I suppose it is natural, when dealing with local Government, that our first remarks should be confined to the problem of housing. It seems that we and the people as a whole are expected to be convinced by the Minister for Local Government that the housing problem is really solved. I believe it is about time that we face the problem regarding housing and admit that it is anything near being solved.
It is an extraordinary situation if we look back over the years. In 1948 the local authorities were encouraged to build houses. So we did in every county of the Twenty-Six, thanks be to God, but the hands of the local authorities, their officials and members were then free to allow them to face the problem of providing decent homes for the people in their areas. As the years moved on, we arrived at the extraordinary situation where the Department and the Minister for Local Government are a real hindrance to the progressive views and desires of the staff and the members of many local authorities.
It is extraordinary. The unfortunate man, without a decent home, applies to become a tenant of a local authority cottage. First he must pass the local test. The county housing superintendent will report on his housing conditions. The county medical officer of health will do likewise. The engineers will be brought into it. Then he must go through a further test. Will he be passed by the Department of Local Government under the presidency, as it were, of the Minister?
Surely, if any Minister for Local Government insists that the reports of the responsible officials in a local government area are in themselves not sufficient, that must cast a reflection on local authority members and on the staffs? A few months ago, we heard the Minister object to members speaking of officials in local authorities. Now it is my turn to draw attention to the fact that officials are being castigated, because of the efforts by local authorities to rehouse people, by none other than the Minister.
It is about time the Minister realised that local authorities have, on the whole, been prepared to meet their responsibilities in a fair way. It is about time they were given a little freer hand in trying to rehouse these unfortunate people rather than be stymied by the Minister. Yes, I know what I am speaking about.
I know of many instances where honourable men, members of the staff of the Department of Local Government, because they were instructed to do so, had to go down the country and examine and re-examine the applications of people who by now should be housed by the local authorities but, because of the policy of the Local Government Minister, are held up. It is about time that stopped. People may wish for a change of Government. Parties may differ. Different Parties may believe their policy should be the one in operation.
The one policy connected with the Fianna Fáil Government I strongly condemn is the policy on local government which is the greatest hindrance I know in South Cork to the building of the many homes we wish had been built long before now. I will go further I am sorry the Minister for Local Government is not here now but perhaps my remarks may be conveyed to him.
Schemes submitted by the Cork County Council, Southern Committee, for the building of a cheaper type of cottage were held in the Department for 18 long months. All the queries that came to the surface were amazing. As soon as some objections were dealt with by the responsible county architect, who got his position because of his high qualifications, some further miserable, petty objections were raised.
It was over 18 months before they could give sanction. Then, when a few of these houses were built, when it was shown they were built at lower cost than the conventional type, when it was proved they were a superior type of house, we had many officials from the Department of Local Government and many officials from all parts of the country coming to see these houses. What an awful pity that sanction was not given earlier for the building of this new type of house?
It is about time some of the petty objections were ended. God be with the time when a man believed that, as Minister for Local Government, he was the boss there. God be with the time when a Minister for Local Government, the late T.J. Murphy, God rest his soul, not alone was Minister for Local Government in name but was also so by his actions.
At present, again, there are requests from the South Cork County Council area for sanction for the acquisition of sites for building—compulsory purchase orders. What has happened? Why are they in the Custom House for so long? Is anything being done about them? Does the Minister realise that the applications sent up in these instances deal with the problem of people without decent homes? What pleasure is there in holding these applications for such a long period and doing nothing about them? It is about time something were done about them.
It is about time the Minister for Local Government understood that these applications are not made in a frivolous manner. A little speed is needed in his Department to deal with the problem of housing. I am sure what applies in South Cork must equally apply in many other parts of the country.
Then we have the problem of reconstruction grants. Over the years, different Governments have seen fit, in so far as they could do so financially, to encourage people to carry out reconstruction work. A fair amount of work has been done by the grants availed of through the Department and through the local authority. An extraordinary situation now seems to emerge again. It did arise some years back. There was a little easement in it but now we are at the stage of applications being in the Department for months without being cleared.
Far be it from me to blame any official in the Department in the Custom House who is dealing with reconstruction. I should say here and now, wishing to have it on the record, that my experience of these officials is that they are most helpful and most anxious to be of assistance in every way possible. However, the bottleneck in connection with reconstruction is again a problem for the Minister for Local Government. Why not have enough inspectors?
