be shocked to discover the state of maternal nutrition amongst the poor. A lot of people in this country think that infantile mortality depends on the treatment the child receives after it is born. In fact, its chances of survival are principally determined by the treatment it gets for the nine months before it is born, and that means that its mother should receive that measure of nourishment which will enable her to look after her baby as she ought to. I am sorry to say that she is not getting it.

Infantile mortality is, I know, just as distressing to the Minister as to me. I recognise the difficulties inherent in this situation. We have got to be careful, lost in our solicitude to protect the poor, we turn the poor into semi-convicts. There are limits to the extent to which we can impose upon the poor what we think is good for them. But what we ought to be quite sure of is that if the poor coincide in their minds with informed opinion the means of getting what is good for them is available to them. No Deputy, no matter what side of the House he sits upon, would consent for a moment to the proposition that any of his fellow-citizens should go hungry. The trouble is that many of us here and throughout the country think of hunger only in terms of having a hunger pain in the stomach. You can very frequently eliminate the hunger pain in a human creature's stomach by filling his stomach with anything. I expect that you could eliminate it if you filled it with sawdust, but you can certainly eliminate by filling it with food which is not calculated to provide the essential nutrition that a person's body wants. The tendency of the poor, when in straitened circumstances, is, unfortunately, to buy the bulkiest food that the money will reach to and kill the hunger. It is very often not bulky food the human creature needs, and I think all will agree that in the period before a woman's baby is born it is not bulky food she requires, but milk, eggs and the other vitamin-containing foods which not only maintain her strength and vigour, but also provide for the additional strain which the impending birth of her child places upon her. People may say that these are scarcely suitable subjects for detailed discussion in Dáil Eireann, but in a democratic country you have got to get from the elected representatives of the people consent for the expenditure necessary to remedy existing evils. I do not believe it suits anybody's purpose to pretend that Deputies on any side of this House are meanly or grudgingly withholding from the poor that of which the poor stand in urgent need and, therefore, in so far as I am able, I think it right to explain to Deputies, subject to the correction of those who are better informed, the nature of those necessities and their urgency, so that when the Ministers reflect upon them, they will realise that if they come to the House and ask us to request the taxpayers to make sacrifices in order to provide these things, they are coming to an informed body of men who are prepared to carry that information further, if necessary, in order to justify the proposed expenditure before the taxpayers.

Poor women are not getting the nourishment they require or the attention they require before their babies are born. I am afraid that has resulted in an increase in the infantile death rate, and it is a matter which, I am sure, is causing the Minister keen anxiety. I suggest to him that, without more ado, he should call into consultation the almoners of the maternity hospitals of our principal cities and, where such officers have not yet been appointed, the masters of these hospitals, and ask them to tell him what their view is. If he finds, as I think he will, that the majority of the poor women coming in to have their babies born in these hospitals are under-nourished, will he ask the almoners what they suggest in order to secure that these women will be under-nourished no longer? I am sure they will point out to him the schemes in England and the U.S.A. which adequately provide for that difficulty. I want to emphasise, again, that we must not, in our zeal to remedy the evil, impose on the poor what we think is good for them any more than we should wish our neighbours to impose on us what they think is good for us. But we ought to place at the disposal of the poor those things which our expert advisers assure us the poor should have, so that when the education of these simple people reaches the proper stage, they can go and look for these things and they will be there for them to get.

There is another matter to which I directed the Minister's attention before and which I think has escaped his memory. In certain of our county homes and surgical hospitals there is no accommodation for segregation of juveniles. I admit that, in certain hospitals, you will find only two juveniles and, sometimes, only one. The Minister will be inclined to ask: What are you to do in that case? The remedy is quite simple. Lay down a general rule that the doctors will have a discretion, where the juvenile population of the institution is habitually low, to send all juveniles to the Children's Hospital, in Dublin, when they have to be detained in hospital for any protracted period. If they are not prepared to do that, then put the obligation upon them to provide a separate ward for boys under 16 and another ward for girls under 16. We have got to remember that, in the county homes, you have a strange and miscellaneous population. My experience is of the Roscommon County Home, and a better-run institution I do not believe there is in the world. It is a rotten, old building—a deplorable old workhouse. You would be amazed, going into an establishment of that kind, with a stone floor, to see what cleanliness and industry on the part of those who look after it have managed to achieve. I go so far as to say—I am usually critical of these old establishments—that there is something about this queer old place—now that it is properly looked after and kept the way it is—which gives it a homely atmosphere, which some of these new aseptic institutions have not got. You feel that it is not very grand and not very elaborate and, in fact, you begin to feel that there is something of home about it. When you go into one of the new hospitals you nearly break your neck on the terrazzo floors. You find that all the floors have a curve at the bottom, that the beds are two feet wide and five feet long and that they run about on wheels. In a modern hospital you wonder whether you are in a morgue or in a hospital. Then you begin to realise that you are in a modern hospital. It is interesting to know that these deplorable old places, if looked after by people with kindliness in their hearts and zeal in their work, can be made quite bearable. But they cannot sort out the patients who come in. They have got to take in whatever patients come along. Many broken-down old people float in there. You get old ladies who are, perhaps, somewhat bibulous and, generally, you get the wrecks who are being looked after and the end of whose life is being made comfortable. In a bed beside somebody of that kind, you see a little child of 12 or 13 years. That is not right or good and it ought to be stopped, either by sending the children at once to the Children's Hospital or by providing separate wards. The provision of such wards should be insisted upon very seriously. Take the men's ward, where you have some pretty difficult old boys whose language is not too sweet and whose manners are not too charming. In a bed beside them, there may be a farmer's son of 11 or 12 years of age. He has experience of things and sees and hears things which ought not to come to his notice. He is brought into contact with a side of life with which there is no need to bring him into contact in the formative years of his life. I do not labour that point because I am sure it presents itself to the Minister with emphasis.

