Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Local Government (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Thursday, 6 Jul 1961

Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."— (Deputy O'Donnell.)

Sir Anthony Esmonde

When I reported progress on the night before last, acting as night watchman, I had concluded my remarks in relation to housing but before I leave the subject I should like to thank the officials of the Department of Local Government for the courtesy they have always shown me. As the Minister knows, there are many small snags and difficulties in relation to housing which are hard to clear up. I have always had the greatest co-operation from the officials of the Department of Local Government in helping me to get around these difficulties and to secure the grants due to my constituents.

In his opening address on this Estimate the Minister referred to bathing sites and also to derelict sites. I understand the policy of the Government is to provide facilities for people to swim. That of course is very desirable from the point of view of health, life saving, and so on, and I somehow associate the two things, derelict sites and the bathing site programme of the Government. In Dublin there are dreadful eyesores in the canals in that they are full of weeds and dirt of every description. If anything constitutes a derelict site, it is the Dublin canals. Every year they become more cluttered up with weeds, rubbish, bits of bedsteads. Two problems could be dealt with simultaneously. It should be possible to provide bathing places on the canals for the citizens of Dublin and the cleaning of the canals for that purpose would eliminate the eyesore that they at present constitute.

The programme of the Minister for Local Government for the provision of swimming pools seems to me to be rather ambitious. He envisages the construction of swimming pools in various parts of the city. There are various places which for the expenditure of a small sum of money could be converted for that purpose, thus providing facilities for the citizens of Dublin and saving the State considerable expense.

I come now to the question of roads. The Minister admitted that there is a great deal more money coming into the Exchequer from roads than heretofore. He indicates that there would be a slight transference of the money being expended on main roads to secondary and county roads. I am never very clear as to what exactly a county road is. Not being a member of a local authority, I am a little bit vague on this subject. The greater part of the expenditure on roads has been on main roads. I have always felt that the main road schemes are very ambitious and very expensive. Anybody who doubts that might motor from Dublin to my constituency, Wexford, and he will find that during the last 12 months there has been nothing but major reconstruction schemes going on.

The mentality of those who preside over such schemes appears to be to remove any sort of corner that exists, regardless of expense, and alter the road so as to make it as straight as possible. There are three schemes in progress between Dublin and below the borders of Wexford, the expenditure on which must be running into many thousands of pounds. The whole surface of the road is being rooted up and the whole route is being altered. In fact, the road is going through fields at certain points. In one case they filled up an enormous quarry to take the road over it. That seems to me doubtful expenditure of public money.

In continental Europe and in Britain one of the difficulties people are faced with is that these very long straight roads are a source of danger, particularly at night, when there are long avenues of traffic going in either direction and headlights beaming. It does not make for safety to have a long straight road. If the Minister or his officials would care to investigate the position in Germany, France and other European countries they will find that large sums of money are being expended there to do the reverse of what we are doing here, to create artificial bends for the safety of the motoring public. They are also concentrating on road signs, for which they use luminous paint. I fail to see why we should not carry out a similar programme here.

Admittedly, there are very bad bends here and there which it may be desirable to alter. If we were to try to straighten the roads in Donegal, in the Minister's constituency, it would cost several millions of pounds. I do not think there is an excessive number of accidents in that county and there is a good deal of traffic there because as far as I can see tourism is concentrated mainly in Donegal. If my suggestion were carried out there would be a lot of money available for expenditure on secondary roads. The argument always is that we must have first class roads for tourists. That is nonsense. The object of the Road Fund is to give everyone a fair return. A great deal of the revenue paid into the Road Fund and subsequently distributed to the various counties comes from the people living in the highways and byways.

People have come to me to tell me that there are ten or twelve families living on a country road, each one of which is paying tax on a tractor and a car and that they are getting literally no return whatsoever. Equality of treatment is essential. These country roads should be properly reconstructed. I know of one road where there are 31 houses and on which a farmyard cart would be shaken to pieces. Under the regulations it is classified as third or fourth-class and therefore cannot be repaired or resurfaced. The only thing that would save this road would be if it connected two villages, which it does not. It connects two counties—Wicklow and Wexford. The people living on that road, despite the heavy taxation they pay, have to endure the bumps they get when driving on that road which would shake a farmyard cart to pieces in no time. The Minister ought to give consideration to these matters.

I come now to a section of the Minister's Department which gives grants for certain roads for tourist purposes. As far as I know, and speaking subject to correction, the amount of such grants received in County Wexford is nil. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Wexford is an avenue of entry to this country. The Rosslare-Dublin road is one of the main roads. Many cars come in through Rosslare. There should be a well-surfaced road there. That is not the position. To my knowledge no money has been expended on that road in the past four or five years. In addition to resurfacing, the road should be widened. A considerable volume of traffic uses the road. I cannot think of anything that would give a worse impression to tourists than to drive over a bad and narrow road, in many places so narrow as to be dangerous. I suggest to the Minister that it would be far better to expend money on improving such a road rather than on removing corners where that is not necessary or desirable.

I do not propose to say very much in regard to water supplies because if I started to talk on that subject no other Deputy would get in at all today. It is a controversial matter. The difficulty about a piped water supply in Ireland is the layout of the country as a whole. Traditionally, for centuries, people have lived in isolated districts. It is quite different from the position in other countries. In other countries there is almost invariably a concentration in the towns and villages. The farmers live in collective units in the villages and small towns. That is not the pattern in rural Ireland. No doubt the Minister has given a great deal of consideration to this problem. I know that he is very interested in the idea of giving a piped water supply to the entire country. That would greatly facilitate the Minister for Health in his fluoridation scheme. We could then give fluoride to everybody instead of just 40 per cent. of our people. However, that is by the way.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention now to the fact that the regional supply for South Wexford has been on the stocks for 10 years. I came in here in 1951. It was on the stocks then. I have no idea how long before that it was on the stocks. I have persistently pressed to have that scheme implemented. I am happy to relate that water will be switched on in certain areas at the end of this month. It took 10 years to reach that point. I do not know if that is anybody's fault in particular. There may have been some extra correspondence between the Minister's Department and the local authority. I know that some delay was caused because the legal position had to be established. Pipes had to be laid through people's lands. A particular type of machine had to be imported for pumping the water. I am told we had to wait for something like two years to get the requisite machinery from Britain. It is very easy to make a speech down the country and say: "I will give rural Ireland a piped water supply." That cannot be done by waving a magic wand. Apart from the fact that it will cost millions, it will also take a considerable time.

I have seen plans in my own county for certain water supplies. Some of them are feasible, such as the proposed extension from Gorey to Courtown. Courtown is a very popular holiday resort. We are a warm-hearted people in Wexford and we are glad to welcome others to our midst. That scheme is feasible and one that could be put into effect fairly rapidly. Other schemes would take years. Some Deputies may think that I do not want people to get piped water. That is not so. There is another side to the picture. Many people have expended considerable sums for the purpose of giving themselves a proper water supply. Others are in the process of equipping themselves in like manner. They cannot afford to wait for four or five years.

The farmers in South Wexford must have a water supply because of the new cheese factory. They must produce first-class milk for manufacture into cheese. That cheese, incidentally, is for export. Those who supply themselves with water will, if this scheme comes into operation, find themselves forced to pay increased rates. It is no use pretending the scheme will not cost money. It will cause a considerable rise in rates. I do not wish to negative improvements. I admit that if a Deputy criticises projects adumbrated by the Government he should, at the same time offer some constructive suggestions.

I believe, because of contour and the lay-out of villages, towns and farms, a group water supply is the proper answer to the problem. We have a very active engineer in Wexford and he is very keen on local schemes in which 10 or 12 people group together to equip themselves with a proper water supply. They have the benefit of a Government grant. I believe such schemes are more appropriate in rural Ireland than an enormous scheme such as that suggested by the Minister. There are areas where a piped water supply on the lines suggested might be desirable and necessary. In areas in which it is difficult to get water it would be an admirable scheme. In areas in which the water is in some way unpalatable it should be an admirable scheme. I should like the Minister to consider these aspects before sanctioning a scheme which will cost millions and which will have the effect of increasing the rates very considerably.

The rates are high enough already in rural Ireland. An increase in rates will hit not only the big man and the middle man but the small man and the cottier as well. Everybody will have to pay. The proposed scheme might well mean an increase of 2/8d. in the £, if it stops at that.

Recently we had quite an extensive discussion here on the Road Traffic Bill. Many suggestions have been put forward for making the roads safer. The area in which traffic is most dense and in which congestion is an enormous problem is the City of Dublin. It is due mainly to bottlenecks and to streets being made even narrower because of parking. Could not the Minister in consultation with the Dublin Corporation build parking places, either overhead or underground, to help to solve this traffic congestion? That has been done in other cities. The charge made more than pays. The Dublin streets were constructed in an era in which there was no possibility of congestion. There is not a street today that is not choked with traffic. That is one of the reasons for the jams and the delays. These hit not only the citizens but also the people coming up from the country, people who may have only a few hours to spend in the capital.

Mr. Kyne

I should like to bring to the Minister's attention a number of grievances which have arisen in my constituency in the last year. I should like to seek his advice and assistance in relation to an unusual position which has developed relative to the erection of labourers' cottages in County Waterford. Within the past week, through questions asked at Waterford County Council, I was made aware of a case concerning a painter engaged in a hospital in Waterford city who occupied the tenancy of an excellent Corporation house built within the past three or four years. He was transferred from that Corporation house to a labourer's cottage outside the city bounds not-withstanding the fact that agicultural workers with larger families and lower wages were seeking the tenancy of that cottage.

As a quid pro quo there was an arrangement—nobody indicated who was responsible for it—whereby a labourer in County Waterford was transferred to a vacant Corporation house. That may seem a desirable process—moving one from the city to the county and another from the county back into the city—if it were the wish of both parties and if the housing authorities concerned felt it was a genuine case. In this case however, the individual who was to be transferred to the Corporation house could not possibly afford to pay the rent being charged. He pointed out to me that his total wage in winter would be something less than £6 a week and he would be required to pay 26/2d. a week rent and rates to the Corporation whereas if he secured, as he was legally entitled to, the tenancy of the council cottage the rent would not exceed 8/- a week. I suggest to the Minister that attempts to manipulate the tenancies of labourers' cottages and interfere with the prerogative of the rural workers should not be tolerated and that he should investigate this case which has occurred within the past fortnight or three weeks.

I was delighted to hear the Minister say in his speech that there was now no financial reason why houses should not be provided for those in need of them. If that is so, why is there a hold-up in the proposed scheme of labourers' cottages in County Waterford? The Minister and his officials must be aware that since 1951 we have been endeavouring to provide cottages for those in need of them. We have had surveys in 1951, 1954, 1957 and we had one in 1960. But we have not erected any cottages with the exception of portion of a scheme of four and one trial cottage.

