Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 May 1928

Vol. 23 No. 16

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 40—LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH.

Debate resumed on motion:
That a sum not exceeding £269,556 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities and Sundry Grants in Aid, and the Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums.

It is satisfactory to hear the Minister say that the rates are coming down, but the rates will have to go a great deal lower before they are in consonance with the capacity of the people to meet them. While I thoroughly sympathise with those who wish to improve social services, we must always take into account that we have to keep the social services so that the people will be able to meet the cost of them. I do not wish to be considered a reactionary. Personally, I should like to see the public health services very much improved. I should like to see county medical officers of health functioning in every county. I agree with Deputy Sir James Craig when he expressed the wish that a county medical officer of health should be set to work immediately in every county, but we must also face the fact that, however desirable that may be, and however desirable it is to have medical inspection of school children, the people are unable to meet the cost. I may be told that it would be better to bear this increased cost rather than that the health of the people should decline—that it would be very much cheaper in the end if these officers could start work immediately, as the result would be that the health of the school children would be greatly improved, and that would mean a saving to the rates in future of the cost of maintaining people who lose their health as a result of neglect in their early years. But, as I have said, the people are not at present in a position to meet the cost that this would involve. The result is that many county councils object to the county medical officer of health and have refused to make arrangements for the appointment.

I may be asked what alternative I have to suggest. The only one I can think of is that the present dispensary medical officers be given power to carry out the inspection of schools and be given an increased salary for the increased work this would entail. Many of them would be only too glad, if given the opportunity, to take out a post-graduate course and obtain a diploma in public health. Of course the obvious objection to that is that these medical officers have private practice and that in the course of carrying out the sanitation part of their work they might come up against their private patients, with the result that a certain amount of pressure could be brought to bear on them and they could be prevented from fulfilling their public duties. Perhaps that is what would happen, but I do not see any other way out. The ratepayers and their representatives strongly resent these medical officers of health being forced upon them. I know that the ratepayers are not in a position at present to meet the increased cost. Possibly, at some time in future, people may become better off, and then I would be the last to stand in the way of the appointment of such medical officers of health. At present I am against it.

As to the question of roads, I believe that the matter of making the trunk roads of the country a State charge has been before this House on many occasions, and it is time that serious attention should be given to it. After all, the trunk roads are arterial highways and it is time that they should be taken off the local rates. The people are grumbling, with very good cause, at the heavy charge on the local rates for the upkeep of roads. Although there is a very good State contribution for the maintenance of trunk and main roads, the result of having to maintain such an excellent service of roads is that the smaller roads are neglected and many ratepayers are severely handicapped. I may add, in passing, that it is rather anomalous that the road-making machinery should be taxed. The engines used in the making and repairing of roads should, at least, be free from the road tax. I may be told that it does not matter, because it comes back again, but it leads to a certain amount of irritation which could be avoided.

As to the question of the unused workhouses, these buildings are becoming a rather serious charge on the local rates. They are gradually deteriorating, and the councils are faced with a very heavy charge for upkeep. Some effort should be made to utilise these buildings. A few years ago a scheme was suggested to use some of them for homes for imbeciles. The idea was set afoot in County Waterford to use one of the buildings there to maintain imbeciles from Waterford, South Tipperary and Kilkenny. That scheme has not materialised, but it is worthy of consideration. Probably it could be applied to other counties as well. Another use to which they could be put, and which would be very desirable, is that some arrangement could be made by which unmarried mothers in various counties could be put in charge of, say, some religious body in some of these institutions. The present arrangement is not a desirable one and some of these buildings could be utilised to advantage for this purpose.

With regard to combined purchasing, I am not against it, as I have realised the advantages, but there are some rather serious complaints in connection with it. The hospital and the mental home in Waterford have been supplied with very inferior articles on more than one occasion, and the complaint made, apparently, has not remedied the matter. Of course we are also faced with the complaint from local traders that they are practically excluded from tendering for supplies.

They are not

We tell them that they should get on the list, and that it would be then open to them to tender. I have no detailed particulars, but I am constantly getting complaints in connection with that, and perhaps the Minister will investigate the matter.

Get detailed particulars the next time!

Yes, I will get the details. I do not knew if I am precluded from dealing with the Appointments Commission. It is another bone of contention. Lately, at an inquiry in Waterford, it was said that a certain gentleman recommended by the Appointments Commissioners was not on the black list. Quite a lot of people want to know what is the black list, and what exactly makes a person eligible for the black list. I have no doubt that the Appointments Commissioners acted with perfect fairness, but whatever the result there is undoubtedly a feeling in the country that the thing is not always fair. And although the best man may be appointed, it is not always the person most suited for the particular locality that is appointed. I think the whole question of the Appointments Committee would be worth inquiring into. I do not wish to criticise the Commissioners unduly, but I must admit that in many parts of the country the selections made have not given satisfaction at all. There is a considerable vexation and ill-feeling as a result of many of the appointments made.

I was sorry to have to say anything with reference to increased medical services, but I must say that the people cannot afford them. Just one word more on the question of the co-ordination of the medical service. Since the passing of the National Health Insurance Act there has been a division of the Medical Charities Act, and I think it would be well worth while if the whole question of the Medical Charities Act and the National Health Insurance Act were taken up, and that they were revised.

I am prepared to support the suggestion that the local authorities should be relieved of the responsibility for the maintenance of the main and trunk roads. When I say that I do not mean to suggest that the ratepayers of the localities concerned should be relieved altogether of any financial liability. I believe that this is the only road to the solution of the general problem of transport. I believe that part of the way that we will have to travel towards the final solution of that problem is by taking the responsibility off the local authorities for the maintenance of the main and trunk roads and placing it on some central authority, whether it be in charge of the Local Government Department or the Department of Industry and Commerce.

That would require legislation.

I am not suggesting that it does mean legislation, and I think you do not think that it does or you would not allow Deputy Goulding to say the same thing without pulling him up.

I did not allow him to say the same thing.

The ratepaying community of this country are not in a position to make use of the roads to the same extent nowadays as ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago, and I think that, seeing that is so, certainly they should not be called upon to bear the same charge for the upkeep of the roads to-day.

Several Deputies, led, I think, by Deputy John Daly, urged the Minister to promote schemes which would enable the local authorities to build labourers' cottages in areas where they are required, and at rents which the people looking for them would be in a position to pay. I certainly support that suggestion. There is a demand for this in the area I represent. I would urge the Minister, however, before proceeding with such a scheme, to endeavour to provide facilities for the Board of Health in the different areas to build labourers' cottages on plots already provided for that purpose. I have been approached on several occasions and requested to make representations to the Minister's Department for the purpose of getting the Minister to persuade the Boards of Health to build cottages on plots provided years ago for these particular purposes. I am inquiring to what extent grievances of that kind exist in other areas. I think in North Tipperary, in Carlow and several Midland counties plots have been provided by the rural district councils where cottages have not been so far built. I saw a case in a recent land division scheme where an individual who was in possession of a plot without a cottage was prevented from getting an addition to that plot because a house had not been built upon that plot provided for that purpose in this particular area.

I suggest this is a serious matter. I do not know to what extent or how many people are affected or what areas are affected but I think if plots were provided years ago for the purpose of enabling labourers to have cottages built upon these plots the Boards of Health should be allowed to proceed and should get facilities for building houses upon those plots. I was informed by an official of the Minister's Department that if the Board of Health had to find the total cost of building cottages the rents charged would amount to 10/- or 12/- a week. I only suggest to the Minister if it can be done that the Boards of Health should be put in a position to build cottages on those plots at a rent the labourers would be in a position to pay. That is labourers of the kind who are entitled to have cottages built and provided as they were in the old days under the Labourers Acts.

Now the Minister's statement in regard to the housing question is not very convincing. From what I know of the views of the Minister and those who assist him they are doing all they can, within the limits of the powers of the recent Acts, to encourage individuals and local authorities to build houses urgently required in many cases all over the country. The fact remains that as stated by the Minister the total number of houses built up to the 31st March by private persons was 8,727, of which 6,533 were completed. The number of houses built by the local authorities was 2,278 which is clear proof that local authorities do not think they have the facilities to enable them to build the houses required all over the country. I know several local authorities in the constituency of Leix and Offaly, particularly in Birr and Tullamore, where houses are badly needed, where they have prepared schemes giving an indication of the number of houses required and they say they cannot proceed to build those houses unless they get longer term loans than these under the present Housing Act. It is impossible to expect people would proceed to build houses on the fifteen year loan basis; if people were anxious to get houses they would have to pay a rent of seven or eight shillings a week in towns where the workmen only receive 30/- or 35/- a week. It cannot be done. I know when the Minister visited Tullamore on a recent occasion to inquire into the question of local administration he visited some of the hovels that the unfortunate people live in. I know he has sympathy for them and all I ask him is to make haste in the direction of providing a longer period for loans for local authorities so that they can proceed to do the work which they are anxious to do. The fact that 2,278 houses have been built under the Acts of 1924, 1925 and 1926 shows that the Housing Acts, so far as they give facilities to local authorities, are a complete failure. I know the President is interested in this question and I only express the hope that the conference now sitting will bring the results the Ministry are hoping for and one of the results I hope will be that the money necessary will be provided for a much longer period than under the previous Acts.

I would ask the Minister for Local Government to see that the medical officers of health we have appointed— and I am quite in agreement with the appointment of those officers, and I think time will prove that they have very useful work to do—will ask for a return of the insanitary houses throughout provincial Ireland. I want to refer to the agitation for the building of houses in Edenderry. I have made representations to the Minister for Local Government with regard to the providing of houses under the Labourers Acts; the reason I have done so is that you have there the woodworking industry, which has received State assistance. That cannot be carried on successfully unless the local authority, with the assistance of the Ministry, provide houses urgently required for the skilled workers, who will not go into Edenderry unless these houses are provided. I have seen houses in which workmen live and it is scandalous to think that in any civilised country workmen should be called upon to live in them. There are cases in Edenderry where workmen have to live in old stables. I suggest to the Minister that there is no use in one Ministry providing a large amount by way of loans under a Trade Loans Facilities Act to enable the woodworking industry in Edenderry to be developed and at the same time not to provide houses required to induce skilled workmen to come in there. Skilled workmen have stayed in Edenderry for a certain period and left because they could not find sufficient lodging accommodation in the town. I mention the matter now because representations have been made to the Department. They will have to bring the necessary pressure to bear on the Board of Health to start a scheme for the reason I have quoted. I have engaged in a contest with the Town Commissioners on this matter, but I found some of the members of the Town Commission owned some of the hovels in which human beings are expected to live. I hope these people will have to give way, and that the Department of Local Government will not take any serious notice of any representations made to them by people with an interest in the hovels in Edenderry and in other places.

