Last evening when the Minister was replying to the very able statement made by Deputy Johnson regarding the abolition of the Dublin Corporation I felt that it would be spoiling a good case to add very much to what Deputy Johnson and Deputy Hewat said. But I wish briefly to refer to two points made by the Minister. One was the question of houses. The Minister stated that the Corporation were slow in their methods of dealing with the housing problem. I certainly am dissatisfied with the way the Dublin housing problem is being dealt with. but the fault is not due to the Dublin Corporation. I have been speaking to one member of the Housing Committee to-day and he asked me if I could get the Minister for Local Government to produce the file of correspondence between the Housing Committee and his department, which he said would disclose the fact that the department held up the housing scheme at Marino for practically twelve months, in spite of the Corporation's protests, and further that the department reduced the number of houses to be built at Marino on one contract to half the number proposed. The Corporation's idea was to build 450 houses, but as a result, for some unknown reason of this interference, the scheme was reduced to 200 odd houses—a very few over 200. I think that settles the question of housing. I can certainly say that the Housing Committee of the present Corporation did more within the past four years than any previous Committee in a period of ten years. They dealt with the money speedily and the houses were built at the lowest possible price. These houses were no deared—in fact, in some cases they were cheaper—than the houses that were built when the President was Chairman of the Corporation Housing Committee.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. ESTIMATE 39—MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Prices have fallen since then.
The Marino housing scheme is costing much less than the houses in Fairbrothers' Fields. The Minister also referred to the question of wages. The wages paid by the Dublin Corporation are largely affected by the rate of wages paid outside. Certain classes of trades insisted on a higher wage in the case of the Corporation and other public boards than that paid by private contractors. I understand that within the last few days an attempt has been made to reduce the wages of one class in the Corporation, and I hope that the Minister will not leave Dublin in the same plight as Derry is in to-day, when he starts attacking the wages of the Corporation workers. I have answered the only two points made by the Minister when he was replying to Deputy Johnson. I do wish to express this opinion, that on the whole the Corporation members who have been my colleagues for the past four years—a new Corporation, too, with whom I differed in many cases—under extraordinary difficulties, and hampered by the Government also, have done their best, and if the good points of the Corporation were probed and given the same publicity as their few little bad points it would be fairer. I hold that there are very few bad points, and that the only fault is that the Corporation has been used by the Government's own followers of four years ago as a political platform, using the same weapons as they used against the British and the old Irish Party; that the present members of the Corporation do not forget that these weapons succeeded then, and that it is possible that the same weapons of embarrassing the Government to-day may succeed and may bring about what they hope to see. The Government will be doing a wise thing by stating that the reason for the abolition of the Corporation was that it was used as a political platform by their opponents, and that it was for the purpose of taking from them the publicity and the opportunities they had of exposing grievances which their followers suffered from. The Corporation, as the public health authority, has continually drawn attention to the condition of the prisons, especially of the prisons in Dublin, which it thought it ought to control. I think, candidly, as a corporator who is, should I say, almost glad to have a little rest from Corporation duties, that the faults of the Corporation are no worse than those of the Dáil. I ask the Dáil to compare the report on the administration of the Corporation with the auditor's report concerning the army and see which comes out better. I ask the Minister if he is not satisfied with the present Corporation to give the electors an opportunity of deciding who shall represent them. There is no justification for abolishing an ancient body like the Dublin Corporation. There may be justification for postponing the operations of the present members, but I say the way to do that is to have an election, and have it immediately.
I come to praise Caesar not to bury him. I have been privileged to be a member of the Corporation for the last eleven years, representing, I may say, all types of people, from Trinity College to the slums in South Dock and Trinity Ward, and I have had opportunities during the last few weeks of meeting many electors, both of Trinity College and in the slums of the Grand Canal Street neigh-hourhood, and they, like myself. are not satisfied that the removal of the Corporation was justifiable. Individual Deputies are representing private taxpayers, and for the four and a half years since the last election that I represented the ratepayers there was always an opportunity of asking them what they had to say, and I never heard of any grievances. The trouble as far as I can see, is that four and a half years ago a very strong political body —53 out of 80—was elected who promised to revolutionise the Corporation. For two years they certainly worked hard, harder than in the case of those who were members for the six years previously. They did wonderful things —put people in and put people out.
