Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Local Government (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Wednesday, 4 Jun 1947

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration—(Deputy Cosgrave).

General Mulcahy

There has been a considerable amount of discussion on this Estimate and many Deputies have spoken in an appreciative way of the amount of information the Minister gave. A lot of the discussion was related to housing and I agree that it is the most urgent and most important aspect of the work that requires to be done and supervised by the Department of Local Government. I cannot compliment the Minister on the quantity of the information he gave in regard to housing, as from the little information given regarding the work in hands, the progress that is being made, the cost of house building, the rent policy with regard to houses built by local authorities or the general policy with regard to subsidy, we get no enlightenment at all. While the quantity is insufficient, the quality is such that the Minister is simply shutting his eyes to the facts in relation to housing. We cannot afford to do that at present, as there is nothing more disturbing in the whole of our economy and our social situation than the disturbance being caused by the difficulty people are encountering in looking for houses.

The Minister set up a committee in 1939 to inquire into housing conditions in the City of Dublin. It reported at the end of 1943 and we got the report at the beginning of 1944. That report said, in column 654, referring to the estimated charges on public funds as a result of the proposals of the committee:—

"The alternative to a strong housing policy is a reduced standard of public health, an incentive to social unrest and reduced employment in the building and allied trades."

According to the committee, these were the alternatives to a strong housing policy. The circumstances of the time prevented anything like a strong housing policy being pursued and added greatly to the tendency referred to in the report towards a reduced standard of public health and an increased standard of social unrest as a result of the shortage of houses. The alternatives indicated there are pressing daily more and more. Nevertheless, the building of houses is not proceeding in an increasing way and there is nothing in the Minister's statement to show he is facing the reality of the situation. What is left unsaid there, as well as some of the Minister's policy, shows that he is running away from these facts.

I asked the Minister on the 8th May last if he would state the total number of applications for houses lying within the Dublin Corporation area in respect of married persons with families, married persons without families, persons intending marriage and single persons. I was informed that there were certain priorities to the extent of 4,900 and that the demand was so great in respect of those priorities that the Dublin Corporation were not keeping a list of the other types of persons requiring houses. I was told that 2,000 houses were required for families whose houses were scheduled for demolition; 400 for families who were living in dangerous buildings or buildings closed for repairs or demolition; 500 for families consisting of two or more persons in which one or more were suffering from tuberculosis, and 2,000 in respect of families living in overcrowded conditions. I was told that, because of that, applications from persons intending marriage or single persons were not registered by the corporation, as it was public knowledge that families that were included in these priority lists were given priority in the allocation of houses.

I was not given any of the information I asked for as to the number of married persons with families and married persons without families that were applying for houses and I can only conclude that the Minister had not that information and that so great is the demand that not only are they not keeping a record of persons intending marriage or single persons but they have not made any kind of systematic record or examination of the people who are married and have families or are without families and who are looking for houses. The Minister and the Dublin Corporation should be as well able to keep a record as are private companies. A report was published last year from Associated Properties, in which they review their year's working and their plans for the coming year. They reviewed the number of people applying to them for houses and the types of persons they were unable to satisfy. The report, which was issued on Thursday, 31st March, 1946, and was reviewing the previous year said:—

"When referring to our post-war programme at the ordinary general meeting in 1944, I pointed out that the company had a waiting list on 1st January that year of 1,200 families for the five-roomed Drimnagh type of house. On 30th June, 1944, that number had increased to 1,600 families, when it was decided to close the list."

Then they decided that their original programme to build 1,200 houses be increased to 1,600. The report continues:—

"An analysis of the applications throws a striking light on the housing position in Dublin to-day. It reveals the following facts: 620 of the families (who were applying to them for houses) pay up to 30/- a week for flat accommodation which in no case exceeds three living apartments; 498 are living in two-roomed apartments for which the rent paid averages 25/-a week; a further 476 are flat dwellers at a rent of not less than 20/- a week; 266 of the applicants are young people newly-married and without children, of whom 174 are living with the husband's parents and 92 are accommodated with the wife's parents in already overcrowded households. Only 140 enjoy the privilege and privacy of a whole house to themselves, for which the average rent charged exceeds 30/- a week. The total number of individuals comprised in these 2,000 families——"

the number of families had risen then to 2,000.

"——is about 9,000."

We get from that report of Associated Properties some information as to the type of persons who are looking to them for houses, the number of such people, the way they are managing to live at present and the rents they are paying. I submit that it is imperative that the Parliament should get, through the eyes of the Dublin Corporation and the Department of Local Government, a picture of the conditions under which people who are applying for houses in Dublin live, the rents they are paying at present and the rents they are prepared to pay so that we can know the rent capacity and rent willingness of a considerable section of our people as a financial foundation upon which a suitable housing policy can be built. In the second place, in order to be spurred to overcome the undoubted and acknowledged serious difficulties which exist in a progressive housing programme, we must have a picture of the social conditions which are there, demanding and driving both Parliament and local authority to see that their needs are fulfilled, if the alternative to a strong housing policy, so clearly referred to by the committee on housing conditions in Dublin, is not to become more and more apparent and more and more disturbing here.

When we couple with the blindness of the Department of Local Government to the situation which exists and on which the report of Associated Properties lifts a small part of the veil, with the Minister's statement on the number of houses required to-day, related to housing requirements as indicated by this committee, we are further disturbed. The committee on Dublin housing in a very exhaustive report at the end of 1943 set out that, in respect of a ten years' building programme, 33,000 houses were required to meet housing deficiencies in the city and current needs. If the housing programme were to be looked at from a 15 years' point of view, 39,000 houses had to be built and, from the 20 year point of view, 46,000 houses were required. It made recommendations with regard to certain things which were required—the stability and progressive nature of house-building, the rehabilitation of the building industry, the establishment of a joint council of employers and workers to smooth over difficulties and to bring about harmony and efficient working and the standardisation of both materials and processes. We have no indication from the Minister as to the extent to which anything has been done in that line.

He tells us that, of the 61,000 houses which may take over 20 years to finish, Dublin wants 23,364. These figures suggest to me that the Minister is minimising the problem in the City of Dublin. The committee which examined the housing situation and reported in 1943 were very well qualified to review the situation and to make the necessary estimates, and I am not able to reconcile the 23,364 houses which the Minister says Dublin wants now with 33,000 houses which the committee said were wanted in Dublin in ten years, the 39,000 houses wanted in 15 years and the 46,000 houses wanted in 20 years, so that the Minister is shutting his eyes to the magnitude of the situation here when setting out his programme in that way. But even minimising it in that way, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the statement issued by his Department on the post-war building programme in February, 1945, gave details of the amounts of money required to carry out certain works, the proposals and the estimates for which had been put before his Department as requiring to be carried out for a five years' programme of building and constructional work. Under building, the total amount was £73,166,000 and of that he indicated that the proposals put before his Department for housing by Government Departments and local authorities ran to £26,913,000 and to £14,292,000 for housing by private enterprise. In paragraph 5 the statement says:—

"These totals for a five-year programme of building and constructional work are large—so large indeed as to give rise to doubts concerning the reality of the proposals notified to the Department. A careful review of the proposals, however, gave no reason for thinking they were not seriously meant. The evidence available in fact pointed the other way. In many cases preliminary plans, estimates of costs, etc., had been prepared and the particulars submitted to the Department were based for the most part on figures that were the result of professional advice."

The Minister for Industry and Commerce was persuaded that it would be possible to go ahead with some considerable part, at any rate, of these proposals, and he was persuaded that the people who had put up the proposals had a very considerable amount of preparation made for the work, but, at the beginning of the war, figures were published under these various headings showing how the Minister had allocated licences for the carrying out of that work. They showed that whereas houses to be built by local authorities ran to 31 per cent. of the total post-war plan for the five years, the number of licences issued by the Minister to local authorities represented only 6 per cent. of the £11,000,000 in respect of which he had issued licences. Of the £26,913,000 worth of building by local authorities and Government which it was contemplated in the plans would be expended in five years, only £18,280,000 had been covered by licences, and whereas the building of houses by private persons was estimated for the five years at £14,292,000, or 25 per cent. of the five-year plan, the amount in respect of which licences had been issued was £2,904,000, or 11.5 per cent. In view of the difficulties of the times, I can understand 25 per cent. of the total number which were to have been built by private persons not being realised. 11.5 per cent. went to private builders.

I cannot understand why twice as much should have gone under the licences to private builders as went to local authorities, when the local authorities were planning to spend twice as much, at least, as the private builders. In an intervention yesterday, I drew attention to the intention to set up a co-ordinating body of representatives of interested Departments—Local Government, Education, Posts and Telegraphs, Defence, Industry and Commerce and Board of Works. I want to learn from the Minister whether that co-ordinating body has been set up or not and, if it has, what steps were taken on behalf of the representatives of the Local Government Department on that body to see that housing by local authorities got its fair share in the allocation of building materials. When you look down the lists of things to be done under the plan, you find that £9,000,000 is to be devoted to hospitals, £2,500,000 to military and Garda barracks and £4,000,000 to schools and colleges. Why the working-classes and the middle-classes should be robbed of building materials so as to provide for additional hospitals or additional military barracks is a question that should receive some answer. I find the Minister blind to the facts in the figures he quotes with regard to Dublin and in the figures by the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to the allocation of building materials for houses. There has been a complete omission to review quantitatively the work that is being planned at present.

The Minister indicated that he intended to bring proposals before the House to provide that State subsidies for housing purposes would be continued over a period of 50 years instead of 35 years, as at present. We have been pointing out to the Minister over a number of years the facts disclosed by the report of the Committee on Housing in Dublin, which showed that unnecessarily high interest was being claimed by the Standing Committee of the Irish Banks from Dublin Corporation for the loan of money for housing. The Government have fallen into step with our line of thought in that matter and are now lending money for housing at 2½ per cent. When the committee I speak of reported that, to provide the housing that was required, interest rates should be reduced and the period of borrowing extended, I pointed out that if the period was extended, as indicated in the report, to 60 years, it would mean that, over the period the committee referred to in its report, £12,000,000 would have to be paid in interest by the City of Dublin for the work being done more than was necessary and that that sum of £12,000,000 would be equal to the £12,000,000 of Government subsidy which was proposed at that time. I urge strongly that, before the period of borrowing for housing is extended from 35 years to 50 years, we should have a report by a committee of experts or by some persons prepared to stand over such a report as to what the financial and economic effects of doing that will be.

In the past, housing has been financed by borrowing over 35 years. The interest and principal would be completely repaid over a period of 35 years. The Minister now proposes that interest and principal be paid by an annuity over a period of 50 years and that the rate of interest be 2½ per cent. If the Minister borrows £100 at 2½ per cent., repayable over 35 years, he will repay it by 35 annual payments of £4 6s. 5d. If he borrows £100 at 2½ per cent. over 50 years, he will repay it by 50 annual payments of £3 10s. 6d. One aspect of the difference between the two proposals is that borrowing at 2½ per cent. for 35 years, for every £100, you pay £150 back over the 35 years. If you borrow at 2½ per cent. over 50 years, you will pay back in principal and interest £175 for every £100 over the 50 years. When repayments are finished, you have paid in the first case—the 35-year case—£50 for interest and, in the second case, £75 for interest. The difference in borrowing, so far as repayment goes, is that you pay 25 per cent. more in interest alone when you borrow for a period of 50 years than you would pay if you were borrowing for 35 years. Why is the Minister taking up this attitude? He is taking it up because he says that borrowing for the longer period will mean that he can charge a smaller rent. The general practice is, when houses are built by local authorities under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, that the State and the local authority bear part of the cost and the rest is paid in the form of rent. If we take a house the all-in cost of which is £700, the rent which would completely amortise over 35 years the cost of that house would be 11/7 a week. If the money was borrowed for 50 years, instead of 35 years, the rent which would amortise the borrowing would be 9/5. So that in the case of a £700 house the difference in the weekly payment that would have to be made would be the difference between 11/7 and 9/5, or 2/2. Sooner than decide that that 2/2 should be spread in some way or another as a payment to be made partly by the State, partly by the local authority and partly by the tenant, the Minister proposes to pile up for every £100 of capital expenditure an additional outgoing of £25 in order to spread the borrowing from 35 to 50 years. We are proposing to make it easier for ourselves in order to avoid looking at the cost of houses, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, we are prepared to pile a burden of debt on the people who will be there from 1982 to 1997. If we propose to do that, I think that we ought to have a systematic and expert examination as to why we propose to throw an additional debt of £25 on every £100 on our people in the future rather than face the allocation of, say, 2/2 as between the State, the local authority and the occupier of the house to-day.

