The work done in the Custom House was originally presided over by one Minister. The work there now is divided between two Departments, over which are two Ministers and a Parliamentary Secretary. Considering the limited amount of work the Minister for Local Government is now charged with, I would like him to tell the House why it is necessary in his Department to spend a sum of £1,200 on a Parliamentary Secretary. Are we so wealthy in this country that we can afford, in a very small Department, to pay a Parliamentary Secretary £1,200 a year?
Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Local Government (Resumed).
The Parliamentary Secretaries are appointed by the Government.
But this salary is on the Vote we are asked to approve.
On a point of order, the salary naturally appears upon the Vote of the Department to which the Parliamentary Secretary has been appointed, but the appointment was made by the Government and the Taoiseach answers for the Government. Therefore, if this matter is to be raised at all, it should be on the Taoiseach's Vote.
So far as the running of this Department is concerned, whether the Minister is capable of running it in an efficient way or otherwise properly arises, I suggest, on this Vote. Here we are asked to vote a sum of £1,200 and I suggest that that is gross extravagance. There is no justification for such expenditure because, in my opinion, the Minister should be quite capable of running his Department without the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary.
As a matter of fact, if we compare the work of our institutions here with the work of institutions on the other side of the Channel, I suppose I would not exaggerate if I said that there is more work done in one Department of State on the other side than has to be done by our whole administration. I cannot see, with the substantial reduction in the amount of work the Minister has to deal with, why it is necessary to provide him with a Parliamentary Secretary.
In the past the Minister has lectured local committees throughout the country on efficiency. If he is interested in efficient administration, he should set a good example in his own Department. He ought to be able to expedite business there, particularly when he has a Parliamentary Secretary and all his elaborate machinery. Those things should make for more efficiency and expedition. The experience of local authorities is, however, that very considerable delays are occurring in the Department and they have been from three to six months awaiting decisions on important matters, with serious consequences very often from the point of view of the local authorities. The matter has been referred to here almost every year on this Vote, yet there does not appear to have been any improvement so far as the administration of the Minister's Department is concerned.
The most important matter arising on this Vote is the question of housing. I think the urgency of providing houses for the people of the country cannot be overstated. The small number of houses constructed during the emergency has led to the creation of a substantial amount of arrears in that work. The Minister has given us an estimate of 61,000 as the number of houses that are required. That figure has resulted from a survey that has been made recently and indicates the need for a very big programme of house construction but the Minister suggested that even if we can get full co-operation from all people concerned, it will take 20 years to complete the programme. That is very poor consolation for people who are urgently in need of houses at present and who have been waiting for them quite a long time. I believe that one of the factors contributing to our emigration problem is the fact that a sufficient number of houses are not available for our young people and I want to suggest that one way to help to reduce the volume of emigration is to provide adequate housing to enable young people to marry and settle down in life. I believe that if they were given facilities and opportunities to settle down in life many of them who are now forced to leave the country would remain here.
I want to emphasise the importance of this whole question. I am sure the Minister appreciates this importance, but in the Budget statement we were told that the number of houses constructed last year was 1,000 and that the programme for the coming year is 1,500. It appears to me that no serious effort is being made to provide houses for the people. I want to insist that so far as materials are available for construction work, housing should get a very high priority and that a very substantial proportion, say, 75 or 80 per cent. of the materials available for construction work, should be utilised to provide the houses that are so badly required. I read in last Saturday's paper a statement made by Mr. Bevan, Minister for Health, at the Labour Party Conference in Margate, in which he said that the Government had decided to concentrate the vast majority of their building resources on the building of houses and to discourage the building of luxury hotels, skating rinks and buildings of that sort. He considered that 60 per cent. of the available building and labour resources should be kept for houses. We want an assurance from the Minister and the Government that that is going to be our policy here. I believe the problem is so acute——
May I point out——
Is this a point of order?
Yes. Several Deputies in the course of the debate have referred to the allocation of building materials. The Minister for Local Government is not responsible for the allocation of building materials. That matter was raised on the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Deputy is not in order in raising it again now.
It is true that the Minister responsible for the allocation of building material is the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Surely the Minister is interested in the allocation of building materials. All we want to know is that he is interested to secure the maximum quantity available for house building. Surely there is collective responsibility so far as housing is concerned. It is a matter of policy.
The Ministers and Secretaries Act lays it down distinctly that the Departments are placed under separate Ministers and that each Minister is responsible for his own Department.
I appreciate that. So far as responsibility in this matter is concerned, the Minister is responsible for the building of houses and surely the Minister must be interested in securing materials for the building of these houses. You cannot segregate one matter from the other. You cannot put them into water-tight compartments. This House cannot discuss in any serious way the housing question without some reference to the raw materials necessary for housing. The Minister should not try to shirk his responsibility in this matter.
I am not shirking my responsibility.
The Minister is quite in order. He is not responsible for allocating building materials.
I wonder is it because of his attitude that we have a programme of only 1,500 houses for next year? Is the Minister so complacent about this whole matter that he is going to make no effort to raise the percentage of raw materials available for housing construction? It is not unreasonable to ask some information on that matter—when are the necessary materials to be available and when can we hope to step up production in that respect. I want to suggest that so far as some materials are concerned, some effort should be made to find an alternative, especially for timber. Because of the tremendous demand for timber all over the world, particularly for the reconstruction programme in Europe, I think timber is going to be a very scarce commodity for many years. If we are going to solve this problem of houses within any reasonable period, we must go outside to find materials that are available there, to find especially an alternative for timber, so that we can step up the production of houses in this country. It is certainly a shocking state of affairs that the country has to contemplate a situation where the people will have to wait for 20 years before their housing requirements are supplied. Many of our people are living under shocking slum conditions, in houses that are already overcrowded. Young people are growing up anxiously awaiting the provision of houses so that they can settle down in life. They are told that the problem is difficult, that only a limited quantity of timber is available and that if the full programme is to be implemented, it will take 20 years. I am afraid, judging from what I have listened to in the Budget statement, and by what the Minister has had to say on this Estimate, that no real determined effort is made in the Department to face up to its responsibility, to step up production and to have a programme that can be implemented in a reasonable period.
The Minister told us about a competition to secure variety in design. I must say I welcome that because the type of houses produced in this country in recent years and before the war certainly reflects on our capacity to produce variety in design. A visitor coming into this country would imagine that the Irish people had no imagination. The fault lies with the Minister's Department because local authorities were more or less tied to types of designs from the Department. Architects employed by local authorities were not given an opportunity of using their imagination or their technical knowledge to vary designs. There should be variety of design. Thousands of houses have been built in Cabra to the same design. The result is very monotonous, drab and ugly. I appreciate, of course, the difficulty that variety of design may increase the cost and that there is not much scope when one is pegged down to a limited sum. It is essential, because of the magnitude of the problem, that cost should be tied but, at the same time, within that limit, there is scope for varying the design. I want to say as a warning to the Minister that it is the type of design that emanated from his Department that is responsible for the present lack of variety. With a view to keeping prices down and stepping up production, the design of certain fittings could be standardised, such as bathroom fittings and door fittings. Quality could be varied but design could be standardised. A tradesman would become very efficient in handling fittings of standardised design and that would help to increase output.
One important matter—I admit it is a very difficult matter—is the financing of housing. It may be that the slowness of the Department in sanctioning tenders is due to the fact that the tenders are considered unduly high. If that is so, I would like the Minister when replying to refer to that because local authorities ought to know why there is such delay on the part of the Department in dealing with this matter. In this connection also the Minister should give more information about the operation of the Transition Development Fund.
That is a matter for the Minister for Finance. He controls the Transition Development Fund.
But who deals with the tenders that are submitted for housing and who decides what allocation is to be made and on what basis it is to be made? The experience of local authorities is that they invite tenders for construction work, and that when the matter is submitted to the Minister's Department they are not informed on what basis the allocation is to be made. I am informed that county managers and local authorities are not aware of the policy of the Minister's Department, whether it is the policy to ask the local authority to increase their contribution or to make an increase in the rents. They are given no information in respect of it. There is no clear-cut policy about it. The proposals must come from the local authorities. The Department decide whether they will accept the proposals or not. If they reject them they do so without giving the local authority any further information and the local authority is asked to reconsider and to re-submit. That is not helpful. There is no co-operation so far as the Department is concerned. The local authority should be fully and frankly informed on this whole matter and certainly the county managers should be aware of the policy that is behind the administration of the Transition Development Fund. It is extraordinary that the local authority should be left guessing as to what that policy is.
I cannot understand why the Minister has decided to maintain the old basis of financing housing notwithstanding the tremendous increase in cost. The gap is covered to a considerable extent by grants out of the Transition Development Fund. It is time the Minister appreciated that there will be a substantial increase in the cost of housing, and that a decision must be come to as to what contribution will be made out of the Central Fund, what contribution will be expected from the local authorities, what will be considered a fair rent in the new circumstances and the new increase in wages. If we could get a decision in regard to these matters, local authorities might be expected to settle down to producing plans and concentrating on the provision of houses. I believe that the Minister, and possibly the Government, have not made up their minds on that matter. Time is slipping by and we have no real policy in regard to housing. The figures given by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement would lead one to believe that that is so. He said that we expect to provide only 1,500 houses in the present year. We want much more than 500 houses in the smallest county in Ireland, Carlow.
There is one smaller.
So far as population is concerned, Carlow is the smallest and, so far as housing requirements are concerned, Deputy Walsh will agree with me that Carlow is smaller than Louth. We want over 500 houses in Carlow, and if the programme for the coming year is 1,500 for the whole country, many people will have to wait a long time before being housed.
Would the Deputy be good enough to give me the foundation for that statement of his that the programme is only going to be 1,500 houses?
That is in the Budget statement.
But we are discussing the Estimate for the Minister for Local Government.
Then the Minister for Finance is wrong?
If the Deputy had been listening to my speech he would have noticed that the figures were quite different. Of course, he was not.
I was.
He did not even take the trouble to read it.
I sat there through the whole of the Minister's statement and I did not get very much information from the Minister. I admit that he was very long-winded. There is another aspect of housing, that is, site development. Unemployment grants are applied to site development and it is proper that local authorities should be encouraged to do all the development possible in preparation for construction work when materials are available but there is this snag, that a site must be fully developed or the grant is not applicable. In many cases it is not possible to develop the site fully. There may be old houses on the site which cannot be touched until the families resident in them are rehoused. That is a condition which has held up site development in a number of cases. I want the Minister to look into that and to vary the conditions under which grants are given for site development. There are some sites which could be developed now and where sewerage and water development could be carried out in full preparation for housing construction, but while that condition remains such development cannot take place.
On the question of financial policy generally, I want to direct the Minister's attention to the fact that the housing repayment period has been increased from 35 to 50 years. I question the wisdom of that and I think it is bad financial policy. At the present rate of 2½ per cent. for 35 years, the repayment per £100 would be £4 6s. 5d. and for 50 years it would be £3 10s. 6¼d. The repayment over 35 years would amount to £150 per £100 and for 50 years to approximately £175. In other words, there is a 50 per cent. increase in the interest charges. The capital and charges amount to £175 for every £100 on the 50 years' basis. The drain there is far too great and it is very bad policy, taking the long view, to increase the years for discharging the full liability from 35 to 50 years. It may ease the problem now to some extent in our time but, taking the long-term view, it is very bad policy. I would like the Minister to deal with that aspect of housing finance when he is replying. I appreciate that it is a very big problem and while it may be easy enough for me to criticise these things here, the House and the country would be interested if the Minister went into this question more fully.
Then I should be long-winded, according to the Deputy.
If the Minister is dealing with things of real interest to the House and to the country, we will tolerate this long-windedness. He told us about the plan for grouping, single cottages, urban schemes, village schemes and rural schemes and I think the House generally approves of that. The houses built in rural Ireland ought to be definitely earmarked for agricultural workers who have to live on the land. You cannot have agricultural production without manpower and we must in a very special way provide ample housing accommodation for those engaged in that production. The present method of allocating houses is contrary to the interests of our primary industry. The basis ought to be changed. There should be a new scheme in order to ensure that the houses built in rural Ireland will be available only for the people interested in rural Ireland.
It would be good policy to develop the group system, as it would help to develop and improve the amenities, by providing water and sewerage and, perhaps, a local hall where the group is sufficiently big. A substantial number of single houses must still be provided, as the practical interests of agriculture on the normal farm require that. The day's work does not end at 6 o'clock. Animals have to be looked after, even during the night very often, and that requires the attention of an individual. One or two men must live on the farm so that their services are near at hand, outside the normal day's work. I am saying that merely to confirm what the Minister has in his mind —that while it must be to the advantage of the rural community to group, we cannot group them all together and a number of single houses must be provided for the circumstances to which I have referred.
In regard to the activities of public utility societies and finance for individuals building houses for themselves or requiring reconstruction grants, an adjustment there is an urgent matter. At present the conditions are extremely difficult for anyone contemplating building a house for himself. There are many cases where there are small farmers with large families living under shocking conditions in very insanitary houses. It requires a tremendous effort on the part of those individuals to provide houses for themselves. It means tremendous sacrifices and years of repayment. The old financial provisions which are still in operation are certainly not fair to those people at all. Not only must the local authority know what the State contribution will be in the future, but the individual must know also and must not find that the whole matter is left in abeyance as it is at present. The Minister is not facing up to his responsibility in that respect.
We are living under completely new circumstances and the sooner these things are adjusted the better. It will be very unfair to people who provide themselves with better houses now or reconstruct their old dwellings, if they find in a year or so that substantial adjustments have been made to the financial provisions and that they have just missed an increase in the subsidy because they were so anxious to provide housing for themselves and because they had the courage to go ahead and build. If we want to encourage private enterprise we must encourage small people who, because of their thrift and industry, are able to look after themselves with some assistance from the State. These people are the backbone of this country, producing wealth here, and we ought to have sympathy and consideration for them. This House and the Minister should do everything possible financially to assist them.
The whole responsibility of providing houses for the community should not rest on the State and should not be the Minister's responsibility, but if the attitude of the Minister in the future is to be what it is at present and what it has been in recent years, that responsibility is going to be thrown back on the State. That is a very bad and a very unsound policy. Now is the time to indicate what plans we have and what financial policy we intend to operate, as this is a very urgent matter for the preservation of the community. It plays a very vital and a very important part. I cannot compliment the Minister on his energy or foresight in that respect, and I am urging on him the importance of considering this at the earliest possible moment, so that our plans may be announced.
The Minister gave us a good deal of information about roads and the substantial provision made in the matter of restoration grants at present. I must say that very substantial provision has been made, but it is certainly a matter which requires urgent attention. There has been a very substantial deterioration in the roads all over the country, and if some determined effort is not made to save them, the country is going to be involved in very heavy expenditure. The roads are simply breaking up, rapidly disintegrating, because they have been neglected too long, and local authorities should be urged to put their best efforts into the work of repairing the damage done during the emergency and in more recent years, and more particularly during the severe winter. Most of our county and secondary roads are water-bound roads which carried a tarred surface. In the vast majority of cases that surface has completely worn off, with the result that the road itself has been exposed to the elements. They are no longer waterproof, and because they are no longer waterproof, the water percolates through the road material, and when a heavy frost comes and the road freezes, the material disintegrates completely. That is what happened all over the country last winter. It is an urgent matter that some decent waterproof surface should be put on these roads immediately.
There is one matter about which I feel it is my responsibility to complain, that is, the very low output per man amongst road workers. That may be due to the policy of low wages—I do not know—but there is a very low output per man on the roads and the result is that road development and maintenance will be very costly. The day has come when every local authority must be equipped with all the modern machinery available for road construction and development. The day of hard manual labour has evidently gone and the output is not there. The alternative is the very latest equipment, and the Minister ought to have a special committee to consider this matter of road equipment to ensure that we buy machines of the right type and design, machines which are not obsolete, and that local authorities will be given an opportunity of adopting all the new ideas in road development. The Act under which we are still operating, the 1925 Act, for financing the development of roads is completely obsolete and should no longer apply. The conditions have changed completely and the Minister ought to consider making provision for the new conditions.
With regard to safety regulations, the Parliamentary Secretary is particularly interested and I want to say that, in the bigger towns throughout the country, there are, so far as I am aware, no by-laws and no provisions whatever for safety regulations, and chaotic conditions exist, so far as traffic in the bigger rural towns is concerned. I have in mind a number of towns in which acute congestion occurs hourly and nobody pays any attention. There are no regulations governing parking and people can leave cars where they like for as long as they like.
While it is vital for safety, it is a matter for the Department of Justice.
Is it not a matter of safety regulations?
No, it is a matter for the Minister for Justice.
Why then does the Parliamentary Secretary talk about motor traffic and safety regulations every other month?
He is probably interested, but such regulations as those to which the Deputy refers are made by the Department of Justice.
By the Commissioner of the Guards.
They are approved by the Minister for Local Government.
I have no final responsibility for them. They must be initiated by the commissioner.
The activities of the Parliamentary Secretary in that regard possibly deceived me, but, as he is here, you will permit me, Sir, to say that it is a matter in which he might interest himself, with a view to influencing the responsible Department.
With regard to road surfaces and the difficulties of farmers in using roads, a number of people advise that horses should be properly prepared for using the roads. The people who say that have no appreciation of the problem. The horses which are falling on these roads are agricultural horses which spend 90 per cent. of their time in the fields and which may go on the roads only two or three times in the month. It is quite all right to prepare a horse which is working on the road every day, but the horse which has given rise to this problem is the horse which goes only occasionally on the road, and the agricultural community cannot be expected to prepare these horses on the two or three occasions on which they go on the road.
Neither am I in favour of the margin on the roadside, because I regard it as detrimental to the life of the road. It is suggested that there should be a break between the waterproof surface and the edge of the watertable, but, if that break in the water-proofing is provided, the water will percolate under the road and there will be disintegration when frost occurs. It ought not to be beyond the capacity of modern engineers to provide a mat surface of hard flinty stones which will not wear down to a smooth surface too quickly and I suggest that, where roads have to be resurfaced, coarse chips, and not the fine chips which we used extensively before the war, should be used. If hard, flinty chips on a flat surface, getting away from the camber, were used, it would go a long way towards solving the problem. There is, however, this exception, which I suggest to the Minister, that, on gradients, a margin might be provided for horses pulling loads—the types of animals I have referred to—but otherwise the surface ought to be designed in such a way as to render it safe for animals coming out of the fields to use the roads.
With regard to the financing of road work—this may not be the responsibility of the Minister and I merely make the observation in passing—we are throwing a tremendous amount of motor traffic on to the roads. We are carrying almost all our heavy traffic on the roads to-day, and the time has come when the vehicle using the road ought to make a contribution to road maintenance in proportion to its use of the road. I have in mind Córas Iompair Éireann in particular. If they are to throw the greater part of their transport on to the roads, there ought to be a much greater contribution to road development and maintenance by them. It would not be fair to expect the rural community to pay a very substantial part of the cost of road maintenance and allow a big monopoly interest like that to escape.
There are some remarks which I would like to make on the question of turf production. I must say that the figures given to us to-day of the output of the local authority in regard to turf production were very substantial. I think the local authorities can be complimented on their efforts under very difficult weather conditions. However, one thing which militates against the local authority so far as turf production is concerned is the discrepancy in the wages of the local authority and Bord na Móna. The wages given by Bord na Móna are much more attractive when compared with the wages the local authority is permitted to offer to turf workers. It is too much to expect local authorities to fulfil the programme of 600,000 tons which is envisaged. I know that some engineers have found it exceedingly difficult to recruit turf workers under these conditions. The wages of the local authority for turf production ought to be more compatible with the terms offered by Bord na Móna. On this whole question of production, Sir, it strikes me that far too much responsibility is thrown on to the local authority. We have a very big programme of road maintenance and road restoration and in some counties a huge programme of turf production. Considering the very limited amount of work put in by the Minister in his Department and that he needs the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary one would expect him to have consideration for the unfortunate engineers in the country. But no. He is piling responsibility on them and he expects them to do the impossible. Take, for instance, the case of a county surveyor. He has to attend to all the local problems—the normal problems that arise under a local authority; he has to look after housing, repairs to houses, pumps etc., local institutions and above all this big summer programme for road restoration. I say that in regard to this big problem of turf output, we are throwing too great a responsibility on the local engineering staff.