Jobs.
I do not know anything about jobs. I do not know if there ever was a job in the Corporation. There are appointments to be filled as there are here. This political body worked very hard for two years, but I read in the Press two years ago that there was a division in it; I understand it is not healed up yet. From that time on no one seemed to take any interest in the business. Everything was thrown in the air. It was a case of going hammer and tongs at one another on some political division, and the Corporation business was neglected. Many members resigned, and many as a protest would not sit with their fellow members. We hoped that one and a half years ago a new body would be elected that would not go in on the political ticket. It was not necessary to have politicians in civic life.
I waited with feverish anxiety yesterday to hear the Minister reveal some shocking revelations as to what was going on in the Corporation. I was disappointed; there was nothing revealed but the hardy old annual of the Stanley Street workshops. I believe the Stanley Street workshops could have been regulated and put in order by the Government without putting the whole Corporation out of existence. The Corporation, as a whole, should be given credit for what they have already given us. Deputy Johnson and Deputy Hewat spoke, as private members, of the Corporation, and I am sure members of the Corporation will thank them. I do not think it is a place for members of the Corporation to speak at all because it is merely a case of whitewashing one another. People may say: "What else can you say but praise them?" I am sorry there were not strong reasons given why the Corporation was dissolved.
I am sure that Deputy Keogh was anxious to speak kindly of the dead when he referred to the good works of the late Corporation. I am afraid those of us who have been ratepayers in the city for the last quarter of a century have very few kindly remembrances of the late Dublin Corporation. Deputy Byrne. another member of that auspicious body for some considerable time past, referred to the fact that the Dublin Corporation was always guided in the amounts it paid to its workmen by the figures paid by other bodies in the city. The larger number of the workmen employed by the Dublin Corporation were unskilled workmen, and other bodies I happened to be connected with were very largely influenced if not governed in the amount they had to pay to unskilled labour by the Corporation. We were being continually confronted by those alarming figures which the Corporation paid to their workmen. I want to deal with the late Corporation very much in the same spirit as Deputy Myles Keogh. I think the kindest thing one can say of them is that they left undone the things they ought to have done, and did the things they ought not to have done, but I think we ratepayers remember them not by the things they ought not to have done or the things they did, but by the heavy burden of rates that they cast on us year after year. We business men came to the conclusion many years ago, long before this Government came into existence, that there was only one possible remedy for the Dublin Corporation, and that is exactly the course the present Government has taken. I think it was a surprise to most of the citizens of Dublin to find that the new Government had the moral courage to take that stand and do what they did, and I think as a result of that action we have seen few tears in the eyes of the ratepayers of Dublin.
I take it that some of the Deputies at any rate are anxious that those of us who are members of the Dáil and who are ex-members of the Corporation ought to express some opinion or other on the action of the Ministry in installing Commissioners and dealing with the Dublin Corporation. I did not intend to offer any opinion, particularly on the action taken as regards the Commissioners, for one reason; I do not think, having regard to all the talk we have about the dignity that we are thought to have lost, that it is a dignified attitude for one of us, at any rate, to stand up and take sides on the matter. On the other hand, if the citizens feel that they are wronged in the matter and that their rights have been taken from them, it is their duty, more than ours, to take that action first. That is my opinion on that point. I do not propose to criticise either the action of the Ministry or those who may have provoked or brought about the drastic course taken in this regard. I do say I gave no encouragement to it, and, as I have already stated, I did not approve of the installing of Commissioners. I am opposed to it, but I recognise that there are instances where such drastic courses are necessary if those public bodies are to function in the interests of the citizens. I take exception to some particular actions of the majority of the Corporation. I will only refer to one. I do not stand for the reduction of wages, particularly for those of the working classes, but regarding the non-acceptance of the Government grant by the Corporation, while I appreciate to the full the action taken by the labour section in it—I feel they could do nothing else from the point of view they looked at it, namely, an attempt to reduce the standard rate of wages—yet I think that it was possible to accept that grant. Having regard to the very abnormal state of unemployment at the moment, I think it was quite possible to have accepted that grant on conditions that would not interfere with the local standard rates.