May I direct the Minister's attention to another matter in connection with county homes? I wonder if the Minister saw the London County Council exhibition in connection with the centenary celebrations in that city? If he did he would see that they have one exhibit there consisting of a half room which is done up something like the old workhouses. There is another half room which is fitted up as a model hospital. I think one of the most striking things is to see the old benches and tables and the enamel plates, cups and saucers in the first half room. Now, that is one of the most disgusting survivals in our county homes. Against that, this exhibition in London puts the pleasant, model institution with the clean chairs and tables and clean, white china cups, plates and saucers. I am sure if the Minister and I were in a county home one of the most distressing things to us would be to take our tea from enamelled cups and saucers instead of having it in white, clean china cups and saucers. This is one of those things that make all the difference in life. There is, of course, the question of expense. If you use good, strong china a good deal of it will, undoubtedly, be broken but, after all, the breakages will not be so very considerable and they will not break the backs of the ratepayers. That would make all the difference in the world to the people in these county homes who have not so very long to survive.

Coming to the question of these remarkably large hospitals that are being erected throughout the provincial centres I want to say that I am not at all so enthusiastic about them. My colleagues and I hear a great deal about the hospital in Roscommon and the hospitals that are being erected in other centres. I for one am not enthusiastic at all about these hospitals. We are erecting immense barracks of hospitals all over the country. We stand back admiring them and they look extremely well. But we seem completely to forget what these central hospitals mean. I know that they mean immense cost in maintenance in the near future. If you build a £90,000 hospital and put into it all the equipment of a modern hospital you will have X-ray plants, laboratories, operating theatres, equipment for operations and so forth. The average board of health thinks that it can then put in one general operating surgeon and invite him to function as pathologist, radiologist, orthopædic surgeon and in five or six other capacities. If any Deputies have ever been in a big city hospital they will realise that every one of these divisions of the hospital is controlled by a highly paid expert. Some people think that if you put in an X-ray plant you can see through every patient just as if you were looking in a looking-glass; in fact that all the surgeon has to do is to press a button which rings a bell; that the photograph is taken and that any doctor can read it. Do these people imagine that the most skilled operating surgeon in the City of Dublin would set himself up to read these X-ray plates taken on all kinds of subjects? No skilled operating surgeon would set himself up to deal with all these things. If he found an obscure condition in a patient the surgeon sends him to a radiologist who reports back to the surgeon what in his judgment the X-ray indicates.

Remember, it is not only the taking of a picture that has to be considered. That is not an easy thing to do well. I could do it myself in a sort of way, but a badly done X-ray plate instead of being a help to the surgeon, is a menace. The first difficulty is the taking of the picture and when you have got the picture then arises the question of the reading of it. The reading of an X-ray plate is a life study in itself. There are men earning large incomes in this city whose greatest source of income is taking pictures by the X-ray method and reading them. Yet we are putting up X-ray plants all over the country and asking men who have no experience of radiology, and who never said they had, to take X-ray pictures, to study them, and on their findings from these pictures, to perform operations.

I regard these large new hospitals as more a trap for the sick poor than a blessing. I do not deny that in the case of some gross conditions it would be a good thing for the provincial doctor to have an X-ray. I refer to cases where it would be easy to take the photograph of the trouble and where it would be easy to read it. But in these cases where you are putting in laboratory equipments you are almost making it a command on the surgeon to use his utmost capacity and in a great many cases, perhaps, commanding him to do what he is not competent to do—to take the X-ray photograph and subsequently to interpret its revelation.