It is no fault of the county council. We have submitted for contract, with the Minister's sanction, a housing scheme on a number of occasions. The Minister must be aware we have been unable to secure contractors within the figure he has stipulated and, as a result, sanction was refused. The present position is that we are unable to secure contractors within the limit fixed and we are unable to build by direct labour within the limit fixed. We endeavoured to erect by direct labour and we did build one, but we were £200 or £300 over the price the Minister indicated he would sanction.

Whether or not the Minister feels there is a ring in Waterford and that there is a need for tightening up in regard to the price, I would honestly say that the type of cottage proposed to be erected in Waterford is of a higher standard than those in the adjoining county of South Tipperary. I understand South Tipperary County Council have not found any difficulty in securing contractors at a price approximate to that the Minister was prepared to sanction for Waterford. But the fact remains that in Waterford we are in urgent need of cottages. People are living in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, but because of the price restriction imposed, we are unable to get contractors or to build by direct labour. As has been asked by the county council, the Minister should invite a deputation representative of the county manager, officials and the members to discuss with him the problem in this respect. It is desperate to think that in a situation in which there is an urgent need for houses and in which the Minister states in public there is no financial reason to prevent houses being built, these urgently needed houses in Waterford are not being proceeded with.

I should like to draw to the Minister's attention the need of putting pressure on the contractor who has contracted to build the 34 house scheme in the town of Dungarvan. We had the promise that he would start in the first week in April, but due to circumstances over which he had no control at the time—he was unable to get vacant possession of the site because two former residents refused to leave—he had to delay until proceedings had been taken. However, that is over now and for the past few weeks the local authority have been seeking the contractor throughout the country to get him to sign the bonds and go ahead with this scheme which would give much needed employment. The Minister should use his influence either to get the contractor to carry out his contract or else give us permission to give the contract to the next person on the list.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has seen fit to extend the income limit in connection with the S.D.A. supplementary grant. Too strict a means test simply means you are not encouraging the type of people capable of building their own houses and thus relieving various local authorities of the responsibility of providing houses for them. The extension from £800 to over £1,000 is a step in the right direction. In fact, prior to the Minister's speech, I had a note of my intention to request him to do something in that direction. I am very glad, therefore, to welcome this announcement by him.

I, too, welcome the Minister's introduction of the Derelict Sites Act last year. Over a long number of years I have continuously on this Estimate pressed for just such a decision. I was of the opinion that it was a desperate position in this country where, by making a building derelict by removing the chimney place, you could avoid the payment of rates. I advocated at the time that unless a person completely removed an old building from his land he should get no remission of rates at all. It would be an encouragement for people to clean up these eyesores which we see at the entrance to the towns in Ireland and often even in rural areas where a number of derelict buildings, stripped of the roofs and with gaunt walls, stand at the entrance to a town. It gives a very poor impression to tourists or other visitors travelling throughout what could otherwise be one of the most beautiful countries in the world.

I should like to query the Minister as to the rights of county councils in connection with contributions made by them on behalf of the tenants of cottages in connection with the Special Employment Scheme grants. As the Minister is aware, if a number of farmers on a road seek a grant from the Special Employment Schemes Office they get a figure with an amount of money to be contributed by those living on the road or having land adjoining the road and who are using the roadway. In certain cases we find on that road, including the farmers, one, two, three or more labourers' cottages.

In my council we have endeavoured to see that our tenants will get the advantage of the improved service on the roads if a grant is made. In view of the fact that the local people have to contribute eight per cent of the money, we felt in all fairness, as the landowner or the cottages owner in this case, we were entitled to contribute a certain sum per cottage towards the repair of that road as well as giving an assurance at the same time that once the road had been brought up to standard we would undertake to take it over and make it a public road.

I understand that some difference of opinion has arisen between the Department of Local Government and the county council on this matter. The feeling now is that a decision has been given and that we are not entitled to make a grant. I would be anxious that the Minister should clarify that position. If it is so, I would be anxious that a decision that the council were not entitled to provide a certain sum of money towards the repairing of the road would be altered.

Another question raised by a number of Deputies was the power of the County Managers' Association. I am not completely biassed in any way against the county managers forming an association to provide a uniformity of decision throughout a county or a number of counties, but I would object to the position whereby a decision can be taken which is binding on a county without the consent of the people who are the elected representatives.

Let me refer to a specific case. I am sure I am not in any way impinging on a case which is sub judice in the sense that it was dealt with by the Labour Court on Tuesday last. I will make no further comment beyond saying that a decision was made by the County Managers' Association to bring forward one representative only to argue the case from the managers' side in connection with eight or nine counties. I feel that each county manager should be compelled to deal with his own county or two counties if both were under a common managership. A decision, say, by the County Waterford representatives on wage conditions and benefits given to their road workers, overseers, drivers and servants in general should be an individual decision not tied up with any other county or any other area other than Waterford where the people pay the piper. This attempt at a common wage for county council workers throughout Ireland is undesirable and will certainly be resisted by the trade union movement if at all possible.

I was wondering if the Minister had noticed this matter in the British papers. If he did not, his officials did and drew his attention to it. A law has been passed in Britain forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquor on the main motoring highways of Great Britain— the M.1 and other new motoring highways. We are now in the process of developing our main highways in a manner somewhat similar to that in Britain. I believe that within a couple of years we will have a dual carriageway connecting Naas and Dublin as the main artery to the South from the capital. I was wondering whether the Minister contemplated introducing legislation similar to that which has been passed in Great Britain. The significant feature in connection with that was that support for the idea came from all sides of the House. I understand it was an amendment by a Labour member to a Government Bill. It received support from all sides of the House. I suggest this is a matter that the Minister might very well consider with a view to helping to cut down the appalling number of road accidents in recent years.

One of the greatest grievances we have in County Waterford concerns the delay in the vesting of labourers' cottages. As I understand it, in the past years, 30 or 40 years, the title deeds of sites upon which cottages were erected were not very carefully examined. Sometimes, in respect of cottages erected in the old days, to find the actual owner of the site can be an unusually long and expensive process. As a result, the tenants of numbers of cottages who have applied as far back as four, five or six years ago are held up pending the clearing of title.

Not only that but, due to a fixed policy of the council, delays in urgent repairs are frequently manoeuvred so that, when the title is cleared and the cottage is receiving its final repair for ultimate vesting, that repair will coincide with the vesting of the cottage. That means that not only is one held up in the vesting, which reduces the rent by 50 per cent., but one is held up, for that period, for urgent repairs that normally would have been carried out if an application for vesting had not been put in.

If there is any help the Minister can give to his officials in the Department in Dublin it would be very warmly welcomed by the County Waterford housing authorities. I would also suggest that schemes such as those outlined by the Department for the purchase of rural houses under local authorities such as urban councils appear not to have met with the satisfaction that has been expressed with the labourers' cottages scheme. It is significant I think that in my local authority we have initiated two different type of schemes. Up to date, although the schemes have been there for the past two to three years, I do not think more than one house has been purchased. I feel it would be a direct encouragement to better citizenship if a number of workers in a town were so attracted by a scheme that they would become owners of their own houses. Not only would it give a sense of responsibility to care for the house in the future but it would also take from the shoulders of ratepayers in a town that burden of carrying out repairs that are very often rendered necessary by the carelessness of the tenants.

The Minister should give thought to the improvement of the conditions under which a council can provide a scheme. It is a difficult task but, as I understand it, there are limits set by the Department to the type of scheme that can be provided by a local authority. Admittedly these limits have not secured the approval of the people necessary to make the scheme a success, that is, the tenants of the local authorities.

In the hearing of a certain law case, now concluded, reference was made to a direct labour scheme and the value of it. The case which had been heard seemed to indicate that direct labour schemes needed very careful scrutiny and should give food for thought to all local authorities in the future as to the value of direct labour versus contracts. While that might be indicated from the evidence given, at that period, in that council in that same city, a direct labour scheme second to none in Ireland was carried out by the officials of that same corporation with excellent results. It would be a very sad day for Waterford Corporation or indeed for any other corporation or local authority that they should allow themselves to be misguided by the remarks made or influenced by them in any way.

Mr. Sherwin

In regard to the criticism that the Minister is lacking in his support of the housing programmes, I do not think that is altogether fair as far as Dublin is concerned. There was a lay-off in the building of houses in Dublin for a few years. It was not because of lack of support from the Minister. There was a very large number of vacancies due to families leaving the country to get the big money in Britain. The Corporation came to the conclusion that the housing problem was petering out and we decided ourselves to lay off building. It then transpired that a change came about in Britain whereby there was no overtime. Families found it dangerous to go to Britain with the shortage of housing there, the cost of accommodation there and the lack of overtime and, instead of families leaving, only indivdual members left. That was the problem. Whereas families were leaving the city here in great numbers, giving the Corporation up to 2,000 vacancies a year, the vacancy rate has dropped almost to half in the past 12 months. Because of the great vacancy rate, we thought we were building too much and we ourselves laid off.

Now there is a situation that, as the families are not leaving, we are faced with a housing problem again. That could not be foreseen. Every assistance is given to Dublin Corporation as far as the Minister is concerned. I just want to make that point clear.

We have a little problem on hand at the moment and we want the Minister's understanding. There is a feeling that we should encourage our tenants to purchase their dwellings. The Minister shares that feeling but he does not help us to accomplish it. In rural areas, the Minister continues to pay the subsidy where there is a purchase scheme. In other words, the local authority can sell on easy terms to the tenants. However, the Minister refuses to pay the subsidy in urban areas.

The Minister states, in effect: "You sell your house, you lose the subsidy." Therefore, the Corporation or urban bodies cannot carry out a housing purchase scheme because what we would charge would be prohibitive. In other words, whereas a dwelling in the country could be let on a purchase scheme at about 25/- a week, we would have to charge in or about £2 a week. As 90 per cent. of our tenants are working-class people or middle-aged people it would be a very dangerous thing for more than about five per cent. to commit themselves to the purchase of their dwellings.

As I see it, the only class of person who can safely purchase a dwelling is a young man with a good job who has 40 years or so lying in front of him and who knows that in his lifetime he will come to own his home. The average person in a Dublin Corporation dwelling is a labourer with a family or a middle aged man with no guaranteed income. Even if it could be said that in many cases they have £40 income in the week, that is only because the children's income is taken into account. The children will not stay put. They will leave perhaps for foreign parts or they will marry. There is evidence in many cases where one year there would be £40 a week, within 10 years there probably would not be £2 a week.

Therefore, no Dublin Corporation tenant in his senses will commit himself to purchasing a dwelling at approximately £2 weekly when, on an evil day, he may find himself out on the road by action of the sheriff. As far as urban areas are concerned, a purchase scheme is impossible so long as the Minister decides to withdraw the subsidy in the case of any scheme brought forward for the benefit of the tenants. It is possible in a rural area but it is impossible in an urban area.

