Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Apr 1941

Vol. 82 No. 9

Vote No. 41—Local Government and Public Health.

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £819,829 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun ioctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1942, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisi Oifig an Aire Riaghaltais Aiteamhail agus Sláinte Poiblidhe, ar a n-áirmhitear Deontaisí agus Costaisí eile i dtaobh Tógail Tithe, deontaisí d'Udaráis Aitiúla, Ildeontaisí Ilghnéitheacha agus Ildeontaisi-i-gCabhair, agus muirearcha airithe mar gheall ar Ospidéil.

That a sum not exceeding £819,829 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1942, 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.

I do not know whether the Committee will agree to follow the procedure adopted on previous years, namely, to allow the other Votes to be discussed on the main Vote.

Would the Minister say to what Votes he is referring?

Votes 41 to 27, inclusive.

The Minister understands that there is a motion to refer back No. 27 and that there is a motion to refer back No. 44?

They would be put separately, of course.

The motion to refer back could be formally moved when reached without further discussion.

It might be a very heavy burden on a Minister to introduce all those Votes together. He would have to make an explanatory speech on each of them, I presume.

I question whether it is the practice of the House to discuss national health insurance or widows' and orphans' pensions on the Local Government Estimate.

It was done last year.

There were not motions to refer back last year. I think the Minister might find it more satisfactory to take General Register Office and Dundrum Asylum with the Estimate for Local Government.

That is Votes Nos. 41, 42 and 43.

As there is an amount of statistics in this, I propose to read the statement on the main Estimate.

The Estimate for the Department of Local Government and Public Health in the present year makes a provision for a net expenditure of £1,229,829. Grants for housing amount to £702,765 and for health services to £360,790, making a total of £1,063,555 for the social services included in this Vote. There is a net increase of £18,487 in the Vote as compared with the financial year 1940-41.

It is customary in moving the Estimates for the Department to examine the statistical evidence concerning the present state of public health. It is a matter of special interest that further progress was achieved during the year 1940. In the past ten years a great deal has been done in improving public health services, raising the standard of sanitary administration, providing new homes in replacement of insanitary and overcrowded dwellings, and removing bad environmental conditions. The results which have been achieved have had a considerable influence on the maintenance of health, and in bringing about a general improvement in the welfare of the community. There has been a gratifying reduction in mortality from the principal notifiable and preventable infectious diseases. The vital statistics for the year 1940 are at present, however, only provisional and may be subject to slight modifications, but they reflect a continued improvement in public health. The total number of deaths attributed to the principal notifiable and preventable infectious diseases in that year was 279 which was a reduction of 106 as compared with the number of deaths in 1939 (385). The corresponding number of deaths for 1937 and 1938 was respectively 542 and 487. The mortality from these diseases in 1940 was the lowest on record.

The principal notifiable and preventable infectious diseases are typhoid, typhus, scarlet fever, diphtheria and puerperal sepsis. The number of deaths from typhoid was 29 in 1940, the lowest number on record for the country from that disease. In 1939 there were 56 deaths from typhoid, while the average annual number of such deaths for the decennial period 1930-39 was 68. The number of notifications of typhoid fever received in 1940 was 253 which was a definite decrease in comparison with the previous year when the number of cases notified was 385. It is worthy of note that there was only one case of the disease notified from Cork and Waterford Cities during 1940, and that no cases arose in 50 out of a total of 61 urban districts and in 115 out of a total of 162 rural areas. The incidence of typhoid fever is to a certain extent a reflex of the standard of general sanitation in the country, and the fall in the incidence of the disease is due in large measure to the provision of adequate and pure water supplies throughout the country generally during the past ten years.

When submitting last year's Estimate, I was in a position to state that the year 1938 was the first year in which there had been no outbreak of typhus fever in this country since the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, 1889, came into operation. The disease has been of infrequent occurrence in recent years and in 1940 it broke out in two counties with fatal results in two cases. Ten cases of the disease were notified from four different districts in one county, and were traced to a band of itinerants who had moved rapidly from place to place before the disease was definitely diagnosed. A single case of the disease was reported in another county. The circumstances of these outbreaks were such that a serious epidemic might have developed if it had not been for the alertness and efficiency of the local medical services and the promptitude with which precautions for preventing the spread of infection were taken.

Deaths from diphtheria have been a source of anxiety for a considerable number of years past. In the returns for 1940 a substantial reduction in the mortality rate is shown. 178 deaths attributable to diphtheria occurred in that year as compared with 245 deaths in 1939, and with an average annual number of 342 deaths for the ten year period 1930-39. The rate for 1940 approximates to a reduction of 50 per cent. on the average for that decennial period. The total number of cases of diphtheria notified in 1940 was 1,891, of which 808 occurred in the four county boroughs, 321 in urban districts and 762 in rural districts. The number of cases, viz. 1,891, represents a reduction on the total notifications in 1939, which were 2,097.

There was no case of diphtheria reported during 1940 from 29 out of the 61 urban districts, and from 53 out of the 162 rural districts, as compared with 14 urban districts and 47 rural districts in 1939. The latest returns in regard to approved schemes of immunisation against diphtheria available are those for the year 1939. These schemes operated in the four county boroughs, in 12 urban districts and 14 county health districts, and resulted in the immunisation of 22,593 children in that year. Further discussions have taken place with the representatives of the medical profession in regard to the rate of remuneration payable for immunisation work against diphtheria and for other additional duties, and it is expected that agreement will shortly be reached. A more widespread and effective combat against this disease can then be organised.

The number of deaths arising from scarlet fever in 1940 was 35, constituting the lowest figure yet recorded. In 1939 the number of deaths from the same cause was 43, while the average annual number in the ten years, 1930-39, was 88. The mortality in 1940, therefore, represented a decrease of 60 per cent. on the average annual number of deaths for the decennial period above-mentioned. The number of cases notified in 1940 was 2,465, which is a substantial reduction on the number, 2,779, reported in 1939.

Influenza is not a notifiable disease, but influenzal pneumonia is. As is generally recognised, the incidence of influenza varies considerably from year to year. The most serious outbreak during the last decade was in 1937, when 2,772 deaths attributable to that cause occurred. In 1940 the number of deaths was 804. The number of cases of influenzal pneumonia notified in 1940 was 250, as compared with 208 in 1939. The number of deaths due to cancer in 1940 was 3,573, being a reduction of 165 on the number for 1939. The incidence of cancer does not fluctuate very much, but has shown an upward trend for a considerable period. The investigations of the Provisional Cancer Council which was set up to investigate and report on certain aspects of the causes and incidence of this disease have had to be suspended owing to present conditions as it was not practicable to make investigations of the system of treatment in other countries or to obtain full information thereon.

For some years past there has been a gradual improvement in the death rates attributable to puerperal sepsis and to accidents of childbirth and pregnancy. The predominant factor contributing to the mortality of mothers in childbirth is puerperal sepsis. It is noteworthy that since 1936 there has been a continuous decrease in the annual number of deaths due to that cause. The returns for 1940 show 35 deaths due to puerperal sepsis as compared with 38 in 1939 and 46 in 1938. The average annual number for the ten-year period, 1930-39, was 74. The figure for last year, therefore, represents a reduction of about 53 per cent. on the decennial record. In 1940 no case of the disease occurred in Limerick City, and only one case each was reported from Cork and Waterford Cities. No case occurred in 48 out of the 61 urban districts or in 122 out of 162 rural districts.

Infant mortality still continues at a high rate. The death rate in 1940 is practically the same as in 1939, the total deaths in 1940 amounting to 3,698. The rates for the four county boroughs are still very high, being per 1,000 births as follows:—Dublin, 92; Cork, 94; Limerick, 74, and Waterford, 107. The rate for Waterford in 1939 was 73, and the increase in 1940 was due to abnormal mortality from diarrhoea and enteritis.

The counties in which the provisional infant death rates per 1,000 births were highest were Waterford, 88; Dublin, 84; Carlow, 78; Kilkenny, 73, and Kildare 70. These rates compare very unfavourably with the corresponding rates per 1,000 births in certain counties on the western seaboard. In these counties the provisional death rates per 1,000 births were Mayo, 37; Clare, 46; Kerry, 49; Donegal, 49, and Sligo, 50.

In the four county boroughs where the death rate is highest, maternity and child welfare clinics have been established which afford medical advice and nursing services. In Dublin the attendances at clinics were as follows:—mothers, 32,315; infants, 15,721, and children, 29,380. In addition to the work done at welfare clinics in Dublin, there is a well organised system of visitation of mothers and children in their homes.

The following extracts from the report of the medical officer for maternity and child welfare relate to the position in 1939:—

"Thirteen welfare clinics are held weekly in the city at different centres, usually in slum areas. Mothers, pre-natal and post-natal, are seen and advised, as well as infants and children up to five years of age. Defects discovered are dealt with by recommending the case to the special department of the different hospitals.

"A short talk is given at each clinic by one of the health visitors. This talk is on some subject of mother-craft. Experience shows that the mothers are availing of this service in a much better way than they used formerly. A medical officer is in attendance at each of these clinics to assist and advise. The clinic in the Pembroke district is held in the open air during the summer months. In July, 1939, a new combined welfare clinic and dining hall was opened on the north side of the city at St. Joseph's Mansions, Killarney Street. This is unique in that it is actually built into the block of flats and serves a very dense slum area."

The number of deaths due to measles in 1940 is returned at 67, which compares favourably with the number for 1939, which was 84. The mortality for 1940 is the lowest on record. This disease is compulsorily notifiable only in a few districts, but steps are being taken to ensure that at least the first case occurring in a family will be notified in future.