As to the Inspector's report, there are a couple of items to which I also take exception, and those are the references to Stanley Street. The Stanley Street workshops were established for the purpose of assembling in one centre workmen who were employed by various committees. It was with a view to carrying out that work in a more direct manner. Each committee had its own section, and its number of workmen centralised into one shop. Prior to its being done, things went on all right, but immediately the workshop was set up it became a little industry, and could be made a thriving one, if what I might call the ring, which is usually formed where any little industry has to be killed, were not formed. Some of our business men in the city are well aware of that. It was not possible to get the work done as it ought to have been done. I admit that, but the influences set to work starved Stanley Street, and the work which should have been done in the workshops was sent outside. That is the kernel of the failure of the Stanley Street workshops.
Regarding housing, I do think the Deputies who have already referred to this matter of the alleged delay of the Housing Committee in connection with the building of houses, will agree that that is not justified. I say that, because I do know that a good deal of unnecessary delay took place in the transfer of the different communications between the Housing Committee and the Local Government Department. I think that if the same delay will take place now that the Commissioners are working the Corporation, it will be found that progress in the matter of housing will be just as it was when the business was conducted by the Housing Committee. There is one particular matter to which I would like to refer. I noticed that in the propaganda that has been going on for a long time in connection with the suggested dissolution of the Corporation and the propaganda going on since the Corporation has been dissolved, it is those who clamoured the most to bring about that drastic dissolution of the Corporation who have latterly weakened off so very much and even gone so far as to protest against the action of the Government in that respect. What is behind that I do not know. At any rate, if anyone takes up the Dublin papers that have been agitating against the Corporation for so long, he will find that there is something behind it. I do not propose to occupy the time of the Dáil any longer, except to say that in my mind the citizens have a right in feeling that they have been interfered with. I believe it is their right to take whatever course they think proper to protest in this matter. I will confine myself to that.
MR. DAVIN
There is one aspect, and perhaps an important aspect, of this whole question which I trust the Dáil has not overlooked. That is that the Minister for Local Government, as an external Minister, has in my opinion, in taking this action treated the Dáil more or less in a contemptible way. Perhaps I am wrong, but it is my view at any rate, that it would be his duty, having abolished a public body, first of all to provide the Deputies with a copy of the Inspector's report on which he acted, and which forced him to come to that conclusion. He should afterwards, in my opinion, have come along to the Dáil and justify to them the action he had taken. I have been listening to the debate that has taken place on that matter during the past day or two, and on a previous occasion, and I noticed that the Minister on one or two occasions used the word "Government." I had rather a peculiar idea that when the word "Government" was used, that the Minister, before taking this action, was in consultation with the Executive Council and had something in the nature more or less of their approval. If he has taken that step, I think that as an External Minister he has gone in the wrong direction. He should have come down to the Dáil, after having provided us with a copy of the Inspector's report, and endeavoured to justify his action in taking such a serious decision.
The Minister stated that the reasons which forced him to come to this conclusion and to take the decision for which he accepted full responsibility were, that he was not satisfied with the administration of the Dublin Corporation, and that consequently he thought that the best course to adopt would be to appoint Commissioners to take the place of the body that had been elected by the people to find out the things which he was anxious to find out, and to find out what was wrong, and where the Dublin Corporation had made mistakes, and that he was doing all this in the interests of the citizens. Now I submit that he could have done that just as well by the holding of an Inquiry. Through that inquiry he could have found out everything that he was anxious to find out, without wiping out the whole body. This is in my mind the whole cause of the trouble, and the whole explanation of the thing with which Deputy Good has dealt, that is, that the Dublin Corporation had accepted responsibility for the rates of wages and the salaries which are not pleasing to the Minister or to the officials that are in charge of the Ministry for Local Government.