It is interesting to see it in terms of actual cases. In October, 1945, the Thurles Urban Council discussed a building scheme for which they had received tenders. They adopted a £55,000 scheme which was the all-in cost of building 72 houses. The all-in cost of each house was to be £764. The rents that were to apportioned for different classes of houses under that scheme so as completely to amortise the borrowing were figured out as being 17/1, 19/1 and 24/6. These were the rents that had to be met by a combination of the State, the local authority and the occupiers. That £764 at the interest rate now proposed by the Minister, borrowed over a period of 35 years, which was the period considered by the Thurles Council at that time, would be paid off by a weekly payment of 12/5. That means that the change in the interest rate alone would effect the difference between the rents of 17/1, 19/1 and 24/6 of 1945 and the 12/5 of to-day at the 2½ per cent. rate. If that £764 house is built by money borrowed at 2½ per cent. for 50 years, instead of the weekly all-in rent being 12/5, it will be 10/4 or a difference of 2/1. But, for the sake of deciding how to apportion that 2/1 to-day between the State, the local authority and the occupier, the Minister is prepared to pay an extra £13,750 in interest on that scheme. If a scheme like that was carried out at 2½ per cent. borrowed for 35 years, there would be £27,500 to be paid in interest for that period. But, if the money is borrowed at 2½ per cent. for 50 years, an additional £13,750 has to be paid. The Minister ought not to ask the House blindly and without any expert report to adopt a policy which will pile a debt of that extent on people in a somewhat unknown future. Talking about rents——

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is wasting time.

In Clonmel they have been dealing recently with a small scheme of 18 houses. The all-in cost is £17,564; the all-in cost of each house is £1,008. It would require a weekly payment of 16/7 over 35 years to wipe out that debt; it it would require a weekly payment of 13/5 to wipe it out over 50 years. That indicates a difference of 3/2. The sharing of that 3/2 by the State, the local authority and the renter of the house would avoid the payment by the State—by the people of the country, who pay, whether as ratepayers or as taxpayers—of £4,391. I asked the Minister in January last about a scheme in Galway where, at Shantalla, the local authority was building 64 houses at an all-in cost of £59,000. They want 64 more when that scheme is finished. They want 46 more at the Claddagh. In the first scheme of 64 houses, at £59,000, the cost per house would be £922. In the case of the first lot of 64 houses, a weekly payment over 35 years of 15/3, met by the State, the local authority and the renter, would wipe out the debt. A payment of 12/4 a week over 50 years would also do it, but, for the sake of not deciding what they are going to do with the 2/11, as between the State, the local authority and the occupier, an overpayment of £14,750 in interest will be paid and a substantial debt will be left on the people in the future.

There are two aspects of it. The first is that it makes it easier for us, or for the Minister, to avoid facing the real cost of living and the real cost of building to-day and, instead of looking for everything that would induce us to live within our means and within our credit—a credit that can only be based on our doing something sensibly and building constructively and securely for the future—instead of holding on to every inducement that would make our minds active and enable us to face our problems, the Minister is running away from that and he is piling up an unnecessary debt.

That is all the more unintelligible when we realise all the brains that are supposed to be working on the housing question. A report issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce refers to a post-war building committee which was to arrange that there would be coordination of the various Departments. As well as that, we have actually set up, to deal with various aspects of the building industry, a research committee of 12. We have an advisory council for the building industry of 12; we have an advisory committee of employers of 11; we have an advisory committee on labour of 12; we have an advisory committee of builders' providers of 11; we have an advisory committee of timber merchants of seven and we have an advisory committee of manufacturers of building materials of nine. The members are drawn, some because of their very close association with the various aspects of building and others from the various Departments and, knowing the problem building is and the Minister's responsibility for it, would anybody imagine, from the information contained in his statement to-day, that we have all these people working? If they are, what are they doing? If they are doing anything—and I am sure they must be doing something—we ought to be advised here and guided in our discussions.

Does the Minister wish to make a statement?

Mr. MacEntee

I say the Constitution of 1922 has nothing to do with the matter.

General Mulcahy

I am telling you what it was. Article 26 says that the Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every ten years with due regard to changes in distribution of the population. Under that Article, the constituencies having been changed in 1935 would be due for review in 1945, but the Constitution of 1937 says in Article 16, paragraph 4:—

"The Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every 12 years with due regard to changes in distribution of the population".

As an ordinary layman, I would suggest that even that portion of the Constitution of 1937 would imply that 12 years after the last revision, which took place in 1935, another revision of constituencies should take place. If it means anything material to the ideology of the Minister or the Government, I would even let the constitutional position go unargued with him, but normally I would say that the constituencies should have been reviewed and that constituencies which are definitely below their strength in representation as compared with other constituencies should have been brought up to strength by legislation passed this year and that would, of course, come into operation only after the next general election.

——without consultation with other Parties? I consider that is a matter of importance and that is why I mention it here as being one for which the Minister is responsible.

Mr. Commons

One thing I like about this Estimate this year, as compared with last year, is that the Minister has introduced it in a milder manner and has given more detailed explanations to the House in general as to the various difficulties his Department is up against or will be up against for the coming year. The Minister has explained our requirements in housing for the next 20 years and has described the efforts that must be made to carry out the programme. As a result of the reorganisation of the Department and the setting up of the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare, the Minister for Local Government can now concentrate on housing, roads and turf production. I understand that next year turf production will be taken over by Bord na Móna. That will further lighten the work of the Minister and will allow him more time to concentrate on these matters. How he will progress with them remains to be seen but I can assure him that in matters like the construction of dwelling-houses for the working-classes and the improvement and standardisation of roads, this Party will give him every help and encouragement possible. That is of course subject, in the case of roads, to the proviso that he will not demand an extravagant figure or will not seek to create too extravagant a type of road or a road that the ordinary taxpayer would not feel it was justifiable that he should be asked to construct or to maintain.

The first problem is housing. It has been dealt with thoroughly by the last speaker. Everybody realises the scarcity of houses, especially in the cities. I can assure the Minister, however, that even in small towns there is a definite shortage. There are two types of houses of which there seems to be a general shortage—labourers' cottages and the better type of house suitable for the middle class, salaried man, who is not entitled to a labourer's cottage and who cannot afford to pay the rent demanded for houses of the better type. So far, I have not heard any Deputy asking, encouraging or admonishing the Minister to consider these people who are willing to pay a reasonable rent for houses of a slightly better standard than working-class houses. I do not know whether or not the Department of Local Government intend to introduce a housing scheme for these people but I do know that such a scheme would be very beneficial. The Minister must realise that the middle-class wage earners are being fleeced at the present moment in the rents they have to pay for houses of the type they like to live in. Persons whose salaries range from about £300 to £700 a year will have to pay for a decent house in any town a rent of from £100 to £170. If it is possible for the Government to help these people in any way, they should do so because the persons concerned are a national asset. They do their work, they get decent wages and they are willing to pay a reasonable rent for a decent house.

In considering these people we must also have regard to those who are more urgently in need of housing, that is, the labouring classes for whom labourers' cottages have been erected. In my constituency there are not many agricultural labourers. The majority of those who inhabit the labourers' cottages are tradesmen, county council gangers, garage mechanics, and so on. There is a keen scarcity of houses in County Mayo as well as in every other county. I realise that the Minister would be justified in replying that he cannot suddenly, overnight, produce houses with a wave of his hand. I know that he would like to build these 61,000 houses within the next three years but every sensible and thinking Deputy must appreciate that he cannot do that.

I shall not be very hard on the Minister. I know that as a result of the scarcity of building material, cement, glass, metal, it has been almost an impossibility to make any progress with housing schemes on a large scale for the past few years. On the other hand, licences are given for the erection of luxury hotels and dwellings. If there is any building material available, the Minister should see to it that it is used for the construction of labourers' houses or houses for the middle class rather than that it should be used by individuals to build houses for letting to wage earners at rents which are far beyond the capacity of the average wage earner to pay. The actual amount of building material used for that purpose may not be very great but in this connection every little helps and I would ask the Minister here and now to give us an assurance that he will see that there is no further waste of building materials on luxury building of any kind.

The problem of housing can be viewed in many ways. It is all very well for the Department of Local Government to build cottages, to let them to tenants at a very reasonable rent, to give the tenant the option of being vested and purchasing out, but we must consider the state of disuse, disrepair and dilapidation into which many of these houses have been allowed to fall. There is no doubt that in many towns, labourers' cottages, built at the expense of the ratepayers, have been allowed to get into a disgraceful condition. Whether the fault lies with the tenants or with the Government who expect a tenant of one of these houses to subsist on a wage which will not provide him with a decent way of life, it is very hard to say. That is quite a problem for the Minister or any Minister to solve. If a labourer who occupies one of these cottages had a reasonable wage he would maintain his cottage in a reasonable state of repair. Anyone who has travelled outside this country must admit that tenants who have got cottages from local authorities have in many cases allowed them to get into a condition which does not reflect any credit on the tenant. While the Government scheme of keeping these cottages in repair is in operation, there will be a certain laxity on the part of the tenant in maintaining his cottage because he can say, "I can let it get into such a condition and when I report it to the local authority the Government will send along a man who will repair it free, gratis and for nothing." Then, on the other hand, if the tenant is made owner of his house after so many years and is given the necessary encouragement he may see that his cottage which will become his own property in time will be kept in a decent and respectable condition.

The main point I want to make is that the blocks of houses which have been built over the past 20 or 25 years are not kept up to the standard which any Deputy in this House or any citizen of this State would wish. The people have been taken out of slums. Quite an amount of work has been done for those people but a great deal has yet to be done. Nevertheless, there is no point in allowing houses built at the ratepayers' expense to fall into a dilapidated condition. One thing of which I approve, Sir, in this Estimate is that variety in the design of houses and of blocks of houses is contemplated and that architects and engineers have been in consultation in order to change the designs and to give a better and a livelier appearance to the blocks of houses which are being built. That is something which is very welcome to everybody and, in particular, to any person who understands housing. It will add to the beauty of the blocks of houses very much and maybe, also, it will encourage the tenants to keep the houses better than some of them are at the present moment. So much for the housing problem. The next problem is the problem of roads.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Commons

At the present moment we must admit that after a very severe winter many roads—trunk roads, main roads and by-roads—in the country are in a very bad condition. That is only natural but their condition is being worsened by the very heavy traffic that is now being turned on to those roads due to the Government's decision to close certain branch lines and sections of the railway thus driving the railway traffic on to the roads which are being maintained by the ratepayers. We see that 20 railway stations have been, or will be, closed in the near future. We see that several branch lines will be closed down and stations shut up and that traffic will be put on heavy lorries and buses. We have here envisaged a scheme whereby, in the years to come, gigantic highways will be erected to accommodate this overdose of heavy traffic and to make up for the cause of shutting down the railways. I think that is a very foolish economy or system on the part of the Government. I am totally opposed to the closing-down of any branch line, even though it may have to be run at a small loss or, indeed, at a loss and, instead, turning the traffic of that line on to the roads —the roads which already are a very heavy call on the purses of the taxpayers or the ratepayers of this country.

In the County Mayo the roads burden is the cause of driving every year our rates upwards and continually upwards. If we have in time to come to bear the expense of a road, 50 feet or 60 feet wide, with one section of it for horses, another for pedestrians, etc., the taxpayers or the ratepayers in any county will not be able to afford it. Why then close down the railways which are capable of carrying the heavy traffic and diverting, all of a sudden, this traffic on to the roads? I, Sir, and any progressive Deputy in this House would like to see a road as straight as a gun-barrel or as a ribbon from the City of Dublin to the town of Westport. Any country would be proud of such a road. But the trouble is that we must cut our cloth according to our measure. We know that with so many more essential things at the present moment requiring to be done we cannot undertake any of those highways. I do not suppose, anyhow, that they will be undertaken even within the coming year. I can assure the Minister that, even at this stage, when the process of their creation is only being contemplated, this Party will not approve of such roads being created in order to close down branch railways. I see that the Minister has taken heed of a constant cause of complaint amongst the agricultural community and especially amongst the Deputies who come from the country and who claim to represent the farmers, the agriculturists, namely, the question of horse traffic along the roads. A representative committee has been formed to inquire into and report on (1) the extent to which present methods of road surfacing are a contributory cause of accidents to animals or animal-drawn traffic; (2) the possibility of preventing or reducing accidents by the adoption of various methods of surfacing and particularly the desirability of providing specially treated margins on roads in rural areas. We all know, Sir, that no matter what the condition of the roads there will be accidents. In many cases we must admit that the cause of those accidents can lie alike with the individual who drives the horse or with the person who drives the motor car. Nevertheless, each and every one of us knows that the roads at the present moment are in a very dangerous condition so far as horse traffic is concerned. It is due, I believe, to the fact that 25 years ago when we started putting down tar macadam roads our engineers thought it would be a good thing to leave so many feet by the side so that horses or animals would have room to travel with the result that the centre of the road was raised. Now nine-tenths of the roads of this country are of a very dangerous type which give no foothold whatsoever to any type of horse, even to the one that has to draw a light vehicle along the road. Several suggestions have been made. In our county the county surveyor, with all the help and encouragement that the councillors could give him, has decided to break three feet or four feet from the macadam surface on the side of the road, to crush stone, to mix that broken stone with tar in a concrete mixer and to spread it over this four feet wide of a surface and roll it in with a light roller. It will give very satisfactory results. At one time of my life I have driven a horse and at another time of my life I have driven a motor car and I can assure the county engineer, as I have assured him, and the Minister, that if that system is adopted there will be very few complaints from people who drive horses. There is no use in saying that the shoeing of horses can help in any way. As I have said there are some horses which will not be as well able to move on the roads as other horses. The average horse has to pull a heavy load and there is no use in getting pointed studs and putting them into the horseshoes. Everyone must realise and know that after one stretch of the road they will be flattened out. The system which I and other members of this Party suggest, should prove very satisfactory.

