On a point of order. A decision was come to yesterday on my motion in connection with this Vote.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Local Government (Resumed).
Debate resumed on motion:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy MacEntee).
The Deputy will hear about it later.
Last night I was referring to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I have not much more to say in connection with that except to impress on the Minister the necessity for having most of these works, particularly those concerned with drainage, carried out during the summer. Last year I saw men going to work in drains in October and November. No matter what protective clothing they have, that is not suitable work for them at that time of the year. I know there are difficulties so far as the county councils are concerned and, particularly, the county surveyors, because the summer months are the best months, for instance, for tarring. In fact, it is the only time of the year in which that can be done. Possibly the county surveyor has to spread out the work over a long period. Consequently, many of those works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act have been postponed until the winter. However, I would stress on the Minister the necessity for pointing out to the county councils that these works, so far as possible, should be carried out in the summer. I do attach a small amount of blame to the Department in that respect, because in many cases when schemes are sent forward they are not sanctioned in time to permit of the council having them carried out in the summer months.
Another matter I wish to refer to is in connection with road workers. I would ask the Minister to give permission to the councils during the summer period to allow these workers a break for tea, particularly those who are working on stone crushing. Representations have been made to me about these men working all day in a cloud of dust. They should be allowed a break for tea at 3 or 3.30 p.m. I do not mean that the working hours should be shortened, but that permission should be given to the councils to allow half an hour for tea.
Another matter is in connection with the purchase of materials by small contractors. In Kilkenny we have different building schemes in operation. We have the small building contractors and we have direct labour. I find that the small contractor is under a grave disadvantage in regard to the purchase of materials. As we know, the councils go into the market. They have money at their disposal. They buy in big quantities and corner the market, so far as materials are concerned. Where there is a small contractor, who cannot pay cash at the time, the builders' providers are rather hesitant about giving him the same facilities as they are prepared to give to the council who can pay cash. I would suggest that, if possible, the purchase of materials for the county should be placed in the hands of the council, that small contractors be given the option of buying from the council and that the moneys due to the council on foot of the transaction be withheld from the moneys due to the contractor. I think in that way we would be helping small contractors, and it would be an inducement to them to come into the market and build houses for us.
At the present time they are handicapped in so far as they are not able to get materials in large quantities. Consequently, they are able to take contracts only for a small number of houses. If they were put into a position in which they could draw upon all the materials they required I believe we would have more contractors than we have at present. I do not think the scheme which I have suggested is unworkable and at least it would be worth the experiment.
In conclusion, I should like to refer again to the question of granting cottage tenancies to people who were the original applicants. There are one or two points which I forgot last night in referring to this question. Take the case of old people, the members of whose families, boys or girls, have gone to England or have come to Dublin here and who, in many cases, get married. When they are married in England or elsewhere, they do not wish to go back to the hovels in which they were reared. Consequently, the old pair are denied the pleasure of having their families with them since they have no proper place to receive their daughters-in-law or their sons-in-law, as the case may be. For that reason, I would urge on the Minister the necessity of making a regulation whereby the manager, or whoever is responsible for the allocation of tenancies, would be given the option of giving a cottage, in the proportion of one in five at least, to the original applicants. The number of these original applicants now surviving, as I pointed out last night, is small. Many of them have their families reared, but there are a number of old couples throughout the country who are still living in the hovels in which they were reared. I do not think that, in this age, when we are building new houses for young and old, we should deny these people the right of having some small comfort in their old age.
Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of grants for roads. Grants should be made available for roads leading into tourist centres. The Carlow County Council a short time ago sent a deputation to the Parliamentary Secretary seeking a grant for one particular road in that county, but he was not able to accede to their request. There are several tourist centres in which there are very bad roads. Many of the beautiful scenic spots amongst our hills have bad county roads leading into them, and I suggest that grants should be made available to put these roads into proper repair. If we expect to develop the tourist industry and to attract tourists to this country, grants are essential for this purpose. Most of the people who travel to-day over our county roads go away with a very bad impression of the country. If we were able to give them a good impression of the condition of our roads, they would probably come back here again.
Finally, I should like to compliment the Department and particularly the officials. I heard Deputy Dr. Brennan and also Deputy Beirne making an attack on the officials of the Department last night. I do not think there was any justification for these attacks. It has been my experience, as a member of the county council for a good many years, that when a scheme was put forward there was no undue delay so far as the Department was concerned. They have been most reasonable. I think that applies to all the officials working under the jurisdiction of the Department of Local Government. My view is that if Deputy Dr. Brennan put his own house in order he would be much better occupied than in making unfounded attacks on the officials of the Department. I compliment the officials on the help they have given to my county and I hope that the matters to which I have drawn attention here will get consideration.
I look upon the Estimate for the Department of Local Government as being the Estimate next in importance to that upon which the debate concluded yesterday, namely, the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. I do not propose to explore every avenue of this Department, but there are one or two points to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister in the few minutes during which I intend to take up the time of the House. In the first place, let me say how glad I am that the Minister has informed the House and the country that in the next few months he intends to introduce a Bill to repeal the County Management Act. That Act, I understand, was passed in 1940 or 1941. If ever an Act had the effect of dampening the ardour of councils throughout the country——
The Deputy may not discuss legislation, the virtues or otherwise of it. He may discuss administration.
We shall have a chance of discussing it later on.
Certainly, when the Bill reaches the House.