The several medical inspection schemes which are in operation in every county and county borough continue to progress. There were 135,404 children examined in 1939, constituting 35 per cent. of the total average school attendance. The number of defects ascertained were as follows:—Dental, 63,258; diseased tonsils, etc., nose and the throat, 25,857; eye defects, 24,146. The numbers treated were: Dental, 50,448; diseased tonsils, etc., nose and throat, 7,766; eye defects, 19,456.

The examination of school children affords a great opportunity for an investigation of the prevalence of malnutrition amongst school children. The following extracts from reports of county medical officers of health for three counties indicate the results of such investigations:—

"Out of the total children examined this year, 278 were regarded as suffering from malnutrition, representing a rate of 3.6, while for the previous year there was 5.3 per cent..... In the majority of cases seen by me the cause of this condition was poverty, and in some others the subnutrition was attributable to defects such as enlarged tonsils, etc."

Another report says:—

"The percentage of slight malnutrition among the school-children was 10.8, being a small reduction on the figure found during the 1938 inspections. The number of children manifesting signs of pronounced malnutrition was only two out of a total of 4,249 examined. This represents a percentage of only .04 as compared with .33 in 1938 and the position may therefore be regarded as satisfactory. When children in rural areas of this country are found to be markedly malnourished it is usually because of parental ineptitude and neglect."

A further report says:—

"There were 42 cases of definite malnutrition requiring treatment found and these were referred for medical advice.... A special form has been printed for the purpose of advising parents as to the amount of rest, the proper clothing, the proper type of diet and the values of various foods suitable for children and this is circulated among the parents of children whose nutrition is less than average standard."

School meals are provided in four county boroughs, 41 urban areas and seven towns. In these districts for the year ended the 31st March, 1940, the average weekly number of children in receipt of meals was about 160,000. The total number of meals provided was approximately 5,205,000. School meals are also provided in rural areas of the Gaeltacht by the boards of health for the counties of Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Mayo and West Cork. The total number of meals provided in the last financial year was approximately 2,800,000.

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. The allowances are limited to children under five years whose parents or guardians are in receipt of assistance or are unable to provide from their own resources an adequate supply of milk for children of this age. The value of this scheme continues to be highly reported upon by county medical officers of health.

The scale of allowances is as follows:—one eligible child in family, one pint; two eligible children in family, one and a half pints; three or more eligible children in family, two pints. The general supervision of the schemes is entrusted to the medical superintendent or county medical officers of health. The premises of milk contractors are visited frequently by veterinary inspectors to ensure that the methods of milk production are satisfactory and samples are sent for examination as to quality and purity.

Local authorities are encouraged to give a preference to milk sold under a special designation. In Dublin County Borough only highest grade milk has been supplied during the past year (298,420 gallons were distributed during 1939/40) whilst in Dublin County highest grade and standard milk are provided. In Limerick City highest grade, standard milk, and pasteurised milk are supplied. In Dun Laoghaire Borough pasteurised milk and in Carlow Urban District standard milk are provided. Difficulty continues to be experienced in some districts in securing registered suppliers and it was again necessary to authorise the distribution of dried milk powder in such districts.

Schemes for the treatment of tuberculosis are in operation in each county and county borough. Local sanatoria have been provided in three county boroughs and in 17 counties. Treatment for children is provided in five open-air institutions in which there are also facilities for the general education of such children. On the unrevised figures the death rate from tuberculosis in 1940 increased to 1.22 per 1,000 of the population as compared with 1.13 for 1939.

During the year further progress was made in the installation of water supplies and sewerage schemes in urban areas and in towns in county health districts. Forty-one schemes were undertaken at a total expenditure of £200,000, of which about £80,000 was met out of the Employment Schemes Vote. Some delays occurred in deliveries of pipes, plant, etc., but they did not seriously interfere with the programme of works. Twenty urban authorities undertook works for the provision or improvement of parks, playgrounds and fair greens. The schemes undertaken were mainly small works, but they nevertheless represented useful additions to the amenities of the towns concerned.

There was a very considerable reduction in the number of houses built by local authorities in 1940 as compared with previous years. The total number is not likely to exceed 3,405. For the previous three years the numbers of houses completed by local bodies were 5,383 in 1939/40, 6,932 in 1938/39, and 4,890 in 1937/38. The number of new houses built by private persons and public utility societies in 1940/41 in rural areas was 2,175. The number of houses reconstructed was 2,768. Private building in rural areas, taking into consideration the conditions prevailing, was maintained at a good level and it is intended to introduce very soon a Bill extending up to the 1st April, 1942, the period for the payment of grants for houses built in rural areas in accordance with existing regulations.

Of the new houses built by local bodies in the last financial year, about 1,555 were provided in urban areas and 1,850 in rural areas. The total number of houses provided to date by the local bodies is approximately 25,484 in urban areas and 18,462 in rural areas. The reduction in the number of houses built by local bodies has been disappointing, but more particularly so in the case of the four county boroughs where it was expected greater progress would have been made. In Dublin City, several contracts were entered into during the year, but the number of houses completed fell to a very low level. The number is not likely to exceed 800. Under the provisions of Section 6 of the Unemployment Relief Works Act, 1940, the corporation were authorised to make arrangements with holders of existing stock for an exchange into new stock equal in nominal value, and to withdraw from the Stock Redemption Fund an amount equal to the nominal value of the exchanged stock in the manner authorised by the Act. These arrangements were duly carried out and resulted in moneys to the extent of approximately £500,000 being made available for the financing of housing schemes. At the end of February, 1941, there were in course of construction 1,896 dwellings, consisting of 1,618 houses and 278 flats.

In Cork City, there was also a falling-off in the number of houses built last year compared with the previous year. It is estimated that the number built in Cork will not exceed 190. In Limerick, the number of houses built is estimated at 130 and in Waterford, at 100. Only in Waterford did the amount built in 1940 exceed the number built in the previous year.

Building operations are in progress in four county boroughs, 12 other urban areas and in 18 counties. The number of houses in course of construction is approximately 3,210 in urban areas and 1,300 in rural areas. Outside the county boroughs urban authorities have been somewhat reluctant to proceed with further schemes owing to the increase in building costs. In rural areas housing conditions have been vastly improved by the number of new cottages already provided by boards of health and by private persons and public utility societies, and proposals of an urgent nature for the clearance of bad housing conditions in non-municipal towns need only be considered in present conditions.

Only in respect of certain materials have difficulties been experienced in the completion of housing contracts. The main difficulty is stated to be in regard to glass and to some extent timber. In some areas the supply of timber is reported to be adequate for another 12 months. The rationing of petrol has to some extent affected haulage necessary for building activities. Every effort is being made to ensure that reasonable supplies are forthcoming to ensure the continuance of housing contracts, where alternative fuel for motor vehicles cannot be used.

During the year 8,220 allotments were provided for unemployed persons. These were let as follows:—6,265 to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit; 336 to persons in receipt of home assistance; 338 to persons employed on employment schemes; 1,231 to persons in temporary employment and whose means did not exceed the prescribed amount.

The allotments were generally plots of ? acre and were let at a nominal rent of 1/- for the season. In special cases where the applicants had large families allotments of ¼ acre were provided and a rent of 2/- per plot was charged.

The Department of Agriculture provided free of cost implements (spades, shovels and spraying machines) for the use of the allotment holders and seeds, manures and spraying materials were also supplied free of charge. The services of instructors were made available during the planting and potato spraying periods. The instructors' reports indicated that the allotments were generally well cultivated.

For the present season a special appeal was addressed to local authorities throughout the country requesting their co-operation in making available ample facilities for the cultivation of allotments. Up to the present, schemes embracing some 14,300 plots have been approved and it is estimated that a further 1,700 plots will be provided, making a total of 16,000 for the year. In rural areas, the boards of health are providing tracts of land for cultivation in allotments, and there is every prospect that a substantial contribution to food production will be made by allotment holders.

I have on a previous occasion referred to the increasing demands of the voluntary hospitals for grants from the Hospitals Trust Fund to meet expenditure in excess of income. In the year 1939 the deficits in the accounts of those hospitals amounted to about £156,058. This was an increase of £40,368 on the amount for the previous year, and an increase of £105,785 on the amount of the deficits for the year 1933. The deficits for the year 1940 have not yet been definitely ascertained but are likely to exceed £180,000. At the rate at which expenditure has been increasing in recent years the provision for endowment would require to be brought up to £6,000,000, which is double that already made. The provision of a permanent endowment fund of £6,000,000 would make a serious encroachment on the amount which it was reckoned would be available for erection and equipment of new hospitals, and may lead to the indefinite postponement of many desirable projects since further substantial additions to the fund cannot be anticipated.

The Hospital Library Council which was set up in 1937 continues to render valuable service in the formation and maintenance of hospital libraries. Most of the hospital libraries are now in their third year and are developing satisfactorily. During the year 1940 two additional hospitals were registered by the council which brings the total number of hospital units served up to 76. Libraries are in operation in 74 of these. The number of books issued during the year was 3,621. The total book stock at the end of the year was 28,207 volumes. During 1940, grants amounting to £5,000 were made to the Medical Research Council out of the Hospitals Trust Fund. The grants paid up to the present amount to £22,500. The council have made a number of grants to research workers —both whole time and part time. In one instance, I understand, research has led to the discovery of a new serum which is likely to have very important results on the treatment of certain types of diphtheria. A statement from the research council on the position is awaited.

