Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Oct 1943

Vol. 91 No. 10

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

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £523,460, 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, 1944, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and certain Services administered by that Office, 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 presume that the Supplementary Estimate will be discussed on the main Vote.

This is the first year in which the county management system has been in operation throughout the country, and the first in which the estimates for the local services in general have been framed and presented to the county and urban authorities by managers. It is gratifying to find that, with one or two exceptions, the local bodies, when considering these Estimates, have acted in the spirit in which the County Management Act was conceived, and dealt with them in a serious and responsible way.

The House, of course, is familiar with the fact that the County Management Act of 1940, whilst relieving the elected bodies of responsibility for the details of the local administration, preserves to them full financial control. This pre-supposes that this control will be exercised reasonably and intelligently; that on the one hand the local authorities will not commit themselves to wild schemes or extravagant expenditure, and, on the other, that they will make due provision for the maintenance of the essential county services. It was not contemplated that any local authority would exercise that control in an arbitrary and irresponsible fashion. Not alone was such a proceeding not to be thought of but it could not be tolerated, for, if it were, the whole system of local government in the area concerned would be brought to ruin, to the detriment, of course, of the community as a whole. Accordingly, where an elective body continues to refuse to make proper provision for the maintenance of the local services there can be no other choice but to dissolve it in order to ensure that the services and properties of the local authority and of the local community concerned will be properly preserved. I have a great reluctance to take such a drastic step, even though it prove eventually to be unavoidable, for I firmly believe that in this country the elected bodies are an essential element in any system of municipal or local government. They embody the principle of popular control, and that is a principle which, in my opinion, we must do everything possible to maintain.

Elected bodies, however, will be effective instruments of government only so long as their members recognise that the powers vested in them are of such far-reaching consequences that they must be exercised with good sense, discretion and providence. Much damage, much hardship, may be occasioned by the misuse of such powers, and therefore, when the members of a local authority do misuse them, and in doing so manifest that as individuals they are not fit to be entrusted with them, there is no option, so far as the Minister who is responsible for the local government of the country is concerned, but to deprive them of their office and of the opportunities for injuring the community which that office affords.

A local authority exists for the purpose of ensuring that the affairs of the local community are administered with efficiency and integrity. No community can ask for more than that, and no elected body can discharge a higher public duty than to ensure that those whom it represents get that. If it does that it is not necessary for its members to immerse themselves in the details of the day-to-day administration of the local services, or interfere with the executive functions of this or that officer, or spend hours, as has been known, wrangling about the remuneration of this or that employee, or in trying to wangle this or that protégé into a particular post. That is not the way to give the people good local government. On the contrary, the members of the local authorities should remain aloof from all this, and interfere as little as possible with their officers and employees. They should ask no favours from them and concede them none. They should say: there is one officer, the manager, whose job it is to give our people the best local service it is in his power to provide, and it is our job to see that he does it. The elected members of local authorities should formulate policy, they should think out solutions for local problems, they should discuss such problems with the manager, they should give him all the knowledge and information they have regarding them, and then they should rely on him to produce results. If, after due time, he fails in that they have their remedy. They can consider whether his failure is such as to warrant his removal from office. If in their view it is desirable, they can proceed under Section 6 of the County Management Act and suspend him with a view to his removal.

The two powers I have mentioned, the power to suspend the manager, should this be necessary, and the power to refuse supplies, alone would make the elected body the governing authority in the local government of the community. But elected bodies have other powers which are supplementary to these and which are designed to strengthen and reinforce the position of the elected representatives of the ratepayers as the controlling element in local government. For instance, an elected body can ask for a sworn inquiry into any aspect of the manager's administration, and, in my view, a request for such an inquiry, if made with any show of reason to support it, could not be refused. A demand vexatiously made for the purpose of intimidating a manager in the proper exercise of his functions would, of course, be quite another matter. Then, again, under Section 19 of the Act, the county manager must act by signed order and must keep a register of every order he makes. This register must not only be produced at every meeting of the elected body to which it refers, but any member of the body in question is entitled, on demand, to be furnished with a copy of any particular order which the manager has made. Moreover, whenever an elected body, or the chairman of such body, acting himself, requests him to do so the manager is bound under Section 27 of the Act to give all the information he may have in his possession regarding any matter or transaction appertaining to the business of the local authority.

The facilities, therefore, which members of a local authority have for informing themselves about all the actions of the manager are of the most comprehensive kind. They can know everything he does from meeting to meeting. They can either by majority vote or, as I have mentioned, at the request of the chairman, require the manager to give them all the information in his possession in relation to any matter, business or transaction relating to the local authority in which the manager has engaged, and, if necessary, as I have pointed out, they can request an investigation upon oath into any or all of these things. There is no doubt, therefore, that so far as supervision of the manager in the discharge of his functions is concerned, an elected body lacks neither the power nor authority to function effectively, though some members may sometimes be wanting in the wisdom and the will to recognise how real and substantial their powers are in this regard.

But the council's power under the County Management Act is not confined merely to supervision of the manager; it can direct him as well. Under Section 29 it can pass a resolution requiring the manager to do any particular act, matter or thing specifically mentioned in such resolution; and, on the passing of the resolution in due form, the manager, if the direction is one which he can lawfully execute, and if the money has been duly provided by the elected body for the purpose, must do as the resolution requires. It is true that there are certain matters in regard to which the manager is not subject to direction. These are the control, supervision and remuneration of the officers and employees of the local authority; the giving or withholding of public assistance to or from any particular individual; and the initiation, conduct, continuance or discontinuance of a prosecution against any particular person. It will be admitted, I think, by those who have experience, that such experience has sometimes shown that these reservations are essential if the purpose of the Act is to be attained. The purpose of the Act is to give our people a local administration which, while being subject to the general direction and supervision of the elected representatives of the ratepayers, will be efficient, honest and impartial.

Again, under Section 26 of the Act, an elected body may, at any time, by resolution require the manager to prepare and submit plans, specifications and estimates for the execution of any particular work specified in such resolution, provided that the work in question is one which it would be lawful for the body concerned to execute. Wide powers, furthermore, are reserved to an elected body as a planning authority under the Town and Regional Planning Acts, for the making and submission of planning schemes, and, as a housing authority, under the Housing Acts. Finally, if all this does not offer sufficient scope for the creative energies and critical faculties of any particular council, the Minister for Local Government may direct that certain functions and duties, not specifically reserved to it under the Second Schedule of the County Management Act, may be executed and performed directly by the council and not by the manager. I think it may be presumed that any request by an elected body to the Minister to make an Order of this kind would be very carefully and sympathetically considered by him. All this again goes to show that members of any local authority who confine themselves strictly to their own proper functions and exercise them in the spirit of the County Management Act render great civic service and carry public responsibilities of the highest order.

That is not, of course, to say that there are not adjustments to be made, to ensure a smoother and more effective working of the managerial system, but I am convinced that they are personal adjustments of temper and temperament rather than legislative. I know, of course, that while some elected members may be unreasonable and obstructive in their attitude towards managers, some managers, on the other hand, are too arbitrary in their approach to the councils. That, I can assure the House, is not a line which will receive any countenance or support from me. I shall stand behind the managers in the proper exercise of their statutory functions, but I will not condone, nor expect members of an elected body to tolerate any incivility, lack of respect or act of usurpation on the part of the manager. It is the duty of the manager to work harmoniously with his council, and while doing his duty, fearlessly, an efficient manager should be able to secure from all its members that assistance and co-operation which I am sure no public spirited citizen would refuse him.

That co-operation, I feel, however, will be the more readily forthcoming if county managers confine themselves strictly to their own job. In my view that job affords sufficient scope for all their abilities, and for its proper discharge would demand all the attention of even the most capable. I am saying this because I have noticed a tendency on the part of one or two individuals to seek the limelight in this or that organisation in a way which, to my mind, does not become a public servant, and which I have reason to believe does not meet with general acceptance. It is certainly not proper for a county manager to utilise staffs, buildings, or other resources of local authorities to do work, even social work, which is already being done or could be better done by existing organisations with special experience in it. In short, a wise county manager will realise that it is as good for him as for the cobbler to stick to his last. I know that practically every county manager sees the wisdom of this, and I hope, therefore, that the very few exceptions will not make it necessary for me or any other Minister for Local Government to have to point this out again. Otherwise the matter may have to be dealt with statutorily.

I have dwelt on this problem of the managerial principle as applied to local administration because of the concerted attempts which have been made to decry the practical value and advantages of the new system. There has been a great deal of clamour to get rid of it and to revert to the old position in which under the stress of modern conditions local administration was tending to break down altogether. I think there has been more sound than sense in that clamour, and the general public has been quite unmoved by it. If the issue were to be put to the electorate to-morrow, as to whether the managerial principle should be abandoned or be retained, I have no doubt there would be an overwhelming majority for its retention.

As well as the County Management Act other important legislative enactments for which the Minister for Local Government is responsible became operative during 1942. I refer to the Public Assistance Act, 1939, and the Local Government Act, 1941. In addition the regulations which, as Minister, I made under the first of these Acts also came into force. These regulations were the Public Assistance (General Regulations) Order, 1942, the Public Assistance (Medical Assistance in Dispensary Districts) Order, 1942, and the Public Assistance (Acquisition of Land) Regulations, 1942.

As a result of the new legislation the councils of the counties are now the public assistance authorities in every case, with the exceptions of Waterford City and County, where the public assistance authority is the Waterford Board of Public Assistance; Cork City and South Cork rural area, where the public assistance authority is the South Cork Board of Public Assistance; Limerick County Borough, where the public assistance authority is the Limerick Corporation; and Dublin City and County, where the public assistance authorities are the Dublin, Balrothery and Rathdown Boards of Assistance. In all cases the councils, except in respect of reserved functions, act through the county managers.

The Public Assistance Act, 1939— perhaps I should say for the benefit of Deputies who were not in the House when it was passed—amends and modernises the law relating to public assistance, and replaces the Poor Relief Acts 1838 to 1914, and the county schemes adopted in pursuance of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923. The Act provides that the administration of public assistance shall be subject to the general direction and control of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Subject to such general direction, the administration of the Acts is now the responsibility of the county managers.

On 11th January, 1943, I made an Order relating to minor offices under the local authorities. The effect of the Order is that while Ministerial sanction is required to any permanent increase in the number of scheduled offices, appointments to existing offices may be dealt with by the manager without reference to the Minister, subject, however, to the observance of certain general conditions governing the maximum rate of remuneration, suitability of the appointee, etc. The appointment of substitutes for holders of existing offices who may be absent owing to illness, suspension or other cause, or while the office is vacant pending a permanent appointment, may be made similarly by the manager. Where a major office is concerned, the managers are no longer required to seek sanction for the employment as a substitute of any person who has been previously appointed with the Minister's unconditional approval as a substitute to such office or another office of the same class, whether under the same or another local authority, provided, of course, that the approval in question has not been modified or withdrawn, and provided further that the remuneration of the substitute does not exceed the rate last paid to any substitute in that particular office.

These changes represent a high degree of decentralisation of the local government administration. They should enable managers to deal expeditiously with minor vacancies on their staffs as they occur. In connection with them, it has been impressed upon the managers that they must carry full responsibility for seeing that persons previously employed with the Minister's express sanction continue to be fit persons to be employed, and they are further bound to satisfy themselves as to the health of persons permanently appointed to minor offices.

The actual expenditure of local authorities on the maintenance of roads for the year 1942-43 amounted to £1,343,854, of which £580,861 was in respect of main roads and £762,993 in respect of county roads. These figures show a substantial reduction on the figures for 1939-40 and 1940-41. In the latter year, the total expenditure was £1,615,493, of which £790,000 odd was spent on main roads and £825,000 odd on county roads. In the main, the reduction in expenditure was due to a shortage of materials. The employment given on road construction and road maintenance has always been an important item in the rural economy, and the natural reaction of the reduction in expenditure has been to reduce the employment usually afforded on these works by approximately 24 per cent., that is to say, from an average monthly figure of 16,112 men employed in the year 1940-41 to an average monthly figure of 12,315 men employed in 1942-43.

The rate collection for the financial year ended 31st March last amounted to 86.3 per cent. of the total warrant as compared with 78.4 per cent. for the previous financial year. I am glad to say that the improvement has been well maintained in the present year, and, if continued, should contribute to secure a general reduction in the demand which will have to be made upon the individual ratepayers. During the year there was a substantial expansion in the number of allotments provided for unemployed persons, the figure under this head being 21,594 as against 19,893 for the preceding year. In addition to the plots tilted by persons who are in receipt of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance, or other form of public help. 4,322 plots were tilled by persons who were in a position to pay the full economic rent. If we take the produce of an average allotment as being worth approximately £12, food to the value of £300,000 was produced in 1942 under the local authorities' allotments schemes.

Schemes for the distribution of free milk to necessitous children under five years of age were continued in all areas, with the exception of one urban district, as were also schemes for the distribution of special allowances in kind to recipients of home assistance. School meals continue to be provided in the four county boroughs, 43 urban districts and 11 towns under town commissioners, and the average daily number of children in these areas who benefited thereby was 45,934. In addition, school meals were provided in 300 schools in the Gaeltacht, at which the average daily attendance was 15,220. The House will note that the provision in the Estimate for the current year for this service has been increased by £26,000. This, with the corresponding contribution from local authorities, is intended to supplement the former provision of milk and bread by the addition of an extra quantity of milk and butter and cheese.

