Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Apr 1931

Vol. 38 No. 4

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 40—Local Government and Public Health.

I beg to move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £351,517 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí, maraon le Deontaisí agus Costaisí eile a bhaineann le Tógáil Tithe, Deontaisí d'Udaráis Aitiúla agus Ildeontaisí i gCabhair, agus Costaisí Oifig Chigire na n-Ospideul Meabhar-Ghalar.

That a sum not exceeding £351,517 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, 1932, 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 Mental Hospitals.

The principal difference in this Vote as compared with last year is in the increased amount required in connection with some of the public health services. These differences are principally:—Medical treatment of school children, £7,300; Gaeltacht school meals, £6,352; treatment of tuberculosis, £17,500; grants in connection with minor drainage schemes, £8,000. In addition there is a new heading included for the purpose of providing Irish-speaking nursing probationers in general nursing and midwifery. The total of the increase comes to about £40,000. The net increase in the Estimate is about £32,700. The reorganisation of the public health services is proceeding satisfactorily.

County medical officers of health have been appointed in 17 out of the 27 counties, and in Dublin County an appointment is at present under consideration by the local authorities. I should like this progress to be greater, but I want to be fully satisfied in urging the completion of the scheme that there is a sufficient number of suitable applicants coming forward possessing the requisite high, technical and administrative ability for the organisation of health measures. In the counties in which county medical officers of health are functioning the measures which have been taken are already gaining momentum, and there has been an immediate and gratifying appreciation of the functions and work of the county medical officers of health which is a testimony alike to the capacity of the men appointed to fill the positions and to the desire of the local authorities to see defects in our public health system remedied.

While on this subject, I may refer to the first Public Health Conference held by the Department last year. Practically every public health authority in the country sent delegates, and the gathering that assembled in the Mansion House was fully representative of both medical and administrative experience. The interest which the conference aroused and the practical nature of the discussions were most gratifying, and there can be no doubt that assemblies of this kind serve a most useful purpose in promoting an understanding of public health matters, not only amongst those engaged in public health administration, but amongst the population generally. I had intended to deal with housing and child welfare in June, but I have not yet abandoned the idea of dealing with the subjects this year. County institutions continued to be improved and rendered more efficient for the treatment of all classes of disease. Capital expenditure up to £60,000 was incurred for the purpose during the year. On the provision of water supplies and sewerage schemes there was an expenditure of £180,000 of which approximately one-half was in rural centres.

It is satisfactory to be able to record a further decline in the incidence of infectious diseases. The number of deaths in 1929 resulting from scarlatina was the lowest since 1918, being 62 as compared with 79 in 1928 and an aver-of 85 for the ten years covering the periods from 1919 to 1928 inclusive. Enteric fever or typhoid, has fallen in recent years, and the number of deaths registered in 1929 is the lowest on record, being 88 as compared with 94 in the preceding year, and 124, the average annual number for the decennial period 1919—1928. The prevalence of enteric fever in an area is to a certain extent an indication of a backward state of sanitary administration in the district, whether in regard to the provision of an adequate pure water supply, the lack of an efficient sewerage system or the general want of cleanliness. As our public health services progress local authorities will come to recognise in time that expenditure on the establishment of an efficient sanitation is real economy, and is amply repaid by the decreased outlay in controlling outbreaks of typhoid fever, not to speak of the saving effected in human life and suffering.

We have, however, to record an increased number of deaths from diphtheria. In 1929 the number was 79 more than in the preceding years. From a scrutiny of notifications received from counties, in 1930 the disease was more prevalent in the Counties of Tipperary, S.R.; Cork, Galway and Limerick, Louth and Wexford. The immunisation campaigns to which I referred last year have been carried out in Cork, Louth, Galway and Wexford. Striking results have already been obtained in reducing the mortality from the disease in the northern area of County Louth, where 1,500 children under six years of age were inoculated with toxin-anti-toxin during the Autumn of 1928 and 1929. The number of persons affected with diphtheria in that area fell from 84 in 1928 to 37 in 1929, and to 10 in 1930. It is hoped that equally favourable results will ensue from the other areas where immunisation is being carried out.

The mortality amongst infants for the year 1929 is somewhat higher than for the previous year, being 70 per 1,000 births as compared with 68 for 1928. Additional deaths in 1929 were chiefly due to pneumonia and bronchopneumonia as a result of influenza in epidemic form, and both urban and rural areas were equally affected. The death rate compared favourably with that in neighbouring countries, England and Wales showing 74 per 1,000 births; Scotland 87 and Northern Ireland 86. Statistics for 1930 which are to hand but are not yet checked in the Registrar-General's Office show that the mortality for 1930 has gone back and is even lower than the mortality amongst infants for 1928.

Maternity and Child Welfare schemes are being operated by 84 voluntary associations and 23 local authorities. The activity carried on by the nursing associations is the provision of a health visitor who is fully trained in medical and surgical nursing.

The provision of medical treatment for school children is developing satisfactorily. The service has greatly impressed the public mind, and is attaining rapid popularity wherever it has been initiated. Schemes have now become well established in Cork and Dublin County Boroughs, Clonmel Borough, and in the Counties of Cork, Kildare, Louth and Offaly, and are in process of development in Limerick and Waterford County Boroughs and in the Counties of Carlow, Cavan, Monaghan, Roscommon, Westmeath, Wicklow and Wexford Counties.

The examination of the most recent figures in respect of school medical inspection in the two county boroughs and four counties in which the service is well established, shows that in the course of a year's work 47,795 school children were examined. Of these 22,562 were found suffering from dental defects, 9,260 from enlarged tonsils and adenoids and 6,956 from eye trouble. The records of the cases treated are not yet complete, but the percentage is likely to be satisfactory. For one county the returns for last year show that the percentage of cases notified to parents of the poorer classes that underwent treatment was:

For enlarged tonsils and adenoids

70%

For dental caries

65%

Eye trouble

54%

Improvement in the numbers treated will follow rapidly as parents observe the good results in cases where steps are taken to have defects remedied.

The school medical officers gladly acknowledge the whole-hearted cooperation and support which they receive from school managers and teachers. The sanitary conditions in a number of schools have called for attention and improvements have been effected in many instances. Managers have shown themselves anxious to fall in with the views of the school medical officers for the purpose of securing better hygienic conditions in the schools. It is often possible, on skilled advice, to provide, at a moderate expenditure, far more satisfactory lighting and ventilation, and to arrange for more suitable sanitary accommodation in connection with the school premises.

During the past financial year school meals schemes were established in Cootehill and Fermoy Urban Districts and Waterford County Borough, whilst 7 more urban district councils have provided in their estimates for 1931/32 for the cost of bringing schemes into operation.

The population of the county boroughs and of the urban districts in which school meals schemes are now in operation, or are to function in the forthcoming financial year, represents over 81 per cent. of the total urban population of the country. In Dublin County Borough, where meals are supplied, a daily average of 6,931 children received meals during the year ending 31st March, 1930, at a total cost of £11,603. The total number of schools participating in the year ending 31st March, 1930, in all the urban areas where schemes were in force was 163, as against 146 in the previous year, while the average daily number of children receiving meals was 16,828, as compared with 16,366 in the previous year.

The Education (Provision of Meals) (Amendment) Act, 1930, which became law on the 23rd December, 1930, enables the Commissioners of a town to be a local authority for the purpose of providing school meals. The authorities concerned were duly notified of the provisions of the Act on 13th January last, and the establishment of schemes suggested in districts where needed.