The Minister gave, Sir, very interesting figures so far as the use of allotments is concerned. He suggested that they warranted a search and an investigation. The figures have fallen from 21,000 in 1941-42 to 12,000 in 1947. I consider that there are two or three reasons for this. Firstly, potatoes are so cheap that it is not worth the effort, so far as the individual is concerned, in having to go and sweat in a plot and dig and cultivate that plot and put in potatoes. Potatoes can be bought from the agricultural community at such a reasonable price that they are not prepared to put all that sweat into the job. The second reason, which must inevitably contribute to the reduction in allotments is the continued use of those allotments without any farmyard manure—merely relying on a limited quantity of artificial manure. It is inevitable that such circumstances will tend towards the exhaustion of that particular crop. It is more than probable that in the last year or two individuals have been getting very poor returns for their efforts. Those two reasons alone should certainly contribute to a reduction in the number of allotments. The Minister may be inclined to blame those people who are out of employment and, to a great extent, I agree with him, but contributory factors are operating against the utilisation of those plots on the same scale as in 1941-42.
The Minister gave us figures, so far as the allocation of the agricultural grant is concerned—figures for primary allowances, etc.—which are very interesting. I submit, Sir, that with the very substantial increases in the cost of local administration and with the importance of relieving the most important raw material we have in the country, so far as industry is concerned—primary industry, the land— those agricultural grants ought to be continued in the future. It is the only raw material I know of that is taxed and it is carrying a very substantial charge even under present conditions. I suggest that the present agricultural grant ought to be continued.
I want to close by again saying to the Minister that it is time we had a full programme for housing construction in the future. The Minister and the Government ought to make up their minds as to their future programme in this connection and as to how housing is to be financed. Local authorities are entitled at least to that information at the earliest possible moment. They should know what contribution they are going to get from the State, how much they will be expected to contribute and what range of rents are considered to be fair. I want to impress upon the Minister the necessity, at the earliest possible moment, of adjusting the financial assistance which is provided for individuals who are prepared to provide houses for themselves and who are doing reconstruction work. I think it is a shame that that matter has been allowed to stand so long when unfortunate people are forced, because of the shocking conditions of their homes, to make tremendous sacrifices in order to provide themselves with a home. The matter of adjusting the financial assistance from the State is an urgent matter in that respect.
The Minister mentioned a number of matters which are of great import to everybody. The Minister mentioned, with regard to housing, a competition which he is initiating for architectural design in housing. I think this matter is most important and I hope, when it is undertaken, that it will apply to houses in rural Ireland as well as applying to houses in the towns. It would be presumption on my part to lecture any architect or engineer but I do believe that very great attention should be given to one particular part of the rural dwelling house, i.e., the principal room, commonly called the kitchen. The external appearance of a house is, of course, a big thing. It is very pleasant to look at an artistic design but external appearance, so far as general utility is concerned, is not everything. The outside appearance is all right but if, on the inside, there is bad accommodation, the experience of those who have to work in the house is not very pleasant. That is one of the things which have not been solved. A great many things have to be taken into consideration, such as the location of the house, the draughts, the apertures for light and doors and so forth. So far as possible, the water that falls on the roof should be collected. That is not the case at present. Advances have been made in that direction but that is a point which should be taken into consideration. If the water which falls on the roofs of dwellings were collected and properly used—with the aid of science, it could be used for tea and other domestic purposes—a great part of our problem in regard to scarcity of water supply would be solved.
The Minister referred to the building of cottages in groups. That, from many points of view, would be desirable, but I do not think that it is possible in agricultural Ireland to have a large number of these cottages in groups. They will have to be widely apart and erected only where there is hope of employment. The definition of "agricultural labourer" has been considerably widened in recent years. That may be all to the good. Nevertheless, I imagine that there should be a distinction between the labourer who works entirely on the land and the general labourer. Labourers who get employment from business people and in industries in the towns and villages should be housed, so far as possible, in groups of cottages where they would have the benefit of electric light, water and sewerage. There should be some distinction between the two types of labourers.
Both the Minister and Deputy Hughes referred to the upkeep and improvement of the roads. During the past two years, much increased grants have been given but, in some counties, I think that the grants are not being availed of. Perhaps the reason is that labour is scarce. In County Galway, the difficulty is that, during the turf season each year, the workers are taken off the roads and brought to the bogs. I agree with Deputy Hughes—the Minister also mentioned the matter— that up-to-date equipment should be obtained as speedily as possible. I noticed on my way up here that the Kildare County Council have been very quick off the mark in that direction. They have the Diesel engine, with the roller, chip distributor and sprayer in a single combination. That is a very big advance on the hand hose. Any man tar-spraying a road and using a hand hose has a very distasteful job. I imagine it is not a very healthy job, either. I should like to see the same type of equipment in the possession of other county councils as speedily as possible.
As regards the roadmen, there seems to have been a bit of loose thinking somewhere during the harvest drive last year. All the available manpower was required for the harvesting of the crops. In our county, in common with other counties, all the men were laid off for this purpose. They were expecting to be called upon by the farmers and were quite willing to go when called upon. In a number of cases, they did not get any employment, although they had been laid off. In a great many cases, because of the inclemency of the weather, they worked only half time, for which they were paid by the farmers concerned. They brought this to the notice of Galway County Council and, after some discussion, it was agreed to recommend the county manager to pay the men who had been laid off one week's wages. The council felt that that would be balancing matters fairly well. Some men might obtain a little extra but, in the main, the balance would be fairly even. That was turned down. Whether it was turned down with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government or not, I do not know. The application is being renewed and it is only right I should bring it to the notice of the Minister and ask for his favourable reconsideration of it.
Now, I come to the big question—turf production. County Galway is one of the largest-producing counties in the State. Great work has been carried out there by the engineering staff, the gangers and the men. Owing to the very bad weather, the work has been greatly retarded this year and it is very doubtful that the 113,000 tons aimed at will be obtained. Although the wages were greatly increased within the past six weeks, the number of men, for some reason or other, is much smaller than it was heretofore. I understand that good sleansmen, if they work overtime, can earn from 14/- to 18/- per day, which is not a bad wage. As regards the private producer, in the past I think that he did not get the encouragement he deserved. Perhaps it was good business, from the point of view of the rates, to give preference to the county council itself in regard to the supply of turf to institutions. The turf societies and turf producers who had been supplying the institutions prior to the emergency in County Galway were ousted and the work was handed over to the local authority, although the price charged to the institutions was, in most instances, higher than that at which the private producer would be prepared to supply. Now an appeal has been issued on behalf of the local authority in Galway by the county manager which has been advertised in the local paper and read from the pulpits in the various churches, and I think that there is something really out of place in that respect; that there is a bit of loose thinking there. The advertisement sets out that turf produced within 20 miles of Galway City will be paid for at a rate of £1 8s. per ton; turf produced between 20 and 40 miles from Galway City, £1 4s. per ton; and, over 40 miles, £1 per ton. I think that that is not right at all, that it costs the producer who is 50 miles away from Galway City just as much to produce turf as, and perhaps in some cases more than, the person who produces it within a 20 miles' radius of Galway City. In my opinion, in order to encourage producers, there should have been a flat rate. After all, the principal source of turf supply is outside the 20 miles' limit, and, in many instances, outside the 40 miles' limit.
If it is proposed to hand over this contract turf to Fuel Importers, Limited, and to have it taken into Galway City and from Galway City sent on to Dublin, it does not appear to be a correct procedure. If you take portion of my constituency convenient to Banagher and just as convenient to Ballinasloe, Banagher and Ballinasloe are both almost as near Dublin as they are to Galway City. There is not a very great difference. The same is true of the Glenamaddy area in North Galway. Turf has to be taken in from there to Galway City to be sent by rail to Dublin. There is no reason why that should be the case when you have railway stations in Roscommon so close to that area. For the other districts which I mentioned you have the railway station at Ballinasloe, and I suppose Córas Iompair Éireann would be prepared also to send wagons to Banagher for turf from the other areas. I think that is a matter which should be rectified, because private producers in the areas I have mentioned will say: "I am only getting £1 per ton", when they can get a great deal more locally. In fact, they could get more locally from members of the agricultural community. These people would be getting turf pretty cheap at £1 per ton dry on the roadside outside the bog to take away. Therefore, I think there should be a flat rate paid for this turf. I think it would be much better to pay £1 6s. 0d. per ton all round than to have a difference in the price because of the geographical position of the turf producers.
There is also another matter which I want to bring to the Minister's attention. I am sure it has been brought to his notice already and that his Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Childers, has heard a good deal about it. There are two turf societies in the Ballinasloe area, the Creagh Society and the Ahascragh Society. Last year both of these societies made a contract to supply turf to the Ballinasloe Mental Hospital at something like £1 4s. 0d. per ton. Sixty or 80 members of these societies supplied turf in June or July. Then the weather took a turn for the worse and the price of turf increased very considerably. The other members, finding they had a better market and could sell it at a higher price, sold the turf to other people. The county manager—I suppose he was within his legal rights in doing so, or perhaps was legally bound to do so—refused to pay the people who supplied the turf because the societies as a whole did not fulfil their contracts. The people who supplied the turf in the early portion of the year are still without their money. The other people, of course, gained on the transaction because they got a better price than the people who supplied the turf in the early part of the year.
The whole question, I suppose, hinges on the fact that both the county manager and the Department of Local Government look upon a turf society as much the same as any other commercial concern. If they had a full knowledge of societies of that kind I think they would see that they are quite different. There is a very great difference between the members of a turf society and, say, the directors and shareholders of a mining company or industrial concern. I am sure that matter has come before the Minister already. Perhaps there are some legal difficulties because the auditor might surcharge the county manager or the members of the local authority. The mental hospital committee have recommended the county manager to pay these people and I hope that when the county manager's recommendation comes before the Minister he will try to get over the difficulty and see that these people are paid. If not, it will have a very bad effect on turf production in that area and in regard to the supply of turf for the mental hospital in Ballinasloe.
The Minister mentioned the state of the rate collection and we are all very pleased to know that the percentage collected was so high in a very trying year. To a large extent, that is due to the very welcome rebate given to the agricultural community. County Galway is one of the counties that, when the returns are being made out, often appears to be very far behind in the early part of the year. The reason for that, in respect of Galway and other western counties, is easy to find. It is due to the difference between the financial year and the calendar year. If the financial year coincided with the calendar year, Galway and other western counties would be as far advanced in rate collection as any of the others. But it happens that in October and November the principal fairs are held and the marketing of grain and potatoes takes place in the western counties. That is why they appear backward. But, when it comes to the end of the financial year in March, they show up much better.
I wish to thank the Minister very sincerely for the rebate that he has given, through the medium of a Bill which was passed, to those members of the agricultural community residing in urban areas. They pay rates now on two-thirds of their valuation. That was quite a reasonable adjustment to make. I mentioned the matter on a few occasions, because it was a very great hardship on these people that they had to pay the full urban rate, whereas they were earning their livelihood from land within an urban area. The farmers outside that urban boundary had just as great advantages as what they had, and they were getting the benefits. They felt the grievance very sorely for a considerable time, but I am glad to see that the Minister has come to their rescue and I thank him on their behalf.
Mr. Corish
I think the Minister's introductory speech was quite informative and that the wide survey he made of the different sub-departments of his Department gave us a good scope for a long and varied debate.
Every Deputy who spoke has emphasised the urgency of the demand for houses and they expressed their appreciation of the fact that there are different types of shortages which make it more or less difficult for the Department and the local authorities to engage in the housing schemes in which they would like to engage. The Minister mentioned shortages of timber and cement and I was surprised to hear him say there was a shortage of labour, skilled and unskilled. This may be the position in the country as he knows it, but I would like to assure him—one of my colleagues has already assured him—that in my constituency in County Wexford we could not state definitely, from the contacts that we have throughout the country, that there is a shortage of skilled or unskilled labour.
He mentioned, as one of the setbacks to housing, the difficulty of getting contractors to accept some of the housing schemes of local authorities. In that connection I agree with him. I think the local authorities and the Department should examine the possibility of having houses erected where materials and labour are not scarce, and they should be erected by direct labour. We engaged in such schemes in rural and urban areas in County Wexford, and schemes were carried out, I have no doubt, in other rural and urban areas throughout the country, and they were a decided success.
As regards housing and building materials, I do not know what function the Minister has, but it is surely a paradoxical situation, when the Wexford Corporation applies to the Department of Industry and Commerce for cement, that there is a long delay in providing a cement permit, while, at the same time, the Department was communicating with the Corporation asking them why there was such a delay in relation to the housing schemes on which they were engaged. Perhaps the Minister would enter into communication with the Department of Industry and Commerce and urge them to speed up cement permits and the permits for other materials so urgently needed if the house building programme is to go ahead.
It is news to me that it is possible, with the aid of State grants, for owners of houses to erect chalets for tubercular patients. Contrary to what other Deputies have said, I know there are certain objections on the part of some people to advertise, as it were, that there is a tubercular patient in the family; but I think that for the most part we have got over that peculiar complex, trying to disguise that certain people are suffering from tuberculosis. To disguise it means that the disease is driven underground. It is absolutely ridiculous to try to disguise it. I would like to know, in the case of a house owned by a local authority, if the State would provide £100, or two-thirds of the cost, whichever is the lesser, and would the local authority provide the remainder of the cost of a chalet, and is there some scheme whereby a man's rent would be increased in order to repay the cost of erection of an extra room or chalet. Is there any provision whereby that chalet could be given to the tenant free of charge?
I have a complaint to make in respect of the cottage-purchase scheme. Whose fault it is, I do not know. I am sure other public representatives have had the same complaint. There is a long delay in the acquisition of their cottages by county council tenants. In some cases—I know one particular case —tenants have applied for two years to be included in the cottage-purchase scheme and their applications have not been dealt with yet. I do not think that is much encouragement to people to buy out their cottages.
In the matter of the selection of tenants, I was interested to learn that there are regulations governing selection in both urban and rural areas and that these regulations obtain all over Éire. I am sure these regulations have been drafted very carefully, but I think there should be some sort of revision. I know that in many cases there is a lot of discontent over the method of selection by the county manager of tenants for houses.
The Minister referred to allotments and he deplored the fact—and I think it should be deplored—that allotments were not availed of this year or last year to such an extent as might have been expected. I know that in Wexford town there was trouble over acquiring land. There were many people anxious to take allotments, but the legal difficulties about land acquisition went on for quite a long time and the season was lost for the people who were anxious to till. Many people who desired to take allotments could not have them. In one particular case the arrangements for the acquisition of a site for the provision of allotments were not completed.
Roads are only of secondary importance to housing, but our roads deteriorated very much during the war because of the lack of material and the fact that people were engaged on other occupations. I think last winter played more havoc with the roads than the five or six years of the emergency. In my constituency there is no shortage of labour. I have had—and I am sure other Deputies and members of local authorities have the same experience— several letters from people in the rural areas asking that they be recommended for jobs on the public roads. That does happen in County Wexford.
I would assert also that a certain amount of money is being wasted on the roads. I have in mind a particular road or street in the town of Wexford which was alleged to have been repaired last year. A surface was just thrown over it but no thought was ever given to breaking up the road or having it scarified. A surface of tar chippings was just thrown over it and after about a month or two the road was again in a very bad condition. If the local authority had levelled out the road, filled in the pot holes and made a decent job of it, they would in the end save money and it would not be necessary to repair the road again for a considerable period. I expect that next year the same procedure will be adopted. They will put a thin cover over the surface and in a month or two the road will be back to its old condition.
In emphasising the importance of road-making the Minister said—these are not exactly the terms he used—that road-making in the future would be a job for experts and that local authorities and the ratepayers must appreciate that fact because they would have to bear the expense of paying reasonably good salaries to competent men. That I take it was an intimation that the salaries of road engineers would be increased because of the importance of their work. I should like to remind the Minister that ordinary road men, men engaged on working on the roads, are in their way as expert as many engineers. I know some cases where road men, who have had 20 or 30 years' experience of the work, could teach the ordinary road surveyor his job. If road making is so important, I think that the ordinary road worker should receive an adequate return for the part he plays in the construction of the splendid roads which we expect to have in Ireland in the near future.
One improvement I would suggest —and I speak particularly of my own county in this respect—is that roads should be widened, an improvement which is very badly needed in some cases. I give one example, the Enniscorthy-Wexford road, an admirable road and a credit to the local authority responsible for having it laid. The only fault that can be found with it is the fact that it is not of sufficient width. It has a very good surface, a surface which has remained good for a long time, but I think that it is only about 16 feet wide. I do not know if there is a standard width for a main road, but I think it would be a good idea if there was a standard width. I suggest that the standard width should be more than 16 feet. In the case of the road which I have mentioned, there are about six further feet available on each side which could be cleared. If that were con-created, as the main part of the road is, it would be a splendid road.
Another small point which I should like to mention to the Minister, if he has any interest in the matter or if it is one for his Department, is the erection of signs on the main roads to indicate county borders. Travelling from Wexford to Dublin, it is easy for me to say whether I am in Wexford or Wicklow, because I am familiar with the borders, but from the point of view of tourists, I think it would be of great assistance if signs such as I suggest were erected so that they would be able to know immediately whether they were in Wexford or in Wicklow. At present they are five or six miles within a county before they know they have crossed the border. I think there are some such signs between Tipperary and Kilkenny. If local authorities could be persuaded to have these signs erected at the county borders, they would be of interest both to our own people and to tourists who are passing through from time to time.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
Mr. Corish
Another matter which I raised during the year is the question of the water supply in Wexford. I could not stress sufficiently the very bad position in which we find ourselves as regards a water supply in Wexford. In a reply which I received from the Parliamentary Secretary in answer to my question, I think he told me that the hold-up was due to the fact that certain pipes were not available. I should like to know if pipes are available now to enable the supply to be improved. In some parts of the town of Wexford ratepayers who have contributed substantially to the provision of a proper water supply, find that they have running water only for about two hours per day. These people certainly are not getting a fair crack of the whip after having contributed so much money for the provision of a proper supply. To give the corporation, the manager and the officials concerned, due credit, I think I can safely say that they have explored the difficulties from every point of view but they do not seem to be able to find a solution. If the officials of the Department could co-operate a little more with them, I think that a solution could be found. At present it is most annoying for people in the town to find that they can have running water in their homes only from one to two in the afternoon and from five to six later on in the day.
As regards local government administration generally, I think that it is not all that it could be at present. I assert strongly that the reason is that the job of manager in a county like Wexford with a population of 90,000 is too big for one man. No matter how good an official he is, he just cannot get through the work of a county council, a corporation, two urban councils and town commissioners. If, in towns with a certain population, another manager were appointed it would relieve the county manager of a substantial amount of work and would in the end lead to more efficiency in local government administration. No matter how much the ordinary elected representatives of the people want to help in local government administration, they feel, just because they have no power, that they cannot work up sufficient enthusiasm. They have a certain enthusiasm but they have not sufficient enthusiasm to insist that certain things should be done all over the administrative area. They do sincerely believe, and I believe with them, that they have little or no power, that the county manager is a virtual dictator in the matter of administration. If they had powers under which they could direct an official of the local authority to go and do certain things, to direct that certain schemes should be carried out, I think it would lead to an improvement in administration. As I said on previous occasions, officials are, after all, only human. A county manager who is on intimate terms with a fellow official is very reluctant to reprimand him severely, to insist that he carry out a certain job or to threaten him with dismissal.
Lastly I should like to object again— it may be only a formal objection in so far as it arises virtually on every Local Government Vote—to the practice of changing officials who have been appointed to certain posts in a county. If anything could be done to compel officials so appointed to remain with the local authority for a certain minimum period, I think it would lead to an improvement in administation. I have pointed out on various occasions that county engineers and county secretaries coming to a county council for the first time, often reject the methods adopted by their predecessors and embark on new methods, on the principle that a new broom sweeps clean. After a year they go to another job and another official or set of officials come along and you have the same thing all over again. That is our experience, to some extent, I will not say 100 per cent., in County Wexford. We have had many changes of officials and, generally, the people do not like it. We do not wish to restrict the liberty of any official who wants to change his job but if there were sufficient inducement, he would stay over a period of years. I think I am right in saying that there is one official who is going to another job because he could not get decent conditions with the county council.