So much for the main roads. In our county we have a large number of byroads which have been allowed to run into disrepair due to the fact that the contractor who had taken the contracts for those roads found out that with the increased cost of labour and everything else they would not be a paying proposition. The roads have been put up by the county engineer for public contract but no contractor has come forward. They have, therefore, been done by direct labour and very badly so within the past two or three years. Roads which heretofore had been side-dressed and looked after once a year and coated with sand or gravel twice or three times a year are now roads on which one rarely sees anyone along them doing any work. They have not been side dressed or had their water tables cleared up for two or three years and have seen only a slight scatter of sand in the same period and on the whole they are in very bad condition. Then we come to the roads which nobody seems to worry about except the Office of Public Works Special Employment Branch, namely, the cul-de-sac roads, and they are even in a worse condition. The majority of people who have to use each of the three types of road are very dissatisfied. They come out of the cul-de-sac road, which is in an awful condition, on to the by-road, which is not much better, and then to the tarred road, which has a surface as slippery as glass. If the Minister will do as he sets out to do in the Estimate and make every effort to satisfy the agricultural and farming community, I assure him the Estimate will receive every encouragement from this Party.

The engineering and laying down of roads is something which we should study from other countries. The main and trunk roads in Northern Ireland are much better than ours. Instead of having 50 or 60 foot wide roads, we have at each side of the road at present two or three feet of a margin of clay, which is no good and which could be used up to add to the width. We cannot bring our roads up to the standards of the autobahn in Germany or the great highways in the United States, as our roads were laid down very many years ago and are twisted and turning ones; but in some places we have two or three feet which could be used, by removing the grass margin and rolling the road into the butt of the fence. That would be immensely useful work at very little expense.

Another fault I find is that the output of work per man on road works is not what we would like it to be. I have agitated as much as anybody for increased wages for road workers and I say they are definitely entitled to better wages than they are getting. However, when they get increased wages, their output per man should be increased and a better type of work could be expected from them. Time and again I discussed this with the county engineer. The output depends not on the engineer or other official of the county council but on the ganger. I have been told by the county engineer that for, say, £150 one ganger can get almost twice as much work done as another ganger. I believe that, if the proper type of man were selected as ganger and, once selected, kept in steady employment by the county council or engineer, if he were a man with a through understanding, who may have spent years as a labourer on the road, then the output per man would be increased immensely and much better work would be done for the money spent on a particular job.

Next comes the problem of turf. Having about turf the thorough knowledge of a rural Deputy, I am afraid I must say that turf production this year is not as great as it was in previous years. I am speaking only about the turf produced by the county councils or private producers in my county. Of course, the bad weather and the lateness of the spring has thrown turf production back almost six weeks. This time last year we had one crop dry and were going on with the second crop. This year we have not even the first crop yet and I am afraid the City of Dublin and other cities in non-turf areas will be faced with very bad fires during the coming winter. I cannot say who is to blame. There is an unofficial strike in the County Kildare bogs. Unofficial strikes are not welcome at any time, but there is this much to be said— there would be very few of them if conditions and wages were satisfactory. I do not make a big complaint regarding wages. I understand from men who have worked in those bogs, and are willing to rough it anywhere in Ireland or in England, that the conditions there are very bad.

Everyone knows that hostels or billets for men will not give the same comfort as a boarding house or lodging house to which they can go from the pits or other works in England. I do not lay the blame entirely on the Minister, as there may be groundless complaints, but I know young fellows in my own constituency who are perfectly good workers and well able to work, and who have gone to these camps and come back after three or four weeks. When I asked them why they left and if it was because they did not make sufficient money, they said the money was all right, but the camps, the food and the conditions under which they had to live were not as good as they wanted. I believe they are genuine complaints, but whether they are true or not I would like the Minister to investigate them and raise the standard, until such time as boom towns or ghost towns are built there, with boarding houses and landladies to look after the boarders, as is the case all over the world. You cannot have the same comforts, but I think the camps could be made a bit better than they are at present.

Privately-produced turf in Mayo was very useful to the Government, to the country and to the people who produced it. There is no doubt that the small farmer who had, as part of his small farm, five or ten acres of bog, could produce turf for which he had a ready market and which was useful to the householders in the city and brought him in ready money. But what do we find? The man who produced private turf and sold it has brought down on his head a hoard of officials, who have gone in and examined his turf bank and increased his valuation, after getting information from him as to the amount he produced the previous year and the amount he sold. That man's effort in the country's hour of distress was compensated for by an increased valuation on his turf banks. That is very wrong.

I am glad to say that, in Mayo County Council when that matter was raised two months ago, every councillor expressed dissatisfaction with the action of the Government, especially in relation to people on uneconomic or small holdings. It is a very wrong principle and is no encouragement to these men to produce turf. The increase in valuation is not very much and in some cases is not worth half the talk about it, but the fact that the Government have thought fit to take this action has left a very bad taste in the people's mouth. Going through my constituency, as I do pretty thoroughly, and trying, as I feel it my duty to do, to encourage people to cut more turf than last year, I am told: "No, sir. We will only cut what we require for ourselves this year, because the Government has increased our valuations and given us very little encouragement to produce turf."

Another matter which I dislike—I am one of the few Deputies who dislike it—is the increasing of salaries of the higher paid officials of county councils. Our Party on the Mayo County Council opposed increases to anybody with a salary of over £500. This Vote makes provision for increased salaries, and, while I should like to see everybody getting what he deserves in the shape of a reasonable wage or salary—because the people who talk about having all salaries of an equal standard are talking through their hats—no individual should be asked to work for too little while another receives too much. I think that, in the case of officials of the Mayo County Council receiving £1,000 a year salary, plus travelling expenses —even though they are few—who were given increases in their salaries, the principle was wrong. I said so at the council and I say it here.

The amount of money required for water and sewerage systems is an expenditure which nobody will begrudge. Every small town and many big towns are crying out for improved water and sewerage systems. In nine cases out of ten, the rural population have, from the Creator, a bountiful supply of water, pure and clear and better than anything that can be got in a town, no matter how good the spring from which it draws its supply, but we should not forget that there is a definite need for improved water and sewerage systems in many of the towns. While I know the job can be tackled only slowly, I assure the Minister that no criticism will come from me when he tackles the job of providing better facilities for the people in the towns. There is also a need in parts of the country and in parts of County Mayo— I have raised this matter here and at the county council—for a water supply. In some cases, people have to go almost a mile to a spring to get a supply. Pumps could be sunk in these areas for a very small amount and they would be very beneficial to the people there, and if the Minister could see his way to speed things up in this respect, not alone in Mayo but everywhere else in the country and ensure that pumps will be sunk, I should be very pleased to congratulate him on doing a very good day's work.

With regard to the building of houses in rural areas, the Minister knows that the pre-war grant of £80 is very little use at present. In those days, we could buy cement at £2 per ton as compared with £5 or £5 10s. 0d. to-day, and, in view of the increase of over 100 per cent. in the cost of materials of every description, the £80 grant should be increased. The man who decides to erect a house on his own is a very good asset. He will spend hundreds of pounds of his hard-earned money in erecting a decent house for himself and those coming after him, and he should get better encouragement from the Department in undertaking a job which it should be the Government's duty to carry out in its entirety. I know that, if the grant were increased to £100, the money will have to be got somewhere and the Minister can scatter all our good intentions to the winds in half a dozen sentences by saying: "Everyone wants increased social services, increased houses and increased grants for this, that and the other, but everybody complains when I go to look for the money." He has a good excuse there, but savings could be brought about in other sections of his Department and devoted usefully to some of the schemes advocated here.

The changing of constituencies has been discussed. Nobody knows more about how or why a constituency should be changed than the Government. It is their duty, according to the Constitution, to see that the number of Deputies elected to this House varies from time to time in accordance with the population in the different constituencies, but if the Government decide to change the constituencies, they should see to it that no gerrymandering is carried on. Every Deputy knows well that there are areas which vote for one or other Party in this House in greater strength than other areas of the constituency, and a very good way for a Government or somebody with power to clip the Opposition representation is to change the constituency in such a manner that the stronghold of a certain Party is taken from one constituency and shoved into another constituency so that, very simply but very thoroughly, the whole voting power of a Party in this House is upset. So far as Mayo is concerned and so far as I am personally concerned, they can change it any way they like. The Minister may smile. It is up to him and it is up also to us and "we shall see what we shall see" when the time comes. Those are the only points I want to make.

Local government is a very useful form of administration but the managerial system is not. Everybody likes the county manager we have in County Mayo and everybody gets on very well with him but he tells us continually that he has to refer everything to Dublin before he makes a decision. There are very few things which he himself can decide. We do not trouble him very often. If anybody is entitled to a right, he is justified in getting that right satisfied without begging favours from anybody. If a man is in need of a labourer's cottage, he has a right, as a citizen, to get it if a cottage is available. If a road is in a bad state, it is the right of the people who use that road to have it repaired without making representations to Deputies or anybody else. While we do not go begging favours from the county manager, when we do discuss things with him—the same applied to his predecessor—we are told that various schemes which the county council and the county manager would approve of have been held up owing to the slowness and inactivity of the Department of Local Government. In Mayo, we have made great efforts in regard to a sanatorium and we find that we have not got any further than we had got 12 months or 18 months ago. I know that that is a matter for the Department of Health and I shall not discuss it further.

I have heard during the past few days a wail from every Deputy with regard to housing, wages and conditions, generally, of the poorer classes. Last week, from the same Deputies, I heard a howl that certain officials could not live on £4,000 a year. Can any Deputy say that £4,000 is not sufficient for a certain man and a week later refer to the conditions of the poorer classes and their need for houses? So far as I have listened to the speeches, that is hypocrisy of the finest type. We do not claim to be holy angels in this corner or to say that we always do the right thing. But we do our best. I can assure the Minister that, while I have been critical of his Estimate, in parts, I should encourage and help him in every way possible in regard to the erection of a greater number of houses of a better type. We should like to see jerry-building cut out——

I appeal to the Minister to consider increasing the limit of £1,000 which can be borrowed under that Act at present to £1,500 and give these people an opportunity of building houses. If possible also he should extend the period for repayment. I do not know whether it is the Minister's intention to apply the 50 years' period to that type of person. These people cannot be accommodated under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. They are debarred from getting any houses that local authorities erect. If we provided for that class of people, the people in worse-off circumstances must remain longer without houses. As a public representative, I have no hesitation in saying that it is our duty to attend to the under-dog first and to eliminate the slums, because without healthy homes you cannot have healthy people. That is a matter to which I hope the Minister will give favourable consideration. The value of money has fallen very considerably and that affects this class of people very much. It may be said that they have got increases of wages, but the increases which they have got are not commensurate with the increased cost of building. That is my reason for making this appeal to the Minister.

I should also like to congratulate the Minister on the progress made in the audit of the accounts of public bodies, which is being brought up to date. I have been harping on that for ten years. I am very glad to see that the audit for 1946 is now being carried out. That is a step in the right direction. There is another matter to which the Minister might give consideration, and that is permitting public bodies to employ their own public auditors, quite apart from the Local Government auditors altogether. From past experience I know that downright graft has been practised in the administration of public affairs, notwithstanding the audits carried out by Local Government auditors. It is only when we brought in an outside firm of public auditors that that system was finally put an end to. For these reasons, I think it is my duty to request the Minister to consider permitting public bodies to bring in an outside firm of auditors for an annual audit which will be a check-up on the Local Government audit and, in the long run, will be in the public interest.

I should also like to direct the Minister's attention to a number of water schemes submitted from County Louth to his Department. Some of these schemes have been put on the long finger for 18 or 20 years and I would be glad if the Minister would see that sanction is not delayed. I refer particularly to water schemes for Clogher Head, Termonfeckin, Baltray, Black-rock, Dundalk and the village of Collon. That village has become very prominent on the map of Ireland during the last seven or eight years. A tremendous number of visitors are arriving in that village every week and there is not one single house in that village which has water or sanitary accommodation. The public authorities made some effort to deal with that matter some 12 years ago but it was put on the long finger. I hope the Minister will see, when that scheme comes before him, that there will be no undue delay in regard to it.

