Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Jul 1952

Vol. 133 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Local Government.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £2,937,020 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government, including Grants to Local Authorities, Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing and Miscellaneous Grants.

The total net amount for which provision is made in this Estimate is £4,395,020, representing an apparent decrease of £2,318,440 as compared with the total of £6,713,460 last year. When introducing last year's Estimate, however, I pointed out that it had been swollen by the provision transferred to it for capital grants for those housing and sanitary services schemes which were eligible for grants from the Transition Development Fund as at the 1st November, 1950, when the making of such grants towards new schemes terminated. The comparable figures in this year's Estimate and last year's (if this special provision in both Estimates is omitted) would be £3,525,020 for 1952-53 and £4,103,460 for 1951-52. This represents a decrease of £598,440, which is mainly accounted for by the reduction of £570,000 in the grants to local authorities for the execution of works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949, as against an increase of £700,000 in the grants from the Road Fund notified to local authorities. This latter increase does not appear in the Estimates, as the Road Fund is accounted for separately.

The chief items in which increased provision is made are in contributions towards housing loan charges of local authorities (£26,570); in salaries, wages and allowances (£23,590), and in contributions towards loan charges of local authorities in respect of sanitary service works (£4,000).

The average annual housing output since the initiation of the post-war housing programme in 1947 has been 4,576, and the average pre-war output between 1932 and 1940 was 5,073. The target of annual production for a ten-year programme of local authority housing is 7,000 dwellings. In the last financial year, 7,195 houses were completed by local authorities, as compared with 7,787 in the preceding year. While, therefore, the output in 1951-52 was somewhat less than in the previous financial year it is satisfactory to see that for the second year in succession the target has been surpassed. A further satisfactory aspect is that the housing needs, as estimated in 1947, had been satisfied by the end of last February in eight urban districts, two towns under town commissioners and two county health districts.

At the end of May this year, 9,323 local authority dwellings were in course of construction, 3,145 were in preliminary contract stages and sites were available for a further 10,129 dwellings. This latter figure represents the equivalent of a housing programme of over 17 months at the current rate of building. Development of 435 of these sites in hand had been completed and work was in progress on the development of a further 2,607 sites. There are good grounds, therefore, for anticipating that the volume of housing work being carried out by local authorities will be maintained during the current financial year at as high a level as in any previous year.

In reply to various parliamentary questions I have already stated the overall position as regards progress in the post-emergency housing programme, but I think it desirable to put the present position in round figures on record now. Since the 1st April, 1947, nearly 24,000 dwellings have been completed, 9,300 are now being built, and positive steps have been taken towards building a further 13,200. Thus the total number of houses built, being built or proposed to be built in the near future comes to 46,500, as against the target of 70,000 houses visualised for local authorities in 1947. This is a record which is highly creditable to the local authorities, their officers and workmen, and to the various other parties who have contributed towards the progress being made. The rural programme has made the most speedy progress. About 48 per cent. of the total estimated post-war needs have been met, and current and proposed building operations will bring this percentage up to 89 per cent. In the urban areas, apart from Dublin County Borough, about 69 per cent. of the estimated needs have been met or are in course of being met.

The number of dwellings completed by Dublin Corporation between April, 1947, and May, 1952, has exceeded the total completions by all other urban housing authorities, including the other three county boroughs. Nearly 11,000 houses and flat dwellings have been completed or are being built or included in the current tenders. Nevertheless, such is the extent of the city's housing problem that this great achievement represents in all only 36 per cent. of the total estimated needs. Sites in the possession of the corporation will accommodate dwellings to meet a further 15 per cent. of these needs.

A debate on housing, whether it arises in connection with these Estimates or otherwise, usually involves some degree of concentration on the problems of Dublin and Cork. These problems have received my closest attention during the past year. The difficulties arising have been discussed on successive occasions with the local representatives and the local officials.

Close examination of the prospects in Dublin convinces me that the housing output in each of the next two or three years can be maintained at not less than the high average obtained over the past few years.

As regards Cork, I am glad to be in a position to report a considerable improvement in the corporation's housing progress. As Deputies are aware, less than ten per cent. of the estimated needs of that city had been met up to the 31st March, 1951, the number of completions being 332 houses. By the 31st May, 1952, however, the total had risen to 644 and work was then in progress on 495 further houses. The corporation have been advised on a series of matters which it is hoped should bring about a further increase in output in the present and subsequent years.

A greater degree of competition amongst building firms for local authority housing work has been evident of late. Nevertheless there is little tendency towards a reduction in over-all costs of local authority building generally. Where definite evidence is available to show that houses can be constructed by the direct labour system at a cost which will compare favourably with tender prices, approval to the carrying out of schemes by this method is being given.

Every other possible effort is being made to keep costs down without impairing the standards of design and construction. In several instances before sanction was accorded to expenditure at an apparently excessive rate the local authorities in question were required to institute further critical examination of the factors giving rise to high costs, for example, sizes of rooms, number of rooms in various batches of houses with reference to the size of families requiring to be housed, excessive cost of development, fencing and so on.

The past year has been satisfactory as regard progress in private enterprise housing. 6,087 new house grants were allocated during the financial year compared with 5,671 in the previous year. This was the highest number of new house grants allocated in any one year since the introduction of this system of assisting private enterprise. 3,303 reconstruction grant allocations were made in the same period as compared with 2,788 in the preceding period.

Various other housing matters have come up for special consideration in connection with the Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1952. The debates on that Bill included discussions on the amount of the State aid towards private house building and reconstruction, the level of rural reconstruction grants, the differentiation between the grants for serviced and non-serviced houses, the making of supplementary housing grants by local authorities under Section 7 of the Act of 1950, and the question of the maximum advance which may be made in respect of loans for the acquisition of small dwellings. The Bill has also clarified public policy on certain problems of overcrowding, slum clearance and the repair of small dwellings.

With regard to sub-head I (1), a sum of £925,000 is being provided in respect of contributions towards housing loan charges of local authorities, an increase of £26,000 on the 1951-52 provision. This is the amount required to meet the statutory contributions towards loan charges in respect of housing, together with a non-statutory contribution towards charges on certain loans from the Local Loans Fund. During the year 1951-52, housing authorities were notified of a change in the financial arrangements to replace the capital grants formerly made available from the Transition Development Fund. Regulations were made on the 26th October, 1951, increasing the capital cost limits applicable for recoupment in respect of annual loan charges. The effect of the regulations will become more evident in subsequent Estimates, according as the schemes to which the new regulations will apply are completed.

The provision under sub-head I (6) in respect of the special contribution towards the cost of houses reserved for newly-weds has been reduced from £60,000 to £30,000. This represents payments to be made on account within the year and is not related strictly to the number of houses which may be provided within a year. Nearly 500 houses have been or are being provided to date, the majority of them in Dublin.

Since approval in March, 1951, to the fixing of a terminable annuity of 50 per cent. of the rent as a basis for purchase schemes for labourers' cottages, schemes on the new terms have been received in respect of 2,200 cottages. These are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible in the Department and, subject to any questions arising on routine examination of the details, the proposals will be approved.

The Housing Act of 1950 empowered housing authorities to acquire lands and provide houses for sale or letting to persons irrespective of whether they are or are not members of the classes statutorily described as working classes and agricultural labourers. The grants payable by the State are based on the new house grants payable to private persons and the provision for them in the Estimates is included in sub-head I (3). A number of houses have been provided under these powers, principally in Dublin County Borough where over 200 houses have been built for sale on a tenant purchase basis.

Road Fund income in 1951-52 amounted to £3,261,000 as compared with £2,814,000 in the previous year. Outstanding liabilities at the 31st March amounted to £1,830,000. Road Fund income for 1952-53 is estimated at £3,500,000. The Minister for Finance agreed that the Exchequer contribution of £300,000 which had been taken from the Road Fund annually since 1947 would not be sought in respect of the year 1952-53. As a result it has been possible to increase the Road Fund grants for the year by £700,000. I allocated this additional amount so as to bring the main road improvement grant up to a total of £1,100,000 and the county road improvement grant up to £1,400,000. The main road upkeep grant remains at 40 per cent. of each council's expenditure on main road upkeep and will probably amount in the year to about £700,000.

The effect of the increase in the allocations is substantially to restore expenditure on main road improvement to the figure obtaining prior to the adjustment of Road Fund grants in 1949-50 and at the same time not only to maintain the county road improvement grant then introduced but to increase it up to a sum of £1,400,000.

The main roads of the country represent an important national asset but they can easily become a wasting asset unless they are properly maintained. County roads were not built to take motor vehicles but they are now being used by these vehicles to an ever-increasing degree both for through traffic between towns and also by the rural population both for travelling and for haulage and agricultural work. In these circumstances, without committing myself definitely in advance, I should like to say that, if the Road Fund income continues to increase the county road improvement grant would appear entitled to rank for a further increase in future years. Meanwhile, some county councils have displayed a commendable initiative in drawing up programmes to supplement by way of loan the works which can be carried out with the aid of the Road Fund allocations and local expenditure from rates. Any such proposals that are submitted to me will be favourably considered. In the absence of a special effort of this nature it will be evident that, no matter how favourable the grant position may become, it would take a very long period to bring up to the requisite conditions of sound foundations and dust-free surfaces the total mileage of roads in need of such reconstruction while at the same time maintaining in a proper condition the roads that have already been thus treated.

The road programme, therefore, represents a very big problem and the funds available, although increased to the extent I have indicated, are still limited in relation to the magnitude of that problem. Furthermore, the increased cost of labour and material involves much less return than was obtained for the same amount of money in the past. I have, therefore, advised county councils that it is essential to get the maximum results from the money being spent and that county road improvement works should be carefully planned in order of priority for execution over a five-years' period with the aid of the grants and loans to be made available.

Particular attention was drawn to the need for providing in the plans for programmes in an ordered sequence which would link up towns and villages with each other and with the main road system, thus leading to a system of spinal roads; also the linking up of important centres of food and fuel production with the towns and the main roads; and finally the carrying out of works calculated to encourage tourism. Planned five-year programmes are in course of preparation by the county engineers, and in some cases have already been submitted to the Department.

The ever-growing volume of metropolitan traffic is emphasising the limitations of the Dublin road and bridge systems. Within those limitations the Garda Síochána institute such controls of traffic and parking as are best calculated to secure ordered conditions. Some of their more recent experiments have proved very successful. A complete solution of the problem is not, however, possible save by the carrying out of major engineering works, and any project of this character presents enormous technical and financial difficulties. The engineering works under active consideration in recent times include the proposed construction of a new bridge or bridges across the Liffey, and the provision of new roads in the vicinity of the Custom House and Butt Bridge. The question of new bridges is to be considered by a special committee of the corporation prior to its further consideration by a joint committee of the corporation and the Port and Docks Board. With regard to roads, agreement was reached last November between the corporation and the Port and Docks Board for making available by the board of the land necessary to provide a roadway east of the Custom House to link Amiens Street with Custom House Quay and a short spur linking Amiens Street with Beresford Place around the new building in Store Street. Work on these roads is likely to be completed in the near future. Other works in course of completion in Dublin include the removal of the bridge at Broadstone and the widening of the bridge over the Dodder on the road between Terenure and Rathfarnham.

One of the major bridge works at present in progress is that being carried out at Gweebarra, County Donegal. Progress on this work up to last autumn was very slow. I called a conference of representatives of the contractor and the county council, together with the local Deputies, to see what steps could be taken to secure better progress with a view to early completion of the work. A progress schedule was drawn up and provided for the completion of the bridge by next September. The work has since proceeded more satisfactorily but I am not yet in a position to give a definite date for completion.

The Beleek Bridge is being reconstructed by the Six County authorities by agreement with the Electricity Supply Board. The share of the Donegal County Council in the cost is being met to a substantial extent by way of a grant from the Road Fund. A grant has also been allocated to Kildare County Council in connection with the reconstruction of the railway bridge at Naas.

Two hundred and fourteen thousand tons of turf were produced and 46,000 tons were purchased by local authorities in the 1951 season. These quantities represented about one and a half year's supply of requirements for institutions, offices and machinery. Attention was officially invited to the desirability of proceeding with a turf production programme in the present season, but owing to an improvement in the coal and general fuel position, the county councils have not felt disposed to engage in the direct production of turf this year to the same extent as in 1951.

Grants are available for necessary bog development works on a 100 per cent. basis. A sum of £40,000 is provided in the Vote for Employment and Emergency Schemes for this purpose. I have also recommended local authorities when considering their programmes of works for the present year under the Local Authorities (Works) Act to give priority to bog development works which may be found permissible under the Act to assist their turf production or in appropriate cases to assist the private production of turf.

The provision made for works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act for 1952-53 is £650,000 and local authorities have been informed that the grants likely to be available will be approximately half of their allocation for 1951-52. In the actual allocation for each county regard will be had to the increase in the Road Fund grants for that particular county, the extent of turf production proposed, and the demand for labour occasioned by the general level of other public works activity in the county as well as the extent to which agricultural production is being intensified.

There was a general increase in the total employment afforded on road schemes, on works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and on turf production during the first portion of the last financial year, but in some areas considerable decreases in employment occurred later in the year. It is, of course, understandable that in the case of turf production schemes, the employment should fall off from about the end of Autumn, but it has been frequently emphasised to county councils that those portions of their public works programmes which can be arranged so as not to clash with peak periods of agricultural and other seasonal employment should be timed accordingly.

