I have listened patiently to the whole of this debate and I agree with other Deputies that local government is very essential and that it really and truly caters for the needs of the people. By close co-operation between the local authorities and the central authority, everything will run smoothly. I was rather surprised by the manner in which the Minister introduced his Estimate. He definitely came into the House with an attitude which gave Deputies, who might have been inclined to put forward honest criticism, no option but to strike back on the lines adopted by the Minister. If the debate at times moved back beyond 1931 and 1932 to blown-up bridges in the civil war, nobody but the Minister can be blamed.
The Minister started by comparing the amount of money spent in 1931 and 1932 with the amount spent at present, but everybody knows that the value of the £ in those days was much greater than it is at present, that it was capable of purchasing much more and, even though over £2,000,000 is now spent on local government, there is not such a great increase from that point of view, and considering also the enormous increase in taxation which has come about in the intervening 12 years or so. I have not the slightest doubt that had Deputy Mulcahy, who was Minister for Local Government at that time, and his Administration presented the House with a Budget of £35,000,000 to £40,000,000, they could have included in that Budget much more for local government, for housing, for tuberculosis treatment and for the different social services. The previous speaker has said quite a lot about election speeches, but there was an undoubted tinge of electioneering in what we heard from the Minister.
When the Minister came down to facts in relation to his Department, it was easy to see that local government falls into four main categories and that the money provided will be expended in respect of tuberculosis treatment, housing, roads and social services. The greatest scourge in this country is the scourge of tuberculosis and it is no credit to any Government —Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or any other Government who may replace the present Government—that there should be a single tuberculosis sanatorium required in this island. Let the Minister or nobody else think that the provision of sanatoria will eventually oust tuberculosis. It is a cure, but not a prevention. What will get at the root of 90 per cent. of the tuberculosis problem is the provision of four good meals a day for every citizen, an honest day's work and a good house to sleep in. Any person who has these facilities should definitely be more immune from infection than those who have to live on small wages, in bad housing conditions, or those who are unemployed.
Nobody, however, will criticise the Minister with regard to the increase of something like £48,000 for combating tuberculosis. The white scourge is here and we must try the cure, since prevention has not been brought about. The Mayo County Council recently debated conditions of employment in these sanatoria and we were informed by the medical officer that he found it very hard to get cooks, maids and even nurses at the salaries they were permitted to give. We hear constant cries that nurses are not adequately paid and that, when they are trained, they go to England, Scotland and, now, I understand, to the Continent, where they enjoy much better conditions, and if the Minister could provide better conditions for these nurses in sanatoria and general hospitals, he would be moving in the right direction.
The next big item is housing. So much has been said about it that I do not propose to add very much, but I want to say that the housing carried out over the last 20 years may have its good points, but it certainly may have its bad points also. In County Mayo, where we have not very large towns, there is an outcry for every labourer's cottage which becomes vacant. For each cottage, there are seven, eight, 10 and even 12 applications from single men about to be married, and married men with families, and it is obvious that there are not sufficient houses to meet the needs of those people. The Minister's guarantee, therefore, that the housing problem will be tackled in a much more forceful way than heretofore will be welcomed.
We realise that for the past few years, no big housing scheme could be undertaken. It is foolish for Deputy Walsh, or any other Deputy in this House, to suggest that the Minister could make building material available out of his sleeve and lay it before the building contractors in order to enable them to build houses. That sort of argument cuts no ice anywhere. We do not anticipate that there can be any immediate improvement in the position in regard to the construction of new houses, in either the rural or the urban areas, in the course of the next few years. The question is, how much can be done in the next three or four years?
That is the all-important consideration before us now. The one commodity in which we are lacking at the present moment is timber. How much timber can be imported? That is the problem which now confronts the Government. They will have to shoulder the responsibility in that respect. The Minister has told us that 60,000 houses are to be built. The Minister can have no guarantee under present conditions that materials will be available for the construction of those 60,000 houses. Where is sufficient timber going to be found for the necessary roofing, flooring, staircases, doors, windows and so on? If the timber can be got, and if these schemes can be put into operation, it will be a splendid achievement undoubtedly.