The application, when received in the Department, is sent down to the local inspector and then, as I know to my grief in many cases I have been dealing with, it is many months before it is cleared by him. It may not be his fault and I know of cases where it was not the inspector's fault. It was simply a case of the Minister demanding of an inspector in some areas far more returns than any one man could give in a fair time.
Nobody should know better than the Minister that if he is desirous of speeding up these reconstruction grants, he will have to put on the field sufficient inspectors to deal with the original applications and with the final clearance of the application for grant. That is essential. Very many applications are made at a time when the applicants hope to get the work done during the spring and summer months. Unfortunately, from their experience, by applying in the spring they have as little hope of doing any reconstruction in the summer period as they would if they applied at the start of June and July. It is unreasonable to expect these people to wait so long.
Naturally enough, costs are bound to increase when it comes to the period of the year, from October, for building work. There is another angle to the reconstruction problem. I have in mind the case of an unfortunate woman who carried out work which, as far as she knew, was to the satisfaction of the inspector. There was one problem which the inspector could not straighten out without the woman carrying out extra work. That work was done and he informed the Department that the work was done. She then expected that she would get the grant from the Department to which she was entitled but, strangely enough, another report came in pointing out that there was further work to be done before she could get the grant. That happened a third time.
From my inquiries I discovered that in that area the Minister for Local Government, over a short period of time, had three different inspectors. The result was that the approach of one man varied from that of the man before him. The approach of the third man varied from the approaches of the first two. The third man pointed out that there were a few window fasteners missing and also a sash cord in a window. Surely we must have some regularity in inspections. The tragedy in this case is that the woman, in order to meet her commitments to the builder, had to borrow the money from the bank. Then we are told of the benefits of the grants from the Department of Local Government.
It is vitally important that the problem of inspections should be completely overhauled, that sufficient inspectors be provided, and also that inspections should be based on some recognised standard. We should not have each man varying his inspections according to what he may wish. Adequate allowances should also be made in the case of the valuation of the costing of the work of reconstruction. I know that there are no cases in which the estimate of the Department will compare favourably with the estimate supplied by contractors to a would-be applicant for a reconstruction grant. Of course the Department of Local Government is gaining by this. The person may have to spend £500 on reconstruction and cannot have the amount reduced by one penny under that amount, but the inspector, on behalf of the Minister, in his valuation of that work may assess it as roughly £360 or £370. Of course the Local Government reconstruction grant is based then on the lower valuation of the work being done by the applicant.
Again, there is another joke in connection with reconstruction. When he is submitting the original application, the applicant must also get a form signed by the local authority to verify that the house is fit for reconstruction. What a waste of time! Where would you find a man or woman in the Twenty-Six Counties who would be lunatic enough to spend money—because they have to provide their own share—for the reconstruction of a house if it is not suitable for reconstruction? It is a waste of time and money to require local authorities to have their engineers inspect such houses and verify them as being fit for reconstruction. There is, of course, this other fly in the ointment. It is the case of a person applying for a new home, who is living in bad housing conditions, and who is told through the Minister for Local Government that the house is fit for repair. That of course would mean there would be no new home for that person. In many instances the landlord will not repair such a house.
I have in mind some cases of men living in houses belonging to farmers, but not working for the farmers in question. In one case, when a man applied for a cottage, the house was not condemned because the engineer's report was that the house could be repaired. Certainly the house would be fit for repair at a cost of £300, or perhaps more, but nobody could compel the owner to repair that house. I know the Minister can say that the local authority can do it and that the law provides that the local authority can arrange to get the rent from that tenant until the cost is cleared. That may appear well on paper but it does not work out in practice.
All that the farmer has to do, after the house has been repaired, is to tell the tenant that he wants the house for a workman working for him. Then the unfortunate man is out on the road. I believe where local government is concerned the first important item to be dealt with is housing. As I said, it is far from being clear in South Cork and I am sure in many other areas. There is no use in the Minister for Local Government issuing statements saying that the housing problem has nearly been dealt with while we are still in the midst of this problem and while we still have the acute problem of young people who want to get married and for whom there are no homes. Instead of spending money in other ways we should realise that far more money could be utilised to the benefit of our people in rural Ireland as well as urban Ireland if the Minister would endeavour to solve these problems as regards the housing of these people.