The Town Commissioners for Ballyshannon, Edenderry and Mullingar have already taken the necessary steps for bringing school meals schemes into operation.

As regards school meals for children attending National Schools, in the Gaeltacht schemes have been inaugurated by the boards of health. The total number of schools dealt with under the Gaeltacht School Meals Act was 329, and the number of children, 18,420. In Cork in five out of eight schools in the area a scheme has been introduced; in Galway 99 schools are being dealt with and 56 in Kerry. The adoption of arrangements under the Act in the case of Donegal and Mayo is deferred until the present financial year.

Approved schemes for the welfare of the blind are now in operation in all counties and county boroughs, except Cork and Mayo Counties and Limerick County Borough. Steps are, however, being taken to bring the standard scheme prepared by this Department into operation in Mayo County in the coming year. In Galway County, where a partial scheme has been in operation, the standard scheme will be brought into force in the coming year. The adoption of schemes in Cork County and Limerick County Borough is at present under consideration.

In the areas in which approved schemes were in operation during the year ending 31st March, 1930, blind persons to the number of 1,100 were afforded assistance in their own homes, whilst 212 were maintained in the approved institutions for the blind. The total number of blind registered under the schemes of the local authorities was 1,358 in that year.

Deputies will observe that there is a large increase in the provision made under the head of tuberculosis as compared with previous years. Tuberculosis schemes are now in force in every county and county borough, with the exception of County Longford. In several of the counties the schemes have been largely developed by providing for the treatment of persons in local sanatoria. Moderately advanced and advanced cases of the disease constitute a large majority of cases coming under the notice of tuberculosis officers. Most of these cases suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis are definitely infective, and if their home conditions do not permit of satisfactory isolation, or if suitable precautions are not observed, their presence in the same is a constant menace to the health of other members of the household, and especially of children. Hence the necessity for facilities for the segregation and treatment of such cases in institutions. It has been ascertained by experience that patients of this class will not readily undertake the long journey to a centralised institution situated far from their homes, or that if they do they will leave the institution after a comparatively short stay. On the other hand, they will avail of a sanatorium within convenient reach of their friends.

During the last 18 months local institutions have been opened or enlarged at Grianán an Chláir, Ennis; St. Brigid's Sanatorium, Portlaoighise; St. Teresa's Sanatorium, Ballinrobe; St. Patrick's Sanatorium, Collooney; Grianán Charmáin, Enniscorthy; Crooksling Sanatorium, Brittas; Woodlands Sanatorium, Galway; Glenties District Hospital, Carndonagh District Hospital, Donegal District Hospital. Local sanatoria or tuberculosis hospitals are now available for the residents of 15 counties and two county boroughs. In Kerry, Kildare and Meath it is anticipated that similar institutions will be in operation during the forthcoming financial year. In addition, in several other areas active steps are being taken with a view to securing premises suitable for conversion into sanatoria. Notwithstanding the extension of facilities for the local treatment of tuberculosis patients there has been no appreciable decrease in admissions to Peamount and Newcastle Sanatoria. The number of cases dealt with under approved tuberculosis schemes has increased from 15,719 in 1928 to 18,217 in 1930, an increase of nearly 16 per cent.

It is gratifying to record that the downward trend of mortality from tuberculosis previously observed has continued at an increasing rate during the year 1929, as evidenced by the returns supplied by the Registrar-General. These disclose that the mortality from all forms of the disease in that year represented the lowest rate yet registered in this country, 1.32 per 1,000 of the population. The actual number of deaths from the disease was 172 less than the previous year. The improvement is altogether accounted for by the reduction in the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis, which was responsible for 190 deaths less than in 1928. The decrease in mortality was confined entirely to rural areas, where a reduction of 215 deaths took place, whereas in urban areas there was an increase of 43.

Could the Minister give us the total figures of deaths from tuberculosis in the last three years?

I will have to get the Deputy these. During the year, allocations were made in respect of the following houses: local authorities, 1,825; private persons, 2,207; public utility societies, 403, being a total of 4,435.

Could the Minister say if the local bodies include boards of health?

Yes. I have just made a summary here.

What amount was devoted to rural houses?

The Deputy wants to know the number of labourers' cottages that have been erected. At another point in the discussion I will get that for the Deputy.

This brings the total number of houses in respect of which allocations have been made under the Acts from 1924 to 1930: to local authorities, 6,450; private persons, 14,652; public utility societies, 1,334; total, 22,436. Of this total the following are completed: local authorities, 4,780; private persons and public utility societies, 13,124; total, 17,904. These figures do not include 2,100 houses dealt with by the local authorities under the million scheme. The total amount of money involved in connection with these allocations is: grants provided by the State, £1,515,925; grants given by fourteen local authorities, £1,040,586, and assistance given by local authorities in carrying out or developing houses built by private persons, £9,609. In addition, local bodies have loaned amounts to the extent of £161,726. Allocations have been made to local authorities in the years ending March, 1929; March, 1930, and March, 1931. In the year ending March, 1929, Dublin received £500; the country outside Dublin, £558; for the year ending March, 1930: Dublin, £434, and the country outside of Dublin, £355; and for the year ending March, 1931: Dublin, £720, and the country outside of Dublin, £1,105. The increase from the year 1929, in which outside of Dublin 558 houses were arranged for by local authorities, was £1,105 in the year ending March, 1931. That arises from the fact that better loan facilities have been made available by applying the Local Loans Fund to urban authorities building houses. Private persons and public utility societies in the year 1930-31 received allocations for 1,744 houses, bringing the total number of houses arranged for private individuals and public utility societies up to 1,162 houses in rural areas.

For the county boroughs the figure is 415 houses in the year ended March, 1931, bringing the total to date to 2,486. In urban areas the figure is 412 houses, bringing the total to date to 2,103, and in towns with Town Commissioners 39 houses, bringing the total to date to 235 in respect of these towns. Therefore, there were 2,610 houses in respect of which allocations have been made during the year to private persons and public utility societies, bringing the total for these classes to 15,986.

What period does that last figure cover?

From the passing of the Housing Act, 1924, down. Attention was drawn last year to the fact that in certain counties the acceptance of these facilities for building houses was taken considerable advantage of, as compared with others. During the year allocations were made in Mayo in respect of 136 houses, bringing the total to date to 1,508. Cork, 251; total to date, 1,452; Dublin, 308; total to date, 1,113. Galway, 77; total to date, 932. Kerry, 90; total to date, 824. Limerick, 201; total to date, 795. Donegal, 55; total to date, 608. These figures are to be compared with Carlow where the allocations made were in respect of five houses this year, bringing the total to 12. Offaly, 10; total, 55. Kildare, 44; total, 75. Waterford, 6; total, 79.

It is gratifying to see that in those areas in which the census of 1926 shows that overcrowding is greatest, if we take two persons to a room as an index of overcrowding—Mayo, Donegal, Kerry and Galway would appear to be the most overcrowded areas—that in those areas the greatest activity under these Acts has been noticed, in the rural areas at any rate. There has been a falling off in the figures for the current year. Although it is not very marked, it is due, no doubt, to the fact that the greater facilities provided under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act are being availed of.

No fall in the cost of building can be recorded during the year. That has a bearing on our outlook towards the housing policy. Statutory authority does not exist since the 1st April for the making of allocations to private persons or public utility societies for the building of houses. A rather limited number of applications has been received since 1st April. As regards the Government's policy of assistance to private persons building houses as from 1st April, we hope to announce that at an early date.

