Vote 38—Local Government.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Keyes)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £2,747,160 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1951, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government.

Deputies will observe from the published Book of Estimates that the total net amount required in the Vote for my Department for the current financial year is £4,382,160. The total net amount, including Supplementary Estimates, provided for the last financial year was £3,223,100. There is thus a net increase of £1,159,060 on last year's Vote. The increase is easily explained. There are only two main items accounting for it: (a) an increase of £585,000 in the amount being made available for grants to private persons, local authorities and public utility societies for the erection or reconstruction of houses; and (b) £500,000 additional for the financing of schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949, this being the first full year in which the provisions of the Act will operate. There is also an increase of £51,655 in the growing amount required to make provision for contributions towards the annual loan charges of local authorities in respect of housing schemes and an increase from £20,000 to £50,000 in the provision being made for grants for reserved houses for newly married couples.

As regards local authority housing, I have to report another year of progress. During the past financial year 5,299 houses and flats were completed by local authorities as compared with 1,871 in the previous year and 729 in the year before that. The record of housing works in progress by local authorities is equally satisfactory. At the end of March last 10,527 houses were in course of erection as compared with 8,193 in March, 1949, and 3,816 in March, 1948. All the indications are that local authorities will achieve a figure of not less than 7,000 completed dwellings in the present financial year.

The number of dwellings completed in Dublin City during the year was 1,574, which is more than double the output of the previous year. Houses under construction for the corporation in March, 1950, numbered 3,591 as compared with 2,759 in March, 1949.

When introducing the Estimate for my Department last year I referred to the serious obstacle in the way of a greater rate of production of houses which was presented by the inadequate supply of skilled craftsmen, such as carpenters, plasterers and others associated with the finishing of houses. I am happy to say that a considerable improvement has been effected in the course of the year under review. The number of skilled operatives engaged on local authority housing in March, 1950, was 5,915 as compared with 3,664 in March, 1949. This represents an increase of 61 per cent. in the number of skilled workers and has been brought about largely by the efforts of local authorities in expanding activities by direct labour and in the creation of a general atmosphere calculated to attract workers to their areas by publicising the extent of the programmes which are on hands and which are contemplated. I have consistently supported these local efforts and given the widest possible publicity to the importance of the national housing programme and the large measure of continuity of employment which the various planned programmes will afford to workers. I do not maintain, however, that the shortage of skilled workers of all types has been completely met everywhere. Local authorities in some areas still experience some shortages in the finishing trades. I have, however, every confidence that the remaining difficulties in these respects will be overcome by careful planning of pending programmes. Unskilled building workers whose contribution to the housing drive is so valuable, and, at the same time, so unostentatious, were employed in increasing numbers also during the year. The number engaged in March was 7,040 as compared with 4,689 in the corresponding month last year.

As regards the financing of local authority housing schemes, in addition to the provision of subsidy towards loan charges which amounts this year to £757,800 and grants for reserved houses and for extra accommodation where a member of a household is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, it is proposed to provide a sum of £3,200,000 in the Transition Development Fund for the purpose of making capital grants in reduction of the capital amount which the local authorities have to borrow for their own housing programmes during the year. Thus, the system of contributions towards loan charges and the provision, at the same time, of capital grants is being continued in the present year. A general review is, however, being made of the working of this system with a view to the unification, if possible, of the two forms of financial assistance. For this purpose, statistical information is being compiled on the various systems of housing finance in operation before 1932, from 1932 to 1945 and since the creation of the Transition Development Fund.

I indicated last year that the question of standardising subsidies is closely allied with that of housing costs and that it would be difficult to formulate a new system of housing subsidy until a much greater degree of normality was achieved in the matter of costs. I am glad to say that there is now greater evidence of a tendency towards stability as regards the upper limits of cost and, indeed, a tendency for contract prices to drop. The improvement in the supply of skilled labour and of materials; keener competition by contractors and the influence of direct labour building have all contributed to these developments. Current costs are, however, still very high. Contract prices for unserviced labourers' cottages, including site works, range from about £725 to £1,000 a cottage, while for serviced urban houses, including development cost, the price per house is between £1,100 and £1,400. A severely critical attitude is being maintained towards tenders submitted to local authorities and every effort is being made to ensure that good value is got for the expenditure involved. In the course of the year local authorities were urged to take every possible step towards reducing prices and it has been intimated that tenders in excess of a reasonable maximum should be rejected.

There have been significant developments during the year in the more general acceptance by local bodies of the principle that rents should bear some relation to the ability of tenants to pay. Such a system has been in operation for many years in Cork County Borough and it has now been adopted in the County Boroughs of Dublin and Limerick and in 14 other areas. I have been at pains to impress on local authorities that there is a statutory obligation on them to select tenants on the basis of need for accommodation rather than with regard to their ability to pay rent. This duty cannot be avoided, in view of the clear provisions of the Acts in regard to the classes of applicants who should receive priority in the allocation of houses.

Once this principle is accepted, the question arises of the better-off families who, because of their qualifications and need for accommodation, are given new houses, being required to pay a rent according to their ability to pay, within the upper limits of a pre-determined economic rent. The general adoption of this system would ensure that in applying the State grants and subsidies and the local authorities' contributions from rates, a periodical review would be made of the means and needs of each family. The circumstances of a household will naturally alter from time to time. Tenants with large families of young children have many demands on their resources and often cannot be expected to expend more than a certain recognised proportion of their earnings on rent. When the children grow up and begin to earn, the financial position of that same family can alter very much for the better within a few years.

The capacity to pay varies, therefore, not only as between one tenant and another but also according to the circumstances of a particular household, from time to time. In the larger urban areas, particularly, the diversities in family income offer a wide scope for the adoption of this renting system.

A sum of £1,635,000 is included in the Estimates for grants to persons and public utility societies in respect of the erection and reconstruction of houses. This is the largest amount which has ever been provided in one year for this purpose. It is provided to keep pace with the very marked expansion of grant-aided private building which has occurred during the last financial year. On 1st April, 1949, 7,864 allocations had been made, of which 4,692 represented grants for new houses and 3,172 for reconstructions. Of these allocations, 746 had been fully paid during the year and 1,179 partly paid. On 1st April last the allocations had increased to 16,362. Of these, 10,282 were for new houses. Grants had been fully paid in 4,159 cases and partly paid in 4,175 cases. A total amount of £1,049,882 was paid out in respect of private building or reconstruction grants during the financial year 1949-50 and the provision now being made in the current Estimates represents an estimated 60 per cent. increase over last year's expenditure. It will be observed from a footnote to the subhead I (3) containing this provision, that issues in excess of £414,000 will be conditional on the enactment of amending legislation. This refers to the statutory aggregate provided for under the 1948 Act, as extended, which will require amendment by law before grants in excess of the balance remaining within the statutory limit can be exceeded. A Bill to give effect to this provision has been introduced.

This review of the position and prospects of the housing drive will, I hope, convince Deputies that the present financial year is likely to produce results in the output of completed houses by local authorities and private enterprise which will reach, if they do not surpass, the highest figures ever previously attained. The latest figures show every sign that this very favourable record will be achieved. In the three months ended 31st March last, over 1,900 houses were completed by local authorities and progress at this rate would achieve an annual output considerably in excess of the pre-war record. Between 3,000 and 4,000 new houses are expected to be completed by private enterprise. This brings the total target which we have now in mind for the year to about 11,000 houses, both local authority and private, for the whole country. The total output achieved in the last three years by local authorities and private enterprise shows the enormously accelerated rate at which the drive has gone forward. For 1947-48, the total was 1,502; for 1948-49, it was 3,296; and for 1949-50, it was 7,966.

I have nothing but praise for the activity of the interests, both public and private, which have contributed to this great recovery in building output within such a short period of time. Local authorities and local officers throughout the country have, with very few exceptions, responded wholeheartedly to the drive for solution of the housing problem, so that in some areas the main requirements have already been, or will shortly be, met. In the larger urban areas, the programme will take a longer period to implement, but in all these areas it is well on its way. As Dublin represents the hard core of the national housing problem, I should like to commend in particular the spectacular energies and notable success of the housing authorities in Dublin City and County, including the borough of Dún Laoghaire, and the help and encouragement which is given to these authorities by the Dublin Housing Consultative Council.

The administration of the Town Planning Acts was continued during the year as in previous years, that is to say, the main attention was concentrated on interim control and the deciding of appeals made by interested parties. The number of appeals submitted to the Minister in 1949/50 was 226 as compared with 228 in the previous year.

There has been a growing interest manifested in the problems presented by the steady increase in building in Dublin City and the surrounding areas. Officers of my Department have had consultations with the city manager and his staff on these problems. A consistently rigid attitude is being maintained in opposition to any large scale building developments in the green belt area and effective efforts are being made for the co-ordination locally of all forms of specialist advice as regards building both by the housing authorities and private persons in the areas scheduled for residential purposes. The organisation being aimed at is intended to achieve a complete co-ordination of policy under the Town and Regional Planning Acts, under the administration of the building bye-laws and under the Housing and Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. Activities under the latter Acts are also closely associated with the administration by the Department of Local Government of the schemes of grants to subsidise the erection of houses by public utility societies and private persons.

Deputies will recall that for the year 1949-50 a substantial portion of the Road Fund was made available for the first time by way of special improvement grants for county roads. The amount allocated was £1,200,000 out of a total of £2,343,518 for county council road works as a whole. The reports available on the operation of the new system indicate that substantial improvements were effected on various county roads by the aid of the grant and that a continuance of the same system for the current year is warranted. County councils have, accordingly, been advised that the grants for main road improvement, county road improvement and the percentage grants for ordinary works on main roads would be continued in 1950-51 on the same basis as had obtained in 1949-50. The estimated income of the Fund for the year is £2,600,000 and the allocations, including a provisional allocation for county boroughs, amount to £2,550,000. In addition, outstanding commitments from previous years to be met in 1950-51 amount to £750,000. To meet total charges on the Fund, further borrowing will, therefore, be necessary, within the margin of the total additional borrowing powers conferred by statute in 1948.

During the year I had a circular letter addressed to road authorities arising out of various questions raised from time to time regarding the production of road materials by way of contract and the methods by which road authorities should themselves produce such material. I pointed out that it was essential that the best possible value should be obtained for the money spent on roads and that each road authority responsible for a substantial annual programme should provide an engineering organisation, equipment and personnel sufficient to enable them to carry it out effectively. This policy does not exclude the purchase of material or the hire of machinery in exceptional circumstances, nor the carrying out by contract of certain road works, particularly those of a specialised or abnormal nature.

I drew attention to the fact that where costs of direct labour work, either in the production of materials or in actual work on the roads, were higher than in the case of similar contract work, the excess must be due to inefficient machinery and methods. I accordingly recommended the production by up-to-date machinery of materials at central quarries and sandpits and the use of lorries where other forms of transport would be uneconomic or impracticable.

I am glad to be able to report that the first programme of works undertaken under the Local Authorities (Works) Act between the autumn of 1949 and March, 1950, has proved a very great success. A sum of £1,250,000 was voted by the Dáil for the purpose of making grants to local authorities for the carrying out of works under the Act. The local authorities selected schedules of works and their proposals were then considered by the Department. The grants were confined generally to works capable of being completed by the end of the financial year. Practically the full amount of the voted provision was expended in the year. The number of men employed rose from 6,000 in September, 1949, to 13,850 in March, 1950. In the latter month over 26,000 men were employed by county councils on road works and Works Act schemes as compared with about 19,000 men engaged on road works in the same month in 1949.

A further programme of schemes under the Act is being provided for in this year's Vote where, as I have said, an increased provision of £1,750,000 has been made for the purpose. After making provision for the payment of the balance of last year's grants and for grants for urban authorities, I have been able to notify county councils generally of their grants for the present financial year. They total in all approximately £1,600,000. In apportioning this sum all the relevant factors were taken into account, such as the availability of labour, last year's performance and this year's programmes.

In connection with the preliminary compilation of schemes for execution in the current year local authorities were advised that, in selecting works and in determining the time for their execution, regard should be had to the labour position in the locality, the demands of other services such as road works, agriculture, etc., the need for avoiding, as far as possible, sharp fluctuations in employment, and the weather conditions necessary for good results.

The number of vehicles of all classes under current licence in August, 1949, was 122,536, as compared with 108,002 such vehicles in August, 1948.

The Department of Local Government, in conjunction with the National Film Institute and the Garda Síochána, has continued to arrange for the production of various forms of road safety propaganda, including the display of road safety films. Similar activities are projected for the current financial year.

I referred last year to the very large programme of waterworks and sewerage schemes which is pending in most counties and in some of the urban districts. So far as the county programmes are concerned, I indicated the need for adhering to a procedure whereby works should be undertaken in accordance with a planned programme over successive years according to the order of their relevant urgency. The extent of the activities of local authorities in resuming the implementation of their programmes has shown a strong upward trend during the year. A larger proportion of the schemes are being gradually brought to final planning stage. The number of schemes authorised during the year included 70 major waterworks and sewerage schemes, involving a total expenditure in excess of £1,000,000. Of this sum, over £400,000 was met by way of grants from the Emergency and Employment Schemes Vote and the Transition Development Fund.

The programme of 70 schemes so undertaken was a big advance on the previous financial year when 33 such schemes were initiated. The programme for the current year will be approximately of the same dimensions as that undertaken in 1949-50. If progress is maintained at this rate in subsequent years the larger portion of the accumulated sanitary services programme should be undertaken within the three subsequent financial years with the usual time lag of one or two additional years to complete the contracts entered into. This would represent a very satisfactory position as regards the most urgent schemes but it would by no means exhaust the demands from many further areas which will be taking their place in due course in the programmes of subsequent years.

Since the 1st April, 1948, a comprehensive series of inspections of all fire-fighting services throughout the State has been made by the Department's fire adviser. Recommendations for the improvement of the fire-fighting services have been conveyed to a number of local authorities. The recommendations are generally based on a minimum outline fire-fighting service organised on a county basis. The office of chief fire officer of a county or county borough has been approved as a whole-time permanent and pensionable post. In some counties there has been a reluctance to appoint a chief fire officer. I would like now to reiterate what has been pointed out in correspondence with the authorities concerned that no appreciable measure of success can be achieved in the matter of securing even a minimum fire-fighting organisation in the absence of the continuous control, planning and supervision which a chief officer is intended to exercise. Draft fire standards were issued to local authorities last year and have now been published in book form. I hope that perusal of the standards will bring home to all concerned the very considerable tasks which lie ahead with a view to making places of public resort and institutions more secure against fire risk.

Official contractors have been appointed for the supply of approximately 3,000 commodities during the current contract year. Many commodities which were off the official list for some ten years are again being made available at competitive prices. There is also evidence of increases in the number of commodities of Irish manufacture for which it is now possible to obtain satisfactory tenders. There was a further marked increase in the number of applications for appointment as official contractors from provincial merchants.

The prices quoted by contractors are not yet showing any general tendency to fall. Reductions have taken place in the prices of a number of essential commodities but these are offset by increases in others.

Last year many Deputies commented on the upward trend of rates and there were some forecasts as to further increases in the burden on ratepayers. I am glad to say that these forecasts have proved to be largely fanciful. The simple average of rates struck by county councils for the year 1950-51 is just a fraction of a penny less than that for the previous year. In round figures it may be said that the average rates for the two years are the same, viz., 23/2 in the £.

The county rate collection for the past year was very satisfactory, 97.5 per cent. of the total warrant for the year having been collected at the 31st March, 1950, as against 97.2 per cent. on the corresponding date last year. I trust that the public-spirited reaction of ratepayers generally as shown in the fine record of rate collection for the past year will continue to manifest itself. The increases which have taken place in the rates in recent years are, in my view, not symptomatic of extravagance or of ill-considered expenditure but rather a reflection of the great increase in essential local activities which has taken place, combined with the general post-war increases in costs generally.

I have had occasion frequently to point out, both in this House and elsewhere, that the factors to which I have referred have led to substantially greater increases in the expenditure from the Exchequer on grants made available to local authorities in relief of rates on land and towards the cost of other services. This tendency was referred to by the Minister for Finance in his Financial Statement for the current year, where he pointed out that since 1938/39 Government grants to local authorities have increased by over £10,000,000, whereas rates have risen by £4.6 million.

The total loans sanctioned for purposes other than housing for the year amounted to £1,184,782 as compared with £871,601 in the previous year. The increase reflects increased activities of local authorities in respect of sewerage schemes, vocational education, construction of hospitals, county homes and dispensaries, etc. Housing loans sanctioned in 1949-50 amounted to £11,833,234 as compared with £8,361,258 in the previous financial year.