I come now to the public health side of the Department, and as in the case of local government, I intend to refer only in a general way to the broader and larger problems with which we have to deal. I shall begin by quoting some statistics which present the whole situation in epitome, and, in my opinion, present it truly, neither colouring it with undue optimism nor darkening and distorting it with undue pessimism. The statistics to which I refer are the vital statistics for the year 1942, the figures for births, deaths and marriages, supplemented by the figures for maternal mortality, maternity mortality and infant mortality, over that period. These figures represent a summing up and final accounting for the year of the nation's gains and losses in the battle with death and disease.

A great deal of publicity has been given recently to highly-coloured statements relating to certain aspects of the public health. In consequence, I fear, the community has become seriously concerned at the implied deterioration in the general health and physical condition of the population. People have heard and read so much that is undoubtedly disquieting about the spread of this or that disease, since the war produced our present abnormal conditions, that there is some danger that there may be created a general psychological malaise which, we may be certain, will not diminish the exceptional difficulties which are now being encountered in maintaining the general health of the community. By all means we ought to do everything we possibly can to combat disease, but let us not, by being alarmist and sensasational about it, only increase the danger of it.

The figures which I am going to quote, the vital statistics for the Twenty-Six Counties, should do much to allay some of the undue apprehension which has been created. At the same time I should warn the House that the figures are not to be taken as a reason for complacency—indeed, there are certain aspects of the situation, to which I shall later refer, which leave no room for complacency whatsoever. But the vital statistics, at any rate, do present a balanced picture, and they should enable us to take a balanced view of our problems, and it is only when this is done that, bringing reason and judgment to bear, we can make any progress towards their solution. Let me come, however, to these important figures and what they reveal.

The number of marriages registered in 1942 was 17,470. This is an increase of 2,449 on the figure for 1941, and is higher by 2,922 than the average annual number for the decennial period 1931 to 1940. It represents, in fact, the greatest number of marriages registered in this country in any year since 1878, that is, the greatest number of marriages for the past 65 years. In 1878, moreover, the population was larger than it is to-day, so that, if a comparison is to be made, the proper basis for it is the marriage-rate then and in 1942. Then it was 4.59 per 1,000 of the population, but the rate for last year was no less than 28.5 per cent. higher than this, and at 5.9 per 1,000 was the highest ever recorded in this country.

It is a natural transition from a consideration of the marriage-rate to a consideration of the birth-rate. Here again we have a very gratifying result to record, for the number of births registered in 1942 was 9,337 greater than in 1941, and 9,043 higher than the average for the decennial period 1932-41. At 66,117 it was equivalent to a birth-rate of 22.31 per 1,000 of the estimated population. This is the highest rare recorded since 1914, when the birth-rate was 22.35. Our figure for the crude birth-rate may be compared with the 1942 figures of 22.8 for Northern Ireland, 15.8 for England and Wales, and with the 1938 figures of 19.7 for Germany, and 15.6, 20.6 and 14.6 for Belgium, the Netherlands and France, respectively.

I give these figures as a matter of interest only, and not because I attach undue importance to the crude birth-rate. The figure of ical significance, in fact, in this regard, is the net reproduction rate. This rate, as the House knows, expresses the prospect that the particular population for which it is calculated has of growing or declining, in so far as such prospect is conditioned by the birth-rate and the sex and age distribution upon which the calculation is based. When the net reproduction rate is 1 or unity, the population has been reproducing itself exactly. When it is less than unity the population has been failing to reproduce itself, and is likely to decline; on the other hand, when it is greater than unity, the population is likely to increase. Because the net reproduction rate is based upon past trends and upon values and habits as they prevailed during the period for which it was computed, it can only express the future trend of the population as a probability and not as a certainty. I want to make that point quite clear. It cannot make any allowance for changes in values or habits which may occur in the future, and therefore cannot take into account factors, other than fertility, mortality and sex-distribution, which may also influence the population trend considerably.

In 1937 the net reproduction rate was calculated at 0.782 for England and Wales, and 0.87 for France. For Germany in 1938 it was .945. For the Twenty-Six Counties, on the basis of births and deaths registered in the year 1942, it would be 1.39. It is possible that this figure is not very accurate because it is based on the number of births registered, and registrations in 1942 may have been in excess of the number of births which actually occurred during that year. For instance, the necessity for obtaining ration books may have led to prompter registration of the newborn. I think, however, the rate may be accurate enough to justify us in saying that during 1942 natural causes were operating in this country to produce an increase of over 30 per cent. in our population in about 30 or 40 years from now.

We may turn now to the other side of the account, the mortality record for 1942. The position here was not quite as satisfactory as in the case of marriages and births. Indeed, in the case of certain diseases the mortality was such as to cause us all serious concern. But on the whole, so far as the total number of registered deaths is concerned, 1942 compares favourably with most of the preceding years. The actual figure at 41,640 was 2,157 below the figure for 1941 and was the third lowest ever recorded in this country. The death rate, which was equivalent to 14.05 per 1,000 of the estimated population, was not only the lowest experienced since 1938, when the rate was the second lowest in our history, but was the fifth lowest recorded, whether in war or peace, since 1864. The number of deaths amongst children under one year of age was 4,591, the rate being 69 per 1,000 births, as compared with 74 per 1,000 for 1941. For Scotland the corresponding rate was 69 per 1,000 births and for Northern Ireland, 76. The rate of maternal mortality fell to 2.47 per 1,000 births, as against 3.2 in 1941, and was the lowest on record. A similar position was recorded in respect of general maternity mortality, that is, total deaths caused by or associated with pregnancy or childbirth. During 1942, these totalled 189, or 2.86 per 1,000 births, which was again the lowest on record. If we were to take the general death-rate—and I know no reason why we should not—as a comprehensive index of the health experience of the community, it could be argued that in this respect the year 1942, taken all in all, was among the best in our recent history. Certainly it was far better than anyone in September 1939 would have believed could be the case in the third year of a World War.

The vital statistics which I have given represent in broad view the vitality of our community. They show that last year our marriage-rate was the highest ever recorded; that our birth-rate was the highest recorded since 1914—almost a generation ago; that the death-rate was among the lowest in our history; and that the fertility of our people is such that, even with a death-rate equal to that recorded for last year, the present tendency is for our population to increase substantially. We need not qualify in any way this presentation of the first two of these statistical facts, but in regard to the third there is an aspect of the situation which is highly disturbing. I refer to the increased mortality which was recorded last year from certain diseases, to wit, cancer, tuberculosis, diarrhoea and enteritis, diphtheria and whooping cough. After tuberculosis, cancer was the most fatal of these diseases. Mortality from it showed a slight upward trend in the years 1940 and 1941. In those years 3,773 and 3,790 deaths respectively were recorded as due to it as against 3,738 for the year 1939. Last year, however, there was a steep rise in the mortality and the number, of deaths ascribed to the disease jumped to 4,055.

In the case of tuberculosis the number of deaths, though fluctuating from year to year, has had an upward tendency since 1939. From all forms of the disease the mortality recorded last year was 4,347, a figure which is to be compared with 3,711 for 1941, 3,685 for 1940 and 3,304 for 1939. Non-pulmonary tuberculosis was accountable for 835 deaths in 1942 as against 829 in 1941 and 778 and 687 in 1940 and 1939, respectively. It will be noted that these figures show a sharp upward trend. This tendency unfortunately was even more marked in the case of pulmonary tuberculosis, for here the number of deaths last year was 3,512 as against 2,882, 2,907 and 2,617 for 1941, 1940 and 1939, respectively. On the other hand —in view of the apparent sequential relation between the incidence of influenza and the mortality from tuberculosis—I ought to point out in passing that there was a very sharp decrease last year in the number of deaths from influenza as compared with previous years: the figures being 388 for 1942, as against 1,335 for 1941, 828 for 1940 and 1,091 for 1939. In 1942 the figure for influenza in fact was not only 947 less than for the preceding year, but was the lowest registered since 1889.

Numbering 1,000, deaths from diarrhoea and enteritis in persons under two years of age were 125 more than in 1941, 402 more than in 1940, and 42R more than in 1939. The increase in the mortality under this head has been particularly marked since 1940, for in 1941 the number of deaths in this category was 275 more than in the previous year when the number was 578. Yet a slight upward, trend in mortality had been experienced for some years before that, from 1934 in fact. In March, 1942, the Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Ward, summoned a conference of medical experts to consider the problem, and as a result an investigation to ascertain the reasons for the increased death-rate was initiated under the auspices of the Medical Research Council. The report of that investigation has now come to hand and is being studied. As I mentioned last year, the disease was made compulsorily notifiable early in 1942. The records which have been obtained since then show that in the main its incidence has been confined to Dublin City, in which during the last three-quarters of 1942, 2,656 cases were notified, as against 22 in Dun Laoghaire Borough, and 67 in Dublin County health district.

May I ask the Minister, before he passes from that, did the Medical Research Council assign any outstanding cause for the increasing incidence of the disease?

I would say not. I do not wish to express any opinion on the report because we have only received it within the last three or four weeks, but I can say that we have not been able to put our finger on the spot.

Another disease responsible for a greater number of deaths in 1942 than in 1941 was diphtheria, which showed a substantial increase both in morbidity and mortality. The number of cases notified totalled 2,853 as compared with 1,447 in 1941, while the number of deaths was 267 as against 165. I should mention, however, in this connection that the death-rates from diphtheria in 1941 were the lowest that had been recorded for urban districts since 1925 and for rural districts since 1913. But the feature which is of the greatest significance in relation to this disease, and which I wish to stress, is the fact that in ten counties where intensive immunisation was carried out in 1941 the aggregate mortality in 1942 fell by 50 per cent. compared with the previous year. On the other hand the main increases in cases and deaths from diphtheria occurred in the county boroughs of Cork, Dublin and Limerick and the districts adjoining. In these centres also arrangements for the free immunisation of children against the disease had been made and were widely advertised. Unfortunately they were not availed of as fully as they ought to have been, which is greatly to be deplored. For there is every reason to believe that if the immunisation of children had been effected in the county boroughs on the same scale as in the counties I have mentioned, the treatment would have been efficacious.

Whooping cough, a disease which some parents appear to consider as merely a minor ailment of childhood, and regard as unavoidable, was another infection which resulted in an increased number of deaths in 1942 as compared with 1941, the figures being 228 and 150 respectively. The average annual mortality from whooping cough in the five-year period 1931-1935 (inclusive) was 226, and for 1936-40 was 204; the peak for the ten years having been reached in 1932, when the deaths totalled 294.

In the case of typhoid fever, which was responsible for 58 deaths in 1942, as against 38 for the preceding year, outbreaks in rural areas were mainly responsible for the increased mortality. In the county boroughs, in fact, the aggregate number of cases was 21 less than the previous year. In the rural areas two of the chief outbreaks were in one county, one was traced to the contamination of milk by a typhoid carrier, and the other outbreak was attributed to a polluted water supply. Outside this county, however, there were only sporadic cases in certain districts, and in these the average number of cases was fewer than four.

One other disease manifested itself in epidemic form in 1942. Cases of acute anterior poliomyelitis, commonly called infantile paralysis, tend to occur every year, and so far as its first two quarters were concerned, 1912 gave no cause for alarm in this regard. From the beginning of September, however, cases of the disease began to be notified in increasing numbers, and on the 14th of that month a circular letter was addressed to each county medical officer of health drawing attention to the threatened danger, and urging that immediate steps be taken to provide for the prompt hospitalisation of any cases which might occur. Local authorities likewise were requested to secure the advice of expert orthopasdic surgeons, and to secure as well experienced masseuses in connection with the treatment of the patients. Three hundred and sixty-one cases of the disease were notified during 1942, and there were 75 deaths. During the first two quarters of the present year, 88 cases were notified, but since then the disease has considerably abated, the number of cases per month during the September quarter averaging only seven. In connection with the outbreak here, I may mention that the health section of the League of Nations in a recent report on the trend of the disease in certain European countries from 1939 to 1942, pointed out that this period was marked by a definite increase in the incidence of the disease culminating in a peak year and then decreasing.

From what I have said it will be seen that five specified diseases were responsible between them for 9,897 or almost 10,000 deaths last year, ranging in number from 228 in the case of whooping cough to 4,055 in the case of cancer, and 4,347 for all forms of tuberculosis. Between them these five diseases accounted for over 21 per cent. of the total number of deaths in 1942, and the mortality from them showed an increase of 1,206 as compared with a year earlier. Notwithstanding this, however, the figure for the general mortality from all causes, excluding violence, which in itself was responsible for an increase of 46 in the death roll, fell in 1942 by 2,203, as compared with the figure for 1911. In 1942, therefore, the number of deaths from all other causes than violence and the five diseases I have specified was actually 3,409 fewer than in 1941, and with the exception of 1934 was probably the lowest on record. The contract between this fact and the increase in mortality ascribable to five particular diseases must focus attention upon these maladies and raise a question as to why, when other diseases are becoming less frequent and less virulent, these five should be on the increase both in incidence and destructiveness. How is it, we may ask ourselves, that in a year in which deaths from heart-disease fell by 788 as compared with the previous year, deaths from cancer should have increased by 265, or that when deaths from influenza should have decreased by 947, deaths due to all forms of tuberculosis should have increased by 636?

