Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1949

Vol. 116 No. 5

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

When I moved to report progress last night I was referring to the increase in rates which appears to have occurred over the past number of years. The ratepayers seem to be burdened with responsibilities and seem to be a target for recoupment of expenditure which very often is not of direct benefit to themselves. There is an inclination to put on the shoulders of the ratepayers the necessity to subscribe towards the financing of certain public schemes which should, in my opinion, be financed out of central funds. There is a limit to the capacity of the ratepayers. I believe that that limit has been reached and that the Minister for Local Government should examine the possibility of transferring responsibility for certain services to the Central Fund. The local authorities are being burdened with certain responsibilities which I believe are the business of the central authority. I am inclined to suggest that roads and road maintenance should be a national charge and that the responsibility for their maintenance should not devolve directly upon the ratepayers to the extent which they do. Similarly, I am inclined to suggest that the hospitalisation of the country should also be a national charge and that the ratepayers should not be required to subscribe a quota of the amount which is required to finance the activities of hospitals. Ratepayers in many cases benefit least by the amenities towards which they subscribe and in respect of which the rates are applied. For that reason the possibility should be examined by the Department of Local Government of taking responsibility for certain charges which are now being met directly by the ratepayers.

There is, at the present time, an acute shortage of housing, particularly in our towns and cities. For that situation I am inclined to blame the fact that the policy of the last Government was against the rural community and that there was therefore an inclination on the part of people to drift towards the towns and cities, thus creating the housing problems with which we are faced at the present time. I was surprised to hear Deputy O'Reilly deploring the housing position as it exists to-day because it is an admission of the failure of his own Party. It could not be expected that in 16 months the Government could remedy the acute housing shortage and the conditions which we found the people who were in need of houses to be in only 16 months ago. This is a Fianna Fáil legacy so far as this Government is concerned and it is one that needs to be tackled resolutely and urgently. I heard the Deputy say that County Meath needs more houses. I should like to know from the Deputy if his county council has done as well as the Dublin County Council has done. Dublin County Council has the foundations for 800 houses actually laid and in course of erection.

Why Fianna Fáil, Deputy Rooney?

It is very hard to have to listen to that kind of thing.

The Deputy is not obliged to listen.

He does not like to have to hear the truth.

When we came into office we had to set about finding sites for these houses and formulating plans to enable their erection. In fact, we have already completed the erection of those houses and actually allocated tenancy. I do not know the record in Deputy O'Reilly's county, but if it is not as good as the record of Dublin County he has only his own county to blame. It is possible that the slow progress in producing the houses in various counties may be due to obstruction by councils where there is a majority of Fianna Fáil members. They may be trying to make the homeless families believe that this Government is not attempting properly to provide houses for them as quickly as possible. But the very opposite obtains in counties where there is a majority of councillors representing the Parties forming the present Government. I heard Deputy O'Reilly say that he did not altogether blame the Coalition Government for the fact that 100,000 houses had not been built in the last year because one of the Parties in the Government was the Fine Gael Party. He proceeded to say that it was the policy of the Fine Gael Party not to spend money and not to give the people houses.

Do not forget that they were ten years in office before.

The Deputy referred to conditions in 1932 and mentioned that when Fianna Fáil came into power there was a need for houses because Fine Gael had not done their job. I want to remind Deputy O'Reilly that Fine Gael was busy rebuilding houses which his Party demolished in previous years and that they did build county council houses during the years which preceded 1932. After the war, and indeed during the war, there were plenty of materials made available for the erection of luxury houses and hotels, but the materials were not there for the erection of even a few council houses in the rural areas and, indeed, in the crowded cities and towns.

Where were the luxury hotels built?

The Deputy can look to the right or left on going out of this city or even out of the City of Cork. I am referring to the luxury houses and hotels which were erected with the very meagre supply of building materials available.

In Dublin City and County.

Where were they erected in the county?

Deputy Burke ought to know because he lives in the area.

Is it under the "Blue Shirt" county council which sabotaged the people of County Dublin?

I am afraid the Chair will have to tell Deputy Burke something else.

I would not be inclined to call them the "Blue Shirt" county council. They were a very well-meaning council, but perhaps they did not do the work approved of by Fianna Fáil. Their methods were not approved of by Fianna Fáil because their politics were not approved of by Fianna Fáil and they were abolished. But, when Fianna Fáil took over, we got eight houses in seven years. That was the difference. Deputy O'Reilly's Party since 1932 got plenty of time to give the people houses and they failed to carry out the job.

How many houses did you get in County Dublin since 1932?

Half the number which were needed. Let it be remembered that at that time land was practically worthless and could have been easily acquired at any figure which Fianna Fáil liked to offer the land owners, because its value had been reduced considerably. At present there are difficulties in acquiring land because there is a dispute regarding the actual price which should be paid. That position did not exist at that time. It should be remembered that it is the people who will go into these houses built on this dear land who will have to pay for the neglect of Fianna Fáil in the past when they could have got the land cheaply. They actually reduced the value of the land by their own policy. They failed to acquire it then. They left this Government in the position that they have to pay a high price for land which eventually will have to be paid by the people who go into the houses.

One other cause of delay is the compulsory purchase Order method of acquiring land. When there is a dispute regarding the value of land, this method is usually resorted to. In view of the fact that very often such cases drag on for a year or two years, it is desirable that land should be acquired, where possible, without the application of this compulsory purchase Order method. The Fianna Fáil Party took five years to reach their peak production of houses. They boast that in 1938 — in fact, I think the figures for two years were included in the 1938 total — they provided something like 18,000 houses. Now they are not satisfied because we have not reached their peak level after a period of 16 months. I have no doubt that the inter-Party Government will succeed in providing 20,000 houses in 1950. That will exceed the 1938 figure. As I say, another year was included in the figure supplied by the Fianna Fáil Deputies.

The question of the road grants seems to annoy many Deputies on the opposite benches. It must be remembered that the effect of the road grants normally should not take place until after the 1st July. Yet many Deputies are complaining that the effect has already taken place in many counties. I can say that in County Dublin there have been no ill-effects so far as employment is concerned and it is not expected that there will be. There are more persons employed by the Dublin County Council at the present time than in any previous year in the last 20 years and they are receiving constant employment. In fact, they are finding it difficult to obtain men for the carrying out of the ordinary tarring operations which take place during the summer period.

I was surprised to hear Deputy Burke so vocal with regard to housing conditions and the need for housing at present because, on examining his past statements, I find that he was not a bit worried then about the homeless people of County Dublin and he never agitated on their behalf. He was quite satisfied to see them living in railway carriages and bus bodies or anywhere else they could manage. Since the change of Government, he is not at all satisfied to see people living under these conditions, which did not cause him any anxiety when he was on this side of the House when he remained perfectly silent on this matter. It is suggested that emigration is taking place by reason of the fact that local authorities are unable to give employment as a result of the cutting down of the road grants. I suggest that one of the things which encourages emigration is the lack of proper housing conditions for the people. If they are not satisfied at home, if they are living in overcrowded conditions, the first thing that occurs to them is to get to a place where they will have better living conditions.

In County Dublin, and perhaps in other counties, there is a practice growing up on the part of people to reside in bus bodies and railway carriages on waste land near the seaside. That practice shows that the housing shortage is acute. It is undesirable to see these "timber towns" springing up in various parts of County Dublin and I suppose in other coastal counties also. I agree that it is difficult to say to people in Dublin City: "You must sleep on the stairs or on the landing because there is no room in which you can sleep. Perhaps you must take turns with other members of the family or with other families to sleep in the beds at certain hours which would be suitable." I know that the Dublin County Council has taken steps to permit of residence in bus bodies and railway carriages by the issue of licences. The licensing method is a good controlling factor. It will ensure that the people of County Dublin will be provided with the houses they need, as the council will not be faced with the necessity of providing houses for persons who have come from other local authority areas.

I am glad to hear from the Minister for Local Government that local authorities will interest themselves in machine turf schemes and turf production for the limited use to which this machine turf can be put. I welcome the machine turf scheme because I believe we can get fuel which will be acceptable to the people of the towns and cities of this country. They were too long using hand-won water saturated turf sods and they became prejudiced against it. However, I think it cannot be said that the same prejudice will operate against machine turf because, when price and quality are taken into consideration, machine turf can compare favourably with the latent heat that is obtainable from coal. That reminds me of the large heaps of coal in the Phoenix Park still. I think it is not so much coal now as a big heap of grey stones. I do not think that even local authorities will use that heap of stones and I suggest that some use should be made of this purchase other than leaving it lying there in the Phoenix Park.

There is an inclination on the part of trade unions to restrict the entry of persons into the skilled trades. I am inclined to think that the output of housing is controlled in a big way by the number of skilled operatives in the trade. A house cannot be delivered until it is plastered and I know that there is a great shortage of plasterers in the City of Dublin and the County of Dublin besides a shortage of carpenters. I know there is a difficulty for persons desiring to enter these trades and, in particular, the plastering trade. Although they may be able to plaster just as well as the man who is a member of a union and is plastering, they are not allowed to plaster. However, they will be allowed to plaster if they go to Britain, commence plastering, join a union there and then come back here. They will then be admitted to the union on this side which will enable them to perform that work here. That restriction should be relaxed until the housing shortage, especially in Dublin City, has been relieved to some extent. Free entry into these two key trades, in my opinion, would relieve the position. We would not then have to be bribing skilled workers to come back from Britain because the workers in this country would be permitted to work in the skilled trades by reason of the fact that they would have been accepted as members of the respective unions.

At the present time the cost of building is inclined to leave the rents at a level which could be regarded as being beyond the means of the wage-earners on the lower scales. I am inclined to advocate that the Minister should examine the possibility of extending the period so that the weekly rent could be lower than it is expected to be in respect of the new houses in course of erection. I know that the system of differential rents is operated in several counties, but it is a strange method to some counties who have not already tried it out. I should like the Minister to examine the possibility of suggesting to all local authorities that the system of differential rents should be employed. The design and size of houses at the present time leave nothing to be desired. There are very good houses, both in Dublin County and in Dublin City. I expect that the design and the accommodation in other counties is equally good. However, I want to say that there are many working families not earning high wages who would be quite happy to receive allocation of a similar house which would meet their normal requirements and which would be within their reach so far as the rent to be applied is concerned. It cannot be disputed that the houses which are being provided at the present time have very good accommodation, quite enough rooms, spacious rooms and, in fact, they are ideal. However, the fact that they are of such a high standard results in the misfortune that the rents are abnormally high, and I think that if some system cannot be adopted, such as the lengthening of the period or some kind of finance made available from the Transition Fund, it will be difficult for these people to go into those fine houses and pay an economic rent or even a rent which could not be regarded as economic.

The Deputies of the Opposition complained that the progress was too slow in their view. When they were making that complaint they always spoke about the peak production figure of 1938—18,000 houses. I feel sure that they do not expect this Government to reach a peak which it took them five years to reach, within the space of a year or two. There is no doubt that at the present rate of production we will reach that peak which they reached in 1938, in a shorter time.

At this stage I should like to mention to the Minister for Local Government that the motor registration office in Dublin City serves a colossal number of motorists. I would hazard a guess that this registration office is used by about 30,000 motorists. It is centralised there and the people from Dún Laoghaire, Crumlin, all Dublin City and Dublin County must go there to licence their cars and obtain driving licences. The result is that at the quarter periods people go there and find themselves at the end of a queue of 300 or 400 at any hour from 10 o'clock until 3 o'clock on any day for at least a fortnight. That is not service. It will be remembered that there was a motor registration office to serve Dublin County and Dún Laoghaire in Parnell Square, and it is high time, in my opinion, that the office should be located there again or somewhere away from Kildare Street where it is at the present time.

It may be argued that the registration office for these three local authority areas is centralised and that, perhaps, more efficiency is obtained in that way, but certainly, so far as the public are concerned, they are not getting the service that I think they are entitled to. For that reason I suggest that the Minister should consider the possibility of locating registration offices in the three local authority areas, namely, Dún Laoghaire Borough Council, Dublin County, and Dublin City. If that were done there would be less confusion, even amongst the Guards. At present a Guard may stop you and ask: "Where is your licence?" You will say: "I went to the registration office on the first day of the quarter and found 500 people there in a queue; I could not wait and I went there again on two or three occasions later and found the same conditions obtaining," or one may say: "I posted on the licence." Even in that case it often happens that a fortnight or three weeks elapse before the licence is issued. The reason for that is the huge volume of work to be done in that one office.

Last year I remember I suggested that the possibility of having the roads repaired by contract should be examined. On that occasion the present Minister for Local Government expressed his disagreement with my suggestion and advanced very sound arguments in support of the contention that he put forward. At the same time I should like if he would give this suggestion a trial, because where work has to be carried out the question of efficiency arises. I am of the opinion that if a contractor were responsible for the maintenance of, say, 100 miles of county roads under the supervision of the engineers, who would have to certify for the work carried out by him, this work of repairing and maintaining roads could be performed very effectively. It may be suggested that the method would not be as cheap as the present one of having the work done by road men. I think that the proposal is worthy of a trial. I know that roads were repaired by contract in, I think, the year 1945. As well as I remember, some British firms contracted to do the necessary work, and I am sure the Minister would be able to make some comments on the work done by them at that time.

We are faced in the County Dublin with the possibility and the probability that the Dublin Corporation boundary will be extended considerably into the county. Dublin County has been losing ground for the past 25 years so that more houses could be provided for Dublin City. In view of the fact that 28,000 families now need to be housed, there is no doubt that the city boundary will be extended further into the county. The main difficulty in regard to that is that Dublin County is spending money in providing amenities in areas which will eventually be taken over by the Dublin Corporation, and that the ratepayers in the county are at the moment contributing the money required for the provision of these amenities and services. Well, they do not like doing that when they realise that in a few years the Dublin Corporation will be extending itself into those areas.

I suggest that the possibility of building the city upwards instead of outwards should be examined. I heard a Deputy say last night in the course of this debate that the renovation of tenement houses has resulted in the provision of very good accommodation for large numbers of people, and that the people are happy in them because of the fact that they are able to continue living in their own localities. They prefer that to being removed several miles from the environment they have been accustomed to. I think that position still obtains, and that the homeless families that are to be rehoused would be only too glad if housing provision were made for them in the city, but not, of course, under the old conditions. For that reason, I suggest to the Minister that he should consider the possibility of building higher houses. The present ones have only one storey. If those higher houses were built in blocks, and in suitable areas, the people would not be faced with the heavy expense which falls on them when they are removed to outlying districts. They would be saved the payment of bus fares; they would not have to travel long distances to their work or to do their shopping. All these things count a great deal with these families, even though we are doing our best at the moment to provide them with houses.

With regard to the Small Dwellings Act, its administration presents some snags. Some people are disappointed because they are not receiving the weekly wage which, in the opinion of the local authority, would qualify them for a loan under the Act. On the other hand, if a person is receiving a certain wage and has a certain amount of money to deposit, he can get permission to avail of a loan. There are delays with regard to payment. I think that is undesirable, because it causes considerable inconvenience to people who have made their own arrangements for the financing and building of a house. When the money does not reach them promptly they have to go to a bank or some friend and ask for temporary accommodation, and even then the position is not satisfactory, because there appears to be an indefinite delay in the making of these payments. It would be more satisfactory to all concerned if the payments could be made promptly and regularly.

There also are complaints about the methods of valuation. It is said that there is an inclination to undervalue the houses. It will be agreed that if the erection of a house at a certain figure is approved of before the work is commenced the question of value should not be disputed when the house has been completed. The people who, in my opinion, have the worst housing accommodation in the country are the farmers. In many cases they are living in old houses, perhaps on large farms. They have their liabilities to meet and, apart from the Small Dwellings Act, there is no way by which a farmer's son can avail of a loan for the purpose of erecting a house. Now, even if a farmer's son desires to apply for a loan under the Act he cannot get it unless he is able to prove that his income has reached a certain level. There is also the point that the land belonging to his father, on which the house is to be erected, has to be transferred to the son. The farmers have to pay for the provision of amenities for other people and for the erection of council houses, but they are not eligible to live in them and neither are their sons eligible to apply for accommodation in these houses.

I think some scheme should be adopted whereby councils will be permitted to erect houses for farmers' sons. At the present time, if the area of land exceeds an acre, the local authority will not agree to erect a house on that site. That is one difficulty that presents itself to the farmer who asks the local authority to erect a house for his son. That matter should be properly examined. Apart from the duty of providing houses for the working classes, we have also a duty to provide houses for the farming community. It is our duty to assist them in every way in their efforts to obtain houses or erect them on their own initiative.

I have been in communication with the Department of Local Government and the Land Commission asking for certain lanes to be taken over and maintained by the local authority. There are many long lanes which were constructed years ago, in some cases by the Land Commission, and when those lanes were provided no steps were taken to maintain them. They have fallen into disrepair and the people using them now cannot find any authority that will take over responsibility for maintenance. These people are unable to finance the work of repairing the lanes and they cannot provide the necessary materials. Local authorities are very slow to take over this responsibility. I have in mind one lane over a mile long, adjoining two roads and serving five or six farms. I cannot induce the county council to take over the responsibility of repairing that lane. I know that a lane as long as this one can never be repaired by the farmers who are using it because they are unable to bear the cost.

I would like the Minister to adopt a definite policy in this connection and ask local authorities to take responsibility for certain lanes which accommodate farmers, particularly in the transportation of produce from inland farms. All the land is not along the roadside and there are plenty of lanes of the type I have in mind leading deep into the heart of the countryside. It must be remembered that the farmers who use these lanes contribute substantially in their rates towards the maintenance of roads they seldom use. The very lanes they need to have put in a proper condition are the places on which they cannot induce the local authorities to effect necessary repairs.

I would like to extend a hearty welcome to the new Minister. He has taken on a big job, but his wide experience of local authorities will, I feel sure, enable him to carry out his onerous task efficiently.

Táimíd tar éis éisteacht le óráid brónach, uaigneach olagónach ó'n Teachta atá tar éis labhairt, óráid ba dheacair a shárú i bhfice bliain le neart ráiméis. Ba mhaith an rud é dá bhféadfadh leis an nimh poilitiochta a chose agus go bhféacfadh sé ar an gceist seo, sin ceist na dtithe, ó'n maitheas a dhéanfadh sé don náisiún ar fad.

I never heard a more outrageously political speech on this national question of housing than I have just listened to from Deputy Rooney. In the course of his remarks he said that Fianna Fáil dominated the county councils and were sabotaging the housing efforts of the present Government. That statement is false, and I challenge Deputy Rooney to prove it. I challenge contradiction on this, that during its term of office Fianna Fáil had a housing Minister who initiated a scheme in 1932 which will stand as a monument to him for many years to come. During the ten years in which the Fine Gael or the Cumann na nGaedheal Party — it twists its name about periodically — was in office, there was comparatively little done in the way of housing. In that period there was nothing like the building of houses that Deputy Rooney referred to; I do not believe that there was one rural house built in that ten years. We initiated a housing scheme of most creditable proportions. There are definite indications of that scheme in every village and town and city.

Deputy Rooney talks about the period after the war just as if we were living in the piping times of peace. As a matter of fact, it was a question of living, of self-preservation, for a number of years. I wonder does the Deputy know anything about the housing question? I was not in for most of the debate, and I will not accuse the present Minister or the former Minister — go ndeanfaidh Dia trocaire ar a anam — of delay in the erection of houses. I know there are certain essentials in the matter of housing, certain requisites that are in short supply and that will remain in short supply. I realise that this will retard housing and we can only look forward to the time when there will be a plentiful supply. I am aware that as regards tiles you have to have them five months on order and if you want asbestos sheeting or asbestos slates, they have to be six or seven months on order. Articles such as baths and waste pipes are very difficult to procure. The fact is that builders' providers cannot cope with the demand and while that state of affairs exists a Minister, even with the best intentions in the world, cannot speed up housing schemes.

Deputy Rooney talks about the acquisition of land for housing sites and he said that Fianna Fáil did not do sufficient in that direction. Any Minister who can initiate legislation to simplify the land code and make easier the acquisition of sites, will deserve great credit. I have been a member of a public body for a number of years and there are many Deputies here in the same position. We all know that the heartbreaking thing about housing is that when you come to get land, whether it is cheap or dear, you meet with opposition from the owner. Whether he owns one acre or 1,000 acres, you will be up against it. There are all sorts of inquiries, according to the law, and until the law is changed and the process is expedited, delays will occur.

We have a county council in West-meath. It is not dominated by Fianna Fáil but the best brains on it are Fianna Fáil. The Fianna Fáil members know what they are talking about and they are anxious to push on housing schemes. Deputy Rooney is a member of the Dublin County Council and I invite him down to my county where I will show him how we build houses for the sons of farmers. They apply for houses and we build the houses for them. Now he is all out for the contract system on the roads. I wonder if he heard Deputy Davin talking about the contractors who build houses. I wonder has be any knowledge of private contractors at all.

Of course, one wants both systems. One wants the direct labour system in housing and one wants the contract system. In one particular area you may be able to do it by direct labour. That will probably take time to build up and one will have to watch results and judge by results. If you do not get good results then you will have to get rid of that system and go back to the contract system. I do know that if one has a good engineering staff on the job and good honest tradesmen one will get better results that way than from any contractor. The system must be tried out. We have initiated it in our county and we shall watch its progress. I certainly hope it will give good results. I merely wanted to deal with one or two subjects in this debate. I am interested in the road grant and in the road traffic regulations. Having listened to Deputy Rooney's speech, however, and his poisonous condemnation and his unnational approach I felt that I must answer.

In relation to the Road Traffic Act I want to draw the Minister's attention to a somewhat simple matter, even though it is an important one. There is a big increase in lorry traffic on the roads. Now, the mirror that should stick out at the side of the lorry is very often not there. I have been held up two and three times in a short stretch of 26 miles of road by cattle lorries driving at 15 and 16 miles an hour. Other people have had the same experience. It is useless sounding one's horn because they cannot hear it. Very often I have had the experience of being held up by one of these lorries and finding several others held up behind me again. I appeal to the Minister to consult the proper authorities in this respect. This is becoming a growing nuisance. More and more traffic is coming on to the roads through the carriage of more and more merchandise and live stock. Something will have to be done about the matter.

With regard to the cut in the road grants, I think that attitude on the part of this Government was wrong. I think there will have to be a reversion of policy and they will have to go back and find 90 per cent. at least of the cost, not only of the upkeep of the roads but of widening them as well in order to carry the increased traffic. There are roads in Meath and Westmeath, for instance, which will have to be straightened. In some cases it is impossible to see even 300 yards in front of one. That is definitely dangerous and something will have to be done to make these roads serviceable. Now, the rates are too high at the present time. They are as much as the people can bear. The cost, therefore, of improving the roads will have to be borne by the Exchequer. A ten or 20-year scheme should meet the situation. The Fianna Fáil Government was drawing up a road scheme under which roads would be widened and secondary roads made serviceable. Patching up secondary roads is no good. I think the Government will have to examine the position. They are beginning to realise now that it is no harm to spend a few pounds on services. I want them to consider spending a few pounds on these services now instead of waiting until Fianna Fáil comes back in a few years' time to put a proper road scheme into operation. The Government should do it now and we will finish the job when we come back. When a secondary road is well done it will last for half a century.

Another matter in connection with road traffic is the necessity for road signs giving directions. These are particularly necessary at county boundaries and at the approaches to towns. When the Department finds itself up against some historic town, such as Athlone or Wexford, where a road scheme would involve the removal of historic buildings, I suggest that the example set by England should be followed. The Government should build the road around the town and thereby preserve these important buildings. That has been done in Norwich. It could be equally effective here.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to office and I am sure that with his experience of local government he will make a success of his position as Minister for Local Government. The people throughout the country are seriously perturbed because of the alarming increase in rates. In County Cork in the last two years the rates have increased by 9/-to 10/- in the £. That is a serious matter for the farmers and large ratepayers. It is also a serious matter for the ordinary householder, because an increase of 9/- in the £ in rates represents a fairly considerable annual increased rent on the ordinary house. Any further increase is unthinkable, and some effort must be made to keep the rates within reasonable limits and within the capacity of the ratepayers to pay. Deputy Larkin said yesterday that the rates were no concern of this House. He said they were the concern of the local authority. I find that that is not so. The local authority has Orders passed down to it from the Department of Local Government and they have other commitments to meet; they have no option, good, bad or indifferent. They have to accept the position.

Another harmful system adopted by the Department is that in giving grants for road works and improvement works, they offer a grant of a certain amount, if so much is contributed by the local authority. That, to my mind, is a very bad system. It is based on the same principle as that followed by a woman who goes into a bargain sale and buys a hat she does not want because she thinks it is a bargain.

Local authorities are tempted to impose extra taxation on the already overburdened ratepayers for the purpose of getting this bargain which is being doled out by the Department of Local Government. The whole system of road administration is, I believe, wasteful. I think that it should be dealt with by some sort of central authority and there should be some comparison between the work of the various county surveyors, the various gangers and groups of men in the different counties. There should be some method of comparing the work carried out in the various counties or preferably it should be controlled by one national board. Everybody has heard statements that the road workers are doing nothing. It was said at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis and I have heard it myself all through the country. I do not blame the road workers, notwithstanding all these complaints that are being made against them. I blame the system under which they are working and I think that if you had some sort of board to administer road maintenance and road construction in a national way on lines somewhat similar to those pursued by the Electricity Supply Board in administering that undertaking, you would have a far more efficient, far cheaper and far more satisfactory road service than you have at the moment.

There is just one point I should like to make in connection with the housing question. I notice that there has been a great deal of talk about building 30,000 additional houses in Dublin. I suppose that one could say that in this country each house will accommodate on the average four persons, so that if you add 30,000 houses to the number already in existence in Dublin you will have an additional population of 120,000 in Dublin which is equal to the combined population of Cork and Limerick. Already, in Dublin, we have 22 to 25 per cent. of the population of the whole country and if we are going to tack on to this already top-heavy city in this small agricultural country another 30,000 houses, or 120,000 people——

You are doing no such thing. You are taking the people out of the slums to put them into these houses.

They are in Dublin already.

You are building an additional city the size of Limerick and Cork combined and adding it on to the already big straggling City of Dublin. I believe that it is necessary to provide proper housing for the people in Dublin. I know many of them are living under slum conditions which are deplorable and which should not be tolerated in any Christian country but I think it is a mistake to spread Dublin out over a bigger area than it already occupies. It is already too big.