It does appear as if this advice is not followed by some local authorities, with a consequential abrupt decline in employment in their areas at particular periods, generally towards the close of the financial year, when, owing to the intensive work previously undertaken, all the available funds have been spent. The rectification of this alternation of peak periods and seasonal depressions rests with the county councils and their officers. It should be an easy matter to adjust, and advice to this effect has been given to county councils in this, as in previous years.

Sub-head L of the Estimates provides a sum of £70,000, being portion of the balance of capital grants towards provision of sanitary services works unexpended on the winding up of the Transition Development Fund at 1st April, 1951. A sum of £110,000, provided for this purpose in 1951-52, was expended in full and a sum of £52,000 will remain to be disbursed after 31st March next. In replacement of the capital grant system, the loan charges of local authorities in respect of sanitary services works will be proportionately recouped and provision is made in sub-head M for the liability under this head for the current year.

The volume of activity in the provision and improvement of water and sewerage services continues to expand. At the beginning of the present financial year, schemes were in progress at an estimated cost of £1,800,000 as compared with an estimated expenditure of £1,556,000 current at the corresponding date in the previous year.

Last February, approval issued to the carrying out by Dublin Corporation by way of direct labour of the section of the Howth outfall sewerage scheme which involves the laying of the sewer pipes from Finglas to Raheny. The technical aspects of the remainder of the scheme which is based on an outfall to the east of Howth Head are still under consideration by the Dublin Corporation technical staff in consultation with my engineering advisers, but it is the technical opinion that when the pipe laying work is completed as far as Raheny, some of the areas to be served by it, which are scheduled for early housing development, can be drained by temporary methods pending the completion of the remaining section of the outfall scheme.

The usual adjudication on town planning appeals pursuant to the operation of interim control presented no unusual feature during the year. Proposals to extend the borough boundaries of the Cities of Dublin and Cork are at present under consideration.

The average county rates for this year are 27/11 in the £. Last year, the figure was 25/1. The increases are ascribable to a number of factors, principally the increased cost of labour, materials and commodities. The main increases have occurred in the roads, public assistance and health services. There have also been increases in the provision for mental hospitals, housing and sanitary services. The rate collection for 1951-52 has been satisfactory. 97.4 per cent. of the total county council warrants was collected at 31st March, 1952.

The level of State grants, without which the rates would be much higher, continues to rise. For a number of years past, the total of these grants has exceeded the amount of the rate collected. Last year local authorities received approximately £16,500,000 from State sources, while their rates revenue was approximately £13,000,000. The agricultural grant increases automatically with increases in the rates and reached a total of £4,226,851 for the year 1951-52.

Some observations were made following the general election last year on the compilation of the register of electors. In the instructions issued to registration officers last August special emphasis was laid on the necessity for distributing forms to every householder in connection with the preparation of the register which is now in force. Special publicity was given to the matter through the medium of the Press and radio, and when the electors' lists were published in November further special statements were issued to make the people fully aware of the manner in which and the time within which the claims to rectify any errors or omissions could be made.

The number of applicants seeking appointments as official contractors under the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act, 1925, for the year 1952-53 has shown no marked reduction as compared with the previous year. There has, however, been some evidence of uncertainty felt by traders as regards the availibility of supplies.

Home manufacturers generally have given satisfactory service and the competition for contracts is now very keen. In particular, tenders submitted by provincial manufacturers and traders indicated a growing tendency to participated in the combined purchasing system. Increased prices were specially noticeable in the quotations for commodities, such as those manufactured from steel, zinc, copper and similar materials, while there was a substantial reduction in the prices of cloth required for various purposes.

I am glad to be able to report substantial progress in the difficult work of preparing for the consolidation of local government law. The manuscript of the textbook on the law is with the printers. In view of the difficulties attending all kinds of printing work, the most optimistic estimate of the date of its publication would be early in 1953. Detailed proposals for the revision and codification of the law relating to sanitary services have been completed and are being considered by a departmental committee, while the corresponding work relating to the general local government law is in process of completion. The next stage will be to refer these preliminary surveys and proposals to the draftsman. Meanwhile, it will be possible to commence similar preliminary research work for the revision and consolidation of the law relating to housing and steps to this end have been taken. The codification of the electoral law may present greater difficulty and necessitate the introduction, in the first instance, of legislation involving policy. This is largely due to the antiquated nature of some of the statute law on the subject of franchise. Nevertheless, here, too, I can report a substantial degree of progress which has already been achieved in the formulation of proposals leading towards the amendment of the statute law and the codification of the Acts. All I have to say now is that I hope you will not keep me too long.

Mr. Sweetman

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. The time we will keep the Minister might perhaps be in inverse ratio to the speed at which he read his speech. It was extremely difficult at times to follow the figures. I am moving the reference back of this Estimate on a variety of grounds, but, before discussing any of the matters which may be taken to be contentious from the strictly political point of view, I want to discuss the housing position. Though, obviously, we will have different views on housing on different sides of this House, we nevertheless always try to ensure that whatever discussions we have on housing are carried on on a co-operative basis and on a basis of trying to make sure that the best this House can produce will be available for whatever Government is in power and whatever local authorities are in existence in regard to a solution of the housing programme.

So far as I could understand the Minister's approach to housing, his line was that everything is perfectly all right in the matter of housing programmes and their fulfilment. I am afraid I find myself somewhat unable to understand that view of the Minister's. If one compares the position in the first six months of this year with the position in the first six months of last year that comparison will undoubtedly give us considerable cause for uneasiness. I admit at once that a comparison of only six months, 12 months or even longer may not be exact and true. The number of houses completed by local authorities in 1950-51 was, as the Minister said, 7,887, while this year there were 7,100 odd, a reduction of some 700 houses.

What causes far more concern, however, is a comparison involving the actual progress of the housing drive as distinct from the number of completed houses. Taking the figures given in response to questions in this House for all local authorities for January, February and March this year and in 1951, we find that in 1951 the number of houses in progress was about 10,000 and in this year in January about 800 houses less, in February about 600 houses less and in March about 700 houses less. Taking the number of houses for which tenders have been invited or accepted we find the same diminution. In January the figure was down by 800 houses, in February by 1,000 houses and in March by 300 houses. Taking the number of houses for which site development work was in progress—and the results of the work in progress in the first quarter of this year will be seen in 1952-53— we find that in January the number was down by 800 houses, in February by 750 houses and in March by 470 houses.

The drop both in the number of houses for which tenders had been accepted and in the number for which site development work was in progress in comparison with a similar time in 1951 was less in March. I have no way of telling what the April figures were. Perhaps the peak of the adverse balance with regard to local authority housing may have been reached in February and perhaps we improved that balance from March onwards. It may be that February was the bottom of a curve which was starting to rise again. I hope that is so but it is a fact that the number of houses in progress at the beginning of the calendar year 1950 and in the first half of 1951 was over the five figure mark and since then under it.

The Minister indicated that the target at which local authorities were setting their cap was about 7,000 houses. That of course will be more or less the same as the past year but it is a substantial drop on the 1950-51 figure. I failed to gather, however, from the Minister why he thought that that target was now satisfactory. Is it because he believes that the needs of persons throughout the country for whom local authorities build houses have been satisfied? Is it because he believes that local authorities have in general built sufficient houses to catch up on the emergency period when supplies were not available and that all they need now consider is keeping up with annual wastage? If that is his view I do not think that most Deputies would agree with him. I think that they would feel that there is a very substantial leeway and that the target of 7,800 houses reached by Deputy Keyes in his year of office is one which we should try to reach in the future as well.

There is, of course, as the Minister indicated, a special problem in Dublin. He also indicated that there is a special problem in Cork, but I have no doubt that some Cork Deputy will deal with that.

Mr. Corry

There is no doubt about it.

Mr. Sweetman

Cork people come to Dublin quite sufficiently often and deal with their problems quite satisfactorily.

Mr. Corry

It will be as bad as Waterford.

Mr. Sweetman

I only want to touch on the Dublin position in a general way because Deputy Belton will from our Party deal with it in a much more specific way at a later stage of the debate. If, however, we consider houses in progress in the City of Dublin again we find that in the first quarter of this year the position was very much worse than in the first quarter of last year. As I understood the Minister's outlook as expressed in the speech he has just made, he thinks that the position in Dublin Corporation is quite satisfactory; I have heard other Deputies—and not from this side of the House—express the view that it is not. As far as one could gather, however, the Minister is quite happy.

In January, 1952, there were 600 fewer houses in progress under the auspices of Dublin Corporation than in January, 1951; 500 fewer in February; 350 fewer in March and 300 fewer in April. Again it may be that the bottom of the curve was reached in the same month in Dublin as among local authorities in general. It may equally be that the local authorities in general are so much influenced by Dublin Corporation that the tendency which the Dublin Corporation figures have shown in the first three months of this year is such as to throw the others out of perspective. It is a fact, for example, that in January this year the decrease in the number of houses for which site development work is in progress in comparison with last year is exactly equivalent to the decrease in the Dublin Corporation figures.

In other months the decrease is larger and it is, therefore, possible to arrive at the conclusion that the country, excluding Dublin, is building through its local authorities at the same rate and that it is only in Dublin the figures are down.

Against that I put the fact that the Minister has said that he is entirely satisfied with an over-all target which is some 800 houses fewer than the target reached in 1950-51 and a target slightly lower than that reached last year. I take it from the fact that the Minister has made no reference to the matter that, so far as local authorities, other than the corporations which have no access to the Local Loans Fund, are concerned, these other housing authorities will be able to get their advances from the Local Loans Fund as always. Everybody however must be somewhat perturbed by the reference which appeared in the papers the other day to the fact that the Dublin Corporation will not be able to get the finances they require to complete their housing programme for the immediate future as a result of their negotiations with the Standing Committee of the Banks. This matter was, of course, raised in passing by Deputy Norton on the Fifth Stage of the Housing Bill. The point I want to make is that I was somewhat disturbed, as were others, by the attitude of mind adopted by the Minister on that occasion. The Minister seemed to take the view, when he was speaking in this House on 3rd of this month as reported at cols. 171-2, that it was none of his responsibility at all to deal with this difficulty in which the Dublin Corporation found itself. I do not think that that is anything like a correct attitude for the Minister to take up.

Mr. Smith

I do not think I took it either.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Minister did not intend to imply that by what he said, I am quite prepared to accept that such was not his intention, but when he was speaking here on that occasion he said:—

"It is the business of the corporation when looking to the future to discover the places from which and the conditions under which money may be provided for the future. It is the business of those—it is certainly not my business—responsible for the running of the banks to look at things from their point of view, having regard, of course, at the same time, to other interests. All this is quite understandable."

Then he goes on to talk about not bidding the devil good morrow until you meet him.

Mr. Smith

Where I go on, is the important thing.

Mr. Sweetman

I am going to go on too. That was the Minister's view-point—that the Government had not in the past failed to do its part, that there was no need to be alarmed, that, as the old saying has it, there was no need to shake hands with the devil until we meet him, and that the Dublin Corporation was in a position to carry on for some months. The point I want to put to the Minister specifically is that it is not the Minister's business to let things slide until the position has become so critical that there are bound to be grave difficulties. The only way of dealing with a transaction of that sort and to ensure that the appropriate funds are there in the beginning, is to tackle the job in the beginning and not leave it until there is a crisis on top of the corporation. The Minister's almost laissez faire outlook is that there is no need to look at it now, and that it will sort itself out.

When I read the statement made by the Banks Standing Committee, I thought how very like it was to another statement referred to in the Dublin Housing Inquiry Report of 1939-43. At page 168 there is a reference to the negotiations which had taken place between the banks and the Dublin Corporation in previous years and in paragraph 494 it says:—

"Negotiations took place with the Banks Standing Committee on the matter of raising £2,000,000 by issue of stock, but in January, 1939, it was intimated to the corporation that the banks could not underwrite a public issue. The reasons given were:—

(1) The uneconomic character of the housing programme, aggravated by the high level of building costs. and

(2) The magnitude of the sums required for the corporation's five-year programme of public works."

At a later stage there was an issue, but it did seem to me that the outlook, as presented in the statement we read the other day, was very similar to the outlook that was apparently operative in 1939 and which is referred to in the Report of that Dublin Housing Board of which, I think, Mr. Colivet, was the chairman.

Those of us who look back, not merely on that year but on earlier years and see references to high housing costs, when we compare the housing costs of these years with housing costs to-day, must be permitted a smile.

Mr. Hickey

What was the year?

Mr. Sweetman

1939, pre-war. The fact is that, not merely as regards housing but as regards everything else, costs are bound to tend to rise because the value of money is decreasing year by year all over the world. The more the value of money decreases, the less we shall be able to get for it and the more it is going to cost to build houses. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that the more houses that are built at any one time, the greater saving there will be for those who have to go into these houses and pay rents for them. I think if for nothing else, other than the psychological effect, it would have been desirable on the Fifth Stage of the Housing Bill when the matter was raised if the Minister had made it clear that, so far as the Government is concerned, the provision of finance for housing in Dublin and elsewhere will be forthcoming, and that, so far as the provision of houses is concerned, anything that can be done will be done to get over those difficulties. It is, undoubtedly, a fact that a substantial amount of uneasiness has been created as a result of the statement that was made, and of the fact that those who were listening to the Minister the other day did not get the impression that he was going to move at the speed which they considered he should move in dealing with this matter.