There are one or two points to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister. Number one is the very long delay in giving to applicants housing grants when they have been passed and certified by the engineers for payment. Since I came into this House I have had one case which has extended back, I think, over the past two years. It has been certified by the engineers as correct. I have been bombarded by the applicant, who wants his money, and for the past 12 months I am trying to get it out of the Department. I know that my grievance is not alone, as I have discussed the matter with several members of various Parties, and I would appeal to the Minister to give a gee-up to the financial side of his Department.
When people who save a certain amount of money over 20 or 25 years embark on building a house and put their life savings into it and when the house is ready and certified, I think they should get the grant at least within a period of from two to three months. Two hundred and seventy-five pounds may not seem a lot to the Department, but it is a considerable amount of money to a man who is waiting for it and who is being pestered by the merchant who has supplied him with the requisite materials for his house. I make this suggestion in all good faith to the Minister, and I hope that he will see that there will not be the same long delays in the future.
Several Deputies have spoken on the various branches of local government. I intend to confine myself to one this morning. I mentioned the matter when the Department of Industry and Commerce Estimate was before the House and I was informed by the Ceann Comhairle—and rightly so— that it was more appropriate to local government. It is a matter which, for many years past, has caused me a considerable amount of pain, but more particularly so since I became a member of this House. It is what I might describe as the famous, or perhaps the infamous, Youghal Bridge. There are members of this House from different parts of the country who may not have been down South, so may I recite the facts for them?
This bridge, somewhere in the region of 460 yards in length, was erected away back about 1880. It was designed in those days to carry traffic of two or three or four tons. It was built of metal, but due to corrosion by the salt water, it was regarded in December, 1938, as unsafe for vehicular traffic exceeding 3½ tons. One can realise the shock the people of Youghal got when they found in that December, just before Christmas, a notice posted on both ends of the bridge saying that no traffic over 3½ tons would be permitted to cross it. Gates were put up and the bridge is that way since. In the early stages members of the Garda Síochána were detailed for duty to ensure that no motor car would cross this 460-yard bridge at a greater pace than five miles per hour.
Every one of us here can realise what a car driving at five miles per hour across a bridge would be like and it was the joke of the century to see 15 or 21 cars crossing it at a snail's pace. If you broke the regulation of five miles per hour the next thing you got was a docket for exceeding the speed limit and that incurred a certain amount of hostility from people from various parts of the country who were unaware of the facts. With a view to getting over that the county councils of Cork and Waterford decided to put barrels filled with concrete on it at intervals of about 15 yards.
A sobriety test.
It certainly sobered the people of Youghal considerably in their request for a bridge. That was decided by the County Surveyor of Waterford, Mr. John Bowen, a very brilliant engineer, and by Mr. R. F. O'Connor, the Cork County Surveyor, both of whom have gone to their reward many years since, but still the bridge remains.
I can assure you that I am speaking as seriously as I have ever spoken at any gathering in my life when I speak on this matter. I understand that the Minister for Local Government in 1938 was a gentleman who now holds an extremely high position in this country and whose name I do not propose to bring into this House. The next Minister was, I think, Deputy Ruttledge. The representations made to the Department of Local Government just did not seem to get anywhere. Then the war intervened from September, 1939, to May, 1945, and nothing was done. Realising the cancerous growth, if I may put it that way, on the trade of the town of Youghal, we members of the urban council, of which I happen to be chairman, acting in conjunction with the county councils of Cork and Waterford, met on numerous occasions but we were always greeted with: "There is a war on and nothing can be done." I can assure you of the irreparable damage that has been done to the trade of my town by the continuous neglect in this matter and I use the words "continuous neglect" advisedly. I doubt if there are any people in any part of Ireland who would have taken such a serious matter with such equanimity over all those years. Personally I doubt if I would ever have been in this House were it not for the requests made to me by the people of my own town to allow myself to go forward to see if I could expedite here in Dáil Éireann the construction of Youghal Bridge. That is quite true.
Cork and Waterford County Councils met on numerous occasions—managers, engineers, members and others. A bridge committee was formed and numerous requests were made to previous Ministers of the Department of Local Government. That dormant body after all those years seems to be just breaking into some kind of little flame as I saw in the Cork Examiner lately that they were looking for a firm of borers to bore down to get the foundation. The bridge was built in approximately 1880 by a firm in Stockton-onTees who have now gone out of business. We tried numerous institutes of engineers in London and elsewhere, and we tried the offices of Waterford and Cork County Councils but no blueprint of the original bridge could be found anywhere. Now after 11 years the borings are about to take place for the foundation and if it goes on at its present rate of progress I think that every member of this House will have crossed the Great Divide before the bridge is built.
It will last all the longer.
I think you have one in Wexford, too.
That is a real blot on the Department of Local Government and I certainly am holding them responsible. This bridge was a national highway connecting the Counties of Waterford and Cork and the whole situation has done a considerable amount of damage to our tourist trade, because we are on the direct route from Rosslare and Waterford to Killarney. In pre-war years, before the bridge was condemned as unfit for heavy traffic, touring buses from all Ireland came to Youghal and I have often seen as many as eight and ten buses, carrying 30 and 35 passengers each, in the town and one can imagine the financial benefit to hotel keepers and business people through having day after day 300 and 400 extra people in the town on holidays and prepared to spend money. That traffic is now being diverted to a more northerly route. Our fairs and markets have sunk to a negligible degree. As I said on the Industry and Commerce Vote, the northern end of Youghal derived its livelihood to a considerable extent from the Waterford trade. Now all that trade is being diverted to the neighbouring towns of Dungarvan, Cappoquin and intervening villages. Any business man will tell you that once you lose trade, once you lose a customer, it is very hard to get him back again.