I also support Deputy Sir James Craig, Deputy Dr. O'Dowd and others who have appealed to the Minister to give further facilities for the provision of water-works and sewerage schemes where they are required. I admit that the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance have done a good deal within the narrow limits of the money made available. The one point I want to make to the Minister is that he has provided a certain amount of money already to enable local authorities to carry out sewerage and water-works schemes. Certain towns are without sanitary accommodation which ordinary towns in any civilised country should have at their disposal. It is my opinion that these schemes cannot be carried out unless a certain amount of free grant is given. The area of charge is the dispensary area. Local authorities cannot be expected to provide all the money to enable them to carry out those schemes where they are necessary. I urge upon the Minister in considering the provision of money for this purpose to consider the advisability of giving a fair proportion of the money by free grant to enable these schemes to be carried out if the medical officers think such schemes are necessary. I believe medical officers of health have been responsible for the carrying out of such works.

There is one other matter which I would like the Minister to explain. On March 6th the Minister was responsible for calling a conference consisting of representatives of the Committees of Management of the different mental hospitals throughout the country, and it appears to me his aim and object was to give them directions and assistance to reduce the salaries of the employees of those particular concerns. I have before me extracts from one report in the "Kerryman." There is a report given by the representatives of the local people. I have also extracts from the Clonmel "Nationalist." The report in the "Kerryman" states:—

"General Mulcahy, T.D., Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who was accompanied by Mr. E.P. McCarron, Secretary of the Department, and Mr. Collins, of the Mental Hospitals Section, opened the proceedings."

I will not worry the House by repeating what was said. It then goes on:—

"A memorandum giving particulars of the action taken by each Committee with regard to the remuneration of their officers was read and a general discussion, in which most members present took part, followed, on the position created by the decisions in the courts in the several cases which have been taken against Committees."

It was proposed by one representative that a Committee of those present be formed, the objects of the Committee being:

"1. To ascertain the powers of the Committee of Management in regard to the reduction of the remuneration of both officers and servants;

2. To consider whether any general scheme of reduction is practicable, and if so,

3. How it can be made effective;

4. To report specially as regards the Mullingar scheme of inclusive cash wages, which was agreed to."

The point I want to make is that it appears, from reading a report such as that, that the Minister, rightly or wrongly—I think wrongly—took upon himself the responsibility of calling, as it were, the employers together and of discussing with them the advisability or necessity, as it was called, of reducing the wages of workers employed by the Mental Hospital Committees. I think the Minister, before taking any such step in future, if he thinks that the wages of the workers employed by the mental hospitals ought to be reduced, in calling a conference for the purpose of considering the advisability of reducing such wages, should provide that the conference would consist of employees and employers. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would agree, in cases where it may be advisable in future to call employers together to consider these matters, at the same time to consider calling into the same conference those who are acknowledged as the leaders of the workers in the mental hospitals. I think it is not right, when such matters have to be considered, that one side should be called together and given directions without consulting the other side.

It is to be regretted that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health does not appear fully to realise the economic conditions existing down the country and the absolute necessity for drastic economy in the administration of this Department. He does not appear to be aware of the fact that those who live down the country and who mix amongst the farming community are fully aware that farmers who were comfortably off seven or eight years ago, to-day cannot make ends meet, and that unless there is the most drastic economy in the administration of the Departments of the Government, and more especially in the Department of Local Government and Public Health, a point is bound to be reached that will be the breaking point with many of the farming community. Many of them to-day are faced with bankruptcy or emigration, and some of them are faced with both. The Estimate for 1927-28 under Sub-head A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—was £85,422. For 1928-29 the amount under the same sub-head is £79,934, showing a decrease of £5,480. That decrease is to a great extent a decrease on paper. It does not exist in reality. In that decrease there are two general inspectors with a salary of £1,024, one medical inspector with £700, the auditor with a salary of £775, making in all £2,499 shown, but these officers are actually Commissioners. They are retained on the staff of the Local Government Department, and at any time when their services are no longer required as Commissioners they may return to the Local Government Department and take up office in their former positions. Their salaries at the moment are not paid out of this Vote, but there is no question about it they are drawing salaries and they are being paid by the ratepayers. It is only the merest camouflage to put the salaries of these officers down as a saving in this year's Estimate.

It is not put down as a saving.

How do you make out that saving then?

It is not going to be paid out of the Vote; it is going to be met out of Appropriations-in-Aid.

The other £2,000 is not included in that because it is not payable——

I am dealing with the inspectorial staff. The total estimated cost for the inspectorial staff for 1928-29, including travelling expenses, is £28,515. That is an enormous sum of money to be spent in ensuring that the Department's regulations are carried out—to be spent on purely inspectorial work. I think there is ample room for economy in this Department. For example, we have the medical inspectors—taking them first, as I know most about them, I suppose — for various sub-departments — medical inspectors to inspect mental hospitals, medical inspectors to inspect dispensaries, medical inspectors to inspect people who have been drawing National Health Insurance benefit, when the society comes to doubt that they are no longer able to work; medical inspectors to decide whether people are sufficiently blind to draw the blind pension; medical inspectors to visit sanatoria, and so on. It appears to me that when a medical man reaches the position of being a medical inspector under the Local Government Department he should have sufficient qualifications to be able to inspect these various sub-divisions. The same remarks, to the same extent, apply to engineers. We have housing engineers, drainage engineers, and various other classes of engineers, and the result of it is that we have one group of inspectors following another around the country. It takes the co-ordinating inspectors at Headquarters all their time to see that no serious clash occurs, and that many of them will not be at work in any particular area at the same time. Then we have unemployment insurance inspectors and national health insurance inspectors, and old age pensions inspectors, and the general inspectors, as I said, inspecting them all. This inherited system of local government is altogether unsuited to the economic needs of the country, and it will have to be broken up. These watertight compartments of local government will have to be broken up before there is any effective economy in administration. I would suggest to the Minister seriously to consider the question of breaking down these watertight compartments, so that when a particular inspector for engineering or for medical matters comes to an area he will deal with most of the matters concerning his particular department as a whole and not have a procession of inspectors with practically the same qualifications following him round with the increased travelling allowances which that entails.

No serious effort has been made by the Minister to reduce the salaries of the higher officials. If all the salaries over £1,000 were reduced to that figure and if the cost-of-living bonus on salaries of £600 and upwards were discontinued, a saving of upwards of £7,000 could be effected. I submit that the time has come when these matters must be seriously considered. The Minister may say that £7,000 or £8,000 is not worth serious consideration but every £7,000 or £8,000 counts. The economic conditions in this country are such and the state of poverty is such that the time has come when at least a demonstration must be made at the top and an example shown to the people in the country. It must be shown that the people at the top seriously realise the economic conditions and are prepared to contribute their portion to the sacrifice that is necessary until the economic conditions improve. Some of the Minister's colleagues on the opposite side of the House seem to have taken a very superficial view of the Estimate and were congratulating themselves on the reductions that had been made. I find that the messenger staff in 1927-28 cost £1,683 and for 1928-29 the estimate of expenditure is £2,601. The auditors' salaries in 1927-28 amounted to £10,675 and for 1928-29 the estimate is £10,451. If we add the salary of £775 of the auditor who is a Commissioner, we find that the auditors are actually costing more this year than they did last year.

As to the Central Purchasing Department, in theory central purchasing is an excellent thing. In practice, it is, to my mind, a fraud. I believed enthusiastically at one time in this central purchasing system. I have had very good reason to alter my opinion. The Inspector in charge of this Department, while he may be an excellent official—I have every reason to believe he is—I hardly think is giving a return to the country which is worth £1,300 a year at the present time. I have no doubt that the Minister can give convincing figures —very convincing figures to those who do not know the facts—as to the economies that this central purchasing scheme has brought about. But what is actually happening is: Inferior stuff, rubbish in many cases, is being dumped in the public institutions of this country.

Why is it not sent back?

In many cases it is being sent back, but the public do not always get to know about it. I was reading during the week-end—I do not know whether it has been brought to the Minister's notice yet or not—a report of a meeting of the Monaghan and Cavan Mental Hospital Committee. Various articles supplied through the Central Purchasing Department were under discussion at that meeting. The Resident Medical Superintendent reported regarding socks which were supplied. The wool, of course, is far cheaper than the wool they used to get, but the socks made from that wool will not last more than a single day. As regards the soap, he reported that if you dissolve it in water, the water becomes black and muddy and gives out a most offensive odour. In fact, he says it is impossible to use that soap for washing purposes. That is the soap supplied by the Central Purchasing Department. Regarding the whiskey used in these institutions as a stimulant for patients, the Resident Medical Superintendent of this institution declared that it would be a danger to give the whiskey that is supplied to human beings—that it is not, in his opinion, fit for human consumption. Members of the Mental Hospital Committee who have some knowledge, gained in different ways, of that particular drug, stated that the whiskey fit to be used as a stimulant could not be supplied at the price at which this stuff is supplied by the Central Purchasing Department. I have no doubt that there is a very big saving in the use of this stimulant in these public institutions, but if what is supplied is an article little better than poteen, it is a form of economy that should not be encouraged.

Materials supplied by the Central Purchasing Department have been returned. From this institution that I mentioned some considerable consignments of cloth have been returned in the recent past. It was inferior in quality and it was short in weight. When it was brought to the notice of the contractor and to the notice of the Central Purchasing Department, the contractor actually complained that he had been supplying cloth of the same weight and of the same quality all over the Twenty-six Counties and that no other public body had questioned the matter. Eventually, he had to admit that the cloth was short in weight and inferior in quality, so that it would appear he had escaped for a considerable time, and he had actually a grievance that he was caught at all. I do not know if the same contractor is still supplying the Central Purchasing Department, but I presume the Minister will inform us upon that point.