I was surprised to hear Deputy O'Leary make some reference, on Friday last, to the Federation of Rural Workers in connection with the strike of turf workers in Offaly and Kildare. I was surprised that that matter entered into the debate. I was surprised that Deputy O'Leary, as a good trade unionist, was so concerned about the activities of the Irish Labour Party with regard to the federation. I was surprised at what he said at column 1074, volume 106:—
"They must, therefore, take responsibility and must not seek to shirk the issue in this House."
If he means my support of the Federation of Rural Workers or of any other trade union organisation, I should like to inform him and anybody else who is concerned, that I am wholeheartedly behind the Federation of Rural Workers and any trade union which will cater for the workers and work for their betterment. I was surprised at the statement by Deputy O'Leary inasmuch as the particular trade union to which his Party is affiliated was one of the main unions concerned in the recent sugar strike and I do not think that anybody asked Deputy O'Leary was he taking responsibility for the sugar strike.
Personally, I am as interested in turf production as any member of this House or anybody in the country but I may assert, despite what anybody else may allege as to the motives behind the organisation of the Federation of Rural Workers or my support or the support of any member of my Party of that organisation, that I will personally support any movement that will demand an increase in wages which I consider are far below what is required to keep a man in decent comfort. I want to say that the policy of supporting the Federation of Rural Workers and of supporting those who have justifiable demands will, as far as I am personally concerned, continue.
Much has been said about the housing conditions in the country generally. I want to emphasise the need for increased housing in the City of Dublin and to ask the Minister if he will do something to encourage the local authority to provide houses for newly-weds or to allocate a certain proportion of the houses that are available to them. In the last few years, in this city, organisations have grown up to represent the newly-weds and those families that have one or two children. These people are not getting a decent chance. Lettings by municipal authorities are made in this order—large families, excessive overcrowding, small families, families in which there is a case of tuberculosis, families living in condemned dwellings, families living in basements. No provision is made for newly-weds. I have known cases in the City of Dublin of young people getting married and where, after a week spent away, the young man had to return to his father and mother and the young wife had to return to her father and mother. Every member of the House will agree that that is not giving these people a fair chance. When the first child is born, there is no longer room for the young wife in her mother's home. The local authority is approached and lengthy correspondence takes place with the local authority but, owing to the demand for houses by large families, nothing can be done in these cases.
I hope the Minister will see that some provision is made for newly-weds. That should not interfere with the provision of houses for the other deserving classes that I have enumerated. I understand—I hope the House will pardon me if I am making a mistake—that the Department does not give a grant in respect of a cottage or flat that is given to newly-weds because they do not come within the categories I have enumerated. The Minister should do something to help the local authority and utility societies to provide housing for small families. I regret that there are not more utility societies engaged in providing houses for that class. I understand that where an eviction takes place, if the municipal authority rehouse the evicted family, no grant is allowed. Although I am a member of the housing committee of the corporation, I am not absolutely sure of that, but I do know that, within the last week or two, I, with other members of the council, appealed to the housing authority in respect of a family, where there were seven or eight children, who were being evicted, and I understand that the reason why they were not anxious to come to the aid of that family was that they might lose the grant in respect of the house. If that is the position, I would appeal to the Minister to remedy it.
The Minister should make arrangements now for a comprehensive survey with a view to extending the Dublin boundaries, so as to give the municipal authority the opportunity of acquiring land that may not be within the area now but sooner or later will be— perhaps sooner than we expect, on account of the rapid growth of the city and its encroachment on the rural areas. Through a mere accident, I discovered a case in point. I asked the Minister here a question last week regarding a family removed from Summerhill, Dublin, a tenement working-class area, to a corporation cottage at the very far end of West Cabra. The cottage was built by the corporation with the aid of a Government grant. That woman became a widow and it turned out that, because the side of the new road in which she was living was in a rural area, she was allowed only 9/- pension instead of 14/-. On the other side of the road, 30 yards away, she would have been in the urban area. It is a deplorable thing that a Dublin family, removed to a Dublin cottage, built by the Dublin municipality, should be placed in that position. A comprehensive survey should be made with a view to extending the boundaries so as to permit of all citizens being housed by the municipality or by other organisations getting the full benefits of the urban rates in national health, widows' and orphans' pensions, board of assistance, and so on.
One Deputy said that one gets tired looking at these cottages, on account of the design being so similar for long distances on many roads. It is a good thing that we have the cottages to get tired of looking at them; but I agree with that Deputy and I think our architects and those responsible and the Government themselves should see that there is a difference of design. Various periods might be represented, so that the cottages would not be all so similar, especially if the cost would be the same. Some Deputy said he did not think the country could afford a Parliamentary Secretary. I think that a Parliamentary Secretary or some other representative of the busy Minister is necessary. The time has come when there ought to be a special man to deal with the housing problem, as it is getting too big to be mixed up in the ordinary affairs in the Department. The Minister has been kept busy and has done his share of the work. He should be helped by others getting in or by encouraging others to take the responsibility for this question. In Dublin to-day, 15,000 flats in the centre of the old city and 15,000 cottages on the outskirts—in Crumlin, Kimmage, Cabra and so on—are needed. There are 30,000 would-be tenants, if we had the accommodation for them, and that is no exaggeration.
I look around here from the seat I occupy and I see certain Ministers and Deputies getting grey. Our city manager and our housing officials are turning grey with worry, with the magnitude of the problem. One Deputy pointed out that, even if we had the raw materials to-morrow, it is a question of labour. I met a man yesterday, a fine young fellow, whose time could be engaged in the building trade and he said he was leaving for England to-day. We have not the materials, apparently, or for some reason or other there are men who should be engaged in the building trade leaving on to-night's boat for Liverpool and Holy-head to take up work at the far side. Unfortunately, unemployment is beginning to grow in the city. We see numbers of ex-Army men, young men who are good motor drivers and motor mechanics, and they stop you in the street and ask you to recommend them for a job. We hear that outside and we hear people here say that there is a scarcity of labour and we wonder what is wrong with the organisation of labour generally. On the one side, people say there is a scarcity of labour and on the same day you meet men appealing to you for work, and when those men do not get it in a week or two, you hear they are on the boat, possibly never to come back again. It is a loss to the country, that it should lose these fine young men and fine young girls, who are leaving because there is no work. There is something wrong and somebody is asleep— whether it is ourselves who permit it to continue or someone else, I do not know.
The time has come for the Minister to increase the grant to municipal authorities for house building. I understand that it is something the same as it was 20 years ago, or very little better. We all know that houses could have been built by the municipalities at that time for £350 or £400 and the same house would cost £800 or £900 to-day by contract in big numbers. Then there is the question of the rents. The easier the Government makes it and the greater the help the Minister gives to the municipalities, the more moderate the rent will be. It is right and proper that we should build houses and set them at rents the people can pay, not at high rents which they cannot pay and which, if they try to pay, mean taking a loaf or two off their table.
I do not rise as a carping critic, but just to encourage the Minister to go on and do greater things, especially in regard to housing. I ask him to think carefully of the extension of the Dublin boundaries. If the municipal authority has to spend very big sums of money on sewerage and water mains, it is only right and proper that it should be done on land within the Dublin boundary and not on land that would be of great advantage to speculators but not of sufficient advantage to the municipal authorities. As I am speaking about the extension of the city boundaries, I earnestly hope that the Minister will see to it that the local authority will not neglect the old city. It is wrong to continue to send our people to the outskirts of the city, when, by so doing, it means taking from the shopping centres, schools, churches, dispensaries and so on, the population which they have been catering for for many years.
As I say, I do not rise as a carping critic; I rise to ask the Minister to do greater things. I ask him also to bear in mind, in relation to housing schemes, that space is required for playgrounds and playing fields for children. I do not think there is any city in Europe which does so little for its children as Dublin. We talk about these matters continuously and express the hope that we will be able to go ahead with our housing projects and with the provision of space for playgrounds, allotments and so on, but Dublin has grown so rapidly that something must be done in the matter at once. It is easy to say that something must be done at once —that is what we are all saying—but we are all apparently waiting for someone else to move. The Government are the people who can move in the matter and I urge the Minister to go ahead with these schemes.
When I moved to report progress on Friday, I had mentioned the desirability of planning standard schemes for houses and I was anticipated somewhat to-day by Deputy Hughes in developing that point. Deputy Hughes spoke of the necessity for standardisation of the internal equipment of houses—fittings and fixtures. If fittings and fixtures were standardised, they could be mass-produced here and probably with a considerable reduction in cost. That is one advantage which would accrue straight away. The second advantage, to my mind, is that mentioned by Deputy Hughes, that it would increase the skill of the particular tradesman who fitted them once he became accustomed to the standardised equipment.
Certain matters were mentioned here to-day and ruled out of order on the ground that the Minister had no responsibility. I fail to see how the Minister can evade his responsibilities in the matters already mentioned and which I am about to mention now. Several local authorities are completely held up in the repair of their houses by lack of materials and particularly by lack of cement at the moment, and, having regard to the fact that we have passed through a very abnormal winter, in which houses everywhere suffered considerably—in many cases, the roots are leaking badly—it seems to me extraordinary that the Minister can disclaim responsibility in the matter and leave us adrift.
On a point of order. I understand that the rule is that a Deputy shall not speak twice in a debate. Deputy Coogan is now speaking for the second time, but the Chair has already ruled, and I am asking you to enforce the ruling, that I have no responsibility for the supply of materials. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is the Minister responsible.
With regard to the first point, the House, as the Minister knows, is in Committee, and it is the right of a Deputy to speak more than once, if he wishes. It is not usually done, but, in this case, Deputy Coogan, who reported progress on Friday, was unable to be here when the debate was resumed to-day. With regard to the other point, the Minister is correct in saying that materials are not his particular care, although housing on the whole, of course, is.
With regard to the point of order, the Minister for Industry and Commerce issued a statement some time ago on the post-war building programme which indicated that:—
"As the stocks of building materials grow, a stage may be reached at which sizable allocations can be assigned to the various classes of building, even though these allocations are not on the scale set out in the first year's programme, and at this stage a co-ordinating body of representatives of the interested bodies—Local Government, Education, Post and Telegraphs, Defence, Industry and Commerce, Board of Works—will be set up."
Will the Minister say whether his Department has taken any part in that co-ordinating body for the purpose of considering the allocation of material?
That is a matter which might be addressed to me in the form of a Parliamentary question.
Surely when we are discussing the condition of certain matters for which local bodies are responsible, we could be informed by the Minister as to whether he has a representative on the co-ordinating body, with the representatives of other Departments, to see that, in view of the responsibility that bodies for which he is responsible have in the matter of certain building materials, they will get their proper share.
The position is that, in so far as there is a co-ordinating committee, that committee is responsible to and advises the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and does not advise the Minister for Local Government.
When the Minister for Local Government appoints a representative of his Department on such a co-ordinating committee he does so for the purpose of safeguarding the interests with which his Department is concerned, and surely we could have some information as to what the Minister's representative on that body is doing. The matter arises out of what Deputy Coogan has mentioned.
The Deputy can deal with housing in the abstract.
It is impossible to deal with housing without dealing with housing materials. I am merely directing the Minister's attention to the fact that in certain areas there is no cement and all necessary repair work, even on local authority houses, is completely stopped.
The Deputy ought to know why there is no cement.
I am drawing the Minister's attention to these matters now because winter will be upon us before anything is done.
The Minister cannot make cement without fuel.
Surely there must be collective Government responsibility somewhere. This sitting in watertight compartments, with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, seems extraordinary. There are 25 contractors waiting for cement for urgent repair work in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire at present. They have been refused cement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. No later than this week, they sent a deputation to the Minister, headed by Deputy Burke of County Dublin, and they were thrown out. I merely mention the matter so that the Minister may use his good offices with the responsible Minister to see that cement is made available and that the houses of the local authority of which I am a member may be repaired before winter sets in again.
That was not the spirit in which the Deputy mentioned it. The Deputy said he was not going to permit the Minister to evade his responsibility.
Yes, because the Minister had already said he had no responsibility in the matter at all.
I am not responsible for the allocation of materials.
I know the Minister is not responsible for the allocation of cement, but, as Minister for Local Government, he has some responsibility to see that local authorities are enabled to carry on their job. Our contractors have taken every step they possibly can to get cement and they have been turned down. I am asking the Minister to help in the matter.
Because the cement is not there.
But it is in foreign countries.
On the subject of housing generally, I want to say that unless the housing programme is treated as an emergency problem and with something of the urgency with which emergency problems are approached, I can see no hope of getting anywhere towards the end of our housing requirements in anything from 15 to 20 years. I feel that there is something to be said for a national council on housing advocated by Deputy Byrne. At the same time. I do not want to be taken as advocating an addition to the administrative machinery here. I feel that when the Minister for Local Government was relieved of Public Health and Social Services one of the main considerations influencing that decision was that he would be free to concentrate on the problem of housing. We feel that now that he has shed his responsibility in Public Health and Social Services it should be possible to organise such a drive in housing as will give us houses within a reasonable number of years.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts are now a dead letter—completely inoperative— due to the abnormal rise in building costs and in the price of houses. The old maxima under these Acts were £1,000 for the house and £900 for the loan. At the present time artisans' dwellings which we are building in Dún Laoghaire for working-class people are costing us from £1,050 to £1,150—the ordinary artisan's dwelling! Houses, some of which were built in Dún Laoghaire Borough under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, are now fetching somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,500. These houses were built, roughly, for £1,200 and were, at the time they were built, valued for mortgage purposes at £1,000. I want to suggest to the Minister that the whole situation in regard to houses under these Acts has so altered that it is desirable to introduce a new provision whereby the limit, both of the value of the house itself and the loan which may be advanced in respect of the house, should be raised. We have considered this at considerable length in Dún Laoghaire, and at our corporation meeting last night we resolved to ask the Minister to raise the limit to £2,500. The houses which were built under the old limits—the existing limits—on a repayment period of 35 years at 4¾ per cent. were costing in rent about £41 or £42. On the same basis at 3 per cent. the same houses to-day on an advance of £1,600 would cost something about £74 exclusive of rates—with rates something like £90.
The middle-class people, the lower professional classes, the middle-income people as you might call them, are very seriously handicapped to-day in their efforts to get suitable housing accommodation. If we take it that it would be reasonable to expect such people to allow from one-fifth to one-sixth of their income per annum for rent and loan charges it should be possible to make houses available for them if the limits were raised. If these limits are not raised, these Acts remain a dead letter. They are inoperative at the moment and the loan facilities available are of no use to that particular type of individual. A house cannot be built to-day for £1,000. The house I have in mind, which was built some time before the last war for £1,200, is to-day fetching £2,500. I know that some safeguards may be necessary if we are to consider this matter. I know that a situation may arise where speculative builders may try to build down to that type of house and it would be necessary, both for the Minister and the local authority, to draft their schemes and administer them in such a way as to ensure that the purchasers will get good value for the money and that supervision will be so exercised, that the quality of materials, and the quality of the house when turned out, will be worth the money. I do not suggest that the Minister should adhere to £2,500 as a figure. I am suggesting it as a maximum. It will be for the local authority in the drafting of their scheme to fix their own maximum figure. I suggest that figure in order to enable the local authorities throughout the country everywhere to have a certain amount of flexibility. Nothing like that money would be wanted perhaps in a small urban area in the South, but we cannot get anything like the £1,000 or £1,200 pre-war house to-day in Dún Laoghaire or in the vicinity of Dublin for under £2,000. We should realise that when we think the ordinary middle-class worker's dwelling is costing £1,050 to £1,150—that is, actual cost price, I am not quoting the selling price of the house.
Another matter in connection with small dwellings which was adverted to is the provision of cottages for agricultural labourers in rural Ireland. As we all know, the definition of "agricultural labourer" under the various Acts has been so wide that the cottages originally intended for agricultural labourers as such are no longer allocated to agricultural labourers. Any person, anywhere, earning wages is entitled to such a cottage. I think the situation in the agricultural community in various parts of the country is such that the Minister will have seriously to consider making a special provision for cottages to be occupied solely by agricultural labourers having regard to the sole consideration of the need for agricultural labourers in a particular area. I do not want to go over the matter again, but the definition of "agricultural labourer" will, as far as I can see, have to be redefined and we will have to go back to the original intention of the Labourers Acts to provide accessible labour for the agricultural community.
I was interested to hear the Minister on the progress made towards preserving the architectural features of Georgian Dublin and the steps that local authorities might take to compel landlords to improve dilapidated premises. I would like to direct his attention in connection with that matter to an anomaly that exists at present as regards the powers of local authorities over houses which are being converted. Where no structural alterations are made the local authority has no power whatever to interfere with the result that in certain old residential areas in old Dublin and, indeed, in some of the new residential areas and in the very heart of this city one will find what were once residential houses not only converted to tenement purposes but some of the rooms converted into shops. That has been done without structural alteration. They have been able simply to convert the parlour or drawing-room into a shop. It appears that the local authority have no power to stop that sort of thing. The results in some cases are distasteful to the eye and it is questionable that it is in the interest of the business community that it should be permissible to establish that type of shop. I do not want to go into details but I am informed on reliable authority that the corporation has no power to stop that sort of development where no structural alterations are made. I suggest to the Minister that it is essential to provide local authorities with additional powers so that they can control the user of premises and prevent that type of development.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to the undesirability of ribbon development and the situation which such development has brought about in connection with sewerage and water supply. I should like to go further and suggest that, where possible, private enterprise should be encouraged to plan for self-contained communities. If the speculative builder is prepared to develop an area for the white-collar worker, then, I think, that there is an opportunity for stepping in and graduating that development so that the community will be self-contained. There might be even gradation in the rent or price of the houses, so that if a man changed from the £400-£500 scale of salary to the £700-£800 scale while living in such a community, he would be able to transfer to a better type of house if he so desired. The community should be self-contained as regards shopping, education and cultural activities generally. There should be a local hall which would be available for cinema entertainments and educational projects. If at all possible, encouragement should be given to co-operative enterprise within the community. Instead of having haphazard, ribbon development, such as we have, we should try to develop small community centres which would be self-contained units. That matter might be investigated so that bodies which are organised might be able to avail of the facilities offered and provide their own building schemes, so that they could live as co-operative communities.
In my own constituency, building schemes have been approved for Kilkenny and Thomastown. I suggest to the Minister the desirability of reinvestigating these schemes, having regard to the inundations which took place there and to the number of houses the habitation of which is dangerous. Many houses in the Thomastown area are in such a condition that they may fall at any time. I do not believe that the scheme originally planned for Thomastown, and approved by the Minister, will be sufficient for the housing needs there, having regard to the changed conditions. The same applies in lesser degree to Kilkenny City.
So much has been said on the problem of allotments that I have little to add. If the Minister is satisfied that it is through laziness these people have failed to work their plots, that ought to suggest to the responsible Minister that they are too lazy also to work. If these gentlemen are too lazy to work when work is offered, they should not be allowed to draw the dole. We have too many work-shy gentlemen hanging around our urban areas. The sooner we realise that and face up to the problem it involves the better. If there were a proper liaison between the local authority and the labour exchange, these men might be put to useful work in clearing slum areas, developing sites, straightening roads, and so forth. They should not be allowed to carry on any longer in idleness. I am not at all impressed by the argument advanced here that it was because it was not worth their while to till the plots, they failed to do so. I believe they were too lazy to till them.
The Minister did not give us any details of the plans for construction of the national trunk roads upon which he has given full instructions to the county surveyors. I should like to have seen published by the Department of Local Government a memorandum on the lines of the British Roads Memorandum of 1937, so that everybody could see what was in contemplation regarding road development and get a picture of the long-term plans. I understand that it is the intention to establish something like national roads or autobahnen. The idea, I think, was to have roads about 120 feet wide, divided for the purpose of one-way traffic each way. There would be traffic lanes on each road for the different classes of vehicles and there would be passage-ways for pedestrians and animals, with a cycle track. I should like to hear something regarding the long-term policy on these matters, so that we could arrive at an opinion as to the desirability of going ahead with these plans. It may be that, taking the long view—the view of the next 50 years—we shall be providing roads which will be out of date. With the development of atomic power and its harnessing to the uses of manufacturing and commercial enterprise, there may be no need for these roads at all. However, it is difficult to discuss that matter in the absence of details of the programme.