I have always held the opinion, from the point of view of expense as well as from the point of view of the health of the patients, that what we want and what we ought to have in rural Ireland is a multiplicity of cottage hospitals. What we want to do is to take the patient out of a feather bed and put him in a surgical bed in an hospital where he could be properly looked after if he were suffering from some temporary but readily curable disease. If, when the patient is brought into that hospital, the surgeon examines him and says: "This is a difficult case; this will require very skilled surgical treatment," I would call an ambulance and take the patient to Dublin or Cork. When the patient is taken to an hospital in one of these cities he will get the services of a highly-qualified surgeon that I myself could not afford to have. I do not think it would be reasonable to send everybody who wanted attention to a city hospital. If what the patient is suffering from is only a cut or a plain fracture he would be treated all right in the cottage hospital. Cases in which there were no complications, just simple cases of surgery, could be treated in the cottage hospital, while the others could be sent to Dublin or Cork. Perhaps it is late in the day now to talk about these things after the Minister is committed to the erection of those immense hospitals in various counties, but I ask him to bear this in mind, that from the point of view of economy and from the point of view of the people's welfare, he ought to go very easy with future applications. When there is a whisper in any country town that there is a big hospital to be built there immediately arises visions of the spending of a large sum of money in that town. That means that sometimes as much as £90,000 in wages is to be spent there. No one in that town or district will dare say a word against that hospital being built. I have said things in this House that induced Deputy Hickey to call me a public enemy. I expect he will call me a public enemy for mentioning this.

When Deputy Dillon talks commonsense I will not call him a public enemy.

Commonsense is sometimes represented as villainy of the deepest dye. I would venture to think that the Minister has in mind the establishment of a good orthopædic hospital in the country. To my mind, there is nothing more regrettable than to see children growing up with crooked limbs and other defects and no proper place in which to treat them. If one sees these children in the country and suggests that they should be sent to some place for treatment he is jeered at as an old woman. If you send a child suffering from an orthopædic defect to the average country hospital or to the average country doctor at the present time he would laugh at you. What is wrong with us is that we are not orthopædic minded. I say that because, with the exception of some treatment for tubercular limbs, there is nothing done in that direction at present. Orthopædic defects do afflict people in this country; yet these are not regarded as things we should worry about. I have one case in mind of a young girl who started in domestic service at the age of 14 years. I saw that girl sink down to the condition of a cripple simply for want of orthopædic treatment in good time. Yet, if these people came to me and asked me where could they send the girl I would be at sea. That girl would require about three years' treatment in an orthopædic hospital. A long period of muscular treatment and manipulation would have been necessary, and I think no hospital would have taken her. There would have been no place to put her. That is the difficulty. There is no hospital which has sufficient spare beds to take in persons for two or three years, which not infrequently is necessary to remedy orthopædic defects.

There is no need to labour that matter, but of the three projects which the Minister has in mind, all of which I have admitted are important, which he said were contingent on no demands being made on him for increased subsidy, I would suggest to him that adequate orthopædic hospitalisation for the country is one of the most urgent necessities, and I would suggest to him that he should consider carefully whether we should not have orthopædic units in Galway, Cork and Dublin. There is a good deal to be said, in view of the comparative scarcity of this material, for bringing it all into one large hospital. I see the force of that proposal. On the other hand it must be considered that most of those cases are tedious ones in which the patients are long separated from their families. Therefore, to remove them a distance from their families, where it is almost impossible for the families to visit them, has a great deal to be said against it too. Frankly, as yet I have not made up my mind on the matter, so I am not prepared to give the Minister the benefit of my opinion upon it, but there are two aspects of the situation which would need to be carefully considered before the Minister makes up his mind as to the form which the orthopædic programme should take. I mentioned, and was called to order on a previous occasion, building societies in England.

The Deputy should not have warned the Chair.

Well, it was on another occasion, and I think it was suggested that I should postpone it for discussion on the Estimate. One of the difficulties about carrying out slum clearance in this country is want of money. That is one point, but there are more ways of solving the slum problem than by building blocks of flats. You can contribute to the solution of the slum problem by enabling the owner builder to build a house for himself, because, when he moves out of the house in which he is at present, to occupy the house he has built, a move-up takes place throughout the whole house occupying population of the city, which ultimately results in the vacation of a tenement. I have elaborated on that point before, and do not want to go into it again. The Minister understands it, I think, very fully. The building societies in England are immensely wealthy corporations. They have collected enormous sums of money, and they cannot employ them because there is a building slump in England. They want an outlet for that money. There are two remedies: one is amending legislation in the British House of Commons, and the other would be some mitigation of their mistrust of the security offered by real estate in Éire. Would the Minister, therefore, discuss with the British Government now appropriate amending legislation, because there is a Housing Society Bill before the British House of Commons now, and the introduction of one section into it would enable building societies to invest their funds here.

Would he, at the same time, consider the question of guaranteeing those housing loans? The building societies have an extremely conservative system of reviewing their loans. They do not dole them out just to anybody. They value the houses at their own values. They lend money in strict proportion to the value of the house, but their difficulty would be that, if they had to realise the security, Deputy Tom Kelly would be out at the head of a brass band to protest against the eviction, and, unless they had the Minister for Local Government coming down the steps swinging the key, Deputy Tom Kelly would stop the eviction. But if the Minister for Local Government promised: "I will see that the eviction is carried out and that the security is properly realised, or, in the event of failure to carry it out, I will make good the debt," those building societies have accumulated funds which they could release. In fact, if it were made manifest in two or three cases that those securities must be reliable, there would be no credit difficult in this country at all. The class of people who borrow money from a building society do not normally default. Therefore, the contingent liability of a guarantee upon the Exchequer would be practically nothing, and we would get an immense volume of credit at a very low rate of interest, which the holders of the credit want to employ, and which we at the moment particularly want to use.