Dr. O'Higgins

This particular Vote naturally gives scope for very wide discussion, and the temptation is there to take up a number of the different aspects of the activities within the field of the Department of Local Government. The debate has gone on for a number of days, and I do not propose to take up very much of the time of the House. I intend to direct my remarks to one particular phase of the activities under the Department of Local Government, namely, that of housing. Anyone who directs his attention towards housing has directed his attention towards the biggest problem confronting this State and, possibly, every other State, and the most acute want existing in the country at the present moment. One hears and reads a lot about the clearance of the slums. I do not know of any country where a policy of slum clearance has been successful, because I believe that slums grow at a rate equivalent to the rapidity of building, even where the rate of building is vastly accelerated.

I remember some years ago reading the experience of a team of officers appointed in London, following the first European war. They were given practically unlimited authority and practically unlimited funds. Every facility that could be given to them was there to their hand. The original intention was that within 18 years they would have cleared the slums of London—London would be without a slum. They had their charts and plans pointing out how many houses would be built each year. I read the interim report of that particular body at the end of 16 years and they had exceeded their building plan by 40 per cent., but they confessed they had not reduced the slums by 5 per cent.

What people forget is that decay is going on all the time building is going on; that in Europe, in most of our towns and villages, 80 per cent. of our houses are an average of 100 years; that old Father Time is working there while the builders are working elsewhere, and that the process of decay increases in speed with age. In addition, you have marriages and births and you have new building schemes becoming very rapidly overcrowded. Here on the fringes of Dublin we have slums growing up more rapidly than, with the best intentions in the world, we can remove the slums that were there previously.

I had, in my own small way, an experience of that kind of thing. I remember some 14 or 15 years ago a very thorough and comprehensive survey of housing conditions being carried out in one county. A detailed survey of the position disclosed that if there were some 900 houses provided, there would not be a family living in a condemned house. The 900 houses were provided and the best part of another 1,000 houses, too, yet there are more people living in condemned houses there at present than there were 15 years ago. That is nobody's fault.

The work done under the Housing and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1931 or 1932, no matter how it may be criticised, was really excellent work and the speed of building was, in the main, spectacular. But, in spite of all that effort and the immense stream of money that was thrown behind the builders; in spite of the way all factors joined together in trying to provide the maximum number of houses with the greatest expedition, I venture to say that there is not a single administrative area in this country where the housing situation is not worse than it was 12 or 15 years ago.

I merely make these remarks in order to avoid putting the Government or public men into the position of raising hopes that there is no prospect of fulfilling. Sometimes you hear of officers going before a local authority and saying: "Give me 1,000 houses and the housing position in this county will be ideal". They get the 1,000 houses, but the housing position in that county is just as it was; there are just as many badly-housed people waiting for new houses. To a large extent that position is unavoidable; to a certain limited extent it is unquestionably avoidable.

With frenzied energy the Housing Acts were worked all over Ireland for a number of years, up to the time they were interrupted by the war. Even if a thing is a very good thing, in the experience of its working it may be improved. If we pause, sit down and examine the machine to see if it has any flaws and make up our mind to remove those flaws, that is all to the good. I believe there are defects in our present scheme and, living and observing in the very middle of the machine, I can see those defects very clearly. Under the Housing and Miscellaneous Provisions Act the normal procedure in each administrative area is to plan a comprehensive building scheme, as a result of an all-out survey, to aim at providing a sufficiency of houses to rehouse all those living in condemned houses, etc. The idea is to have one big scheme of 700 to 1,000 houses.

That scheme obviously and naturally takes time. It is signalled possibly four years before the houses are completed. What does that signal mean? It is a signal to everybody who can possibly qualify for one of those houses that they have four years in which to qualify. It is a signal to every town and village landlord that in four years there is a probability that his small, unsuitable houses will be empty. What is the result of that signal? That a person with a pretty fair house that, by a bit of effort and a bit of vigilance could be kept reasonably habitable, is thanking God every time a slate is blown off, is thanking God when a hinge comes off the door. That person is one slate or one hinge nearer to qualifying for one of those new houses.

So you have that extremely deplorable aspect in the mad race of the urgency of disrepair. You have people attempting to qualify by neglecting their houses. You have landlords, stimulated by some business or economic motives, allowing their houses to go into rapid disrepair so that, by the time the four years have passed and the 1,000 houses are opened for tenancy, instead of having to cater for approximately 1,000 families living in condemned houses, you find there are about 2,500. Whether it is an agreed scheme or a compulsory scheme, the rate of decay and deterioration is beating hollow the best efforts under our legislation.

It is a simple matter to see what is there in front of you, but it is not such a simple matter to find a remedy. I do not pretend that I have a solution which is any better than anybody else's plan. I do think that if, instead of launching big schemes, compulsory purchase order schemes or agreement schemes, the money was there, as it were, all the time and there was steady, regular building going on progressively, not just in hysterical jumps from one big scheme to another, the direct goal of having houses in complete disrepair at a certain given date would not at least be so clearly before the potential tenants of new houses. The direct threat of empty houses by a certain date would not be so apparent to every owner of a poor type of house property. I think that if houses were built more progressively and in smaller numbers, at the same time there would be very many advantages other than those I am pointing out. With the best supervision and the soundest administration in the world, and even with the most highly expert and efficient clerk of works, if too many houses are under construction at the same time, supervision is not as successful and results are not as good as if the houses were built in smaller numbers but with absolute continuity. I have seen three or four schemes go through and I have listened to criticisms. A very great number were excellently built; there were defects in a small number. Taking into account the number of houses under construction at the same time, and the immense distances between them, I think defective houses here and there could not possibly have been avoided. If they were built in smaller instalments, the same number of houses would have been built in the same period, but supervision would have been easier.

I think it was Deputy Kennedy who suggested a policy of grouping houses rather than having them so completely separated and isolated as they are in the majority of counties. I believe there is a big lot to be said for grouping, at all events in a townland or a quarter parish where there is a sufficient number of applicants to justify grouping. The supervision would be better and closer and presumably there would be some reduction in the cost. It would make simpler the problem of providing amenities such as water and, in the course of time, rural electrification to groups of houses rather than to so many individual houses widely spaced apart. Quite aside from all these points, it would undoubtedly lead to greater speed and the position is so serious at the moment that one of the most important things to aim at, when supplies are available, is speed in building. Anyone can see that if you have 500 different cottage sites on 500 different holdings, that means 500 separate titles must be inquired into and the inquiry into title, the establishment of title, is a very slow, tedious and costly business. If these 500 houses were grouped on 50 different holdings the delay would be merely that entailed by an inquiry into 50 titles and the cost would be reduced somewhat in proportion, perhaps not mathematically so, but the cost of title investigation would certainly be reduced very considerably.

Then there is the other aspect, whether it be a compulsory scheme or not, that due consideration should be given, in fair play and equity, to the man who is giving up the land. I have seen a big 70 acre field with four separate cottages erected on it, one at each end of the field and two in the middle, like the teeth of a comb cutting into that big field instead of having these four cottages close together, leaving a field that could be tilled or handled without inconvenience or delay. If building is to go ahead without appeals to courts or arbitrators, we must appreciate that, even though he is paid money for it, the man giving up land is giving something to help the people, that his convenience and the amenities of his place should receive consideration, just as much consideration as is given to a worker in placing him 150 yards nearer to his work or 150 yards further from a neighbour. The way that certain big fields have been left by the penetration of two, three or four cottage plots is undoubtedly something akin to vandalism. Sufficient consideration was not given in the past to the point of view of the man giving up the land, particularly in agreement schemes. Whether it is an agreement scheme or a compulsory scheme, the fact that you have a legal right to do a certain thing does not always justify you in doing that thing. I think it is really one of those instances where there has got to be a certain amount of give and take. It is a bad policy and bad business where it is all take and no give.

Moreover, I think the regulations under some of the Housing Acts are excessively rigid. I think in certain cases more discrimination should be allowed. If our future housing schemes are to proceed as expeditiously and as harmoniously as every one of us would like to see them proceed, there is something at least to be inquired into with a view to allowing discrimination, to some authority, some individual or some body. I do not care if that discrimination is inside the Minister's Department; I do not care what officer is given the power of discrimination, but rigidly can be carried too far.

I have in mind the type of case where a farmer, a large employer, says: "I am prepared to give sites for four cottages, but I have four workmen of my own, all married men with families, all living more than two miles away. They are decent men and good workers, and I would like that they should get the cottages and I would give the sites more willingly if they could have some little preference, seeing that they would be living where they work". You cannot give any encouragement to that man. You cannot give any assurance to him. He may give the site and you may in good faith say: "It is likely your workmen will get these four cottages". The cottages are built and the houses are advertised and the four worst housed people happen to apply. They may be tailors, cobblers, railway guards or bus drivers. It is agricultural workers that he wants and it is agricultural workers that are wanted in the district, but the others are the worst housed, and any honest official working under the regulations must carry them out, irrespective of what he thinks to be the justice or soundness of the procedure.

We know that that is happening. It is happening every day and it is happening because of the gradual extension of the definition of "worker." I do not know, except there are different schemes within a scheme, in other words, that so many houses in rural areas are definitely allocated for agricultural workers and the same type of houses in the vicinity of villages and towns not so specifically designated, how the particular difficulty would be surmounted but I am not speaking without a certain amount of knowledge and a certain amount of experience. On my own recommendation, I have seen busmen and mechanics and carpenters recommended for vacant houses in districts where there were any amount of applications from agricultural labourers and where agricultural labourers were badly required. Under the regulations, the worst housed come first and under the definition "worker" these people had equal claim with the agricultural labourers.

The Minister is aware that under the earlier Act the definition necessary to qualify for tenancy of these houses was:—

"a person who worked for hire for some portion of the year on land."

Later on, that definition was extended to embrace:—

"any person who lived in a non-urban area and who worked at any trade or craft and did not employ any person other than members of his own family."

That extended it very appreciably. Then we had a further extension:—

"anyone who worked for hire or wages irrespective of where they lived."

These extensions of the old definition really threw the tenancy open to nearly all comers. I am not against that, they are all workers, but I am against the working out of that in practice in purely rural areas where there is a very great need for agricultural workers.

Another matter that creates difficulties is the special class referred to in the Act. I have never yet succeeded in getting a satisfactory definition of what is meant by a one-room dwelling. I have got half a dozen definitions, each contradicting the other. In the Act a special class is defined as those living in one-room dwellings where there is tuberculosis or where there is a child over 14 years of age in addition to the father or mother or where the dwelling is condemned. They are a special class and must get priority over all others. On paper there is everything to be said for that. In theory there is everything to be said for it, but I do not know and I have never got any two lawyers to agree as to what is a one-room dwelling. In cities we all know what a one-room dwelling is, particularly in the older cities. You have a room in an immense building, all the rest of the building being some type of business, and the family are living in one room and they have no right-of-way or any conveniences or amenities throughout the building. You have also the type of actual one-room building, the old mud wall, thatched, one-room home. That type has nearly passed away. In the modern sense some lawyers say that a one-room dwelling is where there is a lodger and the only tenancy he has is one room in a house. It may be a mansion but if he has only a legal right to one room, then that is a one-room dwelling.

If that is a one-room dwelling under the Act, then all your plans, all the plans of the whole lot of us for the better housing of the people, are completely upset. The married lodgers will form a procession to every vacant cottage, a procession with the stamp of priority on them, and the huge families living in absolute squalor in miserable houses will only come second on the list of priorities.

I do not think that a one-room dwelling in that Act was meant to refer to the married lodgers but if it does apply to the married lodgers it means that any newly-weds who take a room and either the husband or the wife has tuberculosis or the place where they take the room is a condemned house, no matter how many rooms there are in it, take priority over the very largest families imaginable that are living also in condemned houses. Surely that is all wrong. That particular point has never been clarified. The fact of the matter is that in the administration throughout the various areas under the Minister a different interpretation is being used in the different administrative areas.

There is another thing that I would like to direct official attention to. I notice it is a simple matter to direct official attention to evils that are growing up and perfectly obvious, but it is quite another matter to try to find a remedy. Very good houses are being built, particularly under the town schemes here in the city and in all the urban areas. The tenants who go into those houses are, in a great number of cases, people removed from a slum area, from a clearance area—people who, perhaps, had lived the greater part of their lives in a very tiny dwelling or even in one room in a tenement house. They get one of these fine new houses and it is hard to break the old dog off his trot. They are quite content to live as before in the one room. They are quite happy, quite content. There is a shortage of houses, quite a number of people getting married, and there is no trouble immediately in setting one, two or three of the rooms in the house at a very attractive rent.