This bridge is about one and half miles outside the town across the Blackwater, connecting the two counties, and it is in the region of 460 or 470 yards long. Along the bridge, barrels are set at intervals and a motor car going through has to twist and turn around these barrels. If another car is coming towards you, you must move up to a barrel to make room for that car to pass. The Waterford bus picks up the passengers on the Waterford side when the Cork bus drops them on the Cork side. One can imagine the feelings of people who have to cross that bridge drenched to the skin on a winter night, with a strong south-westerly gale blowing and rain pouring down and one can well imagine their state when they get to the other side. People from Ardmore, a prosperous little village nearby, come in to me, and, when I remark that I have not seen them for a considerable time, they say that they are going somewhere else now, because "we got drenched at the bridge the last time and do not intend to take any more chances." They can get their bus at Ardmore, go to Dungarvan and do their shopping and be dropped again at their own doors without having to get drenched.
This is a very serious matter, the importance of which I want to impress on the Minister. As I have said, our fairs were dependent to a considerable extent on the Waterford side, but they have practically disappeared now because the people go to the neighbouring villages now and do not come in to us. Many Deputies will have seen photographs of this bridge. I have seen several in the Cork Examiner and Times Pictorial, and, within the past month, I met a man who lived in the district about eight or nine years ago. He had been all through the recent war, and, when I met him, the first thing he said to me was: “The greatest shock I ever got was when I saw that Youghal Bridge was as I passed over it nine years ago.” He had served in the British Army during the war and had landed in Normandy on D-day. He took part in the drive through Germany and he spoke of the speed with which the army was able to throw bridges across the Rhine to carry tanks ten and 15 tons in weight.
We would do it here if we had a war.
I hope we will not require a war to get Youghal Bridge erected. It often struck me that it was a great pity that, when the bridge was closed by the occupation forces, the British Army, back in the 20's, they did not make a proper job of it and blow it up, because we would now have a decent bridge. Now we are just depending on our own Government and are doing exactly nothing.
I have interviewed the Minister on several occasions in connection with this bridge. One of the first jobs I undertook was to contact the late Minister for Local Government, Deputy Murphy, who promised to do his very best in the matter and to expedite the erection of this bridge. God intervened and took him away and he was followed by the present Minister. Realising the very onerous duties devolving on the Minister at such short notice, I did not worry him too much, but 12 months have now passed, and I have been in the House for two and a half years, and we seem to have got as far with the erection of the bridge as when I came in first. The Leaders of all the political Parties on the eve of the last general election were interviewed by members of my council on their visits to Youghal. Every one of them, without exception, promised that, if they got the support of the people, the bridge would be under way within six months. Politicians' promises!
I am not going to be as emphatic as Deputy Brennan was last night, but, unless this bridge is well under way before the next general election, I doubt very much if I would have the cheek—I am speaking very sincerely and very bluntly—to ask the people, 95 per cent. of whom supported me in my own town and sent me here to do a specific job for them, to support me again. The business of the town has been hit very hard. Had I known I would have been speaking on this Estimate this morning I would have brought more papers with me, but I have one letter which I have received here in which I am asked "to continue to pester the appropriate Government Department in regard to the proposed new Youghal Bridge". The writer continues:—
"In this connection, as I have acquainted you in a previous communication, the people are so tired of waiting for something to be done that they propose to start—and I do not blame them—a pay-no-rates campaign. Another matter which worries them is where the new bridge will be erected."
We have heard that it was the intention in the past, on the advice of engineering experts in Local Government. to erect the bridge further up the Blackwater. If that is done, I tell the Department straight that they may as well not build it at all. On behalf of the people of Youghal, I want to insist that, if and when that bridge is erected, it must not be erected a yard further, up the river than the present bridge. Otherwise, it will be no use to the people of Youghal. We heard, too, that it was the intention six or seven years ago to erect a suspension bridge over the river at Ardsallagh. That is no use because it is a mile or a mile and a half further up. The people of Youghal want the bridge in one place— as close as possible to the existing bridge and not further up the river. Business people in the town of Youghal have been driven almost desperate and one of the biggest employers in the town has told me that he proposes to close down. Unfortunately, like many other towns, we have our share of unemployment. If work on that bridge had been started, all the unemployed who are on the dole would be absorbed for the next five or six years. I would appeal to the Minister to consider this matter and I hope that the officers of his Department, a considerable number of whom I see alongside him, will take serious notice of this matter.
There are no officers in this House.
I hope to convey my remarks, through the Minister, to the officers of his Department. Thank you, Sir. This is a very serious matter and I want to see a move made quickly in connection with it. I shall not say anything in regard to houses and the various other points, a note of which I have here, because I understand there is a race against time. I want the Minister to act in connection with this bridge. Whoever is responsible for the long delay must be got rid of. If God spares me, and if I have to talk on this Estimate this time 12 months, I doubt if I would ever face my own people again if work on this bridge is not proceeded with in the next 12 or 18 months.