In passing I just mention categorically that representation was made on behalf of certain persons in Greystones who were trying to get their by-roads repaired. They have no unemployed, and the result is that they cannot get a grant to do it. The by-roads, not being by-roads for which they are responsible, will not be repaired by the local authority, and a difficulty exists into which the Minister promised to inquire. I should like to know if he has had time to investigate the matter.

We spoke about children's medical treatment to-day. I wonder is it sound medical practice to go around this country whipping the tonsils out of every child you meet? I heard that procedure very gravely questioned by a highly competent authority. When I was a child, that was the fashion. If you went anywhere near a nose and throat doctor he whipped your tonsils out at once, on the broad general principle that you were better without them, but in the last five years or so some very competent authorities have begun to question the prudence of that course, and suggested that it would be much better to set about curing whatever throat condition is present, and trying to clean the tonsils and leave them, rather than tear them out. I think that is a matter which ought to be examined, because I think it has become a kind of habit in our medical service. It requires to be reconsidered, and expert advice taken upon it, and a new orientation given to policy. The next question I want to ask is this: Is there any attempt made to preserve the children's teeth? There is an immense amount of sickness in old age in this country due to bad teeth. If it be true—and I think good opinion is to be found for the view—that a good deal of rheumatism of the arthritic kind, which is only too common as we know in this country, is largely due to foci of infection in the human body, and those not infrequently are rotten teeth, surely it would be an economy to spend money on protecting the teeth of the young. I do not think there is any use in trying to save the teeth of children of 14 years and upwards. The best thing you can do for them, where they are breaking down, is to take them out, and cut our losses and their losses too. But, for the younger children, I would regard the removal of a permanent tooth as something in the nature of a serious operation on a young child. The resources of dental science ought to be exhausted to preserve the tooth, and only when it becomes manifest that nothing will keep the tooth in the child's head should the dentist be authorised to draw the tooth out. I suggest that there are a great many Deputies in this House with dressers of crockery in their mouths because they let their own teeth be torn out at one stage or another. Let them not imagine that they are getting efficient service. There are about 35 per cent. of the goods their own. Fortunately, I battled along with my own so far, but I have spent long periods of my life in the dentist's chair fighting a desperate battle to defend each individual tooth. I see country children, lads of 16 or 17, going around to the dentist and coming back with a scarf round their mouths. When you ask one of them where he has been, he says: "Getting out five teeth." I would sooner lose £1,000 than lose five teeth, but in the case of these children their teeth are scattered broadcast without the slightest concern. I put it to the Minister that that is a serious matter.

I do not think that dentists, as a whole, make any attempt to fill children's teeth. If it is a bad tooth, they yank it out, and if the child has not bad teeth, they give him a certificate that the teeth are all right. It is an extremely difficult thing to get a dentist to fill teeth at all. The tradition is that if you have a bad tooth, yank it out and that is an end of it. That is a very serious error and it must result in a great deal of ill-health amongst our people—digestive troubles and other troubles which afflict middle age in Ireland. Because of that, many middle-age people are afflicted with rheumatism and diseases associated with internal affections of a character extremely difficult to identify and, for that reason, extremely difficult to cure. I believe the learned Parliamentary Secretary would confirm me in the view that many of these affections are due to teeth defects and consequent indigestion. I suggest that we should take steps at once to see that young children who come within the grasp of the school dentist should have their teeth filled where possible and that the object should be, not to cure toothache, but to preserve the teeth.

With regard to children's meals, I think the Minister should consider the question of including oranges in these meals. They are very cheap at the moment. You can buy Jaffa oranges this year for 9d. a dozen wholesale, and I suppose if you buy in very large quantities you would get them even cheaper.

They would not go very far.

I recognise that it might cost too much. I do not think that it is an urgent necessity or that it must be done, but I think that it is a matter worth considering. I am not sure that if you were to buy large quantities you would not get them much cheaper. There is an immense surplus of oranges in Palestine this year. The Jews have treated orange production on scientific lines, with the result that they have quadrupled or sextupled the production of oranges and, as a consequence, there is an immense glut on the market this year. We have been getting along very nicely so far, but we are now getting into stormy weather.

I hope you will not keep the House as long as you did on other matters.

Deputy Kelly has slept so sweetly during the most of my speech that I think it is a pity to disturb him. I suggest that he should go to sleep again and we shall ring a bell when we want to wake him up.

Mr. Kelly

I have not been asleep. I have been in a state of nervous exhaustion the whole time.

I want to inquire from the Minister what were the circumstances surrounding the recent appointment of a lady inspector of boarded-out children. I want to know whether that lady was placed first by the Civil Service Commissioners when they came to examine the candidates for the position.