The Minister, and his colleagues who are on the Executive Council have, unfortunately, allowed themselves to be drawn into the hands of the capitalists or ruling classes. They are endeavouring to use the position of unemployment in this country, and the position of the unfortunate people who have been thrown on the unemployment list because of their own action. They are endeavouring to cut down lower the existing wages which the Dublin Corporation had accepted. Now the £10,000, and it was only £10.000, would not employ very many men for one week only, even if the Corporation had accepted the conditions attached to that grant. But I tell him that although the unemployed are faced with starvation, they still have got their organisation and leaders among them, and they will not allow themselves to be used as a lever to serve the purpose which the Minister has in mind. You have a case of that in Derry at the present moment. You cannot use the position of the unemployed to bring down rates of wages, and therefore the Minister, if he thinks that the Commissioners who succeeded the Dublin Corporation will serve the purpose of reducing wages, and using unemployment to lower the standard of living of the ordinary workers outside, will find in a very short time that he is very much mistaken indeed. I can see that Deputy Good's interest in the standard of living is such that he will welcome this action of the Minister. He can see that the Minister is allowing himself to be used by the classes with which Deputy Good is so prominently associated.
I contend that the Minister, when replying, should give good reason as to why he did not publish the report of the Inspector, and why he did not, as an external Minister, instead of going to the Executive Council—if he has gone to the Executive Council—come down to the Dáil and justify his action in wiping out a body elected by the citizens of Dublin. The proper thing for him to do would be to order an election in the City of Dublin, and thus find, as he would find, a body of people elected to represent the citizens and taking responsibility for their action as representatives of the citizens. Deputy Alfred Byrne has rightly pointed out that the body that was elected at the last election was composed of 53 members of one Party who were sent there for a purely political purpose, because they had a certain flag tied to their tail. They were to stand up as representatives of a national organisation and carry out the mandate they received——
On a point of order, I wish to say that the Deputy is wrong when he says that it was Deputy Byrne who said that that Party was composed of 53 members. In justice to Deputy Byrne I wish to say that it was I said that, not he.
I am sorry, but I assumed that it is a fact. I take it, at all events, as being a fact. I contend that the fifty-three representatives of the Dublin Corporation who were sent there, not because they were men more capable than anybody else, to administer the affairs of the City, have done nothing in a very extraordinary way during the time they were there to justify this action. I put it to him this way: that when positions became vacant in the service of the Corporation during the period when these fifty-three people were acting for and supporting the Government of Dáil Eireann at the time, they did not appoint officials to the Dublin Corporation because they had special qualifications for, say, the position of rate collector. When the position of rate collector became vacant it was a political office, and the person appointed to the position was appointed, not through his qualifications, but for other reasons. These are things that the Minister might explain. I rise to take exception to the attitude of the Minister as an external Minister in not publishing the report of the Inspector, and not coming down to the Dáil before the question was raised, and endeavouring to justify the action he has taken.
Taking up Deputy Davin's challenge first of all, I may say that the Corporation was abolished in consultation with the Government. I have no apology to make for that. It would be absolutely ridiculous to think that external Ministers should work at a loose end without co-operating with the Government of the country. As long as I am a responsible Minister for Local Government I believe that I am entitled to take decisions in matters of this kind without coming before the Dáil. As I remarked previously, it is necessary to do that, or otherwise you should abolish Ministers altogether, and rule the country through a Committee of the Dáil. Deputy Byrne has dealt principally with the housing problem. I believe that I have given sufficient reason for the abolition of this body in my reply to Deputy Johnson. Deputy Byrne has complained of my strictures with regard to their conduct on the housing question and he has retorted with the tu quoque argument.