There is another problem and I do not know how far the Minister can go to solve it. It is of the utmost importance to many cottage tenants. This is the problem of tenants of vested cottages. Originally when these people became vested tenants it cost the local authority the very large sum of approximately 10/- to have the cottage registered in the tenant's name. With the death of the tenant, be he farm worker or road worker, while there is no difficulty as regards the transfer of the cottage to the next of kin, whether it be his widow, son or daughter, there is great difficulty as regards the legal fees.
I have come across cases where the cost was anything up to £15. Such a sum is far beyond the means of a son, daughter or widow of a farm worker or a road worker. I am convinced, if it only cost 10/- in the first instance to have the cottage registered in the name of the original tenant, that these legal fees could be avoided if the Minister for Local Government would examine the situation. It is one problem that is affecting a large number of people. It is one problem that will ultimately create many more difficulties because these people will not be able to have the cottages legally vested in them on transfer and, in years to come, there will probably be more trouble and more difficulty in relation to the legal ownership of council cottages and houses than there will be in any other sphere of activity of the Department of Local Government.
Many members of the Minister's own Party have expressed their view on this matter at meetings of the Southern Committee of the county councils. I would ask the Minister to investigate the position to see if there is any way in which clearance could be given by the Minister to local authorities to deal with the second transfer in the same way as they deal with the first registration. I am not, of course, advocating any financial benefit for people who might wish to transfer solely for the purpose of selling the cottages and making a big profit. All I ask is that in a genuine transfer from the original tenant to a member of his family something will be done to relieve him of these financial burdens.
There is an extraordinary situation arising month after month in relation to the vesting of cottages. So far as repairs are concerned there is a conflict between the local authority engineers and members and secondly, between the Minister and his Department, the engineers and the members, in the matter of sufficient or insufficient repairs. I have seen cottages repaired, prepared for vesting, the tenants appealing to the Minister, an inspector coming down, reports being made, and then the cottage is vested without being put into proper repair.
I have condemned that practice, I believe rightly so, at meetings of the local authority and I have condemned local officials for their irresponsibility. I now bring the matter home to the Minister. The inspectors from his Department seem to close their eyes to the necessity for adequate repairs being carried out before these cottages are vested. In many cases, the tenant is an unfortunate old man or old woman who knows little or nothing about the necessary repairs, until he or she is informed the cottage is vested and he or she will henceforth be responsible for all repairs. Six months later, they find to their dismay that the cottages are in such a condition that they are faced with a bill they can never hope to meet. I have seen cottages where slates were loose, where the local engineers refused to repair, where the Minister's inspector passed them as all right. A few months after, the loose slates had fallen off, and more slates with them.
Many members of the Minister's Party, particularly the chairman of the Southern Committee—he is now interested in another part of the county—can give the Minister the facts about an old lady who has been before the Southern Committee in the past few months begging for some assistance for repairs to be carried out to her cottage near the village of Carrignavar. The Minister has not yet given clearance because, in this instance, as in many other instances, an inspector inspected the cottage and informed the Department that a certain amount of work had to be done. That work may be done, but what proof has the Minister afterwards that the work has been carried out?
If the Minister, on the recommendation of his inspector, notifies the council of the necessity for carrying out certain work, surely the onus is on the Minister to see that the work is carried out properly to the benefit of the tenant. The Minister tells the local authority to do a certain amount of work. After that, the Minister knows no more. He assumes the local authority will do the work. It is most unfair to tenants that they should become vested owners of cottages which are not in a proper state of repair and which subsequently cost the tenants a great deal of money to put into proper repair.
With regard to roads, a great deal of money is being spent on roads and credit is due to all concerned for the many improvements made. Sometimes I wonder why our roads are finished in the way they are? I wonder if we will be safe on some of our roads. After a few showers, some roads are turned almost into skating rinks. The surface is highly dangerous. If some crude oil from diesel lorries is deposited on the surface or there are a few showers after a long spell of dry weather, the most extraordinary skids occur. There is no reason why we should turn our roads into glassed-topped tables.
There is then the employment content in work on the roads. Some years ago, men employed on the roads were very happy. They knew their job would last for nine, ten or 11 months of the year. That has all changed. Over a number of years now, I have seen men starting work in April. When it comes to August, it is one week in two or three for them. That is unfair. It is a denial of their rights because they are being denied the benefits of the superannuation scheme under which they need approximately 90 days' work in the year. It was difficult enough to get that Bill passed here. Only for the hard work put into it, there would have been no results. That Bill is now on the statute book.