The Minister for Local Government has no control over the Civil Service Commissioners.

If the Minister says here in this House that the person appointed was the best candidate, or was the candidate placed first by the Civil Service Commissioners, he is quite freed from all responsibility. I want the matter to be investigated. Was the lady whom the Appointments Commissioners or the Selection Board recommended, as being a person of superior efficiency, passed over and a lady who was placed lower on the list, in point of efficiency, given the position?

The Taoiseach has responsibility for the Civil Service Commission.

But the Minister has responsibility for the officials of his own Department.

It does not arise under this Estimate anyway.

The Minister has charge of 443 officials in this service and it is to one of these I am referring. I want to know was she appointed on merit alone. I am clearly suggesting that she was not. I do not want to be obscure. The implication in my question is that she was not appointed on merit.

The Chair is in a peculiar position in that he is Chairman of both commissions. The Deputy's question should be addressed to the Taoiseach. The Minister for Local Government has no authority in the matter.

Surely the Minister appoints his own officials on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission?

The recommendation comes from the Civil Service Commission.

My submission is that the candidates were put by the commissioners in a certain order, No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 and so on. I want to know if the lady placed first was appointed to the position.

If the Deputy will put his question to the Taoiseach, he will get information as to the procedure adopted.

I should be glad if the Minister would look into the circumstances under which the lady inspector of boarded-out children was appointed. If he tells the House that he has no responsibility, I am quite prepared to pursue it with another Minister. It is a matter which I am glad to have an opportunity of raising in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary.

There is another matter which I am also glad to have the advantage of raising in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary. Deputy Brennan said to-day that there was no Department of State in which it was more urgently necessary that there should be no political animus or bias shown in the conduct of its business, than the Department of Local Government and Public Health. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of it, but he has managed to create in the County Monaghan the impression that the political affiliations of a person, if he comes from County Monaghan, who has to transact business with the Department, materially affect the policy of that Department. It is commonly said in County Monaghan that any file in the Department in which the Parliamentary Secretary is interested, bears upon it the mark "Q" and when that file has to be brought to his attention and he has reviewed its contents, if any person is named therein against whom he has an animus, he takes the opportunity to give that person an appropriate stab. That is not good for the public service. Personally I believe there is some truth in that. I do not want to escape by passing the allegation on to other shoulders.

I now accept responsibility for alleging that when any matters are brought to the Department of Local Government and Public Health relating to affairs in County Monaghan they are not dealt with, in so far as the Parliamentary Secretary has anything to do with them, in a strictly impersonal, detached and objective way. In so far as that is so, I say it reflects on the credit of the service. In so far as it is true, it creates a situation in the country which is most undesirable. I fully recognise that the Minister is the responsible person, but I indict the Parliamentary Secretary inasmuch as it is his conduct I now complain of. The Minister is the person responsible to this House for his own Department and in so far as that kind of thing can happen or that impression can be spread abroad about the Department for which he is responsible, it does an injury, not only to the public service of the State, but to the public life of the State as a whole.

Does the Deputy not think that a definite charge against, or an impeachment of a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, should be made by way of formal motion and not casually in the course of discussion?

I regret if I have done anything that is wrong. I took the opportunity because the Parliamentary Secretary is present to hear what I say. I do not wish to say behind his back what I would not say in his presence. We are discussing the administration of the Department, and I deliberately reflected on it. I stated my reasons openly and clearly. I stated first my own suspicions, and I want now to state a fact of which I have personal knowledge. Whether my suspicions are true or false, they are widely accepted in County Monaghan, and even the Parliamentary Secretary himself will not deny that it is commonly believed in County Monaghan that he interferes with the normal working of the Department for ulterior political motives. I want to exchange no compliments with the Parliamentary Secretary, nor do I want to minimise what are definitely allegations of a categorical character that I make against him. In justice to him, and to the public life to which we belong, I want to make it perfectly plain that it has not been suggested in my presence by any one to whom I spoke, that there was any question of financial corruption or the acceptance by the Parliamentary Secretary of anything of that sort. That is not the nature of my allegation. I allege— and it is a grave allegation, the gravity of which I fully recognise— that he does interfere with the due consideration of matters brought before the Minister's Department from ulterior motives and, in so far as that happens, it is wrong and bad for the public life of the country, and bad for the administration of the State.

Now I come to the last point I want to make. I have adumbrated on more than one occasion on the special difficulties under which poor fathers and mothers with large families labour I am fully aware that the Minister's solicitude for these people is just as great as mine, and that he is just as much moved at their difficulties as I am, but I think the time has come when we should recast our whole system of social services, and I propose that we should recast them within the present legislative framework we have. I am convinced that it can be done.

It cannot be done.