It is true there was a considerable number of letters passing between our department and the Dublin Corporation on the question of housing. I am quite willing to allow the Deputy to consult the files and make whatever use he likes of them. The main reason for holding up building was that the Corporation raised ridiculous points, insisting on such things as having window sills of cut stone and having the stones cut on the site, and matters of that sort. That would have added very considerably to the cost of those buildings. They can never be erected, unless under the most economic conditions at the present time. I can inform Deputy Byrne that the Commissioners are already making considerable progress with building. They have secured prices far more favourable than before for the building of the remaining houses and they are starting the erection of 197 houses on the Marino Site on Monday next. Progress is also being made as regards other sites and developments which will entail the employment of a considerable amount of unskilled labour will be started at once.
I can well understand the attitude of Deputies Byrne and Keogh in objecting to my action in this matter. It is only reasonable. I am sure they feel a certain grievance in the matter and I sympathise with them. To use an old phrase, it hurts me more than them to have to take this action, but in the circumstances it could not be helped.
I am not surprised at Deputy Johnson's attitude. He has consistently played the role here of a champion of democracy, and he has played that rôle very successfully. I have come in for a great deal of his battery, but I have got so used to it now that I really pay very little attention to it. I was very surprised to see Deputy Hewat taking me to task over my action in this matter. He is, I believe, representing a section of the ratepaying community and they were very much to the fore in objecting to the conduct of the Corporation. I find it very difficult to understand his motive in quarrelling with our conduct in this matter, unless he has in mind the object of competing with Deputy Johnson for the position he holds as the great champion of democracy and constitutional Government in the Dáil.
Hear, hear.
I am going to give a warning to Deputy Hewat at this stage. I warn him that he has very little chance of competing with Deputy Johnson on that matter, because Deputy Johnson is certainly a past master in political strategy of that kind. I thought I gave sufficient reason for obliterating, as Deputy Johnson said, the Dublin Corporation. Very little stress has been laid on the fact that the Corporation has turned down the grant, and that, undoubtedly, had a great deal to do in influencing me in my decision.
Politics have been referred to. I do not mind how much political tomfoolery the Corporation or any other local authority in Ireland carries on, so long as it does not interfere with efficiency; but when it interferes in matters of life and death, as was the case when the Corporation turned the grant down, I may say that I was justified in interfering. At present we have what may be described as an unparalleled situation in Dublin, or at least such a situation as has not arisen for a very considerable time. There are thousands of unemployed in the city in a very serious state of destitution. Anyone who has anything to do with charity in the city at present realises how badly off many people are in the poorer districts. It is not an uncommon sight to see strong men having to go to charitable institutions to get food, men who in the ordinary course of events would earn a decent livelihood.
They would get more than £2 10s. anyway.
Better that than nothing.
In making this grant available we did what we thought was the best thing which would give relief in a terrible situation. During the course of this discussion I have not hauled the Corporation over the coals for not reducing wages. I believe the Corporation wages are too high, particularly when you take into consideration the fact that a great number of the employees get pensions and other perquisites which the ordinary workman has no chance of getting. The great grievance, on the question of wages, against the Corporation was the fact that they refused even to consider the question of wages. I considered that, at a time when the rates in the city were so high, notwithstanding the fact that the valuation was made only a few years ago, and when you take into consideration that we have so little money for the relief of unemployment, and for measures of that kind, the Corporation was certainly unjustified in every respect in turning down that grant, and insisting upon the payment of wages to the unemployed equal to the extravagant wages they are paying their own officials at the present time.
That was one instance of the attitude of the Corporation towards our Government. I do not mind what kind of political fraud they go on with there. It is a good platform for those gentlemen who do not want to come into the Dáil, but when it comes to a matter of this kind it is going too far for them to allow their political bias to prevent them carrying out their duty to the citizens. This is an instance of their whole attitude towards the Government on matters into which politics do not enter at all. At the same time I had very good information that the Corporation did not intend to strike a rate for the police force, and that conduct was altogether unjustified; and also that they were going to refuse to pay anything towards the upkeep of the Dublin Union, because I had Commissioners there. These are two points that indicate the attitude of the Corporation towards the Government, and, if you take these facts into consideration, with the arguments I advanced in favour of their abolition in reply to Deputy Johnson, I do not think anyone will say that I acted in a hasty or a too autocratic manner.