This is the sort of question which is easy to put but difficult to answer. One of the matters which would first of all have to be settled is whether the fact that incidence and mortality have shown a substantial increase of broadly the same order of magnitude in five particular diseases is merely fortuitous, or whether, as it does suggest, there is a common causative factor to which some part at least of the increase in each case is to be ascribed. If we assume that there is a common factor, why does it operate, for instance, in the case of pulmonary. tuberculosis and not in the case of influenza? The more closely we try to investigate this question the more puzzling it becomes. For example, an endeavour has been made departmentally to elucidate why there was an increase last year in morbidity and mortality from tuberculosis generally. For this purpose an inquiry asking their opinions on the matter was addressed to the county and medical superintendent officers of health in the 31 areas involved. In general very detailed replies were received, and these have been the subject of careful study and analysis in the Department. They ascribe the increase to a number of causes. Some officers cite malnutrition due partly to a shortage in milk and fats as a probable cause. Others attach importance to the return to this country of persons infected with tuberculosis who were formerly resident in or employed in Great Britain or on military service there. Others speak of overcrowding aa an important factor. At least two replies are emphatic as to the role played by those discharged from the Irish Army on account of tuberculosis. Other county medical officers ascribe importance to the increased physical strain on weakly persons working on turf schemes and tillage and taking part in Local Defence Force exercises. Still others refer the increase to the non-co-operation of patients, or suggest that there is a more rapidly fatal form of the disease prevalent, or stress the migration of rural populations to the larger towns and cities consequent on the growth of industries as a possible cause, while several attach importance to mental strain due to the present abnormal conditions of living, as a causative factor. In this last-mentioned connection reference is made to the experience of neutral countries in this regard during the 1914-1918 war.

We see, therefore, that at least nine or ten possible causes have been put forward by 31 medical men of great experience as accounting for the increase in the disease during 1942. No doubt each and all of these may have contributed in some degree to bring it about. And yet when any one of the suggested causes is closely considered in the light of the facts, it is difficult to accept it as being the really significant factor in bringing about the sudden increase in morbidity and mortality which was experienced last year. There has been a marked increase in the incidence of the disease and the mortality therefrom in Dublin, for instance. And yet the consumption of milk and butter, especially among the very poor in Dublin, has increased considerably, particularly since 1939. Similarly, although house-building is not at all on the scale that it was prior to the outbreak of the war, and the consequent restriction of supplies which ensued thereon, nevertheless large housing schemes continue to be undertaken, mainly in Dublin, and more and more housing accommodation is being made available, so that overcrowding should not be nearly so marked as it was, say, ten years ago. In most rural areas in fact the solution of the housing problem has been so well advanced that, in them, it is scarcely necessary to consider general overcrowding as a causative factor at all.

Similarly, it is difficult to believe that the migration of the rural population to the larger towns and cities, consequent on the growth of industries, has not been considerably reduced since the outbreak of war in Europe. Indeed there is more reason to believe that the contrary trend has begun to assert itself; for not merely is there a decreasing demand for labour in urban areas, but there is an increased demand for labour in rural areas, in some of which it has been said there has been an actual shortage of labour. On the other hand, it is well known that, in 1939-1940, a great many people who had been previously resident in Great Britain returned to this country, and that many of these, in fact, had been under treatment for tuberculosis in Great Britain. There was a continued drift back of such persons to this country during 1941 and 1942, which no doubt was reflected in our morbidity and mortality figures for the latter year and in our figures of notified cases. Any increase thus arising, however, cannot be ascribed to existing living conditions here, for in such cases the disease originated abroad and was brought back here. It is also true that many men have been discharged from the Army as unfit by reason of tuberculosis and have contributed to swell the figures as well. Again, we know that many individuals have been exerting themselves much more strenuously than they were formerly accustomed to do, cutting turf, tilling the land, or taking part in the exercises of the various voluntary defence services. It is not unlikely that, in some instances, this unaccustomed heavy labour has brought to light many active cases of the disease which were hitherto unknown and these contributed, following aggravation, further to increase the figure for mortality.

The fact, however, that even men in the Army may suffer from tuberculosis and may ultimately be discharged because of it would seem to indicate that nutrition is not by any means as predominant a factor in the disease as is sometimes suggested. The rations in the Army are on a generous scale and include a liberal allowance of what are known as the protective foods. The men are well clad, well shod and well housed, have medical attention freely available, and lead regular, active, open-air lives. All these conditions are supposed to discourage the growth of the disease, yet it manifests itself in the Army just as it does in many comfortable, well-to-do families. On the other hand, the statistics show that tuberculosis increased in neutral countries during the 1914-1918 war, which would seem to indicate that, perhaps, mental strain tends to increase the incidence of the disease, as well as physical fatigue, dietary or environment. Otherwise, how can we account for the fact that, during the period in question, there was a marked increase in tubercular mortality in Spain and the Netherlands, and even in countries so remote from the scene of the conflict as Uruguay? The years 1914-1918 have been regarded as years of considerable prosperity and steady employment in this country; yet in the Twenty-Six Counties during that time there was an increase in the mortality from the disease, when the death-rate per 100,000 of the population rose from 205 in 1914 to 219 in 1915, 211 in 1916, 218 in 1917, and 212 in 1918.

Has the Minister any later figures?

Not just here, as I am dealing only with the war years.

Do they show an increase?

Yes. Whatever may be the cause of the marked increase in the disease, it is clear from all I have said that it is not capable of facile explanation. Only a searching investigation made by persons who can elicit and co-ordinate all the facts bearing on the matter is likely to throw any light on the problem. And it is quite possible that such an investigation would disclose that it is not merely a question of a lack of fats, or overcrowding, or exertion, or exposure, or mental strain, or even all of these combined, but of some new factor evoked or stimulated by the conditions of the emergency. But this is only surmise and, whether such a factor be there or not, we must utilise all means available to us to combat tuberculosis.

The first and most important advance which we can make in fighting tuberculosis is to overcome the reluctance to seek treatment which so many sufferers from it feel. In many cases, this reluctance is based on a mistaken belief that the disease is hereditary and incurable and may lead to social ostracism. It will take a prolonged and widespread educational campaign to change that outlook. The Irish Red Cross Society has already embarked on such a campaign. It is a task which that organisation, with its great prestige and widespread affiliations, is eminently fitted to undertake; and I must take this opportunity, therefore, to state publicly that I cordially welcome the society's co-operating with those other bodies who are particularly responsible for combating the disease. I am sure that its assistance in the task will be of immeasurable value to all concerned in preserving and improving the health of the community.

Although a great deal has been done, particularly by the local authorities, to make known the facilities which exist for the prevention and cure of the disease, the position in that regard is still unsatisfactory, for only a comparatively small proportion of the new cases notified are in the early stages of tuberculosis. It is of vital importance that the disease should be detected and treated at its onset, but the malady at this stage cannot be detected unless the sufferer submits to medical examination. Therefore, I want to emphasise that there is no need or justification for anyone who thinks he may need such an examination to delay in presenting himself for it, at, of course, the proper time and place. In all the county hospitals there are facilities for x-ray examination of patients, so that under the local tuberculosis schemes the means necessary for the detection of tuberculosis are available free of charge to any sufferer. It may be observed, in this connection, that the more generally these facilities are availed of the greater is likely to be the number of new cases coming under notice, until the vast bulk of existing but hitherto unnotified cases are brought under observation and treatment.

Most members of the Dáil, I am sure, have some knowledge of what is already being done to provide, not only dispensary and domiciliary treatment, but institutional treatment as well, for sufferers from tuberculosis. Having regard, therefore, to the time at my disposal I do not think it necessary to detail fully the provision which has been made, but I may say that on buildings and equipment alone approximately £600,000 has been spent since 1922; while the annual expenditure in maintaining the tuberculosis schemes of local authorities in operation has increased from £166,551 in 1932 to £249,685 in 1942. The House is aware, of course, that half of the approved expenditure by local authorities under these schemes is borne by the Exchequer. In the present year's Vote, the amount of the Exchequer contribution is, in fact, £211,450. This is an increase of £49,700 on the provision for last year.

Our great handicap in fighting the disease is the shortage of institutional accommodation, but within the limits imposed upon us by the shortage of materials and, of course, the state of our hospital finances, a factor which must not be overlooked, we are doing everything we possibly can to extend our resources in this regard. Extensions, for example, are about to be undertaken at Peamount Sanatorium which will provide 44 more beds; at Crooksling Sanatorium we hope to secure 28 additional beds; and at Teach Ultan Hospital 20 more. In County Galway arrangements are in progress for 80 additional beds, while at Rialto Hospital in Dublin, which has been taken over by the Corporation, a reconstruction scheme will give 61 extra beds and bring the total accommodation there up to 236.

Unfortunately, we are finding that the financial problems involved in providing additional institutional facilities for the treatment of tuberculosis are becoming every day more acute, as the demands of existing hospitals upon the Hospitals Trust Fund for provision to meet the deficits increase from year to year. The position has now been reached in which the moneys available will be quite inadequate to provide and equip the new institutions which are required so urgently, not merely for the treatment of tuberculosis but to meet general hospital needs. In consequence I cannot tell the House with any certainty that even if the emergency were passed and our normal peace-time economy restored, it would be possible for us, with our existing resources, to go ahead with the large constructional programme, which has not only been envisaged but in great part planned in detail. If the Hospitals Sweepstakes were again to become world-wide in scope and as successful as formerly, one could speak with some assurance in the matter. But in the light of a future which is completely veiled from us, we cannot express even the most tentative opinion as to how the financial problem which is involved in the provision of this additional institutional accommodation is to be resolved.

However, while we have not been able during the emergency to solve this problem of new construction in the large way in which it has been contemplated, we have nevertheless tried to do what we can to attack the problem in other ways, and here I ought to mention specially two recent developments. The first of these is the provision of special assistance for persons undergoing domiciliary or dispensary treatment or who have received sanatorium treatment. In this connection the local authorities have been asked to provide extra nourishment in the form of eggs, butter and milk for persons who are being, or who have been, treated for the disease, and who are unable to provide these protective foods for themselves. Local authorities have also been asked to provide facilities for the segregation in their own homes of tubercular patients, so as to avoid transmission of the disease to other members of the household. We have asked them, too, to supply, where necessary, at the public expense, separate beds and bedding tor such persons and, in the case of necessitous patients undergoing treatment in institutions, to supply suitable clothing outfits, such as underwear, overcoats, boots or shoes, so that they may be able to benefit fully from their stay there. To encourage the local authorities to do all this we are prepared to recoup 50 per cent. of the expenditure involved and due provision for that is made under sub-head N of the Vote.

The other matter I should mention relates to the therapeutic treatment of the disease. Deputies are doubt familiar with the fact that within the last few years the treatment of certain infectious diseases with drugs has been very successful indeed. It is possible therefore that in the case of tuberculosis combined and co-ordinated chemical and bacteriological study may yield good results. I am asking the House therefore by Supplementary Estimate to grant a sum of £3,000 to finance research on the chemo-therapy of tuberculosis which the Medical Research Council is prepared to initiate. While of course it is not possible to guarantee success in work of this kind the research may lead to the development of new methods of treatment. We shall, therefore, watch its progress with anxious impatience, but also I hope, with some appreciation of the difficulties which will attend the investigation.

I have already made passing reference to the difficulties which have been encountered in proceeding with our housing programme. Notwithstanding these, however, a substantial number of houses was built by local authorities during the year ended 31st March last. The actual number, 1,771, was not of course by any means as many as are necessary, nor as many as I would wish, but was substantial all the same. 768 of the houses were built in Dublin City, where a further 984 houses arc at present in course of erection. In addition a number of houses in Lower Gardiner Street are being reconditioned and converted into self-contained flats, each flat being provided with a wash basin and separate sanitary accommodation. I should say that this is a very welcome development because I think if the experiment turns out to be successful we shall overcome what I have always regarded as one of the disadvantages of new housing projects which weie undertaken in the centre of the city, that is, that we were destroying the characteristic architecture of the city. Any Deputy who likes to walk up Lower Gardiner St. and look at what has been achieved there in a short space of time and in a very economical way will be highly gratified. I think a great deal of credit is due to those who initiated the scheme and in particular to the City Manager, under whose auspices it was carried out.

The Dublin Corporation is continuing the policy of planning and developing sites for future housing schemes and land has been acquired and in fact developed for the erection of approximately 5,000 houses and 600 flat dwellings. In many cases indeed foundations have already been laid in anticipation of building operations. Furthermore, Compulsory Purchase Orders have been made and confirmed for the acquisition of land for the provision of approximately 4,600 further dwellings. Arrangements are well advanced, therefore, for the construction of 10,000 new dwellings in Dublin as soon as conditions permit normal building operations to be resumed.

A similar policy is being pursued in the other county boroughs. In Cork a new scheme of 79 houses is about to be undertaken and land has been acquired and developed for the provision of 110 houses. In Limerick City land has been acquired and developed for 326 houses. In Waterford the building of 22 houses is in progress. In other urban areas sites have been acquired and plans prepared for about 1,000 houses, while in rural areas arrangements are well advanced for the erection of approximately 2,500 houses. The general policy of the Department, in short, has been to press the local authorities to give special attention to the housing needs of their areas in connection with the schemes of public works which are being planned for execution when the war ends As a first step they have been asked to ascertain definitely the number of houses required and to select, and where possible acquire, suitable building sites. Should the need arise, the development of the sites can be undertaken even before building materials become generally available, and everything possible will be done in anticipation, so as to enable actual building operations to commence at the earliest moment possible.