It can be done for the purpose of what I want to say now. I want to make it clear to the Ceann Comhairle that the proposals I make are designed to fit in with the existing framework. At present we are harassed by the fact that with the multiplicity of social services that exist, there is continual overlapping, with this disadvantage, that in many cases, with the overlapping, the most deserving poor do not know where they are, while, on the other hand, there are cases of "chisellers" who can get anything, and more than the law intended, and the really honest persons do not know where to look for relief when in distress because they do not know the right way to go about it. That fact is brought into striking relief by the experience of almoners attached to our city hospitals, and if the Minister could consult these almoners he would find how little the poor know about their position. One of the almoner's principal functions is to look after a woman leaving hospital with a baby, to put her in touch with social services and see that she gets what she requires from what the State or the municipality is glad to give, if she applies for it in the right way. I do not propose to expand largely on that aspect of the case, but I want to throw it into relief as one way in which this is capable of being done. I think co-ordination is necessary. The Minister knows that as well as I do. I do not propose to dwell on that now, but I propose that, in addition to co-ordination, we stand in need of a further social service, which can be made available within the present legislative framework.

I was talking yesterday to a person from Germany and I was abashed at what I heard. This person was the first Nazi I met since Nazism has been under way, and I thought it would be easy to expound on the horror and the tyranny under which they were living, while we had liberty and were living in a free country. I discovered that it was like talking to some one who was sitting behind a plate glass window and could not be reached. This person was young and had grown up in the Nazi atmosphere, knew nothing about what liberty meant and simply did not use the same language as I used. She did not understand it. We were talking on completely different planes, and it was just like trying to reach someone through a plate-glass window. In the course of the discussion I thought I was on solid ground, and I referred to the fact that the people in Germany were rationed and could not get enough food. She said to me that that sounded disagreeable, but that it was not really true that her people did not get enough food.

"The difference between our people and your people," she said, "is this, that Hitler has no prosperous people to eat all the food they want, but then we have no very poor people who are hungry. What happens is that instead of some people having too much and others none; we all have half, while in Ireland you have some people well-off and more people who are destitute and poor. In Germany we are all poor together, but no one is hungry."

Upon my word, when she said that I changed the conversation. I went on to talk of liberty and freedom of speech but I could not help remembering having seen people coming in and buying margarine because they could not afford butter. I could not help remembering children that I saw going to school with a slice of bread and mixed fruit jam on it because it was cheaper than butter.

There is one great danger about democracy, and that is that we are all too well off. The fellows who get in here are too well off, and we are inclined, not through malice, but because we are well off to think that the present situation can go on. We do not want a change. We are very sympathetic. We are not hardhearted or indifferent to the sufferings of the poor, but have the best intentions of doing something as soon as we can. Our faces are set against revolution, and we are satisfied that the system we have is the best one. I am grateful to my Nazi friend. I think we should ask ourselves: Is this the best system for all? I think it is, but I do not think it will continue to be the best unless we can demonstrate that it can be used to abolish destitution, as Hitler abolished it, and to preserve liberty at the same time. Though in theory freedom to die a free man is a very precious thing, it will be hard to persuade those who are dying for freedom that it is such a precious thing as we think it is.

Does the Deputy expect the Minister for Local Government to deal with that under this Estimate?

Yes, because, fortunately, I have a plan. There is never any use in painting a dark picture, if you have not got a plan, and I have a plan. The way to go about reform, as opposed to revolution, is to tackle your problem bit by bit, and, if you cannot smash the whole thing at first, to break a bit off. Who are the people who suffer most from poverty to-day? Are they not the poor parents of a big family? The person who has really got his back to the wall is the person whose income is only 30/- or 35/- a week and who has ten children. That is the real difficulty. That is the difficulty which causes the deepest anguish to everybody, be he rich or poor. Everybody is willing to run and lend a hand when he sees that because he recognises at once that there is an acute problem in respect of those people who are struggling to keep their noses above water and who are continually afflicted with the picture of their children hungry.

Let us get after that problem now. There is only one way to do it, and that is to take the necessary money from us here in Dáil Eireann and in the rest of the country and give it to those people to feed their children, bluntly and without adornment. I have adumbrated a plan for a family allowance for all children of persons with an income less than a certain figure. I freely see that that would require a very large financial provision, and I cannot too strongly emphasise that no reform on these lines that cannot be financed out of revenue is of the slightest use. If someone, carried away by a humanitarian desire to relieve distress, advocated the granting of family allowances out of borrowed money, far from helping the poor, he would undo them, so that we have to bear in mind that, if it is to be of any benefit, it must be financed out of revenue. That is the fundamental pivot on which it must turn. Far from helping the poor, anyone who is carried away by impatience and a desire to expedite the reform by borrowing money, is hurting the poor.

Why not control the credit and the money?

Never mind about controlling credit. Bearing this in mind, we have to realise that we cannot bring down the walls of Jericho with one blast. It took seven blasts, and it may take us seven times seven blasts to bring these walls down, but let us sound the first one now. If the income-tax payer in this State, the person with an income of over £250 a year, is entitled to go to the Government and say: "Because I have a child, you ought to relieve a certain part of my income of income-tax," surely the man who has 27/- a week has a better right to go to the Government and say: "Because I have a child, bring me somewhere near the income of the person whom you are excusing from taxation on account of his child." That is an unanswerable claim, but the answer given to it at present is that the money is not there. But let us show now that we are trying to get there, trying to get to his aid as best we can, and let us go now to the relief of the person whose position is intolerable, the person with more than four children, whose income is below £2 a week, the people who are living on 40/-.