I should like to bring the Minister's attention to a little problem facing the Corporation, the problem of the owners of condemned dwellings. The Corporation is faced with a problem at the moment of owners of condemned dwellings selling their dwellings to straw men, men without money. That recently happened in a case in Rutland Street. Four dwellings were condemned but some of them were sold to a straw man, a man alleged to have no money. I believe this man bought a house for £1. The landlord of course was doing well because otherwise he would have had to pay for the demolition.

The Corporation is seeking the Minister's assistance because it should be made a very serious offence for any property owner to sell his condemned property to any straw man and so relieve himself of his responsibility while endangering the public. This has happened in Rutland Street. The straw man, the man without any money, who can plead he has no stake if he is brought to court, let in families and one of those houses collapsed only a few nights ago. That is always possible in cases where people relieve themselves of their responsibility. There cannot be a claim against these straw men, as I call them, for demolition costs. Apart from the dangers involved for the families they allow into the property, there cannot be a claim against them because they can plead they have no money. The families who were evicted by the police the other night were fortunate because if they had not been evicted in their own interests there might have been a serious tragedy in Rutland Street.

Deputy Dillon referred to the need for swimming pools. I should like the Minister to know that grave danger exists in regard to unprotected quarries around the city of Dublin. I do not think the Corporation has sufficient powers to deal with the owners of those quarries. If they have not, then the Minister should ensure that they get them. The owners should be compelled to fill them in if they are no longer in use, or they should be properly fenced off, and the Corporation should have power to compel quarry owners to do that. In the last couple of years 12 children have been drowned, most of them in quarries.

From time to time the problem of this racket in regard to appointing rate collectors has arisen and I would ask the Minister to amend legislation so that all rate collectors will be appointed by the Appointments Commission. Where there is money there will be "fixing", and money will change hands. That applies to all cases where money is involved. There is wholesale "fixing" in regard to the appointment of rate collectors. I myself have been approached to lobby people of this House for the position of rate collectors in the country. I have been told that unless plenty of porter, whiskey and so on, goes around, the person has not got a chance.

In Dublin, rate collectors are appointed by the Local Appointments Commission which should also be the case throughout the country. There should be no opportunity for racketeers and you will always have racketeers wherever there is money. It might even be the case of appointing a school attendance officer. I am on the school attendance committee in this city and when an officer was required I was approached by 20 different people with all sorts of promises. I was not offered money, but there were all sorts of other promises.

All these appointments should be made by an appointments body set up by the Minister. I am against all that sort of racketeering. We even have it in the elections for mayors. That is another position which should be filled by some other method than by groups getting together and bargaining. I am not saying that that is always the case but there are "backhanders" in all jobs, whether it be for rate collectors, school attendance officers, or even lavatory attendants. As far as the position of Lord Mayor, is concerned the people should be allowed elect him as they elect the President. Let certain people go forward and then let the people vote on a separate ballot paper. It should not be left to two groups to come together to let one side get the position this year and the other side get it next year. The question of appointing the best man or woman does not enter into it; in fact the better you are the more dangerous you are and there will be a coalition to keep you out.

Another matter in which I am interested is the question of amenities at Portmarnock. I have a bungalow there and I go there every year. It is the seaside resort of the poor of Dublin. The county council will not spend money on it because they state that the city people benefit from it and they ask why should they spend money on it? Why should it be left like a derelict site? If it is used largely by the poor of Dublin, it should be part of Dublin. Some people claim that they might have to pay more rates if it were taken over by the city but if it were improved it would mean that more money could be made there and it would be the local people who would make it. I cannot see why one of the best strands in the country is left lying like a cemetery for most of the year. I should like the Minister to keep this point in mind. If it is largely used by the poor of Dublin, it should be developed with the assistance of the Minister and it should be part of the Dublin area.

Another point is that the Minister should also ensure that caravan sites will have proper sewerage facilities. Nobody should be allowed to let a site for caravans unless he installs proper sewerage facilities. The Minister should help in that regard by giving grants, otherwise these sites will become unhealthy and there will be smells worse than those experienced when the tide at the River Liffey is out.

A question has arisen at our housing committee meetings in regard to tidy town competitions to be held by the Corporation. We have now 40,000 dwellers and we would like to put up prizes to encourage people to keep their areas in good order but we have not the power to spend even one penny. We have no power to give a person even a box of matches for the best kept garden in any area. Outsiders have to conduct these competitions but we should like to have that power, to spend a limited amount of money to keep our housing areas in good order.

On this Estimate I usually raise the various complaints made by the public. One final remark I want to make is in regard to the dictatorial powers which local authorities have for dealing with Corporation tenants. If Corporation tenants infringe the rules they are brought to court in large numbers like sheep. Any day you attend the court at Morgan Place you will see 100 Corporation tenants there for owing money, painting their doors the wrong colour, or something like that. There is no one there to defend them. There is counsel for the Corporation but not for the tenant. Very often, the tenants are unemployed and poor, and the courts inflict fines on them. Very often the wrong people get a fine of £5 instead of 5/-, because there is no one to speak for them. Imagine an unemployed person owing the Corporation £10! There is an order for eviction and after the order is made, costs are fixed at £5.

It has been shown that the costs to the local authorities in taking proceedings against a local authority tenant are never more than 10/- or 15/- at the most because they are dealing with people in hundreds. That has been proved. We have put down questions and found out that the costs are never more than 10/- or 15/- but nevertheless the judge inflicts a fine of five guineas on the unfortunate tenant who may be unemployed.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has had a good innings.

Mr. Corry

Dealing with general policy on this Estimate, the first thing I should like to point out is that there is such a person as a ratepayer. The bulk of the rates in the rural areas are paid by the agricultural community who are in competition with their brother farmers in Britain and Northern Ireland who pay no rates on agricultural land. During the past number of years, the price of farm produce has remained static and, in the meantime, our rates are rising up to the skies. I should like the Minister to remember when proposals are brought forward in regard to new schemes that there are other handier ways of getting money particularly in the Minister's Department, and I respectfully suggest one is the Road Fund.

No doubt a large portion of the money coming out of the Road Fund at present is being squandered uselessly. I had to draw the attention of my own county council to roads in my area, some of which are 70 feet wide from fence to fence. What those roads are for, I do not know but they cost a lot of money anyway, especially when one of them is a cul-de-sac, as happened in one particular area where for the past two years we have been waiting patiently for the Minister for Transport and Power and C.I.E. to close the Youghal line. When it is closed, everything in the garden will be lovely!

I am sorry Deputy Sherwin has left the House. With regard to his reference to bribery and corruption, I am afraid I do not agree that all the things he mentioned are knocking about—not even a half-pint of whiskey. I think it is far better that the local authorities should appoint officials than that the present system should continue to be used. I think there would be less danger of pull being used because the local authority must come out in the open. There are interview boards at present and in nine cases out of 10 the interview board gives the job to their best pal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a very serious charge against officials.

Mr. Corry

I know that. I would not say it if I did not know it. Either that or the whole thing is governed by a certain secret society which is worse than the Freemasons.

The Minister has told us the position with regard to housing loans. I suggest very seriously to him that it is time that all boundaries were thrown over so far as housing loans are concerned, because they impede progress. The Minister knows that whether a man has £5 a year or £10,000 a year, if he builds a new house, he gets a grant from the Minister. He is entitled to a grant for building a new house.

I represent an area where the poor law valuation is somewhere between 30/- and 40/- per statute acre and where a 25-acre holding has a £50 valuation holding. To be quite frank about it, I told the manager on the first day this clause was introduced in regard to loans and grants that I would break the Act in pieces, and I did. I had no hesitation about it. It costs us a bit of money to the legal fraternity whom I hate. It costs about £25 a time. A farmer may be paying rates and have the responsibility of providing security for the loans and grants, but he is not entitled to get a loan himself. When the Minister said he had raised the income ceiling up to which a man with a salary can get a loan, he said nothing here about any increase in the valuation figure up to which a farmer can get a loan.

I came up against that problem in my own area and I had to find a way out of it. The way out I found was to get the farmer's son to get an acre from his father and build a house on it. He would then be an agricultural labourer, unpaid generally, and he would be entitled to the full benefits of the Act. No Government or anybody else could stop him from doing it. There should be no occasion for us to do that. As far as housing loans in Cork county are concerned, out of £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 given out, we have not one defaulter. Everyone is paying up and I see no justification for imposing restrictions as to whether a person will get a loan or not.

I wish to refer to the delay in the Minister's Department in regard to the result of the compensation claim by the Cork County Council against Cork Corporation. That has been going on for over four years. In the meantime, the corporation are drawing the rates for the area they took in and the county council are getting nothing and in some cases have to pay. The Minister should be in a position after four and a half years to give us a decision on that matter.

On the question of house purchase, which is rather a burning question in my constituency, any knowledge I have of it is from my own bitter experience. After a certain number of years, houses start to deteriorate and repairs become an increasing burden on the local authority. Local authorities in many instances have gone a long way to solve their housing problems and I can give the town of Cobh as an instance. The subsidy paid by the Cobh urban council on urban housing is something like £1,800 a year which has been raised from the general rates. One of the fundamental points of Fianna Fáil policy, when we started out in this House away back in 1932, was that we would assist each man to be the owner of his own house and we sought to achieve that the rural cottier would be as much the owner of his home as the farmer was of his farm. Legislation was brought in to put that into operation and a considerable number of our ordinary workers have taken advantage of that policy and become owners of their homes.

When we come to the urban houses, we find an entirely different situation. In Cobh, for example, there are some 170 houses built around the urban boundary. They had to be built there because in an area where a penny in the pound brought in only some £75, the local authorities could not afford to provide for the progress that was being made. Under the Fianna Fáil régime, industries sprang up there and a great deal of employment was given in the area. Since 1947, in the area around the urban boundary, we have built 170 houses.

Then a purchase scheme was introduced. The best example I can give of the situation that exists is of two lots of houses, 46 houses in one place and 24 just across the road but outside the urban boundary. Both lots of houses were built in the one year, by the one contractor and with the same amenities, the only difference being that one is on one side of the road and the other is within the urban boundary on the other side of the road. The rent on both was 11/- a week, plus rates. The man purchasing the house in the rural area could purchase it at an annuity of 9/- per week, a reduction of 2/- per week. The man in the urban area purchasing his house according to the scheme here sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government had his rent increased from 11/- per week to 34/9d. a week. I suggest to the Minister there is no man lunatic enough to purchase under that scheme. There is no man going to treble his outgoings at the present day as he would have to do in this case. That situation is crying out for rectification.

I suggest to the Minister to get to work on it and solve it on the principle laid down here by Fianna Fáil that every householder should, as far as possible, be made the owner of the house in which he lives. The problem has grown more acute in recent times because of a demand put forward by the Cork Corporation. They are proposing to absorb what up to now has always been a county council area. There are in the area some 770 houses. Those houses were built largely at the instigation of members of the Cork Corporation who were also members of the county council. They brought forward proposals for the erection of these houses to relieve the people of the city of Cork of the burden of providing houses for their citizens.