So far as I could understand the Minister's statement, when dealing with the provision of houses by private people—apart from local authority housing—whether by speculative builders or people building for themselves, it was that last year more grants were allocated than before, and that, therefore, he anticipated there would be a continuance of private building this year on the same lines as previously. The provision made in the Estimate is, I think, identically the same as that made last year. If that is so, then I do not understand how the situation arises whereby there are now many more skilled operatives in the building trade in search of employment than was the case 12 months ago. If there is the same volume of private building, I do not understand how it is that there is far more competition now when a local authority puts up a house or a batch of houses for tender than there was some time ago.

The position is, I think, undoubtedly that local authorities, now advertising for tenders, are getting nearly twice as many replies and estimates put in as they were receiving previously. That would seem to indicate that building contractors are now finding it more difficult to sell houses. If, as the Minister says, the position in regard to local authority housing and to private housing is entirely satisfactory, that there is no falling off and that the output is going to remain the same, I cannot understand how it is that those skilled operatives who, quite a short time ago, were so hard to get for any housing scheme, are at present finding a difficulty in obtaining employment. The position in and around Dublin, as far as I can understand it, is that speculative building, as such, has almost come to a close—that it is folding up. I understand that speculative builders in and around Dublin are merely developing out existing schemes and are not going ahead with new schemes. As far as I can analyse the matter, it is that operatives who were previously employed by speculative builders are not now in the position of being able to get new jobs from them and are looking for jobs elsewhere.

Equally, I can only assume that it is due to the lack of speculative building that there are more contractors now tendering for local authority houses in or near the city. The Minister has available to him the means of ascertaining the cause of the complaints that are being made—that there are more building operatives idle now than previously. The House would, I am sure—I certainly would—be grateful if we could have from him some indication as to the comparative numbers now employed in building and previously.

As I have referred to the question of building by private persons, I should like to take this opportunity of again mentioning a very old chestnut in this House, that is the delay there is in the payment of housing and reconstruction grants. I came across a case the other day where one of the reconstruction grant officers in the Minister's Department got a file from a county council to inspect a certain house. He goes out and finds there is nobody in the house. The man is probably working in the fields and the woman may be away shopping. He then sends the file back to the local authority saying: "No one there when I called." That has happened not once but on innumerable occasions during the last couple of months. Instead of taking a course so obvious as even not to require mention, when he missed the applicant on the first occasion, that is, of writing to the applicant and saying: "I have been around to see you on such and such a date and will call again on such a date," he sends the file back to the local authority saying that there was nobody at home when he called. If that practice is in existence, as I know it is—the Minister can verify the fact that it is in existence—in the case of one particular appointed officer dealing with houses in Leinster, and, further, if it is in existence generally throughout the country, then it is no wonder that we hear so frequently of the delays there are in regard to the payment of grants.

The Minister when dealing with the question of housing schemes referred, incidentally, I think, to the question of cost. That, of course, is always a matter of great anxiety to local authorities. I have tried, as far as I could, to unravel the various funds that are set forth at different places in the Estimate in respect to these grants. I appreciate, of course, that the reduction from £2,500,000 to £800,000 under sub-head I (7) is, of course, only an apparent reduction, and arises out of a change in system by virtue of which part of the grant is now made up by way of a subsidy on the loan charge rather than by way of subsidy on the capital cost. I should like the Minister, when concluding, to answer this question categorically. Is the provision that is being made in these 1952-53 houses for subsidy to local authorities exactly the same as the provision that was made last year in regard to the number of houses, cost, etc.? Is the apparent difference purely one that has arisen by reason of the change in system, and is there no difference whatever in the real subsidy that is being made available? I refer to sub-head I (7). I do not know whether the married couples subsidy under I (6) is now being dealt with on the same basis. If not, it is unfortunate that the Minister is hitting Cupid such a heavy blow in cutting down by 50 per cent. the provision for married couples. I want to be quite fair to the Minister. It may be that it is not his hard heart that has caused it, but that this is merely a change also in the system and that the Minister is in fact under sub-head I (6) giving the same assistance to local authorities who are forwarding the case of Love's Young Dream, as was done in the comparative Estimate printed side by side with the current one.

One of the reductions which will be considered by many Deputies on this side as being a very unfortunate reduction and an unfair reduction is that being made in the Local Authorities (Works) Act allocation. The reduction, as the Minister indicated, is £570,000. Since that Act was introduced many schemes in many parts of the country have been dealt with under it and the value of the Act is apparent to anyone. Those grants had enabled local authorities, urban councils and county councils, but more especially county councils, to remove many long standing disabilities and to protect and safeguard public property, to act as the outfall for land drainage under the land rehabilitation project and so on.

The effect of private employment of that kind was not merely to benefit those immediately assisted but the community as a whole in the district. This time last year the Minister told us, when he was discussing the Estimate, that there were schemes to the value of £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 submitted to his Department. Therefore, the reduction this year cannot be due to any dearth of schemes. I am sure that during the course of the year even more schemes were added to that last by the various local authorities. It is a matter of great regret that in the Estimate which the Minister has introduced the provision being made this year is approximately only half that made last year. It would not be unfair to say that much of the work done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act was work that will materially add to the national wealth and was a good substitute for the well intentioned but old-fashioned and aimless employment schemes, which were bound because of that very aimlessness to fail to utilise national resources of labour and land in a manner which would be of a long-term value to the country as a whole.

Quite apart from the actual work that was done under these Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes, the employment that was given by them in rural areas was very valuable. Though I am not urging it from the employment point of view alone, in the first three months of 1951 I found that the average number employed on Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes was about 9,000. The numbers that will be employed this year can be gauged from the fact that the amount that was spent in the four months December to March of that year exceeds the provision that is to be made in the whole 12 months of this year. That reduction will inevitably mean an increase in unemployment in rural areas, particularly during the winter months. The increase in the road grants, to which I will refer in a moment, cannot possibly compensate for the decrease in employment on this type of drainage work. The Minister said 12 months ago that the schemes were there in his Department. Certainly I know that in Kildare the schemes were not merely there, but had been sanctioned by the Department's inspectors. However, the appropriate funds are not being made available to have those schemes carried out during the current year. In the winter, there will be considerably more unemployment in the rural areas. In respect of such funds as are made available, may I make it clear that the viewpoint outlined by the Minister —that so far as possible drainage work of that sort should not be undertaken when it would clash with other agricultural work or farmwork—is a wise precept. There is, however, the national difficulty, due to our climatic conditions, that a lot of that type of drainage work can be done only when the rivers are very low, and that you cannot do it at certain times in the winter when the volume of water is too high.

In his speech the Minister referred to the increase in the grant being made available from the Road Fund this year. As I understood the figures he gave us, they were that there was an increase of £600,000 last year in the Road Fund income, and it was estimated it would be up by another £300,000 this year, thereby providing that £700,000 was going to be paid out of a total increase of £900,000.

The Minister, in allocating the grant from the Road Fund, has allocated the increase entirely to the main roads. Under the previous position, the main roads and county roads drew about one half each of the amount available from the Road Fund, but that balance is now being disturbed altogether. As far as I can make out the figure, the grant this year is going to be £1,900,000 for main roads improvement and maintenance and £1,400,000 for county roads, thereby increasing the balance very much in favour of main roads, compared to the approximate parity in the grant for 1951-52. A very large number of miles of county roads are entirely unsuitable for the motor traffic that has to travel over them. An estimate has been made that to bring the county roads up to the standards now necessary for motor traffic with the soft pneumatic tyre and the drag that pneumatic tyre gives on a road surface, costs approximately £2,000 a mile. With 40,000 miles of county roads, the magnitude of the task and of the problem is easy for anyone to appreciate. No matter how he may see the difficulties that arise in respect of trunk or main roads, I suggest to the Minister that there is another difficulty in regard to county roads and that it would be fairer for him to keep the balance more evenly divided between the two.

I do not know whether the Minister has considered the changing of the rating of roads. There are at present only the main road and the county road. I do not know whether the Minister has considered dividing into two separate categories main roads and trunk roads which serve the country as a whole. It has long been a complaint by certain county councils—and, perhaps, by ours in Kildare in particular— that the rating by which all main roads are classified together imposes undue hardship on those councils which have to bear a larger proportion of trunk traffic.

There is also the difficulty that people who are travelling through the country find a very different standard of trunk road in the different counties. Some of the councils seem to be averse from improvements in their methods. I know one local authority which deals with one of its trunk roads in a way that one would imagine, these days, one would read of only in something like a Heath Robinson journal. There is no possibility of coping with our road problem unless we avail of the most up-to-date machinery for that purpose. We cannot possibly expect to deal with 1952 traffic by means of 1900 methods of road-making. There is no possibility of ensuring that those employed on the roads throughout the country achieve a decent standard unless they are able to achieve that standard by making all the use that is possible of the advances of science. To see, these days, people on a main trunk road sweeping hedge cuttings with a bit of an ash plant that they pulled out of the hedge seems to me an anachronism and is not likely to indicate any efficiency anywhere.

In his opening statement the Minister referred to the traffic problem in Dublin City. Without in any way commenting, much less commenting adversely, on the job done by the Gardaí on point duty—which, in any event, would not be proper on this Estimate—I think it would not be unfair to describe the traffic in Dublin as chaotic at times. The difficulty is that you have either to provide new traffic ways or to deflect traffic from the city. As the traffic in Dublin is growing, and as all the figures show that it will continue to grow, it will be much more chaotic within quite a measurable number of years. The job of providing new traffic arteries— whether it means new bridges across the river or new traffic arteries in the centre of the city—is inevitably very slow and needs a great deal of consideration before any type of a solution can be found. Obviously, when a solution is found it will be an extraordinarily expensive process. So far as possible, it would be better to deflect traffic from the city to roads running around the perimeter of the city.

The roads near Dublin are overcrowded to some extent. Some time ago there was an outcry in respect to the Bray road and it was a wise outcry. I think, however, that there is no doubt that of all the roads leading out from Dublin the worst road is not the Bray road but the road to the South. It carries very much more permanent heavy traffic and very much more freight than the Bray road. It has not as high a peak load as the Bray-Stillorgan road has in the morning between 9 and 10 and in the afternoon between 5 and 6, but there is entirely a very much higher and heavier daily load on the road to the South than on a road that is purely a peak road. I am quite sure that the Minister must have at his disposal some figures which will enable him to judge the overall loading on those roads. I suppose I am somewhat prejudiced in thinking that the road to the South is the heaviest. I presume that Deputy Dunne will take the view that the Drogheda road is even more congested. An instrument has been installed just inside the Kildare boundary to gauge the number of cars and the weight of those cars that travel across it hour by hour. I am sure other such machines are available to the Minister for other similar roads. If he would make available to the House a census, so to speak, of the traffic using those roads then we should be in a better position to assess the individual merits of any one road as against another. Bear in mind the fact that, to a large extent, the road to the South brings in the gravel and the sand for the building of Dublin.

Mr. Allen

No, not at all.

Mr. Sweetman

That road seems to me to merit first consideration, if any consideration is to be given to problems of that sort. I was always sufficiently innocent to believe that the traffic light was an invention of comparatively modern times. It just so happened that, the other day, I came across something that showed that we are not necessarily progressing as much as we think we are.

I came across a cutting from a newspaper published on the 8th December, 1868. This cutting contains a description of what was, in fact, a traffic light:

"In the middle of the road, between Bridge Street and Great George Street, Westminster, Messrs. Saxby and Farmer, the well-known railway signalling engineers, have erected a column 20 feet high; with a spacious gas-lamp near the top, the design of which is the application of the semaphore principle to the public streets at points where foot passengers have hitherto depended for their protection on the arm and gesticulations of a policeman—often a very inadequate defence against accident."

A lot of water has gone under the sea since then but I wonder whether we have made the progress in regard to the direction of traffic that we would like.

Some years ago, a speed limit was put into operation in Bray. It was understood at the time by other local authorities that the Department would prefer to await the results of the working of that speed limit before they considered whether the speed limits were desirable for their areas. Would the Minister tell us whether he has any information as to the success or failure in Bray of the safety device of a speed limit? There has been a very different experience, I understand, in other countries. In some countries it has proved a success and in others it has tended to mean that people drive at whatever the speed limit is regardless of the type of dangerous situation that may confront them.

While it is not permissible to discuss, on an Estimate, matters that require amending legislation, I think it is sometimes usual for a Minister, when he is introducing legislation, to indicate, in a very general way, whether he has legislation in mind or not. I would like to know whether the Minister is contemplating any amending legislation for the coming year in respect of the County Management Acts or proposes to take no steps, but leave them exactly as they are?

The administration of these Acts varies from county to county. It is, to some extent, a matter for the individual county whether there is the same degree of dissatisfaction in one county as there is in another. In those counties in which there is not violent dissatisfaction at the moment I think it is true to say that the reason there is no dissatisfaction is that the manager steps completely outside the requirements of the Acts and brings to the elected members of the council infinitely more information and infinitely more responsibility for decision and asks the elected members to give their opinion on matters upon which he would be entitled, under the strict title of the law, to decide on his own. It is a very good thing that is done in some counties, and if the Minister could ensure that it would be done in them all there would not be anything like the same amount of difficulty and criticism as there is at the present. The Act was framed in a far too rigid manner. In those cases where the scope of the Act has been gone quite outside of there has not been the same amount of criticism.

Some time ago, I put down a question in the House about the ripping up of a road in Dublin alongside the canal. I was told I would get a letter from the Minister in due course as to the reasons for the apparent grave waste of public money in breaking up a job that had only quite recently been completed. I got the letter and I got information as to why it was deemed to be necessary. Apparently, part of the road in question was laid in concrete in December, 1950, a concrete road to be serviceable for very many years to come. It was only on the 1950 stretch there was not as much damage done as on the others. But even a road that is laid in concrete in 1946 should be serviceable for very, very many years.