In the course of the year under review, the general administration of local authorities was, on the whole, very satisfactory. I have visited a large number of local administrative units, mainly in connection with the opening of new housing schemes, but I invariably take the opportunity of inquiring into the general conditions and hearing the views of local representatives and others regarding the needs of the several districts. I have experienced everywhere a very full degree of evidence of the willingness of local representatives and local officers to co-operate in the major schemes being promoted under my supervision.

Needless to say, I am frequently confronted with demands which, in my position as mediator between the central authorities and the local authorities, I am often unable to concede fully and sometimes I have to reject them completely or suggest that the projects be deferred. Nevertheless, there is, I believe, a continued increase in that close and realistic understanding which I mentioned last year was growing up between my Department and the spokesmen of local administration. I wish to assure the House, and particularly those Deputies who are themselves local representatives, and through them local elected bodies generally, that so far as I am concerned my efforts will be constantly directed towards a development of this friendly understanding and co-operation with local bodies.

Mr. MacEntee

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. In doing so, I understand that the Government business has got itself into such a muddle that it is necessary for us to be as brief and as cogent as we can in the criticisms which we have to make of the present general administration of the public services. Therefore, I do not intend to detain the House at any great length. Perhaps, accordingly, I should begin my speech by commending the Minister in the few instances in which I can commend him for some of the things which he has done. I am glad to see that, despite the reluctance with which it was received when it was first put before the House in the Housing Act of 1948, the Minister has realised that, if our housing problem is to be tackled without crippling the State and the local authorities, it is essential that the rents of houses built by public authorities, with Government subsidies and with subventions from the rates, should be related to the capacity of the tenants to pay. I think there will be general agreement that this is a just and equitable principle and I am glad to see that the Minister for Local Government, representing as he does the Labour Party in the Cabinet, has at last accepted it. I congratulate him upon his courage and I am sure that the acceptance of that principle will be of very great assistance to him indeed in tackling the very difficult problem of providing houses for those of our people who require them.

The other matter upon which I should like to congratulate him is the earnest attempt which he is now making to give effect to the policy which had been adopted by the Fianna Fáil Administration of ensuring that every centre of population would be provided with fire fighting services to the best of its ability to maintain them. We know that the need for utilising these services does not often arise. It is only when a holocaust occurs, such as the lamentable tragedy in Cavan some years ago, a tragedy of such a shocking and heart-rending description, that the public conscience is sufficiently stirred and a general appreciation is formed of the need for systematic and careful organisation and maintenance of these services. I know from experience that the Minister is not going to find it easy to persuade shortsighted people, who sometimes do occupy positions of public responsibility, to recognise that need; but I am glad to see that he is addressing himself to the task of persuading them, and I can only say that, as far as I am concerned, I will heartily support his efforts in that regard.

Now let me come to some of the other aspects of the statement which the Minister has presented to the House, to which, as a matter of public duty speaking here for the Opposition, I must direct attention. What I propose to say immediately does not apply, so far as I know, personally to the Minister for Local Government. I have found him courteous and prepared to accept criticism. It is a well-known fact, however, that there are colleagues of his in the Government, who think that the public have become so habituated to their extravagance that they no longer have any regard for questions of pounds, shillings and pence in relation to public services, while these Ministers themselves have now reached such a state of prodigal exaltation that it is regarded by them as something treasonable even to suggest that the burdens upon our people as ratepayers and as taxpayers might not already have become excessive.

In that connection, it might be no harm to remind the House at this stage that when the Government first became responsible for sponsoring Estimates in this House in March, 1948, they presented a volume of Estimates the total sum of which amounted to £70,520,000 and they were careful to append to that volume a disclaimer stating that it was the Fianna Fáil Administration and not they, not these prudent, provident, stewards who were now going to take charge of the public finances, who were responsible for the fact that they had to present to Dáil Eireann for acceptance Estimates which totalled the staggering sum of £70,520,000.

This year however, they are no longer imbued with this desire to disclaim responsibility for extravagance. On the contrary, they come to the Dáil glorying in it and there is presented to us Estimates for the Public Services which total £78,127,000. It is a colossal and staggering sum, which has already been commented on in this House. I do not want to deal with the aggregate figure but I wish to call public attention to the fact that in the year in which Fianna Fáil left office, February, 1948, in the Estimates which they had provided for the incoming year, for the year which ended on the 31st March, 1949, the total sum asked for the service of the Department of Local Government was £1,172,000. This year, the figure has jumped to no less than £4,382,000—an increase of almost 300 per cent. Is it not staggering to think of it? Here, while the cost of living is mounting, while the people are groaning under taxation, while they are flying from the lands of Ireland, while emigration has become almost uncontrollable, the Government proposes to take from the service by the people of their individual needs, whether they are employers or employees, whether they are manufacturers or farmers, a sum which is almost four times as great as that which was denounced in unbridled language as extravagant when the Fianna Fáil Estimates were submitted to this House in March, 1948. An increase of £3,210,000 represents the fulfilment of the Government's pledges to reduce extravagance and to curb expenditure.

There is something more even than that in this matter. In 1948-49, what we proposed to take would have been raised out of taxation. The money that we were to spend in any one year we proposed to collect in that year. We proposed to treat our people honestly. We proposed to have some regard for interests other than our own and our own narrow political interest. We proposed in the year 1949 to pay our way as we went. In this year in which they propose to spend £4,382,000, they propose to borrow £3,435,000 and, of the huge sum of £4,382,000, they propose to pay now something just a fraction over 20 per cent.—the remaining 80 per cent. of the indebtedness which the Government propose to incur for the public services they are leaving to be paid by their successors, whomsoever they may be. Here, when the world is shaping up to war, when all the resources of the country in the future may be taxed in order to preserve the independence of this people, this Government is already trenching upon those resources, already depleting them and spending them in ways which even the Minister for Finance himself finds it difficult to justify.

One may, of course, endeavour to discount what a member of the Opposition will say in relation to expenditure on the part of the Government, but we have the spectacle of the Minister for Finance coming in and, with special reference to some of the items in this Vote and other Votes, pleading to the House to try to save him from his colleagues—he could scarcely regard them as his friends when they compel him by their exigent demands upon him to make the kind of ad misericordiam appeal which I am going to recall to the recollection of Deputies. The Minister for Finance, speaking in this House on the Vote on Account, said, as he is reported in Volume 119, column 2070:

"I would ask that there be the most careful scrutiny of the separate items under these headings."

The Minister for Finance has to come to this House and make that sort of appeal—saying to the Opposition, in fact: "Boys, it is up to you. I have done my best to curb this extravagant programme. I have tried to keep the State expenditure within bounds. I have not been able to succeed and I cannot succeed short of resigning my portfolio and breaking up the Coalition. Therefore, I throw myself on your mercy and I ask you in regard to housing, land rehabilitation, drainage and other works to subject all these proposals of my colleagues to the most careful scrutiny." Is it not clear then that not only are we convinced, but that the Minister for Finance himself is also convinced, that it is time somebody tried to call a halt to this extravagant administration? If I may reinforce the quotation which I have just given in relation to the Vote on Account by what the Minister said in the Seanad on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when he admitted in reply to the criticisms of the Budget which he had to meet in the Seanad that taxation had already reached fantastic heights, is it not doubly clear that what the Minister for Finance asked for is justified, and that we are justified ourselves in approaching the demand of the Minister for £4,382,000 with a sceptical mind as to whether, indeed, expenditure of that huge sum is justified?

Let us consider some of the items under it. Sub-head K (5) provides the sum of £1,750,000 for grants to local authorities for the execution of works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949. The Minister, in the course of his speech, told us the number of schemes that had been embarked upon and the number of people that had been employed, and no doubt these are statistics which are worthy of consideration. But there is something more than spending money merely in order to get thousands of schemes under way and tens of thousands of men employed.

One is justified in asking, is the expenditure of that huge sum of money, £1,750,000, justified in regard to every penny? I know, of course, there will be different approaches to this question. I know that some people will say that in their area some good schemes have been carried out. On the other hand, in other areas we hear that some schemes which could not be held by any means to be reproductive or remunerative or value for the money have been carried out. There is no justification in spending public money on a scheme merely to inflate the Minister's statistics, merely to be able to state that at a given date in any particular year so many men were employed. Public money should only be spent if the results of that expenditure, in terms of the executed works, justify it. Therefore, we are justified in asking whether the schemes which have been carried out are value for the money.

There again, it would seem as if others than members of the Opposition are somewhat sceptical about the utility of these schemes and as to what has been the net benefit that has accrued from their execution. No less a person that the Minister for Finance has betrayed an attitude in regard to them that might well justify him placing himself upon these benches. When speaking on the Vote on Account he said it was found that more money would be required for the immediate purpose of drainage. It will be noted that one of the things that is to be done under this subhead is the execution of works affording relief or protection from flooding—that is, drainage.

This is what the Minister for Finance had to say in regard to that particular aspect of the problem—but before I quote the Minister I should remind the House that when the Local Authorities (Works) Act was going through the Dáil last year or in 1948, there was an intense drive made by the Minister for Local Government to secure that the county engineers of the local authorities would submit to the Department the greatest possible number of schemes that they could conceivably think of to be carried out in their administrative areas, so that as soon as the Bill went through, the purse strings were unloosed, public money was scattered, broadcast over the country and the engineers were told to go ahead and make a show of doing some useful work. It is necessary to remind the House that it was in that position of chaos, disorganisation and hasty improvisation that these public works schemes were launched. That is what gives the point to the quotation I am going to give from the Minister for Finance—in which we have his disclosure of the way in which this problem of local authorities' works was tackled by the Department. In column 2072, Volume 119, he said:—

"We discovered here and there that land rehabilitation was held up by the fact that, where the waters had been channelled in various ways, they could not be run off properly because the outfall had not been prepared properly under the land drainage scheme."

That is precisely what the Opposition warned the Minister would occur if effect were to be given to the provisions of the Local Authorities (Works) Act in the manner in which we apprehended they would be given, by reason of the general approach of the Minister for Local Government and the Government as a whole to this problem.

Here we may ask ourselves, since so much of the £1,225,000 which was provided in the year 1949 for these works has been mis-spent in the manner in which the Minister for Finance has disclosed to the House, how much of the £1,725,000, which we are going to provide for that same purpose this year, is going to be mis-spent in a similar way, making a splash of doing something for the sake of securing political kudos from it at the public expense?

It would seem to me that the whole of this question of public works has been carried out in the spirit in which I think the Minister for Agriculture was speaking of his attack upon the problem of inland fisheries, that is in "pragmatical sphere". The whole approach has been one of trial and error. "Clear this drain and we will see what happens in the next farmer's field; clear this river and we will see what happens at the main outfall, let us get ahead and proceed on the principle of trial and error and spend as much public money as we can get the Dáil to vote for us and the shortness of our period of office permits us."

That system worked reasonably well last year and this year, thanks to no foresight, thanks to no planning on the part of those responsible for the manner in which this problem has been attacked, but thanks to a beneficent Providence who blessed this country last year with the finest summer we had for many a long generation and, up to now, as good a summer as we have ever enjoyed.

The weather has been dry, the effects of this premature clearing of the water courses which feed our main arterial system have not been manifested during periods of wet weather, during such a winter, say, as we had in the year 1947; but if the coming winter or the winter following proves to be such another disastrous winter as that was, I wonder what the effect of all this unco-ordinated, ill-conceived, unplanned attack upon a very difficult problem is going to be on the property of those who live in our towns and cities that border the banks of our main rivers, or those who live along our main water courses. That is when this policy, which the present Government has embarked upon, will be tested: that is when we will know what fraction of that £3,000,000 which represents the aggregate of the actual expenditure last year and that which is proposed for this year has been, shall we say, not manifestly ill spent but has been justified. There is a balance, I think a very large balance, that must be written off as being ill spent.

Now, I do not want to overlook the good resolution with which I opened, that is to say, that I intended to be as brief as I could. There are one or two other matters, however, that I ought to touch on. There is housing. The Minister talks about the intensified housing drive. The Minister wishes, and the Government as a whole wishes, the country to believe that the problem of housing was neglected until they took office, when the fact is, as the Minister and the country know, the present Coalition Administration got off to a flying start. The 1948 Housing Act had been passed; the sites for the housing schemes had been procured; the plans for the houses had been prepared; contracts, in many cases, had been placed and any houses that were built in 1948, 1949 or in 1950 derive entirely from the efforts of the Minister's predecessors over the years from 1945 to 1948.

Mr. McAuliffe

And the 1934 schemes.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not wish to be censorious of the Minister for being a Party man, or that as a member of the Government, he tries to claim the greatest amount of credit he possibly can for the fact that the Fianna Fáil housing schemes are now coming to fruition under him. That is natural and he is quite entitled to do it. I am only pointing out not the propaganda in the matter but the truth in the matter. I am only pointing out that there is not a house that is being built in the City of Dublin to-day that would be now in process of erection if it had not been for the work that had been done by the Fianna Fáil Administration in securing the sites and preparing the plans. Mind you the securing of the sites is the most tedious and difficult portion of it. In many cases, the sites had not only been secured but developed, in many cases the foundations had been laid, and in every case the plans had been prepared.

Let us see how, even with that flying start, the record of the Minister for the year 1949-50 compares with the record of one of the Minister's predecessors, the then Minister for Local Government, for the year 1938-39. I do not want to weary the House, but I shall give just one example, that of the number of houses completed for the Dublin Corporation. In the year 1938-39 the total number of houses completed for the Dublin Corporation was 2,335. I have that figure on the authority of the Minister himself who gave it in reply to a parliamentary question which was put down by my colleague and friend, Deputy Childers. For the year 1949-50, under this Ministry of push and go, the number of houses completed in the City of Dublin was 1,576.

Mr. Byrne

There are 3,000 at the moment.

Mr. MacEntee

Completed?

Mr. Byrne

Under construction.

Mr. MacEntee

Would the Deputy like to live habitually in a house without a roof? I am talking of houses in which people can live. In 1938-39, the number of such houses completed and ready for occupation in the City of Dublin was 2,335, and for the year 1949-50, the number was 1,576, a deficiency of 759. In the light of those figures I might say that the progress which is being made is somewhat disappointing. I do not want to disguise the difficulties which the Minister has encountered. I know that materials in the year 1949-50 were not in as free supply as they were in 1938-39. I know that, perhaps, we had not as many available workers, though I am not so certain about that, because, according to the same parliamentary question, the number of people employed in 1938-39 varied—let me remind the House again that the number of houses completed in the City of Dublin in that year was 2,335— between 2,320 and 4,243.

On the other hand, in the year 1949-50, when only 1,576 houses were constructed, the number of men employed varied between 2,663 and 3,342. One would perhaps be justified in making a rough calculation and saying that the position was that under the sort of lackadaisical administration which we were alleged to have when Fianna Fáil was in office, the labour involved over that period in constructing a house amounted to 1.67 men, but that in the year 1949-50, under the administration which is making an intensive housing drive, the output is such that it requires 2.5 men to produce a house in a year. That is a rough and ready way of putting it. I do not suggest that the figures have very much value as statistics, but that is a way of looking at it. It does indicate that the Fianna Fáil Administration was getting better results out of the housing industry in the City of Dublin than the Coalition Administration is getting now.

The Minister referred to the rates. He will forgive me if I say that I detected a certain tone of complacency in his reference to the rates. He referred to the fact that people had been grumbling about the burden which the rates represent and that they had been seriously apprehensive, as indeed they might have been, as to what the level of the rates would be for the coming year. He said that he was glad to say that all those dismal Jimmies who had been talking about the prospect of increased rates had been stultified because the rates, in fact, were a fraction of a penny less than they had been for the financial year which ended on the 31st March last.

Of course, there are a number of factors to be taken into consideration in assessing the merits of the fact that the apprehensions as to the possibility of an increase in the rates were not realised. But there is one fact that we should not leave out of consideration. That is the fact that the local elections are looming in the offing and experienced politicians, like my friends, Deputy Byrne, Deputy Dunne and a few other gentlemen, have felt, perhaps, that it might not be such a bad idea to inflate the rates for the year 1949-50, in order that they might be able to reduce the rates a little for the year 1950-51; and that, therefore, as a consequence of that, because there was an unnecessary inflation of the rates in the year 1949-50, there has been an actual increase in the real demand to be made upon the ratepayers for the year 1950-51. However, that is perhaps a surmise as to what is a possible explanation of the fact that the rates in the year 1950-51 are just a fraction of a penny less than they were in the year 1949-50.