Rural local authorities built 727 labourers' cottages during 1942-43, making a total of 22,283 such dwellings built by them since 1932. In the same 12 months 746 houses were built and 1,148 houses reconstructed by private persons and public utility societies. Up to the 31st March of this year the total number of houses built by all agencies under the Act was: local authorities, 49,241; private persons and public utility societies, 33,443; making a total of 82,684 houses. New housing accommodation has thus been provided for approximately 500,000 persons, while, under the reconstruction provisions of the Act the housing accommodation of 150,000 persons in 29,750 houses has been substantially improved. I may mention in this connection that it is proposed to extend for a further period the existing system of grants to private persons and public utility societies, and a Bill for this purpose is being introduced.

While I am on this question of houses may I refer to the quite erroneous idea which seems to prevail in some quarters that the work of providing an adequate number of homes for our people has been entirely suspended since the outbreak of war in 1939? Nothing indeed could be further from the facts, as the following figures will show: In the financial year 1940-41, 1,629 houses were built by local bodies in urban areas and 1,803 in rural areas. In 1941-42, 2,303 were built in urban areas and 1,144 in rural areas. In the present year the number erected was 1,044 in urban areas and 727 in rural areas, so that in the past three years there were erected by local bodies 8,650 houses. The Housing Act of 1932 encouraged individual effort in house building as well as building by local bodies. So to the houses built by the local authorities in the last three years we have to add those built by private persons and public utility societies. These numbered 4,386 and in addition there were 5,395 dwellings reconstructed. Altogether, therefore, 18,431 homes have been provided or reconstructed under the Housing Acts since September, 1939. In the conditions which have prevailed during that period no reasonable person would deny that the progress achieved has been very creditable indeed.

Most Deputies are aware that when supplies of coal for domestic purposes were drastically restricted about two years ago and eventually cut off, the county surveyors were enlisted by the late Turf Controller and Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Hugo Flinn, to assist him in his task of producing turf to meet, so far as it was possible to do so, the deficiency. Thanks to the energy and vigour with which, at the sacrifice of his health, and I suppose I may say his life, that great and magnificent Irishman set about his task, not only were our immediate needs provided for, but there is now every prospect that we shall be able to maintain our domestic supplies for the duration of the war. We owe that almost assured position to the late Hugo Flinn. It is a legacy which he has left to the community, the fruit of a devoted service that leaves us all indebted to him.

In his task as Turf Controller, Mr. Flinn was very effectively served by the county surveyors and the engineering staff of my Department, who were for the time being at his disposal, and no one could be more warm in his appreciation of their services than he was. Consequent upon his lamented death, however, and the appointment of a new controller, the responsibilities involved in turf production and distribution have been more clearly demarcated. Thus it has become the specific function of my Department to see that the county surveyors and their staffs in the several turf areas produce the respective quotas of turf allotted to them by the Turf Controller and transfer it from the bogs to specified places on the adjacent public roads. When he has delivered the requisite quantity of good quality turf to the points in question the responsibility of the county surveyor under my Department ceases, as does also the responsibility of my Department in regard to him as a turf producer.

The total expenditure up to the 30th September last on turf production schemes was approximately £2,987,896, and the receipts £1,788,843, leaving a debit balance of approximately £1,200,000. At that date 1,211,246 tons had been disposed of by county councils, of which 756,407 tons had been sold to Fuel Importers, 287,643 to local authorities and 167,196 to other purchasers. As regards the quantities of turf still on the bogs, the tonnage was reckoned at about 200,000. Adding the quantities already disposed of, the produce of the three years' programme may at this stage be taken as around 1,400,000 tons.

The arrangements for determining the price of turf supplied to Fuel Importers, Ltd., provide for the fixing of an interim price pending the ascertainment of the final charge when the total quantity of turf has been disposed of and the total expenditure fully examined. In the majority of the counties production costs for 1941 and 1942 have been finally determined, but it does not follow that a full liquidation of the overdraft position will result immediately. As long as new expenditure on production is accruing the overdrafts must be continued. They are regarded as of the nature of working capital. In order, however, to obviate any possibility of misunderstanding in the matter I should like to stress that though the overdrafts are ostensibly the responsibility of the county councils, they in fact run practically no risk in regard to them in so far as turf produced for export is concerned. For the Government guarantee against loss is explicit in its terms to cover all reasonable expenditure incurred by county councils on turf production for use outside their own counties. Only wilful and culpable dereliction on their part would impose any real liability on them.

The greater turf-producing and exporting counties are Galway, Roscommon, Clare, Kerry, Laoighis, Offaly, Westmeath, Longford and Donegal. In the counties of Cork, Leitrim, Sligo, Meath, Tipperary, Limerick and, possibly, Wicklow, the production about meets the local needs. In the remainder of the counties production is less than local requirements.

What is the average production cost?

I cannot give that. In July last the total number of men employed in turf production under the county surveyors was 22,000. Practically all bog roads require continuous maintenance and last year the cost of such maintenance and of new bog development works was met under sub-head G of the Special Emergency Schemes Vote. This year, however, sub-head U of the Vote for Local Government and Public Health provides £94,000 for grants to local authorities for road and other works designed to facilitate the production of turf. This is the first year in which such provision is included in this Vote.

Since it is customary to take the other Estimates, such as National Health Insurance and Widows' and Orphans' Pensions, for which my Department is responsible, with this Vote, perhaps I may briefly refer to them before I conclude. The estimate for National Health Insurance is £327,687. It includes a sum of £278,000 for Exchequer grants for health benefits, of which a sum of £38,889 is a contribution towards expenditure on additional benefits including hospital, dental, optical and specialist treatment and the provision of medical and surgical appliance. The House, of course, will remember that by the National Health Insurance Bill, 1941, the system of reserve values upon which benefits had hitherto been based was departed from. This did not jeopardise the insurance finances but released a considerable sum and made it possible to provide additional benefits for insured persons. The total amount available for additional benefits in each of the five years 1942 to 1947 including the cost of administration of the scheme is £175,000. This amount can be varied as between the different benefits according as the circumstances warrant.

The number of insured persons in receipt of sickness and disablement benefits at 31st December, 1942, was 25,070 which was approximately the weekly average throughout the year. During the year the number of separate benefit payments including sickness, disablement, maternity and marriage amounted to 1,085,504, and the cost of these benefits was £661,803, a decrease of £24,500 on the corresponding figure for the previous year. Maternity benefit was paid in respect of 27,566 confinements. The amount paid in marriage benefit during 1942 was £17,781, an increase of £3,423 on the amount for the previous year, and was the highest yet recorded.

As regards widows' and orphans' pensions, the sum now asked is to complete the annual amount of £450,000 for the current financial year. The number of claims for pensions received during the year 1942 was 7 per cent. less than for the year 1941, being 4,442 for 1942 as against 4,794 for 1941. The claims for widows' pensions decreased by nearly 8 per cent. from 4,480 received during 1941 to 4,133 received during 1942. The number of claims for orphans' pensions, decreased by nearly 2 per cent., being 314 for the year 1941 and 309 for the year 1942.

The number of beneficiaries in respect of whom pensions or allowances were payable at the 31st December, 1942, was 58,285, consisting of 34,428 widows, 21,989 dependent children of widows, and 1,868 orphans. The corresponding figures at the 31st December, 1941, were 34,259 widows, 21,977 dependent children of widows, and 1,862 orphans—total 58,098. We have seen, therefore, that in the 12 months ended the 31st December, 1942, the number of beneficiaries increased by 187.

There are, of course, a considerable number of other aspects of my departmental activities upon which I could dwell at some length. I think the House has been very patient, however, and that I have given Deputies as much information as they may require about the Vote.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think it would be of advantage to the Minister, and to the House, when giving a series of figures, percentages and comparisons of one year with another, that he would submit them in the form of a short paper. It is rather difficult for Deputies to get down figures that are given out rapidly. Very often the person giving them makes a mistake in doing so. It is obvious that the person taking them down is also liable to make a mistake. The disturbing element in the Minister's statement is the death-rate in connection with zymotic diseases. Whatever advantages we may have derived from the huge sums of money that have been piled up under the Hospitals Sweepstakes, the Department has not covered itself with glory as regards the provision of sanatoria throughout the country. We had an example of that here within the last couple of years when a very elaborate scheme was propounded by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. It took up the time of the House, of the Department, and, possibly, of one of the boards of a Dublin hospital. From what the Minister has said this evening, we have probably heard the last of any development in connection with the building of St. Laurence's Hospital in Dublin. I would like to know whether the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have made an examination of this hospital problem in other countries, and whether they have learned anything in connection with the development of hospitalisation in other places. Some remarkable hospital extensions have taken place in countries which have gone in largely for specialisation. I am informed that a particular hospital in one of the great cities in America has taken over the top floor of a hotel in order that it may be able to deal rapidly with cases, and so avoid the delay occasioned by the building of a huge hospital.

Within the last couple of days a lecture was delivered in Dublin by a city surgeon on this matter. Dealing with the need for more beds in the general hospitals in this city, he made a suggestion so far as surgical cases are concerned. He said that some few days after an operation it is possible to move the patient to another building if one were available within a 20 minutes' or half an hour's drive of Dublin. The removal could take place within four or five days after the operation during which the patient would require special attention. If a building was available for such cases, it would enable the city hospitals to deal with a far larger number of patients than is possible at present. It might be well, having regard to the acute problem there is in that connection in Dublin, if the Department were to ask the Hospitals Commission to report on it. It could well happen that you could have poor surgical and medical attendance in a magnificent building, but where we have suitable surgical and medical attendance, such as we have in Dublin, Cork or Limerick, there is no reason why we should not make a virtue of necessity and see what could be done in the special circumstances of the times.

At that same meeting reference was also made to the nursing profession. It is possible that, in alluding to this, I am infringing on the introduction of legislation. I do not think it is necessary to introduce legislation in order to improve the conditions of our nursing services. Something should be done to provide a pensions scheme for them. The time, I think, has arrived when we have got to do justice to those in the nursing profession by improving their conditions. Competition is getting keener for those in the profession, and in my view if we arc to maintain the nursing profession here it will be advisable for us to consider that aspect of the question.

The complaint that I have to make with regard to the Department generally is that it appears to be always bothering itself about administration, with the big job that it has, that it is so oppressed by the weight of it—it is so large and extensive—that it is impossible for it to look out over the Custom House to see what is going on outside. Take the incidence of tuberculosis. I thought the Minister would have told us something about what has been done in regard to the treatment of this disease in the various counties and cities since the emergency. Are we at the same peak point of proficiency in dealing with the cases of tuberculosis which arise as we were pre-war? As a layman, I take it that there are three phases in connection with this terrible scourge. There is first the acquiring of the disease; secondly, having it and preventing the spread of it, and thirdly, the institutional treatment. If I mistake not most of the activities of the last few months have been directed towards the institutional side of it. The other two phases are, to my mind, more important. The greatest danger, I think, arises in the second phase. Compared to pre-war, I would like to know if a higher degree of proficiency is now being shown by the local authorities in dealing with this disease so far as the avoidance of possible contacts is concerned.

Has the reduction of the petrol allowance to medical officers, whether they are superintendents, country medical officers or ordinary practitioners had any effect in dealing with these cases, either in seeking contact with them, or after contact, as well as with the segregation of persons affected so as to prevent any spread of the disease? The Minister gave a great number of figures as to the incidence of this disease and as to mortality from 1914 to 1918. Some time about the year 1919 the Municipal Council in Dublin adopted the Act of 1908 under which tuberculosis was made a notifiable disease. That was described in certain quarters as reactionary. It is obvious from what the Minister stated that it was a very desirable proceeding, as in the City of Dublin it actually gave to medical officers an opportunity to prevent the spread of tho disease. In so far as institutional treatment is concerned that is a later phase. It is possible to deal with it, but it requires genius, co-operation and efficiency to prevent infection. I should be glad if the Minister would give us some information, which I am sure he has from county managers, as to whether the same treatment is taking place throughout the country now as took place in 1938-39. As regards the institutional side, it is a very important and advisable procedure if we are to deal with the disease at all. I suggest to the Minister that there must be buildings somewhere throughout the country which could be adapted in a time of necessity such as this as sanatoria.

It is inconceivable that some effort cannot be made to deal with the problem. It is particularly advisable that sufferers from this disease should have the satisfaction of knowing that special efforts would be made to do so. We very often hear references to what is called "a living wage". What is more important is to discover what sum of money is required to maintain the individual. In Great Britain they have such particulars, including periods when there were calamities. As far as I am aware we have no such information here. The construction of what is called the Beveridge Report in Great Britain was based on an examination that was made by a number of very worthy citizens of the estimated cost of maintenance and of each member of a family. They took out exact figures with regard to such requirements. We have no such figures here.