In the letter, a copy of which was forwarded to me by the Minister's Department to whom it was sent by the corporation, the suggestion appears to be implicit that because the damage in question to the roadway was being paid for by the Electricity Supply Board it was all right. There must be, and the Minister should make certain that there is, full and adequate co-operation between the various public utility services and the local authorities.

It is an utter waste of money to see —as all of us see regularly—a new road or street being put down and within a very short time being ripped up again either for a water main, a new sewerage scheme, electricity cables or for gas pipes. That type of waste of public money shows a lack of co-ordination and a lack of planning in the authority concerned. It is a lack of planning that the Minister as the overriding supervisor should ensure does not occur.

It should be possible to make certain—notwithstanding what was said in this particular instance, that the reason for it was the laying of a higher load tension than had been laid previously—that before a road or street is permanently laid in concrete every utility service that will be required to go under that road or street will be laid in a proper way. Where that is not done it shows clearly that somebody is at fault. I would suggest that it is the Minister's duty, as the supervisor of the local authorities, to ensure that such faults do not occur.

Before I leave the question of road works, I would like to read to the Minister correspondence that was apparently sent out in a constituency where a vote was recorded recently:—

"Comhairle Conndae Mhuigheo. Notice to gangers—North Mayo Constituency: All gangers in the North Mayo constituency are hereby notified that all work will be suspended on Thursday, 26th June, to enable gangers and workmen to record their votes. This is on the distinct understanding that men who are not working on that day will not be paid.

Engine drivers, helpers and gangers who are in the constituency but who have no vote in the constituency will be paid provided they work on that day in the repair and adjustment of machinery and in any other urgent and useful work on which they can find employment for the day.

Signed Thos. P. Flanagan, County Engineer, 23rd June, 1952."

If it is desirable that work should not be carried out on any day on which there is an election, then it is the duty of the Government, which feels that, to declare that that day should be a public holiday. It is not desirable that one local authority should take the view that apparently was taken in Mayo of telling their men that they were not to work, and that institutions such as Bord na Móna and the Electricity Supply Board should tell their employees that they were to work. There should be a proper policy adopted in regard to these matters. If there is to be a cessation of work, it should be done in a proper open way by having a national holiday. It should not be done in a manner which would lead one to the interpretation that the local authority is being utilised for a purpose other than that for which it is intended.

The sanitary service Estimate in this general Estimate put before us by the Minister has again been amended. I was not able to catch the figures read by the Minister, so I will have to wait until the report is published. However, I take it that sub-head M is the new method of providing that water and sewerage works will be paid for by means of an addition to the loan interest charges and that sub-head L, which shows a decrease of £40,000, is merely the winding-up of the old system by virtue of which this was done on the capital cost alone.

With regard to water and sewerage services, I would like the Minister to tell us whether he sees any prospect of being able to make a grant available towards the provision of these amenities for local authority houses which were built before such services were in operation. Houses were built in many areas without water or sewerage amenities which it would now be possible to provide. However, the local authorities are afraid that the cost of these amenities would fall on them unaided and would be beyond their capacity. Grants are available for the provision of water and sewerage in new houses and, if such grants were given to local authorities to provide these facilities for existing houses it would meet an urgent need in many areas.

Acute concern is being felt by many local authorities on the question of the repair of houses belonging to them. In so far as I could hear, the Minister did not touch on this question in his statement. The rents that local authorities receive for these houses very often do not come within a mile of the cost of repairs. The amount that has to be spent by every local authority on the repair of old houses is a problem that must be tackled at the root. So far as can be seen, the only solution that offers itself is to ensure that there will be a much speedier vesting of cottages in the occupier.

If an occupier owned a cottage, he would certainly do a small repair after his day's work. However, when he is not the owner, he leaves such small repair undone, and gradually it becomes aggravated until, eventually, a repair squad from the local authority concerned has to come out and do the work. The cost is then infinitely more than would be the case if the occupier tackled the job in its initial stages. I hope the Minister will try to ensure that the benefits resulting from persons owning their own cottages under the cottage vesting system are brought home to the local authority. Ownership would give the occupier an interest in his dwelling-house and an inherent right which would make him a far better tenant and, indeed, a far better citizen.

Last year the Minister indicated, I think, in answer to a question that there was a very large time-lag as regards the auditing of local authority accounts. It seems ridiculous that in March, 1951—I have not got any later figures—there should be three cases in which accounts for the year 1947-48 had not been audited, that there should be 28 cases in which the accounts for the year 1948-49 had not been audited, and there should be 192 cases in which accounts for the year 1949-50 had not been audited. In all these cases the accounts had not been audited for a year after the close of the final accounting year. That type of delay is unsatisfactory and would not take place, I suggest, if the auditors did not, in certain cases, concern themselves with matters that were entirely of a pettifogging character, and of no practical use to the Department, to the Minister, or to the local authority concerned. I know of one particular case where six dozen bottles of stout were purchased by an institution during Christmas time. The auditor raised a question and said he knew of an establishment where this stout could have been bought for a halfpenny cheaper——

Mr. Davern

Much more than a halfpenny would be involved now.

Mr. Sweetman

——and there was a protracted minute written on that subject. If that type of pettifogging takes up the time of auditors, no wonder local authority accounts are in arrears. As Deputy Davern reminded me, much more than a halfpenny would be involved now.

Captain Cowan

What was involved —a halfpenny per half-dozen or a halfpenny per bottle?

Mr. Sweetman

A halfpenny per bottle, or 6d. per dozen bottles.

Mr. J. Brennan

What public-house had the stout a halfpenny per bottle cheaper?

Mr. Sweetman

Unfortunately, I was not able to discover that, or I would have been able to take advantage of it. What I did discover, however, was that the institution concerned is situated approximately 24 miles from Dublin and that the public-house where the stout was sold at a halfpenny per bottle cheaper than where it was bought was in the City of Dublin. Therefore, the cost of transport would make it dearer.

During recent months the Minister has issued directives dealing with fire brigades. I wonder if he has yet made up his mind as to whether or not the Fire Brigades Act which was introduced some years ago has been a success. It is very easy to say, I know, that the cost is not warranted, and to take the line that it is unnecessary. When there has been some holocaust, everybody will say: "Why were not proper steps taken before?" I am of the opinion that a voluntary fire brigade on a part-time basis, no matter how energetic the people concerned may be, is always bound to be a matter of grave difficulty when speedy attention to a fire is half the battle, and I am not at all certain that a better method would not be to deal with it by means of a whole-time regional brigade that would be able to cope with the situation by being on duty all the time.

The Estimate the Minister has brought in for the coming year shows, as he says himself, an apparent decrease. With the exception of the Local Authorities (Works) Act decrease, I am prepared to accept that the decreases are only apparent and that they merely indicate a change in the method of housing finance. So far as the Local Authorities (Works) Act is concerned, however, I want to say I think the decrease of £570,000 is a tragedy which will mean that much useful and productive work that could be done this year will not be done, that much useful and productive work that has been planned and the details of which have already been furnished to the Minister's Department, as he admitted, 12 months ago, must now wait. It is a decrease that is going to mean, notwithstanding the increase in the road grants, very substantial loss in the rural areas during the coming year. For that reason I move that the Estimate be referred back.

Mr. Keyes

Listening to the Minister reading his statement, I have not found it easy to get a picture of the exact position in regard to housing. Like Deputy Sweetman, I got the impression that the Minister indicated a certain amount of complacency and satisfaction with the figures and percentages for the various types of houses and categories with which he was dealing. An examination of the position would hardly lead one to believe that that complacency was justified if one is interested in seeing that the housing drive should continue at the momentum at which it was proceeding up to the time the Minister took over.

Deputy Sweetman has quoted figures indicating a drop in the number of houses built in the early months of this year as compared with last year. That would be a reliable picture of the earlier months of this year as compared with the same period last year, but, apart from the figures shown for housing from one month to another, I am concerned with the undoubted evidence of unemployment among building operatives. One would wonder how you would maintain a satisfactory rate of house building if there is such evidence of unemployment among the building operatives themselves. In Dublin City, in Limerick City and in other cities throughout the country there has unquestionably been a big drop in the employment of building operatives particularly since last January. I have not the exact figures, but I quoted them in the House previously. There were 150 carpenters idle in the City of Limerick, and that figure has not altered appreciably one way or the other since. At that time there were 500 of 600 carpenters idle in Dublin, and such evidence of unemployment among timber workers must mean a corresponding number of unemployed among plasterers, or mortar men, as we call them.

If you contrast that with the picture in 1950, a vast difference can be seen. It was then utterly impossible to get unemployed building operatives in any part of the country. In 1950 in the City of Dublin or in the remote rural areas there was work for all types of workmen—carpenters, masons, plasterers and slaters. I had very serious difficulties in trying to secure men to work in various parts of the country. There is no such difficulty now. I have been quite recently down in the province of Munster, and there are men all over the counties looking for work and who cannot get it. The various county councils have been trying to get these workmen on to the job of repairing cottages, but they cannot absorb the men going around in teams of unemployed—carpenters, plasterers and masons.

It is rather difficult in view of that serious situation to reconcile the complacency of the Minister or the Department when they say they are maintaining the tempo that was reached in 1950. When speaking on the Minister's Estimate this time last year I welcomed it and wished the Minister God speed. When speaking on that occasion, I hoped that he would in 1951 surpass all that had been done in 1950. That has not been realised. Up to the time I left office the building machine was geared up to a high pitch. After a couple of years we had reached the stage of building 1,000 houses per month, and I do not understand what has intervened since that to prevent the continuance of the progress that had been made. The men were on the job, materials were still available, and I do not believe that an increase in the cost of materials, if there was an increase, could have prevented the drive continuing at the same speed at which it was progressing before the present Minister took office. Nothing, in my opinion, would justify a slackening or an easing off except that we had reached a stage when we decided we could afford to slacken off. I do not think we have reached that stage. The target we set was 110,000 houses, and from the figures which the Minister gave this evening I am not satisfied that we have reached the stage at which we can afford to ease off, and we will not have reached that stage for some years to come. Every effort should be made to obtain for this housing drive all the available operatives, not to allow them to get scattered, to have a break in the continuity of their work, and thus, perhaps, force them to leave the country. We should try to keep the machine in gear. Once it gets out of action, it will be very hard to get back to the peak of efficiency which it had reached, and which we must reach again if this essential national service of housing is to be provided on an adequate scale.

It is a matter of general agreement that there is a need for workmen. Everybody in the House will agree that housing is the most essential thing for our people at the present time, morally, physically and economically. The money put into the housing drive, even though it may be a strain upon the resources of the country as a whole, is the best investment anybody could make. The investment of money in bricks and mortar, in Irish housing, is an excellent investment. It is an investment in the building up of healthful homes, thus making our people a first-class, healthy race. The question is has the Government got to the stage that it can afford to reduce its efforts in the matter of housing? It cannot be denied that there has been a slackening off in the drive. Instead of having an increased tempo it has been seriously reduced. We were told months ago to be prepared for a further drop, a decline in building activities in the City of Dublin, not alone in 1952 but for a sharp and steep decline that will take place in 1953.

I would like the Minister, when he is replying, to say if that evil prophecy is still going to be carried out. I am not satisfied, from the knowledge I have of housing, that there is any justification for the steep and sharp decline in the building of houses in Dublin in the year 1953. We will be told about the lack of suitable sites, but in 1950 there were sufficient sites suitable for acquisition to keep the whole programme in operation for a couple of years.

I want again to repudiate the statement made by Deputy Briscoe in this House speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Dublin Corporation, that the decline in house building which would take place in 1953 would be attributable to an Order made by me when I was Minister for Local Government, cutting across the activities of the corporation. The statement was published in the Sunday Press on 16th March last in the report of an interview given by Deputy Briscoe.

"The expected decline in the city in 1953 is due to unwarranted interference with the corporation's housing plans by the Coalition Government, of which Mr. MacBride was a member. About two years ago Mr. Keyes, Minister for Local Government in the Coalition, ordered the corporation to depart from the normal line of planning which was aimed at building 2,500 municipal houses and flats and approximately 500 houses by the granting of loans to people who would build or buy their own houses."

Deputy Briscoe referred to people buying their own houses. People had no chance of buying their own houses prior to the passage of the 1950 Act. That is the first inaccuracy. I repudiate again the allegation that I, as Minister for Local Government, did anything to prevent the development of the Dublin Corporation housing plan. I assert that, while I was in control of the Department, every facility that could possibly be given, not alone to the Dublin Corporation but to every housing authority throughout the country, was given and every effort that could be made to help in the house building programme was made.

If house building slackens off in 1953 in the City of Dublin I repudiate responsibility for that. I believe there will be no justification for it and I hope it will not take place. I hope the Dublin Corporation will get on with the job and continue its magnificent work towards solving the slum problem.

I do not want to discuss the question of the housing loan. It is regrettable that we should have such early publicity, perhaps unwarranted and unjustifiable, during the progress of delicate negotiations between the corporation and the banks. Such publicity serves no useful purpose. It is not good for the local authority endeavouring to raise the money. It is certainly not good in connection with the objective aimed at. I believe the money will be provided. I cannot credit that at this stage the Dublin Corporation will be left without the necessary money to continue its housing programme. Notwithstanding any statement the Minister may make, I am satisfied that the Government will ensure that the corporation will get the money necessary to build all the houses that are required. This unwarranted intervention is deplorable. I, myself, had some difficulty in that respect and I know that it certainly did not improve the position.