Will the House consider what these rates might have been were it not for an Act passed by the Fianna Fáil Administration in the year 1947; it is No. 48 of 1947 and it is entitled the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act? I wonder what the rates of the local authorities would have been were it not for the fact that the Fianna Fáil Administration, which was alleged to be extravagant and to have no regard to the position of the local ratepayers or the local authorities, had passed that Act. Could the Minister for Local Government, when he is replying, tell the House the total sum which has been paid under that Act to the local authorities over and above what was paid out of the Central Fund to those authorities before the passage of that Act? Then we shall see what the position of these local authorities might have been had not Fianna Fáil been in office in 1947 and had the Government of the day not passed that Act.

I do not wish to say too much about roads. I understand that some Deputies propose to move a motion which will be discussed concurrently with the Estimate. They may wish to speak at greater length upon this matter. Everybody who has had occasion to travel the main roads throughout the country will concede that their condition is deteriorating and that they are not nearly so good now as they were in 1948. Let us not forget that in the year 1948 we were repairing and making good the deficiencies that had occurred in road maintenance over the period of the war years. I ascribe this deterioration, not perhaps very pronounced at the moment, but still noticeable, to the fact that the central authority is failing to give sufficient assistance to the local authorities to maintain the roads in proper condition.

It is true that in 1948 the Government had to implement the promise which the Fianna Fáil Administration had given that an additional sum of £2,000,000, over and above what the Road Fund could supply, would be made available to the local authorities to carry out the further reconstruction necessary and the essential replacement works on roads. But that £2,000,000, which we had intended to provide out of the Central Fund as a free grant, was provided by the Minister's predecessor by borrowing on the security of the Road Fund. The Minister has told us to-day that, because further expenditure upon the roads is required, further borrowings on the fund must be made. I think we can describe this Government as the most "borrowingest" Government in existence. If they can borrow, they will not raise the money in any other way; they have an entirely spendthrift, prodigal and improvident policy in regard to the defrayment of the cost of public services.

The position in regard to that matter is, of course, similar to the position in regard to the housing grants for which they propose to borrow and in regard to local authority works for which they also propose to borrow. Every borrowing which they make on the security of the Road Fund reduces the future capacity of that fund to meet the future demands which will inevitably be made upon it and, therefore, we are merely putting off the evil day when further expenditure will have to be incurred upon our roads and there will be no free revenue in the Road Fund to borrow against. We should face the fact that if the Road Fund is not able out of its own resources to meet the cost, then that expenditure should be met by the central authority out of the Central Fund by way of grant; or, if the central authority is not prepared to do that, then the motor vehicle duties and the other duties which feed the Road Fund should be increased in order that the roads, which are such an important item in the economic life of the country, may be maintained on a proper standard.

In that connection it might not be out of place to lament the vacillating and pusillanimous attitude which the Minister displayed in relation to an urgent scheme of road improvement in the neighbourhood of this city. I refer to his abandonment of the Bray Road improvement project. There is no doubt whatever that that abandonment was a grave error of policy on his part. Everybody knows that that road is one of the main arteries from the city to Wexford and, ultimately, to Waterford, through the important towns along our eastern coast south of Dublin. It is a road that is a veritable death trap. It is a road where accidents are of daily occurrence. It is a road the improvement of which is urgently demanded and the improvement of which was being carried out gradually year by year under the Fianna Fáil Administration. That the improvement was not complete before 1948 was due entirely to the intervention of war and to no other reason. This is a public work that must ultimately and inevitably be carried out.

I do not suggest the work should be carried out all at once. It was a work designed to be carried out in stages spread over a number of years. It would have cost in the long run something in the region of £233,000. It has now been deferred and the ultimate consequence of that will be that, when it is carried out, it will in all probability cost twice as much. In the meantime the life of every user of that road, whether he be a pedestrian, a motorist, the driver of a horse-drawn vehicle or a cyclist, will at certain sections of that road be in inevitable jeopardy every time he passes over them. The Minister was stampeded into abandoning this project by a campaign conducted in a newspaper in the interests of a few individuals who resented the fact that the amenities of their properties might be interfered with. I hope that the Minister—the Minister is a man of courage and I have no reason to deny that—will regard the shelving of that scheme as only temporary, that he will take it up again as soon as the local elections are over, and he will ensure that it is proceeded with and given effect to. I am glad to see that the Minister recognises the need for completing this scheme in the form in which it was originally planned.

There are one or two other matters which I shall just briefly mention in the hope that the Minister may give us some information in regard to them when he is replying. For many years, there has appeared in the Estimates a sub-head providing for competitions for designs for housing schemes. The purpose of the competitions was to secure some variation in the more or less standardised type of house which is built under the various Housing Acts. We were anxious if we could to secure model plans and model lay-outs, which would inspire architects and engineers, who are responsible for the execution of these schemes, to combine aesthetic considerations with mere utility. As I have said, I had hoped that we had got to the stage after the change of Government took place that we would have that competition held in the year 1948-49. For some reason or other, it has not taken place. I am glad to see that the Minister has not abandoned the idea and that the provision continues to appear in the Estimates for his Department. I should like if he could give us an assurance that the competitions will actually take place this year and that the community as a whole will have the benefit of them.

There is another matter upon which I should like the Minister to give us some information. In the year 1947 I thought we had reached a virtual conclusion as to the lines upon which the North County Dublin regional water supply would be carried out. That was a very important work. I thought that we had reached a solution as between the Dublin Corporation on the one hand, as the main water suppliers, and the Dublin County Council on the other, as representing the main consumers. I do not know what progress has been made in giving effect to the scheme but I should be glad if the Minister would give me some information in regard to it. I should like also if he would let me know the position in relation to the Howth main drainage which has again an important place in the general development plans for Dublin and the metropolitan district. I have nothing more to say on the subject. I shall leave a more detailed criticism of the administration of the Department to other Deputies who may wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Corry

I understand that the motion handed in by Deputy O'Rourke and myself is to be taken in conjunction with this Vote. The motion reads:—

" That in view of the deplorable state of the roads, mainly caused by the heavy motor traffic which they were not constructed to take, and of the intolerable burden which their maintenance would impose on the ratepayers, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that for the next three years an amount equal to the revenue derived from motor taxation, petrol tax and import duties on imported motor vehicles and parts, should be allocated to local authorities to enable them to bring main and county roads up to the standard required for modern road transport."

Mr. Keyes

I got no notice that this motion would be taken in connection with the Estimate.

Mr. O'Rourke

If that is so, blame your Whips. It was arranged by the Whips.

Mr. MacEntee

May I put it to the Minister that I understand also that the Whips had indicated that there would be no objection to the motion being discussed? It is connected with general administration and the only advantage of moving it now is that there may be a separate vote on the motion.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Corish)

We have not even got a copy of the motion before us.

Mr. Corry

I do not think that there is any occasion for me to point out to any Deputy the present condition of our roads.

Mr. Keyes

I want to make it clear that I am not agreeable to taking this motion on the Estimate. The motion is not one connected with my Department. It is one that is connected with the Department of Finance.

Mr. Corish

Has the Acting-Chairman seen this?

Mr. O'Rourke

Some of the Whips must have blundered.

Mr. Corish

It is a matter for the Chair, really.

Mr. O'Rourke

I thought the Ceann Comhairle was well aware of it.

Dáil Eireann has a responsibility for everything, but the responsibility is divided between different Ministers.

Mr. Corry

I do not see where the division of responsibility occurs. I am endeavouring to help out the Minister, who, quite frankly, does not seem to be strong enough for the Minister for Finance in this matter.

Mr. Keyes

I want to get a ruling on this matter. I am protesting against the debating of this motion. The Budget has been dealt with and passed, including the allocation of the taxes on petrol. Deputy Corry introduces a motion which I say is not in order and I want a ruling on it.

Mr. Allen

On a point of order. Would it not be the Minister for Local Government who would act on behalf of the Government if this motion were taken in Private Deputies' time?

Mr. Corish

No, the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Allen

The Minister for Local Government is responsible for the administration of the Road Fund and the allocation of it. I take it that he would answer on behalf of the Government if the motion were moved in Private Deputies' time. I suggest to the Chair that he is the Minister who would deal with it. It will not prolong the debate in any way if the motion is discussed now. Definitely it is a matter which is applicable to the Minister for Local Government's Department.

Mr. Keyes

It was dealt with by the Minister for Finance in the Finance Bill. I am not responsible. I suggest that the matter is not in order.

Mr. Corry

This is not a Finance Bill. This is an endeavour on my part and on the part of my colleagues to get for the Minister for Local Government the finances necessary to put the roads for which he is responsible in a proper condition. I would expect to see the Minister voting in the lobby with me as well as my colleagues of all Parties who are members of the Cork County Council.

Mr. Corish

Would not any change in the matter of the distribution of such taxation as is mentioned here in this motion involve a change in legislation?

Mr. MacEntee

Apparently there has been some misunderstanding about this motion. I understand that it had been conveyed to us that the Government would permit the merits of the motion more or less to be discussed and that a vote would be taken on it afterwards. I do not know whether that was, in fact, a definite agreement. What I suggest to Deputy Corry is that if he would devote that part of his speech which he intended to make to the general demands which the maintenance of the roads in proper condition would make upon the finances of the State in one form or another and leave to one side the question of how the money would be provided we might conduct the debate on these lines and we might, if the Chair permitted, put the motion afterwards as a separate motion to be decided without discussion.

Very good. It was news to me.

Mr. Corry

As I said, in moving the motion, I have no doubt that I will have the support of every Deputy no matter what Party he belongs to, because we are in the position that the roads of this country were, in the first instance, built out of the ratepayers' money in the old Grand Jury days and that was carried on by the rates collected by the county councils when they came into being. These roads were built up by the ordinary country people paying each year their assessment on roads. Now of late years, and when I say of late years I do not mean the lifetime of this Government or the lifetime of any other Government, this thing of collecting money which is other people's property and devoting it to uses other than the use to which it should be put, namely, the improvement of our roads, has been carried on here. It is on account of that that we are anxious that the Government should step in and refund in the only way possible for them by handing over the money derived from the roads by motor taxation, petrol taxation and by the import duty on motor vehicles and devoting it to the roads for the next three years so as at least to bring them up to a condition in which they will be able to bear modern traffic.

This amounts to £6,900,000 against which is set an amount of £2,300,000. That would give us £4,600,000 extra for the roads of the country.

Mr. S. Collins

You have a hope.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Collins seems anxious to interrupt. He is anxious, I am sure, to speak for his constituents in West Cork who came in a body and voted for this motion a fortnight ago in the county council. I am sure that Deputy Collins would like to carry out the wishes of the representatives of his own Party in the county council.

Let us have a look at the condition of those roads for which we want this money. The report of the deputy county engineer of Cork County stated on the 17th January, 1950:—

"We present our estimates for the year 1950-51 and this year we are making a radical change as we have made it out in two parts: (1) the minimum required for pure maintenance, and (2) a list of works of rolling, etc., on important non-rolled roads.

Our maintenance figures are the lowest at which we consider our roads can be maintained at their existing standard. The comparative figures of our estimate and the amount available in 1939/40 show an increase of 126 per cent. This at first glance seems large but is, in fact, on the small side as wages have increased from 35/- a week to 66/- a week, an increase of almost 90 per cent., and the price of cut back bitumen has increased from £4 1s. 0d. per ton to £15 12s. 4d. per ton, an increase of 385 per cent. This means that our surface dressing costs have gone up practically three times the pre-war price. Having regard, therefore, to the value of money, we are asking for less than was allowed pre-war.

The biggest factor of all we have left to last, namely, the intensity of traffic and the change that has taken place both in the location and weights of such traffic. Roads that only occasionally saw a lorry pre-war are now expected to take very heavy traffic and these roads have deteriorated sadly. In August, 1939, the number of vehicles taxed in County Cork was 5,571; in August, 1948, it was 8,997; in August, 1949, it was 10,791; and the estimate for 1950 is 12,300. In other words, our motor traffic has doubled in numbers and is getting on towards trebling, and the weights of the individual vehicles have also increased in nearly the same proportion, so that it would be fair to say that the total weight of motor traffic using the roads to-day is not less than four times that of pre-war.

Last year the amount of money available for county roads permitted only a negligible amount of surface dressing on existing surface-dressed roads and no money was available for this purpose from central funds, with the sole exception of a few miles of suburban roads carrying city bus services. In the South Cork district, for instance, there were 162 miles of surface-dressed roads at March 31st, 1949, and over 150 miles could not be done. This is a very serious situation as a few years of this would mean the breaking up of these roads and the loss of the capital expenditure involved in their making. The same applies, in a lesser degree, to the north and west areas, but the total money involved is not far short of £750,000.

In view of the above, we consider that we are justified in not accepting responsibility for the maintenance of the roads unless the sum asked for the purpose is made available.

In the course of the year, and in fact any year, representations are made in various ways to the council to have certain roads rolled, etc., and a common method of dealing with such applications is to refer them to the estimates meeting. We are now submitting a list of roads which, in our opinion, should be improved, and we give in each case an approximate estimate for the council to implement resolutions, or take such steps as it thinks fit. In considering this list, it can be borne in mind that a grant for the improvement of roads will, in all probability, be made available in the coming year much on the lines as in the current year."

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the reference?

Mr. Corry

Column 1880 of the Official Debates of Thursday, June 15th.

An Ceann Comhairle

We want it for reference.

Mr. Corry

That was signed by Mr. Coffey, Mr. O'Donnell, and Mr. P.J. Malone, the three deputy county engineers for the county. The report continues:—

"What is the result of that appeal? They say, in the first place, that the minimum required for road maintenance was: main roads, £160,000; county roads, £253,000. All they got from the county council was £136,000 for main roads and £206,000 for county roads, leaving a deficit of £71,000 for road maintenance on main roads alone."

The reason for that was that despite the fact that the cost of bitumen had gone up and wages had gone up, the Minister only made the same allowance in grant as was made in the previous year. The elected representatives on the Cork County Council could not see their way to place any further burden on already overburdened ratepayers.

Mr. Desmond

Not the whole lot.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Desmond will have an opportunity of speaking on this Estimate. I advise him to take a look at the back numbers of the Cork Examiner and see what he did at the meeting of the Cork County Council. The position is that the roads in Cork County this year are being run, in respect of maintenance alone, on a sum which is £71,000 short of the lowest estimate the county surveyors could give, and I want the Minister to realise that.

With regard to the improvement looked for by the three county surveyors, the total estimate for the improvement, not of all the roads but of some of the roads in Cork County alone amounts to £1,000,000 or one quarter of what we are looking for in this motion, so that, at best, if this motion is carried, we could only do half the job of improvements which the surveyors say is necessary in Cork County this year.

These roads are the property of the local authority, the county council, and not the property of the State, and, if the State collects an income from these roads by way of motor taxation, petrol taxation or otherwise, every £ they collect means an extra deterioration in the condition of these roads and extra wear and tear on these roads. I am sure the Minister knows and appreciates that fact and he will appreciate my anxiety that these roads should not get into any worse condition than they are in now. They are the property of the local authority, as I say, and it is a new form—or, if you like, an old form —of highway robbery for the State to step in and give an individual a licence to travel over these roads, while drawing a tax from his petrol, when the roads which are worn by that individual are not the property of the State.

That is all we require. I will be as brief as possible. When I decided to attach my signature to this motion, it was not just through any caprice or for publicity of any sort. It was because I saw that it is a matter of dire necessity that something should be done to change the condition of our roads. Deputy Corry has given an account of conditions in Cork. Any Deputy or member of a local body who is sincere and honest in expressing his views can say the same of practically every county. It is true that, during the emergency, owing to turf production, in the West of Ireland, work on roads was very much neglected. Most of the men who had been engaged on the roads were engaged in the production of hand-won turf, with the result that the roads deteriorated greatly. Added to that, there was very heavy traffic. Lorries carrying many tons were travelling, not only over the main roads, but over the secondary roads, county roads and by-roads. The result is that there is great deterioration in the condition of the roads.

During the three years before Fianna Fáil left office, liberal grants were given for the restoration of the roads but that work was not completed. Last year we were notified by the then Minister for Local Government that our grants were to be cut down. We were also notified that a certain amount was to be allocated for the improvement of county roads. That was a good thing all right but I am afraid the Minister is very optimistic if he thinks that the amount allocated for the improvement of main roads will do anything appreciable in any reasonable time. At the rate we got grants, it would be about 70 years before we would have improved all our county roads and long before that time had expired there would be a great need for renewal. The amount granted for improvement of county roads is altogether insufficient.

Apart from the condition of county roads, main roads in many cases are very badly in need of re-surfacing and in fact many main roads in the West of Ireland should be rebuilt because they are not able to carry the traffic that they are carrying at the present time. In County Roscommon in only about two cases are the streets of our towns in a reasonable condition. The streets of all the other towns would need to be rebuilt. That would be a very big task and would require a great deal of money.