There is another matter concerning the Central Purchasing Department that I want to refer to—that is, the supply of tar for road-making. The central contractors for this tar, I understand, are MacCrae, Taylor and Company. Some time ago, the county surveyor of our county came to the conclusion that he was not getting sufficient yield from the tar which he was receiving—that it was not going as far as it ought to go. He had five barrels arrested at random and sent to the Civic Guard barracks. He sent for a representative of the firm and a representative of the Trade Department. These barrels were examined and measured, and it was found that there was a shortage—a considerable shortage. The contracting firm offered to supply 6,000 gallons of tar to make good the deficit. The Local Government Department were prepared to accept that amount, but the very efficient and capable county surveyor estimated that the loss was at least 18,000 gallons and he would not accept the 6,000 gallons. As a matter of actual fact, MacCrae, Taylor and Company put up the 18,000 gallons of tar. I wonder if the same thing has been happening all over the Twenty-six Counties where these people have been supplying tar? I wonder if MacCrae, Taylor and Company are black-listed, or if they are still supplying tar to the various public bodies?

There is an item in the Estimate under the heading of "Child Welfare." I have no complaint to make on that score. I believe there is no expenditure from which better results are got than expenditure on Child Welfare schemes, but until such time as the supply of milk for human consumption is regulated and until such time as steps are taken to ensure that the milk of cows suffering from tuberculosis will not go on the market for human consumption, Child Welfare schemes will be working at the wrong end of the rope. A very big percentage of disease and death amongst children is caused by impure milk, and in present circumstances we are going to have all Child Welfare nurses, doctors, and all the rest devoting their energies to the cure of diseases that are caused by the impure milk supply. I hope the Minister will take an early opportunity of dealing with the question of pure milk supply.

There is a large expenditure on the treatment of tuberculosis. With that we cannot find much fault, but again it appears to me that we are working at the wrong end of the disease. Most of this expenditure is in providing sanatorium treatment and home treatment, but there does not appear to me to be much use in spending huge sums of money in building up people constitutionally in sanatoria or in other institutions if we are to send them back again to live under the same domestic conditions, the identical conditions which brought about the disease. Until a serious effort is made to improve the social conditions, to improve the housing conditions, to improve the sanitary conditions, to medically inspect the schools, to get at the disease in its early stages, until these steps of preventive medicine are seriously practised, there will be no headway made in this country under the Public Health Department. To a great extent, except for the purpose of isolation, a whole lot of our effort and expenditure is wasted at the present time, inasmuch as it is entirely devoted to and centred on treating the disease without making any serious effort to prevent it. Such preventive measures as a national scheme of afforestation, one of the most important preventive measures against pulmonary tuberculosis, because of the effect it would have on the climatic conditions, on the mean temperature, and on the condition of moisture in the air, ought to be taken. Another matter that has a very close bearing on tuberculosis in this country is housing. We find a big change in the Estimate for housing this year. The grants to the various authorities for housing this year are reduced by £86,220. We have an item of expenditure of £7,000 in the Estimate for the treatment of venereal disease. That, too, is not giving a proper return. We have these schemes in operation, I think, in most counties, but what actually happens is this: when a person contracts such a disease he will not go to the doctor who is known to be the medical officer for the treatment of this disease. He will either go to a private practitioner or go untreated. I think it would be far better if these people were brought to a central hospital in Dublin and if the £7,000 were spent in providing bed accommodation in one of these hospitals. I feel strongly on that, and I speak with a considerable amount of practical knowledge of it. People suffering from this disease should be isolated until they are certified to be cured.

Regarding the road grants, perhaps I might get some light from the Minister when he is summing up. There are some points that I am not clear about. I understand that the national route mileages in the Counties Monaghan, Meath and Louth, for instance, are approximately the same. Louth, I think, is somewhat longer. I find that £105,000 has been allotted to Meath for the past couple of years; £120,000 to Louth, and £56,000 to Monaghan. I am not clear how the Minister or his Department arrives at the allocation of these grants, but it does seem strange to me that £2 per mile should be allotted to Meath for the £1 per mile allotted to Monaghan. These are counties that are near me. I am not in a position to compare how we stand with other counties throughout the Saorstát. It is a matter that perhaps can be explained, but it certainly requires explanation. If it means that the roads in Meath and in Louth are being made twice as good and twice as lasting as the roads in Monaghan, and if the argument be put forward for the larger grant that the valuation of these counties is higher—in other words, that the people are richer—that is an argument I would join issue with. If twice as much money is spent on a particular road as upon another, it will naturally last twice as long, and when it comes to the upkeep of these roads the poor counties will suffer if their roads are not as lasting as a result of this initial expenditure as the others. In that connection I would like to know what is the cost per square yard of the different roads. Mileage is not a true indication, inasmuch as one road may be wider than another. I would like to know what is the cost per square yard of the national route in the three counties I mentioned.

On the question of amalgamation, it has been found in the working out that there are some practical difficulties. It appears there is not any uniform method in operation of dealing with these difficulties, because I have found in discussing the matter with Deputies from various sides of the House that the same difficulties do not appear to exist in different areas. One of the great difficulties—a difficulty which is almost universal—is the difficulty of the unmarried mother. I think the Minister should seriously consider the question of setting up separate institutions for that particular class—institutions to accommodate three or four counties. I believe that, with the development of cottage industries in such an institution and with compulsory powers to keep the mother there for a year or so, such an institution could be made self-supporting. So long as unmarried mothers are housed in County Homes, the County Homes can never be what the pioneers of amalgamation meant them to be. There is a further difficulty—whether it is peculiar to my particular area or whether it is universal, I do not know. We find considerable difficulty in getting the poor man's wife into the County Hospital for the period of her confinement. We find it impossible in some cases. Married women have actually been refused admission to the County Hospital—I am dealing now particularly with the destitute poor— on the ground that the County Home was the place for them. I think there should be very definite and specific regulations on this question. The poor man's wife should not be sent into the maternity department of the Co. Home, which is accommodating that other class of the community to which I have alluded.

I think it is altogether unfair and that there should be very definite regulations on that matter and these regulations should be universal. There is another matter regarding the hospitals and homes in some areas that is causing a very serious hardship. That is the extreme difficulty in getting cases requiring special surgical or medical treatment to a city hospital. There does not appear to be any universal standard or uniform regulation regarding this matter. I understand in certain counties if the dispensary doctor forms the opinion that a certain case is one requiring specialised treatment, surgical or medical, he can send such a case to a city hospital. He cannot do that in the part of the country to which I belong. The local government inspectors have actually insisted that cases should go into the county hospital first and that it is only through the county hospital or the county home that these cases could be sent to a specialist for treatment. Anybody can see the obvious hardship and danger of having to send a case first to the county home or hospital in order to have it decided there whether special treatment is or is not necessary. There are cases of very great urgency and delay is extremely dangerous. There should be no restriction put on the dispensary medical officer any more than in the days of the British Local Government. He should be enabled to send these cases direct to Dublin when in his opinion it is necessary for the saving of life to do that. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that these restrictions have been put on. I know that they have been put on by his inspectors, either with or without his knowledge or consent. I do not see why admission tickets could not be issued to dispensary medical officers for the institutions that are on the prescribed lists in Dublin, Cork, Galway, and elsewhere, where there are lists of hospitals prescribed. The medical officer could estimate the amount that people could afford to pay. People who could not pay the ordinary current charges in a city hospital could contribute something. I would like the Minister to look into this question and remove the restrictions that are being imposed, and that sometimes actually result in loss of life. I do not want to go into the thing in greater detail, but I could give unpleasant details.

Has the Deputy given them to the Department?

I think I have given the Minister sufficient details to draw his attention to the seriousness of the question.

After all, the Deputy has spoken in very general terms, and much of the information he gave before he came to this subject is information that is completely inaccurate. If, with the Deputy's experience of medical matters, he sees very unfair and objectionable features in these matters from time to time, surely such things ought to be brought under the attention of the Department in the ordinary way and not be brought up simply to be lost among the riff-raff of this kind of a discussion on the Estimates.

I have no intention of allowing it to be lost.

It has been lost up to this.

If the matter does not receive attention as a result of this discussion, it will have to be brought more specifically to the notice of the Department. I think it will be agreed that it is an undoubted hardship to have to take people 30 or 40 miles to a county hospital, and, if they are seriously enough ill, to have to send them back over that ground in order to go to a city hospital.

Regarding sanitation in general, I dealt with some of the difficulties that we had to contend with in certain areas, and they apply, I think, to most urban areas throughout the Saorstát. It does not appear that there is any change of heart in the Department regarding these schemes. I grant you that a considerable portion of the relief grant was allocated to that purpose, but until the difficulties are fully realised, and until it is recognised that the local rates cannot bear the cost of carrying out sewerage schemes, and that financial assistance must come in the form of grants to local bodies— until that is realised and acted upon there will not be any headway made. Deputy Brennan suggested that there should be a flat rate for sanitary purposes. There will be objection to that inasmuch as you would have people in a county figuring out how much the flat rate in their country would be, and they would probably claim that the money should be expended whether or not sanitary works or other works were required in the area. The flat rate would be unworkable for several reasons. There are geographical reasons, and some towns and districts would be more difficult to arrange schemes for than others. It should be estimated what would be a reasonable amount of rates that a particular area should bear for sanitary works, and if there are peculiar features in a district that would render such schemes more expensive than under ordinary circumstances the extra expense involved could only be met in the form of grants.

I did not take part in the discussion on vaccination, but there is one matter I would like to suggest. In populous areas it would be advisable if the Minister would take steps to have a special day set aside in a dispensary for the purposes of vaccination. I think a good deal of the hostility to vaccination is due to the fact that the mother and the child are kept waiting for hours before being attended to. Probably the child may be hungry, and the mother might want to go away to get the husband's dinner. She might, on the other hand hear harrowing details about vaccination, and that does not help her mentality. It would be well then to devote one special day to vaccination alone.