With regard to roads, I am glad to be able to repeat what I said on former occasions when introducing the Estimate of my Department, that the relations between the Department and the road authorities have been satisfactory. Both on the organisation side and on the actual carrying out of schemes and general maintenance there has been a strong measure of co-operation. As in previous years we invited the county councils to come to early decisions on the question of the sums which they were allowing for the upkeep of roads in the ensuing financial year, and I am glad to say that the progress in this matter has been much greater than heretofore, so much so that we were able to take steps, as far back as December last, for the allocation of the grant for improvement during the current year. A year ago the improvement grants could not be notified until the month of March and, in some cases, April. This year many of the improvement grants were notified in January and the bulk of them early in February. The county councils, by reason of their greater expedition on this occasion, found themselves in the satisfactory position of being able to make arrangements in ample time, and were able during the finest portion of the year to carry out improvement works.

Last year I said we were allocating £700,000 by way of grants for the upkeep and improvement of roads. The sum actually allocated reached £724,162, of which £334,898 was assigned towards upkeep and £389,264 was available for improvement. For the coming financial year we are allocating the sum of £900,000, of which about £350,000 will go towards the maintenance of main roads and £550,000 for works of improvement. The sum originally allocated towards the upkeep of main roads, when this type of grant was first made (in 1927/28), amounted to little more than £200,000, so that under this head the sum set aside has increased in four years by 75 per cent. The type of maintenance now carried out on the main roads is much superior to that which was in vogue in 1927/28 and greater value is being obtained from the increased grant.

Last year it will be remembered that special attention was drawn to the desirability of co-ordinating the engineering services in the counties and getting rid, as far as possible, of the duplication which existed by having two sets of engineers employed by the board of health and county council. The principal object, however, which was sought was to place the engineering work of both bodies under the county surveyor. There has been some satisfactory progress along these lines since, and wherever we have been able to arrange it the arrangement has been appreciated by the local authorities and by the urban district councils in those cases where they make use of the services of the county surveyor as their borough surveyor. According as circumstances permit they make the necessary changes.

The estimates of county councils for the year 1931-32 in respect of repair of roads amount to: Gross amount, £1,471,785; grant, £342,221; net amount falling on the rates, £1,129,564. The corresponding gross total for 1930/31 was £1,450,746, showing an increase in the coming year's figure in the gross total of about £21,000. The returns of expenditure for 1930-31 are not, of course, yet available, but the figures for 1929-30 corresponding to the above, are as follows: Gross amount, £1,433,654; grant, £312,582; net amount falling on rates, £1,121,072. It will be noted that the net increase over 1913-14 falling on the rates for 1931-32 will be about 81.5 per cent., taking no account of the Agricultural Grant. The corresponding percentage a year ago was 79.3. The sum passed by the county councils for 1931-32, as between the main and county roads, is apportioned by them as follows:— Main roads, £855,546; county roads, £616,239.

Is that the total maintenance for main roads?

And also for county roads?

Yes. The collection of rates by county councils has not been quite as satisfactory as in the previous years.

Although the total percentage collected remains practically unchanged, being 85.5 of the total warrants for the past year as compared with 86.4 for the previous year, the position in some counties was allowed to fall back. The amount of the warrants collected shows a decrease of 15 per cent. in Offaly, 10 per cent. in Louth, 6 per cent. in Laoighis, 5 per cent. in Wicklow, and 5 per cent. in Dublin. In the counties of Tipperary and Mayo the collections were closed at the 31st March, and in five other counties—Cavan, Leitrim, Mayo, Meath, and Waterford—the amounts outstanding were less than three per cent. of the warrants. The improvement was most noticeable in the counties of Leitrim, Mayo, Waterford, Westmeath and Kildare. In fact, the position brought about in Leitrim shows what can be done when a council deliberately makes up its mind that the rates which it strikes must be collected.

At the 31st March temporary accommodation from treasurers was required only in six counties. The total amount of the overdrafts was £116,560, as compared with £137,000 at March, 1930. Deputies will understand that for a number of years there were large arrears of audits. The number of accounts remaining unaudited and in arrear on 25th April, 1931, was 428, as compared with 656 in April, 1929, and 1,900 in 1923. The showing of these 428 accounts as in arrear does not mean that the audits have not yet taken place, but merely that we have not yet received the reports. In some of the cases of long-standing arrears the audits have been practically completed, but the reports are held up pending clearance of queries. A very considerable effort has been made to bring up the arrears in the matter of audits, and very considerable progress has been made.

I move: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration." The amendment has been set down because we are of opinion that the whole policy of the Department is out of touch with the needs of the people and with popular opinion. In dealing with this Estimate on previous years it was stated that in the Department of Local Government, more than in any other Department of the State, broad and generous administration was necessary. It is not necessary to repeat that, beyond pointing out that Local Government administration and the policy of the Department enter more largely into the lives of the people, and particularly of the poor, than any other Department. In considering that we have to think only of the very large number of people affected by the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, in so far as the Department of Local Government is concerned in it, the administration of child welfare schemes, care of the blind, the services designated, for want of a better name at the moment, as home assistance, as well as the control of poor law hospitals. There can be no doubt that, to the bulk of the people, who are not in a very good position to press their cases, the administration and the general policy of the Local Government Department must be a very important factor. I regret that I can see very little evidence from what the Minister has outlined, that he has any real conception of the kind of policy that is necessary with regard to a Department of the kind. If we examine the position we can see evidence of an entirely opposite policy, and where that entirely opposite policy is not apparent, there is very little evidence of any policy at all.

In supporting a charge of that kind one immediately thinks of the relations existing between the Minister and the local authorities. One can see all over the country a very definite clash between the views of the Minister and the views of the people, as expressed through the local authorities. We have had during the past year a very rapid rate of suppression of local authorities and generally it is apparent that there is not much understanding between the central Department and the local bodies. I do not want to make the claim that the local bodies are all that they should be, in all parts of the country, and I am not making the claim that there is not just and ample cause for dealing drastically with local authorities on certain occasions. But the policy of the Minister, it seems to me, goes far beyond that. I do not think I would be unfair to him if I claimed that he very barely disguises the fact that he has very little use for local authorities at all. The process of abolishing local authorities goes on steadily. One begins to see that the whole system of local government, and what was achieved when that system was obtained for this country, is being steadily undermined, and that the Minister contemplates the end of local government, as far as local authorities are concerned. I do not know if I am in order in referring to evidence of that kind which was provided by recent legislation enacted by this House. If I am in order, I would refer, as evidence in support of my case, to the principle embodied in the Greater Dublin Act at the suggestion and instigation of the Minister. That is the principle of entirely over-riding the popular franchise as exercised by the people and conferring privileges on certain companies in Dublin, enabling them to register votes in bulk, and to secure a permanent corner in the local authority in the city.

I think we had all that on the Bill, and we can hardly go over it again.

Mr. Murphy

I was not quite sure.

The Deputy is just making a passing reference to it?

Mr. Murphy

Even recently the Minister has adopted what seems to me, without being too closely connected with the city, from reading the discussions following the conferences that took place, a very peculiar attitude in regard to the mistake made by his representatives when they were in charge of Grangegorman Mental Hospital. The Commissioners who were in charge of that institution made certain reductions in the salaries of certain members of the staff and it was held afterwards in the High Courts that the reductions were entirely unjustifiable, the decision of the Commissioners being reversed.

Surely it was not the Commissioners. It was a joint body consisting of Commissioners representing Dublin city and representatives of the County Councils of Louth, Dublin and Wicklow that dealt with the matter.

Is the Minister going to make the point that if the City of Dublin representatives were there the reductions would be brought about? They have proved that that is not the case when they went back and gave them back.