The only other point to which I wish to refer is the question of the slowness in the payment of grants to people who build new houses. When the houses are built the people have to wait a very long period before the grants are paid. I do not know what is the reason. The Minister for Finance says that he is not stinting the money, that the money is there to be paid out in grants, but I have heard complaints from various people in the country that after they have filled in their forms and complied with all the conditions, they have to wait for a long time before they are paid. These are the few points I want to make to the Minister. I would again stress to the House that the burden of rates is already more than people can pay and if there are any further increases a crash will come some day.

There are just a few matters in connection with this Vote to which I should like to refer. The last speaker mentioned the matter of slowness in the payment of grants, and I should like the Minister to pay particular attention to that complaint. These grants are payable to private individuals who build houses themselves. I have heard complaints in my constituency about slowness, firstly in the inspection of houses after they are completed and, secondly, in regard to the fact that after the inspector has called and the person has occupied the house, months elapse before the grants are paid. There is an additional complaint that I want to make on the same matter in regard to people who apply for reconstruction or new housing grants and who apply for the necessary forms. A man who spoke to me a few days ago told me that eight weeks had elapsed since he applied for the form for a reconstruction grant and he had not yet got it. If the Minister makes the point that the Department is overworked or has not sufficient staff, something should be done about it. It is just too bad that, at the best time of the year when people want to reconstruct their houses, the procedure is not expedited. I would appeal to the Minister to give particular attention to the question of facilitating the private person who wishes to construct his own house so that the waiting period would be considerably shortened. At the moment there is a very big waste of time.

It is all-important that people who wish to build a house or to reconstruct an existing dwelling should get an opportunity of doing so in the fine weather. There is just one period of the year in which you can build or carry out repairs — from the end of April to the beginning of August. By the time the harvest is over and winter is in, the time for building is past. Little or no work can be done during the winter months. If people are not ready to start in April or by the 1st of May at the latest, they can get practically no work done before the winter is upon them. That applies particularly to reconstruction. If a person is reconstructing a dwelling he must strip the roof and naturally he cannot have the roof off in winter time. The only chance of reconstructing a dwelling-house is in the summer months and that fact should be kept in mind by the Minister and his Department. Every possible step should be taken, therefore, to facilitate people who apply for reconstruction grants. The procedure to be followed should be short-circuited as much as possible and more inspectors should be put at the disposal of these people so that the reconstruction work can be carried out during the three or four summer months in the year.

In regard to the question of roads, I think every Deputy will have the same complaint or the same view in regard to this matter. Anyone driving through the country and passing through four or five different areas must be struck by the different standards and the different conditions on the trunk roads as one passes from one county council area to another. It will often occur to a person travelling along the roads of this country that it is time now, after the most of 40 years of making and improving trunk roads, for a standard to be set in roads as well as a standard in building. It is time that our engineers set a uniform standard that would apply to main roads or trunk roads all over the country. There is a big variation in the standard. You drive through county X and find first-class roads, but when you come into a county which is perhaps a larger county, and where the revenue is likely to be greater, you find a very poor standard of trunk roads. It is not that the second county is spending less money on the roads than the first, but in one way or another the organisation or output is different and the roads are poor. It all leads back to one thing. The ratepayers of this country, the people who live on the land and pay a big percentage of the money that is spent to maintain those trunk roads, are unable to carry any greater burden in that respect.

From time to time we talk of the necessity of taking the burden of the trunk roads off the backs of the ratepayers, and I think the time has come when a definite movement towards having a central road authority to build all the trunk roads on a uniform basis is long overdue. Our engineers have a lot of experience behind them now of building and improving trunk roads. We are patching all the time and never seem to have a new suit. We have only a patchwork job and when people patch their clothes too often it is because of the fact that they cannot afford better ones. If this patching of the trunk roads is to go on for ever we will never have anything complete. If we were to patch all the houses in this country that are falling down instead of building new ones, everybody knows what would happen. The people would never be housed decently or have anything up to the standard in housing to which we believe they are entitled. The same applies to roads, and it is an engineering matter and a matter of £ s. d. £ s. d. is the key to it all. I wonder if the time is not more than opportune for a change in policy in the matter of materials. Every hundred extra miles of tarred roads we create in this country mean a charge for ever with regard to materials which we must import and adds to the deadweight burden on the nation. We have all the raw materials here at home for concrete roads and, although it might cost a bit more, I think the nation would be doing nothing wrong in setting out to concrete all its main arteries. We have 100,000 miles of second and third-class roads urgently needing repairs that will never be repaired or brought up to the proper standard in the lifetime of anyone in this Dáil. To concrete the main arteries of this country on a uniform basis would be a good investment for the community. I know that the capital expenditure would probably be higher than the capital expenditure needed to lay down tarmacadam roads, but there would not be a great difference. I think that concrete roads would cost about 10 or 15 per cent. more than tarmacadam roads, and the maintenance of tarmacadam roads cost before the war £100 per mile and must cost double or treble that now. We have to import a big proportion of the raw materials for those roads, such as the mastics required. The Minister and the Government should give serious consideration to the provision of another cement factory or two in this country and concreting all the main arteries.

It is apparent to everyone now that because of the Minister's and the Government's policy of cutting the road grants in the present year none of the huge amount of road materials which was prepared last year for the improvement of trunk roads is being moved and will not be moved. There is no money to move it and put it on the roads. The stones were broken and put on the side of the trunk roads and link roads with a view to surfacing them this year, but I understand that that work cannot be done owing to lack of funds and the local authorities are short of funds because of the cutting of the grants. The county councils could not see their way to doing it and I believe that they were wise and sound in not putting a burden on the ratepayers which they could not afford. There has not been much improvement in the trunk roads this year as those materials prepared in 1948 cannot be used as the local authorities have not the money to buy tar or have it spread or pay labour.

With regard to the general policy of local government, official announcements were made that it was proposed to change the County Management Acts in the present year. The Labour Party to which the Minister belongs has made that announcement on more than one occasion. It is rather difficult to discuss the main policy of local government in view of the change that is expected to come in the present year. I was not here when the Minister made his opening statement nor have I read it and I do not know if he adverted to that or not, or if he told the House when a draft copy of the Bill might be expected. I think it would be useful if that Bill had been circulated before this Estimate was taken. It would have been of advantage to Deputies and given them an indication of the trend of local government policy in the coming year, to what extent the present County Management Act was to be altered, whether it meant reverting to the pre-management period or whether we were to have a halfway house. It seems that the die is cast anyhow and that the will of the group the Minister represents in this House has prevailed on their colleagues in the Coalition and that for better or worse there is to be a change in the form of local government. I notice in the Estimate this year that there is a substantial reduction in the allocation under sub-head J —Allotments—from £11,500 to £8,000. Is it that there was no demand in the past year for those allotments? What is the general opinion of the Department about those allotments? Are they being availed of by the unemployed? I would like the Minister to tell the House what his advice has been on that matter. There is a substantial amount of money provided for it. I think more is provided by another Department for the same purpose, for seeds and manures. I would like to know the reason for the reduction in the coming year.

There is also a decrease under sub-head I (4) — Housing (Amendment) Act, 1946 — a decrease of £22,500. We would like some information from the Minister as to the reason for that decrease.

During the past year, the first full year that the new Government had the direction of local government, the local authorities saw some surprising developments, and they probably have serious reason for complaint. It is popular to cry: "Give back to local authorities their democratic powers." We have been hearing that very often, especially from the political Labour Party. The previous Government were supposed to have taken those democratic powers away from local authorities, but to my mind, this present Government is setting out to deprive them of the democratic powers which they had. For instance, in the case of increases to clerical staffs, road and other staffs, there is a prior indication sent down now from the Department to the local authority, indicating that the Department is prepared to sanction such and such an increase. That has been repeated time after time during the year. As a member of a local authority, I say that any self-respecting member of a local body must object to that. If the Department had the fixing of the salary by law, we would have no objection whatever.

Under the existing law, that is a matter for the county manager, but there is no use in the county manager increasing the allowance to any member of the staff. They may need the increase and I am not objecting to it, as it would likely be justified. If local authorities are faced with a circular telling them that the Minister is of opinion that such a section is deserving of an increase which he is prepared to sanction, the local authority then has no option but to put up the money and can have no view whatever on the question. The Press are present when the circular is read out and they publish it and no member dare object to it. That has taken from them any democratic rights they had. It is an objectionable system. I could not see anything wrong if the Department set out to make all salaries and wages uniform as far as possible in the country, just as they do in respect of State officials, arranging for various grades. Personally, I would not see anything objectionable in that, but to write to a local authority and indicate prior sanction is a despicable practice and I am surprised at the Minister's Department and the Minister tolerating it. I am surprised especially when it comes from a Labour Minister who is so interested, and from a Party so interested, according to themselves, in the democratic rights of local authorities.

Up to 80 per cent — over in some cases — of all the moneys that pass through the hands of local authorities is spent on salaries and wages, allowances and pensions. The other 20 is spent, I suppose, on food and road materials. Talk about giving back the democratic powers to local authorities! Unless they are given back the full democratic powers of deciding, as they did not many years ago, the scale of wages, salaries and allowances to any section of their employees, it is ridiculous and nonsensical to talk about giving them back their democratic rights. I am not claiming that local authorities should have the deciding factor in all these matters. However, I suppose that, later in the year, we will have much more to say on this question.

In the course of the past year many letters were addressed from the Minister's office to individual officials of local authorities. I want the Minister to give consideration to that and have it stopped. It is a dangerous practice, one that never operated in this country before from any Government Department. It is one that should not operate and which may lead to serious abuses. I make that statement with full consideration, without any malice or otherwise, with full realisation of what it means to make such a statement here in this House. If the Department is to be used for the purpose — and if the public funds of the local authorities are to be used for the purpose— of boosting up any political group, we are on the high road to a very bad type of corruption. I hope we will not have cause to complain of that undesirable practice in the future.

Like other Deputies, I take the opportunity to open my remarks on a note of welcome to the new Minister. The late Minister was very keen on furthering housing and all of us here realise that this Minister will display the same keenness. I wish him every success in his new office. There were some remarks yesterday concerning the profits of the building trade generally. It is very easy to accuse any trade or industry of making undue or exorbitant profits, but what this House has to consider is whether these statements are founded on fact or on hearsay. There is at present a buyer's market in the building trade and I can tell the House that I know very many builders who at the moment would be very pleased to sell their houses at cost, with no profit whatever, and that is not a situation which makes is possible for any builder to make an exorbitant profit. The suggestion that exorbitant profits put up the prices of houses built by local authorities is not a fact either. Local authorities call for tenders and a large number of tenders are received by local authorities in free and open competition, which means that the prices which the ratepayers are paying are about as low as any they could get. But even outside that question of tenders, there are in all the local authorities trained people — architects, quantity surveyors and so on — who are perfectly capable of assessing the cost price of any building. They know what it costs to build three, four and five bedroom houses, with certain amenities on a certain type of site, and they could tell within a few pounds what the cost of such a building would be, as any competent quantity surveyor could do, so that I do not think the people of Ireland or the ratepayers are paying anything more than the legitimate price for houses being built at present.

To turn from that to the question of housing in Dublin — I know that a number of other Deputies have spoken about it and I make no apology for mentioning it because it is a subject in which I am deeply interested — we require in Dublin 20,000 houses immediately and a further 10,000 houses almost as urgently. That means housing 125,000 people, one-quarter of the present population of Dublin. To rehouse one quarter of a city's population is a tremendous task and that is the task which the Government and the building industry are faced with. There is goodwill on all sides, because everybody wants to see the problem solved and solved as rapidly as possible, but it is a very difficult thing to change an industry and it is not always desirable to do so. What I want to do is to point out one or two ways in which the carrying out of that gigantic task can be helped, because some of the hindrances to the building trade lie in existing legislation. I hope I am too experienced a hand in this House to propose a change in existing legislation in discussing an Estimate, but I want to point out where existing legislation is a hindrance and I trust that when the Minister sees shells he will be able to guess eggs.

In connection with the problem which exists in Dublin, and, to a lesser extent, all over the country, we had a situation some years ago in which we were short of materials and short of skilled labour. The situation with regard to materials is pretty rapidly solving itself. There are certain materials which are in short supply, but in many cases there are alternative materials or alternative methods, and we are not now faced with the appalling situation with which we were faced at the end of the war, when practically every material was almost impossible to get. We are, however, still faced with a shortage of skilled labour. Skilled labour cannot be created in a day. It has to be trained and the trade unions have a great deal to say in that respect. The late Minister applied himself with great assiduity to the problem and I am sure that the present Minister will do the same. I do not know whether it would be possible to introduce a system of semi-skilled men, but, if the labour corps could be expanded, it would be a very great assistance in relation to the problem of emigration and would help the City of Dublin and the poor people who live in slums in very bad conditions.

This problem of re-housing is an enormous problem. It is the biggest single problem with which the State has ever been faced in the way of building and it is up to us and to our generation to tackle that problem. There is a class of builder known as a housebuilder and I would remind the House that the surburbs of Dublin were built by these housebuilders. They are quite distinct from the master builders.

Owing to various legislative defects, the full contribution that these people could make to the solution of the housing problem is gravely handicapped. They can make an enormous contribution. They built the suburbs of Dublin. Unfortunately, they are very much restricted. In the 1948 Housing (Amendment) Act there is a clause to the effect that if a builder built a house before selling it he could not get a grant. The idea behind that was that the builder should not pocket the grant. That was a very laudable idea but it did not work out like that. I remember pointing out to the then Minister that the effect of that clause would be that the house building section in the industry would be unable to make any contribution to a solution of the housing problem. They are in the habit of building a number of houses and the purchasers come to look at the finished house and buy the finished house. It is a great convenience, and far more than a convenience, to many people to be able to see the finished article. I know, of course, that there is the danger that the house may be badly put up, and so on, but there are many of these people who are splendid builders, with reputations which they are only too anxious to guard. The practice of building and selling the finished house means that there will be continuity. When the builder has finished houses Nos. 1 and 2 he can work on houses Nos. 3 and 4, and hopes before he has finished No. 4 that he will have sold Nos. 1 and 2 and will then be able to proceed with other houses. That was the way the trade worked. However, by refusing the grant to a builder who built a house before it was actually ordered and sold, continuity is absolutely cut out.

There is another point that I want to put to the House in that connection. I have the privilege of serving on the housing council. We decided there that one of the most important things in corporation contracts is continuity. If continuity is desirable in connection with corporation contracts for the purpose of keeping costs as low as possible, it is equally desirable from the point of view of keeping costs down to the ordinary purchaser. It also means that the house builder is able to maintain his trained staff in constant employment.

I want to make it quite clear that the type of house which these men are building is the type of house the provision of which would be a solution of Dublin's housing problem. It is not a question of building luxury houses. Nowadays that is not permitted. The people I refer to build the very type of house which would be occupied by members of the working classes, tradesmen, clerks, shop assistants and lower grade civil servants, people who are not by any means well off. The more houses we build and have occupied the more we ease Dublin's problem. If we can get hundreds and, perhaps, thousands of houses of that kind in the city you will have people moving out of small flats or rooms, scraping the money together to buy a house for themselves. That would leave flats in the City of Dublin for poorer persons to move into from, perhaps, condemned or overcrowded rooms. In that way, every house that is built is directly or indirectly a contribution to the housing shortage. I would urge with all my force on the Minister that he should look into that problem. I am not telling him to amend the legislation, but if he considers it, I think he will see the necessity for doing so.

There is another point in connection with house building generally. In the 1948 Housing (Amendment) Act there is another section dealing with the renting of houses. It is a very strange section. It is Section 19, under which annual grants are paid for a period of ten years to any person who builds a house provided he shall not sell the house with vacant possession at any time and provided he shall not ever sell it to the actual tenant who is in possession. He may sell the house to a third party provided the house is occupied by the tenant at the time of the sale. I do not know what the idea was. It does not encourage building for renting except by large corporations or some type of body that has perpetual succession. The average person will not put up a house in the knowledge that under no circumstances can he sell the house with vacant possession or ever sell to the tenant who is in possession. That means that we are hindering the building of houses for renting. I will not go into the point that it is doubtful whether many of these regulations could be enforced. Nevertheless, they are there and are a great hindrance.

I think it is desirable for as many people as possible to own their own houses. I used to think it was desirable that everybody should own their own houses. However, I have seen circumstances, and I think everybody in this House and everywhere else has seen circumstances in which young people have gone into houses after paying a very large sum of money — a sum out of keeping with their financial resources —and those people have then to face years and years of struggle to purchase those houses. In that way money which should be spent on food, clothing and the other necessaries of life is spent in keeping a roof over their heads. I feel that many of those people would be better off and happier renting their houses until such time as they can scrape together sufficient money to purchase a house when their financial conditions improve. Therefore, I think it is highly socially desirable that there should be in every community a certain number of houses available to people for renting — yet we, under the legislation passed in this House, are preventing that. I would commend that Section 19 to the Minister's notice also.

Another matter which came before us on the housing council and which has been mentioned by other Deputies is the question of the market value of a house and the cost price and the difference between those two figures. As I suppose all Deputies are aware, people building a house and applying for the grant are given a loan up to 90 per cent. of the market value of the house. Now, though a house may cost £1,000, its market value may be considerably less. Market value and cost price never, never, never coincide. They may be fairly close or they may be wide apart. In certain circumstances the market value may be higher and in certain other circumstances the market value may be lower, but — and I want everyone to understand this — they never coincide. That shows that if we are making advances on this entirely arbitrary figure of market value we are making advances on something which is always altering. The market value of a house that was £1,000 in 1939 would, at some stages of the emergency, probably have been £3,000 or more. So much for the market value. Cost price is a different matter. I do not see why it should not be possible to base the advance on 90 per cent. of the cost price. The valuer who was carrying out the valuation inevitably has to look with a rather pessimistic eye on the future. His looking on the future with that pessimistic eye may be a very grave handicap to people who are scraping money together to build a house and to furnish it and so forth. In a number of cases it means that they just cannot build the house.

We have two methods in connection with the financing of house building. We have the method whereby a person can get advances under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act which is administered by the Dublin Corporation and the county council, and we have the method whereby a person can get a grant under the 1948 Housing (Amendment) Act. They then must turn around and borrow money from a bank or an insurance company or a building society. Banks do not exist for the purpose of long-term loans. Insurance companies can do it, and do quite an amount of it, but, in the main, they exist for purposes of life insurance, and the repayment of principal and interest can, under certain circumstances, be quite high. The building societies have done a very fine piece of work in that respect, but their funds and so forth are limited and they cannot cater for all the people who apply. I should like to ask the Minister to go very carefully into this question and to see what can be done on the lines of the Canadian Housing Board or the New Zealand one. Under that system a board is set up which is guaranteed by the State, and after a while they can issue bonds on the security of the houses. These mortgage bonds, or whatever you like to call them, can be subscribed to by any of the financial bodies in the country, and, indeed, I do not see why they should not be subscribed to by private individuals either. In effect, the whole financial machinery of the State is mobilised to assist housing if and when housing needs that money. I do not think there is any better financial risk for a financial house or a Government than the houses of the people of its own country. I do not think there is any safer or better risk. I gave the late Minister some details of the Canadian method and I would ask the new Minister, if he has time, to look into the Canadian Act. It is very interesting and I think something on those lines would be a very great help to housing in this country. This generation is faced with several generations of arrears of building. The housing shortage is in its most acute form in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and some of the other cities. We have, however, rural slums also and many houses that need renovation, etc. That can be done in a reasonable time by the building industry if the decks are cleared and the way is made as easy as possible by legislation or Orders emanating from the Minister and this House.

The building industry is a very complex one and in many ways a very peculiar one. There is no better way of furthering employment in any country and in this country in particular than by assisting the building industry by every means possible, because there is a very large proportion of unskilled labour employed in it as well as some of the most highly skilled and paid labour in the country. Therefore, it is an industry which could be enormously helped, but, being very sensitive, it could be very easily hindered and limited in its efficiency by legislative action which has not received sufficient consideration. I should like the Minister to look very carefully at the two sections of the 1948 Housing (Amendment) Act which I mentioned—Sections 16 and 19—and also to look into what I mentioned in connection with the Canadian Act.

Another matter I should like to mention is the slowness of the Local Government Department in sanctioning payment to builders. I know builders who are held up for thousands of pounds and that is causing them a great deal of worry. It dislocates the whole trade, because very often a builder has a bank overdraft and is not able to pay his bills for materials and that has wide repercussions. Therefore, any slowness on the part of a Government Department has its inevitable effect on the life of the community. I know the Minister did refer in his opening speech to the fact that certain sections of his Department were understaffed. I trust, however, that he will do what he can to speed that matter up. In conclusion, I should like to say that I wish the Minister well. From what I know of him, I can say that a very keen person is in charge of the Department of Local Government.

I am sure that if there were any doubts in the mind of the Minister or in the minds of any of his colleagues in regard to the importance of this question of housing which has been placed in the primary position in the discussion of this Estimate they are now removed as a result of the unanimous expression of opinion on this particular problem. There can be little doubt in the mind of anyone in this House that housing is the No. 1 national problem which the Government have got to face. I presume that Deputy Dockrell was speaking from knowledge, because he is a specialist in the matter of building and building requirements, and I was very glad to hear him say that the shortage of very necessary materials for the building trade is now coming to an end and that where materials have not yet come into full supply there are many alternatives to be found to replace them. If that is so, it is a very satisfactory position and will considerably help the Minister in his efforts to find some solution for this problem.

I believe that the Minister is just as desirous as I am or any other Deputy is to see this problem of housing brought to a satisfactory conclusion, if indeed it is possible ever to bring such a problem to a conclusion. Because of the natural obsolescence of buildings after a period of years it will be always necessary to watch this particular problem. We have in the City of Dublin magnificent residential roads which have been the pride of the citizens for years. We now see the houses on these roads in a state of semi-decay. In the course of time, I should say not a very long time, the houses on these roads will have to be replaced. Therefore, it is not possible for me or anyone else to say that the housing problem will ever be finally solved.

The problem which faces the Government at present and which faced the last Government is the problem of eliminating, so far as is humanly possible, the shocking slum conditions which exist in this city. Like other Deputies who took part in this discussion, I am dealing with this matter from a narrow local point of view. I suppose it is only natural that Deputies should speak of the conditions in their own constituencies. If a Deputy is doing his duty, knows his constituency thoroughly and the needs and requirements of that constituency, it is only natural that in discussing an Estimate of this importance he should concentrate on the needs of the constituency which he has the honour to represent. Therefore, I am following that rather narrow example.

The problem of housing in the City of Dublin is such that Deputies do not have to be representatives of Dublin City to know the need for finding a solution of that problem. I have heard Deputies representing country constituencies discuss the serious situation which exists in Dublin in respect to housing conditions. Anybody who knows Dublin and who knows the slum areas must know that it is unchristian, inhuman and indecent to leave people in these conditions without making some desperate effort to rescue them. I know that the Minister is facing a problem which, to use a descriptive Americanism, is colossal. Like other Deputies, I wish him the very best of luck in his efforts to solve that problem. As far as I am concerned, I do not care who solves the problem as long as it is solved. What we want in this city is decent living conditions and that can only be brought about by the continued efforts of whoever is responsible for solving that particular problem. When I say that, I say what I am sure every Dublin representative would back me in.

I have no intention of discussing this Estimate in a purely political manner. Unfortunately, it has been discussed in that particular manner. It should be outside the political question altogether. If we are going to do something genuine it can only be done by giving full assistance. This problem of housing conditions, not alone for Dublin, but for the whole nation, will, I feel sure, be given the united efforts of this Party in respect to its solution. I am fearful of the fact that the Minister may not burst himself out of the red tape with which he will find himself surrounded and bound up. If he is not aggressive enough in approaching this problem he will find that he will be prevented by means which I would describe as delaying action. Any of us who have had responsibility for bringing schemes into being know what that delaying action often means. It often means that schemes that might be operating over a long period are prevented from coming into operation because somebody in Finance or somewhere else wants to prevent for some period of time the spending of a particular sum of money. I should like to feel that a sum of money would be allocated to the Minister over which he, and he alone, would have control. It should be a sum equal to the amount of money required for the various schemes which he would be prepared to see put into operation. I think that that was not done in the period when the President was the Minister for Local Government but I do know that at that particular period progress of an abnormal kind was made.

You have only to turn your eyes out to Crumlin where, as somebody here mentioned in the course of the debate, you will see a town comparable to the City of Limerick, holding a population equal to that historic city. I think that was a wonderful feat. I hope that the present Minister will take that as his target and that he will not be satisfied until he himself has produced a plan to equal the Crumlin scheme. If he does that he will, in a very short period of time be rescuing from these slum conditions which I have described, no less than something like 45,000 people. That will be something the Minister and every member of this House will take pride in. Crumlin, of course, was not the only scheme which was produced in that period. There were others like the Larkhill and the Ellenfield schemes. There are other schemes out on the south side which I am not able to name at the moment but they are all there, monuments to the activity of the Fianna Fáil Government in their endeavour to find a solution to the shocking problem which confronted them and which continues to confront the present Government.

It is regrettable that 16 months after this Government came into office we are still discussing ways and means of finding this housing accommodation of which every Deputy in the House has spoken. If the proper energy and the real interest had been there, these 16 months might have been used in finding situations in which schemes of the kind I have just mentioned could have been planned. The production of such a scheme is not brought about by a waving of the hand. It has to be planned. A sewerage system will have to be provided, a water supply laid on and the houses themselves will have to be designed. All that, as I say, takes time. It cannot be done just overnight.

Sixteen months have passed and, seemingly, not very much has been done. I would be glad if the Minister could tell me that I am wrong in thinking that these 16 months have been months of inactivity, that instead schemes and plans have been made and that it is only a question of putting them into operation. Quite a number of Deputies have spoken about what the Government intend to do. It is time, I think, that we should have jam to-day instead of jam to-morrow. We have had too many statements of that sort over the last 16 months, and we want to see some evidence of activity. If the Minister is prepared to engage in any activity with a view to finding the solution for the housing problem, we are prepared, as I said at the beginning, to back him up. If he is finding any difficulty in convincing his Cabinet colleagues of the desirability and importance of getting this housing problem solved at the earliest possible moment, I submit that he should draw their attention to what is recorded in the Official Debates. There they will be able to see for themselves the unanimous demand that has gone forth from every section represented in this House for the finding of a solution to this problem. I can say, speaking for myself, that when I was a member of Government I found criticism of this kind very helpful, and the more of it there was the better pleased I was. I was able to produce it from my brief and to quote from it when the necessity arose. I found that method very effective and I recommend it to the Minister. He should get his colleagues to read these debates in which a unanimous desire is voiced for the finding of a solution to this problem. I feel that, if the Minister were to do that, it would go a good part of the way towards solving his difficulties, that is, if his difficulties are not the difficulties I imagine — the withholding of finance for some reason or other.