In connection with grants for housing, the point has been laboured by various Deputies that that problem too will not be solved until long-term loans for housing are reverted to. I just want to add my voice to that demand. I have not seen yet any adequate reason why grants for the reconstruction of houses should be confined to urban areas, and why the rural areas should not have the same financial facilities for reconstruction as have been given to dwellers in urban areas.

On a point of order, I understood it was arranged that five and a quarter hours would be allowed for the debate on the Local Government Department Estimates generally. It has now extended to seven and a half hours, and I would like to have some idea when it will conclude.

There was an agreement at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that five and a half hours would be allowed for the Local Government Estimates. The discussion has already taken seven and a half hours on one of the Estimates. Even in face of the agreement, I am not empowered to restrict any Deputy who wishes to speak on the matter.

I merely wanted to find out from the House how we stand.

At this stage of the discussion on these Estimates it would not be very easy for any Deputy to say much that is new. I think I can say this much anyhow, that we do not envy the Minister in trying to meet the different opinions put forward. Listening to the debate has been very interesting. We find that human nature is much the same inside the House as outside the House, and that has been exemplified by each speaker who at the start of his speech urged the cutting down of expenditure, and before he sat down one was driven to the conclusion that the Minister would want to ask for a double grant to carry out what a particular Deputy needs to have done. I think that in discussing this Estimate, or indeed any other Estimate, we have got to consider our resources and to see then to what extent those resources will let us travel in the carrying out of our ideas. There are a great many things that we could do privately as well as publicly if we had some unlimited store at our command. But we must, at this stage, understand that if we are voting money here we have then to come and raise it by some means—taxation or otherwise. I think we are narrowed down in this discussion more or less to see what we can do effectively in the carrying out of those schemes that are before us at the moment or that are in existence.

There are a couple of things on which I would like to touch very briefly. The matter of the purchase of labourers' cottages has been mentioned and a good number of Deputies gave voice to the idea that they would be in favour of the purchase of labourers' cottages by the tenants now in possession of them. I just want to say that I would agree to that on one condition and that is that provision is made whereby these cottages would be kept in repair and remain an asset to the State which they undoubtedly are at present. We know that these labourers' cottages were erected at a time when materials were cheap. They were a great boon and a blessing to the country, and we would all like to see the labourer as well as the tenant farmer having a stake in the country and realising that there was something in the country that he could call his own. We have also the other side of the case to look to and that is that the cottage must be maintained so that in the years to come it will not become derelict or untenanted.

On the question of the combined purchasing scheme the position is that none of us can take up any paper in which he will not read of some condemnation of that scheme. It would not be in order I am sure, sir, to move the abolition of that Act now, nor, if it were, would I be inclined to do so. I agree with the principle. I have read very carefully through the regulations governing this scheme, and in my opinion it has not been made watertight enough. There are a great many things in it that could well be improved. It is only natural, and it is only human nature that the merchants in the towns in which these institutions are situated should feel hurt when they find they are not getting the supplying of the goods to these institutions, at perhaps their own terms, or that they are not getting a fair show. But there is one regulation which I think we might suggest in the matter and that is in regard to the time at which the list of the articles is issued. There is a regulation in most institutions that the 31st March is the end of the half year and it is the custom, I believe, that these lists do not come down until the 1st April. The practice has been that the members of the local bodies meet and ask for local tenders. They meet, say, a week or a fortnight before the 1st April, and the tenders have to lie over until the list comes down, and then the tenders are compared with the list. I submit that there is a sense of injustice in those who are tendering that their tender must lie there until it is compared with the list. I am not suggesting that there is anything in it. I do not go the length that some do of saying that information is given. That does not seem very probable or very possible. But there is this much about it that it would be more businesslike if the list were brought out a fortnight earlier and have the arrangements made whereby that list would be at the meeting and so let the whole thing be compared at the one sitting and have it settled once and for all who was to get the contract. Then there seems to be a laxity in the regulations providing for a return of the articles. In that matter there is a laxity and there is general agreement that the ratepayers are not getting value for their money in the case of the articles supplied. It may be that the articles supplied are not of a high enough standard or that a high enough standard is not asked for. That may be the crux of the whole matter.

Anyone who has been purchasing household goods knows that low-priced goods are not always the cheapest, and if the standard of these articles were raised perhaps better value would be got. If you take the case of soap, tea, wool, and so on, it will be found that the institution should be allowed to buy the high standard article rather than the low-priced one. In ordinary life, the individual when buying goods for himself will buy the higher-priced article; and we would be serving the interests of the ratepayers better and getting better value for our money if we were to do this too. To my mind, it is sometimes a very grievous hardship on the inmates of an institution to supply them with say, tea of a poor quality. When a cheap grade of tea is supplied to persons who by their presence in the hospital indicate that their stomachs are not in the condition to take the class of food that persons out in the open air and doing a hard day's work could take, it is not at all economical. I heard a good deal of complaint on that particular aspect of the matter when we were discussing this matter on last year's Estimates. The Minister told us last year that in the matter of soap he estimated there was a saving of £660. We all of us know that tallow crown soap can be got at any price. We can get soap at any price, and that is called tallow crown soap. The question is to get an article that will stand the test.

I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that there is a great deal to be done in the working out of details in connection with the combined purchasing scheme, so as to remove a great deal of this hardship complained of and to help towards getting better value for the money expended.

In regard to the matter of the roads. I have just been wondering if any of us visit districts other than our own. Those of us who do will find that the first thing that impresses us is the state of the roads in that particular district. If our roads are not maintained in excellent condition, then what should be a national asset— the fair name of our country—is imperilled. If a reduction in the Estimate for roads means that we are to have less efficient roads, then that is a matter to which I would not like to give my support. I now come to the question of the County Councils. The County Council elections have already been discussed in this House. These elections will soon be upon us.

There are many phases of that centralisation which I think could hardly be argued with benefit, but there was one thing in connection with it which a great many of us looked upon as a great boon and blessing, and that was, that the taking of the local appointments out of the hands of the local people relieves these men of a great deal of difficulty. One regarded it as a fair bid for purer administration, as lifting the appointments to a higher level, and that when that was done these appointments would be made on merit alone. It will be a great thing if it is engrained in the minds of young people that merit is the only thing that will count with them in after life. There have been a great many appointments made by the new method which have proved very satisfactory, but there is another danger which is very apparent and that is, that sometimes this duty is delegated to local people. I do not mind how high-minded, how pure, and how anxious to do what is fair and right people may be, it is not a fair position to put a local solicitor, doctor, or other person in, to make an appointment in his own parish. It is bringing the thing down from the higher to the lower plane, if we take the appointment out of the hands of elected representatives and put it into the hands of nominees. I do not suggest that these people are anxious for this duty, but they are asked to do a thing which must be repulsive to them in many ways, and which, no matter what they do, can hardly be defended. I make these suggestions to the Minister with the view of making Local Government work more effective.

I desire to direct the attention of the House to the urgency of the rural housing problem at present existing and to point out to the Minister the necessity for the erection of additional labourers' cottages, particularly in County Donegal. The Labourers Acts conferred a blessing on agricultural labourers in the shape of suitable cottages at rents which their slender purses could afford, but good as these particular Acts were, we of the Labour Party believe that they only touch the fringe of the situation and that the rural housing problem is so acute as to call for immediate Government attention. Under the Labourers Acts, we find that there were 42,189 cottages erected in the Twenty-Six Counties. Out of that number I have learned that there are only 1,473 cottages in County Donegal. That being so, I claim, as far as that particular county is concerned, that it has not received its proper quota of cottages. It would be no exaggeration to say that the small farmers and labourers in Donegal have set a headline which is worthy of emulation by other counties, because according to the agricultural statistics recently issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce we find that there is a greater percentage of land tilled in Donegal than in any other county. These figures prove that there is a large number of agricultural labourers engaged in that county, but when you come to compare the number of labourers' cottages in Donegal, say, with the number in County Dublin, where the percentage of land tilled is much smaller, you will find that Donegal is being very badly treated. These figures, I think, prove the necessity for the erection of more cottages in that county.

Cases have been brought to my notice where people in that county find it necessary to leave the district in which they have been reared, owing to the fact that they are not able to get proper housing accommodation. Other cases have been brought to my notice where young couples getting married are unable to secure proper housing accommodation, and have to go into the towns and cities. As far as some of the cottages there are concerned, and I am referring now principally to those not erected under the Labourers Acts, many of them are in a dilapidated and damp condition, and many are unfit for human habitation. In fact, many labourers there are so hard pressed that they are living in what might be termed huts, which are not fit for human habitation.

Deputy Davin pointed out to the Minister that it was a pity that the Department did not call for monthly reports from the medical officers of health in regard to the state of some houses and cottages in the country, and I should like to quote an extract from a letter which I have received from a medical man in Donegal in regard to the housing conditions among the labourers there. He says:

"There is, in my opinion, a great deficiency of labourers' cottages in County Donegal, and the position is aggravated by the inability to bring the majority of the very old thatched cottages up to the present high standard of sanitation. Cases of overcrowding are very frequently met with and under the present conditions there is no satisfactory means of remedying the evil. It is also a serious matter that young couples are hindered from marrying and residing in certain districts owing to the scarcity of houses. In all parishes the cottages at present in existence are occupied and many overcrowded. There is no denying the fact that there is a great scarcity of cottages in the county. There are numbers of houses unfit for human habitation, and the problem is urgent and deserving of Government or local authorities' attention."

That is the opinion of a medical practitioner in Donegal in regard to the inadequacy of houses and the insanitary condition of a large number of houses there.

Another aspect of the situation that has to be looked into is the question of emigration. Owing to the shortage of labourers' cottages, it is necessary for many labourers to emigrate either to America or very often as they do from the North-west to Scotland. I may be going somewhat outside the terms of the discussion, but I am just doing this in order to point out to the Minister the absolute necessity that exists for further housing accommodation.

Deputy Ward referred to the fact that part of the amount voted in connection with tuberculosis could possibly be better spent if it were devoted to improving the sanitary arrangements and I think he referred principally to the rural areas. One of the difficulties in regard to housing for labourers, as the Minister knows very well, is that the labourer is not able to pay an economic rent for his cottage owing to the low wages he receives. I should like to point out to the Minister that very much is being done to cope with this problem of rural housing in England. Under the Wheatley scheme brought into force by the British Labour Party when they were in office a large amount is being done to secure proper housing in the rural areas. Certain Government grants are given for the erection of labourers' cottages. In the Six Counties, I understand they are at present erecting additional labourers' cottages at rents which the labourers can afford to pay.