I am correcting a misconception on the part of Deputy Murphy.

Deputy Murphy is quite correct.

Mr. Murphy

The reductions were made in any case. That is not the argument I am relying on, but that the policy of the Minister, as a result of the decisions of the courts, was that he was anxious to upset the decision, and that the Minister was a party to an attempt made to prevent a local authority from giving effect to a decision of the court as a result of the appeal of certain officials. I consider that that was an entirely unjustifiable attitude on the part of the Minister and bears out that the Minister is very keen on having his own way in regard to matters of policy and has very little regard for the opinion of local representatives and other opinion in matters of this kind. There was less reason for that in this case, because the matter was the subject of a judicial decision, and I consider that the Minister's attitude was a very extraordinary one indeed.

I also want to refer to the operation of the Local Appointments Act and the attitude of the Minister to a certain provision in it. I considered that one of the most useful provisions of the Act, with a view to getting popular opinion in favour of the principle of the Act—which is a very good one, and one of which I approve, and which, in my opinion, will justify itself right through—was that enabling local authorities to promote suitable officials in their service to higher positions when vacancies arose. The Minister on more than one occasion, and I think he is pretty consistent in that attitude, has overridden the demands of local authorities that they should be allowed to promote certain officials in their service to higher positions. That has arisen in the case of dispensary doctors. It has arisen in one case which I discussed with the Minister in the House before and in numerous other instances where the question arose of promoting an official of one kind or another. I think the policy of the Minister has been not alone to discourage it, but definitely to exercise his power as Minister when a proposal is made.

If the Minister deals with this matter in replying, I anticipate that he will refer to a report of a Committee of this House which investigated the working of the Act some time ago. I think some recommendation which would not encourage promotion of this kind was made by that Committee. I happened to be a member of that Committee, but I did not attend many meetings, because very early during the course of the deliberations of the Committee I came to the conclusion that the Committee had very little power indeed, and its recommendations, if any, would be of a very minor character, and would not effect any useful purpose. So that the Committee had very little opportunity of satisfying, say, suspicious people that the operations of the Act were perfectly watertight. I am satisfied of that myself, but there are many people who are not as well able to judge in a matter of that kind as those of us who are in closer touch with administration here, and it would be well that they should be satisfied on that point. The point I intended to make was that the Minister's attitude in that matter was entirely unfair, and that he ought to be the first to recognise the fact that where there are men in the service of local authorities for some considerable time, with ample experience of local government administration, with good records, and with an opportunity of doing good work by reason of the fact that they may look forward to promotion of some kind or another in a reasonable time, the Minister is not assisting local government in the country, or even assisting economy of any kind, by refusing to endorse the demand of local authorities, where that demand takes the form of applying for permission to promote certain officials in their service.

I now come to another phase of the administration of the Local Government Department as it relates to Deputies. I repeat the protest I made on another occasion here against the exclusion of Deputies from the portion of the Local Government Department that deals with old age pensions.

Is there not a motion on the Order Paper with regard to that?

Mr. Murphy

Am I precluded from referring to it?

The Deputy must not anticipate the motion, because the matter will be discussed on the motion and decided on that separate basis. The discussion must not be anticipated now, unless the motion be waived.

Mr. Murphy

I am not prepared to argue the matter, but I took it that in dealing with this Vote I was free to refer to any matter arising out of the administration of the Department.

The matter is relevant to the administration of the Department, but Standing Order 45 says that no Deputy shall anticipate the discussion of any subject of which notice has been given, provided that certain things happen. Notice has been given by Deputies Ward and Maguire of their intention to discuss this particular matter, and so it would appear that it cannot be anticipated.

Mr. Murphy

May I refer to another aspect of the administration of the Minister in that particular connection?

I take it that this will not be out of order, because Deputy Ward's motion refers——

To refusing to allow Deputies to make representations in person to the deciding officer. It is confined to that.

Mr. Murphy

I want to refer to another change made by the Department in regard to the administration of the Old Age Pension Acts. Up to some time ago decisions of the Local Government Department on appeal cases were communicated to Deputies immediately the decisions had been reached. I have noticed for some weeks past, perhaps more than some weeks, that such decisions are delayed very much longer. I have had cases within the last three or four weeks where, instead of a communication dealing with a particular case, a tabulated statement, something like the cost of living index, was sent out a month or six weeks after the case was decided and a certain number of cases entered on this particular form. I do not want to complain about the particular form in which the decisions of the Department dealing with matters of this kind are communicated to Deputies, but I feel that it is another symptom of the policy of the Minister, that he is all the time inclined to favour the registration of automatic decisions and to have them communicated in a very bald official fashion. I regret very much that I am precluded from referring to the whole matter in the way I should like to by this Standing Order. I feel that the Minister is anxious to discourage Deputies from taking the active interest that they ought to take in matters of that kind. Although one dislikes saying it, one is inevitably forced to the conclusion that the Minister is partial to the policy of leaving old age pension claimants to their fate, or perhaps I should say, to the pensions officers, who very often deal with them in a way that they ought not to be dealt with.

I said in opening the case for the amendment that it seems to be the policy of the Minister steadily to undermine, and finally abolish, local government altogether, as we have known it for a number of years, in the country. If the forecasts that one hears at the moment as indicating radical changes in local government in the country mean anything, it appears that we are rapidly approaching the time when local government is definitely doomed. I do not think the Minister is altogether responsible for the initiation of that policy, because, to some extent, the policy I have referred to was in operation and favoured in a certain direction, at any rate, before the Minister came to occupy his present office. We had an experiment made in the local government of the country as far back as eight or nine years ago. A beginning was made with the poor law system, which was remodelled, and we got a brand new system of poor law administration in the country which we were told was to do much for us. The ugly term "outdoor relief" was abolished, and "home assistance" and "home help" substituted for it. The whole scheme of amalgamation led to very many hardships. I know from my own knowledge, in my own county, it was felt very keenly, and in many instances proved disastrous. I know of only one phase of that change where the policy of the Department was justified. I want to be fair to the Minister, and I acknowledge the fact that, in regard to the county hospitals and district hospitals, the policy of the Department was justified. I have little to congratulate the Minister upon, and I do congratulate him on the fact that the stigma of the workhouse hospital has been removed and a much better type of hospital and a much better system in that respect has obtained all over the country since. But side by side with the position of the district and county hospitals one has the position in the county homes. I referred to that matter before, and I want to refer to it again.

The position of many of the county homes at the moment is absolutely deplorable, and the Minister knows it. There are buildings where no convenience of any kind is provided for the poor, who are absolutely in the position of being herded in a very bad, and uncared-for fashion so far as the building and its surroundings are concerned. I do not say that the people charged with the responsibility for the poor in such institutions are not doing their best, but I say that the facilities provided for them to do their duty there are very inadequate indeed. In certain parts of the country an experiment has been made to change the system obtaining in the county homes at the present time, and to take the poor people out of the horrible surroundings—for "horrible" is not too strong a word—in which they exist at the moment. I am glad that the Minister has sanctioned and encouraged that policy. Until much more is done in that direction the policy of the Minister will be lagging far behind what ought to be done.