Road safety was mentioned and the desirability of imposing a speed limit was urged. I am opposed to a speed limit. My experience is that the speed limit cannot be enforced universally at all times. The most you can hope for, under ideal conditions, is that it will be occasionally enforced. You may break the law in relation to speed on six out of seven days of the week and it may be only on the sixth day that you come up against a trap and are caught. That sort of spasmodic enforcement is futile. In addition, there is considerable difficulty, from the police point of view, in collecting evidence of speed offences. Instead of putting the emphasis on speed, we should put the emphasis on dangerous and careless driving. A man may drive very dangerously and carelessly even at ten miles an hour. Another man may drive with perfect competence and control at 60 miles an hour. On the question of the speed limit, therefore, I think we should be inclined to go easy. There may be some case for controlling the speed of very heavy locomotives and vehicles of that type, but I think that any attempt to control the speed of other vehicles will prove futile. To control speed in modern conditions you want a sufficient number of speed-control cars; you want a very big personnel of traffic police; and at the present time I do not think we have anything like the personnel that we should have if we are to tackle the traffic on our roads properly. I understand that in Dublin at the moment we have only two patrol cars allocated to traffic and that in practice only one of these is ever out on road traffic work; whereas in Belfast they have six patrol cars.
I should also like to direct the Minister's attention to the fact that almost all the men who were trained specially for traffic duties of all kinds and, particularly, for the inspection of public service vehicles are now placed in the position that they have simply become indoor clerks. Through lack of clerical assistance, these men cannot leave their office. Whereas on appointment they were intended for outdoor duties, because of the present system and the shortage of staff they are compelled to remain most of their time indoors, with the result that they cannot devote proper attention to outdoor traffic supervision.
On the question of removing corners and dangerous bends, I do not agree with the Minister in this policy of taking off dangerous corners and bends. I think that it would be much cheaper and a better proposition to have a road diversion rather than taking off these dangerous corners and bends. I believe it would be safer from the traffic point of view and that it would cost the community less. However, that is merely a personal opinion, as I have no technical knowledge on the matter, but I suggest to the Minister that he should consider, where possible, having a road diversion rather than the removal of a dangerous bend.
Again, on the matter of law, I want to direct the Minister's attention to the need for bringing up to date our Road Traffic Act. The last Act we had was in 1933 and our road traffic law here is behind the traffic law in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I should like to see a provision whereby, when a man is charged with manslaughter as a result of negligent driving of a motor car, a vehicle of any kind for that matter, that charge might, on the evidence, be reduced to one of dangerous driving. It would make for a considerable dispatch of business and for a considerable improvement in the law. Under the present dispensation, if a man is charged with manslaughter and is acquitted, that is an end to the matter. Under the British and North of Ireland traffic code, a man in similar circumstances charged with manslaughter may be acquitted of the manslaughter charge. The charge is then reduced to one of dangerous driving and he may be found guilty of dangerous driving. I think a provision of that kind is essential here in the interests of public safety on the roads.
There is just another small point that I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and that is the question of warning notices. There is a defect in our traffic law at the moment. If an offender, who has, perhaps, been guilty of a serious traffic offence, is able to keep out of the way for 14 days, then the notice cannot be served upon him and he gets away with it. It is essential to the prosecution of a traffic offence that a warning notice must be served either at the time the offence was committed or within 14 days from the date of the commission of the offence. Many offenders have got away by lying low for the requisite 14 days and then the police are powerless to prosecute. That is an extraordinary anomaly and one which should be removed as soon as possible.
Last year we passed a Local Government Act in the month of August, I think. Under Section 69 (3) of that Act, the Minister has power to take certain steps towards the provision of traffic signs, and to date, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence that anything has been done to procure traffic signs for our roads. I should like the Minister to tell us what is the trouble there.
Because we cannot get them.
I understand there is a difficulty about that and that the materials are in short supply. I suggest to the Minister in connection with traffic signs the desirability of classifying our roads as major and minor roads. Under the general traffic by-laws, roads are so classified. It is my recollection that there is a provision whereby we can erect standard signs showing that a road is a major road or a minor road. There is also a provision, I think, that a vehicle from the minor road approaching the major road should slow down. In Great Britain I think the provision is that the vehicle must halt. In America the provision is that they make what is known as the boulevard stop. It should be the general law that all traffic leaving a minor road and entering a major road should make a definite stop or halt. In order that that would be properly enforced it is essential that the roads should be classified and proper signs provided. I do not suggest that that should be done everywhere; but it certainly should be done on those roads where we have a high traffic density and in the vicinity of those roads.
In the matter of law enforcement, some Deputies feel that there is not a sufficiently strict enforcement of traffic by-laws. As I have indicated, the traffic personnel proper is insufficient to tackle that problem. They have not the requisite number of men and the requisite number of cars and, until that situation is made good, I cannot see any hope of an improvement there; because traffic law is peculiar to the traffic-minded individual, if you like, and the ordinary policeman, in my experience, will not pay very much attention to traffic, whereas if you get the specialists in the matter you can deal with it effectively. Therefore, I think there is a case not only for increasing the mobility of our police, but also for increasing the personnel, so that there will be effective outdoor supervision. At present, as I have said, there are too many men wasted indoor.
In his statement on roads, the Minister suggested that the long-term programme visualised a situation where agricultural produce would be transported by road; at least that was the impression he created in my mind. I was going to address a query to him as to whether we have definitely embarked upon a policy of abandoning the railways.
No. My policy is to build good roads. I am sure the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce is to provide railways.
In any event, I suggest to the Minister that, having regard to the increased traffic by heavy commercial vehicles, there may be a case for imposing some extra taxation on those particular vehicles owing to the amount of use they are making of the roads. It may be that in a particular case some revision of our present system of taxation may be found necessary in order that these vehicles may be made to pay a fair contribution for the use they are making of the roads. We know that certain types of vehicles engaged in public transport are on these roads day and night and many of these roads have deteriorated as a result of that traffic. In fairness to the local community, those people who are making reasonably good profits out of their transport business should be made contribute something extra to the cost of the roads.
On the question of turf, I do not want to say very much. I was in my constituency last Sunday week and the farmers in one locality assured me they would not be able to get to the bogs this year and some other way would have to be found of giving them a reasonable amount of fuel for the winter. The position is such in the particular area I have in mind that even the creamery is still closed; they have been out of milk production since last fall. The season has been so late there that it will be well into the middle of this month before they finish the tillage; then they will have to turn to other jobs and they assure me definitely they cannot get to the bogs this year. I do not know how the fuel problem in that area can be met otherwise than by making some allocation of coal from local resources. I will have something more to say about that on another occasion. But it drove home in my mind the difficulty that confronts the Minister in achieving the target set for this year. I was pleased to hear Deputy Beegan say that in Galway they had made much more progress than he had hoped for. I hope that represents the position in many other parts of the country.
I will say, in relation to matters which have given rise to controversy here between the Minister and other Deputies, that I think it deplorable that, at the height of our turf production season, lightning strikes should take place. I have no desire to question the rights of workers to organise in unions, the rights of unions to fight for the interests of workers, the rights of unions to engage in labour disputes or to take strike action in order to bring a labour dispute to a head, but I question seriously the right of any union to hold the community to ransom at a time when days may mean severe hardship for our poor next winter everywhere through the country.
I cannot disabuse myself of the suspicion that prevails in my own and many other minds that sinister influences are at work in this country. We saw evidence of this not many years ago in France, where there were stay-in and sit-down strikes, and where the unions deprecated these strikes. We saw what the inevitable result was in France. No matter what may be said for the trade union case, I see in these lightning, unofficial strikes that we have here evidence of the sinister influences that were at work on the Continent of Europe not so long ago.
I do not know anything about the merits of the dispute one way or the other; all I know is that the Labour Court have heard the case and are about to give their ruling on it and, in these circumstances, a small group of individuals saw fit to call a lightning strike. I think it is deplorable, in what I regard as a public utility service, that a small section can hold the community to ransom, as it was held to ransom twice last year and once this year. The Minister and his colleagues cannot get out of that situation by simply making scapegoats of Deputy Norton and his colleagues, nor can they get out of this very difficult situation by simply marking time and waiting for something to turn up to solve the problem.
I think the situation has reached such a stage that, if the trade unions cannot enforce discipline, the State must take legal measures. The State cannot allow the situation to drift, as I feel it was allowed to drift in the sugar dispute and the hauliers' dispute last year. It is a very difficult situation for any Government to be faced with, but if we ask employers not to exploit the situation here for their own personal advantage or profit we should equally ask workers not to exploit the situation for their own personal advantage or profit. I think both employers and workers in this community will have to realise that, at least in these services which can be regarded as national public utility services, there is a duty to the community which must come first.
I do not know that even legislation will be very helpful in the matter. I do not know that the mere passing of a law making it a penal offence to participate in an unofficial or lightning strike will be very helpful. We may be faced with the problem of having to fill all our jails with hundreds and even thousands of workers. That, too, would be an impossible situation. The situation is one which cannot be allowed to drift much further without definite and drastic action being taken by the Government.
Another point is as regards rate increases. The Minister gave four reasons for the increases in rates with which I generally agree, but he did not advert to the fact that local authorities are providing new services. Whilst old services are costing more than they did pre-war, we are developing a sort of expert mind in a number of matters here. We are getting in experts in various lines and the result of their activities is that we are getting new services and these have to be paid for. In addition, we have, under our managerial system, a certain type of civil service administration getting together locally and it is not making for the proper dispatch of public business. In many places these people feel they are tied down by the Local Government Department and they cannot move without the prior approval of the Department, with the result there is a stranglehold there and a certain amount of slowing down. If there is anything in these complaints, I suggest we have reached a point in local administration when there should be some devolution of responsibility, if not to the locally elected bodies, at least to the manager, who is the executive officer of these bodies. I think it would make for the better dispatch of public business if certain sanctions could be shed from the Custom House and increased responsibility given to the local managers.
Another matter the Minister did not mention, but which affects our rates very considerably is the number of statutory demands for which local authorities have to find the money. When these statutory demands are presented, the local authority has to meet them and, in relation to certain matters, such as relief of unemployment or unemployment assistance, I feel these should be State charges and the local authorities should be relieved of them, because, having regard to the increased cost of the old services and the addition of new services, the local authorities will have a difficult job to keep within any reasonable bounds in the next five or ten years in the matter of finance.
It is all very well to threaten a revaluation of the country as a means of easing the position. That does not ease the position; it is merely a sleight-of-hand trick that may convince an ignorant person that he is paying 10/6 in the £ when he is really paying 21/-. I do not see that a revaluation will help us in any way. The gross amount the ratepayers will have to find will be very much the same whether you value him at £20 on the Griffith system or revalue him and make his valuation £40. It is immaterial to him whether he has to pay 10/6 in the £ on the new valuation or 21/- in the £ on the old valuation. The gross amount will remain the same. As I see the development of local government here, the next five or ten years will simply mean a heavy addition to our rates everywhere. Our manager has gone into the matter and he assures me that next year our rate, which is 24/- this year, will be 27/6 if not nearer to 30/-. It is not a case for revaluation. It is simply that we have to provide new services of all kinds. I just question whether many of these new services are so much in the interest of the community as a whole, or are merely brought in as a prop to political power. Many of them are political sops thrown to certain camp followers of the Government.
For instance?
I shall not go into the details but I do suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider the question of unemployment assistance particularly. I think it is an unfair imposition on local authorities. It might help them to provide extra services if they could be relieved of some of the burdens which we in Dún Laoghaire regard as State burdens proper.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle resumed the Chair.
The erection of many thousands of suitable houses for urban and rural dwellers is undoubtedly a priority problem deserving of special attention in the national interest. The need is most urgent, if we are not to lose a bigger proportion of our rural population. If they cannot settle down in the rural areas they will, in the first instance, go into the cities or they will emigrate and become a loss to the country. We cannot expect the Minister or his officials to go down to local authorities and speed up the erection of houses and I think too much attention has been directed to the preparation of big schemes before anything is done. That is really only causing delay. Some progress could be made if the matter were dealt with as particular portions of the work were ready for execution. For example, in regard to rural cottages, where a farmer is prepared to give a site for a cottage for one of his own workers or for a neighbouring agricultural worker, that is a case where no particular inspection or no local inquiry is needed and it should get priority. If a scheme for the erection of a number of these houses is submitted, permission should be given to go ahead with the work. The need for these rural cottages is acute because for every cottage that becomes vacant, there are at least eight or ten applicants. I know of one quite recently within ten or 12 miles of Cork City for which there were 18 applicants. While that is happening, we complain about the movement of our rural population. At the same time workers cannot be provided with houses which would enable them to settle down in districts within reasonable proximity to their work.
In the urban areas, the problem is also very acute. We have to-day heard some Deputies talk about the need for employing architects, but what impresses me going into any town or country village is the number of derelict buildings which are left there. It appears that if the owner of such a building tears off the roof, he can hold the site, which might be useful to the local authority, without the payment of any rate. I think as long as he holds the site, he should be charged a rate or else he should be compelled to put the building into proper repair. Of course it may be said that the urban authority could acquire the site, but look at the trouble that entails. If it is a small isolated site, the urban or the city authority is not going to all the trouble which would be involved in acquiring it and building a single house on it. I think these are matters which should be attended to rather than waiting for big schemes to be formulated. While we are waiting for the bigger things it would be well if we concentrated on getting some of the small things done.
Mention has been made of the fact that some tradesmen, who are very badly needed at home, are leaving the country. Undoubtedly, at present there is a shortage of cement. That has caused some unemployment and some tradesmen consequently are going abroad where they can get employment. When tradesmen see a building scheme coming to an end, they do not know where the next day's work is going to come from. I would, therefore, agree with Deputies from various sides who advocated a system of direct labour on building schemes. If we had direct labour schemes in operation, these tradesmen, as well as being available for any contractors who might have some work on which they could be employed, would also be available for local authorities who were operating a direct labour system.
On the matter of roads, the problem affecting Cork County Council, of which I am a member, for some years past is the damage caused by flooding from streams. We are told that there is no remedy for that because the county council is not the drainage authority and consequently cannot authorise entry to the beds of rivers for the purpose of removing silt or obstructions or otherwise remedying the state of affairs that has arisen. Unless the stream belonged to an old drainage area, for which the county council has a liability to keep it in the condition in which they got it, they cannot enter on it. Neither can these rivers be dealt with under a local rural improvement scheme because the county council cannot make any money contribution. There may be no residents along that stretch of the road and even if there are, they do not look upon it as their problem. They look upon it as the responsibility of the county council to keep the road properly in repair. If it is a village that is affected, and if the villagers are asked to make some contribution in their own interest to prevent flooding, it may be possible in some instances to have a local improvement scheme, but I would say generally that authority should be given to the county council, where roads have been damaged by streams flowing along the road, to enter upon the stream and carry out whatever work may be necessary to prevent the water getting out on the public roads and seriously damaging them.
Undoubtedly, the very heavy traffic, particularly big lorries, on many of our roads at present, constitutes a real danger where people are driving animals, such as young horses, in the course of their business. At the same time, in many instances, there are big grass margins which might be removed in order to provide more space on these roads. Before we proceed to talk about the big schemes to which Deputy Coogan referred a moment ago, about one-way traffic and all these things, we should get down to work for which there is plenty of labour available, namely, the removal of grass margins and the provision of better space on our roads. When we have that work accomplished we can get along to the bigger schemes which will come in due time.
The question of delay in getting many of these schemes into operation has been mentioned. It was Deputy Corish, I think, who said that the county manager has too much to do and that he cannot attend to all these matters. That may be so but, at the same time, I think it is very hard on the public generally to have to wait for long periods. Undoubtedly, there have been terrible delays, whoever has been responsible, in getting ahead with various schemes. We get one excuse to-day and another excuse to-morrow. We cannot go ahead to-day because the cost is too high. To-morrow it is because there is no cement. Waiting for to-morrow is not progress. We must get ahead to-day with whatever can be done and we must do it in a way that will be of definite advantage.
The matter of the managerial system is very debatable. The amount that the council can do is indeed very limited and we find very often that no matter what our recommendations may be, say in the matter of providing water pumps and so on, for the rural community, it takes a very long time to get anything effective done. Whether it is the managerial system or the general organisation of the system that is at fault I am not going to say. I have my own opinion on the matter. The public are long suffering. They have been waiting for years for many of the things they need and expect from the Department and from the local authorities.
In connection with housing schemes, it has been mentioned that very little provision has been made for children. That is true. Playgrounds where children can have healthy exercise should be part of every big building scheme and it should be a simple matter to make such provision.
The Minister was criticised to-day for extending the period for repayment of loans in connection with housing schemes. I have been advocating an extension of loan repayment periods and a lower rate of interest since I came into this House. I congratulate the Minister on that provision. It is only just that those who benefit by a service should pay for the service. Why put all the charge on the present generation? Cannot the rising generation, who will use these houses, take their share of the charge? The local authorities have themselves to blame if they do not get ahead now with the provision of houses. Scarcity of material is, of course, a cause of delay, but we understand that is only temporary. One solution would be the establishment of another cement factory. In the present state of the world we cannot depend on outside sources for those things that we can provide ourselves. The Department has been reorganised and, in consequence, there may be certain delays at the moment, but I am sure that will be remedied in the very near future, particularly in connection with the provision of houses and water schemes. In some cases people have to go long distances to draw water when they could be more usefully employed in their own homes. These are matters which require immediate attention and now that the Minister's sphere has been reduced he can concentrate on these aspects of our national life, and I am sure we will see good progress in the near future.
I would like to impress upon the Minister, in view of what has been said by many Deputies in regard to going ahead with certain schemes, that I advocate a policy directly opposed to that outlined in most of the suggestions that have been made. Acting on the assumption that things could be done overnight Deputies and members of public bodies put forward certain schemes regardless of the cost. The first thing they propose is the making of appointments which would increase the burden on the local ratepayers although many of the schemes, under existing circumstances, could not be carried out, perhaps, within the next five to ten years. I refer now in particular to the suggestion that has been made by certain Deputies in connection with the Managerial Act, that the job is too big for one man. The natural inference is that they want an assistant manager. As one who opposed the Managerial Bill, on principle, I believe that as it is now the law of the land it should get all the support possible and that we should wait a little longer until we see how things work out. If it is not the success that some people thought it would be, those who voted for it should be consistent enough to give it a further trial. The mere fact of making more appointments will not increase the efficiency of the Act. When that Act was being passed the main argument used for it was that it would make for increased efficiency and greater economy. I do not want to be too hard. I appreciate the economic circumstances that have arisen during the last eight years. Conditions have been so upset that it was impossible to make a fair judgment of matters concerning government, local or national. I do want, however, to warn the Minister to be very careful in adding expenditure on the local ratepayers. Whether we like it or not, we have to wait for all these grand things that have been advocated in the last four or five years and I ask Deputies not to be obsessed with the idea that because we are Irish and living in Ireland, we can do everything here of ourselves. We cannot live by ourselves. The sooner we recognise our limitations the better.
In his opening statement, the Minister said that we need about 60,000 houses. That is a small figure, but it represents an expenditure of about £60,000,000. The average cost of artisans' houses in a town like Drogheda or Dundalk is about £1,000. The total cost of the 60,000 houses some few years ago would be, not £60,000,000, but half that sum, £30,000,000; 15 or 20 years ago it would have been only £15,000,000, and 30 years ago it would have been only £10,000,000, as the cost per house then was only £150. I quote those figures to show the magnitude of the job. Deputies forget that it is not a question of money, that even if the Minister had £500,000,000 he could not proceed any more quickly with the erection of one house—nor could the local authority do so either. It is the local authority that will build the houses. There is no difficulty about house-building—so long as one has the money—but what you want is the material, and at the moment we have not got it. Unless a man has got a priority contract, he cannot get one bag of cement, even for £10,000 or £1,000,000. Therefore, we must have patience with regard to this.