What rents could rural labourers afford to pay?

I do not think I need answer that question but I would like to see a number of cottages erected in Donegal, say, at about 2/- per week. When I make that statement, I do not mean the Minister to take it that the rents of the cottages which are less than that should be increased.

There is a very definite financial problem, and do I understand that the Deputy is not able to help us in consideration of that problem by suggesting what rent the rural labourers can pay?

I make the suggestion to the Minister that so far as Donegal is concerned I believe that if you put up an additional number of cottages the labourers would be prepared to pay 2/- per week. I understand that a deputation of labourers put that statement before the Board of Health in Donegal recently. I also draw attention to the Committee set up by the House with reference to the question of unemployment. I do not think that I am going outside the subject of the debate if I refer to that having regard to the fact that that Committee was considering the whole problem of housing.

You will have to leave labourers' cottages at that point.

I know this particular Committee has been considering housing in the cities and towns. It has been paying no attention to the scarcity in rural areas of labourers' cottages. In regard to this question I suggest that the Minister's Department should grant to the local authorities long term loans for say a period of 40 years at a low rate of interest.

At what rate of interest?

As low as the Minister could give it, or possibly without any interest at all. I understand the Minister for Finance said when introducing the Budget that we could borrow as much money as we desired at a reasonably low rate of interest. I suggest that in addition to giving these long-term loans at a low rate of interest he should also give £100 subsidy for every labourer's cottage erected.

Would Deputy Cassidy say in what way this arises on the Estimate that we are now discussing? I think I have given the Deputy a great deal of latitude upon the matter.

As far as housing is concerned the Minister's department is concerned deeply with labourers' cottages and the whole general question of housing, and that is why I brought it up, and I submit I am in order in going into it. I appeal to the Minister to give his attention to this, and I ask him to give the £100 subsidy as well as long-term loans at the lowest possible rate. If this is done, the Boards of Health would soon be in a position to solve the rural housing problem which is such a very big problem, and which demands immediate attention from the Minister.

The Deputy is now discussing something that would require legislation or an amendment of the existing Housing Act, and he cannot go into that now.

It is a pity that the Deputy would not say what the rate of interest on the loans might be so that he might give us a picture that would be complete.

I have gone into these figures, and I would like to say that the interest should be at as low a rate as possible.

We are not going to hear anything more about housing now.

I appeal to the Minister to look into this matter and to see that something is done for Donegal, which has been very badly affected.

resumed the Chair.

The Minister in introducing this Vote made it clear that a sum of £900,000 voted for the assistance of house-building had been already allocated, and that the policy of the Government so far as house-building in the future is concerned would depend largely upon the success or otherwise of the conference sitting at present inquiring into the cost of house-building. I am one of those who believe in having moral courage in dealing with a subject such as house-building. I believe that house-building at the present time is financially impossible at the rates prevailing. You cannot build a house at the present time and let it at an economic rent. Let us assume the Government intend to build labourers' cottage at an average cost of £200 a cottage, which is very small; it is a minimum estimate. Everybody knows if you raise money you have got to pay at least 5 per cent., and in the absence of long-term loans I believe the period allowed for the repayment is something in the vicinity of 15 years. That would practically amount, for principal and interest, to anything from £12 to £14 per annum, and allowing for incidental expenses, insurance and depreciation, it would be impossible to build a house at the present time that would cost £200 or £250 and let it at a less rent than seven or eight shillings a week.

Deputies have to face the facts. No labourer can afford by any stretch of the imagination to pay seven or eight shillings a week. This is a problem which will require the united efforts of all concerned so that they may tackle the question and provide decent houses for our citizens. It is a question that has to be faced both by the builders and the operatives, by the people who lend the money and by all concerned. It is a big, broad question. Everybody knows that proper housing is one of the most pressing problems of the day in all countries.

I am particularly anxious that the Minister would explain what he really meant by saying that the policy of the Government so far as housing is concerned will largely depend on the findings of this Committee. Am I to understand that assuming the builders and the operatives in Dublin city and county fail to agree, that the builders and the operatives in all the twenty-six counties will also fail to agree. I do not think it is right that the Minister should make that statement, and practically confine his operations as far as house-building is concerned to whatever agreement the builders and the operatives in Dublin will come to as a result of their deliberations in this Committee. I sincerely trust that the Committee will come to some solution of this most important problem. One thing I say here is that we have all got to recognise that if we want to solve this problem our resources are limited. We cannot afford to have everything we want at the present time. We will have to make some little sacrifice, and I believe if people would only face the facts at the present moment a great many of these problems that confront us could be satisfactorily solved. In connection with the building of houses I would like to ask the Minister what steps have been taken to see that houses already erected, partly through the subsidy given by the Government and partly through the contribution of those erecting them, have been treated in the proper manner, that proper care has been taken to see that the floor levels are at least six or nine inches above the adjacent ground level.

Care should be taken to see that there is a proper damp course from three to six inches above the line of the adjacent ground, because I think it would be very unwise to allow houses to be erected without any proper care or attention being bestowed on the materials used in their construction. Rheumatism, as far as I can learn, is on the increase and one of the causes is, I believe, damp houses. I have seen houses erected in the Free State that have been passed by the inspectors of the Local Government Department, and without fear of contradiction I say these houses are not fit for the beasts of the field to live in. I have seen material supposed to be gravel and sand, and one might as well go into a ploughed field, mix the earth there, and put it into the walls as some of the material I have seen passed by the officials of the Local Government Department. So much has been said about the Central Purchasing Committee that I feel rather slow in mentioning the matter at all, except to say to the Minister that I think he should scrap the whole thing and dispense with the Central Purchasing Committee. It has been a source of annoyance and criticism throughout the Twenty-six Counties. Some of the strongest criticisms come from the supporters of the present Government, and, as has been stated here, several of the materials supplied to local councils through the Central Purchasing Department have not been up to the standard set by the advertisements covering these contracts. I had occasion to bring before the Minister the case of disinfectants supplied to the Grangegorman Asylum. Fifty per cent. of the fluid was supposed to be cresylic acid, and the fluid was only found to contain 12.2 per cent.

Does the Deputy say it was Grangegorman?

I understand the Grangegorman Committee have nothing to do with the Central Purchasing Committee.

The reason I put it down is that I understand the Minister is sympathetic as far as Irish manufacture is concerned. The Dundalk Chemical Company, a local firm which is second to none as far as the quality of its products is concerned, was one of the firms which contracted for the supply of this fluid. It was only when they received an order from the authorities in Dublin that they found out what was wrong, 12.2 as against 50. There have been numerous complaints about the Central Purchasing Committee, and I think, for the interests of all concerned, this Department could very well be dispensed with. Our representatives are not so dishonest as to vote away public money for nothing. They invite contracts, and the local traders, owing to the slackness of trade, are very keen on contracting for those supplies. There is very little to be gained by purchasing through the Central Department, and there have been great complaints with regard to the quality of this stuff.

That is all I have to say, except to ask the Minister a question in connection with two official who were superannuated. One was named Jeffers, and the superannuation allowed to him was very little, something like £12 a year. As far as my information goes this official would be entitled to a gratuity of something like £200. I think the Minister should reconsider this man's position and either give him this gratuity or increase his pension. I am not in favour of granting pensions wholesale, but this is an exceptional case. He was under the old regime and could have got the gratuity if he retired before the passing of the Act. I hope the Minister will make clear to the House the policy he intends to pursue as far as grants for housing are concerned and, failing agreement between employers and operatives, that he will at least continue to give some little subsidy to those who wish to build their own houses. I also wish to join in support of the appeal made by some Deputy that some scheme should be devised whereby tenants of labourers' cottages and houses in urban districts would be able to purchase their houses. I understand very many districts are willing to purchase, and the only thing that seems to delay this question of purchase is the fact that there is no uniform scheme at hand for the moment. I hope the Minister will give these most important points serious consideration.

There is one matter I have been asked to bring under notice in connection with a road near where we are sitting. Deputies are aware that Merrion Street has been laid anew, during the past few years, at very great expense. I think the road cost something like 24/- a square yard. It seems strange that before undertaking expensive work like that the City Commissioners had not the foresight to notify the property owners that they ought to look after the supply pipes in connection with their dwellings. Immediately that expensive work is complete the property owners get notice that their pipes are in a bad condition. The result is that that road has been torn up in several places, and a much greater expense is imposed upon the property owners than if they got that notice before the road was put down. I have no desire to make a general case against the Dublin Commissioners. I have not the knowledge even if I had the desire, but I think it shows an extraordinary lack of foresight that it should happen.

We are not discussing the Commissioners.

Surely the Minister is responsible for the Commissioners.

Only to the same extent that he is responsible for any local authority.

Is it not a fact that the City Commissioners cannot put into operation certain sections of the Outdoor Relief Act on account of its being held up under the Greater Dublin Scheme?

I am only on the general question. I have no knowledge of local government law. but generally. I understand, the position is that the City of Dublin Commissioners and other Commissioners are in the same position as local authorities, and the consequences that flow from that are something we have not to decide. That is the general position.