I have a few complaints to make. One is in regard to the housing grants as applied to North Mayo. There are great complaints from all over the area about the delay in paying these grants. I do not know what is the cause and I do not know who is responsible. Whoever is responsible should be spurred into action because it is a dreadful thing that, where a grant has been sanctioned, it is not paid for 12 months after the house is completed. There are complaints from the applicants and from the merchants supplying the materials. In nearly all cases, merchants are refusing to supply the materials unless the money is paid down, as they cannot afford to wait indefinitely for the money. Houses that have been built for 12 months have not yet received the grants. I cannot understand the reason for that delay. I do not know what will happen eventually. I do not know whether it is the Department or its inspectors or the Department of Finance that are responsible, but whoever is responsible should be brought to book.
In my opinion, the grants should be paid on the completion of the house. I think that is the undertaking given by the Department. It is the least that would be expected that the grant would be paid when the house was roofed. I would ask the Minister to remedy this matter at once and to see that the grants are paid immediately. I know cases where inspectors have not issued certificates although they have been notified for a long time that the houses were completed.
Merchants cannot afford to wait 12 months for the money and are refusing to supply the material. I know several cases where men have borrowed money from the bank on the understanding that when the houses would be completed the money would be repaid. When the grant is not paid, the persons concerned have to pay interest for a further six months to the bank. It is very unfair. I would ask the Minister to have that matter dealt with.
There is another complaint in regard to road grants. Last year we got no main roads grant. In the area I represent there are at least two main roads that are in a deplorable condition at present. The Minister has had correspondence in regard to the north coast road from Belmullet to Ballycastle. That road is in a deplorable condition. A bus service which operated on that road had to be discontinued owing to the bad condition of the road. I would ask the Minister to do something about the matter.
The Ballyeroy-Mulranny road is another main road that is in a shocking condition. It is even worse than the north-coast road. They never got a main road grant. I do not see why.
I would ask the Minister to consider these cases and to see that a grant would be given. The present condition of the roads is a disgrace. They are two of the nicest roads in the whole county as regards scenery. The Ballycroy-Mulranny road is very important from a tourist point of view. The best fishing rivers in the West of Ireland for trout and salmon are in the surrounding area. They are a great tourist attraction, but tourists do not come there a second time, because the roads are in such a bad state. The Minister for Industry and Commerce would be able to tell the Minister about it. He travelled that road recently.
A special grant should be given for the repair of these two roads. During the emergency these roads had to carry an enormous amount of turf traffic. Hundreds of thousands of tons of turf were carried over them. That cut them to pieces, and it would be very difficult to put them into a proper state of repair now. No money was spent on those roads for a number of years except the small amount of the roads rural grant. That was all that was given. That was not sufficient for roads that had been cut up in such a manner by the haulage of turf.
I would again appeal to the Minister to see that grants would be given. The county roads are in almost the same condition. Many of them were cut up so badly that it is difficult to restore them. I would ask the Minister to investigate these cases.
The fact that the discussion on this Estimate is over-shadowed to a certain extent by pending legislation to reform the whole system of local administration and the proposed Housing Bill, tends to curtail the discussion on the Estimate. It is gratifying to learn that legislation is on the way. Therefore, I do not propose to speak at any great length but there are certain outstanding matters to which I must direct the Minister's attention. The first is the fact that local expenditure still tends to rise and the direct burden upon the ordinary ratepayer is becoming an intolerable nightmare. In an unguarded moment during the past year the Minister expressed the view publicly that the question of rates did not give any cause for alarm. I think the ratepayers of the country generally were deeply incensed by that remark. I know that during the past year there was an intensive organised effort on the part of ratepayers for their own protection. The question of rates gives cause for alarm not only to the large ratepayers but also to the small ratepayers. As we know, rates are directly collected in a lump sum from the ratepayer and that also imposes a very definite hardship. The Minister should use all his power and influence to stay the upward tendency of rates. It is true that, as a result of an agitation during the past year, substantial increases in rates were not made in most places but we can anticipate that an effort will be made in the coming year to force rates still higher. The Minister should set his face against such a tendency and give all possible encouragement in respect of the keeping down of rates to the lowest level.
Local administration, as we are aware, is to a great extent under dual control: it is under the control of the local authorities in the first instance and they, in turn, are subject to the control of the Department. That system of dual control does not make for efficiency. Frequently, when members of a county council ask why such and such a work is not being undertaken they are informed that the plans are awaiting the sanction of the Department. All this evasion of responsibility on the part of local officials— all this confusion as to who is responsible—is, in many cases, the cause of long delays which I think should be avoided. Deputy O'Gorman referred to the celebrated Youghal Bridge. Examples of similar works left undone could be quoted from almost every part of the country. It is very difficult to fix responsibility. Naturally, the local ratepayers will fix responsibility on the local council, and it in turn will always accuse the Department. Therefore, we have confusion and lack of clarity, and that, inevitably, makes for inefficiency, waste of time and waste of money. I hope the Minister will endeavour to clear up this matter. I hope he will impose clear-cut, definite obligations on local authorities which they will have to carry out and which he will insist on their carrying out expeditiously. I hope he will clearly define the responsibility of these officials and that they, in turn, will seek to carry out their work with the utmost expedition. In addition, I hope the Minister will always be ready to resist all attempts by the Minister for Finance to impose additional burdens on the local authorities and, through them, on the local ratepayers. We look to the Minister for Local Government to fight the Department of Finance on behalf of the ratepayers.