Even if we had the materials, I do not see how we could do all these things overnight. We would be doing good work if we got through the programme in ten years. I am conscious that thousands are in need of houses, but I do not think it is good national business to be creating a sudden boom, turning everything into house building. It is not as big a question as that. If we had the money and the materials, we could build up the whole country in five or ten years, with the skilled and unskilled men that are, and will be, available. No matter what may be said regarding shortages, there is no use in talking as if we could build all these houses within a year or two. It cannot be done under existing circumstances. We are short of timber and cement, though the cement shortage is only a temporary one. I hope the cement position will improve and that there will be supplies of fuel to enable us to get back to normal supplies of cement. I may go outside the boundary a wee bit now, to tell the Parliamentary Secretary I cannot understand why the Department of Industry and Commerce did not get in some foreign cement. However, that is not within his bailiwick and I am not going to dwell on it. The cement could have been got in and should have been got in and there would not have been the acute shortage there is at the moment.
I notice that Deputies always fight shy of the various factors responsible for the high cost of building and seem to concentrate on interest charges and long-term loans. The difference in rent between a loan of 35 years and one of 50 years is infinitesimal. The interest charges now have been reduced to half, yet they are rendered null and void more or less by the progressive rise in the cost of building, even in the last nine or ten years. You could build a house and sell it at a rent just as cheaply ten years ago, paying 5 per cent., as you can to-day with the same type of house paying only 2½ per cent. It is those other factors, in addition to the shortage of supplies, which have done so much to slow up the business of house building.
Many Deputies and public representatives could help in the building of more houses if they were not so fond of talking of fixing a rent the same as was fixed 15 or 20 years ago when the present-day £1,000 house could be built for £250 or £500. You cannot have it both ways. There are many decent working-men in the country who are willing to pay a decent rent and they want a house and they should not be sacrificed by making the popular cry and asking how the poor man can pay this and that. All the workers are not poor; I am a working-man myself. There has been a progressive increase in wages and I am proud of it, so why not admit it? You cannot have costs going up and expect to pay at the same price as before. A great deal of harm has been done by certain public representatives always taking as a basis the man whose position is such that he cannot afford to pay any increases at all. Cottages which could be built for £140 are costing £750 or £760 or, if it is a good type of cottage, up to £800 or £900. That is a very big increase. One must bear in mind that the house rent, like everything else, is one of the items forming the weekly budget in the cost of living.
There seems to be an approach that we want the State to do everything for us and I am totally opposed to that tendency on the part of our people for the last 15 or 20 years, whether they have been encouraged in that for political motives I do not know, but it is a bad thing if that is so. I may be called an old-timer, but I want to warn the Parliamentary Secretary that it means embarking on a very dangerous policy to give any countenance to such an attitude or placing our people in such a position that they must look to the State for everything. My answer to all these difficulties, especially as regards playgrounds and so on, is that they are all very good things in themselves, but that we were all reared 50 or 60 years ago without them and we are physically as good as the children to-day. We all know of the lovely pictures painted for us here for the last four years. In fact, one Fianna Fáil Deputy made a speech which would induce us to say we would like the Minister for Local Government to ask the Minister for Finance to hand over the whole £60,000,000 to that Deputy, who would then have sufficient to carry out all the beautiful suggestions which he made here. On the basis of all the suggestions he made with regard to water schemes, sewerage schemes and housing schemes, he would take up the entire £60,000,000. We cannot do all these things overnight and we have to bear in mind the difficulties that exist.
I have referred to this boom. Suppose you concentrate on housing, to the exclusion of other matters. After five or seven years, you would have broken the back of the housing shortage. I am prepared to put my opinion in that respect against that of any other person here or outside. During those five or seven years, you could have 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 men engaged, and then suddenly that avenue of employment closes down. Such violent booms are not good in the building or any other trade. All this will take time, and the Minister will be very fortunate if, in the space of five or eight years, he can show that this problem is on the way to solution. I want to make my position clear—I say that the responsibility, in the main, rests on the local authorities and I do not find very much delay in relation to housing schemes. There may be a question of cost, but that is easily got over and we in Dundalk are at present engaged on the erection of 18 houses and are awaiting the time when supplies will become plentiful to go ahead with 100 or 200 more. Within two or three years there will be no cause to complain about a housing shortage in Dundalk, with its population of 16,000.
The same question, but in a more acute form, arises with regard to cottages. The purchase scheme must have been drafted in very slovenly fashion, because there is always an argument whenever a tenant dies as to who really owns the cottage, with the result that the cottage may lie idle for three or six months. When the manager takes the matter up, he finds that, if a complete purchase scheme has been put through, a son or daughter lives in America, and there has to be correspondence. It often happens that a widow, whose family are married, decides to sell a house, and, when these people set about selling such a cottage, although they grumble about 1/- per week rent, they do not think in terms of £100, but in terms of £300. It is well known that cottages have been sold for £300, and there is no question of an agricultural labourer getting such a cottage in those circumstances. The unfortunate position in which county councils are placed is that these cottages are left idle for three and six months, and people have been able to sell cottages for £300 and £350. There was a case which went to the Supreme Court and I do not know whether it has been settled or not, but I always took the stand with the county manager that none of these cottages would be sold under these conditions with my consent, to the exclusion of an agricultural labourer looking for a cottage.
The same might apply to the repair of cottages. This is a matter which has been neglected due to shortage of materials, but how many Deputies know that in many cases the cost of repairing a cottage represents nearly ten years' rent? One might say the unpopular thing again, that certain people would not drive a nail into their houses but wait for the council to do it, which again is evidence of lack of initiative, self-reliance, thrift and industry. The fact remains, however, that that is the position and that county council costs are becoming stupendous. A rent of 1/- per week represents £2 10s. 0d. per year, so that it would take ten years to get back the capital expenditure on a cottage, which amounts to £20 down to £10 per cottage.
With regard to roads, we hear a lot about making the roads safe and the Minister read out the terms of reference of a committee which is to consider the type of roads to be made. I do not see why there should be any great engineering difficulty at all and why there should be all this pother about the condition of our roads. The fact remains that you cannot serve two masters. You cannot make a road suitable for the motor-car and suitable, at the same time, for a horse and cart, or for cattle. It may be that more officials will be appointed to tell us how to make roads, forgetful of the fact that each county council quite recently had to appoint six or seven extra engineers for the express purpose of carrying out a survey of all the roads in the country. While they are on that job, could they not do the other job? Why should it be necessary to set up this special committee to consider the types of roads to be made, and so on? So far as I know, you put down your concrete road, and, if you want to make it safe, you simply put your "chair" between it and the footpath. Plenty of roads are made in that way.
It has been suggested that for horses —and for cattle, because you cannot shoe cattle, as was suggested in the case of horses—a margin should be provided. That can be done where the width of the road allows it, but the majority of our roads are not wide enough for that and there would not be room for two big vehicles to pass.
Whatever is decided upon, there will still be something to grumble about, because, if the margin is provided, a margin of certain non-slippery material, it will sink much more quickly than the mass of concrete in the centre and the road will thus be much more dangerous than if it were all solid concrete. In some cases where these margins have been provided, the material has sunk, leaving a little step along the edge of the concrete. I have seen cyclists moving from the margin on to the concrete, coming in contact with this projection and being upset and losing tyres from their cycles. In the case of a grass margin, the grass grows up and gives the impression that the whole thing is solid, while it is, in reality, anything but solid. This concrete edge I refer to is a menace to motorists and has resulted in motorists losing their tyres and, at times, in motors turning upside down. There is no perfect solution, although I would say that, on steep gradients, a margin of non-slippery material would be necessary, but certainly not a margin of material which would sink rapidly and give rise to the dangers to which I have referred.
I emphasise that there must be a policy of festina lente, so far as this tendency of throwing extra responsibility on to the public bodies is concerned. The people will have to have patience. With regard to the County Management Act, I suggest that, if it were possible, there should not be delay in making decisions, and if a local authority decides to give a shilling or two increase to a workman, there should not be a delay of months before the increase is sanctioned. The increase should operate when the manager makes the order. One of the ideas behind the Act was that it would lead to quicker decisions, but, instead, everything has to be sent up to the Department, and I do not think the Department wants half the things that are sent up.
Looking at the matter from the common-sense point of view this thing of retrospective payment is all "cod". It should be the same as when a private employer decides to give his men something on a particular week. They have their extra money on a Friday night. A thing is sweetest when it is given quickly. Therefore, I would seriously impress upon the Minister, if it is at all possible within the Act, that there should not be this long delay which causes so much irritation and which creates a bad impression. People have the idea that something sinister is happening. That is one of the things which give cause to a great deal of discussion at boards and people let off a lot of hot air about things which, to my mind, are of very minor importance, i.e., the sanction of a shilling or two to the men and delaying it so much that often it is nearly three, four or five months before they get official sanction.
All I want to emphasise here is that I hope that the position in so far as supplies are concerned will improve in regard to the building of houses, and so far as my experience goes I feel that the local authorities will be able to do the job. The builders are there and the men are there. A few of them come here and go there but there is sufficient still in the country no matter what may be said to the contrary. If and when the stuff comes, so far as Louth is concerned, we feel that we will be able to have the situation well in hand in the course of the next few years.
I propose to say a few words about the general question of roads. Deputy Roddy referred to the time taken to complete the restoration of the roads—covering the main roads with new surfacing. He suggested that we had pressed upon the county surveyors too hardly in that matter. In actual fact all we have done is to ask them to do their best. We hope that if conditions are normal, which they are not at the moment, road restoration will be on its way to completion within two years. As I have said we have had great difficulties owing to the fact that, in the case of last year, there were certain limitations in supplies, tar, bitumen and machinery and, this year, we have had bad weather and the necessity for great turf and tillage drives. We believe that in some counties the road restoration programme will be in the direction of being completed at the end of 1948, some in 1949 and, perhaps, there may be some counties where it is extremely difficult to procure the necessary labour in summer months in which road restoration may still be continuing in 1950. It is hoped to commence a certain amount of road improvement on the main arterial roads when road restoration reaches a state of virtual completion or partial completion in certain counties. We have not yet had a final report on the percentage of miles of roads restored in each county as a percentage of the total miles of road in each county or road authority area requiring restoration but we do know that about half the counties at the beginning of the last financial year hoped that they could effect an increase of 20 per cent. and over in the volume, not the cost, of maintenance work that they did in the year 1938-1939. As I say, we have no exact knowledge yet as to what actual volume of maintenance or restoration work they were able so to perform. Among those 13 counties there were eight or ten who were hoping, judging by the estimates passed, to effect anything from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. more volume in road maintenance restoration than in 1938-1939.
In connection with the financial year ending in March last, so far as the estimates indicated, hope of a great volume of road restoration was anticipated which will probably not, in fact, be the case because of the bad weather, but at least the figures show that county councils, aided by State grants, are doing their best. I might give the figures in that regard. In 1938-39, for the counties, the maintenance county estimates totalled £1,666,776, and the State contributed from the Road Fund £343,086, representing a 20 per cent. contribution. For 1946-47, the counties estimated that they hoped to spend £2,761,194. The State contributed a grant, or, rather, provided to contribute a grant from the Road Fund of £1,360,115, i.e., a 50 per cent. contribution of the amount raised by the county councils. As I have said already, those are tentative figures, and already there has been a considerable delay in the commencement of this very essential road restoration work. Deputy Everett in the course of his speech referred to the road operations of the Wicklow County Council. He suggested that more money should be spent on minor roads of the county. It is a matter for the county council to decide on their proportional allocation for main roads and county roads and, in fact, they voted £61,000 for main roads, £31,000 for county roads, on which they received a total grant of £54,000. They envisaged, that is for the year 1946-47, doing 48 per cent. more work than in 1938-39. We are not yet aware of the final result but evidently the county council seem to regard main roads as of great importance in that area. Deputy Blowick referred to the road restoration programme and suggested that there were sufficient road workers in County Mayo to effect all the road work that could possibly be done. Deputies will be aware that road work must be largely carried out in the summer months if it is to be effective in the case of main roads and even if it is to be efficiently done in the case of the most important county roads.
The county surveyor so far as we can ascertain employed all the men available for road work after the turf needs of the county had been provided for. There was in the last year an absolute limitation on the quantity of tar and bitumen made available to us which would in any event have limited road work in areas even where there was a large number of farmers' sons as well as agricultural labourers available. In spite of the fact that County Mayo produces a huge volume of turf and in spite of these difficulties the Mayo County Council did hope at the commencement of the last financial year to do road work of a volume of 17½ per cent. above that in 1938-39. Considering the huge turf programme for Mayo I think that is not a bad effort, although we shall know later what they were finally able to achieve. Deputy Blowick also referred to the fact that it was not desirable to waste money on road widening or on the removal of road curves at the present time. Very little road widening is being done. Very minor and limited improvement schemes are being carried out for some special or particular reason—an absolutely negligible total proportion of road work. Some curves have been eliminated as a result of the operation of special employment schemes.
In general, the policy of the Minister is to go ahead so far as possible, with road restoration and, then, as that becomes completed, to begin, in certain areas, road improvement. In connection with some main arterial roads, where the road surface has so far deteriorated that road restoration would be ineffective, we may possibly effect a few miles of road improvement this year. That will be on some of the main roads from Dublin to the west and south.
Deputy Davin suggested that the volume of road work in his area was abnormally low, that it did not bear relation to the number of workers available but rather to the low wages paid to road workers in that area. Leaving aside entirely the general problem of what wages should be, in Laoighis the county authority estimated last year that they would do about the same volume of road restoration as they did in 1938-9. We have not yet got the final figures of what they actually performed. In Kilkenny, an adjacent county, the county council estimated that they could do a 40 per cent. greater volume of road work in the way of maintenance than they did in 1938-9, although the road workers' wages, so far as I am aware, are approximately the same in the two areas. That disposes of the argument that a volume of road work in any particular area has any great relation to the wages paid there.
A number of Deputies have commented upon the Government's long-term plan for road improvement. I should like to present Deputies with some additional information and to repeat certain statements made by the Minister in regard to this matter. There are 50,000 miles of public roads, of which 10,000 miles are main roads. Of these 10,000, 3,000 miles are arterial roads, linking Dublin with the provinces and linking large urban areas, such as Cork, with other urban areas. In August, 1939, there were registered, in all, 73,000 vehicles of all types. In April, 1947, there were registered 84,000 vehicles—an increase of 11,000. Deputies are aware that there is still a severe limitation in the supply of both imported and assembled vehicles here. These figures, however, prove that we must plan roads in the future to carry a greatly increased volume of traffic and that we must plan these roads in an intelligent manner. There is no need to have a rigid programme that must be adhered to in respect of every single mile of road, but we must have general standards governing the types of roads to be improved.
The Minister has no intention of encouraging the construction of autobahnen of the German type. The suggestion made by various county councils that money is to be wasted in constructing enormously wide roads, sweeping across the country, and enabling traffic to proceed at from 70 to 100 miles an hour is quite absurd. We want to avoid anything in the nature of extremes. We want to avoid needless expenditure through continuously widening main roads without any particular plan—widening a main road from 18 feet to 20 feet in one year, and then, five years later, widening it from 20 feet to 22 feet, without any regard to the vehicle density proceeding along that road or the increase in density which has occurred over a period. Equally, we want to avoid having to reconstruct on a number of occasions bridges that form bottlenecks on main roads. One of the most difficult technical problems of modern road design is how to calculate what the maximum rate of curve should be in relation to a particular road in regard to visibility of traffic. When a car approaches a curve, what is the distance at which another car would be enabled to see that car approach? The same applies in the case of vertical alignment. When a road rises over a hill or eminence, what should be the rate of rise so that the occupant of a car could see other cars approaching? These matters are highly technical and involve algebraic calculations quite beyond me. But they are understood by officials in the Department.
A recognised method of planning roads has been adopted by several countries in which the curvature of roads, horizontal and vertical, are calculated scientifically in relation to the number of vehicles expected to pass over the road per hour for a certain number of days and the number of vehicles likely to pass over it at peak hours. That method has been adopted by a number of countries and I am glad to say that we are among two or three countries which first started to plan roads on this basis. Therefore, road planning avoids wasteful expenditure through haphazard work, which has to be re-done at a later period. It avoids wasteful expenditure occasioned by not reserving a site for a wider road in advance and it avoids excessive expenditure through the adoption of differing standards. At present, Deputies are aware that some of the main arterial roads from Dublin vary enormously from one stretch of 20 miles to another stretch of 20 miles. It is obviously necessary to have some uniformity this matter.
I should like to dispose completely of the suggestion that the road planning being carried on in the Department through the co-ordination of our engineering section with the county surveyors and the temporary surveyors appointed by the county councils to survey the roads will result in increased expenditure. It should result in more usefully applied expenditure. When the plan is applied to any particular stretch of road, regard must be had to traffic density, based on a five-year traffic census, and other traffic considerations, and, naturally, there will be revision of the plan from time to time.
Certain Deputies asked me for more information on the standards to be adopted. These are, as I have stated, flexible, but, in principle, we plan for roads carrying over 400 vehicles per hour, two carriage-ways, each of 24 feet, two cycle tracks, together with two footpaths and a special track for farm carts and horse traffic, where considered desirable. We believe that there will be required in 25 years 121 miles of that type of double carriage-way road, mostly in the Dublin area. An average construction of five miles a year cannot be regarded as excessive. Nobody can suggest that 121 miles of that type of road, constructed over a period of 25 years, is fantastic in its extent. Class (2) roads, carrying 100 to 400 vehicles per hour, we suggest should have, in the ordinary way, one carriage-way of 24 feet and two cycle tracks and footpaths, where considered desirable, again subject to local considerations. It is believed that we shall need 1,640 miles of roads improved to that standard in 25 years; that is at the rate of 68 miles per year, a figure which I think is not unreasonable having regard to the anticipated growth of traffic.
Class (3) roads, carrying 25 to 100 vehicles per hour, are planned to have one 20-foot carriage-way. We imagine that there will not be very much footpath or cycle path developments along these roads, save very close to villages. We believe it will be necessary to construct 1,331 miles of those roads in 25 years, or 52 miles per year on an average. As I have said, the programme is flexible, depends on constant revision, and is based on general standards, and I cannot believe it is excessive having regard to the great growth of traffic and the necessity for economical and speedy transport.
Deputy Blowick referred to a matter that is not the concern of the Minister for Local Government. He complained that Córas Iompair Éireann was not providing feeder services to the main and other lines and he suggested that traffic was coming off the rails on to the roads. That is not a matter for the Minister.
It is a matter that affects the ratepayers in regard to the upkeep of the roads.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
We are in touch with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Córas Iompair Éireann when we are planning road standards so that we will know what long term plans they have in mind. Other Deputies referred to the importance of using stone of good quality. As the Minister already indicated, we are doing all we can in that matter. It is now possible to calculate scientifically and absolutely the smoothness of a road surface and it will be possible for us to insist on the highest technical standards in that regard. Indeed, many county surveyors are sending samples of stone for analysis and know, therefore, very accurately and positively to what degree it is likely to polish over a period as a result of traffic passing over it.
I think there is no need to advert to the observations of Deputies in regard to safety measures for horse traffic on main roads. We have established a committee, as the Minister indicated, and we shall consider all the observations made by the experts. It is quite possible for individual Deputies to send in suggestions to that committee, if they so desire.
Deputy Roddy made the suggestion that it is the duty of the Minister to cater for people living on cul-de-sac roads. We already had a considerable debate on this matter on a motion by a Deputy in Private Deputies' time. During the course of the debate, I adverted to the fact that there were up to 20,000 miles of these roads, as compared with a total public road mileage of 50,000, that the cost of maintaining these roads and putting them into order would be utterly beyond the capacity of either the local authorities or the State at the present time, and that it would not be possible even to consider this as a practical proposition. In this country we have 16 miles of public roads per 1,000 of the population; in England there are only four and a half miles per 1,000 of the population. It provides a financial problem which we have to consider at all times. Up to now, the Road Fund, together with special employment scheme grants, has only been barely sufficient to improve roads in the way we would like, and therefore it would be quite impossible to undertake an additional responsibility of that kind, even if it were desirable from other standpoints.
Deputies will be aware that the Government inaugurated a rural improvements scheme which provides grants for the improvement of accommodation roads. So far as I can ascertain, the number of applicants under that scheme has increased fairly constantly. Certainly, speaking for my own constituency, there are new applications constantly, in spite of the difficulty of securing the contributions and the compliance of the users of any particular road. Of these difficulties, I and other Deputies in the country are well aware.