I assure the Minister that if he carries out a survey of the housing conditions in the new houses in every urban district in the country he will find the rule is that in the majority of cases those houses are occupied by more than two families, by three families or more. Those children of two or more families are growing up—one year follows another—and the position in a year or two is going to be something appalling. I know very well that there is something in regulations to prohibit subletting, but it is done openly and it is done with the knowledge of everybody. An evil situation is developing there that will give rise to grave scandals within a few years' time. I do not blame anybody for that, but I do think that if a person is paying 4/- or 5/- a week, 3/- or 4/- a week, for a house and is making £1 or two a week out of rooms in that house there should be some re-examination of the rent. If the rent of the house were even equal to the income that the tenant is getting from somebody else for portion of the house then I think there would be some check on that particular evil, but it is assuming very serious proportions. I believe that what is true of one case is true of most cases and that an honest survey and an honest return would show that an unhealthy situation is developing and a situation which has got to be dealt with.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Dr. O'Higgins

Every one of us talks about the need for houses, etc., etc. The cost of housing is becoming something staggering. The estimate for houses that pre-war used to cost a few hundred pounds—and you could likely face a scheme for a thousand to two thousand houses—is now in the neighbourhood of £700 or £800 per house. That being so, if our housing policy is to be a continuous one, everything and anything possible to reduce the cost must be done for the simple reason that, just at the present moment as a result of the war and the impossibility of buying supplies with money, there happens to be something like a glut of money in the country. We all know, however, that a post-war slump is going to come and, if we are to continue housing throughout that slump, it will only be if every energy is bent towards reducing the cost of houses. I think there is an immense difference between the unattainable ideal and the attainable, passibly good, article. I have read any amount of literature— theories put forward by reformers of one kind or another, social, medical and everything else—and these theorists will hear of nothing but, say, a five-roomed house with hot and cold water, a bathroom, and all the rest. Unfortunately that kind of policy is impossible to carry out. None of us is living in Utopia. None of us is ever going to reach Utopia. We are living on a hard material earth where hard facts will have to be faced even though they may be unpalatable.

The fact of the matter is that any little clipping that can be done on our schemes, any little reduction in costs when we are dealing with tens of thousands, amount to something appreciable. There may be an objection of a kind to families living under the same roof—semi-detached houses. But semi-detached houses must be cheaper than detached isolated houses. If there could only be a 5 per cent. saving on expenditure in a scheme of nearly £1,000,000 that 5 per cent. of £1,000,000 would provide a lot more houses, and so on, and so on. Moreover, I suggest that we are living in an age of mass-production and I think that, seeing that housing is a big question not just in one, two, three or four administrative areas but an urgent question in every administrative area, something could be worked out along the lines of mass-production so as to reduce the cost. Every administrative area has a different type of scheme, different type of building. I agree that it would be monotonous if every house from Donegal to Cork was turned out just on a common plan or standard, but money is going on designs and estimates of various different types in different administrative areas. A kind of universal stock plan undoubtedly would save money, but if that is undesirable, certainly things like doors, window-frames, fittings, hinges, handles and all those things should be centrally produced and centrally issued. That may be the system at the present moment, for all I know, but I am very much afraid that we will find it impossible—listening to figures as to the estimated costs of the houses we are proposing to build this year and in the near future, I am afraid we will find it impossible— to continue the housing policy that we would like to continue, unless every effort is made to reduce the cost. I know that a porch gives a better appearance, that it is much neater and tidier, but if doing without it means a reduction of £40 or £50 on the cost of the house and you are building 1,000 houses, that is £50,000 saved, to build so many more houses. All our pre-war designs should be re-examined now, to see if the cost could not be reduced. People may say that is a mean outlook and is taking from people something in the way of an additional convenience which they would like. The answer to that is that there are too many people living in absolute squalor in the type of house in which any Deputy would feel uncomfortable if he had to remain there even for half an hour. The urgent thing is to get as many of those families as we can housed in reasonably sound and reasonably clean conditions and if others have to give up some little amenity, when they understand the real position they will gladly and cheerfully sacrifice that in order to make their contribution towards the housing of others.

On some of these points, I certainly do not expect a reply off-hand from the Minister. There may be things that have to be looked into, but I think the really serious thing is the multiplicity of families going into and growing up in our urban houses.

Mr. Halliden

I would like to make a special appeal to the Minister to expedite the building of labourers' cottages. The housing of our agricultural labourers and urban workers is in a very bad state. The rural population is dwindling, as the rural workers, particularly those engaged on the land, find it difficult to carry on their work because of the lack of housing accommodation. The marriage rate amongst them is very low on that account and they are discontented and there is the inevitable flight from the land. Year after year, thousands of our young people are going to foreign countries mainly, in my opinion, owing to the lack of housing accommodation. Thousands of families are living in condemned houses in most insanitary and primitive conditions, and in many cases those condemned houses are breeding grounds for sickness and disease. We can appreciate that building materials, including cement and timber, are very scarce, but at the same time we find that, during the emergency, many cinemas, dance halls, luxury hotels and palatial buildings of many kinds were erected throughout the country, but as far as I know not even one labourer's cottage. That is a very unfortunate position and I appeal to the Minister to make available a certain percentage of all building materials for the erection of labourers' cottages. I would go further and say that for luxury buildings like cinemas, dance halls and hotels materials should not be made available until a very large percentage of our labourers are properly housed.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Local Government does not control the distribution of materials.

Mr. Halliden

It was well that our roads were able to maintain the heavy traffic imposed on them during the emergency and it was a great tribute to the county surveyors and their staffs that the roads stood up to that heavy traffic. Some of those roads are cracking up badly now and unless the heavy traffic is diverted again to the railways we will find ourselves in a very bad position in a short time. The rate-payers will have the main burden of maintaining those roads in proper condition and the Minister would be well advised to do his best in the matter, with the other responsible Minister, to have that heavy traffic put back on the railways.

Previous to the war and even during it, quite a number of buildings were put up in consequence of the grants given for the erection of houses. Labourers' houses could be built very readily and it was a great encouragement when they got this £80 for the building of a house. Before the war that was a high percentage of the total cost, but now it is only a small percentage. I appeal to the Minister to examine the position and see if it would be possible to increase the grants under the different housing schemes, as an increase would go very far to relieve the great shortage in houses at the present time.

In conclusion, if the Minister would see to the roads and take some of the heavy traffic off them, increase the grants for the houses for the working classes and pay more attention to the erection of labourers' cottages, the position of the rural workers as well as of the urban workers would be very appreciably and very satisfactorily improved.

Mr. Moran

I was rather surprised this evening to hear Deputy Commons from Mayo bewail the backward position of turf production in that county and throughout the country. It is true that, to a limited degree, the weather has been responsible for some of that backwardness, but it is to a much larger extent true that turf production has suffered, particularly in my own county, from the different political Parties endeavouring to make a political issue out of turf conditions. In my county, which is a large turf-producing one, every effort was made by Deputy Commons' own Party on Mayo County Council to throw spanners in the works of turf production. A consistent and continuous campaign of vilification has been carried on by the Deputy and his colleagues on the Mayo County Council, alleging that private producers were being "gypped," that the county surveyor had done away with £40,000 in connection with turf production and that there was a public scandal in connection with the whole of turf production in County Mayo, although there were offers to place the facts before an impartial inquiry. Those offers were not accepted by the Deputy and his colleagues, and the result of all this vilification, all these unfounded allegations about money having been poured down the sink in connection with turf production, has been that, this year, turf production both by private producers and the county council has been considerably reduced in Mayo. I hope that, when the harvest of that campaign is reaped, responsibility will be placed on the proper shoulders, and that the people who have been endeavouring to sabotage the production of turf in Mayo will accept that responsibility next winter.

Again, Deputy Commons tells us that he is not prepared to support the payment of any greater salary than £500 per annum to county council officials, but, of course, in the Clann na Talmhan organisation, one Deputy speaks with one tongue and another Deputy with another. When this issue came up at the county council, we had the secretary of Clann na Talmhan, Councillor Martin Kearney, voting for the increase.

An Ceann Comhairle

He is not a member of this House.

Mr. Moran

Surely when the Deputy alleges that it is not his Party's policy to support an increase in salary to any official with £500 per annum, I am entitled to point out that, on that very issue in the Mayo County Council, the Deputy's official Party secretary and other members of his Party voted for this increase?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputies are here to answer for themselves; the man referred to is not. That is the big difference.

Mr. Moran

Very good; I can give another analogy which, I think, will be within the rules of order. We had an application before us in County Mayo for an increase in salary by all the doctors in the public service, some of whom were on salaries of up to £1,000 per year, and, on last Saturday, the Deputy and his Party unanimously agreed without question to these increases, presumably because the Deputy and his Party considered it would not suit to oppose the application of influential dispensary doctors and others in the county service. But, for consumption at the crossroads, we had Deputy Commons saying, as against the action of his combined Party, that he is not prepared to support a greater salary than £500 a year. The Clann na Talmhan Party on this question reminds me very much of the chameleon, a lizard found in South Africa and on the island of Madagascar. It can change its colour to suit its surroundings. It has its eyes on independent swivels so that it can look every way at once and its tongue is composed of extremely elastic fibre. Whenever it suits the Deputy and his Party to advocate higher salaries, they will do so, and, on the other hand, whenever it suits the particular local political circumstances to advocate reductions in salaries, they will advocate these reductions.

On this question of the valuation of bogs, it is true that, when the bogs were being taken over by the county councils, even the county surveyors at the time did not advert to the fact that the valuations of the bogs, under existing law, would possibily be increased. It is untrue to state, as Deputy Commons stated, that it was the Government imposed these increases. The increases were imposed in accordance with the law as it exists—a law which was not passed by this House but which prevails in the State. It came as a surprise even to county surveyors throughout the country when they found that where they took over bogs under compulsory powers, as a result of their work and the rents paid to the owners, the valuations were increased. In my own county, I know that, if that had been known when these compulsory Orders were being enforced, higher prices and rentals would have been given to the owners. The county surveyor did not know at the beginning of the operation of this scheme of taking over bogs compulsorily that higher rates would become payable. The matter has been righted since, because, in connection with new acquisitions by the county surveyors, I think they have made provision for the payment of higher rents in an endeavour to meet the higher rate payable.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy was very silent on that when we were fighting that point very hard long ago.

Mr. Moran

Because the Deputy was fighting it from a completely wrong point of view. The Deputy knew, or should have known, he could not fight it here, unless he got amending legislation introduced.

General Mulcahy

Perfectly clear.

Mr. Moran

In connection with the taking over of these bogs by the county councils under Emergency Powers Orders, there is a matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. In South Mayo, there are a very large number of complaints by people whose bogs have been taken over by the county council, on the ground that their supply will be exhausted by the county council's operations in a very short period. I do not say that that position exists in North Mayo, where there is plenty bog, and indeed very large tracts of virgin bog, but there is a possibility that, under the operations of the county council, the turf supply of some of these small farmers will be endangered. Very large quantities of turf were cut during the emergency years and these people with small farms and small supplies of turf, which they hoped would last them for an approximate period of 20 or 25 years, now find that, owing to the intensive turf operations, there is a danger of their bogs being completely cut away within three or four years, with the result that they will be without fuel. In many of these cases, the allotments of bog are quite close to their homes and the alternative, if they could get turbary at all, would be to travel 20 or 25 miles in order to secure another supply.

I am sure the Minister will find that many complaints have been made to the Mayo County Council on this point. I do not know whether it is the intention of Bord na Móna or some other body to take over turf production for the coming year, but there should be some examination of this position before it goes much further. In my part of the county, there are comparatively small quantities of turbary available, and, owing to the intensive cutting by the county council for a number of years past, there is very grave danger of the supply of these people being exhausted. If the Minister will look into the position, he will find that what I assert in this connection is true. While there is plenty of alternative bog available in North Mayo, there is, indeed, very little available for the tenants in South Mayo. While on the question of valuation, I should like to refer for a moment to the valuation which is taking place of houses and other buildings. I do not know what the qualifications are of those who go around revaluing new premises or premises which have been improved. There is a very large amount of dissatisfaction throughout the country regarding the revaluations. The Minister may say that, when anybody's valuation is increased, with a consequential increase in rates, he will, naturally, be dissatisfied but, judging by a number of revaluations I have seen, it would appear that different rules are exercised by different valuers in different instances. I cannot understand the basis on which these gentlemen operate because their decisions and judgments seem to vary very much from house to house. While it is true that people aggrieved have a right of appeal to the Circuit Court, that is a very expensive procedure for them and a great hardship on them. I do not know whether a system of appeal to the Minister's Department, before going to the courts, could be introduced, and thus save expense to the people concerned. In many cases of which I have personal knowledge, the courts reduced, by a larger or smaller extent, the valuations imposed by these gentlemen. That would seem to indicate that they are shoving up the valuation position so as to be on the safe side, at any rate, and giving room to those people to go to the courts and satisfy themselves by having the valuation reduced——

Mr. D. Morrissey

I do not like to cut in on the Deputy but I do not think that that work is done by officials of the Minister's Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

I was about to remind the Deputy of that.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy, if he so wishes, can raise that question on the Vote for the Valuation Office, for which the Minister for Finance is responsible.