When Bord na Móna ceased production of hand-won turf, they left us a legacy of roads that were in a deplorable condition. Hardly a week passes that representations are not made to me by people who live along the roads asking that something should be done about them. Only a few days ago I was told of a bridge that was broken on a by-road. Bord na Móna left it there and it is now impassable.

Taking all things into account, I would say that the roads are in a very bad condition. I am not blaming the present Minister for Local Government. It was not he who first intimated that the road grants would be reduced, but I think he would understand that it was a very grave thing to do. Even allowing for the fact that in the last year we got something like £42,000 improvement grant for county roads, the net reduction, as we had estimated, was £78,000 for a mediumsize county. That was a very serious matter and has been a very serious matter since.

This year, in preparing his estimate, the county engineer estimated for over 50 per cent. more than we were prepared to give him. Unlike other counties, we did not continue the rate that had been struck in previous years. The roads had deteriorated so much that we decided—this applied to people of all Parties on the county council—to increase the rate for county roads alone by 1/8 in the £. Last year, when we were notified of the cut in road grants, we only raised the rate by 5d. in the £. Deputies can see that the raising of the rate by 1/8 in the £ is a very big step and represents very heavy expenditure on that particular item alone. If we increased the rate to the extent that the county surveyor would require, it would be increased by 5/- Even then, he would not be satisfied that we could put the roads into proper condition.

It may not be the best procedure to say: "Allocate to the local bodies an amount equivalent to what is raised in taxation on the various forms of motor vehicles." It does not matter what way it is obtained, the money is required. The total amount involved would be about £7,000,000, if all the money derived in one way or another from motor traffic were applied to the roads. If all that cannot be allocated, a very big proportion of it would be required for the next three years.

We brought in this motion in order to draw attention, in the first place, to the great necessity to do something. To do something small is not very much good: a large sum of money must be allocated if the roads are to be put into a reasonable condition. I would appeal to the Minister to accept this motion in principle. I am not asking him to accept the motion in its entirety, but I would ask him to accept it in principle. I know he is not the final authority in this. I know that the reduction of the road grant by £2,000,000 obviously is a Cabinet decision, that no Minister, not even the Minister for Finance, would attempt to make such a reduction, that he would have to get the sanction of his colleagues and if anything like this is to be put into operation it will have to get the sanction of the Cabinet. However, it is the responsibility of the Minister to try to get proper roads in the country.

The Minister, as Deputy MacEntee said, seemed to be rather complacent about the condition of the roads. I can assure him it is not a matter for complacency. It is a very serious matter. In our particular case—and we are not paying anything for health services at the moment; later it will come to the time when we will have to pay—we have already a rate of 24/2 in the £. No one used to a rate of 10/-, 12/-, or 14/- at the most, can look at the present position with any degree of satisfaction. It is a very serious state of affairs. While it is true that prices are pretty good for those who have land, this is becoming a very heavy burden.

Let us bear in mind that many of the ratepayers are paying for these roads for the use of motorists, people who have not even a donkey and cart themselves. It is not fair that poor ratepayers should be paying for those who are using motor vehicles. I understand that the number of heavy vehicles in recent years is about 100 per cent. more than it was formerly. Much of the work that was formerly done by Córas Iompair Éireann or its predecessors, the railway companies—in fact; the great bulk of that work—is being done by lorries which are carrying heavy loads. They do not go merely on the main roads which may be calculated to carry them safely, they go also on county roads and by-roads and even into culs-de-sac.

Here again we have a serious position with regard to these same culs-de-sac and I hope that in any extension of the grants to local bodies the Department of Local Government will consider some scheme by which they may be repaired and maintained. We have applications again and again before the county councils, but owing to legal difficulties we cannot do anything. It is not fair that the people who live in these culs-de-sac, in many cases a large number of families, should be condemned to slavery like that, as they have not the financial means to repair the roads.

I did not intend to speak at length, as I understand there is a question of trying to get Government business done and I do not want to impede it in any way. However, I do ask that when a vote is taken on this—as I hope it will be—the Deputies of all Parties will consider their responsibility to their constituencies and to the country in general. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that substantial grants, such as we have asked for, should be made available for three years. After all, grants are being made available for many purposes, but anyone must admit that the roads are absolutely necessary arteries in the life of the country and must be maintained. Everyone realises that the longer you leave these roads in a bad condition the more costly it will be to maintain them. I travel over roads right beside me, up against my door; the paving stones were put there maybe 100 years ago. They are exposed and the whole surface is worn off, perhaps by motor traffic. I do not know how the vehicles travel on them at all. Consider what it will cost in a few years' time, if nothing is done.

I am glad that Deputy Corry said that, but he does not deny that the majority—it was not unanimous—of the Cork County Council decided, in respect of the figures submitted by their surveyors and engineers, that though these engineers were asking for a definite amount to keep the roads in their present condition that figure would have to be reduced by about 1/6 in the £. Considering that 1d. in the £ in Cork brings in £4,800, it is obvious that the majority of the members in the Cork County Council were so determined to see good roads in County Cork that they went so far as to reduce that figure by 1/6: that represents £4,800 multiplied by 18. I must say that I cannot see the sense of a motion being brought before this House by any member of a county council who will have to admit that what happens locally does not always tally with what happens here.

Has it not been made clear by Deputy O'Rourke that they do not care what happens in respect of a discussion here? They do not care if they have no discussion so long as there is a vote. Are we to forget that Deputy O'Rourke and Deputy Corry are preparing their guns for a local election and yet, despite all that political playacting, we have the sorry sight of a reduction of £4,800, multiplied by 18, in respect of the roads?

Mr. Corry

The grant.

Mr. Desmond

Is it not fair to say that we should not act as hypocrites, saying here that we want more money while at our own county council meeting we say that we will not give up our share? The Waterford County Council, in their wisdom, decided that they would spend the money on their roads and put them in good repair. It is admitted that they have good decent roads now. However, through sheer neglect and sheer fright at the thought of spending one penny, they have squandered pounds in Cork by not keeping the roads in good repair. I put down a parliamentary question for answer yesterday and I would say, in connection with it, that at times in this House comparisons are made between the amounts given this year, last year, the year before that and the year before that again, and so on.

If we are to be fair and honest and desire to make a true comparison on the figures, surely we must, as I have asked in that question, make a comparison between the period 1941 to 1945 and 1946? Deputy Corry is as cute and as wise as any man in this House and I give him full credit for that. He knows full well that, in respect of the amounts allocated for each county and for Cork, in which both he and I are interested, while there are certain increases throughout these years, there was a balance accruing from the amount which was not given out in these years. In 1947—the time of the increased grant—even the increased grant itself did not make up for the amount not given out between 1941 and 1945-46.

I am at all times anxious to see the central authority put every penny they can into the Road Fund and through that into the roads themselves. But we in Cork must not forget that if we are paying increased motor taxation because of a large increase in the number of vehicles taxed and increased petrol duty, we have the right to travel the roads of every one of the Twenty-Six Counties. We are not paying that money simply for the right to travel the roads of Cork County alone. If we can travel over the roads of every one of the Twenty-Six Counties, surely it is only fair to admit that there is a certain amount of wear and tear on the roads of other counties caused by Cork men? I suppose that even here in Dublin we are responsible for a certain amount of wear and tear and that, even here, we are probably responsible for much wear and tear on the patience of our opponents at times.

As Deputy Corry is fully aware—but he escaped discussing it—the one line taken in the past was just the question of trying to get extra money some way or another—we had not the foggiest idea of what way we could get it. I believe the only sensible approach— other than by the local authorities facing their responsibilities—the only genuine approach would be, instead of the Minister allocating a certain amount out of the Road Fund each year and each county putting up its own amount, accepting the recommendation made by some of us on the deputation that saw the Minister. Deputy Corry was present, but I do not think he agreed too wholeheartedly with it. The recommendation was that, instead of raising a few hundred thousand each year, we should go somewhat further and raise up to £500,000 if necessary. In the meantime, we would be assured of a continuation of our slice out of the Road Fund each year to make up for what we would be getting in the ordinary sense.

I will always vote against you when I believe it is correct to do so.

Mr. Briscoe

I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister whose Department is now under review. The suggestions I propose to make are not in the form of criticisms. I think the time has come for us to reflect on what has been accomplished in the effort to bring about some system of relief for our people in the matter of housing. When we took over control of this country we inherited an amount of slumdom and, as time went on, under our own administration, there was created a situation in which we began to realise that not only should something be done rapidly, but that it should be done extensively.

In the period of the Cumann na nGaedheal régime, when housing was started on a comparatively large scale, some of us thought that it might be questionable to go on with the schemes then envisaged because we might only create new slums in the elimination of the ones then existing. In the City of Dublin, at any rate, where we had such a scarcity of accommodation and where we were forced over a number of years, particularly in the years prior to the outbreak of the war, to give priority to certain classes, the position became very acute. We had to give priority to families living in basements, families living in single rooms, families consisting of parents and maybe seven or eight children. We had to give preference to families where certificates of ill-health had been issued by the dispensary doctor.

In the case of families consisting of eight persons or over, we put them into ordinary small houses which were built in accordance with the regulations as they then stood. What was the result? Where we put a father and mother and, say, eight children into a small house, we found in the course of a few years that instead of there being a father and mother and eight children we had really ten adults in this small house. As children, the boys and girls shared the same bedroom, but to-day we have grown-up people, mixed sexes, sharing the same rooms and accommodation.

I suggest that in future schemes of housing on a large scale, consideration should be given to leaving some space to add on a room or two to houses which were built even in accordance with the present space standards. I also suggest that there should be a grant made available for local authorities so as to enable them to provide that extra accommodation. If officials of the Department will go round to Cabra or Crumlin or any other part of Dublin where these large housing schemes are in progress, and examine the houses and the occupants, I believe they will come back with the feeling that many of the houses are overpopulated. Some arrangement should be made whereby the tenants of local authority houses will derive some benefit in the shape of an additional room or two. In the case of future housing schemes that aspect should be kept in mind.

It is all very well to suggest that as time goes on and these young children grow up you can shift them from one place to another, but that cannot easily be done, because these houses are mainly built to the same standard. That applies to the types of houses made available to those who purchased under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. I would like the Minister to have this matter examined and he should endeavour to have consultations with local authorities, particularly in the City of Dublin, with a view to seeing how this position can be relieved. I have personal experience of this problem and I am aware that where we made available a good type of house, suitable for a young married couple with a certain number of children, in time the family increased, the children grew up and then you had in that type of small house a degree of overcrowding which made the position almost as bad as when those people were first taken out of their hovels or tenements.

There is another matter I would like the Minister to consider. We are now applying what are called differential rents. The idea behind that is that local authorities will be able to grade up or grade down the rents of their tenants in accordance with a tenant's income. I understand that has been tried out to a certain extent in Cork. It is being applied at present in Dublin. What I suggest is, that there should be some formula or machinery whereby this up or down arrangement in rents could be carried out more rapidly than at present. In answer to a question that was asked in this House recently we were given an astounding figure as to the number of applications made by the Dublin Corporation to secure possession of rented houses from tenants who had got into arrears in their rent payments. In a great many cases, a man in constant employment finds he has no money left out of his weekly earnings when he has met his liabilities. If he has the misfortune to lose. This employment he gets into arrears with his rent. The local authority can then start proceedings to secure possession of the house within a couple of weeks. My suggestion is that, where people's earnings change rapidly through loss of employment or some other unforeseen cause, there should be some formula or machinery by means of which there could be a lowering in the amount of rent and the application of the differential rent principle without hardship to the occupying tenant and without imposing unpleasant duties on the local authority officials. In these cases, too, the local authority representatives are often held responsible for what occurs. All that would be obviated if what I suggest were done.

I do not know how this differential rent principle is going to be applied finally. There seems to be, even in this House, a very great difference of opinion on the subject. Recently in a discussion in this House the Minister for Finance was obviously referring to economic rents in the sense that they must be economic to the local authority and to the State. Another member of the House, dealing with the same subject in almost the same words as the Minister, referred to economic rents as they affect the tenants. I am afraid that in the City of Dublin we are reaching the stage where we are being forced by circumstances to erect houses at rents which may ultimately prove to be too high for the tenants Therefore, I think we will have the same old problem all over again unless there is some formula or machinery whereby, on examination, rents can be fixed up and down in accordance with circumstances which arise suddenly in the case of the tenants.

I should like to have a statement from the Minister to clarify something which is not quite clear to me. The Minister for Local Government, and his predecessor in office, as well as the Taoiseach have, on a number of occasions, indicated that a shortage of money will not hamper the building of houses. We in the Dublin Corporation are not quite clear as to how these statements affect us. The City of Dublin raises its own loans for housing. Recently, there was a short hold up because of the difficulty of obtaining the full amount of money estimated to be required within a certain period by the corporation. It is true that we got the money at a later period. I should like, as I say, to have a statement from the Minister which would clarify the position where the Dublin Corporation or any other local authority finds it necessary to continue the building of houses on a large scale. I should like to have an indication from the Minister that, in these circumstances, there will be no hold up of schemes due to any shortage of money and that if the Dublin Corporation finds any difficulty in obtaining money from its bankers, the State will at any rate make it available to them.

We have now had some 30 years' experience in the provision of houses to meet what we think are our own needs. We may have made some mistakes. At the same time, I feel that the Minister and his Department cannot help but have sympathy with a point of view that I have expressed before. Take the case of a family which is taken out of a slum tenement and put into a new house. In time, the new house does not provide adequate accommodation for that family. In a case such as that, I think there should be not only permission to make an addition to the house to meet the needs of that family, but that there should be State assistance to enable it to be done. I think that would be preferable to having to build a new and larger house for that family which would involve the payment of State and local authority grants, the acquiring of land as well as the cost of building the house. I think that in the future where we are considering housing schemes on a large scale, that inherent in those schemes should be a provision for making additions to the houses at a future date when such additions became necessary. I think it would be far better do that than spend additional capital at a later date to meet the need which would then have arisen. I think that my suggestion, if adopted, would give real satisfaction to the people for whom we are providing houses at present. Certainly, under it they would have better living conditions than they have had in the past.

We are not discussing the proposed new Housing Bill, but I would like to draw the Minister's attention to a particular matter in connection with housing. Possibly, Deputy Captain Cowan will be angry with me for raising this. Where a person applies for a loan from a local authority, whether it is to buy a house built by a local authority or by private enterprise, under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act some limit should be fixed by the Department to the legal charges the proposed purchaser is asked to shoulder. On one occasion I pointed out that where the corporation bought a property and built identical houses on it, selling a number of them subsequently under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, the prospective purchaser was asked to pay legal charges almost equivalent to his buying the whole site, although it was a case of repetition as far as each house was concerned.

Captain Cowan

On a point of order. Personally, I have no objection to this being developed but, clearly, it is a matter for the Minister for Justice and not for the Minister for Local Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

I just wanted to hear the Deputy on it. I have asked him to prove if it has anything to do with this Estimate.

On a point of order, are we discussing the County Management Bill?

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sweetman)

I was just waiting for the Deputy to develop his point. I understood the Deputy was making these observations to show that it was not necessary to discuss administration in regard to these particular points.

Captain Cowan

Of course.

Mr. Childers

Can we all make observations, by the way, on these measures in the same manner?

Acting-Chairman

I do not think the Deputy made any observations on the measures. I think he merely said that it was not necessary to discuss administration in regard to these particular points because these measures were on the Order Paper.

Captain Cowan

That comes exceptionally well from the Deputies who have spoken, particularly on the debate which concluded last night.

Acting-Chairman

Let us get on to the Local Government Estimate.

Captain Cowan

These two measures which have been introduced by the Minister for Local Government show the progress that has been made by the Department during the past 12 months. If I keep to the administration of the past 12 months, I shall be perfectly in order. It is, I think, one of the very good signs that democracy is really in operation in this country, that the desires of Deputies should be translated into Bills which are brought within a reasonable period before the Dáil for consideration. The main item on which I want to address my few remarks to the House is building, particularly in the City of Dublin. No doubt there has been substantial progress over the past couple of years. The pace is being accelerated, not to the extent that one would like to have it accelerated, but nevertheless there has been an increasing tempo in the production of houses. Deputies who have to meet night after night their constituents who are anxious to get houses can now see day after day particular individuals who are bad cases being housed by the Dublin Corporation. I think that is something that every Dublin Deputy particularly is glad to see. There is nothing so welcome in the morning as a letter from the Dublin Corporation to say that Mr. So-and-So is about to be provided with a house in one of the new building schemes.

Mr. Allen

Who are the Deputies who get these letters?