The general impression among medical officers who advised the Municipal Council of Dublin some years ago was that tuberculosis is largely attributed to malnutrition, bad housing and insufficient clothing. I go so far as to say that a great deal was done from the year 1922 and that it would have been done more extensively if it had not been for the mad experiment of the Minister's colleagues. A sum of £1,000,000 was then devoted towards housing. It was a laughing matter then but it is much more serious since. The real test is: what has been done with regard to housing? How many people in the cities and towns are living in unsanitary dwellings or have insufficient housing accommodation? That is the real test. Until a few years ago no inroads had been made on the problem of overcrowding in the City of Dublin. There were as many persons living in what is called single-room tenements a few years ago, and I believe to-day, as there were 30 years ago. The figure at that time was about 80,000. It is questionable if the figures are not the same still. In estimating what contribution has been made towards the solution of that problem I consider that until the disabilities under which the public live are corrected, there is not likely to be any reduction in the incidence of tuberculosis.

Diet plays a very important part in the life of the people who are less liable to be affected by this disorder. The Minister stated that it was proposed to spend more money on persons suffering from this disease, by the provision of eggs, butter, etc. Has there been any examination by the Department regarding the change that has taken place in the diet of the people during the last three or four years? It may be that more butter is being consumed, but the relative nutritive value of that small increase may be offset by a reduction in other respects. I think the Minister should take up the question of the dietary of the public on a whole series of alternative diets and prices, and give all the advice that could be given to keep up natural strength. It seems to me, having regard to the present high prices of certain commodities, that it is almost impossible for the poorer sections of the community to provide food with the necessary nutritive value. In view of the Bill now being introduced, that ought to be the basis, generally that income should be sufficient to give the people such food as would not leave them liable to disease. That is the preliminary and the more important phase in regard to tuberculosis.

The Minister referred to the Army. The answer is that if people were not well fed, well-clothed or well housed they were likely to yet the disease. The Army gets very good food and as a rule it is well cooked. Sometimes perhaps it is not. There were occasions on which soldiers, and, I presume, officers, got wettings. It may be that the barracks were draughty and that people even of better physique would not be immune from some sort of disease. It would be well if the Minister sought the co-operation of medical officers who give certificates with a view to getting further information as to where the persons concerned had been during the previous few years, and as to what the medical officers' information was regarding the manner in which they contracted the disorder, and so get any and every information possible in order to correct this unfortunate increase in the death-rate. It is a matter on which I am sure he will get co-operation. If an extra fee in connection with the death certificate is necessary, it ought to be paid, because it would be cheap at the price. If by reason of the information we thereby acquire, we could save more lives, the money would be very well spent. I have not heard the explanation before that people have come here from Great Britain suffering from the disease, but from all we have heard from Great Britain in respect of vital statistics, it does appear that the health of the people there has improved since the emergency, and, goodness knows, there is a greater mental strain to be borne there than there is in neutral countries since 1939.

I will summarise for the Minister my suggestions in a very few words. First, he should get from an impartial source the sum of money which is necessary to keep a family in frugal comfort. That figure, allowing even for extras, was got in Great Britain when the cost of living was at a certain level. It is 12 months since I read the report, but my recollection is that they estimated it at a sum of £2, on the basis of the then cost of living. They estimated the cost of maintaining a child at 9/1½d. and they deducted 1/1½d., which they said the local authorities and the State had been putting up towards the child's support in one way or other, arriving at a sum of 8/-. Secondly, the Minister should get a series of recommendations with regard to dietary so that the best nutritional value could be got for the people. It is advisable to do it and I think it might benefit us in the long run.

Thirdly, in connection with the shortage of bed accommodation, huge buildings, formerly gentlemen's houses, might be taken over, if available within 20 minutes or half-an-hour of the city, and used not as convalescent homes but as convalescent hospitals, simply to take the cases when they are finished with surgically or medicinally, and keep them there. They would not be so expensive to run as a hospital. They would be much cheaper in the constructional stage, and, if it were to cost money, it would be money well spent, because it would enable a greater number of patients to be dealt with. There is then the question of the nurses, and, finally, the question as to what progress we have made with regard to the numbers of persons living in insanitary dwellings in the towns and cities.

There is one other matter to which I have not made any reference but which I think the Minister ought to consider very seriously. He has now got quite a number of different bodies dealing with the different social services. One of the advantages of the Beveridge Report, as it was called, was that all these bodies were brought into one. I give the Minister just one example. A man is seriously injured at his employment. He takes legal advice, having been paid for three, four or five weeks. His case may be settled by the insurance company or it may go to court, but in either case, a lot of money is wasted in legal expenses. One of the recommendations of the Beveridge Report was that a man injured in that way would be paid sickness benefit as if he had been sick, and all that tangle of cost and waste got rid of. That, I might say, is a controversial part of the report.

There is also the question of national health insurance, with which the Minister said he was dealing. The National Health Insurance Acts were introduced in 1908, and at that time the cost of living was very different from what it is now. I ask your indulgence, Sir, in dealing with this particular matter now, but it is the only opportunity we have to ventilate it. A sum of 15/- or 17/- per week is entirely inadequate. I am not making the case that the State must bear all these expenses. If a man is to get extra benefit, he will be prepared to pay a certain extra amount, and I think the time has come for a reconsideration of the weekly deductions in respect of stamps. The main consideration which should operate in the mind of a Minister of State is: what is the amount sufficient to keep a man when he is sick? If it means that he has to pay a little more in the week and that the State has to pay a little more, the necessities of the case demand it.

It is a pleasure to hear that the death-rate is going down and the birth-rate going up. A very short time ago, a learned professor, I think, laid it down that if the trend were to continue as it was going for a number of years, we would have a smaller population here in 30 or 50 years' time. This is an exceptional time. It is a time at which there is a greater number of marriages. It is at least satisfactory from this angle, that, in comparison with other countries, the position here is good, but it is only good if we can succeed in making the country healthy and maintaining its health. To that, I think, the Minister might bend his energies. He might spend much less time on the administrative side of the Department and much more in stimulating the local authorities and other agencies throughout the country to improve the health of the country.

I am sorry I had not the pleasure of listening to the whole of the lengthy and eloquent speech read by the Minister, but I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that the Minister would facilitate discussion on an Estimate of this kind if he were kind enough in future to supply the Leaders of the Parties with a copy of speeches such as he read here this evening, when he gave a long list of figures which it was impossible for anybody but himself and Deputy Cosgrave to remember.

It is a new terror.

I am not, never have been, and never will be a member of any local authority, but if what I hear from the members of local authorities about the administration of the County Management Act is correct, all the members of the local authority in my area and, and particularly the Labour members, regard the county managers as nothing more or less than office boys of the Minister. Some of them in my area go so far, as a result of their experience of the working of that Act since it came into operation, as to threaten, as I heard quite recently, to refuse to attend any more meetings of the county council. That is only second-hand information, and I have no evidence to justify what has been alleged by those who have experience of the working of that Act.

I was amused and a little surprised to hear the Minister threaten certain county managers and say that if they did not confine themselves strictly to their own jobs and cease advertising themselves so much, as some of them apparently have been doing, he would put them in their corners. I dare say the Minister has his eye on one of the private members' motions which appear on the Order Paper when he speaks in that fashion, and I dare say he listened very attentively to some very critical remarks about the administration of the County Management Act made at the recent meeting of the Ard-Fheis. The Minister and his colleagues, of course, had not been listening to anything from their old supporters for the past three or four years until the force of public opinion inside the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party caused them to summon the Ard-Fheis. I dare say the Minister learned something from what he had to listen to there in connection with the administration of this Act. He indicated, I think, on that particular occasion that he had under consideration certain proposals for the amendment, if not the repeal, of the Act. I do not wish to go into that matter any further because certain colleagues of mine who have very intimate knowledge of the working of this Act will be able to speak with greater authority on this matter than I can.

May I take it from the Minister—I hope he will treat this in a serious manner—that a county manager, for instance, would be obliged to take the view of the majority of the members of a county council as to the most convenient date for a statutory meeting? I notice in one case in my constituency the county manager does not appear to like the day upon which the quarterly meeting is held and, presumably for that reason, absented himself on two successive occasions from recent meetings of one of the two county councils in my area, with the result that the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of had to be done. The county councillors on two successive occasions had the pleasure of coming to the meeting, partly at their own expense and partly at the expense, I suppose, of the ratepayers—I am certain they do not get the amount that would cover their expenses away from home —to ventilate their views in connection with matters which they are entitled to discuss but not to decide in the absence of the county manager.

On the second occasion they adopted the ridiculous procedure—I suppose they were forced to do it—of having to appoint a deputation to see the county manager and to report to him what had transpired at the meeting which he failed to attend. I said to some of the members that I thought it was the most ridiculous decision ever arrived at. I would refuse to attend any further meeting of that county council until I had an assurance from the manager that he would come there and listen to the views of the ratepayers' representatives on matters of local importance, some of them requiring urgent attention. They humiliated themselves by deciding to appoint a deputation to the county manager. That is why I am asking the Minister whether or not a county manager is, even in a case of that kind, obliged to accept the decision of the majority of the members as to the most convenient day for their meeting. In this particular instance the majority—I think it was an unanimous decision but I am not certain—decided that the most convenient day for a meeting was a Saturday.

They should have called it. They have every right to call it.

The meeting was called and on two successive days the county manager did not attend.

They should have suspended him.

My colleague, who has a good deal of experience of local authorities, says the council should have suspended him. I daresay they have not the power to do it, at any rate without the consent of the Minister.

They should have sacked the Minister.

I would not go so far as to say that they should suspend the Minister.

Will somebody please take Deputy Davin and tell him something about local authorities?

I understand that, as against what was said by the Minister in the House this evening, the Minister has adopted the practice—I do not know whether he intends to carry it out in future—of meeting the county managers every two months. Why does he not deliver to the managers when he meets them on these occasions the lecture which he delivered to them through the Press to-night? Is this a put-up job, coming into the House and delivering this kind of attack on the county managers which he could deliver, I think, with greater effect, in the secret chamber of the Custom House when he meets them every month or two for the purpose of dealing with their activities?

The Minister referred at considerable length—and rightly so—to the activities of the county councils in the turf-cutting areas, and the results of their work in the production of fuel. I admit that the county councils, generally speaking, as far as I know, in the turf-cutting areas, have helped considerably to relieve the very serious situation in regard to fuel, and that, generally speaking, they stood up to the task which was handed over to them at very short notice.

I asked the Minister for figures—I do not know why he refuses to give them—which I believe he has in connection with the cost of production per ton of turf during the years 1941 and 1942. He gave us all the figures and all the history of that particular period with the exception of the cost of production. I am sure he has that figure somewhere in his files, and I hope he will give it when he is replying to this debate. The reason I ask for that figure is that in one county in my constituency the cost of production of turf is given by the county manager in a particular year as 42/- per ton, whereas, in the adjoining county, in the same constituency, the cost was apparently as low as 28/- per ton. The same county manager is in charge of both counties, and naturally I would be interested to know—if the figures I have quoted are correct—what is the cause of the difference in the cost of production as between one county and the other.

It would not occur to the Deputy that the same bogs might not be in the two counties?

I know the bogs in that county better than the Minister will ever know them, although he was down there and got himself bogged on more than one occasion. Deputy Oliver Flanagan will be able to confirm that, but I am sorry he is not in the House. Deputy Flanagan, I believe, was the first man to bring the Minister down there to pour out that political abuse on his political opponents for which he has distinguished himself in the public life of this country. Deputy Flanagan has now departed from the Fianna Fáil circles and will probably say something about the Minister before this debate is concluded—and he knows more about him than I do.

The Minister indicated that there was a considerable deficit—I think he said a deficit of £1,200,000—on the turf produced by the local authorities in the turf-cutting counties up to the end of 1942. May I ask the Minister to indicate whether or not the ratepayers in the turf-cutting counties have so far been obliged to carry any of the burden of the production of turf in the turf cutting counties? In other words, have the ratepayers of the turf-cutting counties been so far obliged to carry any of the deficit which appears to have been created because all the turf produced by the councils in the turf-cutting counties has not been disposed of at a profitable or economic price, and because, as the Minister has stated, several hundreds of thousands of tons of turf are still lying in the bogs owned by the councils in these turf-cutting areas?

I remember listening to the statement which was made by the late lamented Hugo Flinn when he guaranteed the ratepayers against loss in connection with the production of turf by the local authorities. From the many complaints and from written communications I have received—most of which are passed on to the Departments concerned—I think a good deal of the trouble in connection with the production of turf by the county councils is due to the fact that the bog roads are not being properly made and that a proper drainage scheme has not been carried out, in the first instance, by the county councils in some bogs. I hope the experience gained by the county surveyors and their assistants in the years 1941 and 1942 will be used to advantage in the coming years, over whatever period they may be obliged to continue this work. I have received a considerable number of inquiries as to why several bog roads had not been properly repaired, pointing out—I am certain that this is correct in some cases that have come under my notice— that people living in the towns have been unable to get turf out of the bogs situated near those towns because of the bad condition of the bog roads. I drew the attention of the Minister for Supplies in the House in the early part of this year, to a case of a town in my constituency which is surrounded by bogs, where the people, who had been unable to get the turf they had cut in the previous years on these bogs, were obliged to pay as much as 3/2 per cwt. for turf.