I feel that some very radical change is necessary, in regard to the whole service known as home assistance. I am not in a position to say how that change should be brought about, but the whole thing demands revision, and immediate revision. Speaking of that matter, one is shocked to find that at the moment in this country 84,000 persons are in receipt of home assistance, as indicated in a reply of the Minister to-day, at a cost of something like over half a million pounds. The Minister ought to consider this whole question immediately, and how that system could be properly and humanely worked, and how the poor could be protected. I say with regret, that very often the local authority has no conception of what the average family needs. I know cases where, after considerable difficulty, a family of three or four persons would be very lucky if they got seven or eight shillings a week as home assistance. There is no consistency about the matter, and— while what I am saying is not an argument for local authorities, but rather a condemnation—I am quite frank in saying that I believe the whole service is in a very unsatisfactory condition, and that the Minister ought to devise some method of making certain that whatever benefit a service of that kind confers upon the poor ought to reach them directly, and ought to be free from many of the abuses that surround it at the moment.

One has not to look far to find how difficult it is to establish a case of abuse in regard to the payment and distribution of home assistance, but clearly there is an opportunity for the Minister to carry out investigation in regard to this matter that would prevent certain parties who control local authorities at the moment from taking up the attitude they take up very often in regard to this whole matter.

One hears the argument that nobody looks for home assistance except people who are too idle to work. I hope the Minister does not think that of the 84,000 people in receipt of home assistance, a very large percentage in that unfortunate position, and it is an unfortunate position, are people who will not work. In regard to much the larger number of people who form part of that 84,000, the policy of the Minister ought to have been announced long ago. I am precluded from referring to that, because it would involve legislation, but the Minister knows what I am referring to, and I think it is a blot on the administration of the Minister that he has not taken his courage in his hands long ago and provided for the large number of people amongst this 84,000 being properly cared for in a humane and just fashion in the country.

Now, with regard to the question of housing, I do not wish to anticipate what will be said by other Deputies when this particular aspect of local government comes up for review. But I do complain of the fact that since we discussed this particular matter twelve months ago no provision of any useful kind has been made for the building of houses in the rural areas. The Minister gave very long and elaborate figures in regard to the total number of houses built, but the Minister must remember that he has definitely failed to carry out the policy which was dropped when the Great War broke out in 1914. There are no reasonable facilities existing at the moment by which local authorities can proceed even to complete the scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages hung up at the outbreak of the Great War. The figures I have got would indicate that since the Housing Act of 1924 was passed less than 300 houses were built by boards of public health for rural labourers.

385 were provided.

Mr. Murphy

I was not very far wrong. I shall improve the Minister's figure by saying 400, but I am afraid that 400 is a very small testimony to the policy pursued in his Department.

I might say that nothing has been done in that direction. I want the Minister to say, when replying, what he proposes to do in this particular connection and also in regard to the tenants of labourers' cottages who, when such cottages were erected, were unfortunate enough to get only half an acre of ground. In Cork, particularly in the western portion, we have a large number of tenants who feel that they ought to be put in as good a position as their neighbours who benefited by subsequent schemes which enabled them to get one acre. Does not the Minister think that the time has come when boards of health ought to be provided with opportunities for putting the tenants of such cottages into the same position as that enjoyed by their neighbours? In regard to the operations of the Housing Acts since 1924, I feel that very much could have been done and my complaint is that a much bigger policy in regard to rural housing has not been adopted.

In regard to the erection of houses in towns by private persons who do not build houses to live in them but to let them, I feel that abuses are steadily creeping in in some of the smaller towns where wages do not amount to a very high figure. Take, for instance, towns in which a wage of 30/- or 32/- would be an average. I find that in many of such towns persons who are in the happy position of being able to build houses through grants from the Local Government Department, loans from the local authorities, and substantial concessions in regard to rating relief, are letting these houses and charging rents altogether out of proportion to those for which working-class people in such towns can afford to pay. I believe that in previous Housing Acts provision was made in regard to the rents to be charged, but the rents mentioned in those Acts would be too high now.

In the case of houses of the type to which I refer and which were built quickly in certain towns with the assistance of tradesmen whose rate of wage was not excessive, where no great difficulties in regard to building costs entered, where no dangerous trade unions existed to impose their will on reasonable and benevolent contractors, rents have been charged of 7/-, 8/- and 10/- a week, rents which make it impossible for such persons in small towns to get the benefit of the Housing Acts. The only prospect such a person has is to look forward to someone moving from a house better than the one he occupies.

In regard to the operations of the local government services dealing with the care of the blind, I complain of the fact that, although the Minister in his opening statement has indicated an improvement in that direction, there is no uniformity in regard to such schemes all over the country. There again, I feel that the Minister ought to make certain that suitable provisions are made for providing uniformity in these schemes. The Minister seems to hope that one particular county, a county with which I am familiar and which has omitted, I regret to say, to make provision of that kind, is about to do so, but I am afraid that such will not be the case, because I have seen an advance copy of the estimates. No provision has been made in them in that direction. In regard to another matter which agitated the minds of Deputies of all parties some time ago, namely, the provision of grants to local authorities for sewerage and waterworks, I desire to call attention to the very unsatisfactory way in which schemes of that kind can be prepared and worked out because of the haste with which they have to be drawn. Within a few days of the close of the financial year, local authorities in some cases were informed that certain grants were available and that unless portion of the work were carried out within the few remaining days such grants would be allocated to other work. That is not the kind of policy that will lead to properly thought-out schemes for sewerage and water-works being carried through. There is very little doubt that the attempts made in certain portions of the country to take advantage of these grants by having particular schemes ready within a particular time meant that very often sufficient thought was not given to working out such schemes, with the result that a certain amount of expenditure was embarked on which might have been incurred with better results if the schemes were properly prepared and thought out. I suggest to the Minister that the allocation of grants of this kind ought to form a permanent feature of the policy of his Department and that a certain amount ought to be held in reserve for assisting well-defined schemes when presented, and we should not have the scramble which we recently had between various local authorities all over the country to get grants within a few days of the close of the financial year, because such a scramble does not serve the purpose in view and does not assist the policy of the Department which is the central authority in control.

I notice that the Minister still hankers after the idea of combining the services of the boards of health and the county councils. In any inquiries I have made I have not heard of any very satisfactory results attending such combination of services. I have a distinct recollection of reading about the situation which arose in Kerry as the result of the initiation of such a policy. I think that it was initiated by the Commissioner who was then in charge. He evolved a scheme whereby the road ganger going along the road and noticing a cottage falling into disrepair reported the matter to the deputy-surveyor, who later on in his wisdom might report it to the county surveyor, and after a considerable lapse of time something might be done. One has only to read the newspapers to see that the result is that in Kerry most of the cottages are in ruins and thousands of pounds of arrears of rent have to be collected by the Commissioner. I consider that a service of this kind would be disastrous and a big loss to ratepayers. The occupants of labourers' cottages who have paid their rent punctually are entitled to reasonable attention, attention they cannot get if the county surveyor is the engineer in charge of the affairs of the board of health. I leave the Minister to consider the position that might arise if such a scheme were put into operation in County Cork. Some time ago a long discussion took place between the Minister's Department and the county council as to whether three surveyors or one were necessary in the county. The Minister had his way, as usual, in that matter. I leave him to consider the position that would have arisen if Mr. O'Connell, the county surveyor, was responsible for the roads in the county, and for all the cottages from Youghal to Castletownbere. I think the Minister will find that an arrangement of that kind is not practicable. If both services are to be performed by the county surveyor and if the services performed by the engineer to the board of health are not to remain separate and distinct, the result will be that the amalgamation will not even be as big a success as some other amalgamations that have already taken place, and we know that very little can be said for them. It seems unnecessary to elaborate the reasons for this amendment any further. I think the Minister has much to answer for and has very little to his credit in regard to the administration and the policy of his Department.