Captain Cowan

All the Dublin Deputies do and I can assure the House that they are very welcome letters indeed. I should like to see more of them. I should like to see the tempo increased. I was disturbed recently by a report in the Irish Press that there had been some reduction in the number of persons employed in the building of houses by the Dublin Corporation. I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter when concluding. It is clear, it appeared to me at any rate, that that is just a temporary phase while work is about to be commenced on another scheme. During the debates last year and the year before on this Estimate and in questions I addressed to the Minister and his predecessor, I asked the Minister to ensure that adequate lands and building sites would be available so that as high a production of houses as was humanly possible would be achieved. I should like to see on hands sites that are being built on, sites that are being developed, sites being prepared for development and sites in course of acquisition. That will be necessary if the full scale housing programme is to be carried out.

I am glad that the Minister for Justice is here because there is one aspect of this matter that touches to some extent on his responsibilities although strictly it is a matter for the Minister for Local Government. Deputy Briscoe has mentioned the point about evictions, notices to quit and proceedings to eject corporation tenants. It is quite a common thing every week in the City of Dublin to see hundreds of persons, occupants of corporation houses, summoned to attend before the District Court in proceedings for ejectment. The strange thing about it is that Dublin Corporation as a corporation have no responsibility whatever with regard to that nor are they consulted. The notice to quit is issued allegedly on the authority of the city manager; it is signed by an official of the corporation and served on the particular individual who is brought to court. The citizen, the tenant of the corporation house, has no defence whatsoever to the proceedings which are brought by the corporation as the district justice, however sympathetic he may be—the very same thing applies to county council houses and houses owned by local authorities all over the country——

Mr. Briscoe

Is that the law?

Mr. S. Collins

You would not understand that.

Acting-Chairman

Is this not the administration of justice?

Captain Cowan

Captain Cowan

Oh, yes.

Acting-Chairman

The Deputy must realise that once a notice to quit is issued by the local authority and court proceedings are taken thereafter it is justice that deals with the matter and not local government, which we are discussing or should be discussing.

We made a calculation at one time that, by the middle of the war, the capital investment in the roads of the country had already reached the huge figure of some £25,000,000 and, allowing for costs of maintenance and improvement, that figure has increased many times since then. Most of the 20,000 miles of non-public roads are in a deplorable condition, arising from heavy turf transport and from the fact that, in the course of the past 16 years, it was not possible to carry out improvements in every direction at the same speed. My own belief is that one of the most prominent causes of emigration is the fact that the young people will no longer tolerate conditions under which they have to go to Mass, to school, to amusements of any kind or to work, along roads which are utterly out-of-date and which would have been continuously improved but for the advent of the world war, for which no one in this House was responsible.

My views about road improvement are partly based on the idea that, if we want to keep the young people here, we must make communications far more satisfactory. We also have to face the fact that, no matter what the Government of the day does in regard to Córas Iompair Éireann, no Government in this country is likely to take any action which will prevent people owning their own vehicles and transporting their goods from one destination to another. As the Minister knows, the whole problem of Córas Iompair Éireann eventually boils down to the fact that the overhead charges involved in handling goods at either end of the journey, when leaving and when arriving, and in using frequently two and three kinds of transport to carry these goods are so high that no public transport system, however perfectly run, is going to be able to compete completely and adequately with those who wish to bring their goods in their own vehicles.

The position is that Córas Iompair Éireann is likely in future to close down a number of branch lines—it is almost inevitable under existing circumstances—and the more branch lines that are closed down, the greater will be the burden upon the roads. At the same time, as the Minister knows, the number of cars is going to increase continually year by year, until the time is reached when any person above the level of the most modest wage will have some sort of motor vehicle. It is becoming a universal thing in this life from which we cannot possibly escape. Along with all this, the cost of road repair and improvement has increased, on the Minister's own admission, by 125 per cent. My own belief is that that is a minimum figure.

I would say that by the time wages have increased again this year, the increase in cost might possibly be 135 per cent. The principal cause has been the increase in wages so desperately needed by road workers and which has taken place under successive Ministers for many, many years. I should like to add at this point that the attempts made by certain Deputies to give the impression that the present Government alone has raised the wages of the workers is, in the circumstances, ridiculous, since, if I remember rightly, road workers' wages were something in the neighbourhood of 25/- to 35/- before the world war and have been rising continually ever since then. They rose, I think, in every year of the last five years of the office of the previous Government. I may add, of course, that a great many other social services were conferred upon road workers at the same time by the last Government, still further improving their position.

I am glad to see, in that connection, while I am speaking on the matter, that the Minister has continued the encouragement of the provision of protective clothing by county councils. We, I remember, issued various notices about that asking county councils to improve their standards in regard to the protective clothing being given to workers and, from an answer to a parliamentary question I got the other day, I can see that very considerable progress is being made.

Mr. O'Leary

You did not sanction that, though, years ago.

Mr. Childers

That is the position. I think it is Just as well to give the figures to the House in regard to where we stand in regard to the amount of money available. In 1938-39, we had for road expenditure from all sources a total of £2,025,000, of which the rates paid about two-thirds. In 1949-50, that amount had gone to £4,640,000, of which the rates provided about half. The Road Fund grants were £700,000. in 1938-39 and £2,346,000 in 1949-50. That sum looks very substantial. It looks, at first sight, as though we ought to be able to do very good work on the roads but, according to the Minister's own admission, £225 in this year will be required to do the work that £100 did in 1938-39. He cannot escape from that one hard fact.

If you apply that simple mathematical sum to the amount of money made available in 1949-50, you find that the real increase on road expenditure, having regard to its value, is only 10 per cent, since 1938-39. You simply take the total of £4,640,000 and say that every £225 of that will only do the work of £100.

There is no cooking of these statistics. It is a simple problem for the Minister to face, which the Minister of State for every other Department has had to face in connection with the task of providing money for services, perhaps not in the same degree but nearly in the same degree. If you apply that principle, you find that the real increase in the amount of money made available for the roads is only 10 per cent. above 1938-39. The traffic density has increased by 66 per cent. and goods vehicle density has increased by 100 per cent. It is quite obvious that the Minister will have to reconsider the whole problem.

I am not suggesting that the Minister could necessarily have done that in his first year of office. I would like to be as generous as I can but one cannot escape from these figures. There is no reinterpretation of them. They are there for everyone to see.

If you apply that same principle to main road grants—again from figures which I secured by answer to a parliamentary question, you find that even the very large grants made available by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1948-49 were not entirely sufficient to account for the increase in the cost of road improvement, although they went a good way towards it—you find that, in relation to 1949-50, there is an actual decrease in the amount available for main roads of 31 per cent. Again applying the same principle of what value can be effected in road improvement or restoration by the money, in comparison with 1938-39, there is a reduction of 31 per cent.—an increase in terms of money but a reduction in terms of value effected. It is quite obvious that the main roads can never stand up to the burden of traffic, can never be made suitable for this country, can never be made to compare with roads in other countries with the same standard of living as we have unless that situation is changed.

I next come to county roads. Here there has been relatively more improvement in the amount of money made available than in the case of the main roads. The total amount made available for county roads in 1938-39 from rates alone was £853,000. In 1948-49, the total amount available from rates and the new Road Fund grants was £2,601,000 and the amount available in 1949-50, was £2,696,000.

I should mention, in passing, that the suggestion that the present Government have given a great deal more money for county roads is not true in the sense of the total amount of money made available as compared with what Fianna Fáil made available in 1948-49. It is true that the total amount of money made available from all sources is greater than it was in our last year of office but the actual sum is very nearly the same, according to the figures given to me in answer to a parliamentary question. The increase there is very considerable but, if you apply the same rule of relating the figure to value performed, you will find that the increase from the point of view of value is only really about 50 per cent. for county roads as compared with 1948-49, and even that increase does not relate to the numerical increase in the actual density of traffic on the roads and, therefore, the amount of damage which will be done. Traffic, as I have already said, has increased by 66 per cent. for all cars and 100 per cent. for public service and goods vehicles. There is the problem that has to be faced.

I next should advert to the fact that the Road Fund Grant, as the Minister knows, was allocated in reference to the local contribution in the three years before he took office and was also related to the number of cars registered in a particular area, the population of the area and the road mileage in the area. These were the factors, when we were in office, and we considered at that time adding a further factor in calculating the Central Fund contribution. We decided that we should have a special factor for tourist roads, where they were of vital interest to the tourist industry, that if there was a road such as the road that takes people around the Ring of Kerry, there should be some special allowance for a road of that description, irrespective of what the unemployment was in the area.

We also decided that we should give special grants to counties where main roads pass through a county which have very little local interest. A good example would be the main road from Dublin to Cork when passing through Tipperary. So far as I know, from talking to people in that area, the road from Cashel North to the Tipperary boundary has very little local interest to people living in the county, whereas the portion of the road from Dublin to Cork going South from Cashel to Cahir and Mitchelstown would have much more local significance. We decided that there should be another factor used mathematically by the Minister's Department when calculating Central Road Fund grants allowing for that question of the local interest attached to a main arterial road going from Dublin to some place in the West or South or going between two towns.

One could give as a further example the Cork-Mallow road. Although it is an arterial road that goes on to Limerick, it will obviously have very considerable local interest to the people of both Cork and Mallow. There are many other examples of the same kind that will occur to Deputies.

The Minister knows that £300,000 of the Road Fund is now taken for ordinary revenue purposes. That was done by the former Government. If the Minister were to calculate the figure—I may be wrong—he would find that, before the world war, when conditions for improving roads were fairly normal, the amount of money spent out of road rural grants from the Special Employment Schemes Office was greater than the total raid on the Road Fund over a period. I am fairly certain it was greater; I am certain it was as large. There was no great raid on the total moneys available for improving roads.

The Minister has to face the fact that upon the present horse power basis of taxation the increase in taxation that comes from the number of cars on the road has no relation to the increase in the cost of road expenditure. He gets more money because there are more cars on the road; the cars do more damage, so there is no absolute increase in the amount available for repairing and improving roads. The increase in taxation for small vehicles which was imposed in October, 1947, according to a reply to a parliamentary question, I think it was in the year 1948-49, only provided £300,000 out of a total of £2,400,000. In other words, there is a deficiency of money available for road repair and improvement, because motor taxation has remained stable. That is the fact, even although the number of vehicles on the road has trebled since 1938-39. Even though they have trebled, there is still a deficiency of money. The road contribution has not increased in the same proportion and the rates cannot bear any more expenditure on roads, or very little, and as a result there is this very considerable deficiency.

As the Minister knows, the petrol tax yielded a sum of £3,200,000 in 1949-50. One, of course, can argue until the cows come home whether some of that should be made available for roads or not. Once it goes into the general revenue, it is simply a matter of saying that you have an excuse for providing a sum of money from general revenue for roads, as in that huge sum of money there is some which comes from petrol tax. If we estimate that that £3,000,000 is actually revenue from petrol used on the roads, it would amount to about £24 tax per vehicle in the country— which is a considerable amount. I know that that is a very specious argument, as the money is intended for general revenue purposes; and I merely use it as an illustration of the way by which the Minister might secure more money for roads from the Minister for Finance.

What all this really means is that the Minister must have more money, and a very good illustration of his need for more money is a statement that was made by one county engineer to a county councillor in a certain county, who was asked to state what he considered to be the amount required to keep his roads in their present condition without further deterioration. He said he required, for that particular county, £112,000 for main roads and £116,000 for county roads, just to keep them in their present condition. The amount he got was £47,000 for main roads and £53,000 for county roads.

Now, even allowing for the fact that any county engineer might be inclined to exaggerate somewhat enthusiastically the money that he could spend on maintenance or improvement, it is quite obvious that there is a deficiency. County engineers have presented county councils with estimates of that kind all over the country and even if you were to make a large allowance for exaggeration or for their putting up far more than they could possibly get, this is the clearest proof, clearer than all the statistics I have given, that the Minister should do his best to find more money for the roads.

There is another question, the question of Offaly. I do not know whether Deputy Davin is in the House, he would know about this. In some counties turf production continued in great volume to the very end. The Road Fund grants under present circumstances depend upon the county expenditure in the three years preceding the Minister's entry into office. In Offaly, as in other counties, they could not take full advantage of the big grants given by Fianna Fáil. They spent less, as they were still doing turf, and they could not find the workers to do the large amount of work in the summer. Unless the Minister has changed his method of allocation, these counties still continue to suffer relatively to others. The counties best off were those able to take the fullest advantage of the grants made available by the former Government and there were certain counties where the position is worse than in others. If one were to apply in this case the rule as to what money will do in relation to value, I think the Minister will find that in the present year County Offaly is getting less money than it got in 1938-39 actually, because of the two factors— £225 doing the work of £100 and the fact that Offaly went on with its turf work and could not get workers for roads during the period which the Minister uses as his datum period. If the Minister has changed his method of allocating grants, I would be very glad to hear it, but I think that the method is a little unfair in present circumstances.

When I speak of this deficiency of road expenditure, there are a number of other factors to be taken into account. There has been an increasing use of machinery on roads, which should increase output. There is certainly far better work than ever before being done by county engineers in all counties. There is a better class of stone being used in many counties, as a result of the previous Government's work and the policy advocated by the Minister, of preparing central quarries where stone of approved quality, that could be analysed in advance, could be crushed and prepared as chips for the road. Another factor to be taken into account is that modern lorries are much better sprung than the older ones were and do much less damage to the roads than in 1938-39. That does not apply to some of the war surplus lorries running still, which do more damage in five minutes than six others of the more modern type.

On the other hand, against all that, we have not one-tenth enough modern machinery for use on the roads and there is not half enough competition between contractors and direct labour work to keep up the output. Also, the huge programme of post-war dressing of the roads was never intended to be permanent in many cases. In many cases, the heavy traffic is already beginning to destroy the surface. One only has to travel, as I do on occasion, throughout the country to see some of the very well-made roads that have had to experience extremely heavy traffic, beginning to deteriorate. The waterproof surface is slowly beginning to disintegrate; it has not gone very far, but is absolutely bound to continue unless some of these roads are improved in a permanent way, with solid stone foundations and all the other appurtenances of a modern road.

I next come to the non-public roads, the cul-de-sac roads in the country, of which I have said there are 20,000 miles. As the Minister knows, it is not possible under present conditions for local authorities to repair those roads except when, as in many counties, they administer grants made available by the Special Employment Schemes Office, if the unemployment is sufficient.

The position is, from the point of view of the Minister, that those non-public roads are repaved by three different agencies at the moment—by the Land Commission, by the local authority working on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office and by the Special Employment Schemes Office direct. Grants are given for those roads not on the basis of functional need, density of traffic or any other technical factor but (a) because of the number of registered unemployed in the electoral division concerned, (b) because they carry a certain amount of turf, (c) as a result of the local contributors having agreed to put up what used to be 25 per cent. and what in future, I understand, will be a percentage varying according to the valuations of the persons concerned, or (d) by the Land Commission for the improvement of newly divided estates. I would point out that the actual value of farm residences in some cases decreases by as much as 50 per cent., if they are situated at the end of a long boreen on which there may be as many as 15 or 16 other residences. The amount of money made available from the Special Employment Schemes Office, based on all types of schemes was £225,000 in 1938-39 while in 1949-50 it was £152,000. There is a real reduction there of some 70 per cent. if you apply the rule that roughly £225 will do the work of £100 pre-war.

That is a very serious matter and it is going to alter not only the whole question of the valuation of farms in the future but the more people become modern-minded in this country the more intolerable they will consider these boreens to be. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider a long-term policy designed to provide some means of repairing those boreens and improving them by reference to the functional need, the density of traffic and their condition. I suggest that he can still go on employing people where they have to be employed; that he can ask the users to make the same contribution if he thinks it necessary but that they should be considered as part of the road system in this country. If the Minister reads my own observations on that matter when I was Parliamentary Secretary in connection with a debate that took place on a private Members' Motion, he will find that I said that the only excuse we had then for not considering that matter was the vast amount of restoration which required to be done after the war and the need to overcome deficiencies created through war conditions. I clearly indicated that I knew the problem would have to be tackled; that you could not go on leaving 20,000 miles of non-public roads as compared with 50,000 miles of public roads subject to the improvement by any kind of method except functional need and density of traffic. He will realise that I am not, therefore, speaking inconsistently or trying to place suddenly on his shoulders a burden which I did not even consider at that time.