I hope the Minister is not feeling complacent. I hope he does not think that all is well. I urge him to galvanise local authorities into greater activity. There seems to be a slump not alone in Dublin but throughout the country. There may be some local authorities, though I cannot speak authoritatively on this, who are coming near the end of the road, but I think they must be very few in number. In the vast majority there is still need for the continuance of the momentum reached in the past two years. If they are allowed to slacken off now the housing drive will die of apathy. That would be disastrous. The figures the Minister quoted are healthy but I would urge on him that a further effort should be made to get back to the target aimed at in 1950 and to do that before the men are dispersed because, once they go, it will be the devil of a job to get them back again.

I deplore the slashing of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The out of £570,000 is a very drastic one. It almost looks as if the Government is anxious to put the Act out of operation altogether. I think that would be regrettable. This Act, irrespective of who was responsible for its introduction, is one that should be operated on its merits. It has proved both useful and beneficial. I trust that the drastic reduction is not due to petulance. Irrespective of any increases that may be given under the Road Fund Grant for the maintenance of roads, a number of schemes have been submitted under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It was only possible to do a certain percentage of the schemes submitted each year and the Act was not taken up too enthusiastically in the first year. In the second year a great number of schemes were submitted for examination by the engineers and by the Department of Local Government and any money spent under the Act has been spent wisely and well. The schemes that have been carried out have proved very beneficial because prior to the passage of that Act drainage had lacked attention for generations and county councils had no authority to go in over the ditch and clean up drains running alongside the public roads. They got that very necessary authority under the Act and useful road-side drainage has been done in conjunction and in co-operation with land reclamation.

It will be regrettable if this Act does not continue in operation, but when one sees the money provided cut in two that does not seem to be a very good omen, and it looks as if the Act is not meeting with favour. If the Government in its wisdom decided to give the Act a miss in baulk it will be regrettable from the point of view of the country as a whole, because magnificent work has been done under that Act. Arterial drainage schemes cannot be carried out all over the country simultaneously, and this Act had provided an opportunity for relieving thousands of acres of land from flooding, innumerable homesteads, and even bogs. I can speak intimately of areas where the people were resigned to living in a kind of second Holland, and where they are no longer subjected to flooding simply because of the operation of that Act, and at no cost to the ratepayer. I regret the drastic cutting, and I hope it is not an indication of a still further drastic cut next year to the total exclusion of the Act.

Deputy Sweetman referred to the repair of houses in the country. I urge the Minister to prevail on local authorities to speed up the preparation of schemes for the purchase of cottages under the 50 per cent. Order. That Order has been in operation for a considerable time, but the progress under it has not been satisfactory. Possibly there may have been some difficulty in drawing up schemes between the local authorities and the Department. If there is any barrier I would ask the Minister to remove it as soon as possible, because a certain disquietude has been created in the minds of the people in relation to the question as to whether or not they can purchase their cottages. They resisted purchase on the basis of the 25 per cent. remission. They have now got a 50 per cent. remission, but they are still held up because of the non-preparation of schemes by the county councils. I am not in a position to state as to whether or not that delay is due to the county councils themselves or whether there is some difficulty in negotiating the terms between the Departments and the county councils. I ask the Minister to look into the matter with the local authorities concerned in an effort to speed up the preparation of schemes to implement the purchase of cottages by tenants under the 50 per cent. remission Order for which they waited for so many years.

I would ask the Minister to give all the attention he can to the question of the completion of the purchase of Sailors' and Soldiers' Land Trust house. Following the enactment of the Bill in the British House of Commons, I do not know whether it will be necessary for the Minister to introduce legislation of a similar kind here or whether he can do it by Order, but, whatever the method that is adopted, I would ask the Minister to use all possible speed in giving effect to a purchase scheme that would put an end to a very undesirable state of things, evictions, and so on. I am perfectly sure that there will be no delay on the Minister's part as soon as the legislation has been enacted in the British House of Commons.

Captain Cowan

I should like to support what Deputy Keyes has said in regard to early transfer of ownership of their homes to the occupants of houses built by the Sailors' and Soldiers' Land Trust. At the moment I am not aware of what the procedure will be, but I do know that there has been a demand for a purchase scheme for a long period and that delay may mean that certain families would lose the right to purchase their homes. I would make a special appeal to the Minister, when the British Act becomes law—I think it is law now—to take whatever steps are necessary here as a matter of great urgency.

Housing has been referred to by the Minister and by the Deputies who have spoken on the Estimate. It is obvious that housing will be the main subject of discussion on the Estimate. That is as it should be because, although there has been tremendous progress made in 20 years in the building of houses in Dublin and throughout the country, there is still a considerable amount of leeway to be made up. I can visualise the Dublin Corporation being actively engaged in the building of houses for at least another ten years and perhaps more. An idea has been developing in the minds of a number of people that the growth of Dublin is undesirable, that it would be much better if that growth could be checked.

I have come to the conclusion that there is no possibility of stopping the growth of Dublin and that within our time Dublin will become a city of almost 1,000,000 inhabitants and that the Dublin Corporation will be faced with the problem of building, not only to deal with the slum problem, but to deal with the increasing growth of the city.

A study of a number of countries, particularly of countries like Ireland, will reveal that the general tendency at present is to have a few very large cities with a decreasing population in the rural and agricultural areas. We must face that problem. Suggestions have been made to take Departments out of Dublin and send them to Mullingar, Athlone, Galway, Limerick and other places, to take the Army out of Dublin and the Garda Headquarters. Those suggestions do not take account of the desire of people to live in communities in cities. That type of development is taking place not only in Ireland but in many countries and we have to face up to it.

We in Dublin Corporation had an objective to build 3,000 houses a year. We have been able over a few years to reach a target of approximately 2,500 houses a year. Deputy Keyes has referred to the fact that recently we were informed that there would be a drastic reduction in the number of houses that could be built in 1953. In the Dublin Corporation we took this matter very seriously. Members of the council took it very seriously. They held an investigation and discovered that the cause of the trouble was the fact that the corporation had not provided sufficiently in advance for the number of sites that would enable it to maintain a programme of 2,500 houses.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

In order to do that you wanted to take the best parts of County Dublin.

Captain Cowan

Perhaps. Our corporation did not make adequate provision for sites in advance and we ran up against the problem in the beginning of this year that we had no sites or, at least, we were told that we would not have sufficient sites to enable us to build more than half the number of houses we required in 1953. We took very serious notice of that in the corporation and, as a result of the efforts of members of the corporation, the housing director was able to inform us a couple of weeks ago that 1,000 additional houses could be built and that the contracts for them would start to go out this month, next month, September and October. All members of the housing committee, which means all members of the Dublin Corporation, were very pleased that their efforts had resulted in the housing director making available those 1,000 additional sites.

It was very important that they should have been made available because it means continuation of employment. We were informed last night in the Dublin Corporation that we have 500 men more employed in house building this year than we had last year. We want to maintain that employment. That figure was a surprise to me. I did not think we had that number employed but we were assured last night by the City Manager that in Dublin we have 500 more people employed in house building and in the preparation of sites for housing than we had last year.

I want to make it clear that if there had been a diminution in our building output the responsibility would have rested on us in the Dublin Corporation because we had not taken the steps to utilise all the sites that were available. But we can be up against a problem in the near future for which the Dublin Corporation will not be responsible but for which the Department will be responsible and I avail of the opportunity this evening to refer to it.

The drainage of Dublin is overloaded. Perhaps 12 or 13 years ago the city engineers, looking to the future, visualised the difficulty that would arise in regard to sewerage in about ten years from that time and they set out to consider the problem in great detail. They decided on the necessity for a new main sewer from Finglas right out to Howth. The preliminary work, the surveying and preparation of a scheme engaged the corporation engineers for a long period. Finally, the scheme was submitted to the Department of Local Government in April, 1949, and in February, 1950, a public inquiry was held by the Department in regard to the scheme. In June, 1950, the Department wrote to the corporation criticising the scheme on several grounds and in July, the following month, the city engineer then stated that the city's drainage difficulties would become more aggravated owing to the delay and that some months would be required to examine the alternative scheme suggested by the Department.

Preliminary plans and estimates of the Department's alternative scheme were prepared and these were the subject of discussions in London between the corporation's sewers engineers, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Coyle and Mr. Reynolds, who was the consultant employed by the Dublin Corporation. Mr. Reynold's firm had designed the original main drainage of Dublin in 1906 and had been consultants to the corporation since then. In September, 1950, the city engineer reported on the alternative scheme and submitted reports from the main drainage engineer and Mr. Reynolds. Here is what Mr. Reynolds, an acknowledged authority, said about it:—

"I am of opinion that with certain minor adjustments to meet the views put forward and to give additional safeguards in some matters on which doubt is expressed, the scheme submitted by the corporation is a sound, practical one and is the most suitable and economical method of draining the area."

These reports were sent to the Department of Local Government on the 9th October, 1950, including the opinion of the consultant. In December, 1950, the Department of Local Government sent to the corporation the report of their chief engineering adviser and, as far as I can gather, the Department simply reiterated their original criticism of the scheme.

We then had a deadlock, in which the Department's engineering adviser threw cold water on the scheme prepared by the competent officials and engineers of the corporation and supported by a consultant of world-wide authority. That was the position at the end of 1950.

The corporation, knowing that the scheme was of such vital importance, decided to employ a second consultant, and Mr. Godfrey Taylor, the principal of Messrs. John Taylor and Sons, consulting engineers, was appointed. This gentleman is also an acknowledged authority on this class of work. The matter was submitted to this consultant, together with the opinion of Mr. Reynolds, as follows:—

"The scheme as put forward is the correct engineering solution to the problem set by the topography of the area. It is free from the disadvantages of the alternative scheme suggested by the Department."

Mr. Taylor visited Dublin in June and submitted his report in September. His report was on the best method of conveying the sewage and storm-water from the upper part of the northern area to the point suggested for its discharge into the sea at the nose of Howth. Mr. Taylor dealt with the departmental objections and stated that he saw no third alternative, and concluded his report as follows:—

"Having given the whole matter my most careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the various points raised by the Department consist of difficulties which can be overcome and are not fundamental objections which will prevent the scheme operating in a satisfactory manner. I am of opinion that many of the disadvantages set out by the Department are common to many sea outfall schemes and that other difficulties mentioned will not cause continual trouble or nuisance and in any case do not justify the radical amendment of the introduction of a pumping station with its high operating cost when the power already exists in the considerable head always available at Raheny."

The city manager sent this report to the Department on the 15th September last and in response he received a request for reconsideration of the points made in the Department's letters of the 30th June, 1950, 6th December, 1950 and 15th January, 1952.

The city manager and corporation were anxious to see where they could meet these departmental objections, because they realised how necessary it was to have this scheme in operation. Unless it was put into operation, a big area of building land would be closed to the corporation and the development of the city in that direction—the only direction open—would be retarded. The city engineer had discussions with the Government engineers in March of this year and, on 11th March, the city engineer sent drawings and an analysis of the backwatering system to the Department. On 16th April, he sent a long memorandum to the chief engineering adviser dealing with the population of the drainage area, velocities of flow, ventilation of sewers, etc., and in order to meet the Department, he said he was prepared to instal pumps to deal with the dry water flow and skimmings, although Mr. Nicholls, our main drainage engineer, objected to giving this undertaking as he considered these works quite unnecessary and he would not go further than to say that provision would be made for them, if it would meet the Department's wishes.

All these matters were again referred to the consultants and were also referred unofficially to the chief engineering adviser of the Department on the 23rd April, 1952. The city engineer was requested by the chief engineering adviser to indicate the capital and running costs of the modifications suggested.

These have since been supplied. The corporation engineers were prepared to incur what they considered unnecessary expense to meet the views of the chief engineering adviser of the Department, and to get the scheme approved. Recently, the city engineer and chief engineering adviser discussed the matter—on June 5th—and our engineer on that occasion considered that it would be some considerable time before the matter would be dealt with, and sanction given by the Department. The Minister dealt with it this evening, but I did not hear him clearly. I am now given to understand that sanction has now been given for the completion of the scheme. Perhaps I am misinformed when told that this morning a letter had come from the Department to-day approving of the scheme. If it has not come, we are still in the position we were in at the corporation meeting last night. The city engineer visited London on 12th June, accompanied by Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Coyle, and, having first conferred with Mr. Reynolds, they discussed the various aspects of the matter with both Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Taylor. We now await a joint report on the whole position from these consultants of repute.

I wanted to place this correspondence and these facts on record here, so that the House will realise that this scheme was submitted in April, 1949, by the city engineer and the Dublin Corporation to the Department. Apparently, it did not matter what the city engineer or the consultants advised—all the Department asked on each occasion was: "Please reconsider your scheme." Most of us in the House have experience of this type of mentality. It is known as red tape mentality, which operates in Government Departments. No matter what you submit, you are asked please to reconsider it, and submit something else. This is too important a matter to have been held up from 1949 until to-day. I am sorry that Deputy Keyes has left the Chamber, because in 1949, 1950 and during part of 1951, this matter must have been before him as Minister for Local Government, and it must have been before the present Minister since he took office a year ago.