I suggest to the Minister that he should propose to the Government that this housing question be regarded and dealt with as an emergency one. I am sure this House would be prepared to support any legislative proposals that would bring it into an emergency category. During the emergency proper, the Dáil was prepared to find millions of money in order to protect our neutrality. Many more millions were spent then than during any previous period. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that this housing question should be regarded as an emergency one, and that the moneys which were found so easily during the emergency proper could be found with equal ease for the purpose of dealing successfully with the housing problem.

If, as Deputy Dockrell has said, the position with regard to housing materials has now been eased to the extent that he indicated, and if the only other obstacle to the putting of housing schemes into operation is the difficulty of finding skilled labour, then I suggest that special measures will have to be found to deal with the shortage of houses. If guarantees are given to the craftsmen who have gone abroad and if these are not sufficient to induce them to return and carry out this work of very great national importance, then I suggest the Minister will have to find other ways of solving this difficulty. We cannot allow this problem to be held up merely because craftsmen went abroad and are not prepared to return. We must find the skilled labour, however it is to be found. I believe that the Minister, with the influence which he no doubt has in the Labour movement, will be able to induce some of the trade unions to produce ways and means by which skilled labour will be quickly forthcoming. I know that it is a difficult problem to solve, but it is one which, with the goodwill of every section of the nation, including, of course, those unions which cater for those craftsmen, ought to be capable of solution. I feel sure that if there has been failure on the part of those craftsmen to return that the unions will face up to that and do their best to meet the situation.

There is another aspect of the housing situation that I would like to deal with. It strikes me that when houses are provided it would be desirable if something were done with regard to the people who are moved from the slum tenements into the new dwellings. In our early experience we found that large numbers of these people brought with them from the condemned dwellings in which they had been living germs and insects of one kind or another, so that, in the course of time, the new houses into which they had been moved became almost uninhabitable. I know it may not be the Minister's job to deal with that, but when he is providing new houses for these people he ought to see that they will go into them in a condition which, from the health point of view, will be all that could be desired. The fumigation of furniture and of other effects is one way in which. I believe, that state of things could be dealt with. Preventive measures are very much better than curative measures, and I feel sure that at the present moment most of the disease which exists in the city will be found in the slum areas. If that is so, a quick solution of that particular type of disease problem will be found by transferring these unfortunate people into more healthy surroundings.

So far as the members of this Party are concerned, we are anxious to see the housing problem dealt with as expeditiously as it was dealt with under the Fianna Fáil Government. Whatever Deputies may say when they are dealing with this matter in a political manner, there can be no denying the fact that when Fianna Fáil was in office an average of 9,000 houses was built every year. That is a record of which we here are justly proud. It is a record of which, I think, every Irishman, no matter what political organisation or what section of the community he belongs to, ought also to be proud. If the present Government can beat that record, we will not be envious; we will be just as proud as they, because they will be eradicating from the City of Dublin, as well as from the large towns throughout the country, an evil which should not be there and which we, while in office, did our utmost to remove. I believe that were it not for the intervention of the great war great strides would have been made; if it was possible to have continued at the speed with which it was being dealt with, the housing problem would not exist to-day and this Government would not be facing the same sort of situation as, unfortunately, we had to face when we came into office. I will conclude on this note, that I wish the Minister God-speed and every success in the task he is undertaking.

Deputy Traynor said he was not going to be in the least bit political in his approach to this problem. I would not mind his defence of his own Party after that opening, but it was rather straining my acceptance of his intention in the beginning when he proceeded to repeat the innuendo that has been introduced on so many occasions by the Opposition, the innuendo that there was any question of money holding up the housing drive. It has been repeated on more occasions than I can remember, repeated as emphatically as it could be repeated by the Minister for Finance, that so far as he is concerned, any money that may be required for housing will be provided, and the only thing limiting him in any way is the fact that he wants to be sure, when providing any money that may be asked for, that it will really go to assist in the solution of the problem before us.

Every Deputy who has spoken on this Estimate has rightly taken the view that of all the functions before the Minister for Local Government, the housing problem is by far the most important. It is a problem to which his predecessor attached the greatest importance and devoted all his energies. This problem falls naturally into two sections, the encouragement of private building and the encouragement of local authority building. So far as private building is concerned, I want to agree with Deputy Dockrell. It appears to me that the policy adopted of restricting the subsidy to the private person building the house was not wise. I do not mind who builds the house so long as it is built, but what has happened as a result of the manner in which the subsidy has been restricted to the person getting a building contract for himself before the house is built is that you have had no speculative building at all.

I do not accept the view that speculative building is a bad thing, as apparently was accepted at the time when these regulations were being framed. It is a very different story having speculative building of the large, extravagant, luxury type of houses and speculative building of the £2,000 house in Dublin and elsewhere. The payment of the subsidy to the person who builds for himself has meant that the cost of the house to that person has been increased. It is infinitely cheaper for a builder to build four houses at one time than to build four houses separately, one after the other. The effect of the existing regulations is that the builder cannot start on any house until he has got a prospective purchaser able and ready to complete the appropriate documents. In consequence, the builder is building houses singly, one after the other, instead of being able to take on a group of houses at a time. We all know that building in a group will mean that the cost for the house will be lower than if the house is built as a single unit.

I hope, therefore, the Minister, during the coming year, will see the effect of that and will assist in that way in expediting the building of houses for people with that class of income, because the more houses that are built for people with that class of income the less pressure there will be on the lower class for whom the local authority provide houses. Every house that goes up for a middle-class person has an indirect way of easing the pressure on the demand for the local authority type of house.

I want to congratulate the Minister on the action his Department took last year in regard to the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. The making of advancements readily under that Act will materially assist the housing drive. Some people are inclined to think that in the consideration of claims for advancements under that Act careful attention should be paid to the income of the person applying rather than to the security of the house which will be built. I think it is much more important to look to the house and of very little importance, comparatively, even from the point of view of the local authority, to look to the income of the person concerned. Of course, it is of vital importance to the applicant to look to it, but I am talking from the point of view of the local authority. No matter whether the local authority may lose money by the non-repayment of an advance under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, they will lose infinitely less in that way than if they have to pay to subsidise the cost of the appropriate alternative accommodation that they, under their obligation as a local authority, may have to meet.

Last night Deputy Crotty referred to the position in the Kildare area. It does seem to me that there may be difficulties in regard to the payment of loans under the Small Dwellings Act. A great many of those difficulties arise out of matters that are not within the purview of the Minister, except that the Minister might perhaps make some special representations to his colleague, the Minister for Justice. He could arrange, possibly, that there would be a different system in the Land Registry from that adopted in the ordinary case, because it is in relation to title that one of the main difficulties and one of the main delays arises under the Small Dwellings Act as operated at the moment. I know this is not a matter within the direct control of the Minister. I think that if the Minister, however, were to inquire from the local authorities he would find that the position is pretty much the same elsewhere as the position obtaining in Kildare. In many cases the loan is sanctioned and the engineers are satisfied, but nothing can be done because title has not passed through the Land Registry. If the Minister finds I am correct when I say that is true of other counties as well as Kildare, he might be able to devise with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, some means of getting over that delay and thereby speeding up the erection of houses.

In his opening statement, the Minister referred to the delay in the payment of grants and the reasons he gave for that delay in the early months of last year and, indeed, up to the end of the year, are reasons that can be appreciated. It is quite understandable that there would be a substantial delay before the applications under the new Act could be granted, particularly when one considers that the staff which had been removed from his Department during the emergency had not been reassembled or replaced. I gather that he is now satisfied that that delay is obviated to a large extent. I accept that, but I wonder if it is absolutely true. I wonder whether part of the difficulty is not that the appointed officers are so busily engaged on other local authority work, they are not able to reach the housing grant applications as quickly as one would wish. I wonder whether it would not be worth while for the Minister to consider during the early part of the drive the necessity for appointing additional officers. I am sure other Deputies have had the same experience as I have had. When we are approached by constituents who ask us to arrange to expedite the grant we nearly always find that the file is out with one of the officers and that nothing can be done until it is returned.

So far as housing by local authorities is concerned, Deputy Traynor is quite right when he says there must be a substantial time lag. The present Government has only been in office for 16 months and the time lag that arises in the acquisition of sites alone is something that will prevent one seeing any real results for a long time after the site has been chosen. It seems difficult to visualise any method of acquiring sites, other than the one in operation at the present time, which would be expeditious and at the same time be fair to the owner of the property concerned. I would urge upon the Minister that he should ensure that there is as little delay as possible in dealing with compulsory purchase inquiries under the Housing Act so as to make certain that all the time there is coming into every local authority a continous flow of necessary sites. If there is not that continual flow, then one will have the situation where the building operatives in a particular county will drift into some other county in order to avoid a time lag between the time they finish one job in their own county and go on to the next one. From the point of view of speed in the housing drive generally, it does not matter in the slightest degree whether it is private building or local authority building, this continual flow is of the utmost importance and the skilled labour should know that when one job is completed another job will be ready for them. Otherwise much valuable time will be lost.

I think one of the reasons why it is not easy to get sites in rural areas is because of the regulations that exist governing the letting of local authority houses. I know it would be infinitely easier to get sites in Kildare on a voluntary basis if the farmers were assured that the first time a house built on their land was going to be let priority would be given to men working with them. I am not advocating a tied house system or anything like that, where the farmer would always be able to determine that a cottage on the land taken from him would be occupied by one of his workmen; but I suggest that the farmers would be quite satisfied with the assurance that the first time the house was being let preference would be given to their workmen. They would be satisfied that on the first occasion a new house is being let by a local authority the person with the first claim to that house would be the man who is working for the farmer from whom the land has been acquired. If that were done there would be nothing like the same necessity for compulsory purchase Orders, and good sites would be obtainable much more quickly on a voluntary basis. That, in turn, would make for greater goodwill and better assistance towards the housing drive generally.

We have had cases in Kildare where, under the existing regulations, we have had to rehouse in subsidy houses tenants whom we had already put out of subsidy houses for non-payment of rent. We have had to refuse tenants for vacant houses where houses were in close proximity to their work and we have had to give those houses to people who had come a substantial distance. Subsequently we have had to try to arrange a change-over. There should be some elasticity in the housing regulations to permit a local authority to take into account the working circumstances of applicants. Where a cowman is working for a farmer producing milk he should have some opportunity of getting a house reasonably near his work, so that if he has to turn in at night because of a cow calving or for some other reason, he will not have to travel four or five miles. Such circumstances as those should be taken into account in drawing up new regulations. While overcrowding is important, it should not be the only consideration. I mention that because I understand the Minister is thinking of issuing new regulations. The sooner these new regulations are issued the better for all concerned.

I do not know whether it is too early to ask the Minister to indicate what his opinion is in relation to the venture the Kildare County Council is making into aluminium houses. One has been erected on the main road to Cork. Probably Deputies have seen this house, or photographs of it in the Press. It is not being erected by the Kildare County Council. It is being erected by the promoters of the factory which has been set up to fabricate sheets of aluminium. Certainly a house of that sort can be put up very quickly. How long such houses will last is a matter that we are not able to say for ourselves but perhaps the Minister has been able to make some inquiries in other countries.

The house is being erected under the aegis of the county council, the council providing the site and the concrete foundation, but the council is not paying for anything else and the house when erected is being presented as a free gift to the county council as an advertisement by the factory concerned, subject only to the provision that we shall leave it open for inspection for a period of a year or thereabouts. I hope that as many Deputies as possible passing down that road will copy the example of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who, on his journey down last Saturday, decided he would stop and see what was being done. It will be, in fact, a house that will be slightly larger in floor space than most of the houses erected in rural parts of the country by other housing authorities. So far as I can gather from the figures given to me in answer to a question to-day, the average area of such houses built throughout the country is about 740 square feet while the area of this one will be about 790. It would certainly provide a quick solution but as to the permanency of the solution, and what the house would be like to live in, I am afraid only time and experience can tell. Perhaps the Minister would have experience of similar houses in other areas.

Apart from housing, I want to congratulate the Minister on the decision that was taken in regard to roads this year. It was a welcome decision that more attention should be paid to county roads rather than to main roads. County roads have suffered considerably during the past few years and it is time that something was done to restore their condition. In that connection, I might reiterate the claim made by one of the Deputies opposite in regard to roads which suffered very materially from turf traffic. The roads of Kildare carried practically the whole of the turf that came to Dublin during the emergency to save the City of Dublin. Some of it came along the main roads and some of it came along county roads out of Kildare. I think that special consideration should be given to our county by way of a grant to recoup us for the damage that was done, damage that was quite inevitable in the circumstances of that time.

There is another problem that arises in Kildare and I do not know if it affects other counties. I refer to the fact that a great many of our people live on the banks of the canal. The canal company in certain areas would not allow the county council to repair the roads because they were afraid that if they were repaired there would be traffic on the bank which would cause the bank to spring or cause a breach in the canal embankments. Some solution will have to be found for that problem. I am not going to be so stupid as to think that the solution is an easy one. It is a very difficult problem, but for a very considerable number of people living on the canal banks who have no other means of ingress to, or egress from, their homes, something will have to be done either by way of by-laws or in whatever way the situation can be remedied.

That rather takes me to another point which is causing local authorities some worry. The weight on the wheels of many road vehicles is far greater than the roads over which they are travelling were built to bear. I do not think that many of the roads of this country will be able to withstand the traffic carried by 25 ton vehicles but I think the experts will agree that the trailer coming behind a heavy lorry is doing infinitely more damage than the lorry itself, even though it may not be quite so heavy, because it is swinging all the time. It is not merely being carried on the wheels with the minimum of friction. It is travelling with a very substantial amount of friction because it has not got the same rigidity and direction as the lorry itself. The roads all over the country were not built to carry that extraordinarily heavy traffic and if it is allowed to continue, particularly heavy trailer traffic, I am afraid within a very few years we are going to see a situation in which the roads will be all breaking up and in which the capital cost of replacing them will be very heavy indeed. I hope for that reason the Minister will consider the matter and will try to urge on Córas Iompair Éireann, who are the worst offenders in this respect, that the heavy type of traffic should be switched back to the railways so that it will not cause our roads to deteriorate in a way in which I am afraid otherwise they will.

I want to mention only two other small matters to the Minister — small in one way but not in another. One is the Town Planning Act. I am afraid the Town Planning Act is being operated in far too rigid a manner; it is being administered in such a way that it is proving in many instances a hindrance and a deterrent to building. People get "fed up" on being told that they have to comply with certain unnecessary restrictions. I do not think, for example, that in rural Ireland it matters very much what is the colour of the roof of the house you are going to build. Yet I have seen frequently conditions put in interim commissions granted under the Town Planning Act which restrict the builder to roofs of a particular colour. One person may think that a particular colour is pleasant while another may have a totally different view but I do not think it matters very much to anything like the degree that the town planners would have us imagine. I think it is far more important that town planning should be restricted merely to the site placing of the buildings concerned rather than that we should try to get a homogeneous design all over the country, the result of which may be extremely bad for the outlook of the country in general.

The other question to which I want to refer is the operation of the Fire Brigade Act of 1940. That Act was passed in wartime. While it was a very necessary and very desirable Act at that time, I am not at all satisfied that it is going to operate as satisfactorily at the present time. I am afraid that all the operation of the Fire Brigades Act is going to do is to ensure that the local authority pays for the fire brigade when there is a fire instead of the insurance company, as used to be the case. As I understand the Act at present, it means that every local authority must provide a completely free fire service. I do not know what the position was in the City of Dublin and cannot, therefore, speak about that, but I know that the situation in the country was that when there was a fire and the fire brigade attended it, the person whose property was damaged had to pay, and that, of course, meant that the insurance company had to pay. Now, as I understand the situation under this Act, and as it was explained to us in Kildare County Council, it means that the local authority has to provide a fire service entirely free and there is no recoupment at all from the insurance company or from the person concerned. That appears to be an unnecessary burden on the rates. I am in entire agreement with the provision of proper and adequate fire-fighting services and it is merely a question of how the cost of operating those services will be met.

May I conclude by wishing the Minister every good luck in his position? He has a very high headline to follow, because the energy and drive of the late Mr. T.J. Murphy were a wonder to us all, and he was very much to be congratulated on the manner in which he made it his business to visit every local authority during the past year and find out exactly in that way what the situation was in each particular area. Those visits keyed the members of the local authorities up to better efforts. They encouraged us, and with the encouragement we were given then and the guidance I feel sure we will get under the leadership of the present Minister for Local Government, I have no doubt whatever that the results of the housing drive inaugurated last year and continued in the present year will beat anything done in the last 20 years.

As one who was in practical opposition to the present Minister at a different venue as long ago as 1914, I would like to congratulate him on his appointment as Minister for Local Government and wish him success in his housing drive.

I would like to draw his attention to the state of housing in Cork at the present time. There were over 3,000 applicants for corporation houses in the City of Cork and it is only expected to build from 200 to 300 houses per year. In that way, it will take anything from 12 to 15 years to satisfy the present list of applicants. I am sure that the Minister would not think it reasonable to expect people who have their names down for houses in the City of Cork to be told: "You will have to wait 15 years, that is, of course, if you are alive" and that is the position at the present time. Deputy Sweetman said that the acquisition of sites was the cause of the delay in the building of houses and I thoroughly agree with him, but I will draw your attention to the scheme which is being built in Cork at present by direct labour, a scheme of 212 houses. The site was acquired and practically fully developed before the present Government came into office and I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that not one house has been completely built by the corporation in Cork since the present Government came into office. I am aware that a certain number is in the process of being built, but not one has been completed notwithstanding the fact that the site has been acquired and developed. We were told when we started building houses by direct labour that the contract system would go on side by side with it, but we found that the picture was altogether different to the picture Deputy Davin painted last night of another part of the country. We found that there was a definite slowing up of any attempt to offer houses for contract and so far this year only 17 houses were put up for contract in the City of Cork by the Cork Corporation of which I am a member. When we got estimates for those 17 houses they were all pretty closely tendered, except one, which was ruled out by the architect as not being adequate and in any case the builder failed to find a bond to go ahead with it. The others were pretty close and the lowest was £1,830 per house. At a meeting of the town planning committee at which the matter was discussed, the architect was questioned as to why these houses were so dear and he told us that they were a far superior house to any houses that had yet been built by local authorities. He thought that the estimate was a fair one. I do not know what the motive was for making these 17 houses far superior to those on any other scheme that was going on under direct labour, but that is a fact. We asked the manager what the approximate rent of the houses would be and he said 27/6. He said, and we believed, that he could get a certain number of applicants who would be able to pay such a price and we accepted the tender on the architect's recommendation that it was a fair price. There are another 150 houses which are supposed to be put up for tender in the very near future in a place adjacent to a big housing scheme of former days known at Gurranebraher. The plans were drawn up by a very eminent architect, the man who designed the Industry and Commerce building across the street, and he said that he drew them up according to the circular sent to him. The plans were sent three times up and down to the Department and I do not know if they have been finally sanctioned yet. He also told us that they are a better class of house than any of the other houses built on a Cork Corporation scheme. I am afraid that people are inclined to say that it is being done to make a comparison between the price of direct labour and the contract system. They may be wrong in their conclusion, but this is the view of a lot of people and the view of the builders. A letter appeared in a Cork paper from one of them in connection with that.

The Minister stated that when his predecessor, God rest him, went to Cork and around the country, he met representatives of every Party in the local authorities. I want to tell him that when he went to Cork he did not meet the representatives of every Party; he met the manager and the lord mayor. I suggest to the present Minister that if ever he does come to Cork he should meet the corporation or, at least, some from each Party. He will find that every Party in the corporation will be very anxious to help him regarding the housing problem and will not descend to any petty polities. We will be out to help him to shove up the houses as fast as he can.

I know the Minister is a sensible man and I was greatly surprised to see a man like him going down on a couple of occasions to open ten or 12 houses when they were completed in different parts of County Cork. That kind of propaganda is no good. I know it would not be the Minister's own wish, but perhaps it was done to please local Deputies who want some kind of kudos over building ten or 12 houses. Hundreds of houses were built during the Fianna Fáil régime and we had none of those stunts. I would suggest to him that, as a sensible man, he should not waste his time and energy like this but should push ahead with the scheme as a whole. That would be far better for himself and his Party and the Government than for him to be having photographs in the paper. That kind of propaganda will last only a short time, as the people will see through it.

The Deputy's Party started that.

We built thousands of houses and did not do it. It is only cheap stuff. I would like the Minister to draw up some kind of regulations in the Department for the allocation of houses. Something should be done for tuberculous people. I notice in the Minister's statement that many applications have not been made for grants for additional rooms — for tuberculous persons, I take it — but the unfortunate position is that many tuberculous people have not even a house on to which they can build a room. There should be some recommendation from the Department to the local authority to try to accommodate those suffering from this disease. I have had at least four letters within the last month from people who are about to leave sanatoria and who want to get houses, so as not to go back to the wretched conditions under which they and their families were living, with one room and very poor sanitary accommodation.

There are also in Cork many families scattered around in three or four different houses in the city — people who have been put out of houses which were condemned. Some of these people are in the District Hospital, for want of accommodation anywhere else. The Department should have some control over the allocation of houses. The local authority has no control. The manager is the sole authority. He tries to do his best and he has a very difficult job. If there were some headline which could be given to him, to enable him to get over this and do the right thing, it would be very necessary.

Deputy Larkin last night complained that contractors were taking men away from local authorities, by giving them more pay. I contend that, if those contractors are building houses within the specified measurements laid down by the Government, a Labour Deputy should not prevent those workers getting better wages if they can.

He was not preventing them, surely?

When they are going from a certain wage to a higher wage and are still engaged in the occupation of building houses for the people, that is a very useful thing. Private individuals who are going out to build their own houses and engage a contractor to do so should be encouraged in doing that. If the contractor is willing to pay a man more wages than the local authority, a Labour Deputy should not object to that.

He was not objecting.

He was objecting that they were being taken away from the local authority.

Building white elephants!

I did not think that — and I am surprised to hear it — that there were white elephants being built under the present Government. I am sure the Minister, if he were here, would not be pleased to hear that.

The Store Street building.

Deputy Larkin also stated there were more skilled workmen now than ever before. I do not agree with him. I think there is still a scarcity of skilled workmen and that the trade unions should do something about it. They should make some allowance so that the number of apprentices could be increased. Then, in a couple of years, we would have increased numbers of skilled men. I do not see any solution unless more skilled men are available, and that cannot happen unless you allow people to enter the trades necessary for building houses for the people. People are allowed to become doctors, solicitors and engineers, but apparently there are some of the trades you cannot join. Although their sons can become doctors and solicitors, they prevent other people's sons from being a mason or a plasterer. That is wrong in a democratic country, especially when the housing needs are so great.

I have said all this to impress on the Minister that the present drive is not sufficient to overtake the housing problem. I am saying that in all sincerity. It will take 15 years to satisfy the present list of applicants in the City of Cork. As everyone knows, there will be new applicants in the 15 years, due to the deterioration of houses, to people getting married, and so on. Something else will have to be done. We have a small ray of hope from the announcement we saw in the newspapers this morning — at least, the Cork people have — that there will be some improvement. I hope there will be. If there is not, I do not think it would be advisable for these people to go to Cork in the near future. I need say no more about housing, except to impress on the Minister that it is a matter which will have to be tackled on some basis other than the present basis. The Minister knows very well that every Party in the House is behind him, and, as was said here, the Minister for Finance is quite willing to help in every way possible in the matter of housing.

There was some talk last night about the increase in the rates, and Deputy Larkin said that, when services are given, the expenses of which have gone up, an increase in rates must be expected. I thoroughly agree with him in that point of view. There is no use in saying that rates will not go up if wages and other expenses go up. In the opinion of most people, the £ is worth only 10/-, and, so far as we in Cork Corporation are concerned, we go very closely into the rates estimate. People outside criticise the corporation, but when we ask them to point to any service which could be reduced, they are not in a position to do so.

It is all right while you are getting service for the money, but there is the position which may be peculiar to Cork that, in the suburbs of the city, in the area around the fringe of the county borough, it is very hard to get the county council to do anything at all. They have the idea that the boundary is going to be extended and they will not do anything in that area and there are a number of places where practically no service at all is given. I am personally interested in this matter, because in the place where I live there are about 40 houses which were built eight or nine years ago by a speculative builder and put in a fairly reasonable condition. Lately the residents asked the county council to take over that area and maintain the roads there, and the county council refused to do so because the standard of the roads there was not comparable with that of the roads in the adjacent area. If a road has been used for eight or nine years, and if the county council have drawn rates out of the area during that period, without giving any service, it is very unreasonable of the county council to refuse to take it over.

I understand that the rates on these 40 houses would come to between £700 and £800 a year, and I feel that there should be some means whereby people living in places like this could appeal to the Department to compel the county council to put the place in a proper state of repair. There are a number of places like that around the City of Cork, and my friend and colleague, Deputy Corry, and others will say: "That area will be going into the county borough soon and we will not do anything for it". It is intolerable that that state of affairs should continue to exist.

There is another matter which, I think, comes within the province of the Minister—the collection of household refuse. In the City of Cork, and I believe the same position exists in Dublin, since we got a city manager, a system of putting bins outside the doors has been introduced.

Would that not be a matter for the Cork Corporation?

The Cork Corporation have passed resolutions on this matter and no action has been taken by the manager. I am merely drawing it to the attention of the Minister. I understand that the same applies to Dublin and I recently saw letters in the papers about the position in Dublin, about rubbish being left in bins outside doors and being scattered around the streets by dogs and small boys. It is a matter in regard to which the Minister for Health should take some action. I notice that the people of Dublin are now being compelled to have a certain standard type of bin, or the rubbish will not be taken away at all. In the City of Cork, where rubbish is collected early in the morning, the bin is often put out the night before and it is nothing strange to see these bins overturned and the contents scattered around the streets. That should not be allowed. Whether it is a matter for the Cork Corporation or the Dublin Corporation, the Department of Local Government and the Department of Health should take very serious notice of it.