I come now to the question of the revaluation of property.
For which I am not responsible.
I do not think the Minister has any responsibility for that.
I want to say that as——
I do not think there is any doubt about it. It has been clearly stated by the Minister.
I, on behalf of the ratepayers' association, have made many inquiries in this matter and I have been invariably informed that the responsibility for the revision and revaluation of rateable property rests on the local authority—and the Minister controls the local authorities.
That is not so. The Minister does not control revaluation.
The local authorities are accused of initiating the revaluation of property. Frequently the fact that property in towns and counties is revalued is brought to my attention, and, on inquiry, I am always informed that the local authorities initiate the inspections with a view to revaluation. As a member of a local authority, I want to say that I have never known any instruction to be given to any official of my local authority to report cases of rateable property requiring revaluation.
I am afraid that the statute is against the Deputy's argument.
I submit that while the revaluation is carried out by the Commissioners of Valuation under the statute, it is the officials of the local authority who report to the commissioners that a revaluation is necessary.
The Minister does not originate it or suggest it. It has nothing to do with this Minister.
The Minister is blamed for it.
On a point of order. I understand that revaluations are carried out——
That is not a point of order. It is a speech on revaluation.
It would clear Deputy Cogan. The rate collector does it and the Minister is responsible for it.
I want to make the point that the local authority is not responsible for this widespread campaign for increased valuations. So long as I make that point and establish it, I am clearing the local authorities of all blame.
That is established by legislation.
And I am clearing the rate collectors also of blame in this matter because they are held responsible for initiating the revision of and increase in valuations.
On the instructions of the Department of Local Government Order. It is done by the Department of Local Government.
That is not so.
Order.
It has nothing to do with this question. The rate collector to the local authority has statutory authority. He makes his report to the officer of the Department of Local Government.
Mr. Cogan rose.
I will hear no more about it. Obviously, it is not true that the Minister is responsible for this matter.
I can prove it.
It is not true, and Deputy Corry should be ashamed to say it.
Order.
Whoever is responsible, the fact is that it is a serious matter so far as the ratepayers generally are concerned.
The Minister is blamed for it, anyway, although he has no responsibility for it.
He has; he sends down the Order.
There is a motion before the House to the effect that the revenue collected from motorists should be utilised for——
There is no such motion before the House. It could not be moved or seconded before the conclusion of the Vote. It is not before the House formally: that part of it which is open to discussion refers to the increase of road grants.
I understood that it was moved and if it requires a seconder I am willing to second it.
It was seconded by Deputy O'Rourke.
A demand was made during the past year by the ratepayers generally through their organisation. They felt that this was one of the ways in which road maintenance and reconstruction could be carried out expeditiously and efficiently.
Will the Deputy resume his seat for a moment, please? The Deputy should understand that that motion is not before the House. The Deputies were informed that they might discuss the question of increased grants but that the Minister for Local Government has nothing to do with petrol or motor taxation.
Might I submit——
I already informed the Deputy of the directions given to the Deputy who moved it, and that is the position.
If the motion only requires a seconder, I would be prepared to second it.
Deputy O'Rourke was to second it, but it was forbidden, because there can be only one motion before the House at a time. The motion before the House is that the Estimate for the Department of Local Government be referred back. On that motion Deputies are allowed to discuss increased grants for roads, but not the petrol tax.
On a point of order. Is it understood that a separate vote will be taken on that motion?
I told the Deputy he would be informed about that later.
I was discussing the provision of substantial grants from the State towards the complete reconstruction of roads, and particularly county roads. That is not a matter that we ought to continue to deal with in a piecemeal way. There are thousands of miles of county roads which are deteriorating day by day. They are being kept, at enormous expense, in a permanent condition of disrepair, and the problem is being met by the Government by means of very inadequate grants which provide for the frequent reconstruction of just a tiny, minute fraction of the total county road mileage in each county.
Of what benefit is it to the community to select a few miles of road in each county for reconstruction, to do those few miles each year, and to proceed in that way on a programme of reconstruction which could not be completed within 50 years? Is there not a waste of public money there, in the first place, through the inability of the local engineering staffs to organise a complete scheme of reconstruction, to acquire the proper machinery and to put this work in hand on a standardised and regularised basis? All the present effort means nothing more than waste and inefficiency. While a small mileage of the roads is being reconstructed from year to year, more than 90 per cent. of the roads is being maintained in a primitive, old-fashioned way, putting on a small amount of loose material which is deposited in the fields and ditches in the course of a few days. Almost every penny that is being spent on that type of road-making is wasted money. That money is wrung from the ratepayers and the taxpayers and it is being squandered recklessly.
It is time to introduce some sound method of organisation. We should think of a five years' plan of road reconstruction and we should have every assurance that the grants necessary will be forthcoming. In that way engineers can plan their road reconstruction schemes much in the same way as the Electricity Supply Board have planned their rural electrification scheme or much as any nation-wide undertaking would be planned. We are aware that in the Six Counties there has been a substantial improvement in road-making during the past few years. That is mainly due to the fact that better financial provision is being made.