I fail to understand a policy which denies these men the benefit of a pension because they are denied a sufficient number of days' work to qualify for that pension. The Minister may say that is a matter for the local authority. I say it is not. I have yet to see any application from Cork —I cannot speak for other counties— for the purchase of additional machinery turned down by the Minister for Local Government.
Back in 1953, I considered it my duty to speak about this to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Local Government. That drew attention to the fact that even then we were approaching the stage of automation in local authority road work. We have gone from bad to worse and now in County Cork we are paying £6 or £6 10s. a day to a man with a tractor, with a red flag in front and another behind, to cut the grass on the brow of the dykes on the road. At one time, when a couple of men were employed on that work, at least they gave a fair return and the money they earned helped to provide the necessaries of life for a couple of families. Now, machinery is employed on many of these jobs and a few men are engaged to attend the machines. That is the result of this mad desire by local authorities, encouraged by the Minister for Local Government, to employ machinery. That has not arisen within the last three or four years. The practice existed even before that. For the last three or four years local authorities have known that they would never be refused sanction for thousands of pounds for machinery.
A certain amount of machinery is necessary but it is the excessive use of machinery, amounting to almost complete automation, on county council roads, that is creating a bad situation for many families by the fact that the wage earner is unemployed from the month of August on and has to sign for the dole for another two weeks or so and is informed at the end of the year that because he had not a sufficient number of days' employment he is without the benefit of the Act for that year again. The result in County Cork is more unemployment for men in rural areas, more employment and greater profit for the owners of machinery and, for the men, ultimately emigration. That is a problem we are facing in many areas in South Cork. The local farmers who employ, perhaps, one or two men constantly, are not looking for outside help.
Even at this late stage, if the Minister for Local Government had a thorough investigation of the amount of money being spent by local authorities on the provision of machinery or the hire of machinery for road work, instead of holding up the building of cottages in many of these areas, it would be better for himself and better for South Cork.
Deputy O'Sullivan referred to the work carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The discontinuance of that important work is deplorable. I took a natural pride in the fact that the man who instituted that scheme and got it passed by Dáil Éireann had his roots in rural Ireland, who knew the problem of people whose land was inundated with water, who realised that by encouraging local authorities by this important Act much valuable work could be done for the benefit of land owners, the general public and those seeking employment.
For some years past works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act were discontinued. The Minister, within the last 12 months, did say that any local authority may carry out such work. We know they could, provided they put up 100 per cent. of the cost. I ask Deputies to consider the amount of work given under this important heading, the results of which are known to everyone in County Cork. There was no justification for the discontinuance of that important work. If the Minister desires to improve the employment situation in County Cork for road workers, one valuable way of doing so is to reintroduce schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act which will also have the effect of improving many areas still awaiting drainage.
Deputy O'Sullivan and others mentioned the proposals for swimming pools. As I said yesterday at a local authority meeting, it is all very fine for members of local authorities to ask for reports from their engineers. I often wonder how long we can continue to fool the public in regard to the provision of swimming pools. When are we going to tell them about the cost? The Minister issued a circular to all local authorities. Were any figures submitted as regards the approximate cost? We know the difficulty local authorities have in meeting their commitments and collecting the rates. It is incumbent on the Minister to give some idea of the cost of providing swimming pools. He did say in the circular that indoor baths would be very expensive. We know that, but I also believe that outdoor baths would be very expensive. I am not opposing it on the basis of cost. I am anxious to know how we can meet the cost even with the proposals of the Minister to meet some of the cost through the Department.
What I am most anxious about is the location of these swimming pools. Some members of the local authority pointed out at the meeting yesterday the necessity for swimming pools in seaside resorts. I come from a seaside area. I have lived all my life by the broad Atlantic but I maintain that we must provide swimming pools, first of all, in inland areas where the people have not the benefit of natural swimming facilities. The Minister could help by giving guidance or suggestions to local authorities that in preparing such schemes they should concentrate first on the provision of swimming pools in inland areas far removed from seaside resorts. We want to see our seaside resorts improved but it is of equal importance to afford to people in inland areas the benefits which they could have by the provision of swimming pools.
The Minister did not go far enough in this circular to local authorities. He did not point out the importance of starting in inland areas first. It will take years before this problem can be solved or nearly solved. It is important, therefore, to start with the inland areas.