The building of the houses we require in Dublin demands the completion of the Howth outfall, as it is called. The scheme at the moment is being developed as far as Raheny but it cannot be completed until the final portion of it, the portion which runs from Raheny to the nose of Howth is completed. I do not understand the engineering differences between the city engineer, backed by all these consultants of repute and the departmental chief engineering adviser. I understand that it is a very simple matter. The city engineer and the consultants want to run the pipe so that the sewerage is discharged under the sea at Howth. Their idea is to run the sewerage pipe down so that its contents get a fall and, by its own force, will go out under the sea at Howth. The departmental engineer wants pumps to be erected to run it up over Howth Hill and give it a fall into the sea. That is probably an oversimplification of the matter, but that is what we understand in Dublin Corporation. That is the explantion given to us by our deputy city engineer.

I believe that the Department must understand and appreciate the importance of this, that our whole housing programme in Dublin for the next ten years depends on the completion of this sewer, that the erection of this sewer will open all the valuable building ground we have around Coolock and out from Finglas to Howth, and that it will enable a whole new area of corporation houses to be erected in the vicinity of Coolock. Our building plans will be held up, and are being held up, through the non-completion of this sewer. We discussed this matter last night in Dublin Corporation and members of the corporation who are members of the Dáil were requested to avail of the earliest opportunity, which happens to be to-day, to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister and to impress upon him how necessary it is that this work should be sanctioned immediately. The work will give valuable employment, apart entirely from the very valuable services it will open up.

I look on the Department of Local Government as a Department that should be available to assist local authorities and not to handicap them or prevent them doing work which is vital and necessary. I can appreciate that a scheme of the magnitude of this could be held up for some time, but I cannot understand how it could possibly be held up from 1949 to 1952. The opinions of experts, the opinions of consultants who are world famous, were submitted to the Department, but all the corporation gets back is the red tape reply: "Please reconsider the matter in the light of my letter of January, 1949, or of January, 1950."

The House realises—and certainly I realise it as far as Dublin Corporation is concerned—that, in recent months, the Department has met the corporation, has facilitated us and has cooperated with us in many matters connected with the building of houses, and we feel that, in a general way, obstacles and difficulties which were in our way had been removed by the present Minister. We in Dublin Corporation are satisfied that when the Minister examines this big problem, when he looks at the correspondence, when he sees the authority, the knowledge and the experience of the engineers submitting this scheme, he will give it his sanction as a matter of great urgency.

No matter what the plan is, particularly a major plan, there will always be objections to it. No two engineers agree on anything. The ideas of the chief adviser of the Department of Local Government may be perfect, but the city engineer, in whom we have the utmost confidence because of his great experience, knowledge and competence, has put forward his own scheme. If those two engineers do not agree on the scheme there is no reason why the City of Dublin should be deprived of a scheme which is so necessary to its development and to its citizens.

When you have a city engineer who is competent, when you have men like our sewerage engineer, whose whole lifetime has been devoted to the science of sewerage engineering and when their views are supported by consultants like the men I have mentioned, then I think the chief engineering adviser of the Department of Local Government must step out and say: "I have my own view. I do not agree with what you are doing but you are the responsible authority," and advise the Minister to give sanction so that the work could go ahead. No great scheme could ever have been started if two engineering authorities were permitted to conflict about it and I would say to the Minister that, by and large, the big responsibility is the responsibility of the local authority, Dublin Corporation. When they are properly advised by competent people and when the Department knows, as they do know, how necessary the scheme is they should sanction it and the scheme should not be delayed any length of time.

Other members of Dublin Corporation who are Deputies will support the case I am making to the Minister to give that sanction at once so that we may complete that job, open up these areas in which we can build houses and give much needed employment in Dublin City. I am quite sure that when the Minister has considered this he will give us the sanction, the green light, so that Dublin Corporation may go ahead with this very necessary work. Our present housing difficulty is the responsibility of the corporation alone but if we run into difficulties a couple of years hence through lack of sewerage the responsibility will be that of the Department of Local Government and I ask the Minister to ensure that there will be no need to blame the Department with regard to Dublin sewerages when his Estimate comes to be discussed next year or the year after.

Mr. Belton

As I expected, this debate has centred around housing because housing has received priority in local government activities during the last four or five years. I represent a Dublin constituency and therefore I will deal solely with the Dublin area. Dublin Corporation was charged after the emergency with the greatest housing responsibility that any local authority in this country ever had. As a result of a survey made in 1948 Dublin Corporation found that 30,000 dwellings were required to house the needy people of the city and, I am glad to say, the corporation started on a new project in the Philipsburgh Avenue area which helped to ease this position. The corporation over a great number of years developed housing for slum clearance and poor people in the city were catered for to the best of the corporation's ability. Luxury dwellings were built to suit the requirements of people who could afford to purchase their own home. Small dwellings loans were provided by local authorities to help people in urban and rural areas to purchase their own dwellings also. There was a certain class of people in the City of Dublin, however, who were never catered for. The corporation built in the Philipsburgh Avenue area 204 houses to be let at an economic rent. We had 1,500 applicants and the fortunate applicants will be no charge upon the ratepayers. Last Friday we had a meeting of Dublin Corporation and the housing committee's decision will, I hope, find favour with the Minister. They decided to recommend to him that 700 odd houses should be built on the St. Anne's development area; that they should be of the Philipsburgh Avenue type and let at an economic rent; that the bulk of the tenants of these houses should be taken from existing corporation schemes thus providing houses, built pre-war at a small cost, for the Dublin Corporation. I am glad to say that in the corporation we have the support of Deputy Cowan on this matter. I missed the beginning of his speech, but I think I am right in saying that he did not refer to this matter.

I should like to refer to a statement made here in the Dáil by Deputy Cowan which is reported in the Dáil Debates, Volume 116, column 517. Deputy Cowan, referring to the development of St. Anne's Estate, said:

"We have facilities at St. Anne's for approximately 5,000 houses but those 5,000 houses cannot be built because there is no sewerage. A considerable portion of the work on sewerage should have been done during the emergency. We have been told that it will take five years to instal the sewerage that will serve the estate at St. Anne's. In other words, that beautiful site cannot be developed for five years. I made the suggestion to the Minister's predecessor and I make it to the Minister again that this sewerage work is important and that there are sufficient workers in the City of Dublin to build that sewerage within a period of a little over a year. That can be done by employing the available workers for three shifts of eight hours in every day using artificial light and tackling it as any emergency problem would and should be. That estate is in my own constituency. If it is developed, the housing problem in North-East Dublin would be solved. None of us can wait, and none of us will wait, for a period of five years for the installation of the sewage scheme that can be installed in a little over a year. If it is tackled in the way it should be tackled, St. Anne's will provide approximately 5,000 houses."

That is contrary to the present beliefs and opinions of Deputy Cowan. Deputy Cowan is in full agreement now with the scheme that was submitted by the housing committee of the Dublin Corporation but unfortunately is trying to make political capital out of it.

A matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is the urgent necessity for advising local authorities to introduce as soon as possible a tenant-purchase scheme for their houses. At first glance this may appear to be something about which representatives of local authorities will not bother very much, but I should like to point out that in the Dublin County Council area the cost of repairing cottages for the last 12 months came to over £70,000 and the Dublin Corporation are charged with the repair of 32,000 houses at a cost of £448,000 per annum. These are problems that I think should get very careful consideration. Every Deputy realises that a tenant of a house will do nothing to repair his own dwelling when he can get the local authority to do it. I know a certain tradesman who will wait a year for the corporation workmen to come along to do some minor repairs to his house. He would not raise a screwdriver to carry out any repairs himself because he is not the tenant of a house which could be purchased under a tenant-purchase scheme. I urge on the Minister to do what he can to promote tenant-purchase schemes throughout the country and to advise local authorities of the necessity for bringing in some schemes for tenant-purchase.

Another matter in which I would like the Minister to interest himself is to encourage local authorities, by relief works or some other means, to develop some of the natural bathing facilities to be found around our coasts. We have heard a lot about tourism and about inviting visitors from America and from across the Irish Sea to our shores but I must say much still remains to be done all over the country to attract visitors. In the Dublin area, the poor people usually use Merrion Strand, Dollymount Strand and Portmarnock Strand because they are readily accessible and are served by good transport systems. I think the area around the Head of Howth towards Redrock could also be developed at, I would say, comparatively small cost. The City of Dublin has a population of over 500,000 but there are practically no bathing facilities for the residents of the city at the adjacent seaside resorts. It is disgraceful to think that in Portmarnock one car can hardly pass through the village at a week-end. It is not possible to get to Portmarnock Strand except at one small spot near the tower. Yet it is the seaside resort which is most favoured by the citizens of Dublin.

In passing, I should like to say that there is still a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the building trade in the City of Dublin in relation to the slow payment of building grants. I should like also to impress upon the Minister that it would be desirable to have more exciting designs in local authority housing schemes. The majority of housing schemes throughout the country, and indeed in the city too, would give anybody the impression that the houses were mass-produced. I suggest to the Minister that he might take note of the very excellent building scheme at Clarecastle in County Clare, of the new housing scheme at Portmarnock and the housing scheme for which the Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation are responsible at Sallynoggin. I do not think these schemes cost per house any more than any other housing schemes but a change in the colour scheme is introduced. There is a change in the colour of the roof, a change in the colour of the dashing of the house and some slight architectural changes in the schemes which make them more attractive and unlike some of the artisan schemes that are being thrown up all over the country. It is desirable that tenants should take a pride in their own homes and it is very difficult, for these people to take a pride in their homes unless the general scheme appearance is removed as much as possible.

I should also like to point out that, in the course of my journeys through the country, I have been struck by the number of fallen down buildings, out-offices and old cottages which one sees along the main roads leading to many towns and, in many cases, to some very attractive sea-side resorts. When local authorities are carrying out housing schemes they should cause these old buildings to be demolished and make use in their schemes of this dry filling and old rubble. These old tumble down buildings are a scar on the face of the country-side.

I think that special road grants should be made to counties which are, one may say, predominantly tourist counties. There should be special road grants for Connemara and Donegal so as to enable them to put their coast roads in proper order. We have some beautiful scenery in this country, but for miles and miles it is not accessible to visitors and tourists. If they want to see it they have to travel on foot, and in this machine age it is very difficult to get tourists, particularly, to travel on foot. They generally want to travel by bus, coach or motor car.

I should like to stress the point that was mentioned by Deputy Sweetman. It is this, that the financial position of the Dublin Corporation is all right until the end of this year. I should like the Minister to assure the corporation, and everybody concerned, that they will be in a position to carry on from the 1st of January next. It would be idle for members of the corporation to be sitting at housing meetings, or for Deputies in Leinster House to be discussing the housing problems of the city, if money were not made readily available to the corporation.

The Minister, contrary to what Deputy Cowan has stated when he said that 500 more men are employed by the Dublin Corporation this year in the building trade, will not be able to deny that there is serious unemployment and grave uneasiness in the building trade in general at present. Deputy Keyes said that there were 165 carpenters idle in Limerick at the moment. There are far more idle in the City of Dublin. I suggest to Deputy Cowan that if he were to refer to the unions which cater for the building industry in this city he would be told a different story from the one which he mentioned in the House.

I would like to ask the Minister a question in relation to the Howth main drainage scheme which, I understand, was estimated at one time to cost about £1,500,000. God knows what it will cost by the time it is finished. Can the Minister give any approximate idea of how many new houses this scheme will serve? I think it will be surprising to learn how few houses it will serve.

I should also like to ask the Minister about the report that was requested in 1938. I might say that some of the most serious difficulties concerning development in the Dublin area arise from sewerage and water works problems, town planning problems and road construction. The only way of obviating these difficulties, in my opinion, would be by implementing the report requested by the present Government and submitted in 1938. It is called the Gavan-Duffy Report. It suggested, as a solution for local administration in the Dublin area, the formation of a metropolitan council which would control all the local authority activities of the present Dublin City, of all developed areas and all the areas expected to be developed around the City of Dublin. People may make arguments against that and suggest that it would be unfair to ask the people in Balrothery, Rush and Lusk to pay the same rates as people living in Rathmines, Sandymount and Clontarf areas. But the rates are apportioned in all other counties in the country, and it would be a very simple matter to apportion the rates in the proposed metropolitan area.

We, in the City of Dublin, are in the peculiar position of not having much ground to build houses on. I suppose I could safely say that, apart from the St. Ann's estate at Clontarf, the Dublin Corporation would not have sites for more than 700 or 800 houses. They have to go outside their own borough area to build. Any future development by the Dublin Corporation will be in the Dublin County Council area. The tenants will be paying rents to the corporation but will have no representation on the Dublin Corporation. In the case of many of our housing schemes, the tenants will not have a representative on the Dublin Corporation. We have a new housing scheme at Finglas. The people there will be represented on the Dublin County Council and the same will apply in connection with our new housing scheme at Ballyfermot. We can couple these problems on the fringe of the area north of Dublin City. We have the Howth main drainage scheme and we have the city council building houses in the county area.

I think the Minister should examine these problems. I suggest that he should also examine the merits of the Gavan-Duffy Report because I honestly believe it provides the only proper solution for the Dublin area. If adopted, it would reduce administrative costs as well as the costs of development in general on the fringe area of Dublin. The position at the moment is that the Dublin Corporation require to build a scheme, as Deputy Cowan has said, at Coolock. That is in the county area. You have county town planning and you have town planning officers communicating with each other. Anybody who realises how long it takes for plans to be approved and accepted can understand the unnecessary delay that occurs in this way.

I will conclude by asking the Minister, when replying to the debate, to answer this question. Can the Minister say how many new houses the new Howth main drainage scheme will accommodate? I really think that his reply to that should be very enlightening.