Mr. Barrett

That, of course, is not true.

Mr. Corry

The Beaumont scheme was proposed and carried at the Cork County Council by the late Deputy Pa McGrath, God rest his soul, Lord Mayor of Cork at the time.

I have the Minister's reply to me two months ago. A question was asked by me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already given the question and answer. There is no need to give it again.

Mr. Corry

The Minister said that these people, if transferred to Cork Corporation, would have to purchase their houses under Section 11 of the 1919 Act. Under that Act, the subsidy ceases and the rents of these tenants will, therefore, be increased from 9/- a week to 34/9 per week. The 560 affected will be put at a financial disadvantage amounting to £37,400 a year. This problem was brought to my notice when I endeavoured to put Fianna Fáil policy into operation in Cobh. I wanted to put my people in Cobh living on one side of a road, occupying the same type of house, and of the same class, into the same position as their counterparts on the other side of the road. It is time that matter was rectified, particularly in the light of the even bigger problem that is coming up now. I suggest the Minister should get to work and rectify the matter.

I have no fault to find generally with the Minister's attitude or the speed with which he is sanctioning the housing proposals put forward by the local authority but I would say that his officials are a little too official. When the local authority of which I am a member put forward proposals for the building of 35 to 40 houses, the Department take a slice off here and a slice off there and the local authority find that they can build only 16 houses, whereas there are 31 applicants.

The Minister knows that a landlord cannot be compelled to repair a house for a tenant. A further burden is thrown on the ratepayers if the council are compelled to take over such a house. That is the most idiotic thing that ever came out of the Department and a lot of queer things came out of it.

I will put up a proposition. The previous manager accepted a note from the parish priest to the effect that a people had told him they were engaged and were getting married. We built a house for them on the strength of that. Would the Minister accept that proposal? I am anxious to see our young people getting married, now that we have employment for them. I am more than anxious that our housing proposals should go ahead. Landlords cannot be compelled to repair houses. A return comes in to the effect that a man has applied for a new house, that the house in which he lives is capable of being repaired. Who is going to repair it? In 99 cases out of 100, the landlord will not. The only course open to us is to take over the house and we all know what that means. It is time that most of these old houses were replaced.

I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he should take steps immediately, to have Cork city revalued. In the course of my duties, I have got the valuation of a large number of premises in Cork city in comparison with the valuation of smaller buildings, smaller houses and smaller business houses in the town of Cobh. In most cases the poor law valuations in the principal streets of Cork city are one-third those of similar houses in Cobh. For the past few years there has been an enforced marriage between the city and the South Cork area as regards rates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of valuations will arise on another Estimate, the Estimate for Valuation and Ordnance Survey. I doubt very much if the Minister for Local Government is responsible.

Mr. Corry

The Minister's Department is at present dealing with the proposal for an extension of the borough boundary. I suggest this is the proper time for the Minister to take steps, as he has power to do, to see that Cork city is revalued. The portion being taken in is a built-up area which has been valued within the past ten or 15 years, or 20 years at the outside. To compare those valuations with the valuations of houses built sixty or seventy years ago is wrong. The fallacy was proved by the free boot scheme. The total amount paid in grants from the Department was £5,500, and when that was allocated as between city and county, we found that not only had we to pay the full amount for the boots but we had to pay portion of the cost to provide boots for the city fellows as well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely the Minister is not responsible for that?

Mr. Corry

I am just giving an example of the unfair position which exists in regard to the present valuations.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have pointed out to the Deputy that that will arise on another Vote.

Mr. Corry

All right, Sir. I shall wait for the other Vote. In regard to the Minister's piped water scheme, I suggest that the financial contribution might be improved by resort to the Road Fund. I consider that there is a very grave misuse of the moneys from the Road Fund at present. I gave an example here today of the state of affairs in my own immediate neighbourhood. Motor taxation, which provides the moneys for the Road Fund, is not now confined to the man living on the main road. A very considerable proportion of it is paid by the man on the by-road—lorry drivers and lorry owners—and in 90 per cent. of the cases where the horse and trap did the farmer, he has now, due to the condition of the main roads, to get an old car to travel in. The money from the Road Fund should be spread over the county roads as well as the main roads.

Mr. Barrett

I should like to congratulate the Minister on being absent from the House during the major portion of Deputy Corry's speech. I think he would have found it quite embarrassing. Indeed, the Party to which both the Minister and Deputy Corry belong should find themselves embarrassed by it. In regard to the portions of Deputy Corry's speech to which the Minister had to listen, I would ask him to disregard most of it as being misleading and irresponsible. I have no intention of following the hare raised by Deputy Corry in regard to the borough boundary inquiry. That is an adjourned inquiry, and there is a time and place to raise the matter and a time and place for the Minister to appraise us of the facts laid before him in regard to that inquiry.

I should like to join with Deputy Kyne in welcoming the Minister's assurance that as far as finance is concerned no barriers will be put in the way of local authorities who want to build houses. I appreciate the interest the Minister has shown in Cork housing over the last year. I think he has done everything possible to meet the wishes of Cork Corporation. This Dáil is at a stage of its existence at which it is dangerous to pay compliments of that nature without qualification. I should like to add this qualification. The Minister, in so far as the interest he has shown in Cork housing is concerned, is not unique in that respect. His predecessors, I found, were equally interested, and, in fact, gave us more money than the Minister gave us this year. But, as I say, the Minister showed every possible consideration and gave us every assistance in Cork.

I do not think it is sufficient for the Minister to give local authorities his blessing. In many cases the Minister will have to prod them and indicate to them they really are not doing all that is necessary to meet the housing needs of our people. While we have done a fair amount in Cork I do not think we can be complacent about the distance we have traversed towards anything like even the perimeter of perfection. Both Deputy Healy and Deputy Galvin will recall the decisions taken at Cork Corporation to make houses available to people with large families living in single rooms. It shows really we are only breaking the crust of the problem at the moment.

The Corporation has not really adverted seriously to the problem of young couples who have just got married or are about to get married. That is something we should cater for in a Christian country. It is the experience of every Deputy, and the representatives of Cork in particular, that they find young people coming to them who want to approach the Sacrament of Matrimony and who are looking for accommodation. The answer that has to be given them is that, so far as local authorities are concerned, they do not recognise such a Sacrament at all. They do not recognise the fact that young men and women want to get married and bring up their families and do not provide housing for them. Similarly, I do not think the Minister's Department has attacked the problem of the lonely old ladies and men who find their families have left them and who are living in circumstances which are anything but satisfactory.

Deputy Dillon and Deputy Corry referred to the construction of auto-bahnen here. It is probably necessary on the approaches to our major cities that we should have dual-carriageways. But I have found down the country between Cork and Dublin that we have magnificent roads which are a pleasure to traverse, but I often doubt the necessity for them. They are certainly not used by the traffic for which they were built, and I doubt if they ever will. Certain savings could have been made, and could in the future be made, if the approach to the road problem were less ambitious and more practical.

The Minister is a responsible man. He is a member of the Government. He gave this House and the country that assurance. As a result, we Deputies have been approached by many farmers who are desirous of availing of these schemes and who have held over grants made available to them for land rehabilitation by the Department of Agriculture until such time as these minor drainage schemes are executed. Unfortunately, the Minister's assurance to this House has been completely dishonoured.

No steps have since been taken by the Minister to indicate why the assurance has not been honoured. I do not like to charge the Minister with making untruthful statements at that time in order to extricate himself from a difficulty that then arose on the discussion of this Local Authorities (Works) Act. I think it is not advisable to discuss that too elaborately at this stage because the people of the country will have an opportunity to determine such matters long before the Minister will have occasion to introduce his next Estimate.

I feel sure that if the Minister will visit West Cork—he will be welcome there if he comes; I cannot see his doing me any harm in the country whatsoever—he will have difficulty in explaining to the farmers there his inability to put into operation the assurance given about these minor drainage schemes. I must assume that it was a misleading statement. All the factors lead towards the view that it was a deliberately misleading statement on the part of the Minister at that time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not make the remark that the Minister deliberately misled the House.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I shall remove the word "deliberately". Every rural Deputy knows the importance of the minor drainage schemes. I am sure my two colleagues from West Cork, as, indeed, Deputies in every rural constituency, have had representations made to them to know exactly when the Minister's assurance will be implemented. I am sure even the Leas-Cheann Comhairle himself will be quite familar with such a position.

I should like to know also what position of co-operation exists between the Minister's Department and Bord Fáilte. It seems to me that very little co-operation exists. Bord Fáilte, like the Minister's Department, expends public money. I have always pleaded in this House for better co-operation between different Departments. Bord Fáilte has made available grants for the implementation of works in the constituency of West Cork over an extended period which would come within the scope of local government. But, of course, the main difficulty is that Bord Fáilte has also set out clearly that these grants can be obtained only if contributions are forthcoming from the local authority and from the local people and local organisations. To give some indication of the imposition placed on the people so far as these grants are concerned, there is the example of my own home town, Schull, where we were to get £2,200 if we got the local contribution of £700.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Minister for Local Government any responsibility in this regard?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Some of these grants are for landscaping and improving roads and the Minister has the moneys to go towards portion of the local contribution. I am asking if the Minister or his Department could discuss this aspect with Bord Fáilte and point out to them the difficulty of obtaining money from local organisations. Instead of contributions being requested from local organisations they should be confined to the local authorities. I assume the local authorities will not make the contribution except in a case where it is absolutely essential. Would there be anything behind this? Would Ministers be co-operating in these impossible demands, knowing that the money which has been approved for expenditure will never be spent and that the actual amount provided will still be available next year and, if these conditions continue, will be available for years to come? In Inchigeela the local people were asked for £1,500 and the money would not be accepted from the local authority. Making impossible demands like that is tantamount to withdrawing the scheme.

The system of payment of supplementary grants for new houses should be revised. At present there is no means test for the payment of supplementary grants by local authorities in the case of reconstruction work but there is a means test for the payment of these grants in the case of applicants for new houses. That should be abolished and the local authority should be quite free to pay these grants to applicants on the same basis as they pay reconstruction grants. To indicate what can happen, and what does happen, a five roomed house situated in a town or a place where a public water supply and other amenities are available may cost £2,000 or more and the State grant would be £275. On the assumption that this applicant was outside the limit, either in valuation or income, he would not qualify for the contribution from the local authority. If such a person had a house and was reconstructing it and spent £450 or possibly more, he would receive £280, £5 more than if he were building a new house. He would receive £140 from the State and £140 from the local authority without any means test and irrespective of whether his income was £5 or £5,000. That being the case with reconstruction grants, I think it should be applied also to grants for new houses and the means test should be abolished.