Hospital authorities were advised in 1939 and again in 1940 to lay in emergency stocks of medical and surgical supplies and local bodies generally were recommended to purchase reserve supplies of non-perishable articles of food and also accumulate stocks of fuel. This course has been generally followed, and there are at present seven to 12 months' supplies in medical and surgical requirements and reserves of various stocks of food and fuel. Due credit must be given to the official contractors for the manner in which they dealt with greatly increased orders from local authorities when they themselves were finding it difficult to obtain fresh supplies.

During the year the Department continued to exercise the strictest control over increases in the contract prices of commodities permitted under the Emergency Powers (No. 18) Order, 1939. Since the order became operative, applications in respect of more than 1,000 commodities have been investigated and the results communicated to the local authorities concerned. In view of the general fuel position local authorities have been authorised to cut all the turf which they need for their own requirements.

The organisation of parish councils was a notable development which took place during the year. When it was suggested in July last that parish councils should be organised to help in carrying out measures to meet this emergency, there was an immediate response from every part of the country. The work of the parish committees formed under the auspices of Muintir na Tíre had shown that valuable results would ensue from the establishment of such bodies. There are now over 800 parish councils who are taking a special interest in the general welfare of their areas. Some have taken measures to help unemployed persons by providing allotments. Many have taken part in the tillage campaign, and more recently they have been called on to further the movement for the production of more turf. Everyone is agreed that parish councils can fill a useful rôle in the life of the community. There is a wide field for their activity outside the purview of statutory bodies, and if they develop a spirit of co-operation among the people of the parish they should have a very useful existence.

Full particulars of the collection of rates by county councils at the 31st March are not yet available. In the first nine months of the financial year the collection was proportionately much the same as in the previous year. The returns for the last quarter have not yet been received from the county councils.

In 1940, the repayments to the guarantee fund in respect of arrears of annuities were much in excess of draws upon the fund to meet arrears in respect of the current gales and consequently the county councils received last month not only the whole of the balance of the agricultural grant for last financial year but in addition a sum of £136,207, which had previously been held in the guarantee fund owing to non-payment of land annuities. County Meath received repayments of over £25,000; County Kildare over £14,000, and Westmeath over £15,000. In these counties relatively heavier reductions were made from grants in previous years than in other counties. The total sum repaid, viz., £136,207, should reduce substantially the need for temporary borrowing for the financing of local services, which had somewhat increased in the past year.

In conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation of the services rendered by the Corporations of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire when during the Christmas period we had the unhappy experience of aerial bombing. The managers and the air raid precautions staffs of the two corporations, assisted by the Local Security Force, rendered very valuable and efficient service during a critical period.

I should have preferred, if it had been agreed upon, to take the Votes for National Health and Widows and Orphans' Pensions now.

A desire has been expressed to take those Votes separately. To discuss them now would probably lead to a duplication of debate.

I move that the Estimate be referred back. This Estimate covers the expenditure of what is the most important Ministry in the State—the Ministry which is charged with the function of grappling with poverty and bringing relief and succour, so far as possible within the resources of the State, to those who are suffering the hardships of poverty. Reading this Estimate, one gets the impression that the Department is far removed from a true realisation of the abnormality of the times through which we are passing. It does not seem to square with the efforts being made by the head of the Government to arouse in the minds of the people a true appreciation of the serious times through which we are passing and through which we are likely to pass in the year for which this Estimate budgets. It is a purely normal Estimate in very abnormal times. The very able statement made by the Minister seems to reflect, in its complacency, what is shown in the figures in the Estimate—that no realisation of the true position has penetrated into the Ministry of Local Government and Public Health.

Listening to the figures quoted by the Minister regarding malnutrition and other ill effects of poverty, one wonders if the statement refers to the same areas as we represent. From my experience, the provision of milk up to now has been totally inadequate for the times through which we have been passing. County Limerick is one of the finest dairy counties in Ireland, if not in the world. The Taoiseach was told in Limerick City last Saturday by a distinguished priest and by others that a huge population in County Limerick are absolutely without milk and have been in that situation for some considerable time. Children and adults are drinking black tea. They cannot get milk for normal household purposes, notwithstanding the figures quoted here. No substantial alteration has been made in the figures in this Estimate relating to milk. Yet, it is one of the most essential foods in our dietary. Two members of the medical profession told me, after the meeting in the Town Hall in Limerick last Saturday, that they were glad the matter had been brought to the notice of the Taoiseach because they were dealing with patients in need of milk day after day. They advised them to get off heavy foods and to take up a milk diet. The invariable reply of the poorer class was, "I cannot get milk; it is too costly." Apart from the cost, there are difficulties in the way of operating the free milk scheme in Limerick. Notwithstanding their best efforts, the board of health are not able to get supplies owing to the provisions of the 1935 Act, whereby these persons must be registered milk-sellers. Between that and the high price charged, thousands of people are not getting milk in County Limerick. That is a statement over which I can stand and it is supported by members of the medical profession whose function it is to deal with this matter.

If that is the position in April, 1941, and if it was the position in 1940, what will be the position in the coming year? Unemployment is rife and 39,000 persons—to quote the figures given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce— are being deprived, under the Employment Period Order, of unemployment assistance from the month of March this year, whereas the period last year was from the month of June. Are the dependents of these people not going to be in a much worse position this year than they were last year, apart from the added dislocations caused by the blockade of our country and the war situation? How can the Local Government Department come along and say that everything in the garden is lovely? In that respect alone, I suggest they should make much more inquiry. This House would not grumble regarding any estimate which would make adequate provision for milk for children and adults and mothers and expectant mothers. That milk is at present being denied to them in my own county and, when that goes for Limerick, I think it goes for other counties as well. These people have no fuel in their homes and their poverty is such that it cannot be left unminded by the Department of Local Government and Public Health. The people of whom I speak cannot secure coal owing to its cost and the inaccessibility of supplies. They have no means of purchasing turf which, we all hope, will be won in larger quantities this year. They are suffering cold and hunger and it is not a time for the complacent report read by the Minister, having regard to the facts.

The Minister referred to allotments. I am very grateful for what has been done by the Department in that respect. So far as the cities are concerned, they have acted well, and I am glad the cities have responded to their gesture and have embraced the allotment scheme with enthusiasm. When the Minister goes on to speak of the assistance given to the allotment holders in the country districts, I am at sea as to the contribution made by the Local Government Department. It is all very well to talk about parish councils and what they are doing. They are a very useful adjunct to the national life and ought to get the necessary co-operation and assistance. But they ought not to be asked to assume the mantle of the Local Government Department. This is a responsibility of the State, and neither this Department nor any other Department should hand over the running of the social services to parish councils or to the St. Vincent de Paul Society or any other body. They are necessary adjuncts to the life of the community, but they should not be asked to carry the whole burden. I know that parish councils are trying to do something regarding allotments. What can they do? They plan a scheme, send it to the board of health, and ask them to acquire a particular piece of land.

The land is acquired by the board of health and they will come to terms with the owner as to the rent to be paid. But the allottees will pay back that rent. I do not know of any scheme where they are getting free plots. They will pay back the economic rent, the rent that has been determined between the board of health and the landowner. That is not of much use to the unemployed in the towns and villages. The unemployed in the cities, as the Minister said, can get one-eighth of an acre for 1/- a week. They also get seeds, implements and manures supplied free. But the Local Government Department has not very much to preen itself about in regard to what it has done for the allotment holders in the country districts. One would think that every unemployed man would be pressed into service to produce more food. An unemployed man with the best intentions, cannot produce food on his allotment if he has not the wherewithal to buy seeds to put into it, if he has not the implements to work it, and manure to help to grow the crops. I believe that there is a great weakness in not taking full advantage of the allotment scheme in the country districts.

Parish councils to my own knowledge are in very serious trouble at present because they entered into commitments to take certain lands. Now that they have the land they have no seed to give to the unemployed. There was an idea that the Department of Agriculture would come to the rescue of these people, but we learned from several of them last Saturday that they had been turned down by the Department of Agriculture. In several parishes I am told they will have to close down the scheme for want of seed to give to the unemployed who have taken the land. These matters should be within the knowledge of the Local Government Department. If we are to take any credit for what we are doing, I think we ought to give some additional help, so far as the law will allow us, to the parish councils in this national campaign of producing more food.

As I say, we are facing an extraordinary year and I was expecting an extraordinary Estimate for the Department of Local Government. Poverty will cause the rates to fall into arrear and that will cause additional unemployment. The tenants of our labourers' cottages are also unable, and, in an increasing measure, will be unable to meet the rents. Already a number of cottiers are under notice to quit by boards of health for failure to pay rents, and, in some instances, I understand the amounts are very small. I think action has been taken in this respect much too quickly in some instances, having regard to the hard times the people are going through. I have seen notices issued in respect of sums of 20/-, 25/-, and 30/-. If that is the position early in the year, 1941, one can visualise that it will be very much worse during the year, because there is no employment available for these people. The fact that an Employment Period Order has been issued by another Department, under which they have been struck off unemployment assistance, does not mean that there will be work for them. If they get into arrears with their rates and rents, they will get notice to quit from the board of health. They are not able to provide the fuel and food necessary for their families.

The home assistance provided by the boards of health has been wholly inadequate up to now, and is being called upon in an increasing measure owing to the Employment Period Order. I am not exaggerating the position when I say that there is hunger in the country and I fear that there will be much more of it in the year to come. For that reason, I believe there is no justification for the complacency which this Estimate seems to indicate. The Estimate was introduced in a very fine and able statement read by the Minister, which I regret I cannot accept as being a true reflection of the position in the country.