Down in County Mayo we have labourers' cottages erected. A labourer— a married man with a wife and children —goes into one of those cottages. What is the situation with which he is faced? He has to rear his family on, perhaps, 36/- a week, or £2 a week. No man could bring up his family on such a meagre figure. No body in this House, or outside of this House, can say that a road-worker is in receipt of a living wage; no road-worker who goes into one of these cottages, can live in any sort of comfort. Various county councils have sent forward resolutions time and again to the Minister asking for increases in the wages paid to road-workers, turf workers, and so on; time and again, no attention of any kind has been paid to those resolutions. The same thing applies to the agricultural worker. How can those people find any courage to remain in this country, to go and live in county council-built cottages on a wage which does not permit them to live in even the most meagre comfort? That situation then leads to another evil. Where those workers find themselves unable to make ends meet they adopt a policy of sub-letting a part of their cottages. That is something which has been done to a great extent. I believe now that policy is being discouraged. I know the county manager in my area recently issued an order in regard to it. But the position now is that where that sub-letting has taken place in the past new slums are being created. Rooms are sub-let to a young married couple at 3/-, 4/- or 5/- per week.
In nearly every instance the original tenant can get as much in rent as he himself is required to pay in rent and rates per week. That is the position. The only way in which to meet that situation is by the erection of more houses. The erection of more houses will naturally place a bigger burden on the people; as Deputy Walsh has said, it is immaterial where the money comes from to finance these schemes because, in the last analysis, it comes, either directly or indirectly, out of the pocket of the taxpayer. I am glad to learn, though, that the money is now being made available at a lower rate of interest. I cannot understand why the Government should not have done this before now. There is no reason why the Government could not provide money, even at 1½ per cent., in order to help out in the erection of houses. That is not a matter for boasting on the part of the particular Minister concerned. It is the Minister's duty. If the Minister does his duty then it is up to the Opposition to congratulate him on that; if he does not do his duty, then it is up to the Opposition to criticise him for his ineptitude.
There is one further point I would like to make in regard to the designs of houses in this country. I agree with Deputy Hughes in this matter; I think it was he who said that housing in this country should not be of any uniform or standard type. There should be a considerable variety in design. Houses should, if possible, be built singly; where space is available they should be built in blocks of three or four. They should be built with different types of frontages, different types of windows and so on. I think that is something which the Minister should examine into to find out if it is possible to have more variety in design. He should instruct his architects that, in the preparation of designs in the future, more attention should be paid to variety. The expense may be a little more, but I think the country definitely would benefit by such a procedure.
The third item then with which I wish to deal is roads. There is no doubt that the roads absorb an enormous amount of money in every country, and part of the finances of the State as well. There is also no doubt but that we must have good trunk roads. We cannot leave the main and trunk roads all over the country full of potholes or with sadly deteriorated surfaces. If we decide to leave our roads as they are we may save money; but I do not think that is a direction in which any saving in money would be justified. Undoubtedly, we require a better type of road. But at the same time I cannot myself see any justification for our embarking on sixty foot wide roads. They are quite suitable on the continent of Europe where an enormous volume of traffc is daily passing over them; they are all right in the United States of America or in the Southern states of America where there is unlimited space. In this country we cannot afford to have such gigantic roads or highways, certainly they are not essential to our population as it is at the moment. We could, perhaps, have an easing off of corners and a straightening here and there. I would suggest, too, that some provision should be made for the farmers who use the roads with the humble horse and cart. I speak from experience here because I have hauled with a horse and cart over these roads and I know the amount of effort that is required on slippery surfaces. If the Minister could make some provision for the farmers it would be a good day's work on his part.