So far as rural water schemes are concerned I know they are very costly and will create a number of difficulties particularly financial ones, in years to come. I believe that piped water supplies are essential in every place. In this age every household should have a piped water supply. I appreciate that that cannot be done without it costing a great lot of money. Urban dwellers are now provided with water supplies and I think their country neighbours are just as much entitled to the same facilities. It is regrettable that so many rural dwellers have not got water supplies and whilst it may impose additional rates on the different local authorities, such money would provide fruitful expenditure that should meet with the approval of all. The Minister for his part should endeavour in every way possible to provide the highest grants and the maximum technical help to all applicants. I cannot see why money should not be made available for people in rural districts, possibly even coming from the rates, as it has been in built-up areas during the past years. I support this scheme for rural water services in country houses.

The Minister has made some references to the road improvement policy of the different authorities. On Page 17 of his statement he said that the programme of country road improvement has advanced so far in many counties that minor roads, involving lower standards of construction, are now being done. He goes on to state that these developments together with the use of modern methods and new materials have led to substantial reductions in the cost of works on these roads so that more work can be carried out in each annual programme than was the case formerly. I should like to get a definition of what the Minister means by the term "modern methods." So far as I can judge from my own locality, the modern methods referred to mean the employment of machines of all kinds in place of manual labour. While we all agree that you must have mechanical methods to do some of these road improvements, it is my opinion and the opinion of people who are engaged on this work and have first-hand knowledge, that we are employing machinery to do work which could be carried out as economically by manual labour.

The removal of bends and turns on roads and the cutting of grass along the roadside, is work which is being carried out mechanically. I believe if costings were made of the work, as between mechanical means and manual labour, we would find there was little or no difference, taking into consideration all the advantages that would accrue from these modern methods. So far as opportunity for employment on road work is concerned, naturally, more permanent jobs are being made available by several county councils and, having regard to the modern methods now being implemented, many people who are now over in England, or have emigrated to other countries, could find employment on the roads.

I am not against modern methods but I think we have excelled ourselves so far as road construction and improvement are concerned. The only definition I know of "modern methods" is to get machines to do the work, irrespective of the cost which should go to pay men who must go to England or elsewhere to find a job. The bulk of that money comes from the Central Fund. I believe the replacement of men by machines should be condoned only in the most exceptional circumstances. It should occur only where it is clearly shown that the employment of mechanical equipment works effectively, and that there is a reasonable saving or some saving.

I cannot see why a machine should be used for clipping hedges with one man before the machine with a red flag, another man behind the machine with another red flag, and another man driving the machine, and then in about three weeks' time, a man with a scythe has to clip it again. It would be just as well if the work were left to him in the first instance. That aspect of road policy is very important to the people who derive their livelihoods from road making and road improvement.

It is to be noted that State income has substantially increased from the increased number of road vehicles. I think there are more than 24,000 vehicles in use in the current year, and they have brought in duty on 24,000 licences. Apart from that amount of money accruing to the Exchequer, there must be a very substantial sum from the duty on the petrol used by that additional traffic. It should be quite easy, having regard to the modern trend towards an increasing number of vehicles, to meet the demands of the local authorities for road grants. The State is benefiting to a big extent from the licences, and to a great extent from the duty on petrol.

I do not want to go over the ground covered by previous speakers with regard to the desirability of improving county roads. I am sure the different councils are taking care of that matter and doing as much as possible with the money at their disposal, with, of course, the exception of the discontinuance of manual labour which is the most undesirable feature of that work.

Deputy Corry mentioned the question of the extension of the borough boundary in Cork. An inquiry was initiated and adjourned for an indefinite period. I should like to know the reason for the adjournment. It seems rather peculiar that portion of the inquiry should be held and the inquiry then adjourned indefinitely. There is another question in regard to the extension of the boundary. It appears from the council's official statement that the compensation payable in respect of a previous extension of Cork city was not forthcoming. In other words, the Cork Corporation has not yet paid compensation for the previous extension of the boundary. I believe the Minister should ensure that the Corporation honours its obligations to the county council and that the compensation is paid.

Any Cork Deputy, whether from the city or the county, and every public representative is interested in the question of the extension of the boundary. It is good to see Cork city growing and extending. Possibly there are good grounds for the Corporation's application for an extension of the boundary, but I think the county council should be indemnified fully. In an area contiguous to Cork city, we have an elaborate housing scheme, well laid out, with all the modern amenities of piped water sewerage and so on, at county expense, with help from the Department. If the county manager's estimate of an additional 2/- on the rates is correct, if this big area is transferred to the city, surely the Minister or the Government should pay the appropriate compensation or devise a system under which the county would be appropriately compensated. It would be completely unfair to the ratepayers of the county if that were not done.

I had hoped that apart from the inquiry set up, the Minister, together with some local advice from the two bodies concerned, might be able to devise some amicable arrangement. I believe that holding a prolonged inquiry—and it is likely to be prolonged—at great cost is not the most effective way of dealing with the matter. Cork Corporation and Cork County Council are close enough to each other to be able to reach some amicable understanding with the aid of the Department in the matter of an arrangement that would be suitable to all parties.

Personally, I feel that if the extension is to be approved, the county council and the people in the area I have mentioned should be appropriately compensated. It might be rather difficult to devise a system under which the compensation would be paid, or under which the charges would be adjusted, but I am sure some system could be so devised.

I should like to conclude, without encroaching on the Chair's patience, by saying that my firm belief is that if the Minister intends passing further legislation in this House to be dealt with by the local authorities, instead of giving the managers authority to deal with that legislation—or vesting the authority in him—he should reserve it as a function of the members. I feel very strongly on this point. The Department—or possibly senior members of the Department—seem to have lost all respect for local authority members, and more or less satisfied themselves that all these local managers are a group of infallible people and that whatever they do is bound to be right.

Mr. T. Lynch

I seem to be unlucky in that whenever I speak on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government, I am surrounded by a horde of Corkmen. I endured some hours today listening to a debate on Cork local government and, for the first time in my life, I found a division among Cork people. Deputy Corry appears to want to partition Cork or to have a type of apartheid in which the town people will be against the country people. I hope the Minister will not take any notice of anything he said.

I want to congratulate the Minister on his action in raising the means test. I had hoped he would do away with it altogether, but I am glad he has raised the means test in respect of the qualification for a Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act loan. That will bring in more people and will give them a chance of building their own houses. That is the Minister's idea and it is the idea of everybody here that people should have their own houses. However, costings have gone up so much, especially in the past year or year-and-a-half, that even though the local authorities and the Minister are giving generous grants, they are not enough.

When a young man now approaches his local authority in an effort to build a reasonable house, the kind of house that was built under the Small Dwellings Acts for years past, the amount of money he can borrow from the Department and the amount of the grant will not be at all sufficient to cover the cost of the house. He may be £500 or £600 short. I would ask the Minister to investigate the possibility of increasing the grant and calling on the local authority to increase the grant.

I would suggest, too, that the Minister and his Department should interest themselves in building what the Department call sub-standard houses. It is the type of house that would suit newly-weds. This is a great problem. People who are just married or who want to get married cannot afford to put up the money to build a house under the Small Dwellings Acts. They have no chance of getting a house and this is a suggestion that should be investigated. It was done before by the Dublin Corporation. I believe it was done in Limerick and we did it in Waterford with great success. A great many people apply to us for these houses. Most of the people who applied for them attended the City Hall where there was a draw, and they were satisfied with that. It was a pity we had not enough houses to give them.

There are some people we are forgetting, that is, very old and lonely people who have small means of their own and who find it very hard to get accommodation in towns and cities. Where conversions are taking place, the Department should interest itself in a scheme of small houses or flats for old people at reasonable rents. The Department should invite local authorities to put up schemes.

I have taken the Minister to task many times about the Road Fund and I am in debt to the Minister himself for educating me on this. It was he who first asked on 9th May, 1956, about the Road Fund. I never knew altogether about its ramifications until now. In 1953-54, grants for road up-keep and improvement work for Waterford County Council amounted to £137,000. The latest figure I have here shows that we got £122,000, plus £5,000 tourist road grant. I want to point out to the Minister that now that his colleague has wrecked the Tramore railway line, it will be necessary to improve the road between Waterford and Tramore. As far as I know, no grant has been made, notwithstanding the fact that 20 buses have been put on that road occasionally in an endeavour to provide what we have been promised would be an adequate service. I hope the Minister will see to it that we will get that.

Now that the Road Fund has reached the proportions it has reached, I suggest we have done enough with the autobahns and that a good deal of this money should be diverted to the forgotten roads, the culs-de-sac. It may be said there are few people living there. They are all our people and the least we can do is provide people living in these out of the way places with a good surfaced road. That is preferable to building roads for people outside the country. We seem to be very keen always on spending an enormous amount of money on roads where tourism is concerned.

In this connection, I want to add my voice to that of my colleague, Deputy Esmonde. I am told by the Minister for Transport and Power that 80 per cent of the tourist cars that come here are brought through Rosslare, and the road from Rosslare into Wexford is a disgrace. Down in the south, we seem to be forgotten in all these matters. We go to other places and see that enormous grants are made for supposed public works which should actually be done by the county councils and corporations—and good luck to them. I think that is good, but my constituency has always been forgotten in this regard. We get £5,000 in Waterford as a tourist road grant. Other places have been enjoying these tourist road grants for years: Cavan, Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Tipperary North, and Waterford is at the end as far as the amount is concerned. These grants run from £10,000 to £55,000 a year and we get £5,000. I have been drawing the Minister's attention to that and I am hoping that this year he may take notice of it.

With regard to swimming pools, I should like to see a swimming pool in Waterford city. Many years ago—I forget how many now—a pool would have cost £65,000. It would cost probably double that now. I doubt if the ratepayers would really care to shoulder the burden.

Deputy Barrett said that in Cork they have now broken the crust in providing houses for families living in one room. I was interested in the housing situation in Cork from the point of view of what they were paying for sites. There was a sworn inquiry there and it emerged that they were paying fantastic prices—£1,000 and £1,200 per acre. That is a tremendous liability on any local authority. Waterford is not as big as Cork and our housing problem is not urgent as the problem appears to be in Cork. We had the foresight in Waterford to purchase large tracts of land in the green belt around the city for as little as £65 an acre. Practically all the sites that could be bought were bought by an enlightened local authority.

I am taking this as the first opportunity. Land was bought and houses built on it. At the moment we have a direct labour scheme in operation. It is the finest in the country. That scheme was smeared because an official broke the law. I know the Minister will sanction anything that is put by Waterford City Council in relation to that scheme. The people who are carrying out the scheme have built 500 to 600 very fine houses. I am glad I have this opportunity of stating that here.

There is one criticism I have to offer of the Minister and his Department. I am not alone in voicing this criticism. Other speakers have referred to the matter already. There is too great a delay altogether in regard to reconstruction grants. I suggest that the matter should be left in the hands of the local officials—the engineer and the borough surveyor. If that were done, certain hardworked officials of the Department of Local Government would be relieved of some of the burden they carry.