This is not the time to deal with the question of labourers' cottages. There is a point I should like to make in connection with them, but perhaps this is not an opportune time. I believe that a good deal of the difficulty in connection with labourers' cottages is due to the passing of the recent Act for the purchase of cottages. The labourers have not availed of that. I should like to know what has been the result of the labours of the Local Government Department during the last three or four years since the Act was passed. How many labourers have taken advantage of it? How many have relieved the public authorities of the responsibility for the maintenance of the cottages? In my county I believe none have availed of it. The cottages are deteriorating. I saw recently where one board of health complained about the growing cost of maintenance. They are getting no satisfaction from the present method of maintenance. If the board of health are not getting satisfaction, I say the tenants are not getting satisfaction either. The cottages are deteriorating. Rain is pouring in through many cottages. When all is said and done, these cottages are the property of the nation. But, between one thing and other, nobody is doing anything; the tenants are suffering and their cottages are deteriorating. That is a matter that should receive the attention of the Minister and his Department, namely, the repair and maintenance of these cottages so as to preserve the health of these people and, incidentally, the cottages which are the property of the nation.

There is another matter about which I want to complain. The Local Government Department do not seem to realise the assistance they could give in helping to solve the unemployment problem to a reasonable extent. In Limerick we have been trying for a considerable time to get on with the regional hospital. The foundations of that hospital could be put in. It is estimated that from 100 to 200 men could be employed for about 12 months in the cutting of the foundations and the necessary development work which would not need any material except what is on the spot. The plans were submitted to the Department and were sent back for some alterations. They were altered in accordance with the request of the Department and sent up to the Department again. Some further alterations were considered necessary and the plans were altered at the dictation of the Department. My information is that since last September they have been lying in the archives of the Department, and that all efforts to get them released to enable the work to be put in hand have failed. I should like to know what more the Department wants. Will we be told that they do not want the job to go on?

I have been informed that every effort has been made by the architect and the people concerned to meet the reasonable requirements of the engineering staff of the Local Government Department, but still the plans have been lying there since September or October. People in the town and the country around are asking when the work will start. That is a very serious question for the Department, if they have not a very good reason to give as to why they are standing in the way of the work being put in hands which the unemployed have been looking forward to since last September.

I am not a member of the Limerick Mental Hospital Committee, but I am aware that one of the wings built there at considerable expense has not been utilised owing to sanction not being given to a proposal with regard to the furnishing. What is the idea of building a wing to a mental hospital to cater for a certain section when it cannot be utilised for the purpose because it cannot be furnished? That has been going on for more than 12 months and the deadlock still continues. After listening to the very nice and very well-prepared statement of the Minister, one would think that everything in the garden was lovely so far as the Department of Local Government is concerned. I regret very much that I cannot accept that statement.

I want to make a final appeal on behalf of one section of the community that do not seem to have got the consideration they are entitled to from the Department. I refer to blind persons. The sum of £7,340 is provided here for the Blind Welfare Scheme, an increase of £40 on last year's Estimate. A sum of £40 is to mark the difference in the treatment of poor sightless persons in the coming year. Is that a reasonable Estimate for the treatment of poor people who are denied God's gift of sight and whom charitable institutions and citizens are doing their bit to try to help? Is that all the co-operation that is going to be given in these times when things have come to such a state owing to the rise in prices? I appeal to the Minister to reconsider that item and treat these people generously. They are our own people and they are deserving of anything that we can give them. It is very disheartening to hear that, in the year 1941, there is still the same old figure, with just an addition of £40, for the welfare of the blind. I think a better head-line than that should be set by the Department, so as to encourage the various charitable organisations that are working for the welfare of the blind. The Government should be more generous in the provision it is making. I am totally dissatisfied with the Estimate that has been presented from this Department. I fear that the Department is completely out of touch with the realities of the situation. Judging by the Estimate one would imagine that we were living in normal times. We have been told by people in high positions that we must budget for an abnormal period. This Estimate is not doing that. In my opinion, it is unworthy of the Department of Local Government, and for that reason I am moving that it be referred back.

Mr. Brennan

It was interesting to listen to the Minister. There are some matters on which he and the country generally deserve to be congratulated. One is that of public health generally. I think it is a tribute to the schemes in operation that there has been such an improvement in the public health. At the same time, we cannot congratulate ourselves on the way in which tuberculosis has been developing through the country. It is sad to feel that the mortality due to that disease has been on the increase. While I do not want to throw the blame for that at anybody's door, I still am of the opinion that the Department of Local Government has been somewhat lacking. We have had reports over a number of years past from county medical officers of health up and down the country in connection with this disease to the effect that what was really needed was the provision of more sanatoria so that the infected people could be isolated from their relatives and neighbours. A few years ago there was a great to-do in the County of Roscommon in connection with the provision of a sanatorium. There was a three-county meeting held in Athlone with a view to getting one that would serve Offaly, Westmeath and Roscommon. The matter was taken up enthusiastically, but it never got any further. The Department of Local Government apparently did not care for the proposal. The Department, I think, will have to get out of the groove it has got into. Personally, my hopes of seeing this Department get out of its present groove are pretty forlorn.

About 12 or 14 years ago I criticised the then Local Government Department in this House because I thought it was unwieldy, top-heavy, lackadaisical and that the spirit of laissez faire had crept in there. I thought also it was too expensive. Since then, it has become doubly so. The number of officials has been increased by more than two to one, and expenditure by more than four to one, but I wonder are the people getting any better value for their money? Why have those increases in staff and expenditure taken place? We find that both these increases have taken place since the advent of the present Government to office. It has been said here that quite a lot of work has to be done in the Department in connection with housing. I agree, but if we take housing out of it, what do we find? If we take out the provision made for housing in 1931/32 and in 1932/33, and the provision that is being made for it to-day, we find that the Department is costing about £300,000 more to-day than it did at the time I speak of. I wonder are we getting better services for that money? What are the new services? The figure of increased cost that I have given does not include the cost of widows' and orphans' pensions or of the personnel of that section of the Department. Therefore, I say that if my criticism was justified 12 or 14 years ago, it is doubly justified to-day. In fact, all the speeches made here, ever since I became a member of the House, might be repeated to-night, because I do not think there has been any improvement, and that we have been going from bad to worse.

Deputy Keyes referred to a hospital in Limerick. If his experience of the Department in connection with hospitals is anything like what mine has been, all I can say is that the Department is the worst sinner I have ever come across. In my opinion what is really wrong with this Department in dealing with the hospitalisation of the country, with the delays that take place in either approving or in rejecting plans, is that they have no person who has the guts to stand up to the architects of this country. That is my candid opinion. Surely if we want a district cottage hospital in Roscommon, with provision for 15 to 20 beds, we ought to be able to get a decent one at a cost of about £10,000. Instead of that we get a plan for a hospital which, at the lowest figure, is going to cost £39,000. The result is that the project has to be abandoned after the local board of health has been put to the cost of £1,800 in getting plans, etc. We have a glorious hospital in Roscommon with about 100 beds. It has been completed for over a year but we cannot take it over because, apparently, nobody thought of putting in a sewerage scheme to serve it. That scheme has yet to be started. The hospital is there, and will cost us something like £1,000 per bed. There has not been any kind of co-ordination between the Department and the local authorities in regard to hospitalisation. I regard that as a scandal of the first magnitude. Additions have been built to mental hospitals in Ballinasloe and Castlerea. There is a new mental hospital in Castlerea. It would appal Deputies if I were to take up the time of the House telling them how that job was done, and of what it is going to cost the people to maintain it. I hate talking or thinking about it. They are all fine buildings, but their upkeep is going to blister the ratepayers. They are glorious buildings, with the latest in flooring and furniture. All I can say is this: all these hospitals are going to be great memorials to the architects who designed them, but as far as utility is concerned I think much less pretentious buildings would do equally well.

As the Minister said, this Estimate which was presented to-day is £18,000 of an advance upon last year's Estimate. Last year's Estimate showed an advance of something like £8,000 on the year before, and the previous year's Estimate was an advance of £11,000 on its predecessor. But this year's Estimate is an advance of about £793,000 on 1932-33. When we start to make comparisons between this year and last year, we forget that we made a huge jump in 1934-5 and 1935-6. Instead of steadying ourselves, and turning the money to some useful purpose such as that to which Deputy Keyes referred, we are still going along and making the machine more top-heavy; we have more of a staff than we had, and we are paying them more than we did. We have an inspectorial staff of 43 persons. Surely to goodness with an inspectorial staff of 43 persons we ought to be able to do things efficiently.