We know that when we provide housing accommodation in areas adjacent to our towns and cities, we always seek to provide decent roads to the houses, decent concrete or tarbound roads leading right to the new houses. That is as it should be. But the people who live on the hillsides and on the bogs are just as much entitled to a decent road to their houses as the people who live near the towns and cities. I think we will never really solve the problem of rural depopulation until we provide that type of amenity in addition to other amenities that may be required. It is depressing for young people who are thinking of marrying and settling down, even in a house that is worthy of habitation, if they have to flounder over a rough boreen to a public road and then travel for miles along a badly maintained public road before they can reach the town or the village or get to the chapel on Sundays.
We ought not to continue to deal with this matter in a half-hearted, haphazard way. We are providing substantial grants for drainage work, and considerable numbers of men are being employed on this work. It is to be hoped that the work will be completed within a short time, in so far as it is intended to proceed with it. When it is completed, there will again be an unemployment problem, and I suggest that plans should be made so as to ensure that the men who are at present working, and who are doing very good work on drainage schemes in many counties, will be drafted on to a big scheme of road construction. I am not so much concerned about the main roads, but I am really concerned about the county roads, many of which have never been treated with tar or have never been concreted or treated with any other permanent surfacing material. These roads are now a disgrace to the community.
I am glad that there is some provision in this Estimate for an inquiry into the question of making roads safe for horses. While the horse may be condemned by the Minister for Agriculture and other progressive people, he will still remain in the rural areas for a certain time, and it is desirable, when putting a permanent surface on a road, whether tar or concrete, that the requirements of horse-drawn traffic and animal traffic generally should be considered. I do not want to go into the matter very exhaustively, but it would be no harm to keep it in mind, and I am glad the Minister is giving it some attention.
With regard to housing, I have a few observations to make. There are three different types of people who require housing accommodation. You first have the family, and then you have young people who were either recently married or who intend to marry, and then you have the older people who have no children or dependents, old single people or old couples whose families have settled down. Those three types of people are all entitled to housing accommodation.
We are all agreed, of course, to put the first emphasis on the need of the family. That need ought to be and should be met as quickly as possible, but we cannot neglect the old people who have not dependents. They are just as much entitled to decent housing accommodation as the younger sections of the community. Perhaps it might be well if provision were made for a smaller type of house at a lower rent for, say, old age pensioners. In many towns there are terraces of small houses which are now regarded as being too small for family accommodation. I do not think all of them should be demolished. Very many of them are structurally sound and it would be well, I think, if they were reserved for old people without dependents.
In addition, there is the other type of accommodation for people of the older generation. That could be met by the provision of an additional room to an existing house. It would be natural and desirable that an old man or woman whose son or daughter was married should continue to live with them in the same house, or near them if possible. In most cases the ordinary county council house is too small for a young man and his wife with perhaps a large family, and for the older people. I think it would be a good social reform to provide, wherever necessary, an additional room for the grandparents in which they could live with a certain amount of independence from the rest of the family. In that way they would be near their children and grandchildren and could be of assistance to them. They could also receive some assistance from the younger people. I think that some sort of a semi-detached room such as I suggest in these council houses would be very desirable. Whatever additional charge in the way of rent arose in a case of that sort could be paid for by the occupants out of their means. That is a reform in housing which I think is urgently needed.
It is rather strange that Deputy T. Walsh should have mentioned a complaint that has been brought to my notice by small contractors. The complaint is that, since county councils have undertaken the building of houses on a large scale by direct labour, it has become impossible for the small contractor to get housing materials of any kind, and particularly housing materials which are in short supply. The big suppliers supply the county councils. I suppose the small contractor is just regarded as small fry by them, and that they prefer to deal with the big consumers so far as these materials are concerned. I suggest to the House that the small contractor is also fulfilling a very useful purpose in the community. He is making a substantial contribution to the solution of the housing problem and, therefore, it is essential that he should get at least his quota of whatever supplies are available, so that he will be able to continue to make this contribution to a solution of this problem. It is also desirable that the small and the private contractor in the building of houses should not be eliminated.
Would the Deputy give him £400 more for the building of these houses than has to be paid for them when they are done by direct labour?
Under no circumstances would I give the private contractor more for the building of these houses than they can be built for by direct labour. I have been altogether in favour of county councils undertaking direct labour schemes. I think that a little healthy competition between the county councils and contractors in the building of houses is a good thing. Healthy competition is good for everybody. Without meaning any disrespect to them, I am certain that contractors, if left to themselves, would exploit the community. I am also certain, in the same way, that if local authorities were left to themselves there would be an exploitation of the community, not perhaps by the county councils or the Department of Local Government but by vested interests—by organisations of skilled workers who would extract from the ratepayers and the community generally excessive charges just the same as contractors, through their organisations, seek to extract excessive profits from the community.
They have no monopoly.
I have the feeling that there is no more powerful monopoly in this country than the organised trade unions of skilled workers. In my opinion, the time has come to attack in a vigorous way this monopoly by ensuring that the artificial shortage of skilled workers be brought to an end, and that there should not be in this country, with all the young vigorous and intelligent people that we have, any scarcity whatever of skilled workers. We have young people leaving the primary schools and going into the technical schools where they could be trained to become skilled workers in a couple of years.
But they could not become bank clerks in a couple of years?
I think they could become bank clerks in a few years.
Where are all the trade unionists now?
Deputy Cogan on the Estimate.
I am on the Estimate.
The Chair is rather doubtful of that.