The Minister has himself admitted that the rehousing of our people still constitutes a problem. Part of the difficulty arises because of the necessity of sending up plans and specifications to the Department of Local Government. If a new scheme is proposed, even though the plans and specifications are identical with plans and specifications approved for a scheme completed six months earlier, the whole process of submission must be gone through all over again. There was a time when, following the submission of plans and specifications, the local authority could go ahead if the Department had not returned them after a certain interval. A reversion to that system would help to speed things up.

On the question of piped water supplies, I do not think people generally would welcome piped water from a main reservoir. Such a supply is really only necessary in areas where there is porous rock or porous limestone. Frankly, if piped water is a must, then I think group schemes offer the ideal solution. This type of scheme, in conjunction with the existing Department of Agriculture scheme, would be better because they would not involve an increase in the farmers rates by a water rate. Instead of a regional scheme costing millions, you could have a scheme costing a reasonable sum of money whereby you pipe water to places where the wells are not sufficient or are not holding. I would ask the Minister to have that aspect of the matter examined.

I was sold on his idea when I read the speech he made in the Mansion House to the I.C.A. about piped water but when I went into country areas and heard a farmer saying, "How much will it cost me in water rate?" and pointing out that there was a well down the road and that it would not cost a great deal of money if all the neighbours combined to have the water supplied to their houses from that well.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I welcome the proposal to increase the income limit in connection with small dwellings. I had hoped that the Minister would do away with the means test altogether.

Mr. McLaughlin

I should like to deal with the subjects which have been mentioned by other Deputies—housing, water supply and roads. Some seven or eight years ago, a survey was carried out in County Leitrim to ascertain the number of people who are not able to provide houses for themselves so that houses would be provided for them at a rent that would recoup the cost. That scheme fell through, due to the fact that the number of applicants was so great that the Department considered it would cost too much to meet the requirements.

About 12 months ago, another survey was carried out. It was discovered that there were people living in rather poor circumstances, rearing big families, who were unable to provide houses, even with two grants. It was also found that there were people who were financially sound and who would get a loan but even so, were not able to meet all the expense. They felt very happy that something was to be done for them and that at long last they were to be provided with good homes at a rent which they could pay. After long and tedious meetings, it was agreed that in view of the number of applications, it was better to provide a loan for people who were able to avail of grants, but many people said that they could not undertake to build a house under those conditions, that the expense would be too heavy for them.

I would appeal to the Minister to provide extra money for this purpose so that the council will be able to provide a greater number of houses for people in whose cases two grants are not sufficient. It is a very good thing to provide £500 or £600 for the building of a house but that sum is not in keeping with the present day costs of building a house, namely £2,000. This applies equally to town and country.

When leaving Sligo on Tuesday morning, I met a man who appealed to me about housing accommodation. He was a mechanic who had to live in one room with his wife and five children. Similar conditions prevail in the towns in my constituency. While admittedly a great deal has been done to solve the housing problem, a great deal remains to be done. In Sligo town, there is a huge waiting list and I would ask the Minister to take notice of the appeals made to him in respect of areas where the housing shortage is very acute.

A problem was brought to my notice recently which I was asked to raise in the Dáil. I had intended to put down a question but I shall put it to the Minister now and he may let me know the answer at a later date. If a lease of a house expires, has the landlord the right to increase the rent considerably? A publican who bought a house at a high figure discovered that his rent was over £40, while a neighbour who had a business equally successful and in as good condition had to pay only £18 rent. The reason was that the former occupier of the premises let the rent lapse and the landlord said: "You need not bother about the two years lapsed rent but I will increase the rent from £20 to £40." The present occupier has been paying that rent all the time and is wondering whether he has a right to question it in court.

There is the question of delay in sending housing inspectors to persons who have applied for a grant and to persons who have finished a scheme. I ask the Minister to speed up that matter. People are not prepared to start building or reconstructing until they have an approval form.

On the question of water supply, in Sligo-Leitrim, many people are in a terrible plight because of lack of water. On the other hand, there are people who would not like to be burdened with an increased rate of 11/- for a water supply scheme. The question came before Leitrim County Council a week ago. It was pointed out that if the scheme were carried out, it would cost £2,000,000 and would represent about 11/- in the £ in rates. That would be out of the question, the rate being already £2 2s. 6d. Instead, there should be group water supply schemes where there are sources of supply. People should be encouraged to group together to have water brought to their houses. That would be much cheaper than elaborate schemes.

I turn now to roads. I have referred here on a previous occasion to the huge sums of money being spent in carrying out elaborate work on stretches of road. Against that, we have very many roads that are in a miserably bad condition—indeed I might say an impassable condition— and nothing has been done about them. Huge modern machinery is brought into these places as a kind of showpiece for the people. But every time it is brought in, it pushes out the ordinary small farmer and labourer who found road work was a great sideline to help him make up the losses he suffered on his farm. It is time we gave a little more consideration to the repair of our roads, because in that way the working man and small farmer could benefit. Later, when the country is in a more prosperous position, huge schemes for the improvement of our roads could be carried out.

I have at all times encouraged the carrying out of rural improvement schemes. I regard this as one of the best schemes. Usually the contribution is not very big. I tell the people who come to me "Even if you have to send a contribution to Dublin, if you are working on the road yourself, you will get that contribution back." There is usually a grant of £400, £500 or £800, and useful employment is provided during the winter months. There is a need to send out inspectors quickly. I made representations on behalf of a number of people who made application for grants under the scheme. I was told in these cases that the scheme was handicapped by a shortage of inspectors and that an inspector would be sent out when he was available. That is hardly fair. There is an enormous number of officials and, where a group of farmers are waiting for an official, he should be sent out immediately.

The only alternative, therefore, to the piped water supply where the cost is so great is the old system of the parish pump. In my area we have selected a large number of sites for pumps. I would much prefer the piped water supply where it is possible to instal it, but where it is not possible to do so, I would ask the Minister to sanction a loan for the sinking of wells. There is a terrible shortage of water in some cases and there is a great danger of an epidemic which would be far more serious than the question of money. I would ask the Minister to expedite the provision of money for the pumps in our area.

I will say very little about the roads. Other Deputies mentioned the terrible condition of our main roads as a result of the closing down of our railways. It is quite apparent that our main roads are going to suffer. It is like being on a seasaw travelling along the left hand side of the road with the very heavy traffic using the roads. It will cost a tremendous amount to keep them in repair. Time will tell what was the wise course to adopt.

However, we must make every effort to keep the main roads in order. While I am more concerned with the farmers' roads and the by-roads of the county, I still realise that the trunk roads are very important and that more money must be provided by the State as a result of the extra traffic that has been thrown upon them. I would ask the Minister to consider very seriously the granting of more money for those roads in view of the closing of the railways.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

It is very difficult indeed in any short summary fashion to deal with the various matters raised here on broad policy questions and, indeed, on detailed matters of procedure. That difficulty is made even greater by virtue of the fact that a number of speakers here either did not hear my introductory remarks or else, having heard them, intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood them and continued to give their own interpretation of State policy as distinct from what was outlined. They proceeded to give us the various remedies they proposed in regard to difficulties of their own making. So very many matters have been raised that it is difficult to deal with them all or deal with them in detail, not to mention the added difficulty that has been brought about by these various interpretations.

Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the Opposition, who kicked off after I had spoken, criticised the idea of bringing piped water along thousands of miles of main roads and other roads and that this was only desirable or excusable, as we might put it, where the ground conditions were such as to make the sinking of wells an impracticable or ineffective solution. The point we should have regard to in this matter is that almost 90 per cent. of the population of rural Ireland are without an adequate water supply. The second point is that no one will gain-say that an adequate water supply in rural areas is a very great and real need today, even almost a necessity and, indeed, an absolute necessity.

Over and above that, what I want to get straight here and now is that we are not jumping into this idea of a water scheme. This whole water scheme idea was outlined as long ago as September, 1959, but listening to the various speakers here today, it would almost appear as if we heard of it only a couple of months ago. Somebody mentioned that he became sold on the idea after the Turn of the Tap exhibition, sponsored by the I.C.A., held in the Mansion House a few months back. A great deal of work has gone into the proposed water scheme since September 1959. It is not true to say, as seems to be understood by some of those who have spoken, that the whole effort is designed to instal elaborate, far-reaching, extensive regional water schemes, without regard to the cost, the numbers to be served or the alternatives that might, in fact, be adopted.

In fact, over the past year or so, I have on a number of occasions brought the notice of the public and their representatives to the fact that there are three distinct lines of approach, all interwoven. They are: the private individual supply, the group or co-operative supply and the regional public supply. With a view to having proper integration and proper interweaving of these three approaches, the first thing done—it is being done and has progressed to a very great degree in many of our councils—was an overall survey of the needs of the people and an overall survey in many cases of the demand in the various areas for water.

The planning and the designing of schemes as a result of these surveys will give an adequate supply of water to the people desiring it in rural Ireland and will give that supply at the most reasonable cost, whether it be by private individual borings, the group scheme, the regional scheme or, as I say, the marriage of all three, which I think will ultimately come to be the general pattern. The whole idea is based on a proper evaluation of the circumstances as a result of the nationwide surveys being carried out. There is no question whatsoever of willy-nilly jumping into over-expensive schemes which nobody will then require.

The idea of thousands of miles of pipe lines being put down, whether they are wanted or not, along our by-roads or laneways is not contemplated. All the groundwork at the moment is directed towards avoiding costly schemes, whether large or small. To find an economic way of doing the job adequately is the reason for the evaluation of the facts arising from the surveys. The designing of the schemes, the hydraulic design, and so on, will have regard to the demand where the houses exist. Possibly, gravity may dictate where the line should go. That the lines, in many cases, run along main roads is purely incidental and is not merely because there happens to be a main road. If a line runs along a main road, it will be because it is the best way to send it, the economic way and the way the greatest number of people can economically be served by it.

I would hope that through this House, if necessary, even further clarification should come to the minds of our local authorities who are the initiators of whatever schemes there may be. They will be the co-ordinators and the initiators of the various types of public schemes that we hope to see benefit the rural community in the years ahead.

The fact which I think they need to realise is that the facilities available are the private schemes, the individual schemes and the group schemes for which grants are available from my Department and the various local authorities throughout the country. The group schemes and private schemes can be co-ordinated in such a way as to fit in where other schemes are not properly economic or do not serve the purpose properly.

All in all, this is a three-pronged attack on the lack of water supplies in our rural areas. It ought not be followed along the line that objection can be taken to regional schemes and therefore the whole effort should be condemned.