We ought to be able to see that any matters in any county in Ireland that need attention are attended to at once. We ought to be able to see that there are no matters left on the files of the Local Government Department awaiting replies for months. We have seen quite a lot recently in the public Press with regard to delays by the Local Government Department. That is usual. It is an everyday occurrence. It is the experience of every local authority all over the country. We cannot get replies. We cannot get the assistance that we ought to get. Then the Local Government Department— and the Government apparently— thinks it is the local authorities that are at fault, and that a Managerial Bill will solve it all. It will not. As I said here on a previous occasion, if you do not mend matters at the top, no managerial system will give you efficient service. The Minister said that there were delays in various schemes that were undertaken, through waiting for pipes, parts, and so on. There were, but they were as nothing to the delays that the local authorities had to encounter through the Local Government Department itself. We in Roscommon have experience of such a delay which is costing us hundreds of pounds at the present time. The Local Government Department did not sanction the site for a doctor's residence. After some time, they did sanction the site, but then the contractor was building a hospital and had gone away from the site. He charged us for coming back to the site and restarting the work; he charged us at a new price owing to the costs having increased in the meantime.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to this matter. At the present time there is a shortage of fuel, and we have a great to-do about the provision of turf. Owing to the circumstances, it is everybody's duty to put his shoulder to the wheel and assist in the provision of native fuel. I will give the Minister an instance of what has happened down in Roscommon. In the county home and hospital in Roscommon, the board of health were advised to lay in a stock of fuel some time ago. We did, to the extent of whatever the capacity was for coal. We got foreign coal, and we got native coal from Arigna. They were used for two totally different purposes. The foreign coal was for ranges and the other was for boilers. We did not get in a very big supply of Arigna coal, because we had not the capacity to store a lot, but we got in a fairly good supply of foreign coal. Now, what is happening? Our supply of Arigna coal has run out, but, because we have over 100 tons of foreign coal, the Minister for Supplies will not give us a licence to get any Arigna coal. Is not that an extraordinary thing? Now, we are drawing upon the fuel that is not suitable for boilers, and we are possibly going to leave ourselves without suitable fuel for the ranges later on. That is possibly happening in other places, too, and I should like to draw the Minister's attention to it. I know the Department's attention has been called to it through the minutes of the board of health in Roscommon, but I have very little hope of anything being done for a considerable time to come.

Another matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention, is with regard to medical supplies through combined purchasing. I drew his attention to it last year, and I hear the very same complaint being made now, but it will be very much more acute now than it was last year. As the Minister pointed out, medical supplies at the present time are not very secure, and you do not know where you are going to find them. Very often there is a chemist down the country who has a good supply of some particular medicine, and it cannot be got through the combined purchasing. I know that our local surgeon has been prevented from buying it below, even though he could not get it through the combined purchasing. That is an extraordinary thing. We are not passing through normal times. Conditions are very abnormal at present, and the Minister ought to take cognisance of that. At the present time you cannot apply hard and fast rules of the type which would ordinarily apply.

The Minister paid a compliment to parish councils. Well, in some places they are capable of and are doing a great deal of good, but I am afraid the Minister is an optimist if he thinks that in general the parish councils are operating at all. They are in a few places, and doing quite good work, but let the Minister not pin his faith on them to provide either fuel or food for the people in a crisis, because if he does I am afraid he will not get very far.

I have always been intrigued and I am still intrigued by the Housing Board. I never could see what their functions are, although they cost us some thousands of pounds per annum, and their travelling costs are some £400 per annum. I never heard what they did. However, they are still here, and I suppose we will have them with us while the present Government is in office in any case. Deputy Keyes referred to the fact that times were far from being normal, and that consequently the Estimate which is presented for the Local Government Department ought not to be normal. I do not agree with that, because I think it would be asking quite a good deal of the Local Government Department to bring in something abnormal at the present time. I should like to ask the Minister a question with regard to the contributions towards annual loan charges of local authorities, that is sub-head S (1)—contributions towards loan charges under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932. We made provision last year for £446,000, and this year we are making provision for £516,470. Is it the intention of the Local Government Department to continue that type of contribution? Is it in fact a contribution on behalf of the local authorities to the Local Loans Fund? The point is that it is being made by the Government to the Government.

I remember reading in the Banking Commission Report that it did appear to be rather an absurd transaction, except that there was a certain contingency attached to it; that is, that it held over the local authorities a kind of whip-hand with regard to the type of persons who should be selected for cottages. But there is no merit in the transaction, and there should be some other way of dealing with it besides continuing this kind of contribution. Does that £516,000 go to the Local Loans Fund? Is the Local Loans Fund being maintained year after year by that amount of money?

If so, what is the purpose of maintaining the Local Loans Fund at that size? While, no doubt, there always will be a need for housing construction, the time ought to come when the extreme need for houses which we had and have will cease; we will come to some kind of normality and then the Local Loans Fund will not be needed to the same extent as in the past or at the present time.

In such circumstances, why should the taxpayer be taxed to the extent of £516,000 as a contribution on behalf of the local authorities to the Local Loans Fund? I should like the Minister to tell us something about that. Perhaps he will clarify the matter for us. We have here a contribution of £516,000, which is the taxpayers' money and it is paid on behalf of the local authorities to the Government by the Government. It is really a kind of paper transaction. I want to know if it is being used to swell the Local Loans Fund, and, if that is so, will that procedure always continue, or when will it cease?

Mr. Byrne

Under the heading, "Grants for the Supply of Milk to Necessitous Children," I see that last year the sum was £90,000, and this year it is again £90,000. About six months ago I drew the Minister's attention to the fact that milk had increased in price and welfare organisations, in their annual reports, have stated that, because of the fixed grants that they were getting, in order to meet the increase to the milk producers they had to reduce the supplies of milk to necessitous children. I do not think any member of the House would wish that an increase in the price of milk should be met by taking from a certain number of necessitous children their ordinary milk supply. That statement was made in the report of at least one of these organisations. I sent the report to the Minister's Department.

One would think that the increase in the price of milk would have been included in this Estimate so as to allow the same number of necessitous children to get the same quantity and quality of milk as they got over a year ago. In addition to that, because of the existing conditions in the city, with further unemployment, an increase in the cost of living and generally the hardships which the poor have to bear, one would think that these grants would have been increased so as to help to save the lives of the children. I feel confident, now that I have mentioned the matter, that the Minister will consider it and see that the milk that is needed by these welfare organisations, whatever the quantity may be, will be made available.

I believe that under some old Acts the Minister has power to include in his Estimate a sum of money in order to give a free supply of coal to the people who to-day are without as much as a stone of coal to boil a kettle, to dry clothes or to give warmth to themselves and their children. It might surprise Deputies and Ministers when I tell them my experience of only a week ago. I saw a woman at midnight going into a huckster's shop to buy 1d. worth of tea and 1d. worth of coal. I saw the 1d. worth of coal in her hand when she was coming out. It was in the shape of a very small briquette and that was to be used to boil the kettle next morning in order to use the 1d. worth of tea. That happened in Gloucester Street last Friday night. I think some inspectors of charitable institutions are going into the matter.

I wish the Minister could give a grant to our charitable institutions, a very big grant of £4,000 or £5,000 a week, in order to tide them over the difficulties they are facing to-day. I hope the Minister will not wait until it is too late to see that the people of the tenements of Dublin, the unemployed men with their wives and families, get the ordinary necessaries of life which they need so much to-day.

One Deputy drew attention to hospital accommodation. I will not go into that question very fully now, but I have been informed that so far as Dublin is concerned it is nearly impossible—it is just as hard, at any rate, as ever it was—to get a Dublin working man or his wife or child into a hospital there. I have been told that, outside maternity cases, there is hardly a bed to be obtained. It is difficult to get an extra bed for an accident or sickness case. A Minister stated here some time ago that the fact that new hospitals were being built throughout the State would relieve certain beds in Dublin hospitals. I understand that although we have hospitals in the country, lovely buildings and equipment, they are without specialised treatment and, if any person in these hospitals in any part of Ireland requires a major operation, that person has to come to Dublin to be treated by the specialists. No method has been adopted of giving specialised treatment in the country. I hear also that some of our new hospitals are working with inadequate staffs, and that is a matter the Minister should seriously consider. A considerable amount of money has been spent on the erection of hospitals throughout the country and I think the Minister should see to it that the people using these hospitals are able to get specialised treatment there and so leave beds in the Dublin hospitals vacant for the ordinary accident and other cases that occur in the city.

Reference has also been made to housing, and I want to assure the Minister that something will have to be done very soon in regard to the housing, feeding and clothing of our people. I unhesitatingly say that the system has completely broken down. The Dublin Corporation building houses for people and charging 10/6 and 12/6 for cottages four miles away from their work, or from where they should work, means so many loaves off the ordinary table which that family used to enjoy and something further will have to be done to enable us, with the assistance of the Government, to build houses at rents which the people can pay, without inflicting hardship or injustice on their families. I ask the Minister carefully to consider the point about an additional milk supply which I know he has at heart, and to see, if it is possible under any Act, that the families of the unemployed get an immediate supply of coal free, either through his Department or through the local authorities with his assistance.

This Estimate and the manner in which it was presented to the House show very little realisation of the exceedingly critical position prevailing in this country at present. I should have thought that even some of the warnings uttered in the last few months about the exceedingly dangerous position which was developing might have been in some way reflected in the Estimate, because this Estimate and the Department of Local Government should be more seriously concerned with the position of things in the country, and more thoroughly animated by the most generous and humane considerations in dealing with that position, than any other Department. There can be very little doubt that the activities of the Local Government Department have been slowed down very considerably for a long time, and that there is in the Department an atmosphere of indecision and delay in taking decisions which has resulted in a very serious decline in the standard of administration carried out by that Department.

It is the experience of all members of the House, and, I think, of the general public, that officials in the Department have invariably been kind, helpful and courteous but my conclusion is that there is a sort of paralysis on the Department which prevents decisions being taken and that the Department continually exists in an atmosphere of indecision and delay. That is a very serious matter, and I think the Minister must accept responsibility for that position. The Minister ought to be in a position to answer complaints of that kind in the House, which have not alone been put forward in the discussion of this Estimate, but have been featured prominently in the Press for several months past.