I appeal to the Minister to think seriously of making a bigger drive than is being made at present in regard to housing. As I said at the outset, I wish him every success and I assure him that he will have the help of everybody, irrespective of the Party to which he belongs, in the Cork Corporation, in his efforts. I think that if he consults them, he will find that they will go out of their way to help him.

As a Dublin Deputy, like all the other Dublin Deputies who have spoken, I am gravely concerned about the housing position in Dublin. Last year I pointed out that the position was very serious. I am afraid that it is no better this year — it is, if anything, a little worse. The conditions under which a large number of the citizens have been living for a long time are absolutely appalling, as every Dublin Deputy knows, and not a day goes by that we do not hear of some new case. In these circumstances, I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to give us a better report than he has given with regard to housing in Dublin.

So far as I can follow figures, a total of 917 houses were completed and handed over in the past 17 months. In reply to Deputy McCann on 1st June last the Minister said that the number of houses handed over by contractors during the year ended 31/12/1948 was 500, and, in reply to a supplementary by Deputy Lehane, he said that the number completed since 1st January was 417. In reply to a further question by Deputy McCann, he said that the number handed over which were contracted for in 1948 was 144. From these figures I gather that in 17 months only 917 houses have been built for the corporation in Dublin. The figure of 26,000 houses was mentioned as the estimated requirements to cater only for the type of people for whom the corporation caters, the people in the slums, and it is certainly nothing to boast about that, in 17 months, we have built only 917 houses for these people.

I am glad to notice that the number of men employed on housing had trebled in March of this year as compared with March of last year. The figure was 3,600 for skilled tradesmen now employed. I understand that for some time past there have been over 2,000 actually employed in Dublin. I hope that will mean a great increase this year in the output of houses. Prewar, Dublin Corporation got roughly about a house per year per man employed. I hope that next year we will be able to say that something like 2,000 houses have been built. That, of course, would not be adequate to deal with the problem but at least the position would be a great deal better. On the figures it would appear that there has been no improvement in the rate of output that was complained of by a number of Deputies last year and, as far as I know, while negotiations have been going on during the year, no positive steps have been taken to deal with the question or to try to find some way of increasing the number of operatives. We cannot continue for ever waiting for our people who went to England to return. The people who are at home also have a right to our attention. A whole 12 months has gone on that basis and it is time that some decision was arrived at and that it was put plainly to the trade unions that steps must be taken to make up the deficiency, by increasing the number of apprentices or by some other method.

I understand that the present position in regard to apprenticeship would hardly cope with the natural loss that occurs annually. So that there is no hope of an increase in operatives on the present system. It is time that serious consideration was given to that question. People who are in such bad need of housing have every right to expect that it should not take such a terribly long time to come to a definite decision about it. Materials are plentiful. Deputy Dockrell told us so this evening and we know that there is no great trouble in that respect. It is rather heartbreaking, now that the chief obstacle which faced us during the war has been removed, that we are held up for want of labour. I do hope that by this time next year we will be able to congratulate the Minister most heartily on the progress that has been made in these respects and that we can hope that in the following years increased progress will be made.

I am interested in another class of persons who are badly in need of houses. I mean the white-collar workers. They are nobody's children when it comes to a supply of houses. They must ferret for themselves. They are a class who have not got proper recognition in the increased wages and salaries that have been given to meet the increase in the cost of living. Because of that it is harder than ever for them to settle down, to find the deposit necessary for the purchase of a house and to buy furniture. These are the people who mostly take advantage of the provisions of the Small Dwellings Act. They find, in Dublin at any rate, when they apply for a loan under the Small Dwellings Act that the value placed on the house by the valuer appointed by the corporation is very much lower than the market value — the actual price that they have to pay in the market or the price at which a similar house can be got anywhere. That means that these people must find hundreds of pounds more for the deposit and it entails waiting that much longer to get married. They have to try to save up those hundreds of pounds, which are not easy to be got by that class. Personally, I cannot see a great deal of reason for it. When the advance is made, without any other securities, there is 10 per cent. of the ordinary market value as a margin for the corporation should anything happen. I do think that those people are entitled to get an advance based on a reasonable market value. Several complaints have been made to me and I know of several cases where people had to discontinue the arrangement because they were not able to find the money. They thought they would get an advance on the market value as they found it.

I think the Deputy means on the actual cost rather than the market value.

Is not that the market value? In actual practice, is not the cost price the market value? Nobody will pay hundreds of pounds more than he has to pay to get a house. These people have to go around and find the best value they can get. What does that mean except market value? I am certainly talking of the cost price, but can anybody show me that the price that anybody pays for a house is not the market value?

I think the market value is the term usually given by the valuer as distinct from the actual cost.

Under the Act, as I understand it, it is supposed to be 90 per cent. of the market value that is advanced to the borrower. Well, I take market value to mean the actual price it would fetch in the market at the moment.

No, it is the cost, actually. You would prefer that the 90 per cent. would be given on the cost rather than on the market value. We are possibly at cross purposes.

I do not know whether we shall have an argument about it——

I do not mean to provoke an argument. I was only trying to put the Deputy right.

I contend that the market value is the price you must pay to get a house. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to draw attention to that point and to see if anything can be done to help those people. I want, now, to refer to the effect of the working of the Housing Act. I am sure none of us foresaw this difficulty when the Housing Bill was going through. I refer to the provision to give the grant to the erector of the house which, at the time the Act went through—due to inflation in house property — I think we all agreed was wise. However, it is working out very much to the disadvantage of the small builder. The position is that the person who is actually erecting the house is getting the lease of the ground. The builder who hitherto leased the ground and started building either on contract or speculation had that lease and the building as he went on with it, as security for the bank and the bank financed him until he was paid for his contract or sold his house. To-day he has no security and, as a matter of fact, a number of these people are finding it very difficult to carry on. It is bad from the point of view of keeping down the price of houses that these men who are not strong financially should be cut out — and they are being cut out through the effect of that provision. I know of actual cases of men whom the banks admitted that from previous dealings with them they had found quite straightforward and had no reason to doubt them but, simply because they had no security to offer, they could not finance them. These men have had to drop contracts to build houses which they had actually secured from certain housing societies for that very reason. I should like the Minister to look into that matter and see if anything can be done to nullify that effect.

Another point I wish to make is in regard to the delay in the payment of the grant. I think there has been an improvement recently in that position on what it was some months ago. I hope that that improvement will continue and that there will not be the long delay which there was hitherto. I know of one case in the suburbs of Dublin where 200 men were knocked off because of delay in the payment of the grant. I hope that the Minister will see to it, now that he has had a chance of getting his affairs into proper order, that there will not have to be any more complaints on that score.

Deputy Rooney stated to-day that the previous Government did not pay much attention to the provision of houses in the towns and cities — that we were more rural-minded. I do not think that is correct. I am a city man. I have stated now what I have often stated in the time of the Fianna Fáil Government in relation to housing in Dublin, but certainly they were doing their level best to cope with the problem. I speak from memory when I say I got figures which showed that the Dublin Corporation rented during the years 1932 to 1946 something like 14,500 houses. We must remember that during at least five of those years there was a great shortage of materials. I do not think that 14,500 houses in nine years of ordinary building were a bad achievement — and somewhere around that figure was the number of houses that were let by the Dublin Corporation. At the same time, I remember that there was a figure of 5,000 for the houses let by the corporation during the years 1922 and 1932. I do not want to make a point of that between the two Governments — I only wish to show that Deputy Rooney's statement was not correct. I, like every other speaker before me, do not want in any way to introduce any Party feeling into this question. We are all anxious to do our best to accelerate progress. We know that the position is bad, not alone in Dublin but all over the country. I want to assure the Minister that, in common with the other Deputies on this side of the House, I for my part shall be only too glad to give him any help I can and to support any measures he may think necessary to bring about the desired result.

I take advantage of this Estimate to appeal to the Minister on behalf of the road workers. I feel that the Minister would do well were he to insist that the road workers of each county council should get a guaranteed minimum wage of at least £3 per week. As a trade unionist, I have had for over five years constant experience and knowledge of the abnormal life these men are called upon to live. They are the worst-paid workers in this State when one considers the conditions under which they work. In the morning they travel often ten miles to their employment in any kind of weather, and in the evening they have to return home the same distance. To do so, they have to provide themselves with, and maintain in running condition, a bicycle for which they are made no allowance of any sort. They eat their dinner, which generally consists of tea, a boiled egg and a piece of bread and butter, on the roadside— this of itself being a hardship because of the fact that they have to have their mid-day meal separated from their families. That causes additional expense and great difficulties, especially during times such as we experienced in recent years when commodities were rationed. Many a time have I seen these workers make a meal of a cup of sugarless tea and two cuts of dry bread.

If it rains, they have to shelter in the bushes, because most of the county councils do not provide a shelter of any kind. During tarring time or while working in a quarry their clothes get either burned or torn, but no clothes get allowance is given to them. For all this, they get the princely sum of £3 per week. If God is good and does not send rain, that is the payment they get for 48 hours per week. But, should it be raining, these workers who make the fine roads on which millionaires drive cars and on which our transport system is run very often only receive the princely sum of 30/- per week. I think the Minister should see to it that these workers are guaranteed at least a 48-hour week. That is due to them from the State.

Then there is the system of recruitment of these workers. I propose to speak of county council gangers but, at the outset, I want to make it clear that I do not class all gangers as I must class some. My experience has been that the employment of county council workers has been delegated by the county engineer to his assistant county engineers and that they, in turn, delegate it to the gangers. Abuses have crept in and men are refused employment because they are not prepared to spend a certain amount of their wages on presents of one kind or another to the ganger. In other cases, gangers employ their relatives and friends of their relatives in preference to men who have wives and families to support. I make this statement in full knowledge of its seriousness. In my own county I have drawn the attention of the county manager to at least 18 cases where such discrimination can be said to have been made. In at least three cases married men on the dole have been refused employment while the sons of farmers with 160 acres of land have been put to work. I suggest that the Minister should direct county managers to insist that labour should not be recruited for council work by any lower official than an assistant county engineer. Should a charge of such a character as I am now making be proved, the county engineer or the assistant county engineer should be held directly responsible and dealt with by the Minister.

I further suggest to the Minister that, where a number of men exceeding ten have been let go in one week by any county council, a special report should be sent to him giving the reasons why these men were discharged. Only two weeks ago in my own county 15 council workers were under notice and, on making inquiries, I found that it was due to the fact that some sanction had not come from the Department. Surely a small thing like the getting of sanction should not have necessitated the letting off of 15 men. That sanction was obtained and these 15 men are now working again. It seems to me ridiculous that 15 men and their wives and families should be thrown on charity because some official was not able to get sanction or some official who had the right to give sanction had not given it.

As to the question of housing, I regret very much that Deputy Brennan last evening saw fit, when speaking of tradesmen employed in England, to say that they would be wise to stay over there because if they wanted continuity of employment they would not get it here. I hope Deputy Brennan's statement is not capable of being looked upon as sabotaging the efforts we are making to get our workers to come back. It would be regrettable if anything were done to interfere with our efforts, which have been successful up to a point so far, to get tradesmen to come back to go into productive employment here rather than in an alien country. We are prepared to give them as good wages, if not better, than they are getting in England and to give them, I quote the words of the late Minister for Local Government, at least ten years' work on building schemes. There is no use in suggesting that the housing problem will be fully solved within the next ten years. The immediate problem may be dealt with in the next two or three years, but there will still be work after we have built the urgently needed houses. There will be the luxury type of houses to be built. I cannot see why Deputy Brennan should have any doubts as to continuity of employment for any tradesman who may come back.

In connection with housing schemes I would advise the Minister, so far as possible, to have in each county the direct labour system and the contract system. Just as competition is the life of trade and gives the ordinary person the cheapest article, where you have the direct labour system and the contract system working side by side in a county you will get the best results from each. As one whose county has adopted the direct labour system in the main, I can say that it has proved a success. In my home town we have succeeded in carrying out a scheme of 74 houses by direct labour which will be at least £300 per house cheaper than if built by contract.

I appeal to the Minister to continue to carry out the policy of the late Minister by cutting away all the red tape which ties up private house building. I know of a case of a creamery manager in my county who wishes to build a house for himself. He has secured the site, he has the blocks and the timber, and he has tradesmen ready to go ahead with the building of a five-roomed house for himself and his family. There is in the neighbourhood of this site an old dwellinghouse which he owns and has rented to a poor family who will be moving out of it within the next two or three months when a labourer's cottage is available for them. Because that house is still standing he is not permitted to go ahead with the building of his house.

We have made representations on his behalf and he has made them himself to the Local Government Department. They say that it is a matter for the county manager and that until he gives a decision and, if the creamery manager appeals, until a decision is given by the Minister the building of the house cannot go on. I can visualise that being a period of some six to 12 months at the very least. Surely such a thing should not be allowed to happen. When people are prepared to put up money and when the need for housing is there, such a small thing as a by-law should not be allowed to stand in the way.

I think I have made the point I stood up to make and that was to appeal on behalf of the road workers. I know that the Minister is sympathetic. We had a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary some four or five months ago at which a scheme was drawn up which will cover some of the points I have made, such as wet-time, guaranteed week and protective clothing. However, I fear that many of our county councils will not implement the scheme. I feel that the Minister knew that very well as he sent a circular to the county councils asking what had been done about it and, further, that the terms of that circular be kept so that the road workers, who make it possible for our transport system to flow, our houses to be built and so on, will get what is surely their due — a fair living in their own country.

It is very heartening indeed to hear the many assurances of the Deputies who have spoken here this evening that they have the interests of the workers at heart in so far as housing is concerned. It is very obvious that on this side of the House the Minister will get all the support he possibly can. It was rather unfortunate, perhaps, that Deputy Rooney introduced a matter here trying to make, as he generally does, a political matter out of something which is wholly national by accusing the late Government of not expediting the matter of housing as it should have done. He forgot, apparently, that during the ten years' office of the Party he now belongs to, they never built even one house in the rural areas. This matter of housing is not a political one. Nobody should dare to look at it from any angle other than a national one. They should give their whole support and encouragement to expedite the housing of the people of this country.

I should like to say that, in the matter of providing houses in the rural areas, I am not at all satisfied that a wire fence should be put there. It is not a fence in reality. It is something that is going to cause endless trouble between the farmers and the occupiers of the cottages. There are many objections to it, both from the workers' side and the farmers' side. If a worker's hens or goat get out they will probably cause some annoyance. The Minister should insist on the proper fencing of plots in the rural areas.

Unfortunately, there is opposition by farmers to the giving of sites. In many cases I do not know that that attitude could be justified at all. My own idea is that the farmer who gives a site on his land for a cottage to be built is doing a great service to himself. He is, in effect, erecting a worker's house on his own land at scarcely any cost to himself. Many farmers have looked at it in a sensible way but there are, unfortunately, people in this country who will never look at anything in a sensible way but only in a selfish manner.

In order that rents of houses can be kept within the limits which the occupants can pay we find, in many cases, the rates must of necessity bear much of the brunt of the cost. I think the Government should go further and relieve the rates by taking off completely the responsibility of home assistance. Home assistance and maintenance of main and county roads should be charged to the Central Fund. If that were done the local authorities would be in a position to charge lower rents for many of the houses in our small towns and villages in the rural areas.

The late Deputy William O'Donnell on many an occasion advocated here regional water supplies for Tipperary. I was wholeheartedly with him then and I believe it is the solution of that very vexed question of water supplies in Tipperary South Riding. We have many villages like Dundrum, Newinn, Golden and Rosegreen especially, where there is no water and very little hope of getting it except by regional gravitation. One big attempt is being made, of course, which will meet the needs of Bansha and other villages. I hope it will be very successful. Everything points to the fact that it will. However, I would ask the Minister to encourage more regional water supplies. Those in a position to say so clearly indicate that regional water supplies will meet the needs of Tipperary South Riding.

I want to make a plea for our old friends in the mountains. Unfortunately, many of those little boreens connecting by-road and by-road are not 11 feet wide and do not, therefore, qualify for a grant. I think the Minister should give power to the local authorities to take them over regardless of whether they are 11 feet or not. The prospect of making them wider with a small outlay is outside the capacity of the people interested. It will be appreciated in a mountain area that at one turn or another there may be a valley or perhaps a mountain against you. Therefore, unless amending legislation is passed or new powers given to local authorities, the people in these areas must continue to use these horrible boreens which are in such a very bad state of repair.

At the outset I meant to appeal to the Minister to do something with regard to the two terribly dangerous bridges on the road between Dublin and Portlaoighise. I think everybody in the country knows them and everybody agrees they are a danger to life. Unfortunately they have proved to be a danger to life. I do not know what the remedy will be but that is a matter for our engineering authorities. They are certainly death-traps and I hope the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of the fact and that something will be done to them to make them passable without the danger of loss of life.

Now, again, I believe that our cemeteries should be looked after in a better way. There are many graveyards through the country which are a disgrace to the nation. They contain the remains of many of our patriots and heroic martyrs, and the state they are in at present is no credit to the Irish people or to the Irish nation. I hope the State will do something with a view to providing new cemeteries and remedying the state of affairs that exists in the case of the old ones.

With regard to the case that was made for the road workers by Deputy Kyne, I agree with practically everything he has said. I would go further and say that not only should we do everything possible to provide them with full employment, but that we should make it compulsory on the local authorities to supply them with protective clothing. Many of them have to travel very long distances to their work. I know some who have to go a distance of 12 miles. Some travel in donkey carts and others on bicycles.

On a wet day there is the temptation and, indeed, very often the necessity of continuing their work in their wet clothes so that they may earn their daily bread. Is it any wonder that, in such conditions, we hear of so many people suffering from rheumatism and other ailments which are attributable to our climatic conditions? I would urge on the Minister that the local authorities should be compelled to provide these road workers with protective clothing. The cost would not be very much, and in many cases it would mean that we would have less rheumatism amongst our people and possibly a smaller number of tuberculosis cases as well.

In Tipperary, we believe that we should get some special consideration by way of a road grant. I understand that our county has lost substantially more than any other county. It has lost, by way of road grant, £221,000. That seems a colossal, an almost unbelievable amount, but it is quite true. Last year we received £338,000 and this year we have received £116,000. Therefore, I think that we in the Tipperary South Riding are deserving of special consideration and I make that plea now on behalf of the county. In the peak period, we used to employ 1,800 men on the roads. The number employed to-day is something over 600. It is a great pity that many of those road workers, who had been in the employment of the county council for many years, should now find themselves unemployed. I, therefore, make a special appeal for consideration for them, so that they may be enabled to earn a living for themselves and their families.

I should like to know from the Minister if there has been any change in the matter of utility societies. What I mean is this: Is it necessary that a person must be a member of a utility society for a period before he commences building or before he makes application for the extra grant which he gets as a result of being a member of a utility society? I have seen a certain document, and it is the information in it that causes me some alarm. I hope that these utility societies will continue to be treated in the same manner as they were heretofore. It may be that I am wrong in what I have read into that document, but it appeared to me that there was a grave danger that some alteration was being made and that it might be necessary for an applicant to be a member of a society on a certain date, or over a certain period, before he could qualify for a grant. I hope the Minister will be able to clear up that point for me when replying.

On the whole, the position with regard to the siting of cottages is satisfactory, but unfortunately, here and there, grave dissatisfaction exists in cases where the Department's engineer — I take it that it is his responsibility—removed people from the field or farm on which they had asked to have their cottage sited. In some cases, the site for the cottage has been put on land two or three miles from where the applicant is working. Where that happens, I think an applicant has a real grievance. I know one man whose cottage has been sited almost three miles from the place he asked to have it. I do not think that there was any justification for that because the farm on which he asked to have his cottage sited was a substantial one and hence his application should not have been refused. There was an applicant named Philip Cleary, of Knocknooter, who now finds that his name does not appear on the list of applications granted and finally sited. We have nothing to say with regard to the findings of the inquiry. I hope that the couple of defects which I have brought to the Minister attention will be remedied either by the Department or by the local authorities concerned.

There is unquestionably a certain amount of worry in the mind of every Deputy with regard to the shortage of skilled labour. It will definitely be a troublesome problem as to how we are to get ahead with immediate building operations if this shortage of skilled labour continues. I believe that it would be impossible to get contractors to take on the building of substantial numbers or groups of houses as they used to do heretofore. In that situation, I would ask the Minister to get the county managers to gear up their machinery so that we may get ahead with the building of houses by direct labour. There is no use in waiting for one or two or three months. The preparations should go ahead now. I suggest that all the paraphernalia required be obtained now, so that the county managers will not have to wait to get cement mixers and other equipment at a time when building operations should be going ahead. Let all the necessary preparations be made now, so that the people that we talk so much about here will find themselves in decent houses before next Christmas, le conghnamh Dé.

As a member of the Kerry County Council I should like to call the Minister's attention to the fact that some time ago we were faced with a very serious problem in County Kerry in regard to the sale of labourers' cottages and their repair. As an incentive to the sale of these cottages, we asked the late Minister to consider an amending purchase scheme. The occupiers of the cottages put up their case which we submitted to the Department. The Kerry County Council also asked the Department for a loan to enable it to carry out repairs. That was refused by the Department even though it made the same concession the year before when the commissioner was in office. I submit that we were not asking for anything that was extraordinary or unreasonable because we were faced with the difficulty of maintaining an expensive system.

We were compelled, legally, to repair these cottages for tenants who are not prepared to purchase them under present conditions. We, therefore, asked for this loan to enable us to repair the cottages. We also submitted a suggested amending scheme to the Department which would enable the cottiers to purchase. If our request were acceded to, we would have an economic system which would enable us not only to get rid of the cottages on fairly reasonable terms, but to avail of any loan facilities the Department could give us. The Department have, so far, turned down our proposal and I again ask the Minister to give it his attention. Indeed, I submit I have a right, seeing that the commissioner got the same concession that we are now asking for as a new county council. We are asking it as a council that has done good work since it was elected. We are probably one of very few councils that have not increased the rate this year. If you like, we have an inter-Party county council, one of the best in the country, and we have reduced the rate by one penny in the £ this year. I am not exaggerating when I say we have done good work. We would like to get all the co-operation we can from the Department.

I have another point to make. We have a peculiar system in Kerry. Our county engineer insists on the haulage of road material over vast distances, to the detriment of local people who offer their own material and to the detriment of the ratepayers. We have proved that road material can be purchased locally at less than half the cost now paid by the county council. The county engineer employs Córas Iompair Éireann lorries and hauls this material ten or 20 miles from fixed centres and distributes it along the roadway. It works out at 30/- per cubic yard on the roadside as against an average of 18/- per cubic yard when purchased from local people and broken at intervals of three or four miles. That is the system we are fighting against in County Kerry, and if there is not something done about it we shall have to ask the Department to send down an inspector to hold an inquiry.

Our former county manager assured us that he would have an inquiry and there would be a review of the whole position, but nothing has been done. It is detrimental to us from many angles, but particularly because of the cost to the ratepayers and the labour content. There is very little labour content arising from the road grants in County Kerry. When you examine the position you will find that the cost of the material is very high — just as I have indicated — and, with the machinery and equipment there, the labour content is not worth speaking about. If there is not some adjustment we shall have to ask for a sworn inquiry.

I would like to make one point with regard to county council machinery. Latterly our county engineer and his deputies have adopted the practice of employing machinery privately owned. Of course, that is probably a matter for the engineers, and the Department would not come into it, but it is a matter that we will submit later to the Department. We have men and machinery under the county council but, nevertheless, the county engineer and the county manager employ privately-owned crushers and privately-owned compressors to the detriment of the workers. The machinery was purchased at a great cost to the ratepayers and it is left there idle. We shall soon have to ask the Department to investigate that aspect.

My last point is about housing. As regards reconstruction grants, there has been considerable delay and that is our main complaint in Kerry. There is an engineer in charge, but whether he has a very large district or whether he has some system whereby he has grouped applicants, I do not know. The people complain that they have to wait for months before anyone inspects the work or calls to give them advice. With reference to housing grants in Kerry, the position is quite different and very satisfactory. There has been a great speed up; a definite improvement has been evident, particularly within the past six months.

We appreciate the difficulties of the Department. We know what happened when the late Minister went to Tralee. He heard everybody and made it his business to inspect the worst centres from the point of view of housing. We then realised he was all out to assist us and do everything possible. I also appreciate the new Minister's efforts. I welcome him and I know he will carry on in the same way as the late Mr. T.J. Murphy. Of course, there are times when as a local authority, we must insist on the full co-operation of his Department. The late Minister made a great impression on this country when he said that as far as possible he would cut out red tape and make it easier for the people to qualify for and obtain these grants. From what I know of the present Minister, I believe he will follow in the footsteps of his predecessor. I wish the Minister the best of luck and I know he will do his utmost for us.

I propose to be as brief as is reasonably possible in my contribution to this debate. Judging by the trend the debate has taken it is quite obvious that housing is the major problem confronting the Minister at the present time. With regard to the erection of houses for labourers and county council workers a good deal of delay has occurred in the acquisition of sites. We have been told that that delay is due to some legal technicality. Every Deputy must agree that in the towns and villages there are derelict sites. These derelict sites are eyesores at the moment. Now, the Minister has an opportunity of killing two birds with one stone. He can demolish these eyesores and erect proper houses. That will have the effect, too, of helping to beautify the towns and villages. In many of our towns we have sites which are the property of the local authority The workhouses are still a blot on the countryside. Surely, these could be demolished and cottages built on the sites. They are the property of the local authority and no difficulty can arise as to acquisition.

With regard to the building of houses generally in my constituency — and I think this is true too of other parts of the country—there is delay in the payment of the grant. I know cases where people have actually been in occupation of newly-built houses since last October and they have not yet received one penny grant. I have been in contact with the Department about this matter. There seems to be an unnecessary delay in these cases. I appeal to the Minister to expedite these grants.

I know of other cases where people who have applied for grants to build houses have got all the materials except the slate. They have been told that there are no Irish slates available and they will not qualify for the grant unless Irish slate is used. Is it not a fact that within the last year we have exported some of the best Irish slate? Is that not true? Now we have housing schemes held up because of the non-availability of Irish slate.