Here in the City of Dublin, thanks to a subsidy from the taxpayer, we are in a position to get good, bad or indifferent turf at 64/- per ton, but people living in towns surrounded by bogs are obliged to pay 3/3 a cwt. for turf because the bog roads in the area are not properly repaired or put in a state to enable the people to take out the turf lying on the bogs. Would the Minister be good enough to use his influence with the county managers to get them to speed up the work of carrying out repairs to the bog roads and to carry out drainage work wherever it-is urgently required? I can assure the Minister that many cases of that kind exist in my constituency, and I would be very much obliged if he would use his influence with the county manager to speed up the work because, by doing so, he will make it possible for the county council to produce turf at a cheaper rate than in 1941 or 1942.

Another matter which I have been asked to bring under the notice of the Minister affects the poor living in towns and villages generally. Can the Minister give any assurance that the cheap fuel scheme, in operation in urbanised areas and boroughs, will be extended to the poor and the workers who have to exist on low wages in villages and towns outside the urbanised areas? There is a considerable demand that the benefits of this scheme, which I think has been working well in urbanised areas, should be extended to the poor people and lowly-paid wage earners in small towns and villages. I do not think it will cost the State a very large additional sum to extend these facilities to the people I have mentioned.

I should like to hear the Minister give us some idea as to the reason why the Cottage Purchase Act has not been availed of to a greater extent by the cottage tenants of the country as a whole. I think he save figures in this House quite recently to show that approximately 2,000 tenants out of a total of 60,000 odd have decided to avail of the terms of the Cottage Purchase Act. If that is so, surely there is something radically wrong in the terms of the Act. Would the Minister say whether he has any intention of bringing the Act into line with the reasonable wishes of the cottage tenants? Before the Minister moved over to the Ministerial Benches, I often heard him and his colleagues advocate the adoption of a scheme which would give the cottage tenants the same rights and privileges as the tenant farmers of the country. We had that policy advocated up and down the country by a most eloquent representative of the then Fianna Fáil Party who is now a very high official of the Government and who, I am sure, if he were allowed to open his mouth now, would tell the Minister pretty forcibly his views of the terms of the Act passed by the Minister and his colleagues when they came into office and when it was in their power to put into operation the policy which they advocated when they sat on the other side of the House. What is wrong with the terms of the Act when only a small percentage of the tenants have availed of it? They were promised security of tenure and a reduction of 60 per cent. They have got a small reduction in the existing rents with the obligation added that they will have to carry out whatever repairs are certified to be necessary by the county surveyor. If they do not carry out these repairs they will be evicted, if they are prepared to take the risk of purchasing the cottages under the terms of the existing legislation.

I should like the Minister, when he is speaking to the county managers on the next occasion, to impress upon them the necessity of carrying out repairs to labourers' cottages more expeditiously than has been or is being done, in some counties at any rate. If these cottages are allowed to get into a very bad condition of repair and if the county manager concerned will not carry out repairs within a reasonable period, it will add to the cost to the ratepayers when they are eventually carried out. That is a matter which has given rise to a good deal of concern and criticism in some parts of my constituency. At any rate, it is a matter which is worthy of the attention of the Minister and I would request him to put it before the county managers when he is next discussing the affairs of local authorities with them. Some of the county managers will probably tell the Minister that it is impossible in existing circumstances to get small or large contractors to carry out these repairs, but is it not possible to carry out such repairs under a direct labour scheme? I think it is. I have heard of cases where cottage repair work has been carried out under direct labour, and the work has been executed as efficiently and as cheaply as it could be carried out by some of the patchwork contractors who are doing these jobs in the Midlands.

I have seen a few cases during the past few years—and I think they are increasing in number—where cottage tenants have been unable to persuade the county managers or the local officials to provide them with additional rooms to their cottages. I came across a most ridiculous case recently where the county manager in my constituency, when requested to authorise the provision of an additional room to a cottage, demanded the extraordinary figure of £7 for doing this work. The cottage tenant concerned paid a weekly rent of 1/3 and the county manager wants him to pay a lump sum of £7 to provide an additional room in a cottage where 13 grown-up people are living at the present time. I reported the matter to the Minister and I hope he will hammer some sense into the county manager who demanded the payment of £7 in such circumstances.

I also drew the attention of the Minister quite recently to a development which has arisen in my area, particularly since the county management scheme came into operation. I have always assumed that no matter what Government are in office, when they pass legislation providing certain facilities for workers engaged in industrial or agricultural pursuits, they would at least regard themselves as model employers in the State and see to it that local authorities who carry on administration under their supervision would, in regard to their own servants, observe the conditions which they have laid down by legislation for workers engaged in outside occupations. I am referring now in particular to the provisions of the Conditions of Employment Act. I asked the Minister in a question which I addressed to him last week if he was aware that under a certain local authority in my constituency certain workers employed in county institutions were obliged to work excessive hours, that in one case a worker employed in the county hospital in the constituency had his hours rostered at the rate of 105 per week, and that in addition he was obliged to hold himself "on call" during the remainder of the time. I think this is a scandalous case. Deputy Flanagan knows of it. He is a member of the local authority. I think Deputy Flanagan raised this question at a meeting of the local authority during the past three or four months. I requested some of my labour colleagues on the local authority to try to force the hand of the county manager on that, but I was amazed to learn, when I went into the question, that there was no legal obligation on the county manager to apply what is known as the 48-hour week or the Conditions of Employment Act to workers employed in county institutions. The Minister, of course, in his own cute and evasive way, the other day stated that he was not aware of such a case. But, of course, if he inquired he would find out——

Was that the Minister for Local Government?

Yes, I am addressing my remarks to the Minister for Local Government.

Is the Minister responsible for administering that Act?

The Minister is responsible for seeing that the county managers, who, as I allege, are his office boys, will apply the law as passed here in this Parliament to the workers employed by local authorities and the Government itself, and thereby give a good example to the other employers of the country.

But the Minister has responsibility only where he has jurisdiction.

If the Minister means what he says when outside on the hustings, he will take good care, if he has the wish, to see that the privileges contained in the Conditions of Employment Act are enjoyed in the future, at any rate, if they have not been enjoyed in the past, by the workers employed in county institutions.

The Minister is not responsible.

Who is responsible, A Chinn Comhairle?

That is not for me to decide.

Indeed he is responsible, and he will not deny it. However, if he wants to evade the point by saying he has no direct responsibility, we will meet him somewhere else and follow up that matter later on. If I cannot pursue it here, I will pursue it somewhere else. I heard some time ago that Deputy Flanagan was the first man that ever invited the Minister down to Leix and Offaly.

That is the only thing for which I was ever sorry.

I suppose the Minister himself, although he would not admit it in the House, is sorry for many of the things he said.

Deputies should address the Chair.

I should like also to direct the attention of the Minister to the failure of county managers or the officials of local authorities to carry out a reasonable amount of road repair work in the case of the county roads or by-roads or accommodation roads. This is a very serious matter in the existing emergency. You have all kinds of claims being made to the local authorities and, through the local authorities, to the Office of Public Works, and perhaps the Department of Local Government, for grants or, in some cases, for loans for the improvement of accommodation roads and by-roads. Numbers of farmers—in some cases a small number and in other cases a large number—live on what is known as accommodation or by-roads. I heard of a case last week-end—I happen to know the family—where the remains of a person who had died had to be carried across the fields because the hearse could not get up the accommodation road to the house where the remains were. In another case, in the north end of Leix, about a year ago, that had to be done . I think Deputy O'Higgins knows of that case. I am not making this case about the funeral——

Will the Deputy state where the responsibility of the Minister arises in that respect? The administration of the Department by the Minister is what arises now, nor the delinquency of a local council, or an alleged neglect of duty.

Applications for grants or loans for the purpose of carrying out road repair work have to come before a Minister for approval, in some cases the Minister for Local Government and in some cases the Minister for Finance.

We have no responsibility for accommodation roads or by-roads.

Although the Minister is trying to usurp your position——

I have asked the Deputy to indicate where this Vote shows the Minister to be responsible for accommodation roads and link roads.

I am pointing out to you, Sir, that the Minister for Local Government, so far as I am aware, has to approve of the applications for grants or loans for the purpose of carrying out these road repair works, and the money cannot be provided for the carrying out of these works without his authority.

The fact is——

I listened to the Minister for the best portion of his 1½-hour eloquent oration and he can reply to me when I have finished. I suggest that he has not any right to direct you. Sir, as to whether my speech is in order or not. He is attempting to do that. If the Minister in his reply says that he has no responsibility for this, when he meets the county managers within the next few weeks, as we know he meets them every month or every two months for the purpose of delivering lectures and giving good advice, will he put this matter before them?

If he has the responsibility. That is what the Chair desired to know and has not yet been so informed.

I can assure you, Sir, that I have no responsibility for accommodation roads or link roads.

Deputy Norton reminds me that here under sub-heads U. and V. there is being made available a sum of money which may be set aside for this purpose.

The usual dictatorial style—"No".

The Deputy said he was listening to my speech. His hearing must be defective.

If the Minister cannot, out of the money now being made available under sub-heads U. and V., get the county managers to carry out this work which is urgently required, I hope he will try to persuade them to do so out of other moneys which may be made available.

If a matter is not relevant, the Deputy may not return to it. This is not the first occasion on which the Deputy has been so informed.

With great respect, I should like to point out that it is possible for the Minister, out of the £94,000 provided under sub-head U and the £50,000 under subhead V., to comply with the reasonable wishes of the people in the areas where this work is waiting to be done.

The Deputy suggested that I should provide money to enable funerals to take place. That is not provided for under sub-heads U. or V. of this Vote.

If you can increase the Army Estimate and the banks will provide £10,000,000 for the Army——

These matters are not relevant.

It is relevant for me to say, because it was said in your hearing, Sir, by the Minister for Finance, that there is plenty of money available for every praiseworthy scheme. I am appealing to the Minister——

The Minister for Finance's Estimate is not before the House. If the Deputy confines himself to this Vote, there should be sufficient material for him.

I am sure you, Sir, would not allow me to raise these matters on the Estimate for the Minister for Finance. In any case, I do not propose to pursue the matter any further.

The Deputy may not pursue it further.

The Minister dealt at length with the activities of the Department and the local authorities in connection with the treatment of tuberculosis. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary has just come in, because I do not propose to pursue this aspect of the Estimate at any great length. Will the Minister, when replying, say if it is right and proper that patients suffering from tuberculosis should be obliged to travel a distance of ten or 15 miles and pay their own travelling expenses in order to get treatment at a central place in the county concerned? I have had to make representations recently to the Minister, because the county manager concerned failed to provide the cost of transport for tuberculosis patients who had travelled long distances. Some of these people were very poor—Deputy O'Higgins knows more about these cases than I do and I am not sure that some of these cases did not come under his notice. People suffering from tuberculosis in the town of Rathdowney had, on several occasions, to pay the cost of transport from Rathdowney to Ballybrophy station and from Ballybrophy by rail to Portlaoighise and back again, and wait a considerable time before getting a refund of the amounts involved.

It may be possible—I am not sure whether it is or not—for the Minister to compel the county managers to have these people treated locally. If not, I would like to hear the reason why it cannot be done. In any case, if patients have to travel long distanced to get treatment at a central place like Portlaoighise, they should be given transport expenses before starting on the journey and not have to go to local merchants or shopkeepers and borrow the money to pay the expenses to and from the place where they are treated. That is an outrageous state of affairs in existing circumstances.

I do not know whether it is any use pursuing further a matter that was raised the other day, in connection with the failure of the Minister to provide the proper staff for dealing in a more expeditious manner with appeals sent to the Department under the Old Age Pensions Acts. I know of cases—I think the Parliamentary Secretary should know them, too—which were sent to the Department on appeal and which have been referred to the investigation officer of the Department, and which have been waiting as long as 12 months for decision. There is only one inspector in the Department who has the duty of investigating the cases sent to the Department on appeal and referred to him for local investigation. I can understand that he has a certain number of cases to be dealt with in counties like Laoighis and Offaly. He goes into Laoighis to-day and deals with the cases he has up to a certain period, and he has to go over the other 25 counties before he gets back to Laoighis again to deal with cases that come into him the day after he has concluded his visit there. That means that some people might be waiting 12 months. I am assured by one colleague that a case was waiting for decision for 18 months.

When we have plenty of money available for everything, is it not possible to provide another deciding officer or inspector in the Department, so that these appeals coming in from poor people under the Old Age Pensions Act, who are morally entitled to a pension, will have their cases decided within a reasonable time? Is it right that the local authority and the ratepayers of a county should have to pay home assistance to such needy people, while they are waiting 12 or 18 months to have their cases decided by the Department? I am sure the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary can make a good, plausible case to the Minister for Finance for the provision of additional staff to deal more expeditiously with cases of this kind. I hope there will be no cause to refer to this matter any more in the House, so long as we have so much money lying in the banks on deposit and plenty of money available for every praiseworthy scheme.

Deputy Cosgrave rightly referred in his speech to the difficulties of county surgeons, county medical officers, and county nurses, in carrying out then-work. The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that much more, I am sure, than the Minister. I think it is a scandalous state of affairs that a county surgeon, who finds himself constantly called to all parts of the county for consultation purposes, should have to try to carry on his work with such a little amount of petrol as is made available. The same applies to the county nurse, and might apply to other county officials. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary—who appreciates the difficulties in connection with matters of this kind to a greater extent, perhaps, than the Minister—to try to urge the Minister for Supplies to provide a more reasonable supply of petrol for county medical officers, assistant county medical officers, and county surgeons whose services are constantly called for in connection with the sufferings of the people throughout the country.