Mr. Moran

I shall not pursue that question now. It is generally agreed that the grants for housing are inadequate and I presume something will be done about that. It has struck me, in connection with the housing grants, that there seems to be a considerable amount of overlapping between different Departments. The Land Commission give grants and loans in certain instances and the Minister's Department gives grants. Sometimes, the unfortunate countryman does not know exactly where he is, because he is referred very often from the Land Commission to the Department of Local Government. Only when the Department of Local Government sanction a grant for him will they consider a loan. In other cases, the Land Commission give both grant and loan but invariably they refuse to let the applicant know what amount of loan he will be entitled to to build his house until the Minister's Department sanctions his £80 grant. I do not know what reason is behind that rule. The Minister is, of course, not responsible for the Land Commission but it should be possible to tell the applicant immediately what the amount of the loan will be. If the Minister's Department took over all housing grants and loans, it would simplify matters for the applicant. I do not see why it should be necessary for an unfortunate tenant who wants to build a house to wait until the Department of Local Government sanctions his grant before the Land Commission will tell him the amount of the loan to which he is entitled. The Minister, probably, appreciates that the building of the house depends not alone on the assistance given by the Minister by way of grant but also on the amount of loan the tenant will get. Frequently, a tenant cannot think of building his house without having an idea as to the financial assistance he will receive by way of loan. There is, at least, some delay and there is confusion and overlapping in connection with this question. Perhaps the Minister would come to some working arrangement with the Land Commission to simplify matters for the applicants.

I have come across a couple of cases —I hope this type is very rare—in which houses which were erected under the Minister's housing code since 1932 are already crumbling. As the law exists—I speak subject to the Minister's correction—these people are not entitled either to a reconstruction grant or a grant for a new house. I do not know who is responsible. Perhaps the inspector who passed the case is a bit to blame. Possibly the man who carried out the job and who may have used bad materials or engaged in jerry-building is to blame. During the past month two such cases came to my knowledge. One of these cases I saw myself, and the walls are crumbling and damp, and water is coming through. These are houses in respect of which grants were paid since 1932. I do not know if the Minister can do anything in these cases. It would be well if he could, because, no matter whose the fault is, it cannot be laid at the door of the applicant, who paid the contractor, whose house was passed and who now finds himself worse off than he was before he built the house. I hope these cases are few and I trust the Minister will see if anything can be done to meet them.

I think there is not sufficient flexibility in the housing code in regard to the question of the applicant's income being derived solely or mainly from farming. If that be strictly adhered to—I have come across a few cases in which it has been strictly enforced —it will put a great brake on house building in counties such as Mayo. The majority of our small farmers in Mayo could not live on their uneconomic holdings and their income could not be solely or mainly derived from the land. Many of them are migratory labourers. Some of them derive their living from money earned in other occupations. Many of them are county council road workers. Some of them work part of their time in the neighbouring towns. As the law stands, a number of these are precluded from obtaining assistance under the housing code. I think that the Acts should be made more flexible so as not to hamper such people but rather to encourage them to provide better houses for themselves.

I came across quite recently a case in which an agricultural labourer was living in a house in a country area. During the past 12 months, the farmer who used to employ him had no more work for him. He was employed by a local builder. When he applied for a reconstruction grant, he was promptly asked for his cards to show that he was engaged solely as an agricultural labourer. His application is held up. In cases like that—that may be an isolated case—there should be some suitable provision. I should like the Minister to consider these practical difficulties which are arising under the housing code.

I am glad to see that the Minister has set up a committee to deal with road safety and the safety of animals on the road. Various recommendations have been sent in already by bodies to whom the questionnaire was referred. It is more or less generally agreed that accidents to animal-drawn traffic are due to the tar macadam surface and the absence of a rough space on the sides of the road for horses and carts. Possibly the Minister will find that he will have many; recommendation that a space from three to four feet with a rough surface should be left on the sides of the road to accommodate animal-drawn traffic.

I also think that the Minister should endeavour to have a view available of by-roads for the users of main roads. Many accidents happen because of animals and vehicles coming out of by-roads on to the main roads while the users of the main roads have not any view of the by-roads. I think that the hedges should be cut round about all by-roads and walls removed where necessary and replaced by wire fencing, as is done in some counties. Provision should also be made to compel both cyclists and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles to observe the rule of the road. I do not know that there is any existing legislation to deal with that matter, but these people should be compelled to observe the rule of the road just the same as motorists.

Reference has been made to the low output from road workers in certain areas. I think it is considered generally that the output per man on road work is in many instances far below what it should be. I do not agree with the suggestion that the matter depends solely on supervision. I think it is due to a large degree to the system under which we operate at present whereby a number of these workers are employed through the labour exchange. I think that a number of these men who are recruited for some of these jobs are not really employable and are not capable of work. Possibly these men should never have been put on the unemployment register at all. A number of men somewhat advanced in years, some of them ex-journeymen tailors, ex-black-smiths, and ex-tradesmen of other kinds are put on the live register of unemployed and are subject to being called out to work as labourers on these public works. As I say, some of these people are really unemployable and should never be employed in work of this kind or put on the live register. There should be some other way of dealing with them. The fact that two or three of these men are put on a gang tends to reduce the output of the normally good worker who will be held back by them. I think that that is the kernel of the situation that is complained of in connection with some of these public works. It is not within the Minister's province, but I think the system we are working under at present is really responsible for that. Until these men are weeded out and the ganger or the county surveyor when he requires men will get genuine labouring men from the labour exchanges you will not step up your output per man on works of this kind.

The Minister also should make some provision in connection with the various sewerage and water schemes which are being undertaken throughout the country, particularly in regard to priority for them. There is just as much need for water and sewerage schemes in some of the country villages and towns as there is in the larger towns and cities. During the emergency some county councils were making plans for the future and are ready to go ahead with major sewerage and water schemes in their areas. These plans were made for the post-war period and the councils are now anxious to go ahead with the work. In my own county they are very anxious to go ahead with such works with the Minister's help.

On the question of availability of materials, I think the Minister should, in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, make out a priority list giving an equal chance with their brethren in the towns and cities to the people in the rural areas to go ahead with their schemes. Some people may say that they did without these schemes all their lives and there is no hurry about them now. But the fact is that in many cases these people have been putting up with primitive conditions for a long number of years. One of the main things that held up these schemes is that, up to recently, they were a local charge and the cost was prohibitive. In most cases they have now been made a county-at-large charge and the result is that progressive councils are embarking on these works. I should like to get an assurance from the Minister that the progressive councils embarking on these schemes in a substantial way will get a fair crack of the whip so far as the making of supplies available and assistance from the Minister are concerned.

I know that, whatever complaints might be made some time ago about delays in the Minister's Department in connection with schemes, there was an absolute answer to them. The Minister's Department was dealing with so many different matters that it was impossible to keep track of everything. Now that many of these matters have been taken away from the Minister's Department, the Department will be in a position to concentrate on the matters that really concern it and I believe that that will lead to much greater efficiency. The Minister's Department will get every assistance and co-operation from local authorities who are genuinely anxious to proceed with their post-war programme. All I ask in return is that the Minister's Department will give these county councils and the rural areas a fair crack of the whip.

Mr. Morrissey

I have no desire to prolong this debate, but there are a few matters I would like to bring to the Minister's notice. With regard to turf production by county councils, I understand it has been decided that, as from next year, the work now being carried on by county councils will be taken over by Bord na Móna. I would like the Minister to tell us whether there has been any conversation between himself and Bord na Móna, or between Bord na Móna and officials of the county councils, regarding the manpower which will be required to produce the turf next year.

Mr. MacEntee

This is scarcely relevant.

Mr. Morrissey

It is perfectly relevant, and not only relevant but important. I want to know whether Bord na Móna has been in contact with the Minister's Department, or with the county councils directly, with regard to taking over the county council staffs which are normally employed making and maintaining our roads; whether they will be taken completely off that road work to work under a new employer. That is an important matter. It is a matter which should have been considered by the Minister or brought to his notice by Bord na Móna, if it is their intention to utilise the county council employees for turf production as and from next year. If it is not their intention, it is a mystery to me where they will get men to produce turf at all. That is one point, and it is not only relevant, but I think it is very important, from the point of view of turf production, road-making and road maintenance.

A lot has been said about housing and its various aspects; a lot more could still be said but I will not go into it at the end of a four days' debate. Probably anything I would say has already been said better than I could say it. There is one aspect of it, however, with which I will deal. I happened to be at the last meeting of the county council of which I am a member and one of the items on the agenda was the raising of a loan of £20,000 for the provision of 24 labourers' cottages and plots. No doubt houses have to be built, but if labourers' cottages are to cost £900 or £1,000 each, I would like to know who will pay the rent.

I asked a question at the county council meeting and I was told by the county manager that the interest on overdrafts in connection with turf production, overdrafts raised by local authorities, would be paid from central funds. I would like the Minister to confirm that. I put the question to the county manager and he answered me directly that the interest on the turf production overdrafts raised by county councils would be paid out of central funds. I am not doubting the word of the county manager, but I would feel happier in my mind if I had the Minister's assurance that what the county manager said is correct. We were asked on that county council to give authority for the raising of a very large overdraft and I found that there was a sum of over £25,000 due in this matter of turf production. Some of the money due goes back to 1941— money due by various local authorities, by Fuel Importers, Limited, and by the Department.

In North Tipperary the manager made a recommendation with regard to wages for road workers and bog workers about three months ago. Up to last Tuesday week, the date of the county council meeting, he had not got a reply from the Department; he had not received by that time any indication whether they were prepared to sanction the recommendations. May I suggest that that does not tend to get the best results from the men either on the roads or in the bogs? It is not right that a recommendation dealing with wages should be left lying in the Department for two or three months. That will not be conducive to full production.

Is there any reason, when a dispensary doctor dies or retires, why that dispensary should be left for 12 months without another doctor? It seems to me to be an outrage. I know that the matter to which I am now referring is covered by a new Department, but the negligence to which I am now drawing attention occurred during the period covered by this Estimate.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order. The Deputy knows as well as I do that these appointments are made by the Local Appointments Commissioners and I have no control over them.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not suggesting that the Minister has any control over them. I know the matter was referred to the Local Appointments Commissioners and they made a recommendation, but the delay took place subsequent to the matter being dealt with by the commissioners. I am not casting any reflection on the commissioners. They did their work. All this was subsequent to their recommendation. Notwithstanding the Minister's attitude, I will not prolong the debate. I will keep my word and be brief. Notwithstanding the temptation, I will not raise a great many other points that I could raise.

I shall be obliged if the Minister will deal with the points I have referred to. I should like him to confirm or deny the statement made to me that the interest on overdrafts raised for turf production by county councils will be paid out of central funds and that it will not fall on the local ratepayers. I think it would be a good thing if we had some statement from the Minister with regard to the utilisation or otherwise of road staffs by Bord na Móna under their new turf production scheme which, we are told, will start next year. That will have an important bearing on the road schemes of the Department. There is very little use in the Department providing what has been described here—and I do not want to quarrel with the description— as very large grants for the rebuilding of our roads if we are to have the grants but will have neither the materials nor the men available to absorb those grants. I think it is a very important matter. If the matter has not been brought to the Minister's notice before now, or if the Minister has not adverted to it, I respectfully suggest to him that there is very little use in making plans for road-making next spring or next summer at a time when, it seems to me, it is quite possible all the men who would normally be available for road-making will be employed by Bord na Móna in producing turf.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

Like the last speaker, I shall be very brief. There are just a few points to which I wish to refer as practically all the other points arising on this Vote have been dealt with by other speakers. A suggestion has been made by speakers on both sides of the House that when labourers' cottages are being erected, they should be erected in groups. With that recommendation I totally disagree. On the contrary I would suggest that such cottages should be erected in the midst of the farming community. If they are erected adjacent to or convenient to an urban area, it will give their occupiers an urban mentality with the result that the erection of these cottages will defeat its own ends. The people living on the land will not be able to get the tenants of those cottages, who have acquired that urban mentality, to work for them.

At the present time housing is held up for want of essential supplies. There is one essential commodity, cement, which cannot be obtained at the moment due to lack of coal supplies. I wish to point out to the Minister that cement can be got, as he very well knows—although not through his own Department but through the Department of Industry and Commerce—from Belgium. I know one contractor who made an application recently to a firm in Belgium but the smallest quantity they could supply was 17,000 tons. That amount was in excess of the quantity which the contractor required.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I want to point out, through you, that the erection of the houses is being held up through lack of supplies and that representations could be made on that matter through the Department of Local Government to the Department of Industry and Commerce. When representations were made, the Department of Industry and Commerce refused permission to the Department of Local Government to have that quantity of cement supplied and divided up amongst the wholesale merchants. I do not know if that is the position but the Minister can contradict the statement if it is not so. However, the housing programme is held up and each Department is shoving the blame on to somebody else.