In the course of this debate we have heard many Deputies give their reasons for the delay and so on. Some Deputies appear to hanker still after the old pre-election idea that the position is due to Fianna Fáil policy. Other Deputies — and these may be regarded as authorities with regard to supplies and so on — have painted a true picture of existing circumstances. Deputy Dockrell, and he is an authority on this matter, has done that. We all appreciate that difficulty still exists. We all hope for the day when the supply position will not be as bad as it has been in the past or as it is at the moment. We have been told by Deputy Dunne that the delay is due to scarcity of skilled labour. I wonder would the Deputies on the Government Benches have accepted that excuse before the election. The position in that respect was much worse then. It is true that wisdom comes with experience.

I think cemeteries come within the purview of the Minister. Deputy Davern adverted to them a few moments ago. In my area there is a children's cemetery and there is no method of access to that burial ground except across a field. There was a boreen at one time but it is now overgrown with bushes and briers. During the past 12 months I made representations in this matter to both the Board of Works and the local authority. Both refused to accept responsibility. Perhaps the Minister would take the matter up and have something done about it. It is a scandal at the moment.

I want to deal now with the problem of roads. I appreciate that main roads must be maintained on a standard commensurate with modern requirements. But I do not agree with the proposition that our main roads must be maintained at the expense of our secondary roads or our by-roads. All over the country there are good by-roads, but they have closed in so much that it is now impossible for two farmers driving carts to pass each other on such roads. Surely the people who use those roads are entitled to more consideration? I would ask the Minister to make these roads reasonably passable for the farmers who use them.

In regard to roads, there is one very peculiar situation in my constituency. Outside one small village there are five people living. None of these can get to the public road unless he drives right through the bed of a river. Now this river is a mountain stream which is subject to flooding. In recent times huge forestry tracts have been developed above this particular area. Bogs have also been developed. The result is that once the rainy season commences in late August these people cannot get into the village with any kind of cart. Their only means of access is across a narrow footbridge which is maintained by the local authority. Every Deputy knows that from late August until the following spring small farmers must go to market. These people cannot bring out any produce to sell. They cannot drive through the river because it is constantly in flood during that period.

Last year I was in contact with the Board of Works about this matter. A scheme was prepared but the decision arrived at was that it would cost £500 to build a bridge and although the people inside were prepared to put up their portion of the cost, the responsible authority, which is the Board of Works, decided that the expense was too great for the amount of benefit which would accrue from it. I approached the local authority who were in fact maintaining the foot-bridge and I asked them if they would not come into the scheme, to scrap the foot-bridge and give a contribution towards building a decent bridge there but we also failed in that. Perhaps the Minister would take up this matter now and have inquiries made because these people are in a bad way. It is not so long ago since one of the families in the locality had to send for the priest and doctor but neither the priest nor doctor could get in until the flood went down because the foot-bridge was at the time swept away.

Some miles further up the river we have a similar case but it involves rather a bigger area. There is a road running from South-East Galway into North-East Clare and anybody who wants to travel on that road must again drive through the river. I know many motor drivers who went as far as the river and had to turn back. I know of several farmers who tried to go to the fairs with their stock in the middle of the night. They found when they reached the river that the waters had risen and the only way they could get to the town was by making a detour of 14 miles. Surely to goodness, when we hear of super-quality roads elsewhere, roads which are paid for by these poor people, they should be entitled to ordinary travelling facilities in their own district and should be provided with the ordinary amenities to which all ratepayers are entitled. I would again urge on the Minister to examine this question because it is a question of ordinary justice and to ensure that these people will be enabled to use the public roads in their areas. Perhaps I might add that the unfortunate part of it is that the river might be described as the boundary between the two counties, each of which is handing the baby to the other. I think the Minister would have control over the respective councils and he should be in a position to tell them what to do.

With regard to the reduction in the road grants, Deputy Dunne has stated that no unemployment has resulted in County Dublin as a result of that reduction. I wonder will any Deputy on the Government side say that the same remarks apply down the country? I do not believe he will. If my memory serves me right, the Deputy also said that he is not afraid of an increase in the rates to keep these people employed. He was immediately followed by Deputy Davin who laments the increase in rates. I think Deputy Davin also urged that the Government should consider an immediate reduction in the rates. My advice is that Deputy Dunne and Deputy Davin should sit down to gether and decide the question between them. In any event, I would say that the Minister has a serious problem before him. I would say further the he has the good wishes of every Deputy in this House. We are told that he has unlimited finance behind him. I believe he has the honesty and the determination to carry out the work of the Department and in that work I wish him the very best of good luck.

Sar a dtáiniges isteach sa Tigh seo mar Theachta, ní raibh aithne agam ar Thadhg Ó Murchadha, go ndéana Dia trocaire ar a anam, ach ní raibh mé anseo i bhfad nuair a chonaiceas gur dhuine fiúntach é. Ba sholéir domhsa, agus sílim gur shoiléir do chách anseo, go raibh a chroí san obair a raibh a láimh curtha léi agus go raibh sé i ndáríre i dtaobh na gcuspóirí a bhí beartaithe aige. Thug sé deá-shompla don fhear atá ina áit anseo agus creidim go leanfhaidh an tAire atá againn anois an deá-shompla sin. Guím grá Dé air féin agus ar an obair atá láimh aige.

My contribution will, to a great extent, consist of some questions I want to put to the Minister by way of seeking information. I am not very well aware of the direct relationship that exists between the Department of Local Government and the local authority. I have not a very great knowledge of how the functions of those who bodies dovetail and, consequently, some of the queries which I shall raise may be matters really for the local authority, but in any case, I feel that the Minister will be able to give us some assistance on them. The question of main roads is of importance. A very considerable amount is being done at present on the surfacing of the roads but they are bad from the point of view of safety. The work which has been done has not been extensive enough. The bends have not been, so to speak, sufficiently eliminated or straightened out and yet traffic is coming back to even more than the pre-war standard. I think there is a great duty on whatever body is responsible in the matter to make the roads safe. How far the Minister has a function in that matter and how far he can exercise authority and direction over and towards the local authorities, I do not know, but I understand that he has some say in the matter. The secondary roads, too, cause me some concern to the extent that the work that has been done upon them in my constituency — South Tipperary — seems to demand more work. Within a very short time after the steamroller has left the roads there are potholes again and the general quality of the work seems to be bad. I know that this work is done by the county council but if the Minister has any control or say in a matter of that kind——

Would it be a matter for their engineers?

Apparently it is a matter for the engineers but I would be very slow to blame the actual workmen. There is, however, a grievous defect, because the return is not there for the amount of money spent. It may be a question of defective methods, but surely we have sufficient engineering brains and intelligence in the country to get over that. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that with regard to repair the secondary roads have not shown any results.

Another matter I would like to raise is a very local matter indeed, that is, the sewerage scheme in the village where I reside. I think it must be about 15 or 16 years since a high-pressure water works was installed in Cappawhite village and the people in the village were in the awkward position that while they could get the water into their houses, they had nowhere to let it out. A sewerage scheme was then mooted as a very necessary consequence of the introduction of the water supply but that sewerage scheme has not arrived yet. Shortly after I came here. I put a question down to the then Minister for Local Government and, as far as I recall. I was told in answer to that question that the plans were with the engineers or someone. Apparently, these plans have been going up and down between the local authority and the Department of Local Government for amendment and improvement for the past 15 or 16 years. Now we have a housing scheme down there and these new houses which have been built by the local authority will be connected up with the piped water supply and again the people will be in a quandary as to the disposal of the sewage. I feel I am justified in asking the Minister to have that scheme looked up in his Department and while I would not expect a reply when he is closing this debate, I would like to see results within a reasonably short time.

There is another matter, too, which I think should be mentioned, that is, the scheme for the purchase of labourers' cottage under the Labourers Act of 1936. I think it is a most commendable scheme from many points of view, but a thing I find hard to understand about it is the reluctance of the tenants of the cottages to avail themselves of the provisions of that scheme. I asked several of them about their attitude to the scheme and they told me that the principal snag they saw in it was that while they remained tenants to the council the council would have responsibility for the keeping of the cottages and their repair, but once they became tenant purchasers under the Act, the responsibility for repair would rest on them.

I personally cannot see that that would be a very grave burden because the Act provides also that the local authority must put the cottage into repair before vesting it in the tenants and it seems to me that if a good house, as most of these cottages are, is put in proper repair, it stays in reasonable repair for quite a considerable period and the upkeep costs are small. I pointed out to many of these tenants that the payment of the rent over the years would be greater than the cost to them of the repairs and that by vesting they would acquire a very valuable interest in the cottage, but they are reluctant to come in under this purchasing scheme. I think I know very few cases where they come along and ask to have a cottage vested in them, save cases where they have a prospect of selling the cottage to some body else. In such cases, they can get sums actually up to £400. That has occurred in one case in South Tipperary. I do not know what the Minister's function is at all as far as the administration of that Act is concerned. I believe that it is very much a matter for the local authorities.

A suggestion has been made to me that the terms of the scheme should be made more favourable to the tenant than they are. I understand I cannot advocate that here, as it would entail the introduction of legislation. The benefits to be derived by the tenants under the scheme are very attractive and their acceptance by the tenant would be in the national interest. I am just wondering if there could not be some sort of publicity scheme to show the tenants the advantages of the scheme and to exhort them to avail themselves of it. I feel that the Minister is as anxious as anyone else here to see the occupier of each cottage the owner of it, or well on the way to ownership. It is regrettable that the scheme has not worked according to plan and, for what it is worth, I give the suggestion to the Minister of publicising the benefits to be derived by the tenants under the scheme.

Having listened to most of the discussion in this debate, one would come to the conclusion that it is rather a pity there is not a little more consistency amongst the Deputies sitting at the back of the Government. I have listened to-day to different cases made by some of those Deputies, as to what might be done now by the Government by way of relieving the rates, improving the roads, and so on. Quite recently, however, when we had a discussion here that would help towards doing a number of those things, those particular Deputies had an entirely different tune. To-day I listened to Deputy Lehane, who told us that the Department gave grants on the basis of their putting up so much and the local authority putting up so much. He went on to point out the condition of the roads. A moment ago, we listened to Deputy Timoney, also complaining of the condition of the roads. A few weeks ago, from this side of the House, we tried to make it clear to the Government that the roads were in a deplorable condition. The Government had made up their minds that they were going to reduce allocations to local authorities for the upkeep of roads. We made it clear that the amount of money being made available this year would not enable local authorities to make a decent effort to restore those roads to their pre-war condition and that the cutting of the grant would mean that, with the burdens already placed on the shoulders of local authorities, it was impossible for us to increase the rates any further than they were being increased this year and that, therefore, the roads would have to suffer as a result. The Deputies behind the Government knew that that was so at that particular time, but they did not make quite the same case then as they are making now.

We knew the money was squandered.

If they knew the money was squandered by what the Deputy might term the "squandermania" of the Government in power, is it not a wonder he did not say a word or try to make the case that the Government were prepared to economise but should not economise on the roads by withdrawing the grants, throwing the workers out of employment and doing a number of other things they knew the Government were doing then, just as well as they know that they are doing it now? Deputy Timoney knew that then and knew it as well then as he does now, but he makes an entirely different case to-day from what he made then. Because the Deputy is reminded of the sins he has committed from time to time, he gets a little bit angry.

I also listened to Deputy Rooney here to-day, in his usual form and making his usual type of speech. He wanted the roads nationalised, he wanted hospitalisation nationalised, he wanted a whole number of things nationalised; but Deputy Rooney was very slow in giving us any of the reasons he gave to-day for doing those things, when again we were discussing the cuts this particular Government had made in the grants that were being given to local authorities by Fianna Fáil for two years. Deputy Rooney also was very critical as regards the Fianna Fáil housing policy during the war period. The only conclusion one can come to regarding most of the speeches from Deputies opposite on their housing policy is that they are to-day comparing the housing drive they are making at this particular time with the one that Fianna Fáil were making during the war years, when materials were not available to the same extent as they are now. I have not heard any Deputy making any comparisons except in regard to the increase now over 1944, 1945 or 1946.

Was the Deputy listening to Deputy Dunne?

I listened to Deputy Dunne several times. He has got concessions from this Government that Deputy Timoney and other Deputies did not get. When we were discussing the road grants, he threatened the Minister that he would use the boot on him and he got away with it. He told us in the House that he got a promise that the road grants in County Dublin were going to be better than ever they were. He told us there was no such thing as cutting out any workers in County Dublin, while the rest of us know that throughout the country gangs are being laid off week after week, because the money is not available from county councils. At the same time, the roads were never in as deplorable a condition as they are at present.

As regards housing, there is one thing that every person understands. No matter what way those in the Government Benches try to twist it, the people will still know and will always remember the facts. When Fianna Fáil went out of office, they left to the Government in office to-day all the legislation they required to go ahead with a housing drive second to none. When I listened to Deputy Rooney talking to-day and making comparisons between what was done by Fianna Fáil in 1945 and what has been done by the Government to-day I remember coming into this House and being here for many years when there was no question of the Fine Gael Party ever thinking about the people of this country being housed During any of the years that I was in this House, before Fine Gael were shifted from those benches by the people of this country, I have no recollection of their ever thinking of the housing conditions of the people. Most of us knew, and most of us made it quite clear to them, that the housing conditions from 1927, when we came in here, up to 1932, when we succeeded in putting them out, were such that the people almost had to take turns in order to get a few hours' sleep, owing to the scarcity of accommodation.

They are doing it still.

If they are doing it still, I want to point out to this House that it is because the Government are not doing all they might do in the housing drive. We left to this Government the necessary legislation.

When was that? It was houses they wanted, not legislation.

You cannot build houses if you have not the legislation to enable you to do it.

You cannot sleep in legislation.

We left the necessary legislation here. I would like Deputies to throw their minds back to the time when that legislation was being enacted and remember the people who were then sitting on these benches here, Fine Gael, and their attitude towards that legislation and what little help they gave to try to put that legislation through. Most of those Deputies now so eloquent about the need for housing would have run out of the House on seeing the way that Fine Gael opposed the Housing Bill at that time. Not merely did we leave a Housing Act which gave reasonably good grants and reasonably good facilities to people to go ahead with the building of houses, but we left to this Government an experienced and fully trained staff capable of putting that Act into operation at any time the Government might desire, when materials would be available to an extent which would enable local authorities to take up the work of housing. We had made all the machinery available, and, from that day to this, the Government have had an Opposition here who were prepared to give their fullest co-operation in any effort to drive ahead with housing for the people.

If to-day the housing of the people is not going ahead as fast as one would wish, the responsibility can rest only on the shoulders of the people sitting on the front Government Bench. I am not blaming the Minister; I blame the man who holds the key to the situation in his hand, the Minister for Finance, who may not be prepared to make the necessary money available. The Minister who now holds the office, as was the Minister before him, is very anxious about housing and the whole problem, judging by the complaints we receive from the country, seems to be lack of finance. I cannot understand why it is we receive, day after day, complaints from people to the effect that they have completed their houses for a number of years and have not yet received the total grant to which they were entitled. Every Deputy, I think, has the same experience and we are always getting on to the Custom House to find out why certain grants have been held up. If people put all the money they have at their disposal into the building of a house, there should be no delay in paying the grant to which they are entitled when the house is completed.

There are all over the country old houses which are being reconstructed, some of which happen to be perhaps a few square feet in excess of the size prescribed in the Department's regulations. Because of that, men who are prepared to carry out repairs find that they cannot get the grant. It is not possible for them to take away a part of it so as to bring it within the regulations and something should be done to ease the situation in that respect. Most of the houses I speak of are perhaps more in need of repairs than much smaller houses.

We have had very much talk about skilled labour and I think it is up to the people who represent labour organisations to try to do something in this matter. Personally, I cannot understand why there is a scarcity of labour because when Fianna Fáil, in days gone by, were building 20 and 30 times as many houses day by day as are being erected to-day, there was never any question of a scarcity of labour. New factories were being crected throughout the country and yet we had plenty of labour. Is it the position that, in spite of the efforts made by people on this side to bring home to the Government as forcibly as we can the gravity of the emigration problem, they are not prepared to open their eyes and see that these people are leaving? Is it that they are not prepared to examine the reasons why they are leaving and to do something to encourage them to stay at home or to do, as was promised by a number of prominent speakers from the Government Front Bench, something to bring back those who have gone away? We have a lot of cheap talk in that respect, but very little effort. This whole question of finding out why these people are going and what might be done to hold them at home should be carefully gone into by the Government, with a view to finding out what is wrong and relieving the situation as quickly as possible.

I listened yesterday to Deputy McQuillan making his usual attack not merely on the people on these benches but on local authorities on which Fianna Fáil have a majority in connection with the making of certain appointments. There is an old saying that people in glasshouses should not throw stones and Deputy McQuillan should look around him. Not so very long ago, elections were held in certain counties, Kerry being one of them. Fianna Fáil had the largest representation on that council, but, when the subsidiary bodies were being appointed by the Kerry County Council, Fianna Fáil were not considered for any of them.

Deputy McQuillan should ask himself what would happen if a similar position existed throughout the country —Fianna Fáil would have no representation, although they still represent the vast majority of the people. I should be very interested to see Deputy McQuillan as a member of a county council, if there was a vacancy for a rate collector and if a Fianna Fáil candidate and a Clann na Poblachta candidate went forward, voting for the Fianna Fáil candidate as against the Clann na Poblachta candidate. If he did so, Deputy Fitzpatrick and the rest of his Party would chastise him very quickly. There must be a little commonsense in the statements made in this House and there was none in the statement made by Deputy McQuillan. One cannot expect to find commonsense where it does not exist and I do not expect any from that Deputy.

There is another matter in connection with housing that I should mention. From time to time, local authority houses are vacated and, in spite of the fact that there has been a tremendous drive in connection with public health for a long time past, some of these houses, vacated by persons who were suffering from tuberculosis, were handed over the next day to new tenants without being disinfected. The Minister for Local Government should pay particular attention to this matter and see that local authorities have all houses thoroughly disinfected, whether there was a tuberculosis patient in them or not, before allowing a new tenant to take possession. It is a very simple matter and a very essential matter. The Minister should take it up with all local authorities and see that it is done immediately.

That is a matter for the local medical officer of health.

It may be but, if it is not being done, somebody must be responsible for seeing that it is done and I take it that the Minister is the boss and that he is the man who should see, if it is not being done, that it will be done. I suppose we have as good a county medical officer of health as you would find in Ireland or, indeed, in Europe but I am not satisfied that his attention has been drawn to the houses that have been vacated from time to time or that he has had them disinfected. He may have. I am not so sure but, at any rate, it is no harm for me to draw the Minister's attention to the matter and to ask that, if it is not being done, it will be done in future. It is very important for the health of our people.

We are told that a Bill is about to be introduced to repeal the County Management Act. I hope the Minister will remember that at one time county councils were able quite easily to carry on their work when they had to deal with only a few thousand pounds annually. Now, when we have to deal with £600,000 or £700,000 worth of work in a year and have to deal with the additional staffs for hospitals and roads and all the other things that county councils must look after, it is utterly impossible for any local authority to do that in one meeting of a few hours on one day in the month. The County Management Act was not brought in as an ideal piece of legislation but as something that was worth a trial. I think the Minister for Local Government at that particular time told us that when the Act had been tried and the system proposed in it had been operated we might then be able to improve on that system. I sincerely hope that before the Minister changes the present system he will have thought out a better system and not throw all the responsibility of all the work that requires to be done to-day on the shoulders of the local authorities because, as I have said, it would be absolutely impossible for them to do it in a few hours on one day in the month and they could not spend much more time than that on it. I would like the Minister to give careful consideration to that particular point.

While I wish to join with other Deputies in complimenting the Minister on his promotion to his present position, I wonder whether he deserves congratulations or condolence. There is no doubt that the office of Minister for Local Government carries with it heavy responsibility and a fairly substantial number of headaches. A Minister who feels deeply for the welfare of the people generally must first of all be worried about the burden of rates which the ordinary citizen has to bear. Heretofore, it was generally considered that the burden of rates fell mainly upon the upper classes of the community but, with the ever-increasing level of rates, the burden is becoming a severe strain on even the ordinary worker in the council cottage. One of the first tasks of the Minister should be to discover a means by which this ever-increasing burden can be reduced.

Deputy Major de Valera referred to the rising trend of rates and posed the question, when would rates tend to flatten out. I would remind him that, if they do not flatten out in the near future, it is the unfortunate ratepayer who will be flattened out.

In the course of the past two years rates have increased on an average by over 8/- in the £. One does not require to be a mathematician to realise that 8/- in the £ is a substantial burden upon any householder. Rates are a direct tax upon the householder. They may be described as a tax upon houses and land. Neither houses nor land can be regarded as luxuries. I do not think anyone can justify excessive taxation on either land or houses. The farming community, of course, have a special grievance inasmuch as the valuation of land is far in excess of its income bearing capacity. Everybody realise this and an attempt is made by the State to rectify that injustice to a certain extent by way of the agricultural grant but that does not go any distance towards equalising the position as between farmers and the rest of the community. The time has come for the Minister to try to find a method by which this burden can be reduced.

Deputy Larkin said that he was not unduly worried about the burden of rates. He did not seem to regard rates as an excessive tax. He mentioned that no ratepayers' association up to the present had been able to suggest any means by which rates could be reduced. There is, in my opinion, a variety of ways by which rates can be reduced. One of the heaviest burdens imposed upon the general community by local authorities is the interest on money which local authorities have to borrow to finance the very necessary works which they are carrying out. Much comment has been made to-day on the high cost of housing —on the heavy burden which the housing programme will impose on the ratepayers and on the even heavier burden which it will impose upon the unfortunate tenants. One can easily envisage how much that burden could be eased if money could be obtained by our local authorities at a nominal rate, as they are entitled to obtain it. Take, for instance, a house costing £1,000. Well, even £1,000 borrowed at an interest rate as low as 3 per cent. costs £30 a year in interest alone. That is an excessively heavy burden.

Suppose that to-morrow by some stroke of fortune the Government, in the course of their afforestation work or of their other development work, were to come on a gold mine and that £100,000,000 or £200,000,000 worth of gold were to come into their hands. Would every Deputy in this House not suggest that the first task to which that money should be applied would be the building of houses? Would every Deputy in this House not suggest that it would be a sensible thing to issue currency on the security of that gold and to put the workers to work and get the houses built? But does every Deputy not realise that a house built for a citizen of this country is as good security for money as any gold that could be discovered? The question naturally arises why can we not provide the necessary credit upon the security —and upon the security alone — of the houses that are to be built. Nobody seems to be able to answer that question. Nobody seems to be able to understand why the State — and by "the State" I mean the taxpayers and the ratepayers — should be compelled to pay what amounts to a rack rent to a small moneyed section of the community. I think the Minister should examine that question. If he does, he will find a way to relieve the burdens on the ratepayers generally and on the tenants of county council, urban council and corporation houses.

The cost of building houses seems to have increased unduly. One is inclined to ask whether there is any excess profiteering somewhere in the matter of supplying either the materials or the labour to relieve our housing needs. Deputy Larkin was very severe on the merchants and contractors who profiteered in the supplying of materials or in the carrying out of building work.

It was amusing to hear him at the same time tell the House that the skilled worker who profiteers is quite justified in doing so. He mentioned the fact that some contractors are paying skilled workers more than the trade union rate of wages. He suggested that by paying those excessive wages to skilled workers they were taking workers away from direct labour schemes. He indicated that a solution of the problem would be to enable the county councils and the city councils, the corporations, to compete with those contractors who were paying excessive wages. It never seemed to have occurred to him that in that way he would be encouraging another form of profiteering. I think, unlike him, that profiteering — no matter by whom it is carried on — should be rigidly controlled and prevented. As long as there is an urgent need for houses — as long as there is an urgent need for the materials and the labour necessary to provide houses — there will be a temptation for some people to profiteer but it is the duty of the State to prevent that, as far as is humanly possible, in justice to the ordinary people of the country. Deputy Larkin should join with the rest of the Members of this House in taking a firm stand against profiteering in every shape and form.

I do not think that there are sufficient numbers of trained skilled workers available to the building industry and something definite will have to be done in order to increase the number available. Therefore, I am rather inclined to favour strongly the efforts which are being made by the county councils and also, I think, by some of the city councils to undertake the building of houses by direct labour. Direct labour has been carried on in Wicklow for a number of years —since long before the recent war. As a result of the fact that it was undertaken back in the pre-war period, the county engineer had built up a fine team of skilled workers. Not only that, but during the emergency or in the early years of the emergency he accumulated a considerable amount of material. The result was that a considerable amount of building was carried on in County Wicklow during the emergency, when all other counties had to remain idle. That was a good headline and it is one which, I think, all counties should be inclined to follow. In Carlow, the adjoining county, they have also in the past year undertaken the erection of houses by direct labour. I believe they will make a success of it but it is a difficult task for a county engineer to tackle — particularly at the present time when the necessary skilled labour is not so freely available. He has to find skilled workers and, as time goes on, he will have to train new workers. That is a difficult task and one which will require all the energy and all the ability that any county engineer can command and, of course, it will require, in addition, the active co-operation and support of the local councils and of the people generally. I think there is a large measure of goodwill towards the efforts which are now being made by local authorities to initiate direct labour schemes of house building. I think, however, that the specifications and plans for the ordinary houses in our rural areas are somewhat too elaborate. They demand too much skill in the erection of the houses. A much simpler type of house would meet the demands of the community, generally. Everything possible should be done to enable workers with a moderate amount of skill to get to work. As I think I mentioned last year, most of the very intricate war material which was produced by Britain, the United States and other countries was produced by people who, prior to the war, had no knowledge of such work. The work of housing should be simplified to the greatest possible extent. I will give an illustration — just to show how it is possible for workers who have not a very extensive training or apprenticeship to carry out building work.

I was speaking to a contractor a short time ago who had been very successful and who is still successful in carrying out building operations. I asked him what was the secret of his success, how he was able to keep on building while other contractors had failed. As the Minister knows, a great number of contractors have gone out of building who were in the business prior to the war. This contractor told me that the reason was that he had kept his team of workers together as best he could during the emergency. He went on to say that he had trained the men himself. The extraordinary thing about it is that he had never served his time to anybody. Nevertheless, the work which he carried out was first-class.

I think there is a tendency to exaggerate the amount of skill required. I suppose skilled workers, having a vested interest, will naturally tend unduly to stress the nature of the work they have to carry out. There ought to be a certain amount of commonsense in connection with this matter. We want a house, we want it quickly and we want it to be a good one. I believe we can get these three requirements carried out if we are determined upon it and if those who are in charge of building operations in the county are sufficiently energetic and active.