I do not think we should concentrate entirely on the trunk roads and main roads. It is quite right that they should not be neglected; but at the same time we should not neglect the other types of roads. They are just as essential to the country—or, perhaps, more essential—than the main arteries and the main highways. In my county we have one of the biggest road mileages in the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties. I admit that the present lay-out of the roads in that county is not the fault of the present Administration; they were laid out years ago. Now the county council in Mayo will take over and look after any road which is not less than eleven feet wide.
That leaves a vast mileage of by-roads and secondary roads—some of them mere culs-de-sac—which have to be looked after by means of the various minor relief schemes or the rural improvements schemes, as the case may be. I wish to deal mainly with culs-de-sac. There are cases where only one individual benefits by the road in question. There are others where as many as six, seven and eight people benefit. I have in mind a case where a road is being repaired at present under a rural improvement scheme which will benefit as many as 11 people. They should be entitled to just as much consideration as those who are fortunate enough to benefit by a road which can be taken over and maintained by the county council. They are all ratepayers. The Land Commission and the old Congested Districts Board, in their redistribution of land, very often have to create a number of culs-de-sac because an estate might run along the borders of a village which had a road of its own. In order to make a road for the tenants, a cul-de-sac had to be created. That road may not have been repaired for 20 years. The people on that road pay very high rates and rent. I do not know whether the Minister will give consideration to their case or whether he can do it under the Local Government Acts but, definitely, these people have a genuine grievance. The Minister received a deputation from Mayo County Council who asked for a certain percentage from the local authority to help with a rural improvement scheme. The Minister told us, honestly, that that cannot be done under the law as it exists. A great deal of improvement must be made before by-roads and culs-de-sac can come up to anything like a suitable standard. It is better to live in hope than die in despair, but, definitely, something will have to be done about it.
Another matter that caused a great deal of discussion is social services. I maintain that the more social services there are of the kind that necessitate the voting of money for free boots, free milk, free clothing, et cetera, the surer sign it is that the Government are allowing the country to become decadent and desolate. Ireland has the tradition that its men are willing to work and do not want anything free. Nobody should get a single thing free who could be provided with work at wages which would allow him to buy the goods that he requires. There are people who are not fit or able to work. It is the duty of the Government to look after these people, but there are thousands of people who would gladly work, if they could get work, but who are given social services of one form and another and have been brought down to a degree of decadence that was quite common, years ago, when we had in power a Government whose policy it was to degrade the Irish people with bounties and doles. It is no credit, I maintain, to any Government, to have to expend money on social services such as these. It is an entirely different matter to provide social services in the form of old age pensions, blind pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions. These will be dealt with on another Vote and I shall not say anything about them now. These things are necessary and the citizens are entitled to them. But, I repeat, it is nothing of which any man or any Government can boast that we spend so much money on social services of the other type I have mentioned..
Another question that has created a good deal of comment is the managerial system. I have been a member of a county council since last June. At the first meeting to which I was summoned, I was issued with a circular pointing out the powers we had. We were told that we had almost as much power as we had before the managerial system was inaugurated. I found that things were entirely different.
We had plenty of power if we were in full agreement with everything that was laid down by the county manager or engineer, as the case may be, but if the council decided to make certain alterations in any matter the manager had to be informed and he, in turn, had to get in touch with the Minister or the Department, until we found that the circular was an absolute humbug, that there was no democracy as far as local government administration was concerned. We see from the Local Government Bill that if a local body decide that a proposed rate is too high and refuse to strike the rate on the ground that the people cannot afford it, and if they decide to strike a lower rate, they must submit it to the county manager to be submitted to the Minister and his Department. What is the position then? The Minister can decide the rate that is to be struck, if he considers that the proposed rate is not sufficient to meet the needs of the county. I want to know whether it is the local authority or the Minister who might be expected to have the most intimate knowledge of local conditions. If we have local bodies, they should be let severely alone, perhaps checked or reprimanded occasionally, but certainly not coerced. It may happen that a county council will always be in full agreement with the manager or the Minister but it may be the other way around. Time will tell what the consequences will be. I do not see why we want county managers when we have done without them for over 40 years.