It is not a single attack by regional schemes for the sake of regional or grandiose schemes. It is three-pronged attack which, if properly co-ordinated, will, I believe, in the next ten years bring a vast change in this matter of water supplies to our rural dwellers. I would ask all and sundry who I know in their hearts believe that water supply in rural areas is very desirable —as all of us here believe that in our hearts—to co-operate in whatever way they can to utilise whatever is available by way of grants and schemes and technical information through our councils and through this House to bring about the change that undoubtedly is desired by all of us. Instead of appearing to make difficulties for ourselves, if we approach the matter in that way, I think many of the difficulties that appear to exist, as expressed here in the past few days, will, in fact, be found to be non-existent.

Deputy Dillon also mentioned the question of the antediluvian houses that exist at the end of the laneways up which we intend to push these regional pipe lines. He suggested that nobody, apparently, is doing anything worth while about housing or rehousing small farmers who apparently are tied to this type of antediluvian housing conditions he has mentioned. He said the rehousing of these people would be very dear to his heart and very much a matter he would have in mind.

In so far as bad housing still exists in rural Ireland and indeed in some of our towns and urban districts and cities, we are all concerned to eradicate these conditions. That there is still a considerable problem in regard to housing, particularly in rural Ireland, I have no doubt. With a view to finding out whether or not the facilities at the moment are adequate, whether any new devices will be required to eradicate the problem that some of us believe to exist to a higher degree than others, I have done, and am having done at the moment, the prudent thing. I am insisting on the local authorities doing a duty which they have neglected for a number of years, a duty imposed on them by law, a duty to carry out a complete survey of the housing conditions in their entire functional area and not to relate their demand for new houses and housing schemes merely and solely to the eradication of slum conditions in our towns or basing it, as they have been doing, solely on the applications received. Every Deputy knows that some of the worst housing conditions still remaining with us in rural Ireland today are endured by people who have never applied for a house and are never likely to apply for a house.

In order to get the full factual position clarified, I have asked—and there is at this present moment proceeding pretty well in most areas, but not so well in a few areas—for an overall survey, regardless of whether applications have been made by people, by the local authorities and the housing authority. I want then to ascertain fully, finally and up to date what exactly the position is in regard to housing conditions in all parts of their areas, regardless of whether they are built-up areas, remote areas, out-of-the-way areas or along our main or county roads.

When we have got that—and I hope that with a little more persuasion and possibly the help of some Deputies who are members of local authorities and who may have been lacking in this respect—we shall have in the near future a complete picture of our remaining housing problem, particularly as it relates to rural Ireland. If, when we have seen that problem in the light of cold facts, and relating it to the circumstances of which we will also be made aware by this survey of the occupants of those houses, we find that our existing various efforts to remedy this type of housing do not in certain respects fit the bill, then it would be for us in this House to consider new ways to eradicate the problem and to improve the position.

I am not sure that we have not at the moment available to us adequate powers to eradicate this problem once we have made ourselves aware just exactly where and in what particular detail the housing problem exists in any area. It is only fair to say that there has been a neglect to keep a proper survey, as the law dictated should be kept, by housing authorities over the years because practically all housing authorities over the past 30 years have been taken up with the general building programme for which there was such an outstanding demand. So busy were they with the obvious problems of housing and the eradication of bad housing that to go looking for more problems was, in fact, more than one might expect. If they did not seek out, as the law dictated they should, these cases in rural Ireland, I do not blame them. The difficulties they had in their overall problem were such that they were very fully occupied for all these years. The time has now come when this survey is definitely essential. It was requested over a year ago and many counties are practically finished with it. Some others are proceeding well, but, unfortunately, as is usual in a case like this, there are a few housing authorities who are not making the headway they should.

As I said, members of this House who are members of those authorities will be aware that their housing authority is not doing its job in this regard. I would ask the assistance of those members to try to push on their housing authority to get this information so that we may be in a position to evaluate the situation and, if necessary, bring further pressure to bear in the proper quarters to eradicate the problem. If additional measures are required, we will be in a position to come to this House to seek additional remedies.

Mr. Dillon

Has a local authority power to include in its housing survey an owner-occupied house as distinct from a rented house or residence?

Mr. Blaney

Yes. The whole approach is to the house and to the actual condition of each house that seems to be below standard, regardless of whether it is occupied by the owner or a tenant. It need not necessarily relate to the standard of the owneroccupier. He may be well off or he may be badly off, but it is the condition of the house that we want a survey and if it is in a bad condition, to see what remedies can be taken to improve it.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but is there not a difficulty if a local authority seeks to inspect the Minister's house, or my house, and we happen to own our houses and we say we do not want our houses inspected?

Mr. Blaney

If they want to enter the house, that is another matter, but they are quite free to report on the house and we hope they will do that. We have asked them to make it as all-embracing as possible in order to have a really first-class picture for the first time of what the problem is.

Deputy Dillion also mentioned swimming pools and the improved finances which are to be forthcoming from the Department of Local Government and that the difficulty has been that only lip service was given to the matter over the years. Possibly that has been so, but again local authorities have had a certain amount of legitimate excuse in this regard in that there were so many jobs to be done that this matter was not in the top priority class. The demand in certain quarters is now of such proportions—and as more necessary work has been done, such as a great deal of our housing problem solved and some of our sanitary problems solved, particularly in built-up areas—that it will engender in the local authorities, if that is necessary, a wish to do something further with regard to this matter. In view of the increased facilities I have announced, I have every hope, that while only lip service was paid in the past, the present realistic approach and the changing circumstances with regard to local authority work that must be done, something definite will now be got underway, particularly in the built-up areas and especially in Dublin city.

Deputy Dillon also mentioned the use of canals. If I could agree with his deductions I would be glad. He said that the canals should be used, that only a little cement was needed, and one or two old gentlemen to keep order and look after the children using them, that all this could be done cheaply and that, finally, we should chlorinate the water and arrange to have it changed a couple of times during the day. All that—the little bit of cement, the two gentlemen, the chlorination and the changing of the water—unfortunately would not be as cheap as the Deputy implies. I wish it were because then we would have adequate facilities for our population in Dublin and the other places through which the canals pass.

The question of canals and whether they can serve any useful purpose is being left to the local authorities. That matter, in conjunction with the proposals for swimming pools which I believe to be imminent from Dublin Corporation, is one which can be safely left to them. If the use of canals appears reasonably attractive to them, I have no doubt we will get proposals based, if not on the canals, on places adjacent to the canals and possibly some use can be made of the canals.

The suggestion has also been made that the straightening of roads tended to increase, rather than to lessen, the number of accidents. I have not got the figures, or the particular reference, but I remember on last year's Estimate dealing with a similar situation, and dealing with a town in Tipperary where work had been done on one side of the town improving a road. Statistics have been kept of the accident rate prior to the improvements and now statistics for the new portion have been collected and evaluated. The results disprove the suggestion that the straightening and improvement of roads tends to increase rather than lessen accidents.

If we could believe all that has been said here today, about the creation of artificial bends on the Continent, and if that was the real answer to our problem, we would be very happy. There is no doubt that we have all kinds of bends in this country. In the matter of a variety of difficult and dangerous bends, I do not think this country can be bettered, despite the fact that a great many of them have been wiped out on some main roads and arteries. No one will suggest that those that remain should be retained, that we should preserve them as national monuments, or that where we have straight roads, we should put a twist in them in order to slow people down and reduce the accident rate. No one will support that approach. It is a pity they will not, because it would be very much less difficult and costly to leave things as they are than to remove some of them as we are now doing.

There have been complaints that the jobs being done on the roads are much too costly and far too elaborate. Let me say to members of local authorities that since I became Minister I have gone out of my way to bring to the notice of local authorities—I am referring now to the elected members as distinct from the awe-inspiring managers, as they have been described here—my belief and determination that only the jobs considered necessary because of their accident record, or otherwise, should be included in their road proposals to my Department involving the expenditure of Road Fund money.

In order to give some teeth to the local elected representatives, I also brought it to their attention that all proposals for the expenditure of road moneys, whether on county roads, main roads or otherwise, should go before them and be approved by them before being submitted to the Department for sanction. I said that if they found they were in disagreement with any proposal submitted, a statement of their disagreement should be submitted to me, either with the proposal or independently, and that due regard and due notice would be taken of it before sanction issued. What more can the Minister for Local Government do in this matter when there is a clamour for more power for the local authorities and, when it is given, some members of some local authorities blame the Minister and say that too elaborate jobs are being done on the roads?

In recent years they have been given control to a degree that they can assert themselves, make known their beliefs or reject proposals put before them, and if they are still pushed through in spite of their wishes, they can make their wishes known to the Minister for his consideration before sanction issues.

There may be some ground in some cases— or there may be some misunderstanding of the circumstances surrounding some of these jobs—for regarding them as too elaborate, costly and unnecessary. As I say, I informed the local authority elected representatives that they have this power now which they did not have before. They have my own mind expressed on it, in addition, that I do not consider that type of job should be done in present circumstances unless the accident record is such that it indicates that it is necessary.

We have also told them that when a strengthening or widening job is being done on a road, if there is a bend on that stretch of the road which it would be economical to remove while strengthening, widening, bottoming or surfacing is going on, it should be removed rather than wait to have it done in another few years. That is the overall outlook that has been expressed to the local authorities by circular letter. The road authorities have the power now to see that every proposal comes before them and through them, before coming to me. If members of the local authorities now have complaints in that regard, they should examine their own consciences to see what stand they have taken in their various counties, and what efforts they have made to prevent any of these so-called elaborate and unnecessary jobs being done.

Another popular cry in regard to roads is the clamour about the county roads, the cul-de-sac roads, the laneways and the poor man living a mile or a half a mile off a main road, who is being done out of his rights because the road is not made up to his door, whereas the main road is being widened, strengthened, surfaced and so on, and so forth; that the county roads are being neglected, and that too much money is being shovelled into the main roads.

The fact of the matter is that the amount of money being expended on county roads is more than twice the amount allocated to the main roads. The Road Fund grants were increased this year. Last year's figures were based on a percentage so that, in fact, both years have added to the divergence that existed between the amount allocated to the main and county roads by the same percentage increase. Because the figure was greater two years ago for county roads than main roads, and because there was an increase of 10 per cent. on both roads last year, and an increase of approximately 15 per cent. on those new figures this year, the gap was widened still further.

Over and above that, members of local authorities are aware that there is a formula or a method whereby if a certain point in the provision for the main roads had not been reached, in certain circumstances, they can seek to have some of that amount diverted to the county roads. On the other hand, it may well be—and in fact it has happened—that where a high percentage of the county roads have been done and the main roads still need a great deal more, in a certain set of circumstances, the county road moneys can be added to the main road moneys at the wish of the local authority. They have power to a controlled degree in both directions to transfer the money from one pool to the other. Members of local authorities from all sides of the House praised that effort and said it was a step in the right direction.

I think it was Deputy O'Donnell who said—I do not want to misname him but it was certainly said last night— that we were getting a couple of million pounds more now in the Road Fund than four or five years ago, but that more employment on the roads was not evident and that, in fact, the situation was going in the reverse direction. Let me say without any sense of grievance or acrimony that it comes ill from those people, and indicates a very short memory on their part, to talk about the poor return we seem to be getting by way of employment on the roads, taking the £2,000,000 extra in the Road Fund into consideration.