What about the publication of the Report, and circulating it to members of the Dáil?
A copy of the Report was handed to the Press.
That is not what I mean. I contend a report of this kind should be circulated to members of the Dáil.
The Deputy has another method of having that done.
That is a question for the Minister for Finance. I have absolutely no objection to the publication of the Report.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- David Hall.
- William Hewat.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Darrell Figgis.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Brighde.
- Domhnall Mac Carthaigh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGillígan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Padraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
I take it that we are still discussing sub-head (a) of this Estimate. The Minister for Finance keeps reiterating that he must balance his Budget, and keeps asserting that he can neither reduce the taxes upon sugar, nor the income tax, nor any of the other taxes that bear so heavily both upon the poor and the well-to-do. I think it behoves the Minister that he should make very careful inquiry into Departmental expenditure. When one looks at this sub-head one is rather alarmed to find that in the present year there is no less than an increase of fifteen officials connected with the temporary staff, costing £2,800. That does not reassure us that there is such a desire on the part of the Minister to see that reductions are made in this particular Department. With regard to the inspectorial staff, I should like to refer to the Directory of 1919, which I picked up recently, and in which I found this statement, that the Local Government Board in Scotland appoints four lay inspectors, three medical inspectors, and one veterinary inspector.
The point I want to make is in connection with the four lay inspectors and the three medical inspectors. One of the medical inspectors also acts as superintendent of the Central Vaccine Institution for Scotland. As against the four lay inspectors in Scotland, we find that the lay inspectors in the Saorstát number seventeen, and that instead of three medical inspectors, we have here no less than ten. I maintain that there is no necessity in the wide world for this excessive number of inspectors. When I look further at the Estimate, I find that travelling expenses are put down at not less than £11,200. That is the Estimate, but the actual expenditure may not amount to that figure. I am going to make a very serious suggestion, and it is that it would be very much better to pay a number of these men their salaries and let them remain at home, rather than be paying them for running over the country when there is not sufficient work for them to do. At the time I allude to, in 1919, there were in all Ireland four medical male inspectors and one female inspector, with two inspectors of lunacy. Now in the Twenty-six Counties we have no less than ten of these inspectors.
I want to ask, also, why the Medical Inspector, who is the Inspector of Lunacy, should receive a very much larger salary than the other inspectors. Is he more fully qualified, or better qualified, or is he a much more senior man than the men who are acting as ordinary medical inspectors? I state quite seriously, too, that the salaries of these medical inspectors are very small. I should like to see them very much better paid, but I should like to see their numbers very much reduced. I can understand that there are difficulties, perhaps, in the way of reduction. It may be impossible to find work for these men to do once they have been put on the list of inspectors. And I also feel that, probably, during the past year or two, there has been a good deal of work in organising the County Health Homes, and that that may have performed an excessive amount of work.
With regard to an item lower down, I see that there are eighteen officials connected with the Irish Land Act of 1919. The Estimate for the salaries of these officials amounts to £4,330. I take it, however, that the statement below, that expenditure under this Act is a charge on British funds, means that it really does not matter to the Saorstát what is paid, or what number of officers are employed in this respect, and that it does not matter very much whether the item is increased or not. I want to finish, then, by saying that I should like to protest here against the employment of seventeen lay inspectors and ten medical inspectors who are running all over the country; and it is not only the question of their salaries, but the amount of travelling expenses that the increased number of inspectors entail.
I think that Deputy Sir James Craig should be rather more considerate for our position in this matter. Any time he comes over to my office I would be willing to show him in detail the amount of work that those various medical inspectors are doing, and I think that he will afterwards agree that they are not by any means underworked. During the last few years we have had practically a revolution in local government in Ireland; and. as a result of that, duties have been cast on the shoulders of inspectors that were never thrown on their shoulders before. During the struggle with the British an inspector was a regular autocrat, I might say, down the country. He had to undertake all the duties of county council, urban council, district council, and the Ministry of Local Government, and of everything else combined; and it has taken us some time to break away from that position. We are at the present time only in the formative stage of local government under the new regime. As compared with last year, there is an actual reduction of twenty-seven in our inspectors' staff, mainly as a result of definitive transfers to other departments of staffs already on loan. The Ministry's Vote for the present year contains provision for some members of the Local Government Board staff who were seconded for service in other Departments of the Government in 1922, and are still on loan, and also for certain staff on loan to the Soldiers and Sailors Department in connection with the provision of houses for British ex-servicemen. Excluding inspectors and auditors, the number of such staff provided for is 27.