I was appealed to some time ago, and I suppose other Deputies were appealed to also, by local officers, the county surgeon, and county medical officer in particular, in connection with this matter. I think there is sufficient petrol available—although the supply may not be as satisfactory as the Minister for Supplies may desire it to be— to give reasonable supplies to the county medical officer, assistant medical officer, surgeon and nurse, to enable them to discharge their duties more efficiently, than they have been able to do during the past year or two. I hope that the Minister will deal with these points when he is replying to this debate.

I very rarely address myself to this particular Vote—at least in a perpendicular position—but there are one or two points I would like to discuss briefly. I was, naturally, very interested in the opening statement made by the Minister, particularly with regard to the vital statistics. In the main, the figures were very gratifying, and the decline in the death-rate from most disease shows the beginning of a return from 20 years' serious and progressive work in public health development, housing schemes, etc.

Many people expect that, if there is a vast national housing scheme to-day, you must have results to-morrow, or at all events, next year. The results from such work only appear in the course of time. I think it is very, very gratifying here in this Assembly—the Assembly that, after all, has been responsible for putting up the money year after year, over a period of 20 years—to say that, in most fields of preventive disease, there has been a drop. I do not place exactly 100 per cent. reliance on vital statistics, as I know their value is open to the margin of human error. In one district you will get 100 per cent. returns and in another district only 60 per cent. I am not so very much alarmed or disturbed by figures, say, indicating an increase in the death-rate from cancer. It is within the knowledge of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that, in recent years, the Department had addressed itself very vigorously towards getting as full a return of cancer sufferers as possible, and the result of that effort must reflect itself in the increased number of deaths properly attributed to cancer. Normally, a doctor is not too precise in filling up the cause of death, the reason being that many people, when they meet their deaths, are suffering from a multiplicity of complications, and the doctor may put down any one of these—heart failure or anything else—as the cause of death. The certificate allows only for one primary cause. In the alertness and energy of the Department, in trying to get something like a real national return of the incidence of cancer, I would be inclined to say that more cases were recorded as cancer cases than in a similar period previously, but that does not necessarily mean an actual increase in the number of cases due to cancer.

Now, with regard to the increase in the number of cases of tuberculosis, and the tuberculosis death-rate, the position is certainly disturbing. For a considerable number of years past the compulsory central notification of tuberculosis cases in each county on the whole has been working efficiently, working smoothly, and I think we have been getting something like a uniform return, not anything like 100 per cent., but a fairly high percentage, of the cases of tuberculosis notified and the deaths attributable to tuberculosis correctly certified. In the present circumstances it is disturbing to find an increase in the incidence of the disease and an increase in the death-rate. One obviously produces the other. The Department has made every effort to ascertain the causes of that increase. The Minister told us it has been ascribed to eight or nine different causes, by different people who were asked to report their views, and it is possible every one of the causes is a contributory cause.

Deputy Davin and, incidentally, Deputy Cosgrave—and I am rather grateful that the two Deputies raised the point before a medical man raised it—have called attention to another factor, which must be definitely a contributory factor. I happen to know that the Department of Local Government has made every possible effort to remedy the position. I hope also that the views expressed in this House will strengthen the efforts of the Department. Now, there is a vast amount of money being spent on public health services in this country, on doctors, assistant doctors and nurses, and not one of those officers, with the possible exception of the county medical officer of health—and he only to a part-time extent—is paid as an office worker. They are all field workers. The job of work they are paid to do is a mobile job, out through the districts, yet we find the extraordinary position that, some 12 months ago, the nurses paid for district work were put completely off the road, talking in a county sense, because every one of us knows that there is no sense in talking of any lady covering a county on a bicycle. The small amount of petrol they used to get, four gallons a month for their little cars, is completely stopped. They were not allowed the disc to authorise them to put their cars on the road.

The clinical tuberculosis officers in each county are expected to deal with that rapidly-increasing disease. With eight gallons of petrol per month, allowing, say, 24 working days a month, they have sufficient petrol each day to go four miles from their central depot and back. It would be sheer hypocrisy for people who are aware of those facts to pretend there is any doubt as to the great contributing factor in the increase in tuberculosis. The treatment of tuberculosis is one side of the problem; prevention is the other, and the first step in prevention is to get the infected case away from community existence, away from the possibility of infecting others. If the early case is spotted on Monday, and is taken away from the others on Tuesday, we could not have an increase in tuberculosis. In cases where you have the district nurse and the clinical tuberculosis officer pouncing as quickly as that when a case is notified, straightaway within 24 hours examining every contact, amongst that group of contacts they may find one or two other cases of tuberculosis and those three cases could be properly dealt with and as speedily as possible removed from the possibility of infecting others.

That was the practice under the old régime; that practice has been dropped. That machine, with one sweep was, with regard to nurses, completely paralysed and immobilised and, with regard to clinical tuberculosis officers, crippled so much that it can only work to a very limited extent. The case which used to be seen within 24 hours is seen now within 24 days— 24 days of continuing infection. Nobody can be surprised at the increase in tuberculosis with the machine practically paralysed, because that machine is based on a county basis. It is based on the motor car, on rapid transport, getting quickly over vast areas. If petrol is out of the question, that machine should have been completely altered, no matter what the cost. It should have been altered to a district machine, covering about one-fifth or one-sixth of a county, and a tuberculosis officer and district nurses should be allocated to that one-fifth or one-sixth of a county.

Those people are honest. They are doing an honest day's work, but they are not in a position to cover the ground or, in fact, to do the work they are paid to do. That is not the responsibility of the Department, of Local Government, but I am perfectly satisfied that the full gravity of the situation, the evils resulting from the present situation, have never been properly grasped by the Department of Supplies or this terrible state of affairs would not be allowed to continue. The emergency will be over some day, but the damage will be done and the disease spread, and the new victims will not be cured of the disease when the emergency is at an end. There is every evidence, even in local administration, that there is an increase in the use of petrol, of increased supplies to various local services. For instance, petrol is now allowed for the delivery of turf to private purchasers. District nurses got only four gallons a month. Surely, in view of the results, that kind of economy is not common sense.

I may expressly rule out anybody but the clinical tuberculosis officer and the visiting nurse. I am not speaking for county medical officers of health except where they are also the clinical tuberculosis officers. In view of the figures given by the Minister, in view of the fact that the increase in tuberculosis is hitting the man in the street so much in the eye and is regarded by everybody as a kind of national tragedy, it is well for us to face up to the fact that our tuberculosis machine, built up over the best part of half a century by the contributions and the best efforts of all, has been 90 per cent., at least, immobilised for the past four years. During those four years, we had the number of cases increasing, not here and there but nationally, and we had the number of deaths increasing. One case produces others and the mere fact that you have an increase in one year means that you will have a kind of continuing increase until we are sufficiently well off in the way of sanatoria to be able to provide sanatorium accommodation for a high percentage of our cases. Concurrent with that increase in tuberculosis, we had, of necessity, arising out of the difficulties of the emergency situation, practically a complete suspension of building activities. We had a full stop to the extension of hospital beds. Although our hospital plans appeared to be all right, viewed over a number of years, through outside circumstances we had them suddenly brought to a full stop.

There is, as we all know, a very serious deficiency in the number of beds required to cater for the unfortunate victims of tuberculosis. At the same time, we have in practically every county splendid mansions, equipped by the Board of Works at immense expense, in the custody of either the Department of Defence or the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures. These buildings would make, in the opinion of a number of people, splendid sanatoria, whether temporary or permanent. They are equipped with every possible convenience—shower baths, laundries and so forth—at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds. They are absolutely self-contained. They are equipped in that manner against the possibility of being required for evacuees in the event of Dublin having to be evacuated owing to bombing. Whom would you get out of Dublin in the event of bombing? You would certainly get the victims of tuberculosis. It would only make the job of evacuation a little bit easier if you got them out ahead of that emergency from where they are infecting others in their homes. It is a terrible pity to have such splendid buildings, on which money has been lavishly spent, with their beautiful grounds, lying unused and, at the same time, to hear the cry on every side "there is no accommodation and we cannot build owing to the war." It is merely a question of adjustment between Departments. Surely the country is small enough for such an ebb and flow between Government Departments as would secure that, if premises on which money has been spent are not wanted for one purpose at the moment and are wanted for another purpose, the doors would be thrown open. So far as the remaining period of this emergency is concerned, there is an obvious way of easing the situation. Post-surgical cases could, as Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, be accommodated in this fashion, but I would strongly urge that such buildings be utilised as a temporary expedient for housing infectious cases of tuberculosis.

The Minister referred to the great work done, not only before the emergency but during the emergency, in the matter of housing. We can re-echo the tribute he paid to the energy displayed in that direction. Wonderful progress was being made towards the better housing of the people, but to what extent the position has been improved is, to my mind rather problematical. I recollect reading a report by one of the principal medical officers in the City of London —a man who undertook a task of work with unlimited powers after the last war. I think that the plan he outlined was to have completely cleared slums within a period of ten years, granted unlimited money, staff and all the rest. He got all he asked for and he made a report after some ten years. His report could be summed up by the expression "as you were". He found that, with all his building, he was only riding a neck and neck race with the decay. That is a matter on which I should like to issue a word of warning. The tendency is to go in for big building schemes—a big building scheme now and a big building scheme again. There may be five hundred houses to be erected in any given administrative area in two years' time. Everybody knows that. When these houses are built, who will get them? The best qualified. And who are the best qualified? The worst housed. So there is a vicious race as to who will have the worst houses at the end of two or three years. A door hinge comes off—I do not say that it was removed deliberately—a window pane is broken, a few slates are dislodged and there is a certain amount of jubilation in the household because these happenings put the parties a short head in front of their next door neighbour. There is, in fact and in practice, that type of competition in the rapidity of house decay. But there is another side to this question of the early signalling of big housing schemes. You have a number of poor dwellings in the large towns and villages. For years back these dwellings have been a certain source of income, be the income big or small, to the owner. It was worth his while to keep some kind of an appearance of repair on the houses. First of all, they were a source of income to him, and secondly, he would not be sufficiently inhuman to let the roofs fall in on the heads of the tenants. But with the signalling of a big housing scheme the owners of that kind of country slums made up their minds that the whole area would be emptied when the next scheme was completed, and therefore it would not be worth their while spending more money on the repair of those old houses. You have gate lodges, herds' houses and houses flanking villages that have not got a slate, a nail, a screw or a pane of glass in them for years. While I congratulate the Department on the work achieved, I do not want to be too statistical or want anybody to take it for granted that because, say, in a certain county five years ago housing requirements were in or about 700, and because that number of houses has since been provided, that the housing needs there now are nil. In fact, its housing requirements still are nearly 700, due to rapid decay and to owners neglecting their property. We know that during the emergency building is out of the question. Take the case of houses in poor condition in which people are living who would get cottages if cottages were being built.

I wonder would it be possible to have public funds made available to keep such houses in a proper state of repair. In my own experience, I have recommended a rehousing of a very considerable number of families because the houses they live in are bad although they could be repaired if the owner had the means to do it. I wonder if it would be possible for the State or for the local boards, since building is out of the question, to keep these poorer classes of houses that are not board property in a proper state of repair. I think that if such a scheme could be worked out it would result in better housing of the people, and in the saving of public funds. In so far as one of these houses is allowed to get into disrepair one month after another, the net result will be the provision of a new house at a cost of over £300. The owner of a house of that class may be poor. He has not £50, although if he had it is possible that he would put the house in decent repair. I am anxious to know whether it would be possible to carry out a scheme of that kind.

I strongly urge that, instead of having big schemes every third or fifth year, housing be carried out on steady, progressive lines and that authority be given to the local authorities to build houses as required from year to year. An announcement to the effect that we were going to build 50 houses in any county would not have any evil effect. There would be no race in the rapid disrepair of houses to qualify for such a small number as 50 houses, but if you announce that you are going to build 500 houses, then every family living in what might be deemed to be a bad house will see a chance of getting one of the new houses if it can only make its own house bad enough to qualify for one of the 500. If, instead of building 500 houses now and another 500 in five years' time, there was a progressive continual plan to build 100 houses per annum, there would be no such thing as vying with one another in the matter of rapid disrepair. The owners of a number of small dwellings would not in that case throw up their hands and say that their houses were going to be emptied, and that there was no use in spending any more money on them. They would still continue to keep them in repair because of the income to be got out of them. In addition, I would urge on the Department to enter into discussions with whatever Department controls those beautiful empty mansions through the country on which public funds have been spent lavishly. They would be ideal and comfortable centres for evacuees in the event of evacuation. If the evacuees were sent to these mansions some return would be made to the public for all the money that has been spent on those premises.