In regard to the county health services, while certain phases of that service are not justifying themselves in the manner that one would hope for, it can be said for the service in other directions that there is an improvement. In regard to the broad principles of policy administered by the Department, one feels that there is a growing attempt to reject the popular view for the view of the central department, and in that connection I might say that I hold the Minister primarily responsible, because in regard to the officials of the Local Government Department I have nothing to say, or no complaints to make. I have had more dealings with them than a great many Deputies and I have found them always ready to give effect to any reasonable request made to them. One has to remember that the main factor in the Local Government Department is the policy decided on by the central authority. In my opinion that policy is becoming more unpopular day after day, and in the end will be condemned by the people. I ask the Minister, when examining the whole administration of his Department, to remember that the beginning and end of the service must be service for the people for the duration of the control by the Minister. If there is an attempt to override the claims of the people as expressed by their local authority, or if, on the other hand, there is an indication that the view held by the Minister himself must be imposed on local authorities, without even giving an opportunity to the local people to present their case, and that they have to register cut and dried decisions, that policy will fail in the country, and must fail. It seems to me that no case has been made out for the allocation of the sum asked for in the Vote by the Minister. In the absence of an indication of a complete change of policy on the part of the Minister I do not think the House ought to give approval to the Vote.

I do not think that Deputy Murphy will be gratified by any announcement to be made by the Minister at the end of the debate, that there will be any comprehensive change in the policy of the Department, because I think it is evident to everyone in the House that the policy of the Department has been for years, and probably will continue to be as long as the present powers remain in control, to have as great contempt as possible for local authorities, and, as Deputy Murphy said, to undermine steadily and finally abolish local authorities. That seems to be the policy and the mentality of those in control of local government for a number of years, certainly since 1924 or thereabouts. That mentality seems to have developed and grown to such an extent that, as Deputy Murphy said, I think it is quite true that people in the country are forced to believe that the Minister's one desire is to abolish local government altogether, and to concentrate all power, authority and administration in the Local Government headquarters in Dublin. I do not know how many officials of the Department, inspectors or otherwise, are at present employed administering the affairs of local authorities in the country. There must be a considerable number. I agree with Deputy Murphy when he says that occasions might arise when local authorities might have to be severely dealt with by the central authority in control of public local administration, but I doubt if any occasion has arisen or will arise that would justify the total abolition of the public authority.

One would imagine that the desire of any authority imbued with democratic ideas, at any rate, would be to try to improve administration by local bodies, and in the case of recalcitrant local bodies, that an effort should be made by judicious pressure to show them the right road and teach them where necessary how public administration should be carried on for the benefit of the people concerned and the ratepayers. Far from that being the idea prevalent in the Local Government Authority's mind to-day, it would appear that the idea, very definitely evidenced in the last twelve months, is that the people are not to have confidence in and should not be allowed to trust their elected representatives to disburse money raised by rates, with the administration of which they are usually entrusted. Several cases have arisen during the last twelve months, the cases of Kerry and Galway, notable examples, and the case of Mayo, a particular example. I think that in the case of Mayo even the Minister's own Department acknowledge that the administration by that county council was as good as it could be. The Government has a majority of supporters on that county council, and therefore I am sure the Minister would be all the more ready to praise the administration of the county council. The Chairman of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party—so somebody told me—is Chair man of that county council. Naturally there must have been very efficient administration there.

There is a motion on the Paper dealing with that issue.

I will not go into it now, as I would like.

There will be another opportunity, I presume, on the motion.

We will have that before the general election.

I cannot go into the reasons for the abolition of the Mayo County Council?

No, because the motion is:

That the Dáil disapproves of the action of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in dissolving the Mayo County Council, and demands its immediate restoration.

That motion affords an opportunity of discussing the action of the Minister in dissolving the Mayo County Council. I think we must wait for that opportunity.

Do you think that that will arise before the end of June?

After June it will not be necessary. The County Council will be restored.

Deputy Ruttledge, I gather, desires the motion to stand.

I might say, without going into the matter raised in that motion on the paper, that such is the mentality of the Local Government Department, even in the case of the Mayo County Council, ruled as I say by a majority of supporters of the Minister's own Party, that that body was abolished even though it is admitted that its administration was as good as that of any local authority in the Twenty-Six Counties. Something of that kind was admitted by those who held the public inquiry, or what served for a public inquiry, before the abolition of the County Council.

I do not believe that any improvement in public administration results from administration by officials of the Local Government Department. I do not believe that that has been demonstrated in one instance, not even in the case of the Dublin Corporation. Nowhere has there been any improvement as a result of the abolition of the local authority. But even if there had been an improvement I would claim that an assembly of this kind ought not to stand for the abolition of the councils elected by the people to run their local affairs. If there has been, in any case, maladministration, it should be the duty of those who control local government to demonstrate to the elected representatives in the area, and to point out to the people that there has been maladministration and mismanagement, to encourage the people to take a more lively interest in their local affairs and to induce them to elect people who will improve administration and make matters what they ought to be as far as the public administration of local authorities is concerned.

We suffer in this country from a want of recognition of civic responsibility. In city, town and rural areas people do not recognise to the full their civic responsibilities. The numbers who vote at elections in city, town and country demonstrate that to a great extent. In my humble opinion we should endeavour to educate our people into taking a more lively interest, a more keen and educated interest, in public affairs, and to keep on doing so even though we fail this year or next year. It should be the duty of the Local Government Department to keep on trying to educate the people into the management of their own affairs where such education is necessary—and it is necessary in many places. That, I think, ought be the policy of the Department. As it is, the policy of the Department seems to be to watch out for any opportunity of rushing into the abolition of local bodies. It rushes and grabs at any opportunity that may arise and at any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to abolish local authority and to set up in its stead a paid official of the Department to administer local affairs. That is bad economy. It is worse democracy. In my opinion it does not make for that good management and that improvement in public spirit and civic education that we should all in this House encourage.

Deputy Murphy made a very comprehensive survey of the working of the Local Government Department. I do not think that there is any branch of it that he has not dealt with in one way or another. I have gone to some trouble in making a lot of notes on almost every activity that the Department controls, but as my remarks would be very largely of the same kind as those made by Deputy Murphy, it would probably be only wearying the House. I do not wish in any way to draw away from the effect of Deputy Murphy's very effective criticism of the administration in general.

There are a few items, however, to which I would like to refer. I notice that in sub-heads A, B, C in the Estimates, page 139, dealing with salaries, wages and allowances; travelling expenses of inspectors and salaries of auditors, a decrease is proposed for the coming year. Last year there was an increase in these items. The decrease this year is nearly £2,000. Last year the increase was in or about £1,000. I am always satisfied to see a decrease, provided it does not mean a decrease in efficiency. I do not think it is likely to decrease efficiency, because I feel certain that the Department concerned is not under-manned.

The Minister drew attention to the fact that there was proposed in this year's Estimates a considerable increase in the amounts to be devoted to public health in general. With the increase set out here I am in hearty agreement. I think that any increase in the moneys to be expended on public health services should be welcomed by this House. Several others in this House probably more competent to speak on questions of public health than I am, have said similar things. We have endeavoured to impress on the House the backwardness of public health services in general in the Twenty-Six Counties area. That backward state of public health services still exists. But there has been an improvement in recent years, and I hope the improvement will continue. It does not always follow when more money is spent that we get more efficient services; but, on the other hand, without spending more money we cannot get better services. I believe that whilst the amounts we are asked to grant here are considerable, we will have to spend considerably increased amounts out of the State Exchequer as well as out of the local rates before anything like adequate public services for the Twenty-Six Counties are provided.