I have taken trouble to look up the figures. Suppose you stipulate for a family allowance for every family in respect of each child after the fourth child.

Could the Deputy inform the Chair what section of this Vote his proposal comes under?

Home help. We can extend the scales of home help. I am not saying that that would be the most expeditious way to do it, but that is the way it can be done, within the framework of the present law, and I have no doubt that a resourceful Minister like the Minister for Local Government would, if he found that machinery creaking under this scheme, evolve another plan to which I have no intention whatever of referring. There are 24,877 families in this country with five children under 16 years of age; there are 16,112 families with six children; there are 8,489 families with seven children; there are 4,077 families with eight children; there are 1,518 families with nine children; and there are 863 families with ten children or over. That represents approximately 55,936 children who are the fifth, or later, children in families of five or more children. There are to be added to that number the children of widows and widowers. They would represent perhaps an additional 3,000. The total figure is 59,936, and, with the added widows' and widowers' children, let us say, a total of 60,000 children. Of course, all those children are not the children of families whose income is less than £2 per week. I do not know what the proportion is, and I do not think there are any census figures to tell us what proportion of those children are children of families whose income is less than £2 per week, but I think it would be very small. Suppose we allowed 5/- per week in respect of each of those children, 30,000 of them, let us say, would require the assistance. I think the House will be astonished to find that it would represent practically no taxation at all. We have 30,000 at 5/- a week, which represents £7,500 a week. Multiply it by 52. Does it come to £500,000? If it were for industrial alcohol, or some cod scheme down the country, we would pass it, and would not give a snap of our fingers for it. The wheat scheme is costing us £2,500,000 a year, the peat scheme £1,000,000 a year, and industrial alcohol, £170,000.

We have had two days' discussion on those matters.

Surely it is pertinent to reply.

A Deputy

Where is the money to come from?

Of course, that is the reply: Where is the money to come from? It is a most valuable interruption, because it is a question that is going to spring to the mind of every responsible citizen. Not the wrecker, not the person who wants to smash the scheme simply because I mention it, but every friend of mine is bound to ask that question, because, as I emphasised at the beginning, unless we can finance it out of revenue, instead of benefiting the poor, we are hurting them. The money is going to come from the public purse, and I now surrender all claim to financial orthodoxy, if I stand condemned for saying this: if it meant an increase of 2/- in incometax, let it come from the public purse. I say it and I mean it. Poverty and starvation will destroy our system of government. Liberty is more precious to me than any material goods I can command, and it was never brought home more definitely to me than when that little girl from Germany replied "The difference is that, with you, there are those who have enough and those who are hungry. In Germany, we are all poor together, but none of us is hungry."

It was poverty and starvation which gave Hitler his first start.

Let us pause a moment. There are some Deputies who may think the proposal I am making revolutionary, shocking and unprecedented. It has been in operation for the last 20 years in Australia. Nobody pays the least heed to it there. If you try to stop it in Australia you might as well try to stop the public water supply.

It is in operation here under the Unemployment Assistance Act.

Deputy Kelly should go to sleep again. It operates in New Zealand.

Mr. Kelly

It is operating here.

I wish Deputy Kelly would either go to sleep again or else make a speech, but these idiotic interruptions help nobody. Now, I do not want to be taken as suggesting that there is a deep and dark conspiracy on behalf of Fianna Fáil to withhold that or any other such benefits from the poor. I do not suggest that. I give them full credit for being just as anxious as I am or as anybody else is for the welfare of the poor. I do not deny that for a moment, but I am bringing to this House the experience of what I saw when I was travelling abroad. I saw it work, not for a week or for six weeks, but I saw it working after 20 years' experience. I talked to the men who passed it, I talked to the rich men and the poor men. The rich men did not know it was there. It never occurred to them to question it. It was passed in their fathers' day and they would no more dream of questioning it now than they would dream of questioning the rates levied to provide sewerage or water supply for poor men's houses. The poor people, whether employed or unemployed—and largely the unemployed—would say: "What would become of our children if we did not have it?" Of course, it was there on a very much larger scale than we could contemplate initiating here, but the important thing would be to get it going, and then, as funds became available, always bearing in mind that it must be financed out of revenue, we might be able to extend it until we could definitely say that no married person in this country need ever fear poverty or starvation. If we could say that, we can deal with the acute problem of unemployment on another occasion. This is not the appropriate place to deal with it. I mentioned on another day how that problem could be tackled, but if we could get that ghost of destitution out of our political system, would it not be an inestimable contribution to the preservation of liberty and democracy? I am not suggesting that it ought to be done to-day or to-morrow or the next day, because it cannot be done without due reflection or without goodwill from everybody. Is it not worth considering, however?