The total inspectorial staff comprises 46 members, but of this number 6 are on loan to other Departments, and 3 have been appointed to discharge the duties of the Dublin Guardians and the Dublin Corporation. Five, including one Medical Inspector, are engaged on old age pensions work. The number of appeals on claims and on questions raised in respect of existing pensions was very much higher than last year, and this meant throwing an additional burden of work on the shoulders of the inspectors. On the whole, when the peculiar difficulties and circumstances of the present situation are taken into consideration, I think it will have to be admitted that our staff is not by any means excessive. At the same time, I realise that at some future time we will be able to make considerable reductions in this Department, but this cannot be for some considerable time.
Can the Minister inform us of any hours between morning and night during which any of the lay inspectors is bound to give his service to the particular county or counties to which he is appointed?
The inspector is expected to carry out his duties during reasonable hours.
Is the Minister aware, while he endeavours to justify himself in employing these inspectors, that many of them—I know one in particular who spends the greater portion of his time driving about in a motor car, not on any public business, but playing hockey, golf, and lawn tennis, and more particularly going to race meetings? And the State is paying him for doing that.
I have not got as much time as the Deputy to observe the different amusements and enjoyments that my staff engage in when they are off duty.
I would ask you to make inquiries into this.
If the Deputy sends me information of the facts, I will be willing to make very careful inquiries.
There is no check over them. They can do what they like.
Will the Minister inform us in connection with the provision for soldiers and sailors under the Irish Land Act, whether the Government has any longer any voice in the distribution of the land which takes place under this Act, or whether it is merely under the Trustee that that sort of control comes in?
These lands are distributed through the Trustee appointed, and we have absolutely no control whatsoever over these lands at present.
I would like to know if the Minister for Local Government has any control over the provision of houses for ex-soldiers and sailors, or is it the Trustee who also looks after them?
The Trustee only.
I want to point out the extraordinary amount spent on travelling. Roughly, I find it amounts for all Departments to £605,000, which means £2,000 every day is spent on travelling expenses. I think this is an item that ought to be looked into a little more carefully. It was in connection with the Inspectors that I thought the amount of £11,000 was very excessive.
Owing to the large volume of work the Inspectors have to do, it is natural to expect that travelling expenses should be high, and until we are in a position to reduce our staff of Inspectors they will remain so. After all, if we have a staff at all it is necessary to keep them going around and performing their duties. If there is anything in particular Deputy Sir J. Craig objects to, I will be willing to show him our accounts and go into the whole matter.
Does not the subsistence allowance of £1 per night seem excessive for the Inspectors?
Under Sub-head C I notice the salaries of auditors, who number 26, including stock-takers, as against 32 of the previous yéar. Out of the 26, it appears that one first class Auditor and two second class Auditors are on loan to another Department. I take it from that, that the condition of the accounts of the local authorities is so far in advance of what it was last year that the Minister can afford to loan to other Departments some of his staff. It seems to indicate that the work has been got over, and the complaints that we have been hearing about are pretty well satisfactorily adjusted. But I want to draw attention to a specific instance where I think the Auditor has gone beyond his authority and acted—shall I say?—as an agent for the Government, for the Ministry, in their wage cutting propaganda. We hear many times that Auditors are semi-judicial and have power outside the control of the Ministry, and if that is so they are entitled to audit accounts, but they are not entitled to direct policy. I am referring to the position of the Monaghan Urban District Council, regarding which I raised a question some time ago, and to which I got an answer. The question was:—
"To ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Auditor of the accounts of the Monaghan Urban District Council, dated the 21st February, 1924, in which the weekly wage of 47s. 6d. paid to the Council's employees is described as "extravagant." and a surcharge is threatened if such payments are found at the next audit to have been continued; whether he is aware that workers employed by private persons in Monaghan town as railway labourers, builders' groundmen and hodsmen, etc., receive wages of 45s. 6d., 47s., 48s., and 50s. a week; and whether he considers that the fact that an Auditor differs from the local authority in his judgment as to what constitutes a normal, reasonable or expedient payment is sufficient to constitute a payment "unfounded" within the meaning of Section 12 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1871."