There are certain matters for which the Minister was responsible during the year which were not referred to in his statement. I want to recall to the Minister some of his triumphs. About 12 months ago, certain local authorities, realising that living costs were rapidly advancing, thought to show some recognition of those rising costs by giving some small increase in wages to their employees. In County Cork, the increase given by the local authority to their road-men was the very modest sum of 2/6 per week. After a comparatively short enjoyment of that increase, the road workers in the county were deprived of it by an order of the Minister. I want the Minister to stand up here and justify his action in that respect because I have heard no justification of it anywhere up to the present. It was computed that the men who were the subject of that order by the Minister were earning, at the time this increase was given to them, an average of 24/- per week, and how the Minister could justify an order to the local authorities to refuse that increase, which had been unanimously voted by all Parties in the county council, and by more than one county council in this country, is something which requires very considerable examination.

I recall to the Minister, because again he must bear personal responsibility for this, that on the day the local authority was told that the Minister declined to sanction this wage increase, an order was sent to the Cork County Council to increase the salary for the position of temporary assistant medical officer of health by £100, with an intimation that if the local authority did not do so, steps would be taken to see that it would be done. Half-a-crown taken from the roadmen in County Cork and a direct order from the Minister to increase the salary for a certain position by £100—it is no wonder that people are saying and thinking the things they are saying and thinking at the moment.

I was glad to hear the Minister give some tardy recognition to the fact that a very important advance in medical research was recently made by the discovery of a serum which is likely largely to eliminate the recurrence in the future of diphtheria. If the Minister's statement that he is awaiting official intimation of this discovery from the research council is an answer to statements made in the Press that no official recognition was given and no notice taken of this discovery by the Local Government Department, I am glad that he has made it. I want to refer again to this question of tuberculosis, to the fact that tuberculosis has shown signs of increasing rather than declining, and to the question of the entire inadequacy of the arrangements made for dealing with tuberculosis. It is within the knowledge of most people that the institutions set up for the treatment of tuberculosis lag very much behind the standard that ought to be maintained and achieved in such institutions. Anybody knowing what has been done in other countries, or even reading a little of what has been done in other countries, must acknowledge how very much we lag behind, but, even in this country, we have some institutions which have achieved a fairly high standard in that respect.

We have many other institutions which can give very little results, so that in many parts of the country the feeling of the patient and of the patient's relatives and neighbours, when it is known that somebody is going to a sanatorium, is that the end is not far away. The number of people who are able to reach the two institutions which have advanced very considerably along the road of prolonging life and restoring health, in many cases, is small. The average poor person finds it impossible to get near institutions of that kind. I am satisfied that the arrangements made in Cork County for the treatment of tuberculosis are not adequate or satisfactory. It should be the right of every poor person in Cork County to go to Newcastle or Peamount and get what is believed to be better and more up-to-date treatment there. The Minister precludes them from going there. He says that, unless they are able to make a contribution out of their own resources or the resources of relatives, they are precluded from going to institutions of that kind and must be satisfied with local institutions. Many medical men and others, in private conversation, will admit that that is a very serious handicap on their chances of recovery. It is better to have plain speaking about this matter, because it is a serious matter.

I am not satisfied, and many other members of local authorities are not satisfied, that the school medical services are as efficient as they ought to be. I am not satisfied that the examination of children for dental defects or defects of sight are in rural districts anything like satisfactory. As regards rural areas, what is described as conservative dentistry—the avoidance of extraction of teeth by timely attention—is being neglected. It is not practised to any great extent. What is called dental treatment is the wholesale extraction of teeth, whereas the possibility is that many of the teeth could be saved for the benefit of the child for a considerable time. I think that an arrangement could be made with part-time local dentists for conservative dentistry—periodical inspection and care of the teeth of school children. I believe that the suggestion would give results if adopted. While I admit the value of the original purpose of the scheme and of the principle of school medical inspection, I think it is time that many of the faults and defects revealed by the working of the system were reviewed and completely eliminated.

One very considerable blot on our whole poor law system remains in spite of the many enthusiastic reformers who have come and gone during the past 17 or 18 years. I refer to the condition of our county homes. We have called them county homes for a long time, but they present the same grim, forbidding and miserable appearance that the old poorhouses or workhouses presented. We have—I speak with knowledge of the circumstances in North Cork—knocked at the door of the Local Government Department and asked them, in the allocation of hospital improvement grants, to do something to put the hospitals and infirmaries attached to the county homes into decent condition. Owing to circumstances over which neither the Minister nor ourselves had any control we were, unfortunately, precluded in West Cork from acquiring a very fine place. This was some distance from Clonakilty and the intention was to convert it into a county home. Having been frustrated in that design, we fell back on the hope of persuading the powers that be to give us some money to improve the almost intolerable sanitary conditions referred to in the report of the assistant county medical officer of health, which report was the subject of discussion both at the board and in this House. Our effort has been in vain, so far. We have these cheerless, miserable, unsatisfactory and, very often, unhealthy conditions, with overcrowding, in the county homes. These conditions leave us with a number of children, a large number of unmarried mothers, a number of destitute able-bodied, and a number of people who are infirm, in one institution, without any definite plan for their classification, without any definite plan for their accommodation and without any realisation of the problems that have brought many of them into that position. I suppose it would be too much to hope that, in the present situation, much attention could be given to this matter, but it is a serious reproach to the Local Government Department and the services generally that that condition of affairs should remain.

I remember the zeal with which a number of our reformers set out, with the support of all sections, to give us, in the rural areas, self-contained hospital services. Theirs was a very fine and praiseworthy effort to provide in each district a local hospital where people could be capably attended, no matter what class they belonged to, and where, in addition to making primary provision for the poor, accommodation would be provided for people who could afford to pay for their treatment. They were to get every kind of skilled surgical attention, and it was to be possible to deal with urgent and acute cases locally.

That was a very fine ideal and, on the occasion of the opening of a number of the hospitals, we had glowing speeches from officers of the Local Government Department, enthusiastic parish priests and local representatives as to the prospects. The only drawback is that nothing in that respect has happened to any extent. Again, I speak with knowledge of five hospitals in West Cork, where no more serious operation can be carried out than the extraction of a few teeth or something like that. It is one of the tragedies of local government that elaborate hospitals were erected, substantial provision made in the way of operating theatres and other auxiliaries necessary for surgical work, and that these places are now used in some cases for storing medicine bottles and odds-and-ends of all kinds. The medical officer is paid £100 a year by order of the Local Government Department, thus making certain that no work such as that for which the hospital was primarily erected can be carried out. We have the north and south infirmaries and other voluntary hospitals, with which the Minister has nothing to do, serving the people well. Perhaps it is because the Minister has nothing to do with them they are giving, so good results and taking the place of the hospitals in the county for which the Local Government Department is responsible. If that Department had done its duty, they would have at least one man in each district who would be capable of doing work of this kind. Thousands of pounds, which have to be spent in sending patients from rural areas to the City of Cork and paying their expenses there, would in that way be saved. While this is being done, the local hospitals are just clearinghouses, when they are not filled with chronic patients for whom the workhouses formerly catered in this country. That is certainly a very sad turn from the road on which all of us set out with such high hopes 17 or 18 years ago. It is well that the people should know that the responsibility for that does not rest with the local authorities, but with the Department which has not alone permitted but brought about such a situation.

I do not know where the Minister got the information that malnutrition was on the decline in this country, because it seems to me to be entirely in conflict with the position to-day. A repetition of statements of that kind does not do any good, because everybody must realise that this is a time of cruel hardship for poor people. I will take West Cork as being typical of the poorer rural districts of this country. The average valuation of a holding there is about £10. Married men in the rural areas of West Cork have been deprived of unemployment assistance. They are expected to turn to work on the land. But the land of farmers whose valuation is about £10 is worked by the farmers themselves and their families. In fact these farmers themselves are applicants for work being done by the county council and other people.

I think there has been a cynical disregard of the realities of the situation. I tell the Minister seriously that it will be too late to deal with this matter when the bread riots start and when other things happen that many people are seriously thinking about at present. If a situation of that kind develops, the Minister must bear a very considerable amount of responsibility for it, because hand in hand with the Employment Period Order which his colleague is responsible for, there has gone out an order to local authorities to stop what are called the roads rural schemes, which have all been stopped since Monday last. No reason has been given for that. The effect of that, in the rural areas in any case, has been an intensification of the difficulties of people who were solely depending on work of that kind.

Deputy Keyes was so courteous in dealing with the cottage purchase scheme that he has not said what I intend to say, namely, that this fraud has been completely unmasked in the last 12 months. Cottage tenants who were deluded into believing that they were going to get some bargain in connection with this matter of purchase have discovered that it is a fraud. Consequently the Act is a dead letter and the Minister ought to repeal it. If he does not repeal it, he ought to let the cottage tenants know that he too realises that this scheme will never come to anything. It was really what it was described by some of us to be, namely, an attempt to make political capital out of the statement that they would be the owners of their own homes and that they would be independent in the future. The fact is that the Act has completely failed, as anybody who took the least trouble to understand the problem knew it would fail. It should be taken off the Statute Book if there is no desire to amend it or improve it.