Then there is the question about which we have heard so much for a long time back, the question of piped water supplies. I am all for it, but I am all for telling the public the truth about it. I remember a few months ago when we were expecting information at a meeting of the local authority about the programme of piped water supplies for South Cork. We could not get any information because, as the manager rightly explained, it would take the engineer in charge a long time to provide or prepare a report dealing with South Cork, and that was only part of the county. It was pointed out how long it would take to get the necessary information and to have it documented, prepared and presented for a meeting of the members.
While we were waiting for that information, and while we were satisfied that the delay was not caused by any official, the Minister was in a famous building in Dublin telling all and sundry who came on excursions to Dublin about the piped water supply campaign. Among the exhibits was a large map of the whole of South Cork with every house and cottage, with a line drawn from one to the other illustrating the piped water supply plan, at a time when the local authority knew nothing about it.
Surely we must start at the beginning and end at the end. Surely we must give up this window-dressing of getting the people to believe: "We have something wonderful in the Mansion House in Dublin," while we are still waiting for the preliminary reports in South Cork. I do not know if that applied to all the local authorities, but certainly there was a map of South Cork when we were still at the stage of planning. What was not explained to the people is something I think the people should know, that is, how long they may be waiting before they get a piped water supply.
When these proposals were adumbrated and published by the Minister, the people in the different areas were charmed and they got the impression that in a short time they would have no trouble except to turn on a tap. While that would apply to some people who can afford to avail of the grants to which Deputy O'Sullivan referred, I am concerned with the thousands of families who can never afford to avail of such grants. I told those people—and I think I told them the truth—that a tapped water supply in the rural areas will be something like the E.S.B. in the 1930's, roughly, when they started lighting up some villages, but many villages have yet to get rural electrification. I believe water in the tap will be the same. Perhaps in a year or two some villages will get it, and perhaps in 30 years, many of them will be still without it.
The southern committee of the council in Cork have offered to do their share. I was a party to agreeing to provide £200,000 during the next five years as part of a plan, the cost of which we do not know at this stage. I am taking a chance. I believe that even if it is an imposition on the rates, it is our duty and the duty of everyone who carries responsibility to help his neighbour to get this amenity. We are as far from knowing the ultimate cost or anything like it as we were at the introduction of the Health Bill in the 1952-53 period.
I consider, therefore, that it should be made known to the people. I read articles in a certain Sunday newspaper, Sunday after Sunday, by men in different spheres of life—professional men, county managers and other people—expressing their views. With one or two exceptions, I found they all took the line of encouraging the people to believe that there would be water in the taps in a very short time. I consider that the truth is essential. A Minister should tell the truth, no matter what Government may be in power, whether it be Fianna Fáil or any other Government. I believe the truth is that in 30 years' time many a village in rural Ireland will still be looking for a piped water supply.
We are still suffering in local government from the bugbear of the power of the few while we know so much is the responsibility of the many. For many years, of course, certain associations were illegal and in correspondence and discussions with the Minister on many occasions I pointed that out. Of course we know what brought it around to the point where they were brought to the stage of being made legal. We know what happened when they got negotiating licences. The Minister is a member of a local authority and the people in Donegal are now having the experience which we have had. The managerial system, I hold, to a certain degree can give benefits where we get co-operation between managers, officials and members, but we have come to the stage where the local authorities are, as it were, the preserves of the county managers. That does not lead to the healthy co-operation we would all wish for.
I know that men of different political Parties and opinions are anxious to bale out from membership of local authorities because they find so often that they are nothing more than rubber stamps in the hands of the county managers. County managers should in their own way be county co-operators. Where the county manager is prepared to trample not only on the views but on every angle of responsibility that should be the responsibility of members, we have reached a situation at which the local authorities and local government cannot thrive in the manner we would wish in these areas.
These remarks are based on hard experience and they represent the views of members of the Minister's Party as well as those of members of the Labour Party. I would say to the Minister that, first of all, they should not have got negotiating licences. Secondly they should have no right to go to the Custom House, have discussions with the Minister and decide among themselves what line they will take, and have the proposals of one county manager put into operation in other counties as well. That will not help us, and if it continues, the day will come when either local government, as we know it in these areas, will be a complete failure and fiasco, in the hands of local dictators, or the local dictators will have to move with the stream.