At all events I have done what I promised. I have called attention to the matter, and I leave it at that. There was one passage in the Minister's speech that was rather interesting. He said that, generally speaking, the relations between his Department and public bodies are of the most satisfactory kind. I am not quite sure whether that means what I call the ordinary statutory relations or whether the relations mean that headquarters are helping local bodies in the very big difficulties that are confronting most of them at present. I think local government, since its establishment, was hardly ever in as difficult a position as it is at present. The Minister admits that the amount of uncollectable rates tends to rise. Apart from that, there is hardly a single council which is not finding it difficult to carry on and to meet demands for new services, etc., that are being placed upon them. I would like particularly to know whether headquarters are endeavouring to help individual councils that are meeting with special difficulties. A number of these bodies have very special difficulties in some cases difficulties that seem almost insuperable. I have in mind, for instance, the position of Wicklow Urban Council. There you have a body where there is already £35,000 of an existing debt. They require immediately a sum of £6,000 for the improvement of waterworks. The repair of damage to the last year which has to be remedied, will cost something like £19,000. There is a malicious injury claim hanging over since 1920 of £840, and I think there are arrears of income tax amounting to £1,600—altogether a sum of £62,000. In that town a penny in the £ brings in £25 a year. I think in a case like that it is up to the Department to try to help the Council in some way or other, if only with advice. I hardly think advice would be enough in that case. I think the problem is so great that it cannot be met without some special grant from the Central Fund or something of that kind, but at least one would not expect the Department to say that all these things are matters for the body itself. Take the item of £19,000. It has to be met, and will have to be met from some source to repair the foreshore. It is not due to carelessness or inefficiency on the part of the Council. It is due to the very bad storm that took place last year. Again, the £840 for the malicious injury claim arose out of the political trouble in 1920 during the anti-conscription campaign. I am emphasising this because of a reply given by the Minister for Finance when he said that he knew that the claim existed, but he was not aware that the Urban Council could not hope to meet it within a reasonable period of years, and that the Government was not prepared to take any responsibility for it. It struck me that if that attitude expressed by the Minister for Finance is also the attitude of the Minister for Local Government, a lot of the public bodies in the country are going to have a very hard time, because without the skilled assistance of headquarters in adjusting their position at the present time numbers of them, so far as I can see, cannot possibly hope to carry on.

There has been a great deal of talk about roads, and I would like to ask a few questions with regard to them. What strikes one in connection with this whole Estimate is the very meagre information given by the Minister. We are asked in this Vote for the sum of practically £270,000. In asking for that the Minister just gives information which amounts to five columns of the Official Report. That does not seem very helpful to the Dáil when we consider that the Department deals with such important questions as housing, roads, public health, and a number of activities. One would expect that the Minister would have a great deal more information to give us than is contained in that.

I would like to say that as far as giving information is concerned the reports of the Department, that is the annual reports are not in ordinary swing, for the reason that for a long period no reports were issued. The reports up to March, 1925, have been already published, and they contain a good deal of basic information in regard to the Department. The reports for the two years ended March, 1927, are being put together and will be published at an early date. So far as the information which the Deputy required is concerned, there is no limit to the amount of information he can get by the process of ordinary question and answer in the House. I do not know that it is quite reasonable to expect that Ministers in introducing Estimates will make a speech that will mean an annual report. There is a place for an annual report, and there is a place and a manner in which Deputies can get any information they want. The introduction of Estimates is in order to get criticism from the House, not in order to give the House what might be an annual report.

I do not think the Minister's statement will be regarded as satisfactory by those who have been following this matter. Certainly we on this side of the House expected that in regard to each Estimate we would be given, as far as possible, a general picture of the Department and what it was doing—I do not mean a necessarily detailed picture, but how far the money that was being spent was having results, and what were and were not the changes that were contemplated. In connection with the roads, for instance, there was not a Deputy in this House, I venture to say, apart from those on the Front Benches, could understand the state of road finances at the present time; certainly, judging by the Minister's statement and the short bit of information that is contained in the Official Report, it must be one of the most difficult matters, because although I have read particularly the financial remarks several times, I still cannot grasp what it is all about.

In connection with that, there is the sum of £2,000,000 which the Minister, I think, said would be spent by the end of next October. He asks us to be satisfied, to wait for the annual report of the Local Government Department or something of that kind.

No; if there is any information required, ask for it.

There is a lot of information required. It would take a great many questions to get from the Minister all that is required, if we are to take these Votes seriously at all. For instance, with regard to that £2,000,000 expenditure, I think he might have told us what the position will be next October, when that £2,000,000 will have been spent. How many miles of road are now in a position to last under the traffic that comes their way, and for how long a period? How far is that 1,500 miles that the £2,000,000 has been spent upon of uniform durability? In a statement that appeared in the Press the other day from Mr. Quigley, the roads engineer, it was stated that some county surveyors were getting twice as good results as others for the same money. I have the statement here:

"Some surveyors are able to get work done nearly fifty per cent. cheaper than others."

That is a very serious statement in itself. The Government, since it came into office, has spent something like £4,000,000 on roads. At the end of that period, and after all that money has been spent, the chief roads engineer comes along with a statement that some surveyors are able to get work done nearly fifty per cent. cheaper than others. Assuredly the Minister should have a remark to make upon that. Assuredly he should have something to say as to what steps are to be taken to bring the worst of the surveyors up to the standard of the best.

The Local Appointments Commissioners?

In the same statement it is asserted that maintenance costs increase in inverse proportion to the cost of construction per mile. We should like to know what the Government policy is to be in the future in this regard. Again, there is the very important statement that

"asphaltic macadam costing £5,750 per mile requires no maintenance outlay for ten years, whereas tar bitumen macadam at £3,227 per mile, plus ten years' maintenance costs, at £300 per annum, involves an unnecessary and excessive expenditure of £500 per mile."

If that is correct, we would like to-know from the Minister if he proposes to take any action with a view to a completely new system of road-making. It can hardly be satisfactory to him or satisfactory to the country that these extraordinary anomalies, involving such very big sums of money, should exist at the present time. Again, those who have read the very serious statement made by the road surveyor for Sligo, at a conference here about a fortnight ago, will be desirous of more information on this subject. We have such statements as this occurring up and down that engineer's statement:

"During the years 1923 and 1926 the character of the traffic had entirely changed. Previously, the iron-tyred slow traffic, which preponderated, helped to consolidate the newly-rolled surfaces, which, for the first year or two, actually continued to become harder and usually had a life of five years and upwards before becoming seriously potholed. Now the usual experience is that a new water-bound road is often as badly potholed after five months' wear as after five years' wear under former conditions."

I think the Minister informed us that the great bulk of the roads are being made by water-bound macadam at the present time. Again, talking about the £2,000,000 scheme, the same engineer remarks that "a large part of the system—possibly one-half—cannot be expected to last the ten years without heavy re-surfacing.""A large part of the system"—we want to know why it could not have been arranged, in view of the long time that the scheme was being deliberated upon, that the work would be as well done as the engineering skill of the country could do it; why such a state of affairs was permitted that after the work is done an engineer, who is himself taking part in the scheme, should come forward and make a statement like that—that a large part of the system, possibly half, cannot be expected to last for ten years unless with heavy re-surfacing. I think the Minister for Local Government, at the time the £2,000,000 was being discussed, stated that the aim was to make a road that would last ten years without any expensive maintenance. That is the comment upon that by a man who is himself taking part in the scheme. Again, you have this very serious remark in the same paper:

"It is to be regretted that in many counties the improvement of a small mileage of roads in the national road scheme has been followed by a marked deterioration in the roads outside the scheme."

That is a pretty grave state of affairs. It is exceedingly grave for the bulk of the ratepayers, because the average farmer-ratepayer is not using the trunk or main road at present. He cannot use it. His horses will not travel on it. He is much more concerned with the state of the ordinary county road. Yet, it is stated in this paper that at the same time that the improvement on the main road is going on, there is a marked deterioration in the roads outside the scheme. Then, again, there is this general summing up of the position in another passage in the paper:

"Work on the national road scheme is now nearing completion; in about four months nearly all counties will have finished their share. The exact terms on which the £2,000,000 for this scheme was borrowed have not been disclosed, but the repayment figure of £310,000 per annum given in the newspaper reports appears to be too high. Probably the actual annual repayment is about £250,000. Adding to this £200,000 earmarked for the contribution to maintenance costs, there will be available for improvement only about £220,000. This amount, £220,000, is barely sufficient for the annual surface dressing of the improved water-bound roads, which, in the absence of this treatment, would quickly go to pieces. As the councils will not provide more funds, the prospect is that all improvement work must cease. Already machinery is being made up and skilled staffs dispersed."

In face of statements of that kind, we here are concerned to know where we are being led on this question of roads. What is the position now with regard to the 6,500 miles of main roads, for instance, that have been left untouched by the national scheme? Is a corresponding sum to be spent on them and are the results to be as unsatisfactory as, apparently, the results of this £2,000,000 scheme have been? The engineer who read that paper remarks:

"Any considerable growth in the Road Fund with the present rates of motor licence duties is not to be expected. Local rates are high, and road authorities will certainly refuse to add to them for facilitating new forms of traffic. The problem is a serious one and demands immediate attention, failing which we must look forward to an extensive breakdown in our road system."

I submit that all that requires a very thorough and plain statement from the Minister. We have been told here, during the past week, that there is a Road Traffic Committee sitting at present—an Inter-Departmental Committee—and that when it reports we shall know more about the future of motor taxation and all that.

It has nothing to do with it.

We were told that.

I accept the correction. However, if that is not in suspense we should be told now. What is the exact position? How far are we committed to making these roads which cost over £7,000 per mile? Or is it the opinion of the Government that we can afford up to 8,000 miles of these roads? How far will the expense of building and maintaining such roads affect the other roads, up to 38,000 miles of them, and all of which are of concern to numbers of families? In view of the lack of information as to a housing programme and a road programme, and in view of the meagre statement generally of the Minister, we are not satisfied that this Vote is being justified, and I for one cannot vote for it.

In this debate there has been criticism, even from the Government Benches, in regard to the building of labourers' cottages. The Minister suggested that it should be an economic undertaking. Was it not the intention of the framers of the Labourers Acts that the building of cottages for the workers should be an economic problem? Of course, we have the business element, which Deputy Lemass is so interested in bringing on the public boards at future elections. At present we have some of these business men, along with even Labour men, building houses for workers in urban centres that are not a business proposition. The valuations of some of the urban areas are so low that when we have to take into account the paying back of old loans there is not very much left for social purposes. I would suggest to the Minister that what we require are long term loans that would enable public bodies to build houses that could be let at reasonable rents to agricultural workers. In urban areas we have the business element on the public boards. I know of one area where they are building a large number of houses for the workers, but no workman could pay the rents that are being demanded. No workman could pay a rent of £1 or 25/- a week, or even 12/- a week, which is the rent in some cases. It may not be popular, but what I would suggest in order to solve the housing problem is that we should remodel our plans and build a smaller type of house to meet the requirements of people who are in receipt of low wages. I agreed at the time with the intention of the Department that by building larger houses a certain number of ratepayers would avail of them and that the houses which they would leave would be available for the poorer people. That was not the case in Bray where you have 300 houses which are only hovels housing large numbers of families. I would suggest that we should build two-roomed or three-roomed houses. They would be an improvement on our present position. A large number of people can only afford to pay from 2/6 to 5/- a week instead of rents of from 10/- to £1 which are being charged at the present time.