Last year I referred to the question of prefabricated houses and expressed the view that prefabricated houses of the type we hear so much about, houses built with aluminium sheeting and so on, would never go very far to solve the housing problem. I believe the best housing material that we have in this country is cement. I believe that it is the concrete wall house which will meet the general needs of the community. I suggested that there are two ways by which a certain measure of prefabrication could be accomplished. One is by manufacturing the necessary mould for the shape and size of the house where you are proposing to build a large number of houses of exactly the same type and specification. That would apply more to rural houses perhaps than to urban ones. I suggested that, just as you cast a mould for the manufacture of metal goods and pour the molten metal into the mould, you could make moulds for the walls of a house and fill these with mixed concrete. While the suggestion did not seem to meet with the Minister's approval, I was astonished to notice an article in a newspaper some months later which indicated that that was exactly the type of house building which had been undertaken in a certain very progressive continental country.

I do not know whether the Government of that country got the idea from reading the Official Reports of the Dáil debates, but, at any rate, that particular system of house building has been adopted in Belgium with great success.

There is another method of prefabrication which is also available for every type of house and that is the mass production on a very highly mechanised scale of concrete blocks. I believe that with elaborate mechanisation it should be possible to turn out concrete blocks at a very cheap rate. At the Spring Show I saw samples of blocks mechanically produced which are perforated so as to produce a perfectly dry wall and which are very simple to use. I think that type of block would be far superior to the cavity walls which have been adopted by so many county councils and which require a considerable amount of skill to erect. I believe that if we could get some firms to undertake the manufacture of these light, perforated concrete blocks it would help very materially to speed up the building of houses.

An extraordinary thing I have noticed is that in some counties building with solid blocks is continued while in other counties they insist upon the cavity wall. I do not know why that should be. I do not know whether it is that the people in the counties where they build with solid blocks are so healthy that they do not mind or notice the dampness or whether the people in the other counties are more delicate. Whatever is the cause, I think that that should not be allowed to continue. We should have a certain amount of uniformity. What is regarded as being essential for one county should be regarded as being essential for others. I believe the solution of the problem lies in either of the suggestions I have made — either the production on a large scale of cheap building blocks or that the entire house should be built of mass concrete in one operation.

Another important thing to remember and which ought to be definitely accepted by the Minister, the Government and all Parties in the House is that the building of houses is an operation which is going to continue for a considerable time. We have to get our people properly housed. We have not only to provide houses for the people who have not houses, but to provide better houses for the people who are living in bad and unsatisfactory houses. For that reason I think that anybody who acquires skill in the building business should be guaranteed absolute security of employment. Through the co-operation of the county councils, the city councils and the Minister's Department there ought to be some means adopted to keep work going on at a steady rate so that men will be always employed and will not be thrown out of work from time to time. Nothing disgusts a man more after having acquired skill than to find that for some unseen cause building work slows down and he cannot find employment and has to go to the labour exchange to get the dole or go across to Great Britain. That is a state of affairs which should not be allowed to occur again.

With regard to road construction and maintenance. I took the view that the Government were unwise drastically to cut the amount of money necessary for road reconstruction in the present year. I took that view because I believe in continuity and steadiness of employment and a certain measure of efficiency in the carrying out of work. As county councils and their engineering staffs had made provision for the carrying out of extensive work during the present year, I held the view that that work should have gone forward. Even though we were to change over to less road work and more drainage work, in the course of time I thought an attempt was made to carry out that change too abruptly. I believe that the work which local authorities have now been called upon to do in the matter of drainage has been imposed upon them too rapidly and it will be difficult even for the best engineers to carry out that work efficiently at such short notice. A mistake has been made and I think the general policy of the Government in future should be to avoid drastic and abrupt changes from one system to another. As far as the roads are concerned, just as in the case of housing, there is need for a measure of uniformity and a higher degree of efficiency in carrying out the work. I think it would be no harm if the Minister were to find out in what counties road-making is being carried out most efficiently and try to compare their costs and their methods with other counties generally. A comparison would show that in some counties the maximum results are not being easily obtained for the expenditure of money involved. I do not think that can ever be said to be due to the type of worker in one county as against another. Generally speaking, the men who work on the roads are as good in one county as in another and the fault then must lie with the management and direction of the work, or it may lie to a certain extent with the local departments. Wherever it lies it should be discovered and an effort should be made to step up road development, road construction and maintenance to a much higher degree of efficiency than at present prevails in many parts of the country.

First I should like to congratulate the Minister on being elevated to his office. Any remarks or any criticisms that I have to make on this Estimate accordingly do not apply to him because he has not been responsible for the conduct of this particular Department. I should like him to take into consideration, however, the fact that there is something wrong with the Department of Local Government as far as housing is concerned. Formerly, the Minister's predecessors had many other matters to attend to in the Department of Local Government outside the question of housing. It was a very complex type of Department dealing with many different matters and, in fact, dealing with practically all the matters that are now dealt with by the Minister for Health. Some excuse could be made for that Department on the grounds that it was overburdened and that it was unwieldy in former years. I want to point out to the House that that excuse will not now be acceptable as matters in the Department of Local Government have been limited in the main to those that should properly be handled by that Department. Despite the fact that the Department is now, and has been for the last 18 months, dealing mainly with the question of housing and that the energy of all the officials of that Department has been concentrated on housing, the results are anything but satisfactory, in my opinion.

I heard some rather peculiar statistics quoted here by some Deputies speaking on this debate. We were told of the wonderful things that are being done now. They were very peculiar statistics because we were told not merely the number of houses that have been erected and completed during the last 12 months but, in the main, we were told about the plans that have been made and about the houses in the course of erection and of reconstruction. Considering that we are back to rather normal times and that housing material is now available to go ahead full-blast with the problem, the actual figures are certainly very disappointing in my view. In the first place, in connection with private building it is quite clear that there is something wrong in the Department as far as what is called red tape is concerned. Every rural Deputy, week after week, is getting complaints from people who cannot get grants, whose grants are held up for one reason or another, for lack of inspection or some delay in the Department of Local Government. There is no reason why that should be so. When there were, I suppose, ten or 12 times as many houses being built in this country as there are now we did not have any of these complaints and troubles. I have found in the case of a number of houses that have been inspected and completed for over 12 months in my own constituency that after making representations files were resurrected up here in the Department.

We then had inspectors coming down from Galway City to the County of Mayo to inspect houses that had already been inspected over 12 months ago by other inspectors of the Department. There would appear to be considerable overlapping in that Department and the feeling is abroad, be it right or wrong, that there is some reason why the payment of grants for private building is being held up and that there is a special reason why all this trouble and delay is created by the Department officials. All this is having its own effect on the slowing-up of private building throughout the country. Some people are contending at the moment that with the rising costs, even the new grants under the last Housing Act are not sufficient to encourage private individuals to proceed with the erection of houses. If we take the present value of money as compared with the pre-war value, possibly there is something in that argument. The Minister for Finance tells us the purchasing power of the £ is now approximately the purchasing power of 10/- pre-war.

You people did that.

If we people did that the present wizard Minister for Finance has not solved the problem since he came into office.

A fool can light a fire but it takes years to put it out.

If we compare the Minister's provision under this Estimate and the value the country has got for it in the line of housing the conclusion will be that either the Minister's valuation of the £ is correct or there is something radically wrong with the Department of Local Government. If we take the last normal year before the war when materials were readily available in this country, under the housing legislation and the smaller grants we had at that time we find that private and public utilities in 1938 produced 9,407 houses and local authorities produced 4,890 houses. So that, in the year 1938 we had completed by private and public utilities and local authorities 14,297 houses. These 14,297 houses were not houses that were in the course of reconstruction; these were not houses for which plans had been drawn, but completed houses that were occupied and finished in that very year. That figure of 14,297 houses does not include the thousands of houses that were reconstructed in one way or another during that year. These are results that were secured in that year when material was available. It was the last normal year before the war. These results, I may say, were obtained when the grants were smaller than they are now. When we compare these results with the results achieved during the last 12 or 18 months, and the output that we have now from the money that is being provided, it appears to me that there must be something wrong somewhere.

The building of houses by local authorities seems to be wound up with red tape, especially in cases where there has to be compulsory acquisition, the holding of an inquiry and the taking of evidence. In these cases, one finds that the decision following the inquiry is held up for periods ranging from six to 12 months. That has been the experience of the local authorities. There seems to me to be no good reason why, in these cases, the decision following the inquiry would not be conveyed to a local authority within a week or a fortnight. Yet we find that the files are allowed to lie in the Department for from six to 12 months. I think most members of the House will agree that the machinery in regard to compulsory acquisition, especially where there are many cases to be dealt with, is rather archaic. The Assessment of Compensation Act of 1919, to which about 40 amendments have been made, which comes into this matter, is also a rather archaic measure. All that contributes to delay, and so the local authorities are handicapped in dealing with this housing problem.

I know, of course, that I cannot advocate legislation on this Estimate. I think, however, that, apart from the question of legislation, a big part of this delay occurs in the Department of Local Government. I see no reason why compulsory acquisition schemes, under which a local authority is endeavouring to get land, should not be speeded up by the Department. Local authorities in the last 12 months, or couple of years, have been trying to do their utmost to get ahead with the housing drive both in the urban and county council areas, but it has been their experience that if the delays which occur are not due to engineers or architects, they are due to some other plans or red tape in the Department itself. I do not know if the Minister has sufficient staff. I do not know why he should not have sufficient staff. The Department should have plenty of experience by this time with regard to the building of houses and in dealing with these schemes.

I agree with the Deputy who said that we seem to be engaging gentlemen in connection with these housing schemes who have rather too elaborate ideas. There was a time when the county surveyor in each county approved of the type of house that was erected by the local authority. Now, we must have architects and plans of all kinds approved by the Department before a local authority can do anything. What do we find when we look at the results? I would venture to suggest that, from the architectural point of view, the calling in of these gentlemen with the elaborate ideas has not resulted in any great improvement. It appears that they have to be employed in connection with these schemes. I think that, in view of what we have to pay them, we might expect something better from them than the stock type of house that we see through the country. In fact, one might describe them as mass-produced houses. I think that, if we are to get ahead with the housing drive, we will have to dispense with some of the regulations which are at present being enforced by the Department of Local Government. When we do that we are likely, I think, to get ahead more quickly with the job.

There are some few matters that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister. There is one which, I am sure, concerns other areas as well as the areas that I am familiar with. This is a matter which I endeavoured to have rectified by way of an amendment to a Bill that was going through the House, but it was not found possible to do so. There seems to be a great amount of confusion both in the Department and amongst local authorities as to the power which a local authority has to build roads at the rere of houses in urban areas. We have this problem in many parts of the West of Ireland. Sometimes, the Department of Local Government suggests that a local authority has this power, and that by some backhand action it can construct a road at the rere of houses where there is no existing road. In other cases, the legal advisers to a local authority suggest that it is doubtful whether that power is vested in it. At all events, the position is this that in many small towns and villages in the West of Ireland the people have only one way to get into their houses. There is no exit at the rere of them. Everything that they require to bring into their backyards, turf and other things, has to come in through the hall-door. I know several cases in the West of Ireland where small traders in towns who keep a cow have to bring the cow in and out through the hall-door. The refuse at the rere of the premises has also to be taken out through the hall-door. From the public health point of view, that is not right, and it is something that should be remedied. I should like to hear definitely from the Minister whether local authorities have the compulsory powers which would enable them to construct roads at the rere of those premises and so remedy the evil that I have complained of. If they have the power, well and good, but if they have not, the Minister might deal with the matter.

The position with regard to demesne lands in many parts of the country is also holding up house building. We all know, of course, that special rights and privileges attach to demesne lands in country towns. The local authorities, if they are not actually prevented from acquiring such land, are certainly put to tremendous difficulty if they proceed to do so. That is a matter that is affecting, to a very large extent, the development of house building by local authorities, particularly in the town of Westport, and in some other places in the County Mayo. It is a matter of urgent public importance and one that the Minister should deal with. There are difficulties there in the way of local authorities that the Minister should do something to remove.

I would like the Minister to appreciate this point when dealing with local authorities, that what may suit one particular area certainly does not suit another. We had a big discussion as to whether the erection of houses by direct labour or by contract was the more suitable method. I listened to Deputy Davin wax very eloquent last night about the benefits to be derived by getting the job done by direct labour. Our experience in the West has been the opposite. We always got better results from the contract system. I am sure that the Minister will find that the same is true of other counties. Local conditions and local traditions come into this matter. If the council find that the contract system is best and is the easiest to operate, then that council should certainly be free to go ahead with the system that suits best in their particular area.

Did you ever try it in Mayo?

We tried both systems in Mayo years ago and I can assure the Deputy that our experience of the direct labour method there was not one that we would like to repeat. As a matter of fact, the repairing of practically all the roads in Mayo is carried out under the contract system. That has been found to be the most satisfactory system that operates there. We were asked to try the direct labour system, for the erection of houses, but before we could start that scheme we would have to get a considerable amount of machinery and we would have to appoint officials. We have, as a matter of fact, quite a number of people complaining already. There is a certain opinion abroad that we were not getting value for the money we were spending on direct labour schemes on the roads. So far as our experience went we were not prepared to try building houses under the direct labour system.

You appear to have a great prejudice against it.

It was not a question of prejudice, but of our experience, and how quickly we could get on with the job. We are convinced it would not be suitable there. A scheme that may be suitable in one area might not be suitable in another, and if it were insisted upon it might clog the housing drive instead of encouraging it.

There is one matter to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. In the South of Ireland a county surveyor expressed to his county council a view somewhat different from the official view in regard to this scheme and he got rapped on the knuckles by the Minister for expressing that view. If that type of thing is repeated the result will be that county surveyors will be very slow to give their real opinion when asked for them by their councils.

If a county surveyor finds himself in the position that he expresses a view honestly and sincerely to his council and he finds afterwards that he will be hauled over the coals by the Minister, who is the technical head of all the county surveyors, he will be slow in the future so to express an honest opinion and he will be very slow to advise his local authority in the open kind of way he used to. I do not think that will make for harmony in the working of these schemes as between the Minister and the local authorities.

So far as the payment of workers is concerned, there seems to be a great demand, by the Labour Party in particular, that county councils should pay their workers weekly. We found in our part of the country that not one solitary worker under the county council wanted to get paid weekly. There was no demand from the men to have the system of payment they are used to altered. The alteration of the system would entail additional expenditure by reason of the employment of extra staff by the council. It was suggested that because there was a demand in some areas for weekly payment, it should be applied universally. That is another instance where the Minister will find that conditions vary from county to county and area to area. What will suit in one area may not suit in another and there may be no great demand for it in that other area.

Another matter I would like the Minister to clarify is the assistance available, through urban councils in particular, for the purpose of reconstruction and building work, for people living in urban areas. I venture to suggest that the Minister will find some difficulties in this connection. I do not know if he is quite clear as to what the position is, because I have found town clerks who cannot tell the people what they are entitled to get and what can be done by the local authority to provide assistance in an urban area by way of loan or grant for reconstruction or building work. I suggest that the Minister should send a circular to town clerks throughout the country. They do not know the position in some of these places and the public are not able to ascertain what they are entitled to receive. One town clerk stated that this matter was so complicated and would cost so much that it would not be worth the while of his council to worry about it.

I suggest that this matter should be clarified and the Department might notify town clerks in a simplified way exactly what they can do to encourage people to go ahead with this type of work. In many urban areas there is a lot of ribbon building and the rates are at a high level. The demand for houses in urban areas at the moment is very great. I suggest that in order to house people, such as county council workers, engine drivers and others of that type, people who ordinarily would not come into the category of agricultural labourers, we should concentrate on erecting houses in the rural areas adjacent to urban areas. In other words, the house building might go ahead across the border where the urban area ends and we should concentrate on building model villages in these areas adjacent to the town. It would be near enough for these men to go to work and at the same time they would not come within the definition of agricultural workers.

The demand throughout the country for houses of the type I mention is great. I have in mind towns with 5,000 to 7,000 of a population. In the West the demand for houses of this type would run from 30 to 50 around each centre of population. In order to make a start, I suggest local authorities might be encouraged to build small model villages of 20 to 25 houses in the rural areas adjacent to the towns to cater for the type of worker I have mentioned. This would ease the situation in the towns, even where there are new houses built, because there is a lot of subletting, with families living in one room. That is becoming a feature of provincial towns. It is, of course, due to the grave housing shortage. I know of nice housing schemes that were completed during the last ten years and they are being turned into slums in every town of any size. These are not very large houses but, nevertheless, people are letting one or two rooms, letting families in there. We have this matter drawn to our attention in the courts week after week, and the local authorities have to eject these people and are endeavouring to provide accommodation for them elsewhere, but there are no houses, there for them. If this position is allowed to continue and if no special drive is made in order to deal with the situation serious consequences may arise in a very short time.

I was rather interested to hear some of the suggestions made, particularly those made by Deputy Rooney and Deputy Davin, in relation to the problem of keeping down the rates. We all know the rates have been steadily rising. We all know they made the biggest jump they have ever made during the last 12 months due to the slashing of the road grant. That resulted in an increase in rates of from 2/- in some cases to 5/- in other cases in every £. That meant the difference between £4,662,000 and £2,338,412. In other words, approximately only half the money formerly provided for roads throughout the State was provided last year. The very gentlemen who shed tears about the ratepayers last night and to-day and about the rise in rates are the very men who voted for that increase a short time ago. On the 23rd of February there was a motion tabled calling for the restoration of these grants to local authorities. Both Deputy Rooney and Deputy Davin went into the Division Lobby behind the Government and the then Minister to support the slashing of these grants. It is difficult to reconcile that position with their crying out now about the rising cost of rates because last year showed the biggest jump that the rates in this country have ever got for a considerable number of years.

That is wrong.

He does not mind whether it is wrong He will say it anyhow.

If the Deputy can give me proof that £2,338,000 is as good as £4,662,000 I am prepared to accept that.

Did the rates make up the difference? Of course, they did not.

The rates had to make up the difference or the work could not be done. It meant an increase in the rates in every single county and the Deputy knows that well. Not alone have we that imposition placed upon the rates, but the tendency is to increase the burdens cast upon local authorities through legislation year by year. A time will shortly come when the Minister will find that the ratepayers are no longer able to meet the demands made upon them. We are dealing with legislation in this House at the moment which will put a further increase on the rates.

In my opinion there are many things for which local authorities should not be made responsible. They should have no liabilities for such things as mental hospitals and so forth. Yet they have to cater for these in their annual budget year after year. If the tendency to increase the rates continues and if we go on year after year placing further financial responsibility on the local authorities, and ultimately on the ratepayers, the ratepayers will not be able to meet their burdens. The Minister must know that at the present time local authorities are crying out because of the rates they have to levy. It is not that they like increasing the rates; there are certain statutory obligations placed upon them and they are compelled to carry on. The time will come when they will be unable to collect the rates if the rates reach an impossibly high figure. Due to the slashing of the road grants the local authority are in the position this year that they had to increase the rates in order to make up that loss.

Would the financial system be wrong?

If the financial system is wrong, then the Deputy is supporting a Government which is in a position to put it right.

Would you support it?

Surely, the Deputy has the remedy in his own hands. As a matter of fact, the Deputy is also supporting a Party which promised to deal with the financial system but we have not heard anything about that from the Deputy or his Party since they gave their support to this Government.

You heard about a lot of other things. You will hear about that as well.

In addition to that burden on the local authorities, an attempt is now being made to put over on these authorities financial responsibility for elaborate fire-fighting services in every county. Fire-fighting services are very desirable in their own way but the position is that the local authorities will find that they will have to pay a fire chief and a couple of assistant fire-chiefs as well as meeting certain capital expenditure in connection with equipment. All this expenditure will occur year after year to be added on to the various other burdens local authorities have to meet. The tendency is to keep shoving these things on to the local authorities. I want to impress upon the Minister that the figure at which the rates stand at the moment is the highest figure people can afford. If the present tendency continues, the Minister will discover that the local authorities will not be able to carry out their functions or do the work which they are anxious to do throughout the country.

I would like to offer both my congratulations and my sympathy to the Minister on taking over this Department. I have listened attentively during the past two days to the various suggestions made by Deputies on both sides of the House. I am very interested in the housing problem. Some practical suggestions were made in connection with housing which, if carried out, might go some distance towards finding a solution to our present difficulty in providing a sufficient number of houses. I sympathise with the Minister because of the road he has to travel. Suggestions were made on both sides of the House about making the rough ways smooth and straightening crooked bridges; suggestions were also made about building roads through rivers and putting handles and lids on dustbins. I feel that those of us who have revolutionary suggestions to make to the Minister in this regard can confidently expect that he will listen to us as carefully as he listened to all the others.

Yesterday evening my colleague, Deputy McQuillan, aroused the enmity of the Opposition when he suggested that rate collectors should be appointed on ability and not because of their political affiliations. Several Opposition speakers resented the suggestion that any rate collector was ever appointed because he happened to be affiliated to Fianna Fáil. I do not care whether rate collectors are members of Fianna Fáil or any other Party. I agree with my colleague, however, that rate collectors, or any public officials, should be appointed only on ability. Deputy Killilea said this afternoon that he had listened to all the speeches. He referred to the suggestion made by Deputy McQuillan as to the appointment of rate collectors and he then made a suggestion himself which more or less "let the cat out of the bag." He said that if Deputy McQuillan were a member of a county council and there were two applicants for a vacant position as rate collector, one being a member of Clann na Poblachta and the other a member of Fianna Fáil. Deputy McQuillan would vote for the member of Clann na Poblachta and that if he did not do so. Deputy Fitzpatrick and other members of the Party at head office would have something to say to him. Are we to assume that that is the position as far as Fianna Fáil is concerned, that every member of the Fianna Fáil Party who is a member of a local authority has to vote for a member of that Party in the filling of public appointments and that, if he does not, he will be knocked on the knuckles by the big chiefs in Dublin?

There has been quite an amount of controversy during the debate as to the justification for the increase in rates, especially during the last couple of years. Yesterday some of the Deputies opposite agreed that ratepayers, especially in the cities, are amply compensated for the rates they pay by the services they get. Deputy Larkin felt that the rates were justified and that the citizens of Dublin got a good service for the amount they pay in rates. Deputy McGrath gave expression to the same feeling so far as Cork is concerned but he was somewhat amazed that in Dublin we have to keep handles and lids on our dust bins. I think that is very necessary because we have had complaints from a number of people that if dust bins, which are put out at night, are left uncovered the dust is blown around the roads by the wind.

I am not sufficiently acquainted with the procedure of county councils to express an opinion as to the responsibility for the increased rates in the various counties. I do not know how the rates are struck or who is the competent authority to strike them. The only comment I have to make on that is that I was surprised that during the discussion for the past couple of days nobody mentioned the fact that the rates are fixed according to the valuations and while the rates may be justifiable, I suggest to the Minister that he might inquire into the system by which the valuation of premises is arrived at. I think that in a number of cases the citizens are very harshly treated by the people responsible for fixing the valuations. I mentioned here last year that the local authority first comes along and directs the owner of property to have that property repaired. After the repairs have been carried out, they will send an inspector to inspect them and then a third official will come along and raise the valuation. The position is that you are compelled to spend money to put property into repair and the compensation for doing that is that your valuation is increased and consequently you have to pay more rates. I do not think that is justifiable. It is a very bad system and I would suggest to the Minister that it should be reviewed. So much for rates and rate collectors.

The matters in which I am principally interested are housing and the congestion of road traffic in the city. I shall deal with them as briefly as I can. The condition of road traffic in the city of Dublin is becoming more appalling day by day. It is 50 times worse to-day that it was six months ago. If it continues to increase at the present tempo, in two years' time it will be absolutely impossible between the hours of 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to move through the city. At the present time, if you go down Dawson Street at 5.30 p.m. if you are fortunate enough to be walking you may get to Nelson Pillar within a reasonable time, but if you are unfortunate enough to be travelling in a motor car you will get there about 20 minutes after the pedestrian.

Surely that is a matter for the Dublin Corporation?

I have heard that from a number of people like the Deputy but it seems a remarkable fact that Deputies who have been here for the last 25 years cannot yet make up their minds as to whether it is the corporation or the Department of Local Government that is responsible.

It is a matter of local administration.

Every second Deputy who talked about this matter seemed to be in doubt as to whether it was the responsibility of the local authority or whether we have power to deal with it, but I wish the Minister would inquire into the position. I say to the Minister, who I believe is the responsible person, that the condition of road traffic in Dublin has become appalling. If the corporation is falling asleep and takes no action, some other body will have to take action. After all, we are responsible for the lives of the citizens of the Irish Republic and, having that privilege, we should see to it that they are protected to the best of our ability. If any local council or corporation sits down on the job then it is a question that will have to be brought up here and, if legislation is necessary to remove any obstacle, the Minister should look for the necessary authority.

A Deputy

What is responsible?

I know thoroughly well what is responsible. I agree with Deputy Larkin, who last night gave a detailed account of how double-decker buses turn in the centre of the city at the peak period of traffic between 5 and 6 p.m. They hold up other traffic and create further congestion in the already over-crowded streets. He suggested that Córas Iompair Eireann are gradually taking control of the streets of our city. There is at least 50 per cent. truth in that, but the mere fact of pointing that out is not sufficient unless we suggest a remedy for it. Deputy Larkin also suggested that the railings in front of Trinity College might be removed. I think that has been suggested to the corporation on a number of occasions before but for some reason, possibly because some Deputies or officials wear the old school tie, they do not like removing these railings.

They want to preserve the land.