So far as the main roads are concerned, they are out of date for huge stretches in respect of their width, their vertical elevation and their foundations. They are particularly out of date over bogs and they constitute a danger to life in many places. They have, in particular, the effect of causing extreme physical fatigue to drivers. Everybody knows that accidents do not necessarily take place at corners. The cumulative effect of physical fatigue on a driver on a bad road or a road that curves the whole time is to increase the possibility of accidents. Wherever main roads are too narrow in a dense traffic area they are an absolute menace to life. The Minister will be aware that it is in the narrow stretches of the Bray road that most of the accidents occur, according to a report prepared by the Garda Síochána. The county roads are far below adequate standards and only the outbreak of the world war prevented far more being done to them before. I asked the Minister a question in regard to the cost of improving county roads per mile. In his reply on Tuesday, 14th March, 1950, he said:—

"The figure of £1,850 per mile may be taken as reasonable for the improvement (including widening) and surface dressing of a typical mile of county road but it would not be possible to give an average figure because condition as to width and other factors vary considerably. £2,850 may be taken as the corresponding figure for such work including strengthening of foundations in a bog area."

If he takes these two figures and applies them to the present county road grants, both from the rates and the Central Fund, the Minister will find that it will take a great many scores of years to bring the county roads up to the kind of condition which the younger generation of this country would desire.

It seems to me that the Minister should reconsider the whole question of road planning in this country. No one could consider carrying out arterial drainage by widening a river one foot one year and one foot the next year. No one would consider deepening it by several feet in one year and several feet the next year. No one would consider it was adequate to provide electricity supply pylons throughout the country which are so light that in four or five years they would have to be entirely renewed because they would not bear the number of cables to be added. No one would consider that he was right to purchase land for housing purposes by buying half an acre at a time until enough had been acquired for one housing scheme of 60 houses. No one would be prepared to sanction tenders for housing where the specification of the materials to be used in the housing was not of standard quality and up to date. It would seem to me that we must get out of the habit of thinking that road planning cannot be done in the same way as planning for arterial drainage, electricity supply power or housing.

The Minister should now reconsider the whole question of roads in the light of the fact that the more you plan for the future the more you provide for the future; that the less continuous alterations you make in the structure of the road the cheaper it will be in the long run and the less it will cost to maintain; that the more work you can do the more money will be left available for improving all the various classes of roads in the country. In other words, if a plan is made for the road from Dublin to Cork, based on what the Minister considers is likely to be the traffic density in the next six years, and if the Minister wants to build only a narrow road to Cork, a road that is not much wider than what it is at present, in which the curves are not much less pronounced than they are at present, we can argue about that later, but there is no question about it but that we should reserve whatever space is required for the Cork road in the future to a reasonable degree. To plan steadily for its improvement over a period of years is going to result in the total cost being very much less, in its being possible to employ far more modern machinery which contractors or county councils could not otherwise afford either to buy or to hire and to do the work over a long period at less cost. At the same time, when the road is being finally improved it will be far less costly to maintain. The result will be that more money should be left available for the improvement of the county roads. One of the worst features in debates in this House on roads is the idea that county roads should be competitors to main roads in regard to the money available. If main roads are not repaired economically there will not be money for county roads and vice versa. Each one bears a relation to the other. To cut money off main roads, to delay their improvement, to allow deterioration to take place is only going to get the Minister into much more trouble, or a Minister who may come after the present Minister, when it comes to trying to effect any kind of reasonable programme of county road improvement so urgently needed. As I have said, to give insufficient money to main roads merely piles up the proportion of money spent on maintenance over 25 years on the main roads and draws away from funds required to improve county roads.

We had a plan of that kind, and that plan was in operation when the Minister's predecessor came into office. That plan was criticised by Deputies who had not bothered to listen to the speech made by the Minister for Local Government of the day on the ground that we were trying to construct vast autobahns all over the country. Nothing was further from the truth. The object of the plan was not that you ought to construct vast autobahns, but that you might build a road from Dublin to Cork of whatever type you might think would be required ten or 15 years from now, and that you would do it scientifically and methodically.

If the Minister wishes to have a different type of road to that planned by the previous Government there is nothing to prevent him. The whole idea is to save the State money by doing it in a planned way. We left the Minister that plan. As he knows, it was based on the idea that traffic density would increase at the same rate, from 1945 or 1946, since traffic became normal after the war, for the next 20 years, as it increased from 1928 to 1939. It was a very reasonable gamble. The Minister, I think, will find that the increase has already considerably surpassed that rate.

Bearing in mind that general increase, we planned to improve the roads on a basis that was scientific. We arranged surveys and we asked local authorities to consider taking enough land to enable the roads to be widened progressively and scientifically over a period. We also planned to have standard specifications or road widths, road curvature, road elevation and so forth. The effect of doing that would be just as great as planning properly for, say, rural electrification, telephone extensions or arterial drainage.

Getting back to the question of the Bray road, because there is no general plan in operation for main roads around Dublin, you get the kind of parish pump talk that took place over the Bray road. There is not an engineer in the whole of Europe who would not tell the people of Bray that that road will have to be doubled within the next ten years and the sooner it is doubled, progressively and as inexpensively as possible, the better.

The Minister gave me the average density of traffic on that road. Taking into consideration the increase in the number of vehicles on the road, it reached 300 vehicles per hour at a point south of Donnybrook and 260 vehicles per hour at a point north of Donnybrook. That was the result of taking the figure of the number of vehicles circulating in 1928 and adding a percentage representing the increase in the number of vehicles circulating in the Dublin area, since 1928. The peak densities in the morning, in the middle of the day and in the evening would be greater. There is no modern road authority that would not prescribe a double track road where the density of vehicles exceeds 400 per hour. There is nothing immodest or extravagant in that proposal. The difficulty is that there is no general plan.

People may say that an improved road to Bray is going to cost too much in comparison with other roads around Dublin and they ask why should it cost so much. There is no plan by which the proposal can be given the same amount of attention as that devoted to other roads around Dublin that will also have to be doubled within the next ten years. There are 12½ miles of roads requiring doubling in the Dublin area, planning in respect of which should begin now. That is absolutely inevitable, judging by ordinary modern traffic conditions.

There will never be extensive double carriage way required in this country, because the population is not large enough. The main consideration from the Minister's point of view is to carry out improvements on 1,000 miles of the 10,000 miles of main roads through the country where improvement is very drastically required. He can make whatever provision he likes with regard to the standard width. We decided that the road from Dublin to Cork, the road from Dublin to Galway and the road from Dublin to Limerick should be 24 feet wide with single carriageways. It is not an excessive width and there is no autobahn about that. When you consider that these roads will have to carry increasing traffic for the next 20 years, nobody could say that it is an extravagant proposal. There was a suggestion that the main road from Dublin to Cork should be doubled as far as Naas and then made 24 feet wide the remainder of the distance to Cork.

If county councils knew that that would be the general standard it would be far easier for them to plan and far better work would be done on the roads. It would be far easier to find contractors, to arrange for the use of the largest type of machinery and to increase output. Gradually, if it becomes the general practice, the cost of road improvement will go down. At the moment the cost of main roads, using modern machinery, is enormous. The machinery has to be specially hired and nobody is accustomed to the standards adopted. The road near Monasterevan is more like a scientific experiment than an illustration of the general practice of what could be done in the making of a main road.

Mr. Hickey

Is not the main difficulty the finding of the money?

Mr. Childers

That is what I say— they cannot find the money. Another method of improving road construction is the concreting of main roads over bogs—not minor but main roads over bogs. The Minister, if he desired, could save the next generation a great deal of money and would enable the remainder of the county road improvement work to be carried out more quickly. He can be told by his officers that, in the case of a concrete road, when it is considered over a 25-year period, the cost of maintenance is less. You have to wait 16 years before you begin to get back your money but, after 16 years, you recover more than your money from the point of view of lower maintenance cost, particularly over a bog area and in connection with double carriage-ways and all roads bearing heavy traffic. It takes a long time, no doubt, but, if the Minister wishes to have regard for the people 16 years from now, I suggest it is a principle worth applying to the greatest extent that money will allow.

Mr. Hickey

The money is the difficulty.

Mr. Childers

Yes, that is the difficulty. Again, it is good up to a reasonable degree for contractors to compete with county councils in regard to certain types of road work. Contractors should be given their chance to work on the roads and at the same time the county councils could do a substantial amount of direct labour work. I can see nothing wrong in the application of the dual principle. The amount to be done should be a matter of general ministerial policy. I am not suggesting that all the work should be done by contract, nor am I suggesting that all the work should be done by direct labour. A good blend of both would be excellent from the point of view of increasing output and encouraging the carrying out of good, skilled work.

I have dealt sufficiently with the public roads and I have mentioned also the question of dealing more successfully with county road improvement so as to carry out work on the main roads more cheaply. In regard to employment, there is no need for the Minister to worry about employment on the roads. Taken as a whole, he knows that he can have the very largest machines available in this world for improving the main arterial roads of this country. The result will be that, in the long run, he will need more money to employ exactly the same number of men, or more men, on the improvement of boreens and county roads. Because sometimes people suggest that any interference with the general principle by means of which roads are made now may cause unemployment, I would remind the Minister that, in the course of the last ten years, as many as 35,000 people and as few as 7,000 people have been employed all over the country on minor relief schemes of every kind, and that as many as 4,600 and as few as 710 have been employed on Land Commission improvement work. In connection with rural improvement schemes, at one time there have been 591 schemes under consideration by the Government which resulted in a certain amount of employment.

In other words, it is possible for the Minister to devise a modern system of road improvement in which the following would be the results, so far as human beings are concerned. The results are very important and are of paramount interest to the whole community. The more the Minister uses machinery on main roads, a higher proportion of men will be paid fitters' and drivers' wages, and the more scope there will be for promotions so that a man can go gradually up the scale when he joins a county council staff. When he joins a contractor's group, there will be varying wages and varying types of work. The more machinery is used, the more machinery there will be that will require repair, and so more people will be employed in effecting repairs to it and ancillary services. The more machinery that is used, the more money will be available in the long run for employing people on other kinds of road work. There is no need to presuppose that there will be any reduction of employment for any one single man by the adoption of modern principles in road engineering in this country. In fact, if anything, the result should be that more men will be employed as a whole on roads and lands in the winter months, and a higher proportion of them at higher wages.

One of the factors in connection with modern road development is that it is possible to spread the work far more evenly as between the winter and the summer months through using modern machinery. There can be the crushing of stone by high-class machinery in central quarries going on continuously in the winter months. During our term, modern road machinery was not available to enable us to begin to put a proper modern road plan into operation—I may add that everything I have said on this can be found on the files in the Minister's office—but, even despite that, we were able to level out employment on the roads to a very considerable degree. If I remember rightly, in our last year of office the greatest number of people employed on the roads in 1947-48 was in the neighbourhood of 24,000 in the month of June, while the least number employed was something in the neighbourhood of 19,000 to 20,000 in the worst winter months.

As the Minister knows, satisfactory employment in the winter months is a vital thing in a rural district, and that employment can be given on roads, no matter what machinery is used, for the reasons which I have already stated. I do not think I need say anything more about road work. I would ask the Minister to let us know how soon he can continue with the road plan which we left him. It is possible for him to modify it any way that he likes, if he thinks it is too extravagant, but as long as it is a proper road plan and as long as he considers the building of roads in the same way as the Electricity Supply Board considers the erection of pylons through the country and the Board of Works considers the carrying out of arterial drainage, he can proceed to apply whatever principles he wishes.

The next question is that of library development. A Bill was passed through the House shortly before the last Government was defeated. It was praised and approved of by everybody. I think it was almost the most unanimously praised Bill that I have ever heard discussed during the whole of my time as member of the House. It was designed to assist in the improvement of the library service and to take over the central library from the Carnegie Trust. I have read the first report of the Library Council which was established under that Act. It is quite obvious that they have not been able to go ahead with the work which they set out to do. I would ask the Minister whether he cannot do something to help. The position is that, if the Minister wants to, he can encourage adult and juvenile education which can never be given in the schools throughout the country, and which is a thing that is desperately required in the rural districts. It is a thing which is needed as the result of our history. Its vital importance is realised in the case of every other modern State in Europe. In the whole of Scandinavia library development is associated with adult education. It is associated with modern educational conceptions and is subscribed to by the central government on a considerable basis.

In this country, the libraries vary enormously according to the amount of money which can be raised locally and the character of the librarian. The librarian who has a capacity for the work and has the peculiar gifts of imagination required, can enormously increase the number of books read— the number of good books on Irish history, books about Irish life, about science, agriculture and everything of that kind. A good example is that of a library area where all but 10 per cent. of the books will be the very lightest form of novel, and of another library area—in districts away from towns because, apparently, country people always read the more serious books—where the percentage of nonfiction read is 33 per cent. of all the books issued. This is the result of having sufficient money for the service and of having a brilliant librarian who knows how to interest the public in books which may not have always been available to them.

By means of book lists he can encourage the public to read the right kind of books and can do much to encourage the use of the library service. There are some libraries where the juvenile books that are made available are woefully inadequate. There are others where they have an excellent juvenile library. There are almost no juvenile reading rooms available, rooms to which children could go to read books perhaps after Mass on Sundays or when their parents go to the market on fair days. There are practically no places in this country where children can read books. Such places are practically nonexistent here, although they are to be found in many other countries with much the same standard of living as we have. There are very few children in this country who know anything about the history of their parishes, or about the famous people who have lived in them. They know nothing about the character of birds or flowers or beasts or of growing things. They know nothing about the science of growth, and so there is a terrific deficiency of general knowledge of that kind, all of which, of course, if properly developed, could give so much pleasure to people living in the country. One of the ways of meeting that deficiency would be by an extension of the library service which is going on in other countries and which, I suggest, should be built up here. We hoped that the new library council would appoint surveyors who would go around the country and, in a very friendly way, find out what was required in each area and present a joint report and plan so that the county councils could know what standard they could reach and the way in which they could reach it. We hoped that the Government would then be able to make grants to the local authorities as a result of the work carried out by these surveyors. In many areas plenty of work has already been done but there are other areas where they are definitely lagging behind. The idea was to establish some kind of level standard. I hope the Minister will give more encouragement to the library council because the members have a long way to go before they reach their objective.

Every single Party in this House expressed the highest praise of the idea of providing some better form of adult education. We all realise that no one can learn very much in school. The best way in which one can learn afterwards is through the medium of these library services. They can be of tremendous value in maintaining a Christian civilisation and in maintaining the people's interests in remaining on the land. I ask the Minister to consider what more he can do to encourage the library council in its work.

Does the Minister consider whether something should be done in connection with the cleaning up of derelict sites? The Minister will recollect that we passed an Act in 1940 to secure immediate title to these sites with a view to their subsequent removal. Possibly there is more important work to be done in the provision of actual houses for the people but there are areas where there should be sufficient labour to clear away these derelict sites without in any way interfering with the housing programme. In a space of 60 miles between Dublin and a provincial town I counted no less than 125 such sites. It may be that the Act we passed needs amendment. I think it was one of the criticisms of the Labour Party when we were in office that there were certain features of the Act which were too cumbersome and needed amendment if the work was to be done quickly. Has the Minister given any consideration to that matter?

I want to say a few words about the traffic problem in general. When does the Minister propose to bring in the Traffic (Amendment) Act that was partly ready for him when he came into office to enable the Gardaí to carry out their work more efficiently? Has he been able to confer with the Gardaí and local authorities in regard to standardising the use of danger signs on the roads. In several areas local authorities have put up danger signs which are not in accordance with international practice. That may be all right. One can always argue that there is no need to follow slavishly a certain accepted group of international signs. We did conform to general practice a number of years ago with a view to having as few types of sign as possible and have them easily seen by road users. We did it with a view to not confusing drivers and road users with a multiplicity of signs. If there are to be special danger signs, I think they should be in universal use in the country and placed where they can be easily seen. Some can be seen at night because they have reflectors; others cannot because they have no reflectors. The same applies to cats' eyes. It is perhaps a small matter, but it is one of vital importance to orderly traffic to have the use of cats' eyes standardised on all the main roads. In some areas they can be seen on the entire length of road either by night or by day. On others they begin at a certain distance before the curve; on others they may begin at a lesser or a greater distance. We have no standardisation in regard to that.

What are the present regulations for encouraging the provision of turf ranges in turf areas or in areas fairly close to bogs, though not immediately surrounded by them, in local authority housing? How far has the Minister gone at the present time to conform to the general wish of the people to encourage the use of turf wherever it can be conveniently and economically used?

Has the Minister considered the terms of the Sanitary Services Act, 1948. Has he considered the problem of getting sewerage and water from individual houses attached to main drainage and water schemes? So far as I know in a considerable number of towns nothing has been done to join houses to existing water and sewerage schemes. Under the Sanitary Services Act local authorities were given power to do that. They have to pay for any length of sewer or water pipe over and above a certain minimum distance, and they can collect the cost for the remaining distance through a special rate levied on the occupier over a 30-year period at some very low rate of interest. It seems a very reasonable proposition. If there is anything faulty in the Act, the Minister should consider the position now. I think it was the last Act we passed and it was passed in a great hurry. Possibly there are certain deficiencies in it which will require amendment. I remember being amazed to learn that senior counsel in times past have made thousands of pounds in fees on the question of deciding the joint responsibility as between local authorities and individuals for the maintenance and making of sewerage and water schemes. I was hoping that might be avoided in the future.