I agree with Deputy Ward in regard to medical services. I think that the Department should insist on a medical officer for every county being appointed. They should not be influenced by the whims of people who are out for economy regardless of the health or social point of view. Complaint was made here that the Department do not sanction the sending by dispensary medical officers of surgical cases to Dublin. That has not been my experience. I have always been in favour of the amalgamation scheme, but I think certain amendments of it are required. The geographical position of some counties necessitates the county hospitals being very long distances from particular areas but the building of district hospitals would get over that difficulty. We are doing that in our county. I am not aware of the Department being opposed to the sending of any cases to Dublin for surgical treatment. I know that the County Wicklow Board of Health gave permission to dispensary doctors to send cases, but we found that certain doctors were sending every available case rather than travel three or four miles on a red ticket to treat patients themselves, and we decided to hold any dispensary doctor who would send a case that was not of real urgency liable. But no case has ever been refused treatment. I am sure that there could be an improvement in some of the county homes where the patients are huddled together. If what some of the Deputies state is true then we should go back and have Commissioners for every part of the country even though that is undemocratic and opposed to our policy. I am glad that the state of affairs that was mentioned by some Deputies here does not exist in my area. We have a county home governed by a Religious Order and no one has the slightest objection to going there in his old age. We have over 100 patients there. They take an interest in the land attached to the institution. They till it and the proceeds are used in the hospitals to the benefit of the ratepayers and the patients there. Deputy Alfred Byrne's complaint was that Dublin was not getting all the benefits of the grant, that the benefits were going to the country where the public representatives were putting Section 13 of the Local Government Act into operation. Our whole experience is, and it is the reason we condemn the Government, that more grants are given where there are commissioners than to places where there are representative public bodies.

It is unfounded.

It is a case for argument. Deputy Brennan and others suggested a certain area of charge for sanitary works and for waterworks. I put it to the Minister that, if he makes such an order, he will be compelling places that have spent thousands of pounds in providing waterworks and sewerage to pay for Roscommon and other parts that have not been doing their duty. I recognise the position of certain small villages where waterworks and sanitation are required. We all agree to having an electoral area, but that area cannot be spread over the county, nor should the people in the urban areas have to pay for providing such works for small villages in rural areas, where, on the grounds of economy, they refused to provide it themselves. Having said so much on that subject I want to come back to the question of road grants. The County Wicklow is the playground for motorists and tourists, not only from the twenty-six counties, but from all parts of Ireland. We have over £670,000 in motor taxes, and duties of thirty-three and a third on motor parts, and I hold that the whole of that money should be expended on roads in the Saorstát. There are about seven miles of what is called the main road leading into Arklow, over which I would advise the Minister not to travel in a Ford car when he is going to Wexford. We have appealed and the county council has passed a resolution asking the Minister to receive a deputation with a view to giving a grant to repair that road. A reply was received that we must wait until the autumn. If we do very few cars will be able to pass over it. The ratepayers in that area should not be expected to bear the whole of the cost of maintaining that road, considering, as I said, that County Wicklow is the playground for motorists from all parts of Ireland, who visit on account of the scenery there. I would ask the Minister to take into account the peculiar position of County Wicklow. A very small grant was received this year for the maintenance of trunk roads. I do not agree that 30 per cent. is sufficient for the tarring of certain roads. I would ask the Minister to make a special plea to the Roads Section of his Department before he travels down to Wexford, so that the public will be able to travel over that road without endangering their lives or injuring their motor cars.

I have been asked by the Committee of the Grangegorman Hospital to bring before the Dáil the fact that the Committee are willing to build a large number of houses for attendants. As the committee does not come under the description of a housing authority, although they are a public authority within the meaning of the Act, they are prevented from receiving a grant or subsidy. I would ask the Minister if the Act could be amended in any way, so that this public authority will be in a position to avail of it. If they could, it would be a benefit to the people of Dublin and two or three hundred houses would be built for the attendants. Deputy Moore has mentioned an area in Wicklow. In the urban area during the Sinn Fein and Labour days, before there was a business council, a large sum of money was expended there in works of utility. In 1921 they spent over £7,000 on waterworks. They now find that they will have to spend another £7,000. Through no fault of the business council the foreshore has been washed away in Wicklow, and £20,000 worth of property is in danger owning to coast erosion. If we go to the Minister for Local Government we will be told that he is not responsible, and the Minister for Finance will put it on to some other Department. We want to find out what Department is likely to come to the assistance of the Wicklow Urban Council and to give them a good grant for the saving of property estimated to be worth £20,000. The urban council the railway company and others are prepared to bear their proportion of the cost, but the Government are expected to give a substantial grant to carry out the necessary repairs. I am sorry the Minister has taken a different attitude to that he adopted previously regarding good relations between the councils and his Department. I agree that the Minister should not be asked to receive deputations who only want to pay a flying visit to Dublin without doing anything practical. Where, however, a public body asks to see the Minister, in order to put before him concrete proposals and to receive his sanction, if he refuses to receive them, whatever good relationship existed between the Department and the public bodies will not continue if that policy is adopted. I see that the estimate for lymph for vaccination has been increased. The estimate has been increased presumably in the belief that there will be a wholesale rush for vaccination. I promise the Minister that if I can do anything in my area the whole amount will be spent on prosecutions. While that amount has been increased, we see that the estimate for meals and other social services has been reduced.

I do not agree with other Deputies when they make wholesale attacks on officials' salaries. On public bodies we are all familiar with a lot of the clap-trap that goes on at certain times. In my experience we find that the only thing men who are pledged to reduce officials' salaries when they get into power do is to reduce the workmen's wages and to increase the officials' salaries. I hope that will not be the position with some people. I would ask the Minister to receive a deputation in connection with the foreshore, the waterworks, and the Arklow road, and I can assure him that the interview will not be waste of time. Genuine proposals have been put before him, and those interested are prepared to bear a proportion of the expenditure.

We are not satisfied that County Wicklow is receiving the amount it should receive in road grants this year. I disagree with the Minister, when, as I understand, he proposes out of the money that was borrowed some time ago for the repair of the roads, to set aside £250,000 this year as a sinking fund in order to repay the amount in four or five years. The life of a road is supposed to be longer than four or five years. I think in some cases it is up to seven or ten years. If, instead of four or five years, the money was to be repaid in ten or fifteen years there would be a larger amount available for trunk and main roads. Of course a large number of roads have been certified as main roads by the Engineering Department, but our position is that some of these roads should in reality be trunk roads. Deputy Coburn made a complaint about the inspection of houses which are being built, and said that there was not enough of inspection. In the case of the few houses being built in my area the complaint is that the inspectors are too severe, and that they are not as reasonable as they would be expected to be to encourage people. That is a contrast of opinion with regard to the positions in the two areas. I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of changing the Housing Act to enable the Grangegorman Committee to build three or four hundred houses for their workers; also to provide a long-term loan for agricultural workers' houses, and to arrange for a smaller type of house to solve the housing problem in the slum areas. The Minister should also enable the public bodies to provide hospital treatment for tubercular patients and non-insured people. We have non-insured people in many counties that have no scheme in operation, and as a result the people will only come to the doctor when they are in an advanced stage and when very little can be done for them. I agree with Deputy Ward that this treatment is not a cure, but if it is not, it is a sort of education to patients who are in a sanatorium for a certain time, so that when they go home they will not be the danger to the community that they were before they went in.

Might I ask if there is any prospect of getting this Estimate through to-night? We are over eight-and-a-half hours on it now. The proposal was that it should take five-and-a-quarter hours.

That is a question I am not able to answer.

I rise to refer to a matter that was mentioned by Deputy Goulding. It is a matter which is not merely a grievance in connection with the constituency which he and I represent, but is of considerable national importance, and it arises out of the administration of the Local Government Department. I refer to the question of a certain black list which is drawn up by the Appointments Commissioners. No one would have heard of this black list if it had not been for an action which was taken by the Appointments Commissioners.

On a point of order, I would like to say that I have nothing to do with the Local Appointments Commissioners, and the question of a black list held or not held by the Local Appointments Commissioners.

Does such a list exist?

No such list exists, except in the Deputy's imagination.

The administration of the Appointments Commissioners could be debated on the Vote for the Civil Service Commission, under which Vote is the staff of the Local Appointments Commission. I think that that would be the place to raise the question. It definitely deals with the Local Appointments Commission. I think the Minister for Local Government has not to answer for these Commissioners. The President answers.

The reason I raised this was because the appointment to which I wish to refer was connected with a local body, and I thought it would naturally arise in the ordinary course on this Vote.

That particular question does not seem to arise.

I could raise it later, on the Civil Service Vote?

It will be adduced that there is more fact than imagination about it.

We would like to hear it.

We will hear it all later on.

I must say that the President is very provocative. It was stated in a court of law.

Of course it is bound to be true.

It was one of your courts.

The only other matter to which I wish to refer is child welfare. Constantly in the courts in the City of Dublin, especially in the Children's Court, case after case comes up— I am not criticising the police—where children are prosecuted for playing games in the streets. They have no other place to play in, and they are brought before the court simply because of the danger to their lives from passing traffic. I think that comes under the administration of the City, and therefore under the Local Government Department. Playing grounds for the children should be provided. I would suggest the opening of the parks —Merrion Square, Mountjoy Square, and any other of the parks that would be available, and having proper playgrounds for children in these districts. The question of housing has been raised, but I would like to mention it again, because the Commission on Housing seems to have put the people to sleep. Apparently the great move of the Government is to get a Commission to draft something attractive, and people are so taken with it that when the time comes they forget to raise the question because they think that it will be dealt with later by the Government.