There is just one other point to which I should like to refer. A lot of planning is taking place all over the country to improve trunk roads. County councils and county committees of agriculture have been circulated to give their views as to what would suit the requirements of their particular counties. I believe that is all bunkum. I might mention, for the purposes of comparison, that some time ago we were circulated by another Department, the Department of Agriculture, which asked our views as to the best type of pig to adopt. That happened about two years ago, but we have heard nothing about it since. I believe this latest circular is the result of representations that have been made from all over the country that roads were unsafe for pedestrians, for traffic, for animals, etc. All the talk about this elaborate planning is indulged in merely to please the people but the plans will be executed God only knows when.

There is just one other point in connection with housing which I almost forgot to mention. Under the last scheme carried out by the various county councils, no consideration appeared to have been given to the requirements of the poor tenants who were to occupy these cottages. In fact, these houses drew more tears than smoke. In areas where turf was the only fuel, provision was made only for the burning of coal. The grates that were installed were put in such a manner that the chimneys would not draw. I should like that in the planning of new schemes adequate consideration should be given to the needs of new tenants. These are the only points which I wish to mention.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. MacEntee)

I should like, in replying, to ask the indulgence of the House, which I am sure will be granted, if I am unable to deal with every point raised by every Deputy in the course of this four days' debate. I should like also to express my appreciation to those Deputies—and they are by far the great majority—whose speeches were helpful and suggestive. It would not be possible for me in the time which is at my disposal, because I understand it is expected that the House will dispose of the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill before it adjourns this evening, to deal with even one-tenth of the important contributions which were made to the debate. We had particularly helpful speeches from Deputy O'Higgins in regard to housing and from Deputy Moran and Deputy Allen and Deputy Commons in regard to other features of local administration.

The Deputy has availed of this debate to raise a matter which I think could be much more usefully discussed in the debate on the Housing Bill which I indicated we shall shortly have before the House. That is, the decision which has been taken to extend the period during which the housing loans might be repaid and during which the State would contribute to loan charges for housing. The Deputy suggested that before that decision should be given effect we should have this proposal exhaustively inquired into by an expert committee.

It was rather remarkable that when the Deputy was challenging the fact that I had indicated that we were hoping to have houses in course of construction this year to the number of about 2,200 odd, he should have referred to the report of the committee which was set up to inquire into housing for the working classes in the City of Dublin, a committee whose labours extended from 1939 to 1943, a committee which I may say I was primarily instrumental in having set up when I was Minister for Finance. If the Deputy had really studied the housing report he would have found that among the matters which had been examined at very great length and very exhaustively by this committee was this very question as to the advisability of extending the period for the repayment of housing loans and, that matter having been examined pro and con, one is entitled to conclude from paragraph 657 that the committee were in favour of extending the amortisation period. I do not know whether it is merely as an obstructive suggestion that the Leader of the principal Opposition Party in the House now comes along and asks that this matter, which was so exhaustively investigated by this expert committee—because it was an expert committee, the people who composed it were experts in finance and in housing—should be further investigated before he can be convinced as to its wisdom and advisability.

Fortunately, I think, in this matter, Deputy Mulcahy scarcely speaks for anybody but himself and Deputy Hughes. About the latter I am not surprised, but I doubt whether he speaks for any representative of a local authority or for any member of this House who is anxious that houses should be provided for the working classes at rents which they can reasonably afford to pay and upon terms which will be within the capacity of the ratepayers and the State to accept.

However, Sir, I do not propose to take up too much of the time of the House dealing further with this question. I prefer instead to come to one or two other matters which were referred to. Deputy Commons in a speech which, as I say, was a helpful contribution to the debate, mentioned the fact that houses which had already been provided by local authorities were not being properly maintained by their tenants and that could also be said of houses which had been disposed of by local authorities under cottage purchase schemes. Other Deputies—Deputy Fagan and others—referred to this matter also. I should like in that connection to read to the House a few sentences from a circular letter which was issued by the Department on the 17th January, 1945, that is, almost two and a half years ago, in order to indicate that this matter has not been lost sight of and that in fact it is one with which we have been gravely concerned for a number of years. The letter begins:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to state that from investigations which have been made of the present condition of labourers' cottages it would appear that in many areas there have been no regular or systematic inspections to secure that tenants are complying with their letting conditions and that proper attention has not been given to maintenance."

We go on, in the course of the letter, to say:—

"The attention of the engineers and rent collectors should be directed to the need for more detailed and regular inspections and reports on the cottages in their districts."

Then we speak of the notice which should be given to tenants and we say:—

"The notice should indicate to the tenant that there is a definite obligation on him to do everything possible to maintain the cottage in a satisfactory condition.... On receipt of the collector's report tenants who have failed to comply with the conditions should be notified in writing of their failure and again warned of the penalties if the conditions are not observed."

We then direct that

"a copy of the collectors' notes as to repairs should be referred to the county engineer for examination and report as to the most efficient and economical manner in which to carry out repair works, whether by way of direct labour with competent staffs under strict supervision or by selecting contiguous cottages for group contracts or by the supply of materials to tenants who can be entrusted with repairs of a minor nature, or painting work, subject to later inspection by the engineer for the area."

We go on to say:—

"In this connection details will be furnished on request of a scheme in force where a travelling group of tradesmen and other workers carry out repairs in the most economical manner possible."

We point out:—

"In some areas cottages have not been painted for a number of years. It is considered that the exterior woodwork of each cottage should be painted at intervals of three to five years."

We go on to say:—

"As the incidence of future repairs of vested cottages has passed to the purchasers, the collectors when collecting the purchase annuities should also periodically enter and inspect these cottages and report as to whether the statutory purchase conditions are being observed."

We then suggest:—

"The existing administrative and technical machinery should, where necessary, be overhauled to secure that by the co-operation and vigilance of the staff the tenants will do their part in maintaining their cottages and plots properly and that repairs which fall to be executed by the local authority will be promptly and economically carried out."

We are not in a position immediately to supervise the staffs of the local authorities but the members of the local authorities—and there are many of them in the House—are in a position to do that. Not only that, but Deputies who are familiar with the conditions in their constituencies may help, by calling the attention of the county manager to any failure on the part of tenants or collectors to ensure that tenants of cottages which are either the property of the county council or which, under the cottage purchase scheme, are becoming the property of the tenant purchasers discharge their reasonable obligations under the agreements by virtue of which they occupy or are purchasing the cottages. They can, by drawing these facts to the notice of the county manager and the officials concerned, ensure that these cottages will be properly maintained.

As Deputy Walsh reminded some of the Deputies who have been critical in this debate in regard to the obligations of local authorities in relation to housing, these properties are very valuable properties and, unless the law is changed, will, in due course, become the absolute property of the local authority. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every public-spirited citizen and, I think, every person enjoying and occupying a public office to do what he can in his own local area to ensure that these properties are not allowed to deteriorate or depreciate by neglect. We cannot do more than we have done by directing the attention of the local authorities to this problem. It is up to those who are members of local authorities to ensure that their officers comply with the terms of this circular. We do get periodical reports. We have in many counties, I think, now succeeded in reaching the position in which 100 per cent. inspection of the cottages is carried out annually. In other counties, the numbers are not so high but in the lowest counties about 70 per cent. inspection is being carried out. In any case in which all the cottages are not inspected we have asked for explanations and where the neglect has been ascribed to any particular officer, we have asked that that officer be reprimanded and informed that note had been taken of what we regard as his negligence—and of course it is negligence in the absence of a reasonable explanation from him—and that it has been duly entered in the records of the Department. Naturally, we have to rely upon the reports which are sent up to us by the officers of the local authorities who are, themselves, involved and therefore it has become the duty of the elected members of these authorities to ensure that the inspections which are undertaken, or which are supposed to be undertaken, will, in fact, be carried out.

Enough has been said in regard to that passage of my speech in which I referred to the desirability of erecting cottages in groups to indicate that there are, maybe, two points of view in regard to that matter. I think that there can only be two points of view in relation to that matter if the views are carried to extremes. As I have said in the course of my opening remarks, there would always be circumstances in which isolated cottages can be built. I do suggest that no reasonable argument can be adduced in support of the contention that it is in general wrong to group cottages. On the contrary, I think that if we want our rural workers to enjoy to some extent the amenities which are available to ordinary urban dwellers, in the form of good lighting, proper water supply and proper sanitary accommodation, then we ought to endeavour wherever possible and practicable, as I have said, to ensure that the cottages will be built in groups. In grouping them I cannot see any of these social evils which seem to loom so large in the minds of Deputies who have apparently overlooked the fact that while I put that forward as a general policy I was also prepared to concede that it might not be practicable to group them in every case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Mulcahy, and I think Deputy Commons, referred to the question of the revision of constituencies. All I can say is that proposals for the revision of constituencies in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution will be submitted to the Dáil in due course. That has always been the practice and that is how I propose to proceed in this matter. It would be over-optimistic to believe that the proposals which will be submitted will appeal as being the best possible solution of the problem to every Deputy of the House. I have no doubt that those who can find any ground for criticism of them will make those criticisms in this House and that I shall have to answer them. However, I have no intention of indulging in anything like gerrymandering.

Mr. O'Leary

I hope not!

Mr. MacEntee

I am not, unlike Deputy Mulcahy, going to be bound by the Constitution of 1922. That Constitution is obsolete. The revision of constituencies will be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of Éire.

General Mulcahy

And the practice referred to by the Minister is the Fianna Fáil practice of 1935!

Mr. MacEntee

Reference was made by several Deputies to a matter which has been causing me, as Minister for Local Government, much concern— perhaps even more than it has, undoubtedly, caused them—and that is to the fact that in present circumstances, with so many opportunities for promotion arising in the local service, officers of the local authorities, senior officers perhaps, on local authorities, tend to remain in the service of any particular local authority for a comparatively short time. I dealt with this matter last year at some length and I think in the previous year also. Deputies will see that it is not a very easy problem to solve. We cannot say to an officer if he enters the service of the local authority that he must stay in that service for at least five or ten years or for some specific period because there is no use having in one's service a man who wants to get out of it. Therefore, I cannot see how we can debar any man from looking for a better job or for a more attractive position, if the opportunity offers. Perhaps this may be slightly out of order, but in answer to this point which has been raised in the debate Deputies will have seen in the Superannuation Bill which we shall shortly be discussing here an indication that an officer will not be entitled to count for pensionable service any period of service with a local authority which is less than two years, unless he has obtained the permission of that local authority to do so. It means, in fact, that if a local authority wishes to discourage officers from hopping around, an officer can only change from the service of one local authority to another without forfeiting a certain amount of pensionable service, after he has served two years or has got permission to change. Another matter—which strictly is not within my control, but is one which the Local Appointments Commission might consider—is that, when making appointments, they might take into account the possibility that some candidates for the post might be more likely to stay in that post, if appointed, than others would—but that is not a matter over which I have any control.

Deputy Fagan, and some other Deputies also, suggested that the position which at present obtains, in which we have the same person acting as manager for two counties, was in some respects disadvantageous. I agree in some part with that view and were it not that the whole question of the duties of county managers in relation to the health services and the services administered at present by local authorities under the Minister for Social Welfare is under review, perhaps I should be more definite and say I might ask the Dáil to give local authorities the power to ask for a separate manager, in cases where they were sharing the services of a manager jointly with another local authority. Deputies will understand that, until the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare has come to an agreement with us as to the responsibilities which will henceforth be carried by the county officers, I could not ask the Dáil to take a decision of that kind.

Many Deputies made certain suggestions as to how the question of the safety of animals drawing vehicles or using the roads might be dealt with. It is quite clear that many Deputies have given this matter very earnest consideration. I would suggest that they submit their views to the committee which we have appointed and let them sift the wheat from the chaff there and see to what extent the suggestions are practicable and likely to be effective.

Some Deputies raised an issue which I must say has been giving me some concern in relation to the building of houses by speculative builders for private individuals with the assistance of grants from the State. It was mentioned here that, in some cases at any rate, the grant-aided houses built for private individuals have been badly built and are structurally unsound and that these structural defects are so great that the houses are now tending to be uninhabitable. However, we have to draw a line somewhere. When people come along and enter into a contract for the building of a house, they are supposed to be capable of managing their own affairs and ensuring that the house which they propose either to buy or have built for them is soundly built. They cannot ask us to give them financial assistance and, at the same time, act as supervising architect on their behalf. That is the dilemma in which I find myself. If the Department and the State were to accept responsibility for the soundness of every house towards the erection of which we had already contributed a substantial sum of money, there would be no end to our responsibilities and, in fact, we could not discharge them. I am afraid the only way of dealing with this problem is to have a standard or minimum specification with which all houses will be expected to comply and then to advise all people who apply for grants to assure themselves that the houses are built under the supervision of a competent architect and to ask them also to be certain that the person who builds the house or from whom they purchase it is a competent and honest builder. Beyond that, I do not think it is possible for us to go. We cannot act as a sort of universal guardian angel for everyone who wants to enter into an arrangement for the erection or the purchase of a house.