Mr. Gallagher

Early in Deputy Keyes' speech he once again referred to the statement made by Deputy Briscoe. I am sorry that Deputy Briscoe is not here, as the same thing happened before when Deputy Keyes referred to this matter—I had to give him the exact facts of the case. He complained that Deputy Briscoe accused him of holding up plans, or at least asking Dublin Corporation to alter their plans, which held up the building of houses. He claimed that there was no such thing and I would refer him again to the circular issued in January 1951 from the Department of Local Government, when Deputy Keyes was Minister. That circular asked the corporation to depart from their usual procedure in presenting plans. The ideas of the Department may have been correct. What they had in mind was that we should submit completed house plans.

Prior to this the Dublin Corporation would simply acquire a site and go ahead and develop it, pending the approval of the plans by the Department. This circular came out in January 1951 and it certainly held us up for many months and will react on our plans for 1953. As a result of that, we went to see the present Minister for Local Government. We came from Dublin Corporation and included members of Deputy Keyes' Party, the Labour Party. That deputation to the Minister was to try and help us in this matter, arising out of the circular of January 1951. I must admit that the Minister and his officials were very helpful, they met us in every way and we certainly went ahead. I do not attach a great deal of blame to Deputy Keyes, but I simply emphasise that Deputy Briscoe was perfectly right when he was referring to the circular of January 1951. It is there in black and white in the Corporation and in the Department. That was Deputy Briscoe's case and I am simply defending a colleague by stating the correct position.

Deputy Cowan certainly made the case for the Dublin Corporation in a splendid manner as regards the Howth drainage scheme. He was certainly well briefed by the corporation engineer and I would like the Minister to take note of what he said. We in the corporation claim that we have spent a considerable amount of money in getting experts—expert consultants—to deal with this matter. We started in 1944 and altogether we have got men of renowned reputation in Mr. Alfred, Mr. Reynolds, Professor Conway and Mr. Taylor. They bear a great reputation in the question of drainage work. What their fees will be I do not know but I have been assured by the City Engineer that they will be considerable. I am making that point to show that the Dublin Corporation is more than anxious to see that everything is done in a proper manner. All we got from the Department was, as Deputy Cowan said, to refer our plans back for reconsideration. If that is going to continue, it will be very serious. One of these experts, Mr. Alfred, has died and I hope sincerely the Department will pass those plans before the rest of the experts die and we will have no one to refer them back to.

Mr. Dunne

A vain hope.

Mr. Gallagher

I hope the Minister will deal with the matter expeditiously. The Department may feel they are doing the right thing but on the other hand they will agree that we in the corporation took every possible step to do things in the right manner. We got the best opinions possible and went to endless trouble. We submitted our plans, I understand, in April, 1949. I hope that by now they have reached the stage where there is no question of referring them back for reconsideration. It has been pointed out that if these plans are held up any longer there will be a great deal of unemployment in the next few years. With that scheme we hoped to continue our programme for the next ten years in a much larger manner than we are doing at the moment, and if it is not approved I can tell the Minister it will have serious effects on the City of Dublin. I would like again to support Deputy Cowan and the other members of the Dublin Corporation who are members of this House in pressing the Minister to give it his most urgent attention, to let the matter go away at once and let us get moving on building our houses again.

Deputy Sweetman, Deputy Belton and others were bemoaning the fact that there is a great deal of unemployment in Dublin in the building line; but it is true to say that in the Dublin Corporation building programme we have 500 men more now in employment than this time last year. That is a statement of our own housing director. I do not think things are as bad as Deputy Belton would have us believe in private building. I know from my personal knowledge that in his own constituency, in his own district alone, there are builders there ready to build from 300 to 400 houses. They have their plans passed by the Department, the foundations are in and they are going ahead in style. Deputies should refer to these things when they are dealing with housing. That is actually in Deputy Belton's own district, where building is going ahead for at least 300 or 400 houses. We in the Dublin Corporation are certainly doing our part. We do not like to see men walking idle on the streets any more than anyone else and we are doing everything possible to get the housing programme going and to employ as many more men as possible.

Reference was made to the refusal of the Banks Standing Committee to meet the demand of the Dublin Corporation. I heard the Minister, when he was dealing with the Housing Bill, say that he would certainly deal with that matter when it would come up. As has been pointed out by Deputy Belton, we in the Dublin Corporation are all right for finance up to the end of this year. I would say to the Minister that now is the time to go ahead and make sure that the money we want in Dublin will be forthcoming. It is a matter that the Government should treat as urgent. They should not wait until next Christmas, as it is no good to us then. We want no hold up. We have our plans and if this Howth drainage scheme is passed and we have the money by January 1953, we certainly will go to town in great style. I would appeal to the Minister and the Government to ensure that this matter of the loan for Dublin Corporation gets urgent consideration. In fact, it should get priority in the Government agenda.

Deputy Belton made a case for tenant purchase. I would also support him on that, as I think that tenant purchase is a very good idea. It gives people a sense of home ownership that they appreciate a good deal. He made the case that it would certainly do away with a lot of expense of the corporation and other local authorities in maintenance. Any suggestions coming from the corporation or any other local authority regarding tenant purchase should certainly receive the Minister's approval, particularly in the case of the St. Ann's estate, where the Dublin Corporation has agreed to provide over 700 houses by tenant purchase. The Minister should not throw a damper on that but should let it go ahead. It is an ideal scheme and will save the ratepayers of Dublin a good deal of money in maintenance costs.

Last night in the Dublin Corporation we had a motion down regarding swimming baths and of course it was pointed out to us that the corporation could not afford to spend any money on the provision of swimming baths. I think that is a shame. There is no doubt of the value of swimming as an exercise and it should be helped and developed. It is up to the Department of Local Government in the near future to make some sort of grant to local authorities for the provision of swimming facilities.

I hope to leave next Tuesday for Helsinki for the Olympic Games. I regret very much that we have not one swimmer on our team. Despite the fact that we have such fine facilities all along our coast for sea bathing, we have no facilities for winter swimming, which is great pity. I do not want to stress swimming from the sporting point of view. I should prefer to press it more or less from the point of view of the healthy development of our young people. From my own experience, regular practice at swimming helps to maintain good health. If the value of the lives lost through drowning could be capitalised on, I should say that nationally the result would well repay any expenditure involved in the provision of swimming baths and swimming facilities. I appeal in particular for winter swimming facilities for Dublin.

I would advise some of the Minister's officials to pay a visit to Tara Street baths. Certainly they would get an eyeful there. The Tara Street baths are the most dilapidated baths I have seen. I have been on many sporting trips throughout the world and I would be ashamed to bring a person from a foreign country into the Tara Street baths. The pipes are leaking there and the water is dropping down in the cubicles on the clothes of the children. I was present at the Tara Street baths for the primary school events. I saw the water leaking from the pipes in the cubicles and dropping down on the clothes of the children. In addition, it was not possible to open or close the windows. If you were lucky enough to open the windows you could not close them again. That is a very serious matter for Dublin City and the Department of Local Government should look into it.

Mr. Dunne

The corporation should be ashamed of the position.

Mr. Gallagher

I agree. I pressed the case strongly there. The view of the corporation was that if they carry out the improvements the people will complain that it will mean an addition to the rates. I think that a grant should be given by the Department of Local Government for this purpose. I look upon the matter from the children's point of view. Every effort should be made to provide them with swimming facilities and teaching facilities. I should like the Department of Local Government to make a grant to the local authorities in that connection. As I have said, I am not pressing this matter from a sporting point of view but from the point of view that swimming is an exercise which is beneficial to the health and development of the body. In a case of emergency, a person who can swim can save himself and maybe others as well. I believe that the result nationally would well repay any expenditure involved in that connection.

I appeal to the Minister to look into the matter of the Dublin Corporation Finglas to Howth main drainage scheme and to enable us to get on with the work. Any help which he can give us will be appreciated. I know that he will do all he can in the matter.

I hope the Minister will listen to everything the Dublin Corporation have to say and especially our officials in whom we have the greatest possible faith. Our housing record in Dublin is second to none. Tributes have been paid to us from all parts of the world in respect of our housing schemes. In view of our past record, I cannot understand why there should be any hold-up in the sanctioning of submissions which we make in that respect. We have a record to be proud of and the standard of our officials is very high.

Mr. Cosgrave

I want to raise a specific matter which is, I think, common only to housing schemes on the fringe of the city area and which causes peculiar problems for the residents of these schemes. When the housing drive restarted after the end of the last war a number of schemes on the fringe of the city, or in the area of County Dublin which I have the privilege to represent—it probably occurs also in the constituency of County Dublin proper—were developed to a considerable extent by private builders. I think the problem is confined in the main to schemes built by private builders and that it does not apply so much to local authority schemes. A number of these were developed and roads were provided. Due to delay in finishing the work on the roads and due to the speed with which the builders are anxious to complete the houses, there has been a great delay in leaving the roads in a condition fit to be taken over by the local authority. That causes a number of problems. The Department of Local Government will not sanction for public transport any road not under the control of the local authority. The result is that while a number of roads through different schemes are nearly or partially finished the residents are denied public transport because the roads are not completed and acquired by the local authority. This matter has arisen in one or two cases and it is causing very serious problems and considerable inconvenience to the residents. I refer in particular to the development of Mount Merrion and Kilmacud. Mount Merrion is an area which has grown extensively and, because the developer of the major housing scheme on the estate has not handed over the road, the residents of that area have for a number of years past been denied adequate transport. When an estate is developed, it is only reasonable that some time should elapse before the necessary work is completed and no new resident objects to the accepted delay which will occur after a scheme is completed. The residents of Mount Merrion have been denied adequate public transport because the developer has delayed handling over the road. In raising this particular matter I need hardly say that I am not ascribing any responsibility to the Minister or in fact to the previous Minister for Local Government. However, it raises an issue which I think should be considered by the Minister and by the Department in consultation with the local authorities concerned. I say that this is peculiar to the constituency of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and possibly to County Dublin because in the main the roads on which schemes are built in the city are roads provided by the corporation and the county council schemes provided by the local authorities are in fact provided with roads prior to the development of the schemes.

This problem has arisen in the case of privately developed schemes. Serious consideration will have to be given to the withholding of sanction for plans until the essential preliminaries are first provided. I want to suggest to the Minister that some discussions should take place between his Department and the Dublin County Council and, if necessary, the developer of the big scheme on the Mount Merrion estate.

Similar problems of a smaller nature have occurred on other estates adjoining the Mount Merrion estate and in smaller schemes of a private nature in Clonskeagh and also in Newtown Park, near Blackrock. In these areas there were a number of minor roads which probably had, at the maximum, anything up to a dozen houses. In a number of cases the roads were left in the existing condition and large new schemes completed. These schemes have been finished but because of the lack of co-ordination between the private developer and the local authority and possibly the Department, public transport is denied the residents of these schemes because the roads are not approved for public or for any heavy transport of that nature.

I would like, therefore, to suggest to the Minister that this matter should receive the attention of the Department in consultation with the local authority. The residents of these houses are all paying rates and have been ratepayers since they went into occupation but because of this peculiar difficulty which is, I think, not common to other local authorities and which is common only to certain schemes, in the main private schemes, the people concerned are denied the services to which they are entitled.

Mr. Desmond

In discussing this Estimate I believe we are discussing one which, in its own way, is of more importance to the people as a whole than any other departmental Estimate. If we approached this Estimate not from the point of view of its affecting our own little areas or the problems that face the people in the constituencies we may happen to represent it might be better. We should realise that no other Department of State has a more direct bearing in its everyday activities on the people of this country whether they happen to be residents of Dublin, Cork or the rural areas. The work done in this Department has such an important bearing on the people of the Twenty Six Counties that we should be prepared to try, in our own limited way, to view its activities as they affect the people as a whole.

We ought to examine the Department's approach towards local authorities. Local authorities are of such importance that requests made by them should be considered closely and carefully having regard to the fact that the requests go through the county manager or the city manager. Public men have often to complain about the delays that are daily experienced in regard to final decisions from the central authority on requests made by local authorities. The central authority may through its Minister decide on policy. It is on the advice tendered by the public representatives, advice which has been accepted by the county manager for these local authorities, that these requests are made. Surely, these requests are entitled to some consideration. There should not be this undue delay in giving final sanction or in turning down requests made by local authorities.

I am not making any balls to fire in my local council. The attitude I adopt is that of simply endeavouring, to the best of my ability, to express the views of the people who have sent me here. I do not now, no more than I did for three and a half years, take any advantage of any matter I may raise in this House and use it as a ball to fire in my local council. So long as we are satisfied that the views we express here are our own honest opinions and are not expressed for any ulterior motive, I believe those views must be given. If other people are not willing to accept these views in the honest-to-God manner in which they are expressed I for one will express them whether they are liked or not. Many small points, which may seem big to the Department, are raised in connection with plans or requests submitted to it. I do not object to that, but I fail to understand why plans or requests sent up from a local authority to the Department in connection with housing are returned. When the local authority officials have done their utmost to rectify the difficulties in these plans, they send them to the Department of Local Government a second time. Why is it that it only then occurs to the Minister and to the officials of that Department that there are other difficulties which were not noticeable in the first scheme? I know, and every member of this House knows, that this Department has a number of officials who are experts in their own particular line, but why is it that these experts cannot decide on all the faults when the first scheme is submitted? Why are the various corrections submitted in a piecemeal manner? The Department of Local Government is particularly noted for this practice. Like every member of this Assembly, I could mention various schemes that have been held up. However, it is not proper to do so now because we are considering an Estimate rather than particular cases. However, if the Minister so desires, he can check up and he will see that housing schemes in South Cork have been held up for long periods because of some small defects which were not discovered on first examination.