I mention no other aspects of the social services—although much might be said about other aspects of the question—because I want to draw that particular aspect into relief, and because I have reason to believe that, in more quarters than one, it is not a welcome proposal. It is not welcome to those who think that they are already taxed too highly and who would proclaim very loudly that they should not be taxed any higher. Well, they are welcome to try and suppress these things and to claim freedom for themselves and the right to suppress their neighbours, but they cannot suppress us for ever, and so long as we have this platform to speak from, sooner or later we will reach the people.

In this position, I should be glad if we Deputies could reach the people together, and not by claiming credit for one side of the House or the other, because I am perfectly certain that, if it were practicable—as, I am sure, it would prove to be practicable if it were once examined—it would get just as much of a welcome from the far side of the House as from this side of the House. The matter is worth consideration, and it certainly would get the most thoughtful consideration from the people if it came from us all here in the House rather than as a sort of political gambit from one political Party or the other.

I must tell Deputy Dillon that I certainly am not disagreeing with what he said to-night, although I do not intend to be as long in speaking as he was. We were all glad to hear, according to the Minister's statement, that the rate of deaths from notifiable diseases had been reduced. The Minister gave us some figures in connection with infantile mortality. I am rather sorry to say that the incidence of the infantile mortality rate in the City of Cork is the highest since 1926. I am rather inclined to be more definite about that matter than Deputy Dillon, and I am definitely prepared to say that the increase in infantile mortality, not alone in Cork City but in other places, is due to poverty and bad social conditions. My reason for saying that is this: I took the trouble of getting the incomes of 709 families in the City of Cork. We have, as you know, a differential rent in the City of Cork, and we have a monthly survey of the incomes of the different families. Out of some 709 families, we found that there were 163 families living on an income between 20/- and 30/- a week; 110 families with incomes between 30/- and 40/- a week; and so on up to a very small number living on incomes of from £3 to £4 10s. a week. To make it more definite, we were able to ascertain the number of persons in each house, and the average was six persons per house, because they were nearly all drawn from some of the slum clearance areas. Accordingly, taking from that the differential rates, we discovered that there were over 2,500 persons living on less than 4/- per week with which to feed, clothe and provide themselves with the other necessaries of life. In view of the facts with regard to these small incomes coming into these families, I am quite satisfied that the increased mortality rate in infants was due to poverty and starvation.

Having read and taken some interest in the reports of the medical officers of health throughout the country I am quite satisfied that there is a great problem with regard to malnutrition in this country. I think that your own Medical Officer of Health in Dublin made very special reference to that in his report last year. Deputy Dillon has made a very fine statement to the effect that a case could be made for increasing the children's allowances, and he instanced what is taking place in New Zealand and Australia. I have a brother in Australia and I have got information with regard to some of these things, and it would be well for us all to know what they are doing there. Like Deputy Dillon, I am quite satisfied that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is as sympathetic towards this problem and has as much humanity as any of us have, but it is well that attention should be drawn to these things. In Australia they have a family allowance of 5/- per person. First of all, there is a minimum wage of £4 5s., and then there is an allowance of 5/- per child up to six children. A man who has £6 5s. does not get the same allowance as the man with £4 5s., but the man with £4 5s. as a minimum wage gets 5/- for each child up to the number of six children. In view of that, I do not think we can claim to be what we profess to be when we are only providing 1/- a week for a child up to the age of 14 and not providing at all for the sixth, seventh, eighth, or ninth child and so on.

I believe that the Department of Local Government and Public Health is the most important Department in the State. I am not saying that the Minister himself is responsible for the smallness of these allowances for the children, but I do say that it is an extraordinary reflection on his Department in view of the fact that that Department is concerned with public health, because we cannot have public health if we have not the nourishing food which is necessary for the people to maintain their health. The Deputy also told us that the best way—I think he said—to abolish that poverty and destitution was to take the money from those who are here. My view would be that, instead of doing that, we could very well leave what they have with those who have it and give the necessaries of life to those who have not got them. What I have in mind is that we can produce here in abundance. There is potential plenty all around us, and why should we take from those who have it when there is plenty for those who have not it yet? As the Deputy says, the question all the time is: "Where is the money to come from?" and he says that all these things must come out of revenue. I agree to a certain extent, but I certainly do not believe that we will become prosperous by trying to borrow ourselves into prosperity. That is what we are doing. We are trying to bring about prosperity by borrowing, and I want to say here seriously that until such time as this Government—and I have not any political feeling about this—has control of the credit and currency of the country, we will never have the problem solved to which Deputy Dillon referred.

I will not hear the Deputy further on that matter. A debate on currency may not be initiated on this Vote.

I bow to your ruling. I would like to deal with the question of the hospitals.

Perhaps the Deputy would move to report progress, as the Treason Bill is being taken now.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported. The Committee to sit again when Number 5 on the Order Paper has been disposed of.
Top
Share