Public health services here include expenditure on school meals. That, to my mind, is properly looked upon as a public health service, because many of us know that in many large areas in the country, as well as in the city, many hundreds of children go to school improperly nourished and are therefore liable to take more readily whatever diseases there may be in the neighbourhood than would healthy, well-fed children. It also has this advantage when school meals are provided, that children are better equipped to benefit by the instruction provided for them. In case anybody is inclined to criticise the additional expense there is the advantage from the national point of view from this expenditure to be emphasised.

I notice that there are some slight errors in the figures given in this year's Estimates when they are compared with the figures given in last year's Estimates. For instance, the figures set out for medical treatment of school children in the 1931-1932 Estimates is £10,200, whereas if we turn to last year's book we find the amount is £11,000. There is a difference there of £800. How it arises I do not know. Likewise, under Miscellaneous Grants, in this year's books for grants under the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, 1914 to 1930, we have £8,285 set down as being the estimate for the year, whereas if we turn to the book for last year the corresponding item shows a figure of £7,600. Similarly in connection with sub-head P—Treatment of Venereal Diseases—there is what appears to me at any rate to be a mistake. In 1931-1932 the estimate is £7,456, whereas last year the amount estimated was £7,850.

These are not very important items, but it is strange that errors of that kind should creep into a book of such importance. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how the differences arise.

Deputy Murphy referred to the question of the welfare of the blind, and I gathered from him that he thought there was an improvement to be brought about in the coming year. So far as the Estimate is concerned there is no increase in the figure provided under that heading. Whether there will be any increase in the amount to be expended by the local authorities out of their own exchequers I am not aware. But if that is so, I imagine that we would find the proposed additional expenditure reflected in the figure set out in the Estimates. If there has been any improvement in that direction I, and I am sure other Deputies in the House, will be glad to hear of it. We all agree that the blind have not got the consideration they deserve. In the course of last year there were brought to my notice the cases of blind people who are quite destitute. Something has been done for these people by the local authorities, but it was nothing like sufficient to meet their requirements.

No doubt Deputies have got circulars from benevolent organisations interested in the blind in Dublin City, pointing out that these organisations are in a parlous condition financially. They are almost at an end of their resources. I do not know whether representations have been made to the Ministry for additional consideration for blind people and the charitable organisations interested in them. I have not heard whether representations have been made to the local authorities. If there is one section of the community that should have our warmest support, and that should get every consideration from those of us who, in most cases at any rate, are gifted with all our senses, it is the blind. If the Government can do anything to educate public authorities on their duty to the blind, I think it should be regarded as a service done to the general public. That is a course which the House should encourage the Government to take.

The Minister referred to the Public Health Congress held last year, and the Congress he proposes to hold next October. If anything could be done during the deliberations of that Congress to put forward facts relating to the conditions of the blind, and if suggestions could be offered towards making happier the lot of those unfortunate people, I am sure any effort in that direction would receive the approval of the people as a whole. Something of that sort is due to the blind in our community.

I am sure everybody who listened to the Minister was pleased to hear of the improvement in mortality statistics with regard to infectious diseases. I hope that improvement will continue and will be brought gradually, not alone into the position wherein we would favourably compare, say, with neighbouring countries, England and Scotland, which are often quoted here, but into the position that a country that is to the extent of five-sixths a rural area ought to occupy. Our people, if properly cared for and nourished, are as healthy as any people in Europe that I know and if there is disease, it is largely, as was said already, due to lack of knowledge with regard to public health matters and lack of public health facilities. We ought to be able to raise the standard of public health and we ought to be able to decrease mortality among young and old in this country to such an extent that we would be leaders in public health matters so far as Europe is concerned. That, of course, means additional cost but in the end it will repay the additional cost. If we have healthy young people and our mortality, especially amongst infants, is considerably decreased, it will mean a reduction in expenditure in many directions and in the end the local exchequer will be the gainer.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

A new item appears in the Estimates this year with regard to provision for the training of persons from Irish-speaking districts as nurses. That is a step in the right direction, in my opinion, and the small sum that is set down, while it will not do very much, is a beginning to help a class of the community that have not had great opportunities for improving themselves in the past. I hope that the amount that is set down here, which will be, I expect, efficiently spent, will be increased, and that the number of nurses, midwives and probationers who will be made available for work in the Gaeltacht areas will be largely increased.

Deputy Murphy dealt at considerable length with the question of housing. The Minister gave us plenty of figures, showing what houses had been built and what amount of money had been allocated in urban and rural areas in recent years. While a considerable amount of money has been allotted in recent years, and while between 15,000 and 20,000 houses, the Minister tells us, have been built, considering the housing conditions in cities, towns and rural areas, I say that what has been done is only, as it were, scratching the surface of the problem in our cities and towns. These I know better than I know the rural areas. Speaking for the cities and towns that I have any intimate acquaintance with in the Twenty-Six Counties area, I know that the housing situation in general is a disgrace to us. The housing situation in Dublin has no equal. The magnitude of that problem cannot be realised by the Department of Local Government or else they would have taken drastic steps to see that that problem was tackled, as it ought to be tackled, any time within the last nine years. There does not seem to be, on the question of housing, a proper mentality in the Local Government Department, any more than there is on the question of local administration in general. I know it is not easy to find all the money that is required, and it cannot be found in one year or two years, but, while not wanting to go at great length into this problem we have so often discussed here before, I say until there is a radical change in the mentality in this House, and particularly in the Department of Local Government, on the subject of housing, nothing will be done that is adequate to the situation. Nothing has been done and nothing will be done so long as the present mentality is continued.

There are only one or two other items that I desire to refer to. One of these like most others, has been already referred to by Deputy Murphy. That is the question of the recent happenings in connection with Grangegorman Mental Hospital. A recent decision in the High Court has brought about a situation which imposes a cost of £40,000 on the City of Dublin, due to the incompetence of the Minister's Department. It was gross imcompetence —nothing else could describe what happened—which brought about the imposition of that huge sum in one year on the Dublin City ratepayers. The Department of Local Government —not under the present Minister; President Cosgrave, I think, was the person primarily responsible—abolished the Dublin Corporation, and as a result of that the Joint Committee of the Grangegorman Mental Asylum, so far as its Dublin City representation is concerned, abolished itself. The members of the Dublin Corporation, having had their authority to sit on subsidiary bodies withdrawn, withdrew from the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Committee, and the Minister appointed three of his officials to act instead of the 28 or 29 members of the Dublin Corporation who sat on that body. I am not quite sure if that number is accurate. In or about that number sat there on behalf of the Dublin Corporation, and the Minister's Department was advised by highly paid legal gentlemen that the procedure was legally proper, and the Minister's Department ordered certain reductions in salary, again, I presume, under the authority of his legal advisers.

This is a fairy tale, and it does not arise on this Vote. It arose on last year's administration.

You are not Ceann Comhairle yet.

I submit it does not arise under this administration.

The matter has already been referred to at considerable length and the Ceann Comhairle did not see fit to rule it out. At any rate, the matter is probably well known to everybody in this House who takes any interest in public administration, and a more gross piece of mismanagement and a greater display of legal ignorance I have not seen in connection with public affairs than has been demonstrated in this particular case.