They want to preserve private property. They are preserving the railings in front of Trinity College and they are obstructing people who are entitled to move around the city with ordinary ease. Various suggestions have been made but the only thing done by the responsible authority in recent years was the erection of that extraordinary building in Beresford Place. Viewed from O'Connell Street, it looks like a very elaborate pigeon box. I do not know what they intend to do with it. There seems to be some doubt as to what they propose to do with it, but I would suggest to the Minister that all the red tape and all the deeds in regard to private property that is responsible for the obstruction of traffic in the centre of the city, should be lodged there and that some of the officials who are responsible for that red tape should be lodged there along with it. Meanwhile, it was suggested here yesterday that the delay in covering the Liffey was due to the extent people objected to covering the Liffey as spoiling one of the beauty spots of our famous city. There should be some other way as actually it is not the Liffey that is at fault. O'Connell Bridge is sufficiently wide if it were properly utilised. The fact that the trams have now gone will allow at least four lines of traffic on each side. There is a footpath in the centre by which some people are attracted and they walk on it but there should be no obstruction or other on it to give people the impression that they are not to go there instead of giving them the impression that they are to go there. When the trams are removed, as I understand they will be next month, the space left by them could be used for the extension of traffic and to relieve the big congestion. I suggest that there should be a one-way thoroughfare out of the city by D'Olier Street and into the city by Westmoreland Street. The greatest obstacle of all is Trinity College. The suggestion has been made, whether here or in Dublin Corporation I do not know, that in order to relieve that ever-growing burden of traffic a tunnel should be built under O'Connell Street. That is a very elaborate suggestion and is, I believe, completely unnecessary if the question is properly tackled. What I suggest to the Minister is that he should give immediate consideration to the proposition of taking over the lawn of Trinity College. If he takes over the lawn of Trinity College he can have two thoroughfares from Kildare Street and from Dawson Street which will relieve all that congestion around College Green. Between those two thoroughfares he can build a car park that will take a couple of thousand cars and will be convenient to the centre of the city. There again comes the question of private property. That is all right and Trinity College is a very historic place and I do not think it should be removed, but I have often thought as I walked around Trinity College and looked at it that it was more like a mental home or a jail with its big walls and iron bars. It is not any great beauty to the city but the city is obstructed and I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should in his reply to this debate or in the near future if he cannot do it to-night, tell this House why this obstruction is allowed to remain. There is talk from time to time in Dublin Corporation and by Deputies who come in here about traffic congestion and one known what the cause of the congestion is, but why does not somebody say if there is some definite law or legal clause that the Government of the Irish Republic cannot take over the lawn of Trinity College? Even if the students have to go up to the Phoenix Park to play cricket good Irishmen and better Irishmen than they go up to the Phoenix Park to hurl.

Trinity College is outside the Republic.

That is what I want to know. Is Trinity College exempt by virtue of the fact that the British Army still occupies six of our counties and that we are timid of offending them? If that is the position, I think Irish citizens would not approve and I want the Minister to give it immediate and careful consideration.

The question of housing has been referred to here during the past two days and while some of the suggestions and statements that were made were definitely very encouraging, some of them were absolutely amazing. Last night Deputy Larkin spoke and I accept that with his connection with the Labour Party and the trade union movement he knew exactly what he was talking about in the statement he was making and was not just chancing his arm for political propaganda. In any case, I do not see what propaganda he could get out of it if the statement is incorrect. He stated that there was more skilled labour in Dublin to-day than we ever had before; not more than we had last year, not more than we had during the war or pre-war, but he stated definitely that we had more skilled labour in Dublin to-day than we ever had before. He proceeded to ask why, if we have the skilled labour, if we have the money and if we have the material, we have not got the houses that are needed. Everyone who spoke was more or less on the same lines. There must be some hold-up in the housing and the position must be much the same as that of Trinity College. We have Trinity College with its grounds in the centre of the city, we have money, we have materials and we have more skilled labour than we ever had before. I do not mind telling you that I have made every effort to encourage the building of houses on a more extensive scale. Still Deputy Larkin made that statement and I believe that he knows what he is talking about. I cannot understand why, if that is the position, that the condition of housing in Dublin at the present time is so appalling. He was followed by Deputy Brennan who, while admitting that there is a number of people in the city who want houses to-day, said that you have nothing to worry about. Figures were given by one member of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Traynor, who said that there are 49,000 people in the City of Dublin who want houses and yet Deputy Brennan says that we have nothing to worry about. I certainly symypathise with the Minister if there are 49,000 people in the City of Dublin who are looking for houses and he has nothing to worry about. If that is the attitude of the Opposition and if they are prepared to let the Minister away with it, while we are accused on many occasions of being as mute as mice on these benches I am afraid that as far as housing is concerned and the rights of the people to a decent way of life and an opportunity to bring up their children in comfort we do not intend to be as mute as mice. Last year the first time I attempted to speak in this House I suggested, in reply to a suggestion by the Minister's predecessor, Mr. Murphy, that some unorthodox method would have to be found, that housing should be declared a national emergency. Very little notice was taken of it at that time especially by the representatives of the people in here, but outside the people who wanted houses in the City of Dublin and throughout the country took up the idea. If they had £150 to lay down they felt they should be able to go ahead and build a house and they formed themselves into a national organisation which was non-political and had the support of all political Parties to back that idea and call upon the Government to declare housing a national emergency.

I am exceedingly sorry that the late Minister was not left longer with us. We had convinced him that the only way the question of housing could be tackled was by a central body working from here that would take control of all building materials and be responsible for directing the man-power of the people of this country on to this ever-pressing public demand. That suggestion has been backed up here during the debate by a number of Deputies, by Deputy Dunne to a certain extent and by Deputy Larkin, who felt that the time might not have arrived yet when housing should be declared a national emergency. I was very glad to hear Deputy Traynor claiming to-day that the time had arrived. It is a hopeful sign when representatives from different Parties come along here and feel that some definite, organised drive will have to be made to relieve the housing problem. It is bad in the city, but it is equally bad in many of the towns throughout the country.

I know there is increasing action and activity on this matter over the past 12 months. Correspondence from various towns shows that local authorities are supporting this idea and they seem to be worse off in a lot of the rural districts than they are in Dublin. You read in newspapers of 25 years ago where people were living in mud-wall cabins. I had a letter from County Clare a fortnight ago, about a man who was living in an old cowshed that was condemned by local authorities. He applied for a house and was refused because he was on the dole and would not be in a position to pay for it. I do not know what the attitude of the local authorities throughout the country is, or what their Christian charity or outlook is, when the qualification for a man with a large family, living in a condemned shed, is that he has got to have a job and be in a position to pay a reasonable fee for a house before he can get it. In this Christian State of ours, we should see that no family will be condemned to live in appalling conditions like that where there is a house available, no matter who has to pay for it or how it has to be paid for.

Incidentally, I think the time has arrived when the Minister could take up that question of emergency housing and, as his predecessor promised, discuss it with An Taoiseach and the Government, with a view to having housing declared a national emergency. The suggestion is that an emergency be declared. In order to amplify that, I suggest the floating of a loan to finance the scheme. Whether that is necessary or not is entirely a matter for the Minister and the Minister for Finance. I heard it repeated from all sections of the House that there is sufficient money to build all the houses necessary, but I wonder whether that is 100 per cent. correct.

At a price.

I suppose, at any price.

The price makes all the difference in the world.

I agree with that, but the price of houses generally has come down. That is something the Government could make political propaganda out of, if they wished to do so — the fact that house property has fallen in price by over one-third since they took office.

Private property.

If the price of private property has fallen, it is only natural to believe that the price of local authority houses, whether built by the Dublin Corporation or the local authority in the country, would fall also. The suggestion is that we should float a housing loan. I do not know whether I am correct in suggesting that the Dublin Corporation — surely there are some members of the Dublin Corporation left still in the House, as they are so interested in housing, and they can contradict me if I am wrong— adopted this suggestion last year to float a loan for £3,500,000. The information I have is that the loan was over subscribed inside ten minutes.

At what price?

At 3 per cent. If the Deputy has any money to invest, it will be dead safe, because the people who got it, the Dublin Corporation, can be as hard as the Ennis Rural District Council and they only give the houses to people who are in a position to pay for them. The investment will be dead safe at 3 per cent. If the Dublin Corporation can get their housing loan oversubscribed inside ten minutes, surely if the Government decide this housing question is to be tackled with all the power and energy they command and they float a loan for housing, it could be subscribed just as quickly. Surely that is so, unless the banks have something to do with it, that they might not recommend it to their customers who have money to invest. They may see some objection to it and I believe that they have a great grip on the money system here. We were accused by the last speaker of promising to control the financial system if we got into power. He did not suggest that all Parties forming the inter-Party Government decided that. The reference by a lot of people in opposition, when they want to throw stones, is to Clann na Poblachta. That was our policy, that still is our policy, and I believe that, if we do get power or we have sufficient influence at any particular time, and we can convince our partners in the Government that the proper thing to do is to break with sterling, we will use all the influence and power we have to see that that is done. If the bankers controlling the banks——

The Minister for Local Government cannot do that.

Yet we were accused of not attempting to do it.

The Deputy will have to bear a lot of accusations.

I merely say we are not losing sight of it, but whether Deputy Keyes or myself will be Minister for Local Government at the time is something more than I can say. I also suggest — and this is a most important thing, something that was mentioned during the debate — that if the Minister is willing to adopt a revolutionary suggestion, he should take priority of all housing materials. There have been accusations from one side that the building suppliers are making huge profits, while others say they are making no profits at all. It has been accepted that, if the material needed for houses throughout the country were bought by a central purchasing authority, it would reduce the price of housing by one-third. If we bought £100,000 worth of material and saved 33? per cent., it would be very good business. I believe it is the absolute foundation on which the housing problem will be solved, that is, that the Government take priority of all housing material. That system has been introduced, I understand, in Sweden and gave very satisfactory results.

The position is that the delay in getting the housing programme through in the country and in the city is caused by plans having to be submitted by one set of engineers to another, by one set of architects to another and by the local authorities to the central authority. They are altered, changed and rechanged, and eventually, whether they are approved in the original or the altered form, a couple of years often elapses before anything can be done. I have had some experience in this matter. I got a firm of contractors to submit to the Dublin County Council a plan for a prefabricated bungalow which was based on a suggestion which I made here last year. The plans were submitted to the county council, who wrote back and asked for a second set of plans and specifications. These were duly lodged and eventually we were told, off the record, that these were not to be accepted.

A deputation saw the Minister and nothing wrong was found with the plans. The project was sent on to the Custom House and more officials had a look at the plans. They suggested that it might be all right if certain alterations were made. These alterations were made and they were sent back to the Dublin County Council and in the end they were turned down on the ground that a similar type of prefabricated house somewhere in England had not been approved by the local authority there. What the decision of a local authority in England had to do with a decision of the Dublin County Council is something which I never will understand. The position was that the Dublin County Council has a bylaw requiring a wall to be at least nine inches and in this prefabricated house the wall was no more than three or four inches. That was the actual decision, but it was not stated in black and white. Instead, they gave this secondary excuse that, because a similar type of bungalow had been erected somewhere in England and had not been approved by the local authority, they could not approve of it.

I understand that the principal objection to prefabrication in Dublin comes from the labour movement. There has not been any proof of that, either here or elsewhere, but there are plenty of suggestions and accusations made outside. During all this debate, people who knew the position, people in both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael had an opportunity of saying that the labour movement in Dublin will not allow prefabricated houses to go up in order to relieve distress amongst the working class but they did not say it. It is to be heard outside, however. The suggestion is that prefabricated houses are got together in England and Sweden by child labour and non-union labour, and, at one period, by prisoners of war. If that is so, the labour movement might be justified in objecting, but firms here were prepared to prefabricate the parts, importing the material, and there should be no objection to that. If prefabrication is the remedy for the awful position we are in in the matter of housing, I say to the Minister that if he cannot get some private firm to start a factory to manufacture the parts here, it is the duty of the Government to start such a factory to turn out the material necessary for the erection of these houses. Against that, there has been the suggestion that, as we have cement factories in this country, all houses should be built of concrete.

I suggest that in order to relieve the distress of at least 23,000 families registered for houses in Dublin a basic house should be erected. By that, I mean that you build the first storey, consisting of a living room, two bedrooms, with bathroom and lavatory accommodation, and put the people in to live in it. They will be a lot better off than large families living in a basement room and will be delighted to get this accommodation. The people who want the houses have approved of this idea. When the distress has been relieved generally, you come back and build on the second storey. The tenant has not got to be removed. When I suggested that previously, I was asked where I proposed to put the tenants— not that these people worried about where I proposed to put them, but that they wanted to be critical and not helpful. It is not sufficient for Deputies speaking in this House and people talking down in O'Connell Street to say that the Minister does not do this and the corporation does not do that, unless they have some practical suggestion to put forward, and I would not get up here now were it not that I feel that, in this suggestion of a basic house, there is a remedy for our situation. We can build the first storey, putting on a temporary roof, and come back later, when the general distress has been relieved, and build on the second storey. The only disadvantage or discomfort which the tenants will experience is that, while the stairway is being erected—it could be prefabricated and put in in a day or two —they will be without the use of the bath. I believe that is the remedy and I recommend it to the Minister. I sincerely hope that he will bring it to the notice of the Government as soon as possible.

I have dealt in a general way with what appears to me to be the most pressing problem confronting the people, housing. I have given the Minister my suggestions and I appeal to him to give them careful consideration. I can assure the Minister that, in making these suggestions this year, I am not merely standing up for the purpose of securing cheap publicity or giving expression to a brainwave of which nobody approves. These proposals of the basic house, the floating of a housing loan and the declaration of housing as a national emergency have the approval of 16,000 people in the city of Dublin alone, who have signed on as members of the E.H.A., in support of them. The way to put these suggestions into practical operation is by setting up a national housing council or by appointing a director of housing. That was mentioned yesterday and I think it was Deputy Larkin who suggested that the Housing Advisory Council appointed by the late Minister had not come up to expectations. It is seemingly an advisory council which considers various ways and means and reports to the Minister, and Deputy Larkin suggested that there should be a small executive body, possibly selected from the House, of people prepared voluntarily to give their whole time to helping the Minister to control and direct the housing drive.

We suggest it would be much better to set up a national housing council, with executive authority, or, better still, to appoint a director of housing with complete control and absolute authority to buy all the material necessary for the employment of all the men we could possibly employ. We are told about the number of unemployed and it is suggested that the Government is responsible for sending skilled and other workers away. There is a method of preventing that by giving employment to the people here and encouraging the others to come back. If there were a planned scheme of ten or 15 years' housing and all the unemployed available in the cities and towns were set to work immediately to clear sites and prepare the ground for the building of houses, unemployment would not be the serious problem we are told it is; but that scheme of housing must be properly controlled and directed. Directed, I suggest, from the central authority under the supervision of the Minister or the Minister and the Government might consider the appointment of a special Minister to deal with this matter.

The acquisition of land for building seems to be an obstacle. Dublin Corporation have suggested from time to time that when they get their engineers and architects to select a site that they consider suitable for building, the acquisition proceedings take between two or three years. That is too long. The passage of Bills through the Dáil normally takes a long time — it may take three or four weeks to get all stages — but I know, of course, that Bills of a very drastic nature went through the Dáil in two or three hours. The housing drive is a war on poverty, want and disease and that war must be waged in a very serious manner. During the emergency when the State wanted to house the Army an officer was instructed to walk into the premises of builders' suppliers and say: "I want an inventory of all the materials you have. Do not sell any more of it." The construction corp was formed and they built huts overnight for the Army. Although we have had that experience and knowledge of what can be done, we have been groping in the dark for the past 12 or 18 months. It is admitted that there has been a certain speeding up in houses. The Dublin Corporation advertised in November or December of last year for tenders for prefabricated and other types of houses. It took them many months to consider the tenders and the people who submitted the tenders do not yet know whether their tenders are being entertained or have found their way into the waste-paper basket.

There definitely is something wrong, Mr. Minister. Your predecessor told us last year that he was going to cut the red tape. I have great confidence in your ability and energy. I believe you will follow in his footsteps, and I sincerely hope you will not get entangled in the red tape. If you do, it will be very awkward for you. You have heard all the guarantees that you got here from the Opposition and from your supporters in the House that any legislation you want to deal with this ever-pressing problem, no matter how drastic that legislation may be, will be passed without difficulty.

I did not want to interrupt the Deputy. The Deputy should address the Chair. I know the Deputy is new to the House.

There are a few suggestions that I should like to make to the Minister on this Estimate. Being a member of a local body I am interested in the present housing drive that is being made by local authorities, and I would ask the Minister to make it a guiding principle for local authorities that in building labourers' cottages they will not make it a rule to take sites from anybody who has a holding of ten or 15 acres simply because the holding is convenient to a town. It would be an extremely great hardship on small farmers if they were obliged to give sites for labourers' cottages while there are many farmers quite near them who have 40 to 50 acres. A case has been brought to my notice where it was contemplated building a cottage on a holding of only seven acres. That would represent an extreme hardship on the farmer concerned. The farmer and his wife and two sons are trying to eke out an existence on these seven acres and the building of a labourer's cottage on that farm would certainly reduce their financial circumstances to a very extreme state. I would ask the Minister to make it a guiding rule for local authorities that they should not under any circumstances obtain sites from small-holders.

Many Deputies have referred to the great need for houses in cities. The need is just as great in country towns. If there were more houses available, there would be less emigration. Many young boys and girls would settle down. Many workers in towns and villages have no accommodation when they get married. In the town of Carrickmacross a number of married factory workers had to take up their abode in one room. Although housing is contemplated by the local authorities, the process is very slow and the delaying of plans in Government Departments has slowed up the scheme. All these matters tend to discourage the young people. They will not wait until houses are built and many more will leave the country. The provision of houses would be a far greater benefit to the people than the building of hospitals and sanatoria.

I have said before that if people have comfortable homes they certainly will not emigrate. The amenities in the towns and cities attract them. We will not get farmers' sons and daughters to start married life under the same hard conditions as their fathers and mothers had to endure and nobody would blame them for that. They will not bear the drudgery represented by having no water near their homes and having to carry water from wells and all the other drudgery that goes with farm life. Until these conditions are improved, there will be a flight from the land. Young boys and girls are accustomed to visit towns and cities where they see the conditions that people live under and they certainly will not go back to the old drudgery. It is a hardship.

Everybody will give the Minister the utmost help in his drive for housing and we hope that he will be successful in his efforts. We know that he has the interests of the people of Ireland at heart. Anything that can be done to speed the housing drive will be welcomed by every section, no matter to what political Party they belong. People say that the wanderlust is on the young people. If they had comfortable homes they would be just as anxious as anybody else to stay at home. They have the same love for their country as any people ever had. It is a pity to see so many of our fine young men leaving the country. I am afraid many of them will never return until better conditions are made available to them.

I again appeal to the Minister to ensure that no hardship will be inflicted on the small farmers in this country by the building of labourers' cottages on their lands.

I join with the other Deputies who have expressed goodwill towards the Minister and the job he has undertaken of providing houses. Perhaps it is a matter for consideration that out of the Coalition Parties a member of the Labour Party has been selected to guide the housing drive. It is not so very many years ago since we had a banking commission. The part of its report that dealt with housing certainly was not very encouraging. At that time the reactionary character of that report in various directions was generally interpreted in the country as reflecting the worst elements of Fine Gael conservatism. I have no doubt, in view of our experiences in various directions in the last 12 months, that if anybody other than a member of the Labour Party had been put in charge of this Department the many complaints which people are making about difficulties in getting on with housing would be put down very possibly to the wrong causes. We know that the banks, for instance, have restricted credit. Many of the banks would give you to understand that this has been done on advice.

I know that the Minister is not hampered — I do not think he is and, if he is, I do not think he ought to be — by the question of the contraction of credit in relation to the type of housing for which he is directly responsible. However, the ordinary citizen is, and, in view of these things, it would be far better if Deputies such as Deputy Rooney had not made any charges against Fianna Fáil with regard to houses. If I may convert an old saying to a practical application in this particular instance, he drew down about his ears tens of thousands of Fianna Fáil new houses and he was told that prior to the advent to office of Fianna Fáil no labourers' cottages were built in the country, and that is a fact. Labourers' cottages, as the Minister knows, form a very important part of the housing of the people.

I had not intended to say a lot about houses but there are one or two aspects of the housing problem which I should like to bring to the Minister's notice. Deputy Moran referred to the possibility of going into the county health district outside an urban area and providing houses under the labourers' cottages schemes for urban dwellers. He seems to think that that could not be done — that the restrictions on the letting of these houses would prevent people from urban areas from getting them. Whether the power is there or not, I know that it has been done because it was done in Galway. So successfully was it done in Galway that many of us down there were advising those who were directly responsible for housing in the area to go ahead with more of it. I should like to put to the Minister a problem that is somewhat the reverse of that. I have in mind towns that are not urbanised, towns that have not even town commissioners. Anybody who drives through these towns and villages can see from the most casual observation that there are in them a great many houses with roofs —houses that are not derelict. I know that many of these houses are not fit for human habitation but, in my opinion, they are deliberately kept in that condition because if tenants are let into them the public health authority will come down on the owners and make them improve and repair the houses and put conveniences in them on which they do not want to spend money.

I have had a request recently from some applicants who want the ordinary type of labourer's cottage with a piece of ground, but they told me that they are not so keen at all on the piece of ground which the public authority is anxious to confer upon them. Where there are houses in a town which are not utilised for any purpose — houses which are not let to any tenant and which are not used even for storage— they ought to be utilised for the same purpose as the new cottages which are now being put up. That is a matter which the Minister ought to consider. He will find that in all the non-urbanised towns in the country — we have had in mind towns with town commissioners and so forth, but the number of other towns is, I think, far greater — he could possibly solve the problem more quickly by compelling the owners to put these non-occupied houses to some use or by getting the public authority to acquire them and have them reconstructed or repaired, or do with them whatever is necessary to make them habitable.

It is possible that a great many of the applicants for houses are not interested in land. Many of them are artisans, tradesmen and so forth, who are just interested in their weekly earnings and who may not have an agricultural or a horticultural bent. These people may not want to go outside the town at all. If a man is a handyman living in a town it may be better for him to be on the spot because he might miss a great deal of employment if he were living a mile out. A great many of the type of houses I have been speaking of have been bought by people with more money than they know what to do with, and very often these houses have been bought for the purpose of keeping out competition. I think that that reservoir of houses—I am talking now about houses that have roofs on them and that are not derelict — is larger than possibly either the Minister or myself thinks it is.

I think the Minister ought to give a definite direction to the local authorities, or at least offer them advice as to the grouping of labourers' cottages when they are built outside a town. I do not think it is a desirable thing to put these houses in a row out in the country. It has been done in a few places in County Galway. There is an unsightly row of houses in Turloughmore — a district where there is plenty of land. I do not agree that it is desirable to build these houses in a row, particularly in view of the fact that these places are not served by public utilities such as water or sewerage. If the houses are to be built in places where these public utilities could be laid on I would say that there is a good case for building them in terraces but when there are not these conveniences I do not see why the difference of cost between putting them up singly or at most in pairs should be an objection to putting them up in that way.

What about the Electricity Supply Board?

If the Electricity Supply Board, through rural electrification, will be able to serve all the various farmhouses — each on its own farm — I do not think there could be any great difficulty in serving cottages in ones or twos.

There is another matter that I did not hear anybody speak of until Deputy Moran referred to one aspect of it. It is the matter which I intended to stress most and that is the absence of back entrances to houses. It was borne in very forcibly on everybody who had to watch the handling of turf during the emergency. It is a great inconvenience to anybody to have to handle a lorry load of turf or even a cart load and bring it in through a hall door. It is one of the things which made people object to the use of turf, because they had to get turf in very large quantities, whereas they could get coal by the bag. Deputy Moran referred to cases in which houses have not got this convenience. I want to put to the Minister an aspect of the problem which could be easily remedied.

I do not know whether there is anything in the Estimates about town planning. In any event, the Minister is the appropriate Minister in the matter of town planning. I cannot see how any town planner could pass a plan for houses which had not a provision for a back entrance. Whether the local authority is willing to take over immediately the making of a road or the repair of an existing road, I certainly think that a town planner ought to see, like the Land Commission in the laying out of holdings where they provide a passage for all the tenants into a commonage, that a roadway of some sort is left at the back so that if the people have again to use turf they will at least have a means of throwing it across the wall at the back rather than hauling it in baskets and baths through the hall-door. If they have gardens and want to get in manure, it is desirable also that they should have a back entrance. That is a matter which the Minister might bring to the notice of the town planning section of his Department. I do not think that it ought to cause any great difficulty.

As to labourers' cottages, I should have referred to the type of fireplace that should be used in certain areas. I do not think that a labourer's cottage built convenient to a bog area should be fitted with the same sort of grate that is put into a house where the fuel used is coal. I have seen labourers' cottages built convenient to bogs and I do not think the grates would hold two sods of turf. That is a great fault in these cottages. I think that the people in a great many of these cottages had to take grates out and put the fire down on the hearth.

Whatever difficulties the Minister may encounter in regard to housing — I think he indicated what some of them are, as also did some Deputies — he would be very badly advised to look for an alibi in the suggestion made by Deputy Rooney that the difficulty arises fronr the sabotaging attitude of councils dominated by Fianna Fáil.

I think the Minister knows that no Party advantage is being taken by Fianna Fáil in regard to this matter of housing in any county. In any event, the thing would be so patent that they could not get away with it. If county councillors on any council on which they had a majority were to adopt that attitude, I do not think that the councillors responsible for it would have the slightest chance of being re-elected. Everybody is interested in housing and councillors would feel themselves obliged to back to the full every effort being made by the public authority to provide houses. I think it is a very great disservice to this question of housing, certainly it is not co-operating with the Minister, for a Deputy, and particularly a Deputy sitting behind the Minister, to make a suggestion of that kind. I do not think the Minister has come across any cases of the sort suggested by Deputy Rooney. If Deputy Rooney or any other Deputy cannot give any reasonable explanation for their indifference in this matter before the advent of Fianna Fáil, I do not think they will be able to cover it up by suggesting that Fianna Fáil did nothing. After all the figures with regard to the houses built during the Fianna Fáil period are there and the houses are there dotted all over the country.

Did you knock down a house when you built another one?

I do not know how they managed in Wexford, but we had not to do that in Galway. If we knocked down a bad house in Galway, we would put up two in place of it. I also want to bring to the attention of the Minister a matter of very great importance to a very large area in the Gaeltacht of Connemara. From time to time I have put down questions about the suspension of a bus service that was first operated in 1939 from Galway to Lettermullen, Lettermore and other districts in South Connemara which are generally known as the islands. They are all connected by causeways in that area and there are many thousands of people living there. Because of the condition of some of the bridges the bus service was suspended. Recently I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce to use his good offices with Córas Iompair Éireann to get them to permit the buses to travel over those bridges light.

What has the Minister for Local Government to do with it?

If you will bear with me for a minute, I shall explain. I failed in my attempt with the Minister for Industry and Commerce who said that the county council stated that the weight of the empty buses was well over the permitted weight, although I know and the people there know that heavily laden lorries which are much heavier than an empty bus go across these bridges. The excuse given by the county council for not having these bridges repaired is I think well-founded and the Minister has got to take this on the chin — that in the cutthing down of the road grants Galway suffered to the extent of £200,000. Deputy Davern's county probably beat us, because he said they were cut down by £220,000 although I thought we were the worst sufferers. That is the most recent excuse I have got why the repairs of these bridges and causeways cannot be completed.