We cannot go on the promises of the Government; we can only go on facts, and the facts, so far as my constituency is concerned, are that there are people who have no place to live in and who are being put out of their houses in the City of Waterford because the houses are not fit to live in. At present at least eight hundred houses are required for the workers of the City of Waterford.

I want to refer to the question of housing and to the amount allowed in the Estimate for this purpose. The Minister has reduced his Estimate this year, but I presume he has allotted as much as the local authorities will be able to avail of. Taking into consideration the terms under which local authorities have to borrow money, they will not be able to build houses as they would like. I do know that local authorities are anxious to build houses for the workers if they could borrow money for fairly long terms, such as thirty-five or forty years. A matter to which I wish to refer is one where Government Departments have handed over houses that are already built. The Minister for Defence has handed over a number of houses to the Mullingar Town Commissioners, and these houses are in very bad repair. The Commissioners have to borrow £3,500 to put them into repair, and to build a wall around them to cut them off from the military barracks. The Department that is responsible for handing over these thirty-six houses is charging a rent of £143 a year to the Commissioners for them. To my mind that is an impossible rent. The Commissioners will not be able to pay it and charge a reasonable rent to the people who will be occupying the houses. They will have to pay back this £3,500 they are borrowing, and they have to pay 4½ per cent. on it. This makes it an impossible proposition. I suggest that the Minister should charge a nominal rent to the Town Commissioners for these houses, and at the end of fifteen years, when the £3,500 will be paid back, the rent could be increased if the Department so desired.

At the moment it would be impossible to rent the houses to the workers in Mullingar at what would be an economic rent. If the Department is to get £143 a year for the houses, and the local authorities have to pay back the money that was borrowed, they would have to charge from 8/- to 10/- a week rent for these houses. No worker in Mullingar would be able to pay such a rent.

As regards the roads. I would remind the Minister that the amount allotted from the Road Fund for the maintenance of main roads in Westmeath this year is only £12,600. That is only one-third of the amount allotted last year, and it is altogether too small for the upkeep of these roads. If the Minister will consider that many of these roads at the moment are being widened to carry bus traffic, he must, I think, admit that the amount allotted is altogether inadequate for the present year. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the advisability of increasing the road grant for Westmeath this year.

There is just one matter which I wish to refer to, and I hope the Minister, when he is replying, will definitely state his policy in regard to it. I do not propose covering the ground that several Deputies have already passed over. Most Deputies dealt with questions relating to sewerage schemes, public health administration, etc. I presume that in Galway, where I come from, the local bodies there will make the necessary application and try to get these benefits for the people in that country. There is one matter in connection with road work that has not been dealt with by any Deputy, and to which I desire to refer. I hope the Minister for Local Government, when replying, will be a little bit more clear on it than the Minister for Finance was when I asked a question some time ago. It was mentioned in the House to-day that the Government had withdrawn the order as regards the wage clause that accompanies road grants to the different counties. To some of us that was a big surprise. We thought that the clause relating to 29/- a week wage was still inserted, and that it accompanied the grants given to the different councils. There is one other clause inserted that is most objectionable, and that is as regards giving preferential treatment to ex-National Army men. Some time ago, when I raised that question here, the Minister for Finance told me that it was not of such an alarming extent as the Deputy thought.

On that occasion, in attempting to answer the Minister for Finance, I was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle, but I presume I am quite in order in discussing it now. The Minister for Finance said that it was not of such an alarming extent as the Deputy thought. I was going to cite an instance where the privilege was very much abused, but I was not allowed to do so. I will do so now for the edification of the Minister for Finance and of the House generally. Road work opened in Athenry on a trunk road. The clause came down with the grant for the work that preferential treatment should be meted out to ex-National Army men. The result was that there were nine men wanted. There were five ex-National Army men employed and four ex- anything you like. The five ex-National Army men were working for three days when the hay saving season arrived on the land of the Department of Agriculture at the other side of the town. The wage paid by the Department was 45/- a week. Three ex-National Army men pitched the road job as they said themselves, and went over to work for the Department of Agriculture at 45/- a week. Three civilians took their places working on the trunk road. They worked there for a fortnight. When the hay saving finished with the Department, the three ex-National Army men returned to the road work and made the demand to the ganger that the civilians in their places should be sacked and that they should be given back their jobs. If that was not abusing the preferential clause I do not know what an abuse of it would be.

That is just one instance in regard to that. There were other instances, but I am not going to delay the House reciting them. I hold that while such conditions as I have quoted exist this preferential clause should be done away with. When the unemployment debate was on here some time ago Deputies from all parts of the House were unanimously of the opinion that distress was universal throughout the country. That distress still exists. When the ratepayers' money, that is collected irrespective of what a man's politics is, is being collected, the collector does not say to a particular individual, "well if he is a republican we will not ask him to pay his rates." They take his money and it is spent on ex-National Army men in preference to any other body. We pay our way the same as other people, and when money is being spent we want our people to get the earning of it, irrespective of what a person's politics is. That should be the rule. I hope that the Minister for Local Government, when replying, will state definitely whether or not this preferential clause will be withdrawn as regards any moneys that are being sent down the country. I hope he will be a bit more explicit in dealing with the matter than the Minister for Finance was some time ago when I raised the question.

I think the Department of Local Government is one of the most elaborate of our Government institutions, and one that is very difficult to deal with. It has control over all sorts of institutions. The Department has made a noble effort to deal with the many questions that have come before it from time to time. In making that effort. I do not think that the Department, in all cases, has been met in a reasonable spirit by county councils or by urban councils. Many schemes have been put up by county councils. The Department has given sanction to them in most cases. In others they returned the schemes to the local bodies and asked them to put up something reasonable. The local bodies failed hopelessly to do it, or to discharge their obligations to the people they represent. When they did fail in that respect, I do not think Deputies should come here and charge the Government with offences that they are not guilty of.

A Deputy on the other side the other day charged the Local Government Department with not being honest. He mentioned a case where he said a certain amount of rates were not being collected that could be collected. He further stated that the rate-collector of the district to which he was referring told him that if he was given a reasonable opportunity he could have collected £800 out of £900 outstanding. The Deputy who made that statement is a representative of the council for which the rate collector acts. I think before a statement like that is made it should be thoroughly investigated. From my knowledge of the conditions in that county it would be utterly impossible to collect the rates. If the Deputy who represents that county stated the facts fairly and squarely he would state that if the collector went out to collect these rates he would be compelled to seize the last cow or the last article in the possession of those people, owing to the fact that last year they suffered very severely from the visitation of the fluke. I do not think it is good enough for a Deputy to come to this House and charge the Government with something which he knows not to be an absolute fact. Whether a Deputy is on the Opposition or the Government Benches he is equally responsible for the better government of the country, and that is a fact he should recognise.

I would call attention to the difficulties experienced by some counties owing to the enormous bus traffic. It would particularly refer to Longford county. The town of Longford is the main artery for the North, West and South of Ireland. It is a radiating point for traffic. At present as many as 54 buses pass through the town, and the reason is that the nearest point of vantage for crossing the Shannon into the West of Ireland is Athlone, which is 26 miles from the nearest bridge in the county of Longford—that would be Lanesborough. The next main crossing on the Shannon is Tarmonbarry, and that is six miles from Lanesborough. The nearest to Tarmonbarry is Carrick-on-Shannon, which is a distance of about 14 miles away. All buses leaving Dublin for the West of Ireland pass through Longford County, with the exception of those going South-West to Galway. As I have stated, 54 buses pass through the town of Longford, and I understand it is the intention of the I.O.C. Company to put on an additional four buses. Buses from Dublin going to the West pass through Longford——

Would the Deputy say what the Minister for Local Government has to do with that?

I am coming to that. Having regard to the volume of traffic passing through Longford, the amount allowed for road maintenance is altogether inadequate, being only £4,890, the smallest allotment to any county in the Saorstát, though we have the largest amount of traffic passing through any county, as Longford town is really a junction for the North, South, East and West. Longford is entitled to a reasonable contribution for road maintenance. I might say there is scarcely one of these buses registered in the county of Longford. I exhort the Minister to review this allocation of money and to see that Longford gets a reasonable share. If that is not done the county council will be compelled to close some of the roads. It is not possible for a small county to bear such a strain as is imposed on it, as there is not the rate-paying ability to maintain the highways for this enormous traffic. With regard to housing, so far as Longford is concerned the conditions are pretty acute. We made applications for and received loans. We were met favourably and we succeeded in getting our houses built at a reasonable sum, which enabled us to let them at a reasonable rent. Still we have not sufficient houses to meet the demands for them that exist. The difficulty in the matter of housing is the short term loans. I think it is a matter of general importance that long term loans should be given to the county councils to enable them to let houses at a rent of from 4/- to 5/- per week. That should be the maximum rent in country towns for the working classes who cannot earn more than 25/- or 30/- a week. I consider something should be done in the direction I have indicated. I think if the representatives of the various parties here appointed a committee to go into the question of housing schemes for towns with a population of from 500 to 1,000, and also for cities and towns with a population of from 5,000 to 10,000, I am sure they would be able to formulate a programme for submission to the Minister that would be fair and reasonable. Another matter to which I wish to call attention is the question of county hospitals.

resumed the chair.

There is not a sufficient number of hospitals in various counties, and as a consequence great hardship is imposed on people. Some of them have to travel long distances of from 20 to 40 miles to get to these county hospitals, and they are not able to bear the expense of these journeys. In many cases it means that there has to be a local ambulance. I suggest the workhouses that have gone derelictought to be given over to the counties, and that there should be a recommendation from the Minister for Local Government to have them apportioned so as to provide hospitals where they formerly were. I think if dispensary doctors were placed in charge of such county hospitals that would relieve a great deal of the hardship that exists in many counties. I am of opinion that disused workhouses should not be handed over as dwellings for poor people. I think that is highly undesirable, because in these workhouses there is no proper sanitation or accommodation, and the conditions are not conducive to health and comfort. While the existing conditions prevail there is great risk of disease breaking out in these workhouses. In conclusion, I renew my appeal to the Minister for Local Government that in the allocation of grants for road maintenance more consideration should be given to the claims of Longford.

I move to report progress.

Progress ordered to be reported. The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Barr
Roinn