Deputy Sheldon referred to the desirability of carrying out road work by contract. Some time ago minor road surfacing and maintenance were carried out by contract but it was not found to be desirable. It is the policy of the Government that, as far as possible, important road improvement works should be carried out by the contract system, particularly on main arterial roads, though there again the practice may vary because the circumstances are not the same in every area.
Deputy Coogan suggested that the Road Traffic Act needed amendment. The changes in the Act are constantly under consideration by the Minister. I should state that the Garda Síochána at present are against a speed limit. They consider it hardly necessary in the country areas, and it would be difficult to apply in dense urban areas. They rely on propaganda advocating road safety and on the courts. I should say in that connection that in 1946 there were 100,000 convictions in one year for offences under the Road Traffic Act. Of these, 44,000 were for one single type of offence, namely, unlighted cycle lamps. That activity on the part of the Guards indicates that the Traffic Act has been enforced with reasonable efficiency. Deputy Coogan also referred to the necessity for adopting the "major road ahead" sign principle. I should state in this connection that the Garda are planning a "major road ahead" scheme of signs to be installed when materials are available.
This is a very important Estimate so far as the country is concerned as it affects practically every ratepayer. It is an Estimate about which there should not be any political play-acting, because it is a very serious matter. Over a series of years we have had increased taxation and a stupendous amount of work remains to be done in the future. Therefore, I can see in the future a critical situation arising because the burdens on the ratepayers will be far more intolerable than they are at present. To my mind, there are many projects which should be taken off the local rates; at least, if we are going to have any more big schemes in regard to roads, building, etc., some of the burden will have to be taken off the ratepayers. We should concentrate on getting the main roads made a State charge. I do not see why they should not be, because they are really State roads now and will be in the future.
As regards the cottage purchase scheme, I am satisfied that it has not brought about the results we expected. That scheme should be improved and enforced. Many of the cottages that were built years ago should be taken off the ratepayers' hands and given to the occupants, who should then be allowed to fend for themselves. In parts of my county cottages were repaired during the past six or seven years at a cost running between £40 and £60. When these houses have been put in repair they should be handed over to the tenants. It is not fair that the ratepayers should be asked continually to repair them. If there was proper supervision these houses would not need half the repairs. There is wanton waste and deliberate destruction in connection with many of the cottages. In some cottages there are men of the keen business type who carry out their own repairs and it costs the ratepayers nothing. On the other hand, there are men who are always crying out for repairs to their houses; if there is a pane of glass broken, they want the ratepayers to replace it.
There was a cottage prize scheme and it was useful because it encouraged people to be clean and thrifty. We should get back to that position. It is hateful to see the good tenant who does not put the ratepayers to any expense getting little encouragement, whereas the bounder who neglects his house and who does not want to do anything has equal rights as a cottage tenant. There should be some method of appreciating the good tenant who looks after his house properly and does not put any burden on the rates. There should be some scheme whereby the man who is thrifty and honest will get certain privileges. I do not know whether it should be by way of a reduced rent, but there should be some encouragement for the good tenant. If he got some little compensation it would help to make that type of person more business-minded and be able to act for himself and not have the ratepayers doing everything for him.
I would like to comment on the Managerial Act. In my county that Act has given fairly good results. We are in the happy position that we have had good county managers, but it is unfair, when a county council initiates a big scheme, to have the county manager going to a new job just when they are about to embark on that scheme. In Meath we have had four or five county managers. I do not believe we have had one for any period more than two years. That is unfair, in my opinion, and there should be some stipulation whereby a county manager should hold his position for not less than eight or ten years. He should not be in a position to step out in the morning and leave the county council high and dry. We have found ourselves in the deplorable position that we have had fine schemes, and the very moment we were about to embark on them our county manager went away. Some months elapsed before the new man came in, and possibly he had different ideas and a different outlook and our schemes might not be carried out as we originally intended.
As regards cottage rents, if we are going to embark on a big housing programme we should find out where we stand with regard to the rents of cottages. The middle-class farmer is entitled to become the owner of a cottage. Any man earning his living in that way should get a cottage. I know men who are living in cottages who have not alone hundreds in the bank, but thousands. They are paying 10d. or 1/- a week rent for cottages. There are very many poor men who cannot get a house at all and here are hefty, rich men in publicly subsidised cottages living at the ratepayers' expense. The men who earn their living working on a farm should get preference when cottages are vacant.
We should have a sliding scale in connection with cottage rents. Many people can pay only a very small amount, 1/- or 1/4 a week, but I know many people who could pay 4/-, 6/- and even 10/- a week. It is wrong that they should have to pay only 1/- or 1/4. It throws an enormous burden on the ratepayers. The Minister should consider establishing a sliding scale of rents for the tenants of the new cottages. In the past the cottages were let at a reasonable rent because they were built cheaply, but the cottage of the future, which costs £750 to £800, cannot be let for a bob or two. There are people who should get them at 2/-or 2/6. I know people who are applying for these cottages who could pay 4/- or 7/- a week. A sliding scale would be fair and equitable.
In connection with cottage building, I am satisfied there is a hold-up somewhere. We argue at county council meetings that it is the officials there who are responsible. They say they are not, that it is the Department of Local Government and that they cannot move without sanction. It takes far too long to initiate a scheme. We have had schemes in County Meath for 11 years. We waited for an arbitrator's report for many years; it came a few months ago and when it came we found we had no cement. The whole thing is a damn cod and there is something wrong somewhere.
We have plenty of cinemas and hotels in the construction of which cement is used, and the airport runways are also constructed of cement. Why should not the cottages have a prior claim? On D-day in France tens of thousands of tons of Irish cement were used and why does not Britain now give us coal to manufacture more cement in order to permit us to build our houses? We did good for her on D-day and why will she not do good for us now? There is something underhand in connection with our house-building programme. Any cement that is available should be taken from the hotels and cinemas and given to the local authorities.
There are a hundred and one things that one could talk about in relation to local affairs, but I am content to concentrate on the cottage schemes. The Minister should make some move. There is no use in saying it is the fault of the local authorities. In my county they are not at fault. We could go ahead with the building of 600 cottages but the Department will not facilitate us. Every bombast can come along, make a case for a big scheme and get hundreds of bags of cement, but we cannot have cement to build the houses so urgently needed. In my county there are 16 to 25 applicants for every cottage and that is a deplorable state of affairs in an agricultural country. In country districts there are three and four families living in one house. Most cottages are sub-let, but that cannot be helped, although the people know it is against the rules. It is really a disgrace.
I do not see why a better effort was not made to get cement. Even if the Government could not get cement at home, they could have got it abroad. There is plenty of cement in Belgium if the Government could provide the shipping to have it imported here. I think it is not right that people should be left in anxiety and agony, seeking things that they need. They never get what suits them; the carrot is always left dangling before their eyes. I suppose that if there is an election in a year or two, we shall have big schemes started immediately before it. I do not want these schemes to be delayed any longer. The work is there and the Government should go ahead with it. There is no excuse whatever for not going on with it now.
In connection with the provision of houses for farmers, I am satisfied that the Minister should have raised the valuation limit from £25 to £40. Most farmers in the midlands with valuations of £40 are living in mud-walled thatched houses which were built 100 years or 150 years ago. These people have carried the baby practically all along, by providing the money for grants for other sections and it is time a decent scheme of housing was provided for them. What good is a grant of £40 to any man to build a house nowadays? It is practically useless. There is no reason why the limit of valuations should not be increased from £40 to £50 and why the grants should not be increased to £80 or £100. These people have been paying rents and rates for years. They have been paying, through the rates, for the cottages in the country and yet they cannot get decent houses for themselves. I would ask the Minister to introduce a proper scheme to suit middle-class and small farmers. They are entitled to it; it is theirs by right.
I would urge on the Minister to see that in future cottage schemes the jerry-builder is kept out. So far as the Meath County Council schemes were concerned, some of the most disgraceful building was carried on with the result that we had to employ a flying squad to carry out repairs, not to the old cottages, but to those more recently built. They had to make an effort to keep these cottages standing. The smoke in many cases was coming out the doors instead of going up the chimney. The Minister knows that because his inspector travelled round the county. We had to take on a builder who had not twopence to his name. He came along and he got some class of bonds but everybody knew that he had nothing behind them. Really half of these builders were frauds because they were jerry-builders. Those who backed them, by signing bonds, had to pay the piper and I am glad they had because anyone who backs a builder of that kind is looking for trouble.
I would ask the Minister to see to it that the cottages in future will be built by proper contractors even if it means giving a very big contract to one man. I know one contractor who built cottages not alone in Meath but also in County Kildare. He made a success of every house he built and he also made money. He employed all sorts of sub-contractors but the houses which were built are a credit to the whole country. I should like to see schemes entrusted to a man of that type. There have been, as I say, too many jerry-builders and the ratepayers to-day have to bear a heavy burden in trying to keep the cottages which they erected in repair. We have had a flying squad attending to repairs for the last ten years and they have not even started their job properly yet. They have not left a cottage four or five years until it is necessary for them to go back to it again. It is absolute waste of public money to have cottages of that type erected.
If a private employer saw that going on on his own estate or on his farm, he would sack the whole damn lot. I am satisfied that somebody needs to be sacked so far as my county is concerned because the amount of money which these cottages have cost the taxpayers is something beyond mention. It is really a disgrace. I am sorry to have to say that but I have been saying it all along for ten years. We were told that the flying squad would have the whole job finished in five years, but they have been there for ten or 12 years and they have not finished the job yet. I think that we should do away with that system and get back to the system of private contracts again. I would ask the Minister to make a note of these things so that business methods will be applied to work of this kind.
So far as public roads are concerned, the question of making roads suitable for horse-drawn traffic was considered at a meeting of our council last week. I am satisfied that the means are not available in this country to carry out the two-road system because we have not sufficient land. We can, however, concentrate on the making of a good road which will be alike suitable for motors, horse traffic and cattle. So far as I can see the present trouble is that the centre of our roads is too high. If the centre were lowered and the sides made up and steam-rolled to a certain extent, and if the ditches and old gripes were filled in, we would have a good road which, though it might not be perfect so far as horses and cattle are concerned, would be satisfactory. As I say, we cannot go in for the two-road system. Modern conditions, of course, will not allow of a fairly rough surface, but so long as the road is not too slippery and is of fairly good width, it will serve its purpose. The new system of putting a special stud in the horse's shoe is, of course, another means of solving the problem for the farmer.
I would ask the Minister also to concentrate on the possibility of taking all these main roads off the local rates and letting them become a State charge. There are so many charges imposed on ratepayers nowadays that it is difficult to get any man of standing to offer himself as a candidate for a local body. You will get tons of hoboes but the man who has the responsibility of paying a heavy rate himself will fight shy of the local council. The result is that it is difficult to get good candidates with a national outlook. You get, as I say, hoboes, who will promise to give this and to give that. The people always fall for that highfalutin nonsense, with the result that you have a type of representative on these councils who is not a representative at all in the real sense but a jack-in-the-box with a gift of the gab who has no sense of responsibility whatever. All the ratepayers, will do is to shake their heads and say: "What is the use; look at the type you are putting on the councils?" For the four or five honest men you will get on these councils you will get ten or 12 hoboes. They hardly pay £3 rates in the year, but they are the most vocal people we have in the country. I would, therefore, suggest to the Minister that he should take some of these overhead charges off the ratepayers and let them get back to the position in which they will take an interest in their own local affairs. Take the main roads off the rates. Introduce a cottage purchase scheme which will remove the burden on the ratepayers of 75 or 80 per cent. of the old cottages. Give the cottages to the tenants who, in some cases, have been 70 years paying rent. It is time they were taken off the rates and given to the people. Even if they were given free to the tenants it would be a good service to the ratepayers. I ask the Minister to consider these matters.
Táim chun cur síos ar an Meastachan seo ar cheist toir Bainisteoir amháin le haghaidh dhá chonndae agus cheist na toghacháin áitúil agus rudaí eile. In County Westmeath we find it impossible to make any great progress as long as we are linked for managerial purposes with County Longford. It is impossible for a manager to manage two counties simultaneously. Most councillors want to get in touch with their manager on many days in the week in regard to a variety of things. When he is wanted in Longford he is in Westmeath and when he is wanted in Westmeath he is in Longford. If we are to go ahead with housing, water and sewerage schemes we must have a manager for Westmeath. For some reason the Department is deferring that matter. There is no justification for deferment because the three matters I have indicated would occupy the attention of the manager for the next five years. My estimate of the requirements of the county in housing is 1,000, between Athlone, Mullingar, Moate and Kilbeggan and rural housing. If a manager is to apply himself to that work, if he is to put in a sewerage scheme in Moate and Kilbeggan, a water and sewerage scheme in Kinnegad and a water and sewerage scheme in Clonmellon, he cannot be half his time in Longford.
The question of roads in Westmeath is important. Transport to the West crosses that county. The roads are very neglected. The county is a turf producing county and if the manager is to direct the surveying staff to make the roads contemplated by the Department, in addition to carrying out the other work I have indicated, he should be in a position to devote all his time to County Westmeath and, in fact, he would require an assistant manager. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to examine the question afresh, to get a manager for Longford and to leave the present manager with us.
I understand that a Bill is in contemplation which will get over some of the difficulties in regard to housing. The sooner that is introduced the better. In some cases housing is held up for two years because of difficulty with regard to sites. Owners of land have rights and they can bring a case from one court to another and can hold the matter up for three years while the people have to live in bad conditions.
Deputy Donnellan advocated that in view of the advisory capacity of local councils, local elections should be held every five years. Personally, I endorse that view. A number of Deputies give their time to local affairs. If they are to continue to serve on local boards they should not have to fight an election every other year, either local or national. Many of the powers formerly held by councils are now in the hands of the managers. The councils are becoming more or less advisory bodies and, therefore, I suggest that elections should take place every five years instead of every three years.
The Department of Local Government make grants to the county surveyor for the improvement and making of roads into bogs in which the councils cut national turf. I understand that in Westmeath in the last three or four years a lot of that money has not been spent. I suggest a new approach to the problem. At present men are conveyed in lorries from various centres for the purpose of cutting turf and at the conclusion of the turf campaign in September these men will be drawing unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance and they will be a burden on the State. I suggest that that system of transport should be continued, that the men should be conveyed to the bogs and that the unexpended grants should be spent on drainage and road making. In that way a great deal more turf could be made available.
We must approach the problem of turf in a new light. I do not believe that we will have coal in our lifetime. Turf then is our principal source of fuel and the more bog that is made productive by means of these grants the more turf there will be in the national pool. Therefore, the Minister should see to it that these teams of workers should be harnessed for the winter months for the making of bog roads and draining bogs and thus take the men off the labour exchange.
It has often been contended that there is a number of men at the labour exchange who are bad workers. They fit in all right on the bogs at present. If they cannot do sléan work and barrow work they do some other kind of work. In the same way they could be utilised for making bog roads and for draining bogs.
Further, in connection with housing, Deputy Giles referred to jerry-building. I would suggest that a clerk of works should be employed in connection with cottage building and that cottages should be grouped. For instance, it would be easier to provide amenities, if they were grouped. Deputy Cosgrave referred to ribbon building. Certainly, it calls for the adoption of the Town and Regional Planning Act in every county. County Westmeath adopted that Act and now they are sorry because some private builders are going to have their old shacks knocked down and they are moving heaven and earth trying to get the adoption of it repealed. It would be very unfortunate for the county if that should happen. I have already suggested at the local council meeting and to the manager that in towns like Moate and Kilbeggan, instead of spreading out a lot of cottages outside the town, taking the men away from their place of work, the old buildings should be knocked down and good houses provided for the workers in the town, where they can get electricity, sanitation and water laid on to the house. Many of the workers would prefer that to getting a cottage half a mile out from the town of Moate or a mile out from the town of Kilbeggan.
As a matter of fact, in the Kilbeggan area they are most anxious for that. We have made a beginning in the small place where I live, Castlepollard, and we are about to construct artisans' dwellings, not putting big gardens to them but putting in electricity, water and sewerage, and charging 27/- a week. There will be no objection to paying that and there will be five applicants for every house we have to give away.
I hope in my county they will not rescind the adoption of the Town and Regional Planning Act, and I hope it will become operative in the rest of the Twenty-Six Counties. Whatever we may say against the Six Counties—and there is a lot to be said against them— their town planning and regional planning is a credit to them, and the construction, the cleanliness and the layout of the towns in the Six Counties are things we could follow very well and adopt.
The Parliamentary Secretary has given details about the construction of arterial roads and main roads. It would be a terrible thing if we were to carry out a 25 years' plan in order that Córas Iompair Éireann can throw the rails over the ditches and do away with rail traffic. I do not want to be misunderstood. I know that for years the Department have been considering this problem and, perhaps, this is not the Vote on which to deal with it. It would be terrible for this nation, if anyone can see beyond his nose, that we should lay out millions of pounds in constructing thousands of miles of roads so that the road-minded Córas Iompair Éireann can throw away the rails and wreck the stations all over the country. Down my way, the whole line from Inny junction to Cavan town is closed, where they deliberately, with malice, worked against the stations there for the past five years. In spite of consignments being addressed to particular stations along that line, they got them redirected at Kingsbridge or wherever they were loaded, to go through Mullingar, so that the stations could be shown as non-paying. That line was not constructed a century ago. I do not think it is 60 years old, and it would be terrible to spend thousands of pounds in that end of the county for making roads to accommodate the people who carry out that policy.
We have heard the contributions of Deputies on this Vote in connection with the rural areas. I wish to confine myself solely to the City of Dublin. One of the greatest difficulties we are up against in the Dublin Corporation is that of housing. I know some of the difficulties concerning housing materials and I am afraid there is no royal road to the solution of that problem. We must work with the materials we have and make the best use we can of what we can get. In that respect, I think the Departmen of Local Government has shown sanity and I have no quarrel with their handling of it. We are suffering from a world shortage of certain types of goods, principally timber, and there is not very much we can do to ease the situation. I am speaking from the point of view of the local authority, but I certainly think the Department has done its best in that respect.
Here in Dublin the housing shortage seems particularly tragic in the case of newly-wed persons. I have had people coming to me and I have seen that these unfortunate persons were inexorably being forced to live in slum conditions, or under conditions which they did not wish to adopt at all, in order to maintain their married status. They were faced with the desperate, problem of waiting for years before getting married, or going into their parents' houses, which would turn their marriage into a sort of mockery, or living in the worst possible conditions in the slums. These were the three choices facing young people in the City of Dublin. In the Corporation, we have tried to help those people by giving them some sort of home and allocating some houses for them, but we are up against the difficulty that the various Acts under which the Corporation and other local authorities throughout the country build houses bind us in that respect. We can only give them to certain classes of persons or those coming within certain well-defined categories. I appeal to the Minister to do the very best he can for those people.
It is one of the broad sociological problems that, in our efforts to take some people from the slums, we are inevitably pushing others into the slums. I know it is a horrible dilemma and that it is a dilemma for the Minister and I am sure he is aware of it, as any person who has any knowledge of housing has heard of this problem in connection with young people. I appeal to him to have every sympathy with these newly-married persons. We in Dublin, in our efforts to save the worst situated of our citizens, that is, those who may be suffering from overcrowding, as in the case of large families or who may be suffering from tuberculosis or who may be living in insanitary dwellings—these being the three main factors which are taken into consideration when houses are given to persons—find that there are others even outside the newly weds whom we are pushing into bad conditions because we are giving the houses to the very worst. Of course, it arises from the shortage of houses and from our inability as a State to build houses to satisfy the needs of the people. We need to view it in the broadest way, and, while keeping our sympathy for those who are in the very worst conditions, we want to watch those whose conditions are not quite as bad and see that we do not drive the healthy into a position in which they will inevitably become unhealthy and live in a bad social environment, because there is no doubt that, while we must help those in the worst conditions, there are some people living in very bad conditions who do not perhaps mind the conditions quite so much as other people and who find that the conditions in which they live are gradually and steadily becoming worse. I should like the Minister to bear that point of view in mind when considering this problem.