The fact is that whatever money is in the Road Fund is being disbursed for the purpose for which it was designated, that is, road repairs. We are also endeavouring to repay or redress the unfavourable balance created during my Coalition predecessor's term of office, in regard to the commitments of the Road Fund which had reached a dangerously high level. We are also trying to make up for the ravages and the raid carried out on that Road Fund during the term of the previous Government. While I do not want to go on repeating these things, it is impossible to let such statements pass without saying that at least what we get in the Road Fund we disburse on road expenditure, together with the additional funds we get by way of grants and further loans from the general Exchequer for special railway roads and new industrial roads, to the amount of a couple of million pounds which has been expended. That is the difference, a very big difference, that we expend all we get whereas our predecessors in office did not expend all they got but in fact allowed the Exchequer to absorb some of the Road Fund moneys for general expenditure.

The old tale was told here and certain figures quoted from the Statistical Abstract in an effort to befuddle —I do not think it could be said to prove anything—those who might not realise the situation in regard to housing, sanitary services and the progress or alleged lack of progress under Fianna Fáil. I think it first arose when Deputy Dillon was talking, being followed quite vigorously by Deputy O'Donnell who said he was amused that the Minister in his introductory speech should suggest that the local authorities should seek money for S.D.A. loan purposes from sources other than the Local Loans Funds where this was possible. He said he was amused that it was continuing the policy of 1956. Heaven forbid we should follow that policy of 1956. There may be a similarity but the similarity begins and ends where the suggestion is made that if money can be found from sources other than the Local Loans Fund we should ask the local authorities to seek it.

In 1956 when the local authorities were told something similar the circumstances were vastly different. Local authorities could not get it from any other source and having failed to get it from any other source it was not being made available to them by the Minister for Local Government from the Local Loans Fund. As I say, I am delighted that the similarity ends there because otherwise there would be no housing of any kind going on at the present time and no hope of any in the future.

We have been told that last year and the year before housing has declined and figures have been quoted to show the decline. However, it is a notable feature of the quotations that the numbers of people and houses given start in the year 1954 and are given for each year right up to 1960. Does anybody in his sane senses imply that as regards the houses built in 1954, 1955 and 1956, the plans were initiated, specifications prepared and contractors appointed by the people who came into office in 1954? Surely it is as plain as the nose on one's face that in the matter of house building, sanitary services, water and sewerage schemes, particularly water schemes, it is the programme prepared a number of years previously that carries one through the present.

No matter how gullible people may appear you cannot make them believe that if a Government comes in in the middle of 1954 they can claim credit for bringing into being houses at the end of 1954 or, indeed, any local authority building at the end of 1955 or 1956. If there was a decline after our predecessors left office, which is being made as the argument as to how little Fianna Fáil has been doing, going back to the years 1957, 1958 and 1959, that is not the fault of the present administration, but is the legacy left to them due to the lack of planning on the part of the Government that went out at the beginning of 1957. That has been a hardy annual for a number of years and I felt this year we would have got through this Estimate without it being trotted out again, but, unfortunately, it is still thought if you say it often enough there will be a number of people who will believe it and who will be misled into condemning Fianna Fáil for something which was the fault of our predecessors, the Coalition Government, prior to 1957.

The same thing can be said and even with greater strength in regard to sanitary services expenditure. According to the statistical table of the amount expended in each of the years 1954 to 1960, there has been a fair rise during 1955 and 1956 and up to 1957 and that there has been a continued increase in 1958, 1959 and 1960. Would anybody in his sane senses say in regard to water schemes that what has happened in 1956, 1955 and 1954 by way of progress was brought about by the Government of that three-year period? It is utter nonsense for any one to assert that. Despite the fact that it has been refuted continually, every time it is made it must be contradicted lest people might be led into believing that such is the case.

While this type of argument has been trotted out there has been no reference to the fact that during the present months and up to the end of the last fortnight there has been a very substantial increase in the amount of sanitary service works, particularly water schemes, on hands, most of them, coming up to the contract stage. Work to the value of £11 million, a jump of £4 million from £7 million, is progressing at various stages at the moment and that increase has taken place in the last couple of years. That is an increase which cannot be blown away with bogus arguments. The increase that is there is a real increase, it promises great development and is the realisation of the programme which the Fianna Fáil Government have initiated in bringing water to rural Ireland. These results have been achieved by Fianna Fáil planning and are not produced by any wave of the wand on which the last Coalition would appear to depend during their years of office.

I wish to correct wrong figures and wrong percentages which were quoted in regard to our tourist road grants. The figures quoted here were 40 per cent. county road improvement grants and 100 per cent. main road improvement grants. The implication was that it was wrong to give 40 per cent. in the case of county roads and 100 per cent. in the case of main roads. In fact, that is not the position. The percentages are not disproportionate. In both cases the grants are based on 100 per cent. of the expenditure. The amount allocated for county road improvement is £2,949,000 as against £1,230,000 for main roads. The county road allocation is almost two-and-a-half times the allocation for main roads, and not just double as I said earlier.

Mr. Crotty

Does that mean the county road grant is more than 40 per cent.?

Mr. Blaney

Mr. Dillon

I see Deputy Moher shaking his head.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy Desmond spoke of the bottleneck in the reconstruction applications and the months of unnecessary delay. He said the inspector is not to blame. We always find this sort of approach, particularly coming up to an election. Charges are made and then the implication suddenly dawns on Deputies that they are treading on somebody's toes; they absolve the inspector and castigate the Minister solely and simply and say that the inspectors are being asked to do too much. It is a new thing in this House to hear it being said of civil servants that they are being asked to do too much. I am glad this change has come about in the minds of some members, that instead of crying about their doing so little, we have them making excuses for any delays that may occur in inspections for the purpose of grants on the basis that the inspectors are being asked to do too much. Deputy Desmond was not the only Deputy. There were at least two others who followed on the same line and, having made the charges, they then absolved the operators on the spot, as it were, and threw the blame over elsewhere.

The situation in regard to these housing grants is that during the past financial year there has been an increase in new house grant applications of over 20 per cent. On the very high figure of previous years in regard to reconstruction and repair grants, there has been an increase of over 14 per cent. Both categories, as all Deputies know, are handled, as to inspection and otherwise, by the local housing inspector. Added to that, there has been the phenomenal and very welcome increase in water and sewerage grants of 48.8 per cent. It will be realised that the additional work shows a very big increase on the previous year.

Despite the fact that in the very recent past certain conditions in the inspectorate grade in my Department have been improved in order to try to induce the proper people to fill these posts and despite the establishment of some further number than had been there heretofore, we have been experiencing very great difficulty in getting our inspectorate staff up to the number we desiire. There are better paid posts to which these men naturally aspire. The fact is that we have these people selected by the Civil Service Commissioners. They are all good fellows; they come along and their experience as housing inspectors seems naturally to add to their hopes and advantages in posts to which they can go later on. We get the good fellows in but they go before another board for other posts and get them. We try to replace them but replacement takes time. Somebody may go off or get sick in the meantime, as was the case last year when there was a 'flu epidemic. All these factors present real difficulties which, backgrounded by the very big increase in applications last year for new house, reconstruction, water and sewerage grants, pose a nice little problem for solution.

We are doing our best. It may be quite true that a number of our inspectors are in fact doing more than they may have been asked to do in the past. They may be doing more than it is fair to ask them to do at the present but the fact is that we have been and are under continuous pressure in regard to this matter of inspectorate staff. We are doing the very best we can and, indeed, at the moment are awaiting from the Civil Service Commissioners a further batch of recommendations as a result of a recent board which they held. These boards are being held quite frequently but, despite that and despite the additional appointments we make, the wastage and the demand have been increasing to such a degree that we have not been happy in regard to the overall inspection rate or the matter of delays.

It is not true to say, as Deputy Blowick did assert here yesterday or the day before, that every trick in the trade is being used, that the tricks have been designed by the Minister with one purpose in mind, that of reducing the number of people who will get grants. The figures belie that. The figures I have quoted completely and absolutely refute the suggestion that there is any effort on anybody's part to cut people out of grants. As all Deputies are quite well aware—and this applies to all previous Ministers for Local Government also—when the Minister intervenes in a grant application, he is intervening to assert the right of a particular applicant to get that grant, never, to my knowledge, to do somebody out of a grant.

So, let Deputy Blowick take the figures back home with him at the weekend to Mayo and study them and he will see how unfounded are his assertions that tricks are being pulled out of the bag specially designed by the Minister to reduce the number of grants. When he has properly masticated those figures showing the increases in the numbers of applications, the increases in the amount of money we spent last year, the fact that the total amount of money allocated this time last year was already used up by last February and that I had to come to the House for a supplementary amount of a couple of hundred thousand pounds to carry us to the end of this year. All these, and the fact that this year's overall figure must be added to the amount paid out last year, will give the lie to Deputy Blowick and his wild assertions about tricks being used to do people out of these grants.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

What about the new supplementary grants? Did the Minister refer to those yet?

Mr. Blaney

Perhaps the Deputy will excuse me if I do not follow his lead. I will get to that in due course. If I hop over to it now, I will probably forget half a dozen things in between. If I follow what i have here, I will cover the matter eventually.

Deputy Flanagan, in furtherance of his various efforts by way of Parliamentary Question over the past few months, would seem to indicate that in his county and constituency and his local authority area, with particular reference to Tullamore, Birr, Edenderry, Portarlington, etc., houses were badly needed and in some way or another the Department and the Minister were falling down on their job, were not looking after it properly and that, if they had been, these houses which he asserts are so much needed there would in fact have been provided. The facts of the matter, of course, are well known to Deputy Flanagan because he has had replies in this House on two different Parliamentary Questions setting out the situation in regard to this matter.

The overall general situation which I think needs re-stating here is that, due to the general policy of local government, more particularly related to the present freedom which has been conferred on housing authorities, the responsibility and power for the initiating of programmes of house-building in any and all of these towns and every other town and part of the country rests fairly and squarely on the local housing authority. Deputy Flanagan is a member of a housing authority. I want to know what Deputy Flanagan as a member of that housing authority has been doing.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He is not a member of the housing authority.

Mr. Blaney

He is a member of the council.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Not of Offaly.

Mr. Blaney

He has taxed me in regard to Laois as well and said we should send somebody down from the Department to have a survey. I have asked his county council to make a survey and would be very interested to know the result.

I would also say to Deputy Flanagan that in his own county and the adjoining county which forms his constituency, he knows well that if he applied himself properly there, rather than talked about it here, he could have got houses built for some of these unfortunate people and would not have to wait until the eve of an election to cry these crocodile tears for these people because they have no houses and then blame a Fianna Fáil Minister for that state of affairs.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 6 Jul 1961

Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Local Government (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Jul 1961