In Connemara we were told when the turf work was stopped that people who lost employment would be all absorbed in road work. I know that there was a very large post-war scheme prepared for the reconstruction of roads and that the implementation of it had begun in 1947, I think, by an increase in the financial assistance up to 90 per cent. of the cost. I have heard some Deputies state that the cutting of the road grant has not meant any difference in the matter of employment. We have in County Galway, at any event, visual proof that it has meant unemployment. We now see the jobs that were there left half finished. A job on the Lettermullen road is one which I want particularly to stress because thousands of people there are clamouring every other week to have this job finished. Recently a protest meeting was held and attended by every section of the community. It is too bad if these people are left in the lurch. The bus only goes as far as the first defective bridge and in some instances they have to walk 12 miles there to catch the bus and 12 miles back again on their return.

I would ask the Minister to see that, in so far as he has any function in the matter, jobs on roads on which the transport services depend will get a first priority over any other sort of work, no matter what part of the country it is in or how important that work may be. If people are denied their transport services because of the lack of money, I think that that ought to be taken up by the Minister. By whatever method a completion of work is brought about, he ought to see that it is done in the quickest possible manner. We have been put off month after month in our requests to have this job finished. I want to say to the Minister that, much as I agree with the words of goodwill we have heard here tonight with regard to his efforts for housing, he is going to hear from me on this question even if he keeps on telling me that he has no function in regard to it.

I want to refer to the question of water supplies. I suggest that it should be given priority over housing in respect of my own constituency because I have a great many people there who put water supplies before housing. Unfortunately, they have very good reason to do so. There are a great many plague spots in my constituency. Fevers have broken out because of the poor water supply and if these people clamour for water for their houses they are talking from the depths of a very bitter experience. I do not know exactly on what basis the priority of water schemes is drawn up but I do know that a great many proposals for water supplies in parts of County Galway that are not subject to periodic fever epidemics, are higher on the list than similar proposals in respect of places that have had fever epidemics. This question of water supply, even though it is so closely associated with health, is a function, I understand, for the Minister for Local Government. The cost of checking an outbreak of typhoid, for instance, might be more costly than the provision of a water supply.

I know of one place very convenient to Galway City, about three or four miles to the west of it, where at this time of the year the only supply the people have is what they get from stagnant pools in a stream. That state of affairs ought not to be allowed to continue. I do not know the reason for the delay in those schemes. I may be told that it is the responsibility of the local authority but, in any event, I am entitled to draw it to the attention of the person who is, so to speak, the national pivot of local government. It is the only opportunity I have of asking him to use his good offices to do whatever he can to see that the local authorities get on with the provision of these water schemes. I am not exaggerating, and I think it is worth repeating, when I say that there are people in my own constituency who put water before houses and certainly before rural electrification.

I heard one or two Deputies refer to the appointment of rate collectors in counties where there is a Fianna Fáil majority on the county council. I should be interested to hear the opinion of a Deputy from a constituency where there is a Fianna Fáil minority on the county council. I would suggest to those Deputies that when the amendment to the County Management Act is brought forward they will have an opportinity of bringing up this question of rate collectors. It may possibly become the function of the county manager or the Deputies interested might get the question of the appointment of rate collectors turned over to the Appointments Commission. Personally I do not mind. I would rather see the burden taken off the shoulders of the unfortunate county councils, particularly where Fianna Fáil is in the majority. I can assure the Deputies who seem to conjure up all sorts of pan-handling and caucus meetings and so forth, that these Fianna Fáil county councillors get far more trouble from this question than they like. I would like to ask a question of those who want things taken out of the hands of the county councillors. I am sure they know that a great many categories of local officials cannot be members of this House. I know we have some who are.

Will the Deputies who object to the appointment of rate collectors by the county councillors also object to their being members of this House? As I understand, the job of rate collector is not a whole-time one. He is a man with whom the county council makes a contract to collect a certain amount of money. He has to produce that money, whether he collects it or not, by a certain date. I believe in recent times there have been appointments in different places and some of these rate collectors have become pensionable and have had to retire at 65. Others who are not pensionable are still carrying on. I would be satisfied to see this job made an official one and turned over by the Government to this commission seeing that the objecting Deputies here wanted that done.

Do you agree with the present system?

Will the Deputy explain? I do not quite understand the question. I listened to his remarks on this matter and I will give him plenty of time to explain what he means.

The Chair will not.

We know what happened in Galway.

And we know what happened in Cork.

The appointment of rate collectors was, by a deliberate Act of the Oireachtas, put in the hands of the local authorities. So far as I can remember, when the County Management Act was going through I did not hear anybody object to the appointment of rate collectors being left in the hands of the local councils. Surely, the Deputies who are now objecting know that, where the council has the giving of a job or the doing of anything else, it has to do it by vote. But simply because it is carried out according to the provisions laid down in the Act, an Act agreed to, apparently, as far as I can remember by a unanimous Dáil; because it is carried out in that way, and because the results in certain counties are not acceptable, we hear objections raised with reference to these counties only.

Examples were given of counties in which Fianna Fáil has a majority. The Fianna Fáil majority, to my knowledge, does not want this responsibility of appointing rate collectors. It is sick and tired of it. If the Deputies have such a very high standard in the making of these appointments, and if they want the Minister to interfere, by way of withholding sanction, I can give them an example of something that happened in Galway before Fianna Fáil came into power. There was a certain appointment being made, and the county council appointed a man——

Is that relevant to this Vote?

Well, I do not know, but it may be.

It may be, but it is a long time ago. That was before 1932 and we are now in 1949.

Perhaps I may be permitted to say that sanction in the case of the man appointed by the county council was withheld for the very strange reason that he did not live sufficiently near to a certain graveyard. It certainly was the graveyard of the hopes of the unfortunate man appointed by the county council because he did not get the job. I do wish to say, again, to the Minister very sincerely, that any help that we can give him in the matter of housing he is sure to get it.

On the matter of labourers' cottages I would like if he would examine the possibility of, in certain parts of the country in any event, seeing how far he could get labourers' cottages erected by providing the applicants with sites and materials and possibly some skilled assistance. What I am thinking of is if he could get a group of people to build the cottages just as people built houses under the Gaeltach scheme. It might be possible to get a great number of labourers' cottages built if the Minister were to provide the sites and the materials and were, perhaps, to give a little bit of advice through the local engineers. I imagine that if he could get cottages built in that way he would find that the capital cost would be greatly reduced.

I have no doubt that the workmanship of those engaged on the building would be of the very best. If what I suggest were done it would ease the pressure. It would be a form of direct labour. I am not one of those who would condemn direct labour, or any other method by which houses could be produced. I take it that when we talk of direct labour the question of prefabricated houses must be included in it. On that, I think it is fortunate that a member of the Labour Party is the Minister because we know that there are a great many objectors in the trade unions to the letting in of these prefabricated houses. I referred to this last year, and I think my prognostication has been fulfilled.

Now, with regard to the question of rents, I would like to see some body of people building houses which would be in a position to eliminate the element of interest. We have heard a great deal about interest charges doubling the rents of houses. I do not know of any body in the country that would be better fitted to do what I suggest than the trade unions themselves. Something on the lines that I suggest was done in Vienna after the first war. A great many houses were built under the system that was initiated there. No interest charges had to be paid. All that had to be repaid was the capital cost of the houses. As I say, I do not know of any body that would be better fitted to undertake such an experiment than some of the trade unions. I think they could do it. Take, for example, the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. Why would it not build houses for its own members? All classes of tradesmen are members of the union; the union has plenty of money, and certainly it would be able to get from amongst its own membership first-class tenants for the houses when built.

The rules of the union would not permit that.

The Minister has no control over the Transport Union.

Well, he has a very definite function in the matter of housing. Suggestions were made here all day yesterday and to-day by Deputies to the effect that they would not refuse the Minister any power that he would deem necessary to enable him to get on with this job. If this is one of the powers that would be necessary, then I take it there would not be any objection from the Deputies. I think that if somebody would get down to it and give us an example of the production of houses without any element of interest being added to the cost it would be doing more for the solution of the housing problem in the country and in the bringing down of costs than any other type of action that I can visualise.

There are a few matters that I want to refer to. I had a question down to the Minister yesterday about the rents that are being charged for newly built houses in provincial towns. I was thinking of raising the matter on the Adjournment because, to my mind, the answer I received was unsatisfactory. I think there was an error in the statement to the effect that the interest charge is only 2½ per cent. To my knowledge it is 3¼ per cent. I asked the Minister whether he was aware that houses that are being built by local authorities for working class people are being let at high rents. I quoted the case of eight houses which had been built in Enniscorthy and the rents of which have been provisionally fixed at 10/6 plus rates. I understand that in Wexford the rents have been fixed at 12/6 plus rates. These are rents which are beyond the reach of any worker, no matter what his wages may be. To my mind the period of repayment of the loans should be extended so as to enable lower rents to be fixed, and that the subsidy should be increased from £350 to £650. By doing that it would be possible to let local authority houses at a lower rent.

My proposition is that the loan should be extended to 99 years. During the 16 years Fianna Fáil were in office the loan was for 35 years. This Government increased the term to 50 years. If it were extended for another 50 years that would bring it to 99 years. By that time new generations would have arisen. Is it the idea that the local authorities want to get rich quick? Labourers' cottages were built by an alien Government and let at 9d. and 1/- per week. They are not paid off yet but it is the sons and daughters of the original lessees who are paying the rents to-day. I think the only solution is to extend the loans.

Nowadays one listens to the Opposition telling us what should be done. When they had a majority in the Government why did they not do all the things the say should be done now? We all know what they did for the road workers. The last Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government, Deputy MacEntee, would only give the county council workers an increase of 2d. per day. It is a pity they did not hold the opinions then that they appear to hold now. The road workers would have been a lot better off.

We have heard a good deal about the housing programme carried out by the Fianna Fáil Government. What did it do? Property was destroyed in every town and houses demolished.

We are not discussing that. We are not discussing what the late Government did. We are discussing the present Government.

Their policy was to knock down houses and that has led to a scarcity of houses in the country.

We are dealing with the present Government— not the last Government.

The present Government will do a lot better. If a man is in receipt of a salary of £5 a week, and if he has to pay 13/6 or 16/6 a week in rent, that is almost £1 of his wages gone. He is no better off in the long run than he was when he had 12/- a week because his wages go in rent, lighting and firing. Under the land reclamation project the farmers are given 50 years in which to pay. Surely householders are entitled to the same consideration.

The local authorities will have to be given back their full powers. The present system will have to be altered and the county managers must be abolished. They approximate closely to dictators. Power must be restored to the local authority. All these county managers and assistant county managers are paid large salaries, and those salaries come out of the rates. It is no wonder the rates are increasing. A letter was received recently by the Wexford County Council giving the county manager power to recruit road workers. Instead of restoring power to the local authorities and abolishing the county managers, it seems to me we are giving more power still to county managers. We all know what happened in Limerick.

Surely, that is not relevant to this discussion.

The county managers are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Local Government.

I do not know what is in the Deputy's mind but, to my mind, this is not relevant to the present discussion and, fortunately or unfortunately, I am the authority.

There has been some talk about the appointment of rate collectors. I think the local authority should appoint the rate collector in any particular area. There has been a good deal of discussion, too, about road grants. Wexford has got £13,088 more this year for county roads than it ever got before.

You must have a pull with the Minister.

Certain counties got the benefit of the grants for county roads. Under Fianna Fáil all the money spent on roads was spent on the main roads for the benefit of Córas Iompair Eireann and nothing was done for the benefit of those using the byroads. I think it is time there was a change of policy in that direction.

This is a very important Estimate. from the point of view of local authorities. I think the cities and towns have been developed at the expense of the rural areas. We hear Fianna Fáil Deputies talking, but when they were the Government they allowed speculative builders to get materials and they allowed tradesmen to build luxury houses. You will see houses of that type outside Cabinteely and elsewhere for sale. They were engaged in building luxury houses instead of houses for the working classes. That is the fault that I found with the Fianna Fáil Government. It took a change of Government to stop that and to see that the working-class people all over the country, as well as in the cities and towns, will be properly housed. Some of these people were living in rooms— families of ten and 11 persons living together and paying terrible rents Fianna Fáil countenanced that type of thing and they encouraged the building of luxury mansions. These places are now being offered for sale, but there are no buyers because of the exorbitant prices.

I hope this Minister will put an end to that luxury building while there is anybody in the city or the country left in lodgings or in one of the slums. No building materials should be allowed to be used and no tradesmen should be allowed to be employed on buildings of the luxury type until the plain people who are in need of houses are comfortably housed. We have heard a lot about the building programme that was carried out by Fianna Fáil, but the fact is that there are very many poor people throughout the country who still urgently require houses. There is not a spare house in the country. When Fianna Fáil built houses, if you were not a tuberculous case you could not get one of them. That policy was all wrong. Everybody knows that and that type of thing should not have been allowed to continue.

All local authorities want help from the Department of Local Government. Considering the value of the £ to-day, the subsidy of £350 will not be very much of a help, particularly when you consider the cost of material and the increase in the wages of tradesmen. The subsidy should be increased to £650 or even more. We can provide £40,000,000 to drain the land. Why not another £40,000,000 for houses? Human beings, married men with families, should come before the drainage of land. I think it is most important that there should be more money provided for houses. If you continue building houses in any town where you have to charge 14/6 or 15/- a week and the working men is earning, let us say £3 18s. 0d., you are not providing a house for that man at an economic rent and if he is living in a dug-out he will stay there because he could not afford that rent. There were houses built in 1913, and the rent was only 1/9, but the rates were added. The rates may vary but the rent will still be there. I am not asking you to put anything on the ratepayers; I am not asking for more money; I am asking the Minister to extend loans for 99 years. Why should this generation be saddled?

I have a vague notion that I heard the Deputy ask that before?

Yes, but it is very important and it can be done. The period was extended from 35 to 50 years and if you can extend it by 15 years surely you can extend to 99 years? By doing that the people will be in a position to get their houses cheaper.

The Deputy has dealt with that aspect already and he will have to pass to something else.

I do not want to delay the House much longer, because the Minister wants to conclude the debate. I must tell him, in conclusion, that I am very dissatisfied with his replies to my questions. They are not satisfactory. Of course, there might be a misprint or an error made by one of the officials, but the Minister said that the interest is 2½ when it should be 3¼ per cent. That is very misleading.

The debate on this Estimate has ranged over a wide number of subjects — matters that have been covered by the Department within the past two years. The debate centered mainly on what Deputy Traynor and other Deputies described as the most important question at present before the country, and that is housing. I am grateful to Deputies for the manner in which they have accepted my first effort at presenting an Estimate and I must thank them for their assurances of support and co-operation. It is my earnest desire and determination to rescue many of our people from the appalling housing conditions in which they are placed and I shall endeavour to do so with the greatest possible speed. The debate might have deteriorated in patches later on, when the political note commenced to sound, but, generally speaking, there was an assurance from every Deputy who spoke that there was one determination in his mind and that was that housing is too big a problem and it transcends political clashes and divisions.

The rehousing of those of our people who need houses is accepted as too big a matter to be made a political plaything. That particular aspect has been abundantly indicated in the course of the debate. Any criticisms that were offered were of a very healthy and constructive character. I have carefully noted the remarks of many Deputies. I have not been long in office, but I am glad to receive suggestions of a helpful character towards the amelioration of the conditions of those of our people who are badly housed and who look for a speedy release from slum conditions in the various cities and towns. In that work the assistance of everybody is required.

I should at once make it quite clear that there is no attempt at political back-slapping in any remarks that I may have made in my presentation of the Estimate. There was nothing more than a recital of the facts as I find them. There is no room really for political back-slapping or congratulations to anybody. I have put the situation as I see it. It is a vast problem. one that will take all the efforts of our combined forces to try to reduce to reasonable dimensions within a reasonable time.

I think we are able to arrive at a fair estimate at the moment of the number of houses we require to build, but as has been stated by some Deputies in the course of the discussion, old houses deteriorate so quickly that it is very difficult for anybody to say that we shall have solved the housing problem in five, six, seven, eight or ten years. While the problem is one of formidable dimensions, I think I should state, lest Deputies may become unduly depressed, that I do not think there is any real reason for pessimism about it, if we have the goodwill of the local authorities, as I believe we have, the co-operation of the trade unions, as I believe we have, and the desire of all Parties in the House in their respective capacities to concentrate on the problem so as to make the best use of the resources at our disposal.

I do not quite agree with some of the statements made by Deputies in relation to the number of skilled tradesmen available. Deputy Larkin pointed out that we have more skilled tradesmen in the building trades to-day than ever we had before. That probably is so, but if it is, it is certainly not enough and we want to get more tradesmen. Materials have become available, money has not been, and will not be, stinted, and we want to get more skilled operatives if they can be got. In that connection, we have had various suggestions put up during the debate about the desirability of getting back tradesmen who have gone to England. A considerable number have come back already as is shown by the increased number of houses built in the past year. A very considerable number have come back, but the trickle is tending to become rather thin of late and it would appear as if that stream is drying up. From discussions which we have had with the trade unions, it would appear that the stream is not likely to grow in volume. Many of these men have got into permanent employment in England and have married there. All I can say is that everything possible is being done by the Department in conjunction with the trade representatives to try and get them back, for instance, by offering them continuous employment here. Employment conditions at home are as good, if not better, than they have over there. We have gone to the extent even of offering houses to them if they come back.

Some of them would require houses because they have none to go to when they return. Others, of course, would have their parents' houses to go to. There may be a difficulty in that direction but the matter is being kept under consideration, and if anything can be done to attract tradesmen back, Deputies may rest assured it will be done because I feel their presence here is required and urgently required. If we are to have a speedy solution of the problem, every means should be tried to induce tradesmen who have gone across the water to come back and offer their services in the national housing drive here.

A good deal of the discussion concentrated on the question of direct labour. While the late Minister insisted on some schemes of direct labour, there was no question of a monopoly for direct labour at any time. In fact, the number of direct labour schemes in connection with housing at the moment is a very small percentage of the total work in hand. It is very small in comparison with the work which is being done by contract. I share the view of the late Minister that a certain amount of direct labour is essential. It is a help inasmuch as it provides some kind of a competitive basis for the contract system. Our experiences so far with direct labour schemes have been very satisfactory. Deputy Davin was at pains to get some information in connection with these schemes but all I can say is that the evidence available to date shows that the direct labour schemes have been very successfully operated.

In my native City of Limerick the corporation erected half a dozen houses by direct labour. I am personally conversant with the circumstances without referring to the information supplied to me from other sources. We built half a dozen houses. They were inspected by the engineers of the Local Government Department, by the late Minister and by others concerned. They were delighted with the workmanship because the houses were definitely of a better standard than we had been getting from the contractors. The cost of their maintenance eventually will be less than it would be had they been built by contract. The corporation calculate that they have saved between £260 and £300 per house as compared with the lowest tenders which were received for the erection of such houses. That fact has encouraged the city manager to extend the scheme and he is building nine more houses by direct labour. He is also engaged in preparing a scheme for the erection of 400 further houses. Similarly, in Kilrush Urban District a scheme was advertised for contract but the lowest tender worked out at about £1,420 per house.

The scheme has been commenced by direct labour and is expected to result in material saving to the ratepayers. In fact, when work on the scheme had been commenced by direct labour, the contractor, whose tender was lowest, offered to reduce his tender price for items not involving revision of the specification and to take over the liabilities already incurred on the direct labour work. Kilkenny County Council have completed quite a number of rural cottages by direct labour and the council estimate that the saving has been about £100 per house on the tendered prices. Wicklow Urban District Council have a scheme of 16 houses in progress by direct labour and they expect to complete the houses for under £1,000 per house as compared with the price of over £1,300 quoted by a contractor for the same house.

These are just a few samples which I give, as the time remaining is very short, to indicate what is being done, but I can assure Deputies Cowan and Davin that we are choosing our steps carefully and there is no question of rushing into direct labour schemes. A certain amount of leading and co-ordination is necessary in order to get schemes going on a proper commercial basis. Deputy Moran spoke of the unhappy results of certain experiments with direct labour in Mayo but I would suggest that even, if the Deputy has had an unhappy experience in years past in that way, he should not allow it to be a deterrent because I do think that direct labour at present is a necessary corollary to the contract system. For one thing it should help to bring down prices because I am not satisfied that we have yet reached a fair level of prices for house building. I am not satisfied by any means that we have reached the point of normal building costs and I think something better must be done.

One of the things direct labour has achieved is that in recent times we have found keener cutting of prices by contractors. That is something to the good. They are tendering on a more competitive basis. Up to recently we found it difficult to get anyone to tender at all, but now contractors are coming along. Their prices are becoming more competitive and will, I believe, continue to become more competitive still. Under a direct labour scheme properly supervised — and we we have our various engineers to attend to that side of the work —we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that there is no profit for private interests. You know what you are doing and if you have a scheme properly supervised, I do not see why we should not get houses at the lowest possible figure. When that has been achieved, we may possibly get to the other point mentioned by various speakers — the cost of materials. There has been some talk of purchasing materials in bulk quantities by some central purchasing organisation. There may be some necessity to have an examination in that respect, because figures have been quoted this evening demonstrating that profits have been in some cases 100 per cent., and I think a case has been made for an investigation as to the actual prices that are being charged for materials necessary for house building. I think everything ought to be done to try to get houses at the lowest possible figure and of good construction, so as to reduce the eventual rent of the tenant and the rates of the local authority.

Many Deputies asked for an extension of the subsidies, but I do not think that ought to be done. Personally, I am of the opinion that if the Government were to increase the grants and subsidies, it would be an encouragement for a continuation of the high prices we have to-day. What I would rather see is every effort being bent towards getting houses down to a reasonable figure while leaving a reasonable margin of profit to the people who are engaged in the work. We should, perhaps, have some loosening up as there is some difficulty between Dublin Corporation and applicants under the Small Dwellings Act. Eighty per cent. is being given and they are capable of giving 90 per cent. There have been some hardships, but they are not as great as some people seem to imagine. There is some easing of the situation now and perhaps there should be some more easing in the matter of giving loans because some people have not the wherewithal to fill the gap between the architect's valuation on the one hand and the builder's price on the other hand. If we take the builder's price and give a grant of 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. of that figure in every case, as has been suggested, prices will soar instead of coming down. There must be some kind of brake and some commonsense. On the other hand, we seem in some cases to have been too conservative in the matter of giving grants on the valuation of our own architects, who naturally seek to protect their local authority, who do not want to give money without having a security for the rates. There are two sides to this story and both sides need examination, but I can assure the House that anything that can be done by the Department or by myself to clear away this barrier and obstacle in the way of the speedy realisation of our hopes for the housing drive will be done.

Mr. Byrne

Why not have an architect value the houses under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act? An auctioneer valued some of them and out of 500 who applied for houses 300 were passed and 200 were refused. Many of these were young boys and girls who were left short of houses because of a difference of £60 or £70 between the auctioneer's valuation and the purchaser's.

The Deputy must realise that there may have been other aspects, such as the economic circumstances of the applicants.

Mr. Byrne

The Small Dwellings Acquisition Act will have to be revised.

The Minister has to make his statement.

There are a lot of other items which I must deal with. Deputy Burke raised the question of swimming pools and, incidentally, raised the matter of graveyards in the same breath, but I do not think I have very much time to go into those matters now. The Deputy complained about the lack of swimming pools in Crumlin and Drimnagh housing areas, but at the moment we are too interested in the housing drive to take up this matter. Swimming pools will not be neglected in the schemes which are being planned, but at a time when you are fighting for your life, so to speak, I do not think you should bend back and make provision for swimming pools, as this effort would get in the way of the more essential drive for housing. They are not being neglected or overlooked, but they must take second place for the present, as everything, I think, should give way to the housing question.

He also spoke about chippings contracts in Dublin County Council. That is a minor matter, too. He spoke strongly of the betrayal of the Dublin workers, but the manager had to take the lowest tender and the lowest tender happened to be from Kildare, and betrayal or not, it was the Kildare workers versus the Dublin workers.

The chopping of the road grant has been the subject second to housing which was raised by most Deputies. Deputy Burke had a regular caterwaul about the matter. In 1948-49 the county council got grants amounting to £214,000; for 1949-50 they have got £203,000. That is not such a terribly drastic reduction as the Deputy would lead us to believe. The employment on roads in April, 1948, was 433, while in April, 1949, it was 407. The county council have submitted no proposals about removing bends. That matter was discussed prior to now.

Whatever happened with regard to the roads, there is neither any desire nor any need to have a reduction of employment on the roads from now on or up to now. Representatives from the country know that there has been no reduction of work on the roads as there has not been any necessity for a reduction. The intention was that work should be done at the normal speed until the Local Government (Works) Bill came to the assistance of the county council and put people on alternative work. If people were disemployed in some places it should not have happened, but the matter has, I think, been largely exaggerated by some Deputies who have been speaking here.

Deputy Allen wanted to know about the reduction in the Estimate for the cultivation of land under the Allotment Acts. The people concerned are persons residing in urban areas and there has been a continued decline in the demand for allotments since the end of the emergency. In some areas land is no longer available due to building, but the reduction in the Estimate is because the demand is not as keen as it was and nobody who wanted an allotment has been left without one.

Deputy Allen and Deputy Kennedy wanted a more ambitious main road construction programme. Deputy Allen would like to see all our main roads concreted. I, personally, would like to see that done on our main roads, but concrete is very costly and I think it would be unfair at this juncture to take the burden of building roads all in concrete at a time when cement is so scarce that you cannot get cement for house building, desirable as it may be, in my opinion, we will have to leave over building our main roads in concrete. I would like to see it done at some time, as it is the most economic and best type of road, but it will have to play second fiddle for the present, as the housing drive wants cement.

I will only say in conclusion that while I regret I have not had more time to answer Deputies I will undertake to give an answer personally to some of the minor points which were raised in the course of the debate. In introducing my first Estimate as Minister for Local Government, I want to express my thanks to all sides of the House for the generous manner in which I have been received and for the fair, honest and constructive criticism I have been given. When I come along here to give an account of my steward ship in 12 months' time I hope that I will be able to show a reasonable progress in the housing effort which we all desire to see going ahead.

Vote put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again next week.
Top
Share