Various Deputies have spoken about the planning of houses and of what I might call the æsthetic considerations, such as the inside and outside design of houses, to which the Minister referred in his speech. I think that we need to preserve both points of view and I do not think they are in any way incompatible. You can have a very nice house outside which is very well designed inside and there is no reason why the well-designed house inside should be ugly to look at from the outside. The planning authorities of Dublin Corporation have tried to do their best to give a certain amount of variety, within the conditions laid down for the particular type of house. I hope some day to see in Dublin every house in which the working class are housed equipped with a proper bathroom, scullery and so on and I think we are moving towards that.
I hope to see the same throughout the rural areas, but I must say that I do not entirely agree—diverging from what I said I would speak on at the beginning—with the grouping together of certain artisan dwellings in rural areas. Such grouping might enable these houses to be equipped with better fittings and it might be possible to give better conditions generally by virtue of that grouping. It seems to me that you could arrange for the disposal of sewage through big septic tanks easily and cheaply in the case of small groups of houses. I do not know whether it was that the Minister had in mind, but I think there is a place in the rural economy for small groupings of houses, but not exclusively, because various Deputies have spoken of the importance to houses in rural areas of placing them near employment, near farms and so on.
The Dublin Corporation tried to get away from complete uniformity of design and houses are built in such large numbers in Dublin in normal times that it is very important to break down the monotony. There is an aspect of housing generally to which I should like to refer. I have always felt that the houses we put up have an effect quite apart from that intended by the Department and, in fact, by the State generally. We put up rather small houses, with very limited accommodation, and I do not think that many of these people, when they move into these houses, can live under conditions of which we would be very proud. That limitation on the size of the house we put up has an inevitable effect on the amenities of the family living in that house. A corporation house, with living-room, scullery and perhaps three bedrooms, of which one is probably very tiny, may be housing nine or ten people, and seven or eight of the children may be sleeping in two bedrooms.
That is an aspect of housing which has never given me any very great pleasure or pride, and in that connection I should like to mention the matter of grants to private builders. I used to spend quite a lot of time going around to speculative builders some years ago and I have been on the sites of many different types of houses around Dublin. These houses were very nice little houses, but I do not know how on earth the people were expected to get the furniture into the rooms. I am speaking of a house with a sitting-room, dining-room, kitchen, and three, and perhaps four, bedrooms. In every case, the rooms were so small that, in even the largest of them, it would be difficult to fit two beds and a wardrobe. If there were anything more than one bed in the room, there was no place for these people to put their clothes. I often said to the builders: "Why on earth did you not add another foot to that room? It would have made all the difference, because you would have enabled sufficient furniture to be put in to make living easy in the house." They replied: "We are limited and governed by the grant", the grant being given on the number of square feet on the ground area. Working within that limitation, the builder tried to get in as many amenities as he could, but, inevitably, he made every room in the house so small that it was difficult for the people to live comfortably in the house. In houses with four bedrooms, you find the sitting room incapable of holding at one time the occupiers of the four bedrooms.
I have felt very strongly for many years that in their efforts to house, to encourage building for a class of person who needed encouragement, they have inevitably pushed those people into the position that they go into houses in which they find it very difficult to live comfortably. If we had been just a little bit more generous on the ground space or given the grants on some other basis it would not have had the same effect on the life of the people who were to live in those houses.
There has been a great deal of discussion during this debate on roads, etc. I will not go into that question but I think now that we are entering on the post-war era it is up to the Minister to encourage as far as possible the keeping of the roads in a proper condition. I trust that will be done.
There is no doubt, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that the need for housing is the greatest need we have in the country to-day. I am quite well aware that supplies are short and that housing is difficult, but I think the matter should be treated by the Minister as a major emergency. Most of his energies should be directed towards the provision of houses for the people. In spite of the emigration which has been going on, there is still a very great demand for houses and we will never stop the tide of emigration until we can give the people proper houses. That is only reasonable. Take, for instance, the case of a young man who wants to get married. He has a girl in his eye but he has nowhere to bring her. It is obvious that they get tired waiting so he goes across to England to get a job, and perhaps a house. Then he brings her over. The result is that we are losing the best of our young manhood who, I believe, would stay at home if there were houses available for them. The shortage of supplies, I believe, has a great deal to do with it. I believe also that the county managers have not got their minds adjusted to the new costs of building— that they have not adjusted their minds to the new prices. The prices have definitely frightened local authorities and local authorities are afraid to tackle building. I understand that tenders were lately submitted for cottages for £800 or £900 which, pre-war, cost £300. Taking that into account, the local authorities must realise that they will never again in our time or for many years get back to the £300 cottage and they should not therefore let costs stand in their way. I see small houses here and there being built by private individuals so there must be a certain amount of material available. In my own constituency no attempt has been made by the county manager to build any houses.
I am against the policy of the Minister in regard to the wages paid to men on the roads. The Minister's Department seems to have the idea that they must keep down the payments to men on the roads because, if they raise them any little bit, the men on the farms will rush off and seek jobs on the roads. There is no similarity between a farm wage and a road wage. The Government passed a minimum wages Act for the farm labourer and they tried to make that a maximum wage for the road worker. That is not fair.
I think that the Department should sanction a substantial increase to these roadmen. The farm worker, who usually has his meals on the farm, gets far better food than the unfortunate road worker can afford to buy with his wages—bacon and cabbage, which the road worker who lives in a rural town never sees because he cannot afford to buy bacon at its present price. The Minister is wrong to hold down the wages. As far as I know, there can be no rush from the farms to the roads because the number of positions on the roads are limited and a number of men seeking jobs every day are not getting them.
I have a few observations to make with regard to roads themselves. I consider that it is time something were done in the matter of national planning. At present we have a symposium of road building—every county engineer tries his hands at it. Take, for instance, the Cork road to Dublin. This road passes through many counties—first of all through County Limerick for three miles. Well, it would appear that the Limerick people, the Limerick county manager or the county engineer are not a bit interested in hastening or smoothing the progress to Dublin. They have their own main road from Limerick City. Naturally, they will give their attention to that and they will not send out supplies to the tail-end of the county. When we come to County Tipperary, we find that the Tipperary engineer has a different idea. He is probably attending to his main road from Clonmel and he is not worried about the Cork progress either. The main roads through the country should be put under a national council and there should be one general idea as to planning. At the present time we have one county engineer believing that cement is the best thing; the next believes that it is tar macadam, and some of them down to mud macadam, which is patching with a heap of stones and a shovelful of earth. I think it was Chesterton who said that the rolling English drunk made the rolling English road. Our ancestors must have had a lot of hangovers because our roads roll around the country. No effort is being made to take away the dangerous bends or to straighten them out.
Prior to the emergency, I saw a lot of roads pegged for straightening, for taking off dangerous corners, and the land was actually acquired. During the emergency that was stopped but I see no reason now why ditches should not be cleared, land acquired, fences built and things made ready. The main roads should have priority over the byroads. They should be widened for at least three or four lines of traffic. Now the county engineers are broad road minded. In some cases if two cars meet the pedestrian actually has to climb the fences. There is no use wasting money by patching here and there. I feel that unless we have a national body to look after the main roads we are only wasting money.
I want to make the most earnest plea I am capable of making to the Minister to give very special and particular help to the private producers of turf. I know that excellent work is being done and I heard the Minister say that the county engineers and their assistants are doing all that is humanly possible. If it is possible to do anything further for the private producer, I earnestly plead with the Minister to do so, for the reason that the private producer works without subsidy and does not engage in strikes. I do not think that we can any longer hide from ourselves the fact that there is rising and spreading a sort of philosophy or mode of thought which suggests that strikes will be a constant feature of life for some time to come. Unfortunately, that is a world-wide symptom. The private springs of that philosophy, or mode of thought, have been indicated pretty plainly by leading churchmen and thinking people of very great authority. If that philosophy be translated widely into action, it can lead to nothing but chaos and ruin in the country and ruin, in particular, to the workman. The private producer will produce his turf, as I say, without danger of strike. For that reason, I make a strong plea to the Minister that, if it is possible to do more than is being done at present, he will do so to assist the private producer.
I have specially in mind the position of Glencullen Bog, outside the City of Dublin. I cannot speak, of course, with personal authority. I am not an expert on this matter but I have very great reliance on some of the people who informed me of the situation there. I understand that the quality of the turf is excellent and that it is present in huge quantities. I am assured that there is sufficient turf there to supply a large part of Dublin's needs for some years to come. The great drawback is the lack of roads running through that very fine bog. Even under the unfavourable circumstances that obtain, there are almost 400 private producers at work on that bog. They are all pleading very hard for a little extension of the existing roads. Last year, some thousands of tons of turf were cut and spread, but, owing to the bad weather and the absence of roads, making it impossible to get off any large amount in time, that turf largely went to waste. The loading banks there are anything from a quarter to three-quarters of a mile from the cuttings and sacks or barrels have to be used for transport. The people at work there want a small extension of the existing roads. In no case would more than half a mile of an extension be required. If these facilities are provided, or even if it is made certain that they will be provided later, a very fine amount of work will be done and a great deal will be accomplished as insurance against the hardships of the coming winter in the city.
The approaches to the bog were kept very well, I understand, up to last year but, for some reason or another— possibly shortage of labour—the roads at present are in a very bad state. It crosses my mind that that might be because Bord na Móna are to take over there next year and, possibly, the council are not keeping up the pressure they formerly applied. However, I can hardly think that that is the case because I am sure the Minister is watching with too close an eye to allow anything like that to happen. The difficulty must be that of getting labour. I wonder if it would be possible to transfer road workers from less necessary work to these roads and, if possible, to extend the roads or peg out such extensions as are likely to be carried out later.
I know that there are difficulties. The bog is the private property of O'Connell Fitzsimons. It has been operated for some time by the county council and, next year, it passes to Bord na Móna. In view of the urgency of the situation and of the possibilities of that bog, no difficulties which it is possible to sweep aside should be allowed to stand in the way of production there. I do not know whether Bord na Móna would, at this stage, enter into negotiations but, possibly, they should be empowered to do so. Pending the negotiations, the county council should commence work on the roads and get what they can done as early as possible. I understand that this bog has a very fine granite and freestone-gravel foundation and that road construction there would be much more economic than in bogs generally. Lorry owners and drivers say that the gradient there is such as would make transport very economical from the point of view of petrol consumption. If these statements be true, they would warrant work being undertaken there if at all possible.
The man on whose opinion I principally rely cut 100 tons of turf last year. That is good work for one man. He told me that another man, helped by members of his family, cut about an equal amount. Practically all the turf produced by these two persons was left on the bog. As a matter of fact, one of the men is filling turf which he cut last year into bog-holes. I believe that there are about 400 people working on the bog this year. Of course, they will stop working when they have cut the amount required for themselves. But, if they had any guarantee that roads would be provided, they would continue throughout the whole season and produce a very large quantity of very badly-needed turf for the City of Dublin in the next two months. I wonder if the Minister could induce the county council, or bring pressure to bear on them, if necessary, to provide the necessary roads?
I want to conclude on this note, that the private producers deserve all the encouragement that can be possibly given to them. They produce turf without subsidy and without fear of strife and they make a very great contribution to the fuel supply. I am sure the Minister has given all the encouragement within his power, but possibly a little difference of emphasis in the help that is being given might be very useful.
I wish to make a few remarks on the Estimate principally about the housing situation. I fully appreciate all that the Minister and the Government have done for the housing of the poorer classes and the middle-class people in the last few years. I fully realise the difficulties they encountered owing to the shortage of materials as a result of the war. Now that the war has passed, we hope that things will be speeded up as much as possible. I am sure the Minister realises the necessity for having these various housing schemes speeded up. All of us in our constituencies are—I should not say pestered, but it just describes what we are up against, by various people of all kinds asking us to get them a house. They are all genuine cases in their own way and something should be done to have these people saved from the suffering they are undergoing at present. In Waterford City at present there are cases of eight in a family living in two rooms. In the year 1947, that is not what any of us would wish. I am sure the Minister realises the situation as well as I do. I would ask him, however, to have the schemes that he has in mind speeded up as much as possible.
Apart from the necessity for houses in the cities, we have the problem of housing in the country districts. Emigration has been taking place at a terrific rate during the past few years. There are many reasons for that but perhaps not one of the least is the shortage of housing for newly-married people who have no hope of getting a decent house to live in. The best thing that they can see for themselves is to get out to another country where they may possibly get a good house and may get a good wage. At least they have a better prospect there than they have here. Something requires to be done speedily in that direction so far as the rural districts are concerned. The farm workers should be given every encouragement to stay on the land, and the best way to do that is to provide them with a decent home to which they can go back at the end of their day's work. Many of these young men have left the country because they had not a proper house into which to bring a wife.
We are told that a vast amount of money is to be spent on the main roads, and I welcome that. At the same time, there are many parts of the country that have been neglected. People seem to think they have been forgotten so far as certain roads and bridges are concerned. I should like to mention particularly the bridge at Youghal with which I am sure the Minister is conversant. The people there feel that their wants and necessities have been neglected and that something should be done by the Minister to have this new bridge provided. They feel that instead of spending a lot of money on the improvement of roads that people could carry on with for a number of years, as they themselves have had to do for about eight years, some money should be allocated for the carrying out of this essential work. They feel that business is being lost and that most of the traffic has been diverted to other towns. Now that we have this money in the road fund their requirements should not be forgotten so far as this bridge is concerned. I am sure the Minister will hold out some hope to these people when he is replying to this debate.
The Minister, in his review of the work of the Department, gave a very exhaustive survey of many of the problems with which his Department has to deal. This is the first year that the Minister for Local Government could not claim that his Department had to deal with problems affecting the people from the cradle to the grave, because he has been shorn of some of his previous responsibilities. That makes the position better from the point of view of the service we expect from the Minister's Department in the future. It was always said in the past that the Department was so overloaded that it could not possibly deal with all the problems committed to it.
Most of the discussion on the Estimate has centred around the question of housing. The Minister told the Dáil that under the Housing Act of 1932 the country had been committed to an expenditure of £22,000,000. That is not a bad achievement—that £22,000,000 was provided by the taxpayers for the improvement of the housing of the people. If we succeed in spending another £22,000,000 in the next 15 years, I think the problem after that will not be a very big one. The capital liability of the State in respect to housing under the 1932 Act for this year amounts to over £10,000,000.
Many Deputies in the Opposition complained that the Government were doing nothing, or were going slowly and making no effort to build houses. I say that the Government have shown over the years that when there was any possibility of building houses they were more than interested in building them. If houses are not being built, or if only very few are being built, every Deputy here who is on a local authority knows the reason. All local authorities are willing and anxious to build. There is no financial obstacle in the way. Adequate funds are there at a reasonable rate of interest.
A local authority can borrow at 3 per cent., compared with 4¾ per cent. at one time and 5½ per cent. in 1932— if I do not make a mistake. The difficulty is that materials are in short supply. I know that the Wexford County Council advertised for tenders for 300 houses and 18 out of the 300 were tendered for, but not a single one of those who tendered for the erection of the houses has completed his bond, because he has no guarantee that he will get sufficient materials to build them. It is a serious difficulty and, until materials are more plentiful, I cannot see how we are going to surmount it.
There is some private building proceeding and some local authorities are building under great difficulties. Any contractor who knows his job will not take responsibility for a large number of houses because he cannot get sufficient materials to complete these houses. He would involve himself in serious financial loss were he to take on that responsibility. I cannot see what the Minister can do in that respect. Oftentimes there are unnecessary delays, I believe, in dealing with plans in the Department. There are about 70 persons engaged on the survey staff—that is apart from the inspectorial staff. Between roads and housing they have 31 engineers.
There is no reason why there should be any delay in dealing with plans. There should be a non-stop correspondence as between the local authority and the housing section of the Department. I do not say that the local authorities are not lax and that they do not hold up schemes. I am sure there is unnecessary delay there also. The Minister should speed up the consideration of housing plans. If the local authorities have responsible engineers and architects, it would be far better to leave the schemes completely in their hands. Every small detail of a scheme should not have to come under survey in the Department. I am firmly convinced that too many small details have to be sent up to the Department for sanction and that has been responsible to a certain extent for some of the pre-emergency delays. Were it not for these unnecessary delays many more houses could have been built. It should be possible to devise some system that would obviate these unnecessary delays. I hope that from now onwards the Minister will see to it that there is no unnecessary hold-up of this sort as between the Department and the local authorities.
In the course of his statement he seemed to favour rural cottages being built in groups—to favour the village as against the single house over rural areas. There is a big difference of opinion in that respect. You will find no agreement among the rural population on that matter. I hope there will be no set policy of trying to drive the population into new villages. I think it would be bad for the rural community. We have a sparse population in our rural areas and were we to congregate all the people into villages we might create big problems. The agricultural worker's cottage, even though it is in an isolated position, has advantages, especially from the point of view of fuel. In an area where there is no turf, if you congregate rural workers into these villages you will have a fuel problem.
Agricultural workers are able to provide themselves, in the main, with fuel from the farmer with whom they work, or the neighbouring farmer. If you put them in clusters of houses you will do them a serious injury. Twenty or 40 years hence, when there may be electricity for everyone and they can use it for heating purposes, it might be to their advantage to live near a school or church, in villages, and they might be able to establish a bakery or a laundry; but we have a long way to travel to reach that stage. In the meantime we should continue to house our people as closely as possible to their work, and this applies particularly to agricultural workers. The nearer they live to where they get their livelihood, the better. They will have certain advantages by living near their place of work.
In the matter of reconditioning houses, a much greater drive should be made by the Minister. Many houses could be provided, both in the town and country, if there was a little more encouragement. We know there is financial encouragement in the urban areas for the reconditioning of houses, but I doubt if there is in the rural areas.
Mr. Morrissey
It is the other way about.
They have it in the towns all right; they can get grants for that purpose.
Mr. Morrissey
Is it for reconstruction?
A local authority can recondition houses.
Mr. Morrissey
I thought you meant private individuals.
Private individuals cannot, but they also should be given that facility for reconditioning houses in the towns. A big problem has arisen in that direction because of the Rent Restrictions Act. House owners in towns will tell you that it would nearly pay them better to allow a house to become derelict rather than to reconstruct it because they are not allowed to get anything by way of rents to reimburse them for the cost of improving houses.
The Minister went on to talk about water supplies. I was glad to see that he is proposing to have an investigation at some time in the near future into the possibility of having central water schemes. I think it desirable that a development of that kind should take place in the future but we are given to understand that it is the present policy of the Department to hold up all proposals for water schemes pending investigation as to the possibility of these central supplies. I want to suggest to the Minister——
There is no such suggestion.
It is going the rounds and has got to the ears of the local authorities. It has been whispered to them that the Minister does not favour the carrying out of any water schemes at present pending this investigation of a scheme for a central water supply. I hope that is not true and that the local authorities will be told right off that the Minister will put no obstacle in the way of their executing these schemes if they have the necessary materials available because it might be ten, 20 or 40 years before a scheme for a central supply could be brought into operation. It is desirable to have such a scheme but you have existing schemes for water supplies, even gravity water supplies. I know one and I was told very recently, as recently as Monday last, that it is being held up.
Told by whom? Any Tom, Dick or Harry could tell you anything, if you believe it.
I gathered, anyhow, that it was not desirable that it should be proceeded with pending this other investigation. I hope that is not true and I suggest to the Minister that there should be no hold-up in that direction.
As the Deputy is on the question, I might inform him that 14 schemes were started this year.
I am glad to hear it.
If the Deputy had been listening to my speech instead of listening to whispers he would have heard it.
I hope that future schemes coming into the Department this year or next year will not be held up because of the possibility of this survey. If an adequate supply of water is available in any district for development, the local authority should be allowed to go on with a scheme if they have one. That is all I want to say. The fact that this commission is going to operate should not hold up the possibility of having water supplies installed in villages or areas where an existing adequate supply awaits development. I was told that this other development was a definite possibility; in fact, that it was going to operate. That is why I mentioned it. I want to take time by the forelock.
We had a long debate on roads. I think the last Deputy from this side of the House who referred to the matter was Deputy Skinner. He told us a thing that nobody in Leinster knew— that the road from Cork to Dublin was bumpy, difficult and windy, that it was not as smooth as everybody in Leinster believed it was. Nobody in Leinster would have believed that, if they had not been told by a Corkman.
They get to Dublin all the same.
Everybody in this country believed that the road from Cork to Dublin was smooth and without difficulty, but according to Deputy Skinner it is anything but that.