What I have said in that regard might also apply in the case of the suggestion which was made that we should help local authorities to convert their existing road equipment which is designed to burn solid fuel into equipment which is suitable for fuel oil. Again, the local authorities are supposed to have an engineering staff and if members of local authorities think it would be desirable that this should be done, they should approach the county manager and ask him to have it examined. I think they can expect that the engineering staff will be sufficiently skilled and intelligent to approach their colleagues in the engineering profession, if they themselves have not first-hand knowledge of what is necessary to do this, and ask their help and advice. But, again, I do not think that the Department of Local Government, which exists purely as a supervisory body, should be asked to undertake work which is properly the responsibility of the local officers.

In the course of the debate, a statement made by the Minister for Finance, that it was hoped that the local authorities alone would complete at least 1,500 dwellings, was referred to and was thought to be inconsistent with something I said. Admittedly, there is a great deal of difference between houses in progress and houses completed. The Minister for Finance was referring to houses which would be completed; I was referring to houses in progress. The Minister for Finance in dealing with this matter naturally took the most conservative view. I have not taken an optimistic view. I have taken a view which is based entirely on the fact that, on 31st March, 1947, over 2,200 houses were in progress of erection by local authorities. I cannot estimate how many of these will be completed, because, as Deputies well know, conditions are uncertain. If I had been asked in September, 1946, how many houses we should have in the course of erection in March, 1947, I should certainly have put the figure a good deal higher than 2,200, because at that time it did not look as if we were going to have any fuel trouble and we certainly did not anticipate the abnormal conditions of the early part of this year. We are unfortunately at the moment suffering, as Deputies have told us, from a shortage of cement and you cannot build houses without cement nowadays, any more than the ancient Egyptians could make bricks without straw. We hope that the number of houses completed will be considerably more than the 1,500 the Minister mentioned, but it will be somewhere between that figure of 1,500 and the figure of 2,200.

In the course of this debate, there was a suggestion on the part of those Deputies who apparently are not wide-awake to the conditions which exist around them that we could do a great deal more to push forward housing than we have been doing. Deputy Allen, I think, answered that criticism by referring to the experience of the Wexford County Council. They asked for tenders for some hundreds of houses and they got tenders for the erection of only 18, and he told the House that, in the case of none of the 18, had the contract documents yet been completed, simply because the contractors could see no assurance that the supplies of the necessary building materials would be available to them. But Wexford is not unique in this experience. The Waterford County Council advertised for tenders recently for 420 cottages and received tenders for only 105. In the case of the West Cork county health district, tenders were advertised for some 113 cottages and tenders for only 20 were received. That is merely a proof that, despite what Deputy Mulcahy and some other Deputies suggested, the real hold-up in relation to housing is not due to any dilatoriness on the part of the Department of Local Government, any negligence on the part of the local authorities or any shortage of money, but mainly, as I said in my opening remarks, to the shortage of materials, and there is no use badgering the Minister, badgering the local authorities or badgering the officers of the local authorities. We cannot build houses as rapidly as we are prepared to build them, or as rapidly as we would wish to build them, until materials come into much freer supply than at the moment.

Deputy Butler, Deputy Cosgrave and, I think, Deputy Burke referred to the position which exists in relation to private turf producers in County Dublin, with particular reference to the utilisation and development of the Glencullen bog. The position there is that the bog is privately-owned. The county council do not make lettings to private producers in Glencullen, but, notwithstanding that, the special employment schemes office are considering the question of road work to this bog and, I think, are in actual negotiation with the owner regarding it, but I do not think that anything which would be of any great value in relation to the cutting of turf this year can be done.

Among the Deputies whose speeches were perhaps least helpful was Deputy Blowick. He is, I think, chairman of the second Opposition group in the Dáil and one would think that, holding that responsible position, he would at least be well-informed when he comes here to discuss the Estimate for the Department of Local Government. The Deputy said that private turf producers are being discouraged by assessing them—these are his words—for rates. The Minister for Local Government has no responsibility in the matter whatever. The law, adapted by this House, not originally enacted by it, provides that, where a bog is being exploited for commercial purposes, the bog must be valued. That is the law, and it is not the Minister for Local Government who insists that it should be done. The local authority is bound by statute to do that, and the officers of the Valuation Office are bound to value a bog, as soon as the facts become known to them. Deputy Blowick is a member of a local authority. He is the Leader of Clann na Talmhan in this House, and, before he begins to ascribe to the Minister for Local Government something for which the Minister is not responsible, he at least ought to be sure of his ground. The Deputy accused my Department of holding up housing schemes in Castlebar, Westport and Swinford. I am not prepared to say that in no case in which proposals have been submitted to my Department has there been delay. I am aware that, in some cases, there have been delays which would appear to be unreasonable to people who did not understand all the circumstances. Certainly, there has been no delay on the part of the Department in dealing with proposals submitted from Mayo.

The three schemes to which the Deputy referred were housing schemes at Swinford, Castlebar and Westport. What is the position in relation to the Castlebar site? Plans were submitted to the Department on the 8th October, 1946. The site was inspected by the Department's inspector on the 13th November, 1946. The reports of the county medical officer of health, the town surveyor and the town planning consultant on the site and plans were made available to the Department on the 23rd January and 4th February, 1947, respectively. It was stated on the 23rd January by the town clerk that it would be necessary to acquire sites by compulsory purchase order. The town clerk was informed by my Department on the 20th February that the Minister has no functions until an order is submitted for confirmation. I understand that differences of opinion have arisen locally as to the suitability of the site proposed but I cannot do anything to settle those differences and it is not my function to settle them. As I have already indicated, we have no statutory function until a compulsory purchase order is submitted when we can proceed to hold the necessary inquiry. The last letter which we received in connection with this matter was on the 28th April last, when it was stated that a special meeting of the council would be called to consider the views of the town planner, the county medical officer and the town surveyor in relation to the site. Despite the allegation by Deputy Blowick, that we had unduly delayed consideration of these proposals, we have heard nothing from Castlebar since.

In the case of Westport, the lay-out plans were received on the 15th March, 1946. The Department did not consider the lay-out suitable and it was suggested that, as the town was already well planned, it would be desirable to consult a town planning expert for the purpose of making a general survey of possible sites. We have had letters dated 10th May and 27th May, 1947, stating that the local authority was endeavouring to obtain sites from a particular person in the area. The outcome of their endeavours has not, as yet, been reported to us.

In the case of Swinford, plans were received on the 19th March of this year. It was observed then that there were material differences of opinion in regard to the design and lay-out of the houses on the part of the consulting engineer, the county engineer and the county medical officer of health. The county manager was asked to submit his views on this matter and those were submitted on 28th May—about six days ago. Yet Deputy Blowick accuses us of being unduly tardy in dealing with the proposals which have been submitted. I suggest that a Deputy who puts himself forward as proposing to hold a responsible position in the administration of the country ought to be much more certain of his facts before making statements—wild statements— in the House. It is not enough for him to come in here, blow off steam and try to bespatter the reputation of the Minister and the Department of Local Government in the way he does with these wild allegations. He should, at least, have some regard and concern for the facts of the case. I should say "for the truth of the case" if that would not convey an implication with which I should not like to disturb the equanimity of the Chair.

Deputy Davin is a Deputy who has much the same technique as Deputy Blowick. He is one of those Deputies who level charges of undue delay against the Department. He alleged delay in sanctioning water works and sewerage schemes in Offaly. Any delays that took place in relation to those sanitary schemes in Offaly cannot be attributed to the Department. I shall take a couple of examples. I have a long list here, but I do not propose to detain the House by referring to all the instances. However, I want Deputies to see what little foundation there is for charges of this sort which it is customary for some Deputies to make so freely in relation to the Department of Local Government.

Take the Abbeyleix water supply scheme, which was estimated to cost £12,750. The council were informed on the 8th August that no objection would be raised to the preparation of contract documents for the carrying out of this work. The documents have not yet been submitted to the Department for approval. How can we be accused of holding up that scheme? We told them to go ahead and prepare the contract documents and we have not yet got them. The Durrow sewerage scheme is estimated to cost £8,800. Full contract documents were received in the Department on the 29th May, 1947—five days ago. They are at present being considered. Outlined proposals have already been approved in principle and the council were informed on the 9th January last that contract documents might be prepared. In the case of the Clonaslee water supply scheme, the appointment of a consulting engineer was approved on 24th March of this year. No preliminary report has yet been received. As regards the Stradbally sewerage scheme, the appointment of a consulting engineer was approved on the 25th February but, so far, no preliminary report has been received. Stradbally water supply scheme, by the way, has only just been completed. In the case of Shinrone, where a water supply scheme was estimated to cost £2,200, we asked in a letter of the 30th January that certain amendments might be considered and we asked for reports as to the chemical and bacteriological analysis of the water. We also asked for submission of the bill of quantities for approval. No reply has yet been received from the local authority. I do not want to worry the House by going into details in these matters but Deputies must understand that the Minister for Local Government has a very definite responsibility in the case of these water supply and sewerage schemes.

That responsibility arises in two ways. He has the responsibility, if he can, to protect the ratepayers against wasteful expenditure of their money, and he has also the responsibility, with the Minister for Finance and the Government as a whole, to see that the very substantial assistance which is being given to local authorities to enable them to undertake these schemes will be effective and that, again, it will not be wasted. When proposals for schemes towards which we will contribute, perhaps, 40, 50 or 60 per cent. of the cost come before us, we cannot take our examination of these proposals simply as a mere formality. We cannot just act as a sort of rubber stamp to the engineers and advisers of the local authorities in matters of this sort. We are entitled to satisfy ourselves that the scheme submitted will be sound and that the money which it is proposed to spend will be productive of the results which are desired.

Mr. Corish

Is the Minister prepared to say at this stage that he thinks the expense involved in connection with the Wexford water supply will be justified by the results?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not in a position to say that, because I do not know the details of the Wexford water supply scheme. As the Deputy has mentioned it, I might say that I understand there has been some hold-up in connection with certain modifications or extensions of the Wexford water supply scheme. The Deputy raised that point and asked when supplies of materials were likely to be available. The latest information we have is that water pipes will not be available for about six months. However, as I say, I am not in a position to deal off-hand with the history and defects of every water supply and sewerage scheme in the country. If the Deputy would like me to look into the question of the Wexford water supply scheme, I am quite prepared to do it.

Mr. O'Leary

The engineers concerned.

Mr. MacEntee

I will have the matter examined so far as we have any responsibility for it. Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Burke raised certain questions as to the position of the water supply for North County Dublin. I dealt with that matter pretty fully in a reply which I gave to a question by Deputy Cosgrave. The question of a water supply for North County Dublin has been the subject of discussions between the Dublin County Council and the Dublin Corporation. The proposal is a very large one. It contemplates the expenditure of over half a million pounds. That is the preliminary estimate and that estimate may be exceeded when the scheme comes to be worked out in detail. Agreement has been reached in principle as to the main lines upon which the scheme should proceed. It is proposed to lay a new trunk main to carry water from Poulaphouca to Windmill Hill, a point in North County Dublin where the reservoir is proposed to be erected. So far as the Department is concerned, we have not got any detailed proposals yet; but I understand that the county council have put their proposals to the corporation and are awaiting a reply. I hope that the negotiations between the county council and the corporation will be concluded at an early date. But, if they are not, I suggest that the Deputies for County Dublin who are interested in this matter might perhaps bring a little pressure to bear upon colleagues of their various Parties who are members of the Dublin Corporation to get them, if they can, to ask the city manager to come to a conclusion in relation to that matter. The Deputy said he should like to hear from me when it is proposed to provide a similar scheme for the South County Dublin area. I have a very long statement here of which I will send him a copy. I do not think he will expect me to deal with it at any great length now.

There were a considerable number of other matters raised, but I do not think that they are what might be described as of general interest. Deputy de Valera did raise the question of the rates in the County Borough of Dublin. I do not want to encourage any increase in the rates in the County Borough of Dublin. I happen to be a ratepayer in the county borough myself and, therefore, while I recognise, if the public services are to be effectively discharged in the present circumstances and if the additional services which we all admit the people require are to be provided, that the rates undoubtedly will tend to go up, at the same time I should like to assure Deputy de Valera that so far as county boroughs are concerned the rate in the County Borough of Dublin is the lowest of any, which perhaps will afford him a modicum of consolation.

If this debate had not been so prolonged, I might have said a few words to Deputy Norton and to Deputy Davin in answer to their attacks upon me for the references which I made to the very serious turf situation which exists.

Mr. Morrissey

You have two hours yet.

Mr. MacEntee

I am thinking that another Minister has some claim upon the attention of Deputies. In any event, I think I have effectively dealt with Deputy Norton outside this House, as I have inside it. I do not propose, therefore, to say anything on that point, except that I hope an opportunity may offer outside this house to deal with Deputy Davin's twopence a week and with Deputy Norton. I have a very full file on the matter and it will be at the disposal of any Deputy who may care to consult it.

Mr. Norton

Will you select the platform and we can have a debate next week?

Mr. Morrissey

He will select more than the platform.

Motion to refer the Estimate back for reconsideration put and declared negatived.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Jun 1947