The answer I received to that question was that the Minister had no information as to the rates of wages paid to the employees in the town outside the Urban Council employment, and that it was "open to any interested party to bring any material information under the notice of the Auditor," and, further, that the Auditor was "empowered to disallow and strike out all payments, charges and allowances which are made countrary to the law or which he deems to be unfounded." Now, here is a position where the Auditor has taken upon himself the duty of saying that the rate of £2 7s. 6d. is extravagant, and because it is extravagant in his view, he interprets his duty, which allows him to disallow a payment which he thinks unfounded, to cover his view of what is extravagant. The extravagance consists in a payment above what may be paid in some other services, but apparently there has been no question of considering the rate of pay in the town. Of course, this action on the part of the Auditor appears to have been the result of a deputation, or rather of a communication sent by the local employers, and when the Auditor obeyed the instructions of the local employers, then, of course, came the local employers to say, "You see what the Local Government Department says, and the local urban employers have now to reduce the wages to that paid to the local urban employees. We have to come down upon you, and reduce the wages of the ordinary employees working in the town." That is a perfect illustration of the policy, say, of the Local Government Ministry. Then the Auditor's test of extravagance appears to be the rate of wages paid in other urban districts not connected with Monaghan, taking no account of the rate of wages paid in the town, and then listening to the local employers complaining of the rate of wages and making this report, with the obvious conclusion that local employers then come upon their non-municipal workmen and say "We, too, must reduce the wages."
Then we will be told by the Minister that it is not his policy to interfere or to attempt to bring down the wages of the ordinary private employee; that he is not using his power in the municipal life of the country to try to degrade generally the standard of life of the working classes. The auditors' authority under the 1871 Act, as has been stated, is that he shall disallow and strike out of every such account all payments, charges and allowances made by any authority and charged on any fund contrary to law which he deems to be unfounded, and shall surcharge the same upon the person making or authorising the making of the illegal payment. I suggest to the Dáil that if the duties of the auditor are to be interpreted in the way that has been done in this case—that he should listen to the complaint of private employers and shall order, which is in effect what happened, the local council to reduce the wages from 47s. 6d. to something lower, on the ground that that wage is extravagant—we are simply getting into a state where the Minister is going to endeavour to rule the rate of wages in the country whether for municipal employment, national employment or private employment. The illustration that I am bringing before the Dáil is simply one other following many that have been already dealt with time after time, and is brought forward to show, by the accumulation of evidence, the course of policy which the Minister is following. I say that he is exceeding his authority, and not only exceeding his authority, but going outside the two lines of public policy. I expect the Minister will say that he cannot be held responsible for the reports of the auditor, that the auditor is an independent authority, somewhat analogous to the Comptroller and Auditor-General in national accounts. I suggest that the Comptroller and Auditor-General, or any such person, ought not to attempt to dictate to a local council the rate of wages to be paid and has no right to order, which by inference he does, under threat of surcharge, that the rate of wages ruling in the town should be lowered, that the rate of wages paid by private employers should thereby be reduced and, as a consequence, that the general standard of living of the working classes in that town should be lowered and degraded. I am sorry that the Minister for Finance, who represents the town, is not here to back me up in this protest. I am sorry that the other Deputies from the County Monaghan are not here to back me up in this protest. It so happens that I have been presented with the facts of the case as well as them, and in their absence I feel bound to raise this matter.