I want to put before the Minister that the members of the Roscommon County Council would like to have the manager's orders distributed amongst them. At present they are placed on the table on the day of the meeting. The members of the county council unanimously requested him about 12 months ago to supply one or two copies to each party, but for some reason or another he could not see his way to accede to that request. I suggest to the Minister that he should ask our county manager to have that done. With regard to the main roads which are tarred, would it be possible for the Minister's Department to devise some means whereby these roads would be made more safe for horse-drawn vehicles? At present thr county roads are tarred from grass margin to grass margin, with the result that farmers find it very hard to do their market business. If the Minister makes inquiries, I think he will find that as a result of that the merchants in our provincial towns have suffered a considerable loss in trade. That is because the roads are so slippery that farmers find them extremely dangerous for their horses. All that, as I have said, has resulted in a loss in trade to the merchants in our provincial towns. Speaking on behalf of the farmers of Roscommon and of our Party, we are unanimously of the opinion that the farmers of the country should have roads on which they will be able to take horse-drawn vehicles. We think there should be a margin of about six feet on each side of the road for horse-drawn traffic. The Minister should consult with his engineers as to the best means of providing such margins.

I join in the appeal of Deputy Davin and Deputy Hogan for an increased allowance of petrol for county medical officers, for county nurses and for dispensary doctors in rural areas, especially during the winter months from November to March. At that period these officials may have to travel from ten to 15 miles to attend argent cases, and as it is impossible to get cars for hire locally, the consequences may be serious if cars are unavailable. I lay special stress upon that aspect in these cases, and I press for the granting of increased petrol allowances. I am aware that dispensary doctors are often called out at night to travel from ten to 15 miles to attend patients.

With regard to the rate collection, there is no trouble about getting in the money, and nobody suggests that rates should not be paid but there is no definite decision as to when they should be paid. The rate collectors say that the first moiety is due in March. It has been the custom to pay the first moiety on the 1st of November. There are fairs about the end of October or November and up to Christmas for which farmers have pigs for sale and they then pay the rates. I am aware that the first moiety was tendered on 8th October and was refused. The county manager was acquainted with the facts and gave the rate collector to understand that he was agreeable to payment being accepted. The collector when informed took the amount of the first moiety and told the ratepayer to wait. He did so and then received a six-days' notice for the second moiety. I received a letter, which I sent to the county manager, concerning another case where arrears of rates were due. I can personally vouch for the fact that in this case the husband was in England. I asked the county manager if he was prepared to allow the amount paid by instalments and he agreed. A letter, more or less of a sarcastic nature, which I received since, while thanking me for what I did, stated that I had succeeded in piling on the cost of a summons and that the full rates had to be paid plus the cost of the summons. When replying I wish the Minister would give a clear definition on this point. No member of a county council would suggest that there is any objection to the payment of rates. The members of the county council and the county manager made their position clear, by stating that collectors should be at all times available to take money from ratepayers when it is convenient for them to pay. To give the House an idea of how satisfactory the rate collection in Roscommon is, it was stated at the last meeting of the county council that they were in the happy position of not having to pay interest on any overdraft. I appeal to the Minister to see that justice is done in such cases and that rate collectors should not try to antagonise ratepayers. I want to assure Deputies that my criticism has not been in any way of a carping nature but with a view to the welfare of those concerned.

I am afraid my colleagues in the representation of Laoighis-Offaly, Deputy Davin and Deputy O'Higgins, have left me very little to say on this Estimate. There are, however, a few things to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. One concerns the making of the rate by Mountmellick Town Commissioners, of which I am chairman. I understand that the making of the rate arises on the Minister's Estimate. The county manager for Laoighis-Offaly struck a town rate for Mountmellick last March. He placed the estimate before the commissioners and asked them to pass it. He informed me that he would have to raise the rents in Mountmellick by 4d. and would have to put the 4d. on the rates. After much persuasion the commissioners had to agree to the county manager's suggestion and I signed the necessary papers, which were then sent to the Department. Shortly afterwards an ordinary individual in the town of Mountmellick walked into the county manager's office, and got the 4d. in question taken off. That was mentioned during the election campaign. It was stated that Oliver Flanagan, the chairman of the commissioners, put 4d. on the rates and that an ordinary individual could get the 4d. taken off. I should like to know if the Minister is aware of that and, if so, what he has to say about it. I always held that the Department of Agriculture—and the Minister for Agriculture—was the worst Department in this State. Now I say it is not. It is one of the best. I should like to know how the 4d. came off the rates in my town and how an ordinary individual off the street could get 4d. taken off without consulting the town commissioners at all. There must have been some "pull" used with the county manager, and the county manager could not have done it without the authority of the Minister.

No; it is monetary reform.

I do not want any ignorant remarks from any Deputy. My attention, as a member of Laoighis County Council, was drawn to the fact not very long ago that certain individuals who were dead and buried were drawing home assistance and that some people who had gone to England months previously were still drawing home assistance. I went into the County Manager in Portlaoighise last October and asked him for a list of those drawing home assistance, because I knew very well that I could not make accusations against officials, unless I could prove them because it would be actionable. The only way in which I could prove it was by having that list and by going around and making investigations, as was my duty as a member of the County Council. The County Manager refused to give me the list and I wrote to Deputy MacEntee, or the Minister for Local Government, God bless the mark, who replied that the County Manager was within his rights and that I was not to get the information. I have his letter here. The next thing that happened was that the Gárda authorities in the County made investigations and discovered that all these dead people were drawing home assistance. If that was not neglect in the administration of local government, what is neglect? That is one of the points I wanted to bring to the attention of the House so that Deputies might have an idea of what is going on.

I wrote time and again to the Minister asking for the appointment of a committee of management in the county home under the Laoighis County Council. The Minister replied that it was not necessary, but many of the old people in County Laoighis look upon that county home as a palace, as a place where they can spend their days before going to the grave. In that county home, maintained by Laoighis rates, you have men from Cork, Waterford and Limerick. People who have come from far off parts of the country are in charge of the rations and if a Laoighis man asks for an allowance, the nose will be cut off him, while a Corkman will be supplied. The attention of the County Manager has been drawn to this position time and again. I am tired speaking about it at the county council and tired writing to the Minister and getting nowhere, although Laoighis is one of the best counties and is keeping up all Ireland.

I am a member of Portlaoighise District Mental Hospital Board, and we had before us at the last meeting the county manager's orders. We are summoned to these meetings and we have an agenda which consists of "the minutes of the last meeting" and "fixing of the date of the next meeting".

And the result of your interview with the lunatics.

We have an interview with the lunatics. One of the orders which the county manager in Portlaoighise made was that the staff of the mental hospital was to be searched every time they went out. One would think that the staff consisted of thieves. If there is one black sheep amongst a flock, it is no reason why the entire flock should be looked upon as black sheep, but, in the case of this staff, as they go in and out they are searched from head to foot.

There is, in parts of County Leix and Offaly, a great need for dispensary residences. Every time a good doctor comes to Mountmellick he leaves again in a few months because he can get no place to live. The same applies, as Deputy Davin will agree, to Ballylinan and several other districts in Leix and Offaly, and the Department should consider seriously the question of the provision of residences for medical officers in the different districts. I do not want to be referring always to Deputy Davin because I think he is quite capable of putting his own case to the Minister, as I think the Minister knows fairly well, but the Deputy referred to the Cottage Purchase Act. I should like to know what has become of this Act, or when we are going to have some results from it so that our cottiers will get some redress. We have heard nothing about it for a long time, although it was stated off Fianna Fáil platforms during the election that we were to have it in no time at all.

Deputy Davin also raised a very important point as to people in the county institutions working 100 and 105 hours. The very same position exists in Tullamore as in Laoighis, I am informed, and the Minister should look into the matter. There is very little use in writing to the Minister about these things because our representations do not get us very far. With regard to housing grants, I wonder if the Minister could see his way to increasing these grants. If I do not make a mistake, the Department gives a grant of £40 for the reconstruction of a house, but we all know that at present £40 will not go very far, with the present cost of materials and labour. I wonder if the Minister could see his way to increasing the grant to £60.

The Deputy may be unaware of it, but the amount is prescribed by statute under the Housing Acts. The Minister cannot increase the amount without amending legislation.

Why can it not be changed? Are we not the Dáil? With regard to national health insurance, a man approached me not very long ago in the town of Banagher, County Offaly. He is in receipt of £2 12s. 0d. per week. I think he is a mill-worker in that part of the county and he has 14 in family. His eldest son who is suffering from infantile paralysis, applied for assistance, but failed to qualify, because his father had £2 12s Od. per week. Yet there are 14 of them to be provided for out of that amount. How can it be done? I wrote to the Minister about that case and got the usual reply: he was looking into it. We have not heard the results of his looking yet.

Another case which I brought to the notice of the Minister some time ago is the case of a young fellow in Tullamore whose right arm was accidentally shot off. He was an agricultural labourer, but there is no farmer who would employ that boy to do any type of agricultural work by reason of his having only one arm. I made representations to the national health insurance authorities, but found they could do nothing. This man will not get any home assistance, simply because his father is earning 55/- a week or something like that. Where are such people to be catered for? How does the Minister expect these people to live? I cannot understand why this State neglect to cater for such people. Some State funds must be provided for them. I know very well that the Minister has done a lot of good from time to time but he has spoilt them by other things he has done.

Another point I wish to raise on this Estimate is the question of repairs to labourers' cottages. The vast majority of the labourers' cottages throughout the country are falling down. If they are reported to the county council or the county manager, it is referred to the county engineer, who will be about a year or 18 months before reporting back to the county manager, with the result that in the case of a cottage that has a few slates off the roof when the matter is reported, the entire roof is off before action is taken. I think a great deal of money is wasted through this method of dealing with repairs to labourers' cottages.

The same thing applies to the turf schemes. I believe there is considerable loss on the turf scheme which was sponsored by the Birr Urban Council. I had occasion to bring this matter before the Minister on a previous occasion. I am sure his Department is looking into it, as usual. I believe the real cause of the loss incurred in turf schemes is the fact that there are people handling the schemes who know nothing about it. I talk from experience because I was born and reared in a bog. I cut and wheeled turf during the summer before the elections. I do not propose to do so while I am a T.D. For every man engaged on the turf schemes there are four or five gangers. There are overseers. There are head supervisors coming from Dublin in motor cars and, if you handed them a slean, they would not know whether it was a four-pronged fork or a slean. They are the men who are telling the plain people of Ireland how to cut and save turf economically.

Near the town of Birr there was a scheme, not long ago, to save turf. When they had the turf cut, they started to drain the bogs. That is a sample of modern methods. Public money has been wasted in this way and there does not seem to be any care taken by the Department in the matter. I would like the Minister, when replying, to tell us how he is going to make up the loss sustained by public bodies such as urban councils or county councils. Remember, the townspeople of Birr do not want put on the town rates of Birr the loss that has been caused through neglect. I do not know what caused the neglect in the case of Birr. I am not going to condemn the officials in this case, because I will have to go back to Birr to-morrow or the next day, but I suppose the officials are responsible for a good deal of it.

I wish also to raise the question of the extension of the old age pension food voucher scheme in the rural areas. Outside such places as the town ot Mountmellick or Portlaoighise, there are people just as poor as those people within the towns. I do not understand why they should be deprived of the benefits received by people living within the town boundary. I would be very glad if the Minister could possibly see his way to include those people in his future schemes.

I think it was Deputy Meighan, from Roscommon who introduced the question of rates. To-day, I accompanied a deputation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance in connection with the Barrow drainage rates. I think the President of the Farmers' Party was also present. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that he had nothing at all to do with the matter. He had got his money and he did not care. The Board of Works had fulfilled their obligation. I know very well that the Department of Local Government is the authority over the county councils and that the county councils are responsible for the collection of the rates. Then the Minister must be in charge of rate collection in general. The Barrow drainage rate is a rate that cannot be paid; it is not a question of not wanting to pay it, as the Minister and members of the Government Party maintain. I heard one Fianna Fáil T.D. stating during the elections that farmers were exaggerating, that they had no case whatsoever. At the same time it was the strangest thing in the world that he had his own rates paid that year. The farmers are not exaggerating. They have a genuine grievance. I was a member of a deputation to the county manager in Tullamore quite recently.

About the rates. I asked the county manager what he intended to do in regard to the collection of these rates and he said: "We are going to collect them."

Was not the rate struck by the county council?

The rate was struck by the county council.

The manager was bound to collect it.

Everybody is bound to pay their just debts but not bound to pay an unjust or an unfair rate, and the rates in question are both unjust and unfair. This question requires to be considered fully by the Minister's Department. The farmers are not able to pay the rate.

The Minister for Local Government and Public Health is not responsible there. It is the Commissioners of Public Works who do that work, and the Deputy can raise that matter on the Vote for the Office of Public Works.

As far as this question is concerned we are sent from Billy to Jack.

The Deputy must obey the rules. That is a matter for the Office of Public Works. There is an Estimate for that Office and the Deputy can raise the matter and discuss it on that Estimate.

The Parliamentary Secretary says it is a matter for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

It does not matter what anybody says. I have told the Deputy that drainage is a matter for the Office of Public Works. He must abide by that decision.

We are not talking about drainage; we are talking about rates. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that it is a matter for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister tells us that it is a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary. They are both having a great joke at the expense of 3,000 farmers in the Barrow area. These people are not to be laughed at or jeered at. They are respectable, hard-working farmers. The farmers of Laoighis and Offaly produced seven times more food than was required of them.

If the Deputy does not move to report progress, he will be caught out.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Wednesday next.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3. p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd November, 1943.
Top
Share