The Minister sounded strangely inconsistent when referring to parish councils and paying a tribute to the merits of local representation after having achieved during the past year a complete elimination of local representation from all local authorities. I cannot understand the Minister speaking with two voices in this matter. Either local representation is a good thing, both in a voluntary way and in connection with local authorities, or it is a bad thing. The Minister has shown by the legislation which he has been responsible for putting through the House that he has no faith in local authorities. I do not see how the people connected with parish councils can regard his tribute to their efforts as of very much value because of that fact. I know that parish councils, as established by a certain organisation and working along certain lines, have done and will do a considerable amount of good. I think they would have done very well if the Minister had not meddled with the matter at all. In the present confused position with regard to parish councils, I doubt if very much can be achieved, in many parts of the country at all events, as a result of their efforts. They have received very little guidance as to what they are expected to do and can do. They have no funds to utilise for any purpose. Of course, if the desire is just to keep them talking so as to prevent people thinking of other things that can be achieved fairly well.

This Estimate ought not to be passed without being searchingly examined and criticised. I think the Estimate ought to be sent back for further consideration, because this year, as Deputy Keyes says, is a very abnormal year. It is going to be a very difficult year. The Local Government Department ought to be foremost in facing the difficulties of the present situation. There is no evidence of that in this Estimate. There was no evidence of it in the Minister's statement. In the absence of some realisation of the present position, the Estimate ought to be sent back for further consideration by the Minister and presented to this House again with some evidence on its face that that realisation has come about.

One of the main difficulties about a discussion of this Estimate is that possibly the only real solution would be to bring the Minister down to each local authority, because instead of the discussion being such as should take place in a legislative assembly, it developed into a discussion of the failure and the good work of each board of health and county council. Unfortunately, it must be so, because even those of us who are fortunate enough not to be members of local authorities have something to say about local authorities, whether in favour of or against them. I might surprise the Minister by saying as one legal man to another that I think the county councils are spending too much on law. If Deputy Corry were here I am sure he would appreciate that very much. The reason I make that point is that the Minister's Department, through the county councils, is responsible for the institution of prosecutions under the Food and Drugs Act. It is the county councils who institute prosecutions against farmers who bring milk to the local creameries if their milk is not up to the standard in regard to butter fat or solids.

A farmer delivers milk to the creamery and the milk is tested by a Civic Guard and if it is discovered to be deficient a prosecution is then instituted in the name of the county council by the Civic Guard, who gives evidence. That is the position at present. The last Food and Drugs Act was brought in to close the loophole where the defence was made that the milk was sold as it came from the cow to the farmer, but now another loophole has been discovered and that is that the county council are not the proper people to prosecute when the milk is being delivered to the creamery. Still county councils are insisting on prosecuting farmers whose milk is below the test described when delivered to the creamery and are wasting money on prosecutions of that sort.

Secondly, I might point out another example of how county councils waste money on law. In a particular area five people may be prosecuted for not cutting their hedges after they had been served with notices within the requisite period. The five prosecutions are brought in the District Court and are dismissed because they were not instituted in the name of the county surveyor. They could not have been instituted in the name of the county surveyor because there was no county surveyor in Cork County. What did the county council do? They objected to the decision of the District Justice. I am not questioning the merits of the decision—I am simply pointing out the way the county council wasted money. Instead of picking out one case as a test case they appealed the whole five. The county council represents the ratepayers. If the county council lose the five appeals, it will cost the ratepayers £50; if they win the case it will still cost the ratepayers £50. That is a scandalous waste of money. I think the Minister should look into the loose way in which prosecutions are instituted and legal actions are carried on by county councils and other bodies. Of course, the Minister will realise that, when I say that, I am doing something which is most injurious to my own interests and, naturally, would not do it unless I felt deeply about the matter.

There is another point. In quite a number of board of health areas, actions have been instituted against the board of health by the cottage tenants for damages for breach of agreement and they have recovered damages because the cottages were not being repaired by the local authority. These decrees in favour of cottage tenants have been obtained in District Courts throughout the country. What did the board of health do? Instead of repairing the cottages, several boards of health passed resolutions stating that, if cottage tenants institute proceedings to compel the board of health to repair the cottages, they will reply by serving notice to quit.

Unfortunately, if I am put in a position of having to defend a tenant of a board of health cottage who has got a notice to quit, and who has received an ejectment summons, I have no defence in law. It is no defence to say that the tenant has been put out through spite. If there is any board of health in these Counties of Limerick or Cork—and those are the only two areas where I can say it happened—so neglectful of its public duties that people can go into the court and get decrees for noncompliance with their legal obligations, and these boards of health retaliate by serving notice to quit, then the quicker the Minister abolishes these boards of health and puts in instead people who have an appreciation of their public duties, the better it will be for everyone.

I was glad that Deputy Murphy referred to the Minister's attitude to local bodies. On the one hand, legislation has been introduced which has taken away local powers and, on the other hand, there is a lot said in favour of parish councils. I do not find that so inconsistent at all, as I think that, of all the rotten systems instituted and developed here, the worst was the board of health system. What happened when the board of health system came into being was the old district councils, who were in the locality and had great local interest, disappeared. The board of health roughly covered the area of a parliamentary constituency, and eight or ten people represented the ratepayers, the poor people, and those receiving home assistance in the area. The functions thrown on that board of health meant that, instead of dealing with small local matters with which they should be dealing, they went in once a month to the council meetings and, after three months in office, they were met with an agenda that would take five years to catch up with. In fact, they never could catch up with it, and most of the county councils have not done so.

If there is any good in the parish council system, I hope we will see the re-establishment of the old rural district councils. I think it was a fine system, and it was the most democratic there ever was here. There are a number of people in this country who would give valuable public service but who could not possibly afford to be county councillors or even afford to be T.D.s. Those people were quite prepared to give their time and service on a local authority, provided it was in their own immediate area. A lot of good people were taken out of public life in this country by reason of age and circumstances when rural district councils were abolished. I do not believe that the people who came in to the boards of health instead were any great improvement.

Deputy Murphy also mentioned that the Minister had treated the Cork County Council badly when he refused to sanction an increase to the road workers and suggested an increase to a highly-paid official. I cannot understand on what basis increases are given to public officials. A case has been made here to-night that, in the rural hospitals, which were supposed to give complete medical service in rural areas, in fact the medical service there did not go much further than drawing a tooth or an operation for tonsils.

There is one exception in Cork County and that is the Fermoy Hospital. The doctor there has performed as many major operations in any given year as any private surgeon in Cork City. The North Cork Board of Health is sick and tired sending resolutions begging the Minister to sanction an increase in that man's salary. If that man were given 25 per cent. of the amount he would be earning in private practice, he would be getting ten times his present salary. There are people—and not people representing the North Cork area—who know the services that man has given to the poor, voluntarily and for a small salary, equal to what any ten doctors would be doing in other areas. The Minister must know about the position in that case.

Time and again, the board of health have asked that that man's salary be increased and time and again that has been refused. If the Minister would just put this query to the four representatives of North Cork here in the Dáil—the two on the Government Benches and the two on the Fine Gael Benches—and ask us individually what we know of that man's services to the community, everyone would tell him that that man has done more for the medical services in a year than any ten other doctors. There is certainly no incentive to a first-class man to give work of that kind unless he is adequately compensated for his services.

There is another thing I wish to mention. In this case I am not quite sure if it is the Department or the local authority that is at fault. If you question the Department they always blame the local authority and vice versa. It seems to me that there is generally a long interval between the time that somebody drops out of a job and the time the job is filled. Take the question of a county surveyor for Cork County. The last county surveyor died and that office was vacant for a considerable time. Perhaps the members of the Cork County Council in this House could explain why the position has not been filled, or perhaps the Minister could explain. At the moment, the work is divided between two assistant county surveyors.

Under the Local Government Act of 1925 nobody but a county surveyor is entitled to do certain acts and he is not entitled to delegate those powers. It is rather peculiar that, in that Act, in the case of urban authorities prosecutions, notices and so on are served in the name of the local authority and in the case of the county council they are served in the name of the county surveyor and, if there is not a county surveyor in the county, it cannot be done. I do not know what the legal position is, but would point out to the Minister that it has already given rise to serious litigation in the area and if litigation starts on a point like that some other technical point will be raised on other occasions and it may involve the local authority in heavy expenses before it is decided.

The same position applies to the county law officer in Cork. That position has been vacant for a very considerable period. I believe it has now reached a point where it is going to the Local Appointments Commission. At one period it seemed as if the Cork County Council was going to make the appointment. I am delighted to know they are not and that it is going to the Local Appointments Commission because I approve of the principle of the Local Appointments Commission and I reserve my right to criticise the appointment when it is made. I seriously suggest that it is not good principle to have a position like the law officer for a local authority which has the handling of something like £750,000 in a year held in abeyance for a year or two. I believe the quicker an appointment of such an important nature is made the better.

Last year the Minister was shocked and horrified when I criticised the building of labourers' cottages in the country and he was very much surprised that labourers' cottages were being built throughout the country without any back door. He practically told us, by way of interjection on that debate, that he could hardly imagine that was possible until Deputy Nally told him that such was the case in his own constituency. I wonder did the Minister look into that position since last year, because every cottage that has been completed since, to my knowledge, within a reasonable distance of where I reside, has been built without any back door. The man who invented that plan or who allowed that plan to be inflicted on the unfortunate people living in those cottages did not deserve the qualification of engineer or architect. The Minister should realise that it means that people are bringing turf and everything else into those cottages through the front door, into the living room, instead of by the back door. It is most uncomfortable and certainly ridiculous.