Lastly, what is the Minister doing about the scheme for an architectural competition? I think it is just as well we should realise that there have been very few good architects since the dawn of time. An architect is a kind of artist. There have been very few good artists since the dawn of time. There are only about 30 artists among practically all the great Renaissance painters portraying the Christian scene for us. Good artists set the examples for less good artists and good architects do likewise. There is no doubt that the standard of architecture for local authority housing is very low as compared with other countries. One has only to wander through Spain, Holland and the other European countries to realise how true that is. It almost looks as if we built houses merely because we wanted to build them quickly without paying any regard to appearance. There is something very much akin to economic liberalism in the idea of building houses recklessly as human containers without having any regard to the effect they may have on the lives and spirit of those who occupy them.

I would appeal to the Minister to go ahead with the architectural competition. It is better to have a few good designs copied and adapted rather than to have 20 or 30 bad designs. Some of the new houses are delightful; others have no imagination either in construction or design. I think much remains to be done from that point of view. Better designing is needed from the point of view of the built-in cupboard space made available and apart from furniture installed.

I think more remains to be done in standardising the size of cisterns and pipes in order to reduce costs. All these things call for the attention of the Minister. If remedied, they will result in better housing for the people. As I have said, it is impossible to find more than one really good architect out of 50 or 100 from the point of view of artistic design. The majority of them have the sense merely to copy the work of others. That is why I say we need to have a good example set. It should be no more expensive to build a beautiful house well designed than to build an ugly one. It should not cost any more over a period of ten or 15 years. Housing design calls for imagination and inspiration on the part of those in charge of housing.

Before I sit down I would like to refer to an observation made by a Deputy. The suggestion was that in his area people had to belong to a certain Party before they would get a new house. I do not understand what he meant by that. As far as I know, the medical officers of health and the local authorities are incorruptible men. I think the idea that a person would have to belong to a certain political Party in either Longford or Westmeath in order to get a new house is a revolting one. It is contrary to the entire spirit and tradition of medical officers of health. No doubt they are not perfect human beings; no doubt on occasion they may be influenced in one way or another but the suggestion that one has to be a member of a political Party to get a new house is entirely wrong and unfair to the officials concerned.

Mr. Murphy

My contribution to this debate will be a limited one. From my short experience as a member of the House, I have come to appreciate the importance of good local government administration throughout the country. It is not hard to realise the effect that local administration has on central government. It is, therefore, all the more necessary to ensure that the machinery of local administration is maintained at a high level of efficiency. The significance of local government administration cannot be overstressed. I am pleased to learn from the Minister's introductory statement that, generally, over the past year reasonably satisfactory progress has been made by local authorities in their main activities, such as the provision of houses, sewerage, water schemes and the maintenance and improvement of roads. Apart from the general situation, there are some particular points affecting my own constituency which I should like to bring to the Minister's notice for his earnest consideration.

So far as housing is concerned, I think greater stress should be laid on the desirability of building houses, particularly in the rural areas, by direct labour. From my short experience and knowledge of the direct labour system, as against the contract system, I am satisfied that direct labour not only produces a cheaper house but a better house from the point of view of construction and craftsmanship. For instance, in one small scheme carried out by direct labour in Rosscarbery, a considerable saving was effected, and work is in progress on a limited number of houses by direct labour in Drimoleague. On the other hand, in my own native town, Dunmanway, a group of houses are being built by contract. I think this scheme should be sufficient as a test of the merits of the two methods of construction. Therefore I can see no reason why a further group of houses to be erected in my own town could not be built by direct labour, particularly in view of the availability both of skilled and unskilled labour. My dissatisfaction arises from the fact that contract prices in the town are far too high, ranging from £1,100 to £1,300 per house. Therefore I cannot understand why the local authority do not extend their very limited direct labour activities. The local authority's attitude in this matter is all the more difficult to understand in view of the Minister's repeated pronouncements in favour of direct labour.

Apart from this, I should like to direct the Minister's special attention to the urgency of the housing needs of all the towns and villages in West Cork, especially in the towns of Bantry and Skibbereen and in the villages of Leap, Ballingeary and Glengarriff. In order to ensure that the situation is kept under constant review I would suggest to the Minister that he would obtain a quarterly report from the local authorities in these particular areas as regards progress.

Another aspect of housing which merits serious consideration is the necessity for a number of single cottages to be built in rural areas throughout the county. It is within my knowledge that on several occasions tenders were invited but no contractors applied. Many of the cottages were re-advertised but the local authority again failed to get contractors. Such cottages are required for people living in condemned houses and yet the local authority refused to build by direct labour. The poor people who are living under those conditions, which make for the development of tuberculosis, are allowed to suffer on. This position has existed for many years. The number of people who require such cottages to my knowledge in West Cork is about 30.

Coming now to the question of repairs of cottages, the general experience is that when a person reports that repairs are necessary it is often two or three years before anything is done. I hope there will be an improvement in this direction when the engineering services are amalgamated. Furthermore, as part of the housing drive and in order to ensure that proper services are available when the houses come to be built, steps should be taken to instal water supplies and sewerage schemes in all towns and villages well in advance of building.

I come now to the question of road workers. Their present remuneration is fairly reasonable but I think it could be further improved without casting any appreciable burden on the local authorities concerned. There is also the question of protective clothing. I understand that at present road workers receive only one issue every three years. This is ridiculous because, owing to the very nature of the work in which these men are engaged, the clothing, which is of very poor quality, could not be expected to last for a longer period than 12 months. I suggest that, in common decency the road workers should receive an issue every 12 months and furthermore that the issue should be made during the month of September each year.

It has come to my knowledge that road workers living in a particular area in my constituency are employed in another area despite the fact that there is work available and men employed in the particular area in which these men live. I suggest that, if at all possible, county council employees should be given work as near as possible to their own homes. Where it is not possible to give them employment near their own homes and where they are employed more than three miles away, they should be given a bicycle allowance because such an allowance was granted to bog workers during the emergency.

So far as road works themselves are concerned I would suggest for the Minister's consideration one particular stretch of road in my area, namely that from Dunmanway to Macroom, on which some money has already been spent on surveying. This is an important road and it is the most convenient means of communication between Dunmanway and Macroom and it is now in a very dangerous and deplorable condition. In addition, other county roads such as the Drimoleague-Skibbereen and the Durrus-Kilcrohane roads are in urgent need of attention and I trust that the local authority will include them in their programme for immediate execution.

On the question of the operation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949, I suggest that all schemes submitted under that Act should be carried out during the summer months. The work will then prove most beneficial to the landowners, to the workers and to the State and the bulk of the road maintenance work should be deferred until later in the year. Also every effort should be made by the Minister and his Department to see that the schemes submitted under the Local Authorities (Works) Act are carried out as expeditiously as possible with particular reference to the Beara peninsula in my constituency because chronic unemployment exists there.

There are many deficiencies in the Managerial Acts and I am sure that none of our public representatives will be satisfied until the assurance to repeal these Acts is implemented. Personally I am glad that the Minister has already introduced a Bill to remove these deficiencies so as to ensure that those who offer themselves for election to the local councils will do so in the knowledge that if the people give them their confidence they will have available a democratic form of machinery under which they can give effect to the people's wishes in local government affairs.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am going to be very brief for once. I look upon the Local Government Vote as one of the most important Votes of the Government because a number of vital matters affecting the people in every area is controlled by the Department of Local Government. I wish to deal with that very hackneyed subject, housing, that has been already spoken of by a number of speakers to-night. In County Dublin the housing position has advanced considerably and it was due in no small way to the activities of the previous Minister for Local Government, Deputy MacEntee, in the acquisition of sites.

Mr. S. Collins

And Deputy Burke.

Mr. P.J. Burke

And Deputy Burke. Now we have the position in County Dublin where a number of people still require houses and the work is slowed up completely. It is not the fault of the present Minister but the acquisition of sites seems to be a burning question. I have spoken on this very urgent matter before, and as far as I can see, in a number of areas in County Dublin housing is at a standstill due to the slow acquisition of sites by the Dublin County Council. I look upon houses as being more important than hospitals because if we have not good houses there is very little use in bringing people to hospital and giving them first-class treatment and then sending them back to the same old hovel, 6 by 4, 6 by 6 or 6 by 7 as the case may be. It is very nice to see that members of the Government Parties can take this serious position so lightly that they can laugh at it.

I have raised the question of the building of extra rooms to cottages before, especially the case of people who are suffering from tuberculosis and who applied to get an extra room as was arranged for under an Act passed by this House in 1945. I must say that while the Minister is not directly responsible, the local authorities could expedite the granting of such applications and assist people of that kind.

The repair of cottages is hopelessly slow. I have referred to it umpteen times and I am not going further into it to-night.

While I want to keep my promise not to speak too long, I want to refer to the short-sighted policy of road making and road repairs in County Dublin. I have made representations on a number of occasions about dangerous corners on second and third-class roads and when you make representations you are told that there is no money to meet it and you are dealing with roads that are no more than prairie tracks. I wonder will the Minister consider taking the matter in his own hands and requesting local authorities to take the long view on the remaking and widening of roads and the elimination of dangerous corners. We have had the experience of kicking up a row when somebody was killed, of votes of censure passed by juries saying that it was a pity that the road was not repaired or the dangerous corner taken off. My county is a tourist centre, so far as Dublin City people and people from other areas are concerned, and the roads to the seaside in the area leave much to be desired, and I suggest that a policy of spending a reasonable amount of money each year, until such time as we reach some state of perfection in our roads, should be embarked upon. That can be said of the main road from Swords to Dublin. I am merely running over these points and do not propose to elaborate them.

Mr. S. Collins

You would nearly steamroll them.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I wonder would Deputy Collins get an Odearest mattress for himself.

An Ceann Comhairle

I understood that there was a desire to get business done. Interruptions will not facilitate that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It is a very important matter, especially in an area to which we hope to encourage tourists to come, that our roads should be perfect, and the Minister and his Department should take an active part in seeing that a policy is adopted under which this work will be carried out and will not have to wait for a year, two years or 20 years. That is retarding progress and not tackling things as they should be tackled.

With regard to sewerage and water schemes, I had a number of questions down with regard to the provision of these amenities in various areas and I hold that anything the Minister and his Department can do in this very vital matter deserves the support of the country. I am sorry to say that there are areas within a mile or two of Dublin which have still no sewerage or water schemes. In a number of cases, they have succeeded in the past few years in having them provided, but there are towns like Blanchardstown, Castleknock, Donabate, Lusk and similar areas along the coast, to which thousands of people go, which have not got such facilities. I have raised the matter on numerous occasions by parliamentary question and I merely refer to it now to ask the Minister to see what he can do to expedite this urgent matter.

Seaside amenities come within the purview of the Department and I must say that the amenities available for citizens who come out from the city leave very much to be desired. In certain areas, on the recent few fine Sundays, any man fortunate enough to have a car could scarcely find parking space within a mile of the coast, and it is a matter to which I should like the Government, now that those making up the Government have stated definitely that the tourist industry is worth something to this country, to give serious attention. The only way to encourage people to go to those seaside resorts is by providing the necessary facilities—by providing parking space for cars, facilities for the people who have no cars and all the smaller amenities that add greatly to the attraction of any district.

In view of the introduction of the new Local Government Bill, I will reserve any further remarks I have to make on local government for a later occasion, but I should like the Minister to tell me what has happened to the old North County Dublin regional water scheme. Is it still under consideration or has it been scrapped? That was a very important scheme which would definitely have facilitated a number of areas, if it had been possible to put it into operation some few years ago.

Dr. Brennan

I should like to say a good deal about the Department of Local Government, but, in view of the desire to curtail the debate, I shall limit myself entirely to what I consider to be necessary, with the object of trying to bring before Deputies certain matters which I think are worthy of their consideration. First, I think this Department is the greatest burden with which this country has ever been saddled. It would be impossible to imagine any Department so inept, so far away from the minds of the people and so careless of its obligations, and, unless I receive some satisfaction in the Minister's reply with regard to some of the points I intend to make, I shall seriously consider whether I can support this Vote. I go further and say that, if in his reply I find no hope of improvement, I shall certainly vote against it. The present condition of the Department is possibly not the fault of the Minister. It is a heritage which has come down to him from an alien Government and it has never ceased to follow on the lines on which it was founded by that foreign Government. Since the Minister took office a little over a year ago, he has, I am sure, done all that one man could do against a Department which is definitely hostile to the will of the people.

Particularly am I concerned in my constituency, which consists of something like 100,000 people, with the matter of housing. During last year, on various occasions, in an effort to get solved the problems from which the people are suffering, I raised certain questions with regard to housing in the House. The matter was also raised by my colleague, Deputy Brady, who put a question to the Minister on 23rd May last asking, in reference to the Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation area and the Rathdown area of the Dublin County Council, the total number of houses built or reconstructed each year from 1934 to 1949 and the average number of manual workers employed during these years. I am only concerned with housing. The answer we got from the Minister was that in 1933-34 164 houses were completed; in 1949-50, 145 houses were completed and in regard to the Rathdown area, in 1934-35, 133 houses were constructed, and from 1939 no houses were completed during the subsequent years until 1949-50, when 29 houses were built.

I wonder if any statement could be a greater reflection on the ineptitude of the Department which is responsible for maintaining in comfort the families who, in that large area, for which I happen to be one of the representatives, are crying for shelter. There were 145 houses completed in 1949-50 in Dún Laoghaire and 29 houses in Rathdown.

I know that the Minister and those associated with him can give figures showing how many houses are under construction but is he so unaware of the conditions that exist that he will not take further steps, as he should take, to supply the needs of those who require houses?

On 23rd March, 1950, I asked him some questions about houses. I asked him what was the reason for the delay in the provision of houses by the county council and the Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation for families living in deplorable conditions. I asked him whether, in order to safeguard the Christian fundamentals on which family life is based and to terminate the many cases of separation of fathers from their wives and children, he will take adequate remedial steps at once in respect of the areas concerned. The Minister did reply but he did not answer the last part of the question and that is the kernel of the reason why I take such an antagonistic view of his Department. Instead of relying on the fundamentals on which family life is based and encouraging our young people to get married and to live in decent homes, he and his Department are so negligent that they forget these very fundamentals. When I asked the Minister, in a supplementary question, would he answer that part of the question, he said, "I think I have answered the question as fully as I can answer it." Surely no rationalist could do better.

I wonder if there is a single case in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area where newly-weds have been provided with houses. I want to know from the Minister is he going to allow families to grow up where children are separated from their parents and husbands from their wives, without taking serious notice of the situation.

Mr. Beirne

A hostile Department.

Dr. Brennan

Hostile Department is correct. It is because that Department is hostile and because it is too much of a luxury for this nation to carry it and other Departments of State that I say that until every document which is in these Departments is taken out into the middle of Dublin Bay and dumped there and a new system is organised, a system more consistent with the ideals of our people, we cannot hope for the solution of our social problems.

Mr. Beirne

Could we not take out more than the documents?

Dr. Brennan

I agree entirely with Deputy Burke. I think this is a very, very serious problem. The allocation of houses, such as they are, is another matter to which I shall refer later. It is to the discredit of the Department of Local Government that, instead of having solved the housing problem now, after 2½ years of office, we are worse off than we were in 1934.

Surely the Minister must realise his responsibility. If he does not do so, he should come to this House and tell us and he should go down to the people and talk to them and give his excuses and utter his platitudes and wishful thinking. What the people want at the present moment, is not oratory, but houses. People living under conditions which are truly deplorable receive very short shrift from the administration which is responsible for the allocation of houses in the county and in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. I have no hesitation whatever in stating here and now that I believe that some influence, and some underhand influence, is at work to prevent a just distribution of houses. I believe that the Minister should hold an inquiry into the method by which this is done. Had I known that this debate would be on to-day, I could have brought into this House a load of letters received from the county council and from the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, stating that other and more urgent cases are to be given houses.

I remember a case of a family of eight—which is now a family of nine —living in two rat-infested rooms, who were visited by the acting medical officer of health. They were promised a house. The reply I received from the borough corporation in regard to them was a machine-made reply; it did not even bear the signature of the responsible officer; it was simply rolled out. It said that that person did not deserve a house—that there were more urgent cases—I think these were the words. At the same time I know in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire where families of two, three and four have got houses and I know of others living in squalor and in filth and under conditions which are a disgrace to any civilised community, who are not deemed to be worthy of consideration for a house.