We are dealing with housing, and one of the difficulties that has been mentioned is the shortage of skilled workers. Appeals have been made to our skilled workers in Britain to return, but I do not think they have responded as one would have expected they would. I believe that the real source of supply of skilled workers is to be found in our young boys who are leaving our primary schools. If these young people were sent into our technical schools and trained there in building work, that, I believe, would contribute enormously to a solution of the housing problem—that is, if they were not restricted or controlled from entering into these trades.
If I have made any attack on trade unions or on contractors, the attack was made for no other reason than to get this problem solved as speedily as possible. It is dreadful to see people short of housing accommodation and shelter, old people in their declining years, young married people and those intending to marry, because of these restrictive practices which hold up the entry into skilled trades of young and vigorous boys who could contribute to the solution of the problem in a very few years.
It is time that the problem of repairing labourers' cottages throughout the country was solved. We know that the demand for repairs to these cottages is a problem the county councils must face. It has become a very expensive item in local administration. In many cases it is costing the county councils more to keep the cottages in repair than the actual rent they receive from the tenants. I think the best way to solve the problem would be to transfer the ownership of the cottages to the tenants as quickly as possible. I think nothing is more conducive to a strong nation than that every man should own his own home and should himself endeavour to keep it in repair. Ownership cannot always be transferred perhaps in the towns and cities where repair work may be a complicated process, but in the rural areas there should be no difficulty whatsoever in making the tenants the owners of their own houses and then imposing upon them the responsibility of keeping those houses in a proper state of repair. I am sure that 99 per cent. of the tenants would keep their homes in good repair if they were the owners of them and the recalcitrant 1 per cent. could be compelled to follow suit. It is absurd that the county councils should be compelled to spend more on the repair of these cottages than they actually collect by way of rent. That position would not be tolerated by any private landlord. It is not a healthy position. It is sheer waste of public money to go on tinkering with this problem. The tenants should be urged to avail of whatever purchase facilities there are, through legislation or otherwise, in order to take over the ownership of their own homes, and the actual transfer of such ownership should be expedited.
I do not know what is wrong in regard to the grants for drainage under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. In the Estimate substantial provision is made for these works but in actual fact only a small proportion of the grants has been made available so far to the local authorities. There is a good deal of uneasiness amongst those concerned as to whether those grants will be forthcoming in order to carry the schemes already under way to completion. I would like the Minister to give a definite assurance in regard to that matter. As far as I know the county councils have only got a small proportion of the money for the present year. In many cases they have been compelled to disemploy men and leave schemes uncompleted. There is one very important scheme in connection with the Derry river in South Wicklow. That is a very large scheme. Work commenced last year but has not been completed. I would like a definite assurance from the Minister that the money necessary for the completion of the scheme will be forthcoming. The scheme involves the construction of a new waterway and the acquisition of land for that purpose. In its incomplete stage it is interfering to a considerable extent with farming operations in the area. I know, of course, that it would be absurd to undertake a work of this kind and leave it unfinished and I am sure that I am pushing an open door when asking the Minister to give an assurance that the necessary money will be forthcoming to complete the scheme.
While I do not agree with the policy of the Minister in many respects, I wish to compliment him on the way in which he has presented his Estimate and on the tenor of his statement in general. We had none of the sarcastic witticisms to which we have become accustomed. Because of that, the debate has been carried on on a much better level than has been the case with other Estimates where sarcastic and offensive remarks were made for which, as far as I could see, there was no justification whatsoever in an introductory statement on an Estimate.
Yesterday evening a rather well-thought-out attack was made by a Deputy here on the officials of the Department of Local Government. I have had occasion to visit many Departments of State and I must say that I have always been received, and this is particularly true of the Department of Local Government, with civility and courtesy. There has been no change in that attitude since the change of Government. We hear a good deal about red tape. If the red tape does exist, it is not the officials who are responsible for it; it is the laws made in this House that make the red tape. If the officials adhere too rigidly to the laws, perhaps there is good reason for that in many cases. There was a time when we claimed to be a nation of saints and scholars. Sometimes one meets a scholar who is anything but a gracious saint when it comes to trying to put across something which the law does not permit.
The principal item mentioned here has been housing. It is a very important item. Great strides have been made in the past. The present Administration is continuing to deal with that problem. While there is an urban problem in my constituency, there is, at the same time, a fairly acute rural problem. The principal difficulty that I see in the solution of the problem in my area is the fact that we have compulsory powers of acquisition. Delay is due in a great measure to that. I know very well that compulsory acquisition was introduced not merely to try to speed up the work, but also in an endeavour to get sites at a reasonable price. If we continue that voluntary basis of acquisition, I suppose it is only natural that the holders of land will try to drive the hardest bargain they can. The voluntary agreement system worked better with us from 1934 to 1939-40 than the compulsory acquisition system. Even though we had to give a little more per acre, at the same time we could get on much more easily and quickly with the work. The holding of an inquiry always takes a considerable time. I do not know who is responsible for it, but there is another thing which holds up the acquisition regarding the purchase of sites and that is the transfer of title. The Land Commission would have something to do with that, I think. There is very often very great delay in regard to the transfer of title.