Another complaint I had last year as regards my own area was the famous, recurring question of the Mallow Hospital. I am delighted to say that the Mallow Hospital is now functioning beautifully. But no thanks are due to the Minister or to the North Cork Board of Health because, having been built for three or four years, and standing idle at the side of the railway line, it was opened this year by the Department of Defence. The Department of Defence marched in a complete staff of doctors and nurses with ambulances and operating tables and they are doing quite well. But if the Department of Defence had not walked in, between the Minister and the North Cork Board of Health, that place would be a white elephant for the Lord knows how long. I understood that the reason for not using the hospital was that certain parts, nurses' quarters and garages, had not been built. If that was so, it was entirely wrong because, first of all, unless the plan was complete the Minister should not have allowed nine-tenths of that big building to go up and be left lying there derelict. If the board were at fault they should have been made do their job. It was certainly not edifying to the ratepayers and the people who sought better medical treatment in the area to see this magnificent building standing idle for the past few years.

I can tell the Minister there is quite a number of people there who feel that it would have been just as well and of much more advantage to the ratepayers if the hospital had been staffed, even though it had not been fully completed, for the benefit of the ratepayers. The medical staff which could have been put in there would have been able to carry on their work just as efficiently as the military officers are now carrying on. I believe the military who are there now say that the hospital is one of the finest they were ever in. They are perfectly satisfied with the equipment. It seems to me a terrible scandal that it was left idle for a few years until the Department of Defence discovered that waiting for them in Mallow was an hospital able to cater for the entire needs of the Munster Command of the Army.

There is one very serious position in regard to cottages. A number of contractors entered into contracts with various boards of health immediately prior to or just after the outbreak of war. Owing to the usual delays that took place in public bodies, between sanction and everything else, these contracts were not started until the war was advanced and the contractors had to complete their contracts at a time when the cost of the materials they had to buy had risen very high compared with pre-war prices. I understand that it is under active consideration in the Department as to whether these people would be entitled to get any compensation for the added costs or not. I think they have a very strong case. Assume that an estimate was made by a board of health engineer in the month of August, 1939, for 18 cottages. Some time in the month of October, 1939, those cottages were advertised. The tenders were based on the specifications made on pre-war prices. Owing to delay in sanction and everything else, the work was not started until some time last year and not completed until the autumn of last year. But these people had to carry out the contracts at the price they contracted for. Some of these contracts were actually signed pre-war.

I will give the Minister an instance now of particular hardship. One contractor entered into a contract to build 12 or 14 cottages for the North Cork Board of Health at pre-war price. He discovered that he was not able to carry out the contract and dropped it. The board were in this position, that the walls of the cottages had been built but there were no roofs on them. The board then had the remedy of bringing that man's guarantors into court and taking their legal rights against them. What happened was that one of the guarantors decided to carry out the contract himself and he completed the cottages to the satisfaction of the board and to the satisfaction of the Department's engineers.

That man completed the cottages at a time that was six months later than they should have been completed normally if the original contractor had completed his contract and even though that man could have been used and might have been compelled by the court to pay damages for the non-completion of the original contract, his taking over the contract meant that the board of health got their cottages finished, the tenants are now in them, and he saved them a lot of expense. Even though he was saving his own skin at the same time, he saved them a lot of litigation. Certainly I think that man ought to be considered when the question of giving some compensation for the rise in prices is being examined. I believe the board of health estimate that in the case of a cottage where the contract was based upon pre-war prices a sum of £25 per cottage should be allocated. I know of my own knowledge that that would be a very small sum, although the contractors would be satisfied to take it. I know the sum of £25 would not repay the loss they sustained by reason of the fact that they had signed contracts at pre-war prices and, owing to delays in sanction, bad weather and everything else, they had to complete the contracts when the cost of the material had greatly increased.

There is one other point as regards contracts which I can never understand. It is assumed that a building scheme or sewerage scheme or some scheme of that nature is being carried out by a local authority. The Department's engineers or the local authority's engineers estimate the cost of that scheme. We will say they fix it at £1,000. The contract is then advertised and tenders are received. Generally, the local authority takes the lowest tender. I have known cases recently where the lowest tender has been far lower than the Department's estimate. I think that is a very bad policy because, if the Department's engineers or the local authority's engineers know their job, the figure they give must be a reasonable figure, allowing for the cost of material, the duration of the contract and the wages paid, and if a man is prepared to take a contract at a considerably lower figure than their estimate, it would suggest that the work is scamped or that proper wages are not paid.

Not necessarily.

If the board of health engineers know their job—I qualify my statement by that—and their figure is a correct one——

That is right.

——and a person takes a contract at a figure substantially lower than their estimate, either he is scamping the work or paying lower wages. There is no other explanation. I say it has given rise to a type of contractor in this country who is of no benefit to the board of health or to the country. I do not know exactly how to describe him. He is not a carpenter; he is not a tradesman; he is not a mason; very often he is not even a good handyman; but, because he thinks it is an easier way of living than to work for an employer, he blossoms forth into a contractor. He and four or five friends are prepared to cut contract prices and, as I believe, count their own time for nothing if they get £5 out of the job. It may be a way of getting the work done more cheaply, but I do not think it is a good principle, and I believe that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health should make a survey with regard to the contractors for such works in this country and find out what was being done and whether they were paying proper wages. Then, if the Minister was satisfied that the engineer's estimate of, say, £1,000, was correct, he could advertise the contract for tender. He could take the lowest tender, provided that he was satisfied that the conditions would be observed; and if there were a number of reputable contractors prepared to do the work at that estimate, I do not see why their names should not be put into a hat, so to speak, and drawn from the hat. Any member of a board of health must be aware of the number of alleged contractors, of the type I have referred to, who grew up suddenly as a result of the various building schemes, and who collapsed just as quickly. Members of various boards of health have had sad experience of that type of contractor, and I hold that there is a sufficient number of reputable contractors in the country, whose interests should be considered.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of the collection of rates. Actually, one of the most serious acts of an officer of a local authority, that I am aware of, was what was done by certain rate collectors of the Cork County Council with regard to the payment of rates. Everybody knows that when the rates are struck and announced by any local authority the first moiety is due on the 31st March and the second moiety is due on the 1st October, but everybody also knows that under the old system the first moiety was always collected before the 31st September, and the second moiety was collected some time about the following 31st March. That gave the ratepayers a reasonable chance of making their payments, and it also gave the rate collectors reasonable time for closing their books. To my own knowledge, however, the rate collectors in the case I am referring to issued printed notices to this effect: "You will have to pay your first moiety by the end of September and the second moiety in October." The first moiety is usually due in the beginning of September and the second moiety is paid in March, but the rate collectors were asking for the first moiety on the 1st September and the next in October. I might inform the Minister that I know of one case where a ratepayer was served with a summons in this connection and brought before a district justice, and the district justice said to the ratepayer: "I am sorry for you, but the law is the law, and the second moiety is due after the 1st October." The district justice expressed his compassion for the man concerned, but had to follow out the law, even though he pointed out that that was not the usual practice. Now, I say that any rate collector who uses his authority in that way should be sacked, because 90 per cent. of the people in rural areas are good ratepayers and they have always been in the habit of paying the first half of their rates before the 30th September and the second half on the 31st March, and, as a matter of fact, they always got a rebate for doing so. I think it is a scandal that an officer of a local authority should use his powers to insist on people doing what would impose a hardship on these people. Every country Deputy knows, as well as I do, that there will be hundreds of farmers in a particular area who will have half the moiety in their pockets in September, but will not have the second half until the 31st March. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter with a view to seeing that people should not be asked to pay the second moiety until the time they have been in the habit of paying it, and that the second moiety should not be demanded as it has been in the case to which I am referring.

With regard to this question of allotments, I recently put down a question to the Minister in connection with the giving of an allotment to the wife of a serving soldier, and I mentioned a particular case. The man concerned was serving in the Army, and the Minister undertook to see that the local authority would give the necessary facilities, but I see that, in answer to a question to-day by Deputy Everett, the Minister stated that the wife of a certain man, now in the Defence Forces, was asked to pay £3 for an allotment.

No, it was £1 4s. 8d.

Yes. Well, I think it is unreasonable that when an unemployed man took over a plot at a nominal rent of 1/- and has afterwards joined the forces, his wife should be asked to pay that money. The wife is in an entirely different position, since her husband is in the Army, and she would probably have to get somebody to till or work that plot for her. I think that the wives of serving soldiers who get allotments from rural or urban authorities should be treated in the same way as their husbands were before they joined the forces. The parish councils and local authorities do not seem to know what the position is. It is not easy to get allotments near a country town, but some of these lands are being let in conacre already, but the position seems to be that although the parish councils would like to provide allotments for the people they have no power to do so. The local bodies have certain statutory powers, but the exercising of such powers would mean a considerable delay, and that would mean that the allotments would be useless so far as this year is concerned. I wonder would the Minister consider doing something that would authorise boards of health or local authorities, generally, to acquire land compulsorily for allotments? At least, something should be done in that connection, because the local authorities, with all the goodwill in the world, if they cannot get such lands voluntarily, will not be able to acquire them compulsorily without a long delay. I do not know whether the parish councils could deal with this matter of allotment schemes in another way, and perhaps it would not give as good a result. I know of cases of parish councils, the members of which went around to farmers and asked the farmers concerned if they were prepared to give one or two roods for allotments, and the farmers agreed to do so, but in some cases they might not agree. There are many farmers living within a reasonable distance of a country town who would be quite willing to give four or five roods of land for such a purpose, and that would mean the provision of extra work.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit to-morrow.

Deputy Hurley is to raise, on the adjournment, matters arising out of the Minister's reply to Question No. 19.

Top
Share