The Minister got advice from his legal advisers and paid dearly for it but, dearly as the Department paid for that ignorant advice that was given to the Minister, the citizens of Dublin paid a thousandfold more dearly for it. It ought to be a lesson to the Department that the abolition of public authorities, unless they have very efficient legal advisers behind them, is a policy that does not pay. At least if the Minister has not learned that lesson the citizens of Dublin ought to have learned it because they have been made pay through the nose for it. If the Department had any sense of decency they would have shouldered the cost that they were responsible for placing on the Dublin ratepayers. They would have admitted their mistake. The Supreme Court showed them that they blundered and told them that they had no right to make the orders that they made, that they were illegal, and, in decency, they ought to have paid not alone the refunds to the officials whose salaries and wages were involved but the heavy legal expenses that the Minister's Department was responsible for. The cost has to be shouldered by the Dublin ratepayers with the result that there is a considerable increase in the city rates because of the ignorance and stupidity of the Local Government Department.

I want to say a word in relation to the Dublin Union. The Union is now administered under the authority of the newly-appointed Committees. Therefore, so far as the present administration is concerned it does not arise here. What I have to say does not refer to the present administration, except to this extent that it has been demonstrated to those in charge that the Minister's administration with regard to the Dublin Union affairs has not proved a success. He and his advisers have been shown not to be as wise as they thought they were, and the Board they nominated to administer the affairs of the Union was not a success. It is evident that they are not as omniscient as they thought they were in local government administration.

There is another matter in connection with the administration of the Dublin Union that I wish to refer to, and that is the exposure by an auditor of the Local Government Department of gross mismanagement while the Union was in charge of the officials appointed under the patronage of the Local Government Department. The auditor's report showed that a very considerable amount of money had gone astray, that contractors were allowed to misbehave, and that officials of the Union under the control of the Commissioners' régime were allowed to misbehave also, at the cost of thousands of pounds of the citizens' money. If these things happened under any other public authority in Dublin or elsewhere, run by elected representatives, the daily Press, probably at the suggestion of the Department of Local Government, would for days, if not for weeks, have big headings pointing out the iniquities of the administration by publicly-elected representatives. A body of such officials would not be long in existence. If the mentality of the Local Government Department, as it has been recently exhibited, is still maintained it would not be long when an order for the abolition of such a body would be issued, but because these things were done under the aegis of Commissioners and because the contractor concerned was one of the pillars of the Cumann na nGaedheal party in Dublin the matter was hushed up and no enquiry is to be held. The officials are all whitewashed. The Board that replaced the Commissioners, of course, cannot be held responsible and they will not be abolished for the time being, but it certainly proves that there is not that sense of honest dealing in the Minister or his Department that one would expect when officials and contractors are allowed, as shown by the Local Government Department auditor, to defraud the public and the poor and the Minister does not insist on these people being prosecuted. If the Minister were acting justly and honestly after the receipt of the reports of his auditors he would have ordered a public investigation on oath and have those responsible officials or contractors or whatever they were, brought before the court to answer for their pilfering and robbery of the public pocket and of the poor of the city of Dublin. I think that one thing alone shows disgraceful maladministration in the Dublin Union under the aegis of the Minister's own officials and shows them unfit to hold their offices.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

One of the functions of the Department of Local Government is to act as arbiters between the Department of Finance and applicants for old age pensions. It has been found necessary both by public representatives in public bodies in the country and by the elected representatives here to make personal representations to the Department of Local Government to help them to arrive at proper decisions in most of those cases.

That, it was understood, was the right of Deputies. It was not a privilege, it was a right, and it was accorded to Deputies ever since practically the Dáil was established. Anyone who comes in contact with the applicants for old age pensions will realise that these people, in the main, are not capable of putting their case sufficiently well before the pension officers, and that as regards the deciding officers it is really necessary that oral representations should be made to them in order to try and secure for these people what they are entitled to under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. Yet, we find that there is an alteration in the administration of the Department in that connection, an alteration that was introduced by the present Minister, who has absolutely refused to allow Deputies to approach the deciding officers in these matters.

I am afraid the Deputy is now going on to anticipate discussion on a motion that is in the name of Deputy Ward and Deputy Maguire.

Mr. Hogan

Has that ruling been given?

It has been, and the Deputy ought, I think, to abide by the ruling given.

Mr. Hogan

Might I make a point in regard to the ruling?

If the ruling has been given the Deputy cannot make any point on it now.

Mr. Hogan

I think I can.

Mr. Hogan

It is quite possible for anybody to destroy any effective criticism on an estimate by tabling a series of motions, and then, as soon as the Estimate has been passed, to withdraw these motions. What guarantee have I that any Deputy——

I must be guided by the Standing Orders as they are before me, and, according to Standing Orders, the Deputy is not entitled to anticipate discussions on any motion on the Order Paper. That ruling has been given by the Ceann Comhairle, and it cannot be got over.

Mr. Hogan

Am I not entitled to make the point that motions may be put down for the purpose of abridging or destroying criticism on an estimate by members of the Minister's Party or any other Party; that these motions may be withdrawn after the Estimate has been passed, and in that way destroy any effective criticism on an estimate before the House?

The Deputy is entitled to make his point, but that does not get over the Standing Order.

Mr. Hogan

Well, if I cannot get over the Standing Order, then I cannot. At all events, I have made a point of commonsense that I hope will weigh with those responsible for Standing Orders. I think it is fairly generally accepted that local government is one of the most important services that a Government can administer. It enters more intimately and directly into the lives of the poorer classes of the community than any other Department of the State— in their sickness and destitution, and whether they are being dealt with in public institutions or in their own homes. The administration of the Local Government Department, wise or unwise, sympathetic or unsympathetic, affects them to a very great extent. In no phase of its administration is it so necessary that there should be a wise and sympathetic policy as in the matter of housing. At the present time I cannot find any indication that there is any definite, clear cut and well-defined policy announced, adumbrated or conceived by the Department with reference to the housing problem. If one were to deduce its policy from its activities, one would conclude that it has little or no policy.

At the present time it is freely accepted that there are in or about 50,000 houses needed in this State. I am giving the minimum, and I do not think the Minister will question the figures. As far as I am concerned, I do not propose to assess in terms of human happiness, human unhappiness, human effectiveness, human ineffectiveness, or health, physically or mentally, what the provision of these houses would mean towards the State and humanity. I do not believe that can be assessed in figures. In that matter the Ministry is piling up for itself, and the State is piling up for itself, a collection of bad debts, that will ultimately have to be liquidated in some form or other, whether in the matter of hospitals or other public institutions.

The President in a statement in Cork said: "We have contributed to the building of more than 17,000 new houses." The Minister has told us that the figures are about 18,000. I was anxious that the Minister would analyse these figures and say how many have been built in urban districts, and how many have been built in purely rural districts. That is to say, how much of the money has been spent where there is a large number of insanitary houses, and how many houses have been built in the rural districts, where there is a certain number of insanitary houses, but where the problem is not so acute as it is in urban and town districts. I think I may take it that at a very low figure something like 75 per cent. of the houses erected, and of the money expended, has gone to the rural districts, and I think I may say that 50 per cent. of the houses built in the urban districts were not built for the working classes and were not built for people who need houses. They were built by speculative builders, who sold them to people who, in any circumstances, would have secured proper dwelling houses, or they were let at rents from 10/- to 15/- weekly to people who also, in any circumstances, would be able to get houses or some decent accommodation for that figure. Therefore we must take it on the Minister's figures, and on the President's figures, that in urban districts little or no impression has been made on the housing problem. I do not say that much good has not been done in having rural housing attended to and in having a number of houses erected there. The one thing the Minister's Department did not do was to endeavour to secure that repairs which they could bear were executed to most of these houses, which would certainly do a good deal to improve rural housing.

I move to report Progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, April 30th.
Barr
Roinn