The Department found one or two defects at a time, and it took numerous examinations to find all the defects. When an official inspected a certain site which was suitable, he returned to Dublin and submitted a report, which was sent back to the county council concerned, in which he said that there was not sufficient land on the site. Why was this done? When the site was inspected, it could have been discovered that some of the land was the property of the local authority. For the Minister's information, I am referring to a site in Rochestown, County Cork, where some of the land is the property of the local authority. It originally belonged to the railway company and the local authority purchased it. An inspection of the site was carried out, and it was obvious from the report of such inspection that it was thought that the railway company property did not belong to the local authority. Such things should never happen, and there is only one way of preventing them. It is an easy way—by realising that a local authority should be a local authority.

There is too much centralisation in this country, and this is more noticeable in the Department of Local Government than in any other Department of State. There are county managers, county surveyors, other local authority officials and members of county councils—all men who, for years, have proved themselves capable of carrying out their duties. What is the point in having them if due regard is not given to any suggestions made by them? I can appreciate that a Minister would be faced with a problem if, on a particular matter, local authority officials, headed by the county manager, and members of a local authority were at variance. However, in most cases that would not arise, because there is usually unanimous agreement in a local authority between the officials and the members.

If local government is to function properly in this country, if it is to improve, if rural areas are to advance as the county councils desire, and if the people are to get a just reward for the money they pay in rates and otherwise, it must be realised that local government can never be ruled from the Custom House. The Minister may say that present-day local authorities have a more advanced outlook in comparison with the local authorities that existed in years gone by, or he may express the view, given voice to so often by certain members of local authorities, that we must discard the conservative outlook in local authority matters and move with the times whether or not we wish to do so. Perhaps the Minister may adopt the attitude that, although local authorities have a more advanced outlook than local authorities of bygone years, they should not advance too rapidly at the present time. However, if we put a brake on the activities of local authorities, we will be removing a brake from the young people in rural Ireland who will then turn their eyes towards the emigrant ship. I am not trying to paint a picture in this House to suit either a particular Party or a particular individual. I am not expressing my own personal views but the views of the people in rural Ireland who know the advantages that will be theirs if they get adequate employment. At the moment they are being subjected to difficulties which could easily be removed.

I am not expressing the views of city dwellers but the views of the rural dwellers. I would like to pay a tribute to all members of the Cork County Council irrespective of the Party to which they belong or irrespective of the fact that they may be Independents. All Parties work well together and I am happy to say that, within the last few years, we have made satisfactory strides in our housing programme. We can do much better and the fact that we have not done much better in the past is not entirely our fault. A certain amount of the blame must be laid at the door of the Department of Local Government. If the Minister or his officials look up certain data, even at this late stage, they will realise that housing schemes in South Cork have been held up for long periods. Even though some of those schemes were ultimately sanctioned, in many instances people were denied the comfort of a decent home for a protracted period. This should never have been the case.

Coupled with housing is the problem of water and sewerage schemes. Here again we have a fairly tidy sum in postage through the correspondence sent by the local authority and the Department dealing with some of these very important schemes. I could name towns—what is the use now; these records are in the Department—where the sewerage system at the present time is a disgrace, where recommendations and plans have been sent up to the Department and where objections have been found. I agree that if advice is essential it is right it should be sent down but why should it take so long to solve these little problems?

Considering that in this Department, there are about 12 different sections, as far as I know, surely these sections should be and must be so compact that there should not be any undue delay in dealing with such an important problem as the improvement of these sewerage schemes in areas where the health of the people depends so much on proper sewerage facilities in their localities. I can understand that the demands on the Minister and on his Department are such that the heavier demands may come and the greatest consensus of public opinion may come from the cities or large built up areas. But that in itself is not sufficient to outnumber or outweigh the requests that may come from small towns, old towns, the towns whose names have been embedded in the history of this country when some of these built-up areas were never heard of. I want to see facilities provided for people in these built-up areas. They are entitled to them but not at the expense of the people in the towns of rural Ireland.

There have undoubtedly been many delays in dealing with requests from the local authorities in connection with such urgent matters as sewerage schemes and water schemes. People in cities will never know what it means to the people in the rural areas to have to go a few miles so often for a few buckets of water, living in villages where they are so often depending on an old well or an old pump that may be there for years. The Minister may say that it is a matter for the local authority to see that the pump is not an old one or to see that a new one is sunk, but considering that the boring and sinking of a pump costs an average of £225, we believe that when proposals are sent to the Department from the local authorities requesting sanction for a water scheme for these small villages these requests should receive not a long delay but the consideration that is due to them. If we are slipping into a period where a Department may be inclined to become top-heavy, where the requests from rural areas, from villages or towns are going to be placed in a category far removed down the scale from the demands from cities, then I say the sooner we realise that we are heading for a system of complete chaos and bankruptcy in local government, the more honest we will be with ourselves and the people.

There is another matter I should like to mention to the Minister. There was one member of this House one time who, if I remember, took particular interest in this matter to which I am about to refer. He was always anxious, and expressed the desire so often, both in public and in private, that there should be no undue delay in this particular connection. The man who had this problem so much at heart was none other than the late Deputy T.J. Murphy, when a Minister in this House. The problem with which he was so much concerned, after housing for our people, was one which, as far as I know, has been finally dealt with in Great Britain recently and is now coming before us, the question of the right of tenancy in ex-servicemen's houses.

That in itself is of vital importance to some people. The number may be small but are we to judge that even a small minority must be put at the end of the scale simply because there are other matters to be dealt with? I am not at this stage accusing the Minister of putting them at the end of the scale but I believe now is the time we can put it in its proper position as regards our programme. I have heard quite recently of cases where young men whose fathers gave a life-time of service to a certain Power, a Power in which I am not interested, nor is anyone belonging to me, have had to leave these houses. At any rate, just because their fathers, who had been tenants of these houses, died, or because their mothers died these men have now been told to get out of their houses. There will be other cases happening such as these. Cannot we stop them at this stage? Is it not right—and I believe every Minister of State under local government should be and would be interested in this—that every member of the House would be interested in this problem and that it will be dealt with as soon as possible?

There is another problem with which I have more direct contact. It was mentioned as far as I am aware, by my colleague, Deputy Michael Keyes, this evening, that is the question of the cottage purchase scheme. This is not the time to discuss the merits or the demerits of the 1936 Act but considering that an Order was made by Deputy Keyes when Minister for Local Government informing local authorities of their right to offer a better scheme to the tenants of these cottages, I would like to know from the Minister, if the Minister so wishes to inform the House, what the position is as regards the schemes that may have been made by local authorities since last March 12 months when that Order was made. How many county councils have prepared a new scheme embodying a 50 per cent. reduction and a shorter number of years for purchase? How many councils have ignored this circular completely? I do not know. I should like to know and if they have ignored it I should very much like to be informed why they have ignored it.

It has been mentioned in this House and has been mentioned on many occasions at local authority meetings that the cost of the repair of cottages is so heavy that it would be much more advantageous for the local authorities and for ratepayers as a whole if the tenants of these cottages purchased. If the local authorities, be they officials or members, or if a Minister for Local Government is interested in having these tenants purchase their cottages, they must ask the question: why is it that these tenants have not availed of the old scheme? If we get the answer to that, then surely we are entitled to ask why it is, since the local authorities are so anxious to have these cottages purchased, the Minister has not by way of circular reminded these local authorities of their responsibility in offering this advantageous new scheme to the tenants? The Minister may ask what has happened in my own council in relation to that. It is not for me to answer that question. I have my own view and I have expressed that view in the council. It is not incumbent upon me to express that view here. My activities on local councils are confined to the local councils. My activities in this House are confined to this House. Believing always in majority rule, I accept the decision of the majority at all times.

If we have failed to offer the advantages of these cottage-purchase schemes to the prospective tenants of them during the last 12 months, there will be no use in the Minister now telling us that the responsibility in the matter rests solely on the members of local authorities. During the past four years, to say nothing of the past 12 months, more circulars have issued from the Department of Local Government to local authorities than from any two or three other State Departments together. We have got circulars on pretty nearly everything. It might be amusing to quote some of them, but I do not want to waste time now. It would have been more beneficial to the prospective tenants of cottages if one or two circulars had been sent out reminding the local authorities that no schemes had been submitted.

The present scheme is an improvement on the former one but nevertheless it is not all that we desire. In asking the tenants to purchase their cottages under the scheme we are not offering them anything very wonderful. We are placing a big responsibility on the tenants of the older cottages. To-day these are ramshackle dwellings. That is neither the fault of the tenants nor of the local authorities. These cottages were built 60 and 70 years ago. Very often they were built with neither an engineer nor an architect in control of them. We may be offering some of those dwellings to the tenants of them. Local authorities should be asked now why no schemes have been prepared.

To some extent I can exonerate the present Minister in connection with the reduction in the moneys provided under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Why would I not exonerate him? I do not wish to be either personal or vindictive but one must recall the speech made by one member of the then Opposition when this Act was going through. That member found it convenient to attack individually and collectively everybody who had anything to do with this measure. The member to whom I am referring is the Deputy who now occupies the position of Minister for Finance. Considering the attitude adopted by him towards this measure when he was in opposition, it is only natural that that attitude would also be adopted by him when he became a member of the Government and, irrespective of who is Minister for Local Government, that attitude of the present Minister for Finance was bound to influence requests for moneys for the operation of this important measure.

Many counties have reaped very definite advantages under the operation of the Act. Even the limited amount that is being provided this year will give certain advantages—advantages that were never appreciated by the Minister and his colleagues when they were in opposition. Now that they are in Government again surely they must admit that the results achieved have been justified. If they are prepared to make that admission, then they are not justified in reducing the amount of money provided this year. I appeal to the Minister to realise that this reduction is a retrograde step and one which will affect not alone the central Administration but the outlook of managers, officials and members of local authorities since they must realise that the Minister is now nullifying the schemes they put into operation for the benefit of the people in the different areas.

If we want satisfactory local government we can only have that government by admitting that local authorities and those who administer local government are the proper people to implement a policy. The sooner we abolish the necessity for seeking sanction for trivial matters that arise in day to day administration the better it will be for ourselves and the better it will be for the people we represent. When we reach that stage we may find ourselves in the position of not having to try to justify any longer the large sums of money expended annually in wages, salaries and allowances in the central office here in Dublin. Not for one moment do I say that any official in the Department of Local Government is overpaid, be it the secretary of the Department or the cleaner who is employed there. I think it is important that these people should enjoy a decent salary or wage, as the case may be. Local government is of primary importance. Year by year we see the staffs being increased there. Members of local authorities, members of this House, have to try to justify to the people in our areas the large amount of expenditure in this Department of State. That does not apply only to members of one particular Party but to all of us. We try to explain that all these staffs are essential and to gloss over some of the delays that occur in the Department but we know in our hearts that the top heavy machine will not give the results that are expected.

While local government has improved to a certain degree since it was instituted, it seems to me that progress is slowing up. Are we going back to the system of local government that was regarded so favourably by the Minister's colleagues and, as far as I am aware, by his Party, of reducing membership in the councils in various areas to one single unit instead of the system that operates in the area that I represent, of splitting it up and having one member representing a certain area? If such an idea exists in the minds of any members of the Government Party, they must be prepared to admit that local government will be slowed up by central administration.

Within the last 12 months, Deputy Larkin drew the Minister's attention to a statement made by him in connection with direct labour. Direct labour certainly justified itself because of the competition it created, effecting reduction in prices, and because of the fact that the work done was of the best and the materials used were of the highest quality. Members of local authorities who have some little knowledge of the building trade, were able to say in public that not only were the houses that were built by direct labour cheaper but were far better in every way. Is there a danger that the policy of wiping out direct labour will continue? Are we prepared to revert to the old system of giving all to the few?

We know what happened to many cases during the emergency. We know cases where one tender only was submitted. The man or firm that was successful in getting the first scheme, could not tender for the next; it had to be left to one of his colleagues. A ring was formed. Members of local authorities were able to compare tenders submitted by contractors for the building of cottages with the cost where direct labour was used. Competition became keener. Contractors were able in many cases to reduce their original tenders by a nice tidy sum when the schemes were readvertised. We should be honest enough to admit openly that it was the competition created by direct labour that effected these reductions in prices.

Who would gain by such reductions? The local authorities, the ratepayers and the incoming tenants would gain. Are they to be denied that advantage by the elimination of competition? We must insist on competition in our building schemes. I do not say that one policy should be adopted to the exclusion of the other but that they should both operate in competition with each other. I would not favour a cartel system that would cut out people outside the cartel but there should be a spirit of friendly rivalry and a system of honest competition. That system was adopted by the late Deputy Murphy and should be continued. I fail to understand why competition should be eliminated.

There is one important factor governing all these things and that is finance. It is a lamentable fact that as a result of the increase in the bank rate local authorities have greater difficulty in providing sufficient money at a rate which will favour incoming tenants. The Minister may say that this is not the first time the banks increased their rates or were given power. It is a matter of indifference to me whether or not that has happened in the past. I am interested in trying to devise a system whereby progress can be achieved for the future. If local authorities have to raise certain loans for houses, sewerage, water and other schemes and at times are unable to avail of State loans and must depend on overdrafts in private banks, it is deplorable that, through a combination of the governors of five or six banks, the local authorities must admit defeat at the hands of these individuals and groups. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9th July, 1952.