I have heard Deputies state that the payment of housing grants in their area was unsatisfactory. That has not been my experience because the payment, in the main, has been satisfactory. I know of a few cases, however—there may be a considerable number over the country—where a very great hardship has been inflicted and I want to bring the matter specially to the notice of the Minister. In the 1948 Housing Act there was a section inserted for which Deputy T. O'Sullivan and myself had as much responsibility as anybody else. That section provided that in the case of houses commenced before a certain period an increased grant would be paid. It happened, however, in some cases that people who had not their houses completed by 31st March, 1950, were denied the grant. Of course Deputies and the Minister may take the view that these people do not deserve much sympathy. There is one case, however, which I think deserves sympathy. On the 14th April, 1949, a certificate for the first instalment of the grant was issued in this case. For some reason or other which I cannot understand, that first instalment of £90 was not paid although the house was roofed. The people concerned therefore were not able to carry on with the completion of the work. Had that grant been paid at the time at which it was certified for or a month or two later the work would have been finally completed by 31st March, 1950. I should like to bring that case to the notice of the Minister. If Section 17 of the 1948 Act prevents the Minister from making that payment now, I hope that he will have it repealed in the new Housing Bill. I think that would be only fair, because it was a mistake or oversight in this case on the part of some official or officials in his Department which was perhaps responsible for that.
Deputy Walsh last night referred to an Order recently made by the Minister and sent down to local authorities under which certain regulations are prescribed in regard to people who would get labourers' cottages. As was pointed out by Deputy Walsh, in the case of a number of those who made applications for cottages, sites were made available to the local authorities voluntarily by the parents of the applicants, by their employers, or by some neighbours.
According to the new regulations, the original applicants in many instances are not going to get preference for the cottages. These sites would not have been given voluntarily were it not for the fact that the owners of the land knew the circumstances of the applicants. If the sites had not been given voluntarily, the local authority would have been put to the trouble of acquiring them compulsorily. I think that that is not right. I believe the original applicants should get preference.
I also believe that an applicant for a cottage who is a genuine agricultural labourer and who gets a site from his parents or his employer or a neighbour should have a cottage provided for him, whether he is married or single, because, so far as marriage is concerned for an agricultural labourer, the great drawback is that he has not a house to occupy. Agricultural labourers are a very important class in the community and there should be no restrictions on genuine agricultural labourers, whether married or single, getting cottages, provided they get a site voluntarily, as the extra cost of acquiring a site compulsorily is avoided.
So far as the housing drive is concerned, we are led to believe that it is going well in the City of Dublin and other cities. It was stated by the Minister that the largest sum ever made available was being made available this year for housing. It is only natural to expect that that would be so, as a larger sum will be required owing to the change in money values. That does not mean, however, that there will be a greater number of houses built. The Minister stated that there was 125 per cent. of an increase since 1939 in the cost of maintaining the roads, and I am sure the same thing applies to houses.
I should like the Minister when replying to inform the House what the response has been to the advertisement which was published in the papers here for a considerable time and I am sure in the Press on the other side and the appeals made on the radio to workers abroad in connection with the housing drive that "Ireland is Building". I should like the Minister to give the total number who have responded to that call, distinguishing between nationals and non-nationals, if he can do so. We would also like to know if these workers are still coming back. If the response has not been as good as was expected, we would like to know what is the cause, because we are led to believe that the wages here are better than across the water. If that is the case, there must be some other reason for it if the response has not been as good as was expected.
Then there is the question of road grants. Undoubtedly, the problem of the improvement and maintenance of roads is a very big and complex one, much more so than appears from a superficial glance. I do think, however, that one of the most unwise forms of the economy and retrenchment made by the present Government was the reduction of the road grants in 1949-50. In fact they reduced them also after coming into office in 1948. They went on the basis of the previous year and not on the basis that had been in operation for two or three years previously—that was, for the expenditure on main roads 90 per cent., and the expenditure on maintenance work on county roads, 75 per cent. That was all changed.
I should like to give the Minister an example of what has happened to us in County Galway and I think what has happened in Galway is typical of what happened all over the country. Road expenditure in County Galway in 1948-49 was £377,932. That was the estimate that was prepared on the basis of the grants that were being given by Fianna Fáil. The Government grant in that year was £244,560, which meant that £133,372 was borne by the rates. In 1949-50, the expenditure on the roads was reduced to £331,989 and the Government grant, which had been £244,000 in the previous year, was reduced to £174,000. The amount to be borne by the rates in 1949-50 was £157,271, the reduction in the Government grant as compared with 1948-49 being £69,842. That meant that there was an increase on the rates for the county over the 1948-49 figure of £23,820. The county surveyor's estimate was based on the grants given in previous years. He made out an estimate for submission to the county council which was included in the general estimate. He based his estimate, which amounted to £519,275, on his knowledge of what was required to bring the roads up to the standard to which, in his opinion, they should have been brought. Also basing his estimate on the basis of the grant given by the Fianna Fáil Government, he estimated that the receipts would work out at £359,740. That would mean, of course, that the rates would carry £159,535. It was in that year that, instead of spending £519,275, we were cut down as a result of the action of the Government to £331,989. That was a big slash and, undoubtedly, it had a big effect on the roads. The improvement that was desired could not be continued and was not continued. The result is that the county roads were never in a worse condition than they are at the present time. Most of the county roads in Galway are in a terrible condition and I must also say that the main roads are deteriorating except in the few portions where improvement works are being carried out.
As I said at the outset, I think that was a very foolish form of economy for many reasons. The tourist industry, as was stated by Deputy Walsh, is a very important industry for this country. It was not regarded, of course, as so important by the members of the present Government when they were in opposition. We know how they utilised it. I move to report progress.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.