The Minister may say—and I am sure he can say—that this is done by statute. That is the refuge which is taken for every lapse and every departmental inefficiency. Statute, statutory powers, statutory procedure —we are sick of that. That is why the Department of Local Government should be dumped into the middle of Dublin Bay. What we want is an approach to the real problems, the real social problems, from which the people are suffering. We want an equitable distribution of such favours as can be given by the responsible administration. When I say that I believe that the distribution of houses depends on inequity, I know of a case where a councillor is able to come to certain people and say: "You are getting a house." Now, whether that is guesswork or not I do not know, but it is happening and I do not make a statement like that lightly. If I did, I should not be worthy to stand on the floor of this House.

I suggest that the administration both of the Dublin County Council and of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire should be entirely abolished and that every document in the departments controlled by these administrations should receive the same treatment as that which I suggested for the Depart ment itself. It seems to me that these two administrations, as well as the Department, believe that the objective of the people is to provide a luxurious environment for the sole purpose of keeping in employment and providing for the future of the supernumerary officials in whose custody is placed the unfortunate fate of long-suffering people. I sincerely hope that the Minister, in his reply, will give some hope to the people whom I represent that at any rate family life can be restored, that husbands separated from their wives and children can be provided with a house, that young people entering into the marriage state can secure a home. There is no use in telling me that it is going to be done. I want it done—and it should have been done in the last two years, and it would have been done had ordinary decent business people taken the job and had red tape been eliminated from the procedure which has kept from the people whom I represent, and who are suffering as I have suggested, the comforts which they have been denied.

It is the Borough of Dún Laoghaire that is subject to the Minister and I suggest that the Minister should inquire carefully and in detail as to whether the officials there do their work in the manner expected of them and for which I think the Minister is responsible. I can only say that I hope I have not said too much. I have not said half what I would like to say, but I am quite serious in this, that unless the Minister is going to give some hope that the housing problem will be solved for the people whom I represent, I will not support him, I will vote against him, and as far as I can I shall do everything to see that the administration for which he is responsible will realise its duty and do for the people what one would expect the administration to do.

Mr. T. Walsh

I will not take much of the time of the House this evening, but before coming to the Estimates proper I would like to say a few words in connection with Deputy Corry's motion regarding the road grants. There are 50,000 miles of roads in the country and out of those we have 10,000 of main roads.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

On a point of order, I understand that Deputy Walsh is speaking on Deputy Corry's motion. I would like to know if Deputy Corry's motion is before the House and, if it is, why a motion of mine, No. 9 on the List of Motions, has been passed over and a motion which was tabled last year and a motion tabled by Deputy Corry on somewhat similar lines on the 4th May is being taken.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Corry's motion is not being taken officially. It was understood, without my knowledge or the Minister's knowledge apparently, that the motion would be discussed along with this Estimate. It was allowed to be referred to in the debate on the Estimate but the motion itself is not directly before the House and I understand now will not be put to a Vote. If the Government gives way to one motion, that is their business not mine.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

If this motion, which was tabled on the 4th May, is taken, my motion, which was tabled early last year, should also be taken.

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with this. It is for the Government to decide. I have nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, no Vote is being taken on Deputy Corry's motion.

Mr. Timoney

Is it in order to discuss the motion at all, then?

An Ceann Comhairle

Parts of it, that is, the amount of money devoted to roads—not petrol tax, or motor tax, which are not under the jurisdiction of this Minister.

Mr. Keyes

Not likely.

If they have registered unemployed, I shall.

Mr. T. Walsh

I will test that very quickly. I would be very glad indeed if the Parliamentary Secretary would give grants for the repair of these boreens, and it will be my fault, I suppose, if I do not get them. Already we have had the experience of having the road grants cut to a very substantial extent, over £2,000,000. I submit that the amount of traffic through the country compared with the volume of traffic some years ago justifies the increased grants we are asking for. We hope that the Minister will use his influence with the Minister for Finance to extract more money out of the motor taxation fund.

As Deputy Childers pointed out, the Minister has stated that it takes £225 now to do the amount of work £100 would do in 1938-39. Let us take that as being correct and let us take the amount of money that we spent, including grants from the Road Fund and the contributions from the rates. In the year 1938-39 we spent £2,025,000 and in 1949-50 the amount spent on the roads was £4,640,000. That seems a very substantial increase, but if you compare the two figures, and if you assume the Minister is correct in stating that the cost of the upkeep of the roads, maintenance and improvement, has gone up by 125 per cent., then that sum represents an increase of 10 per cent. over and above what was spent in 1938-39.

We all know that there are far more motor vehicles on the roads to-day than there were in 1938-39. The number of motor cars, private and otherwise, has increased by 66 per cent. The number of heavy motor vehicles, such as lorries and trailers, has increased by 100 per cent. If you look at it from the point of view of the amount of damage done now by these vehicles, as against the amount of damage done in pre-war days, I think everybody will agree that it is far greater now.

We have more heavily-laden vehicles travelling the roads. Going through the country, you will meet a lorry and trailer coming along and they are like a small train. I have seen a lorry and trailer conveying 29 tons of beet. There are not many county roads capable of carrying vehicles with loads of that sort. They were never built to carry such heavy loads. If they continue to carry loads of beet and turf and merchandise of every description the roads will soon wear out if some effort is not made to reconstruct or improve them.

There are cattle being conveyed to the Dublin market in these lorries and trailers from all over the country. If this is to continue, what will be the condition of the roads within a few years? We are not spending the money necessary in order to keep them in proper repair. The only way we can look after those roads is by getting grants. The cost of the upkeep of the roads has gone up during the past two years as a result of the reduction in the road grants, yet we are not spending and cannot spend the same amount of money as we did spend three or four years ago. Even at that time we should have been spending more. We could not do any more then, mainly because men were not available and we had not the machinery. We hear a lot of talk about unemployment now. So far as the roads are concerned we have the men ready to work and we have the machinery and the materials but we have not the money.

Deputations came before our council and we informed them that we were anxious to go ahead with the work but we were in the position that we could not afford the money. If grants were made available in the same generous way as they were in 1947, we would be able to carry out some of these works and we would be able to make some improvement in the roads. I want the Minister to use his influence with the Department of Finance and try to get more money for us.

I agree that the Department should spend more money on county roads for the reasons I have given. I know many farmers are depending to a far greater extent, in fact to almost 100 per cent., on having their produce carried by road. Very little agricultural produce is now going by rail. Every year we see lorries going to farms for corn and beet and other farm produce. I understand in many parts of the country, but particularly in the West—and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance can bear me out in this— that farmers have to haul their beet a long distance to a pickup point, because of the fact that the roads leading to their homes, or even to within two or three miles of their homes, are not built to carry the heavy lorries. That happens in my own county, and I can speak with greater knowledge of my own county than of County Galway. I know there are places where heavy lorries cannot be brought.

If we are to have an expansion of production in the agricultural areas, greater facilities must be given to the farmers, and they must be provided with better roads. One of the ways in which you will induce them to produce more is by providing good roads to their homesteads, giving them greater facilities by having roads capable of carrying lorries to where their agricultural produce is ready for removal. I can see no great difficulty in the Minister going to the Minister for Finance and making a reasonable case for increased grants. The roads originally were not built for motor traffic, and neither have they been improved to the extent that they are now suitable for that traffic.

Motor traffic in this country means £7,000,000 for the Exchequer, and out of that money £2,000,000 is given for the maintenance of roads. What justification can any Minister put up to hold the £5,000,000 that is paid by the direct users of the roads? What excuse can he make for not giving it to the people who are maintaining those roads? If the grants are not made available the ratepayers must do the job, and if they are unable, then the roads will deteriorate to such an extent that the State one day or another must come to the rescue and we will have nationalisation of roads. You can have partial nationalisation now or you must have it in the future, one or the other. If you want to escape that at the present time, the only way you can do it is by making a substantial increase in the grants to the county councils. So much for roads.

I want to say a few words in connection with local government, with particular reference to the appointment of tenants to cottages. Under a regulation recently made by the Minister, a preference must be given to agricultural labourers. I should like to have a definition from the Minister of what is an agricultural labourer. I had a case like this recently. It was that of a married man, the father of five or six children who worked all his life on the land. Some time recently he got a job with the Electricity Supply Board as a tractor driver on the rural electrification scheme. He has made within recent times three applications for a cottage. He has been turned down on each occasion on the grounds that he is not an agricultural labourer. As a matter of fact he should have been number one choice for a cottage. He would have been had he come within the category of an agricultural labourer. I should like to know from the Minister if the same thing is to happen to road workers in the rural areas. They are in much the same position as the man I have mentioned. If he cannot be defined as an agricultural labourer, then neither can a road worker. The same, I suppose, would apply to a handyman in the country who does a good deal of work for farmers and is sometimes employed in the towns or villages. Strictly speaking, I suppose those men are not agricultural workers because they do not use a sprong or a fork. At the same time they are living in rural areas.

According to the regulation, as it has been interpreted in my county, the man who drives an Electricity Supply Board tractor is not regarded as an agricultural labourer. But, if for any reason, he were to lose his present job or were to become redundant, he has no option but to go back and work on the land. Suppose he did go back to work on the land then, naturally, he would become an agricultural labourer. Apart from his present job, the only other work he can get is with farmers.

There was another regulation made some time ago by the Minister in connection with the tenancies of cottages. It has been my experience that on no occasion has the original applicant for a cottage got it when it was built. Away back in 1938 and 1939 in my constituency we had advertisements in the newspapers asking people in the rural areas who required cottages to make application for them. Agricultural labourers and others did so. In many instances, men were given plots by farmers voluntarily. In other cases, the plots had to be compulsorily acquired. But when the houses were built, in practically all cases they were given to people other than the original applicants. The latter did not qualify simply because they had their families reared. That was the principal reason why they did not get a house. As I have said, I have known original applicants who were given sites for cottages voluntarily in 1938 and 1939. The houses have now been built. Those original applicants were at the time living in mud cabins or in hovels. I know one particular man who reared a family of six children. The house he lived in was so small that if he wanted to enjoy a smoke he had to go outside the door. Now his family are scattered and there is no one remaining behind but his wife and himself. Due to that fact he is not entitled to a cottage. Is it right for the Minister, or for a local authority, to deny people like him the right of having a decent house in his old age? That ought not be the policy of the Department.

The regulation in regard to that should, I think, be considered by the Minister and be amended. The unfairness of it was brought forcibly to my notice about 12 months ago. I went into a house where there was an old man. He told me that about ten or 12 years earlier he had applied for and got possession of a plot on which a house was to be built for him. When it was, his application for it was turned down. I made a suggestion at a meeting of the county council in connection with cases of that sort. I do not know whether it was ever submitted to the Department or not. It was that these houses be let in groups of five, and that one of the five be reserved for original applicants. If that had been adopted it would help some way to solve this problem. Later I suggested that two out of the five be given to men with families, that two others be reserved for newly-weds and the remaining one for original applicants. That scheme was turned down. I am chiefly concerned with the cases of original applicants who were given plots ten or 12 years ago on the understanding that houses would be built for them. When the houses are built they find they are debarred, because in most cases there is no one left behind but the man and his wife. It looks as if they are never going to be able to enjoy the comfort of a decent home.

There is another matter I want to refer to. It is a suggestion that was put before the late Minister for Local Government on the occasion of his first visit as Minister to Kilkenny. It was in reference to houses that, from the structural point of view, are well built, which we have in many parts of County Kilkenny. I suggested to the Minister that these houses be taken over by the county council. Many of them are well built with granite stone.

The suggestion was that two of them be converted into one house, or, on the other hand, that an additional storey be added to each. I think if that suggestion had been carried out it would mean the saving of a lot of money both for the State and the ratepayers in County Kilkenny. These houses are let at a very low rent. If they are left as they are it is likely they will be condemned by the doctors as not being suitable dwellings. I think that if two were converted into one you would get a very good house. You would certainly have a far drier house than some of the newer ones that are being built. I think the Department should give careful consideration to that suggestion.

In my constituency of Kilkenny-Carlow we have houses of this description in many of the villages and towns. In County Kilkenny you have them in Goresbridge, Graiguenamanagh and Gowran, and in Fenagh and Borris in County Carlow. I believe that very suitable houses can be built or reconstructed there. The rent on the tenants would be much smaller if the houses were reconstructed. In addition to that, many of these sites are situated in towns and villages. The usual procedure nowadays is that, if there is a new building scheme, the houses are built outside the existing village or town. The authorities have an eye on sewerage, water and so on. That is quite right, of course, but the villages are beginning to lose their identity under these schemes and what was once a village is now perhaps a derelict site. Approaching these towns and villages nowadays one meets a nice patch of houses on the outskirts and inside the village there are only derelict sites. The village of 25 or 30 years ago has disappeared to all intents and purposes. All that is left are the shops. The ordinary people have been transferred out to new building sites and the old village is rapidly losing its identity.

With regard to the Local Authorities (Works) Act, representations were made on numerous occasions by the county council with reference to the drainage of Lough Cullen. That is situated in South Kilkenny. If the bed of the river was lowered, it would drain the lake and keep the roads in that area from being flooded. Many of the roads there are flooded after heavy rain. Good grazing land is being damaged. I understand that application was made to the Department of Agriculture under the land rehabilitation scheme to have some work done in that area, but, in the opinion of the Department of Agriculture, the work comes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, and they refuse to do anything about it.

I think myself it should be done under the land rehabilitation project. I think the Minister for Local Government should at least send down an inspector to find out definitely into which category the particular work comes. Irrespective of whatever Department undertakes the work, it would be of great benefit to the people in the district. I understand that the works undertaken under both these provisions are being financed out of Marshall Aid and there would, therefore, be no question of extra taxation imposed on the people. The money spent would be spent to good advantage.

I understand other works have also been submitted but have not been passed so far. The scheme in connection with the Powerstown river was sent up last year and, so far as I am aware, that scheme has been turned down. That river causes considerable damage by flooding on at least three roads. Any time there is abnormal rain the river floods. In addition to the roads being flooded, the lands are flooded too. I think it would be well worth while carrying out that scheme. Because it causes damage to roads, I imagine it should come within the scope of the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

With regard to some of the works, I believe the council will have trouble because claims can be made. Some works have been carried out and one does not need to be an expert to know that, if flooding follows upon abnormal rain, the lands around will be inundated. In some cases the level of the road has been raised and there will be no place for the water to go except on to the adjoining lands. If that happens, the council will be faced with the responsibility of making good the damage done. I think I am right in stating that there is a provision in the Act to cover that matter.

Another objection is that the council has to pay the engineers. I think that is very unfair. After all it is the Department which suggests the scheme in the first instance. We have to employ the engineers. It may happen that our engineers will be compelled to do work which will ultimately prove detrimental to the council. We may be paying men to do harm to ourselves.

Mr. Corish

Then you need not take the money. You do not have to take it.

Mr. T. Walsh

The council is doing it on the recommendation of the county surveyor. He submits the plans.

Mr. Corish

But you do not have to do damage deliberately, do you?

Mr. T. Walsh

We do not, but the fact of the matter is we have had no experience of it yet. If we had a repetition of the abnormal weather of 1947, then we might be able to see what the results are and we might be in a position to say: "We were wrong in our forecast with reference to this work. We said it would do damage, but we have not had that experience." Since these works commenced we have had two of the best years we have ever experienced in living memory. We have had no abnormal rains. There has been no test. During 1947 we had water 18 and 20 feet deep in North Kilkenny. It is the general opinion of the engineers and of those who live in those areas and have seen the floods in the past that there will be worse floods in Kilkenny, Thomastown and Inistiog in future. The river has silted up at Thomastown Bridge. We made arrangements two years ago to have the silt removed, but the Department refused to sanction the scheme on the ground that the river would come under the arterial drainage scheme. There are portions of the River Nore across which one could walk at the present time because of silt and tree trunks. If extensive work is done north of Kilkenny and the waters flow down after heavy rain irreparable damage will be done in Kilkenny, Thomastown and Inistiog. These towns have all suffered from flooding in the past. The position in the future may be much worse. I understand from other Deputies to whom I have spoken that the same is true of other areas where there are large rivers.

I am not saying we should not have the scheme, but I do think the arterial drainage should be put into operation before these smaller schemes are carried out. I agree that excellent work is being done in some areas. I might mention here that we carried out a scheme in Kilkenny under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, and the Minister for Agriculture subsequently claimed the credit for it. I understand he sent down a special representative to report on it. It was really one of the Department of Local Government's schemes. However, it was not our business to interfere. It was a matter for the Department of Local Government. The scheme was a good one, and the Minister for Agriculture took advantage of that fact.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6th July, 1950.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 5 Jul 1950