It is a one-way road.
We hope that as a result of the enlightenment we had from Deputy Skinner on the matter, this road will be improved, because we should not like that the perpetual flow of Corkmen to Dublin should ever cease. The problem of the roads is undoubtedly a big one. The Minister in the early portion of last year gave increased grants to local authorities for the purpose of reconditioning roads that had fallen into decay as a result of the emergency.
Why did they not use them?
For various reasons that were not any fault of the Minister for Local Government. For various reasons they did not succeed in using all the grants made available. I know one local authority which made every effort to use them but, because they had no fuel, no turf in their district or county, they could not carry out the work. They got some tar late in the year. They had some wood fuel but it was found to be of a type that was not suitable to steam-engines. It was not possible to make use of the funds available in the months of June and July. In the month of August, almost all the roadmen were switched over to save the harvest. The bad weather then came on and the work that might have been done in a normal year with fuel supplies available was not done.
I want to suggest to the Minister that his engineering department might try to help local authorities in areas where there is no turf available, in devising ways and means to convert some of their steam engines to oil-burners. I have not heard if any such experiment has been carried out in this country, but might I suggest to the Minister that if the Emergency Research Bureau is still in existence, it might help local authorities to convert their steam traction engines to oil-burning engines? Oil happens to be available at the moment, and I believe that it would be a very big engineering feat if that were done. Many railway engines have already been converted but no road traction engines have been converted so far as I know. The Minister might be able to help local authorities who have no turf fuel and no coal to convert their machinery to oil-burners. I am sure he could help in that direction if he puts a bit of push into the matter.
The grants made available last year and this year helped local authorities considerably to improve the roads. For the first time, county roads received a grant from the Road Fund. That is something for which local authorities have been agitating for years, but this is the first occasion on which they got grants from the Road Fund for county roads. I hope it will become part of the permanent policy of the Department to allocate portion of the Road Fund to county roads and that the county roads will get a fair proportion of the grants in future. That is something they should have got long ago, but it is better late than never.
Early in the year the Minister's Department encouraged, admonished, and coaxed local authorities to undertake a road survey and to appoint engineers to carry out a survey of the principal roads. I am one of those who at the time did not believe there was necessity for that elaborate road survey. I am sure many of the proposals and many of the surveys and plans that will be developed and prepared may never come into operation. It will depend on the condition of the people, their ability to pay, the labour available and 101 things. I do agree, to a limited extent, anyhow, that this survey can do no harm and I want to suggest to the Minister that this survey should be coordinated in some way with regional planning. Wexford County Council have not the Regional Planning Act in operation. I am not entitled to suggest amendment of legislation now but I want to say it is a cumbersome, difficult Act and it is one which is unworkable from the point of view of rural authorities. It may work all right in the large cities but it is too cumbersome for rural areas. I am afraid it will never work as it is meant to work in purely rural areas. Something much more simple than the Town and Regional Planning Act should have been devised. It is very involved and elaborate and entangled in red tape and difficulty. It was never designed to operate in a country such at this. It is not sufficiently flexible or easily administered to serve the purpose for which it was introduced. It was designed, I suppose, for towns and for new housing, principally on main roads. The Minister should bear in mind in connection with this road survey the necessity of having some easily-worked plan applicable to main roads that may be widened some time in future.
I wish to refer to the registry and statistics section of the Minister's Department. I mentioned in the House on previous occasions that the statistics, which are returns of local authorities in some respects, are always a couple of years behind time. We got this year the returns for 1944. It loses all its value. Nobody is interested in 1947 in what happened in 1944. There should be some reference in 1947 to what happened in 1947. It should not be necessary to have to wait until 1947 for the returns of 1944. We would be very interested to know what happened in the various local authorities and how they spent their money in 1946.
This is the 3rd June and if local authorities were doing their work in the way they should in regard to making returns, these returns should be in the hands of Deputies by now. I mentioned this matter last year. I think things are a year later than they were. Formerly, we got the returns after two years. Now it takes three years. There may be difficulty about printing or paper or something else. I am sure there will be some excuse for it but, even at best, it is always a year or two years late. I put it to the Minister that some improvement should be made in that direction.
Deputy Dockrell told us that the maximum cubic capacity allowed in order to receive a housing grant is not sufficient to allow ordinary furniture to be put into the rooms. I think 1,200 super feet is the maximum allowed in order to qualify for a grant. I estimate that you could have a six-roomed house in the 1,200 super feet. You could have six rooms 13 × 12. I do not know whether that would be considered too small. It might be a bit small but it would hold a reasonable amount of furniture. You could have one room 15 × 12 and you could have a hall and a bathroom in 1,200 feet. I think it is a fair allowance. I know some that were built to the full capacity and it is only an odd person who can afford to build them. It cost £800 or £900 prewar to build to the maximum of 1,200 feet and it would cost £1,200 now. I do not think any private person in the rural areas or outside the City of Dublin wants a more elaborate house than a 1,200 super feet house. I do not think there is anything in that contention.
I want to repeat that there is nothing in the suggestion from the Opposition that there has been anything lax on the part of local government in the matter of doing everything possible to allow further housing, which is very badly needed, to be provided. We all realise the necessity. Nobody realises it more than this Government. The Department of Local Government realise it and have shown their anxiety in that connection all the time and on that score, at least, they have done their job and done it well.
There are a few matters on this Vote to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister. One is the appointment of one manager for two counties. There is one manager for Westmeath and Longford. Last year, I called the Minister's attention to this matter and we received a promise that the matter would be remedied. Now we hear that it is not proposed to make any change. From my experience on the county council I believe that no one man can manage two counties. Take Meath, Westmeath and Longford. He has to look after the affairs of Westmeath County Council, the Longford County Council, Granard Urban Council, Athlone Urban Council, Mullingar Town Commissioners and the hospital. No man could do that. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. One manager there lost his health by reason of the enormous amount of work that had to be done. It is utterly impossible for one man to do the work involved at the present time. The affairs of the county are being fairly well looked after and are improving but no manager could be expected to do all that work. If he had Westmeath County Council alone to look after he would have time to go out and survey the work that was being done in the county. The present manager has not that time. He is employed a couple of days in Westmeath. He has to look after all the orders of the office, the board of health and everything. Then he has to go to Athlone for another couple of days, and then to Longford. It is an impossible position. I submit that the affairs of one county cannot be carried out properly under such conditions.
We have seen, as a result of the recent audit, that the present manager has done a good deal to improve the position, and our late secretary greatly improved the affairs of the county council. This year the audit went back two or three years and I was surprised that the auditor went into items ten years back that were badly handled. What happened the auditors for years and years before, and why were all these things not unearthed before now? The auditor has done a great job, in my opinion, and has put the thing right, but what was wrong in previous years?
In Westmeath, since 1934 or so, we have had seven or eight secretaries. Just when one would be getting into his stride, he would be taken away. The last secretary did great work and put the whole business in order and had got going when he was switched off. As far as I can see, Westmeath is the training ground for secretaries for every county. Since poor Mr. John Roche died, we had the accountant as secretary for two or three years and it is no wonder the accounts were in jeopardy and it took a lot of the manager's and the secretary's time to put them in order. I appeal to the Minister to have only one manager for Westmeath and one for Longford, as we will not have everything looked after otherwise. Also, he should go ahead quickly and appoint a secretary. We are six months without one now and we were three years without one before. We are willing to pay and provide the funds, and why is he not appointed?
I wonder what is wrong with the cottage purchase scheme. Some people say it is a good scheme, but we do not know why the cottage tenants are not availing of it. In the last three or four years, we spent over £40,000 in repairs to cottages, which cost on an average about £50 on repairs to each cottage, and after that huge expense of the ratepayers' money we expected the tenants would want to buy out immediately. In fact, the manager went so far as to say he would not repair a cottage unless the tenant agreed to buy, but he found he could not carry that out. The cottage tenants said they would buy, but when the repairs were done they would not do so. Some £50, £70 or £100 has been spent on these repairs nevertheless. Some people say the scheme was a good one and plenty of people want to purchase, but others advised them not to. If it is a good scheme, the Department should advertise the good points, so that the tenants may see the advantages. If I were a tenant, I would like to buy out my cottage, no matter what it cost and feel that my home was my own to do what I liked with it. It is up to the Minister to do that and take that burden off the ratepayers. It is astounding that we are paying £50 for repairs and getting only 6d. or 1/ a week in rent.
In the case of any new cottages being built, they should be kept for agricultural labourers. We find them being used by people with plenty of money in the bank, who are living in these houses subsidised by the ratepayers. Someone has found out recently that it is very hard to define a labouring man, and I believe it is a knotty problem. The Minister should provide cottages for agricultural labourers only and then other cottages near towns for labourers of other kinds. You will find people with seven or eight children growing up in these cottages and they have nowhere else to go and there is no encouragement, because every idle cottage is snatched up by someone who is not an agricultural labourer.
Deputy Allen spoke of the amount of money spent in building since the present Government got in. I do not like to be too hard, but some of the cottages built were such that in Westmeath we have spent more money in repairs than they cost to build. There is no excuse for bad building as there was plenty of material available cheaply at that time and it was a disgrace to allow them to be built in such a way. Some of them are only shells. In future, there should be more supervision over the building so that we will not have any more of these "hobo-builders," as Deputy Giles called them.
Many Deputies make the excuse that there is a shortage of material. Since the war stopped, we in Westmeath have tried to get going in building houses, but even if we had the materials two months ago, we could not build them, as for two years we have been trying to get in a position to advertise and it has been held up in the Department by one thing or another—arbitration and other things. They rushed in before and put cottages on people's land, without even acquainting the owner. The engineer walked up and decided it on his own, and as a result we have nothing but local disputes and dictatorship over the people. If people own land, they should be asked about the most suitable place to put a cottage and not have the engineer walking from field to field and saying where they must be put. We have changed that in Westmeath, and the manager has promised that where the owner is not agreeable there will be arbitration.
Two years ago we were told that we should be able to build cottages as soon as the war was over, but we find now that it was only a week or a fortnight ago that we were in a position to advertise for tenants. That was not due to shortage of materials.
Many cottages could be built with the materials available in the country. I do not see why the Government should not be more enterprising in thinking out some scheme to replace the old-fashioned method. Could they not get prefabricated houses, even if they only lasted a short time? We have a lot of boys and girls growing up in small cottages. Could the Government not be men enough to build some small cottages of the prefabricated type which will cater for these people or are we waiting for generations for it to happen? We could attack it in a big way and get these prefabricated houses up. We have as good right to them as there is for a cinema in Mullingar or for the Metropole Cinema being rebuilt in Dublin. It is a shame and a disgrace for the Government not to get going in a big way with prefabricated houses instead of going on in the old way as they did long ago.
A lot of people advocate the building of cottages close together. In one way it is a good thing, but as Deputy Allen said it would be better to build them the way they were as those built together tend to create new slums and they are not what the rural people want. They may be an advantage for rural electrification or things like that. They would prefer to see the cottages scattered over a large area, but there are a number of ways of looking at that.
With regard to turf production, the Government is blameworthy in some respects. In Westmeath, we have thousands of acres of bog, but I know many private producers who cannot get a bank. There are acres and acres of bog from Coole to Float Station, but not one sod can be cut, owing to water. I found it very hard to get a turf bank for myself this year and two people in Dublin wrote to me saying they were willing to come down to Westmeath, under the scheme for cutting six tons of turf, the producer providing the help, but I could not get two turf banks for them. The bogs are there but they are not drained, nor are the roads made into them. The grants are being made available, but the work is not being done. The matter will have to be tackled if we are to have turf production and the banks will have to be made available.
From Castlepollard to Float is a distance of six Irish miles and, for four Irish miles, each side of the road is bog and not a sod is being cut there, all for lack of drains and a little engineering, thought and enterprise. It is up to the county councils and the Minister to tackle this problem. I do not know who owns the bog—I think it is the Land Commission. It used to be the property of Major Chapman, but it was bought out years ago and there are numbers of similar bogs in Westmeath.
I agree with Deputy Allen that the Town Planning Act is not suitable for rural districts. We in Westmeath adopted that Act, but I find that the people in rural districts are very much opposed to it. It is suitable enough for towns and villages and for areas along roads, but if a man living a mile off the road wants to put in a new window or build a new room, he has to ask the county manager for permission. Every man has a right to change his house as he wishes, so long as it does not interfere with any public right. The people feel that their homes are their domain and they do not see why they should have to ask anybody when they want to make a change, so long as they do not interfere with the public. People who live miles off the road have told me that, when they started to build a window in their homes, the local ganger said that they would have to get permission from the county manager. There is a move in Westmeath which, I believe, will result in the rescinding of that Act because the people in rural districts find fault with us for adopting it.
With regard to housing grants, there are a number of farmers living in houses with a valuation of from £25 to £40, and if one goes around Westmeath, one finds that these houses are the worst houses in the county. The Minister should consider extending that Act so as to make these grants available to persons whose houses carry a valuation of from £25 to £40.
Another important matter is the position with regard to the main roads. The day is coming when main roads will have to be a national charge. We saw in last Sunday's paper that all the stations to Mullingar, with the exception of one or two, are to be closed. That means that the road from Mullingar to Dublin will be used by lorries, and if the ratepayers are to be asked to shoulder the burden of maintaining that road for Córas Iompair Éireann lorries, it is a disgrace. It is not fair, and, if the Government intend to allow it, they must take over the main roads and make them a national charge. In the other part of our county, they are thinking of closing the line from Inny Junction to Cavan, which means that these roads, too, will have to be maintained for the use of lorries. If that is to happen, the Minister should consider taking over these roads as a national charge.
Major de Valera
I am not quite sure how far I am within the proper subject for this debate in mentioning the following matters. Still, they are questions of local government, to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. The views expressed in this debate, as is usual on this Estimate, have largely been the views of Deputies representing country constituencies and these views have been expressed at some length. I should like to point out that the City of Dublin is deserving of some attention from the Minister's Department, and the first matter I want to raise—as I say, I have some doubts as to the extent of the Minister's authority in the matter, and I raise it on his Estimate because I see no other appropriate Estimate on which to raise it—is the increase in the rates in Dublin in the past few years. They are this year to be increased by approximately 5/9 to 25/9 as compared with 20/6 some years ago.
There are various explanations as to why it has been necessary to raise the rate in the City of Dublin, but, whatever these explanations are, the rate has been raised, and it constitutes a serious matter for every citizen of Dublin. It is a serious matter for the ordinary householder who owns his house, a house of the popular valuation ranging from £20 to £40. There are a large number of houses in that category and the increase of rates is a serious matter for the owners. In addition, under the 1946 Rent Act, increases in rates are permitted increases in rents, and I think I am right in saying that the practice now is to pass on the increase to the tenant. What that means is a general increase in rents, whether the rent of a person owning a house or the rent payable to a landlord, and that increase has been an increase to the extent of some 5/- odd in the £.
This, in a sense, is more disturbing when one looks at it in this way. Some years ago, before an increase in rates could be passed on to the tenant, or before it was customary to pass it on to the tenant, an increase in rates affected a limited number of people and brought in a certain increase of revenue. Now it affects a large number of persons, so that a small increase in rates should bring in a larger revenue to the corporation than a similar increase years ago. One must, therefore, feel that an increase to the extent of 5/- in the rates is a serious matter, whatever the explanation is. I commend the matter to the Minister's attention and ask what powers he has to look into these matters and whether it is competent for him to see if these increases are necessary.
The Minister is driving them up.
Did the Minister propose increases in officers' remuneration?
Major de Valera
In addition, there is the fact that the Minister for Finance has been able to reduce income-tax and still finance the State as a whole. Admittedly, he had another option to get revenue. In view of these facts the net point I am making is that there has been an increase in the rates in Dublin and that it is a matter in which the citizens of Dublin are interested. I would ask the Minister to give the matter consideration. Why do I raise that point here? I know that, in the nature of things at the present moment, increases are to be expected because of general agitation to raise prices, wages and so forth, but the reason I raise it here is that I feel that, to some extent, Dublin is servicing the country as a whole; it is rendering service to the country, I understand, in certain hospital matters and other services. In view of that service which the City of Dublin is giving to the country as a whole, I think that the rate in Dublin should not get out of proportion to the general rate level over the country. On making certain inquiries I have been told that, apart from the increases in remuneration that are involved and increased costs in the increase of rates, there was a question of the hospital grant. A year or so ago the Hospitals' Trust grant was taken away from Dublin on the grounds that the money should be available for building throughout the country. I wonder if the Minister would reconsider the decision in that matter, in view of the effect on the Dublin rates and in view of the fact that, in regard to hospitalisation, no matter how many first-class and other hospitals may be set up in the country, Dublin will be the metropolis of medicine in Ireland as well as the metropolis in other ways and will, consequently, be rendering a service to the country at large.
I think there is a case for a restoration of that grant, if that is possible, to Dublin. I am open to correction if my information or my interpretation is wrong—but what I am saying now is that the experiment having been tried, so to speak, the matter should be reconsidered. It is all very well to talk about the country and to talk about Dublin. No doubt some of my country friends will say: "Oh, yes, you have got everything in Dublin," but in a metropolis, such as Dublin is, living will usually be somewhat more expensive than in the country and greater services for the very poor will have to be supplied in Dublin. The reason for that is that whereas those who might be classed as the very poor in the country, from a money point of view, will at least have food and shelter, but in Dublin, if the very poor are poor for money, they are destitute and starving. Great work is being done in the city to support them, but it is at the expense of a class above them who are suffering, as I have pointed out in other debates, already. I think it unfair, therefore, to load on to that class extra burdens by way of rates which are transmitted as rents. They have got income-tax reliefs from the Minister for Finance, but to say the least of it, Dublin is apprehensive that the rates may go further. I would suggest that perhaps the old arrangement might be made and that some relief in rates be given.
Lastly, as a member of a Dublin constituency who has had no official or close contact with the corporation—I hesitate to say anything about the workings of the Dublin Corporation— Dublin, being such a large city and the problems of administration in it being so complex, I have often asked myself the question as to whether the administration of Dublin is being carried out on the most economic lines. Without pursuing that subject further I would simply suggest to the Minister that if he is examining this question he might also ask: "Are things, as regards Dublin, organised on the most economic lines?"—reasonably economic lines, of course. I think enough has been said on that point. But I would ask him again, and I think most people in Dublin are asking him: What is the likelihood of the position in regard to rates in the city and is there any possibility that this increase of approximately 5/3 over a few years, say five years, will be lessened, because the burden is a serious one as anyone who does a little bit of arithmetic will discover. It is particularly so in the case of a number of thrifty people who have bought houses in Dublin. They have bought houses or are in the process of buying houses but when buying them most of these people really worked on some kind of building society arrangement which meant that they were paying a yearly rent for their houses during the process of acquiring them. In other words, they were paying, firstly, what was on the rates, secondly, the interest on the money they owed for the purchase of the house and often income-tax as well.
These sums would amount up, really, to about what they would be paying in rent for such a house, with the result, I think, that people buying houses of the £20 to £40 valuation class in Dublin are very much on the same basis as people paying rent. They have the same outgoings approximately each year except that they have a saleable interest and an interest which will, eventually, have certain value to them as against merely paying a rent. That being the case, most of them who bought these houses entered into the contract with an eye on the likely rent they would have to pay, calculated as rates plus interest. If we suddenly increase the rates we are putting up their rent very appreciably and making things difficult, especially as such an action will most seriously affect that class of person who is, if anything, finding the burdens of the present day most difficult to bear. They are people with fixed salaries ranging from £300 to £500. I ask the Minister to give that matter his attention, if it is a proper matter for his consideration. If further expenditure is to be involved in the building of hospitals by Dublin Corporation—hospitals which, in the long run, will be really for the service of the country at large—it is, in my opinion, unfair to ask the citizens of Dublin completely to meet that expenditure.
We hear in these debates a considerable amount of talk about the need for rural development and rural planning. That is all very proper but there are parts of Dublin, even parts of the older Dublin, which should receive attention in the same way. During the past ten or 20 years, when Dublin was growing enormously, particularly on the outskirts, the boundaries were shoved out. Dublin has grown radially. We have radii shooting out from the centre and the cross-communications within that area are not adequate. In the old city, if you work up the river almost to Kingsbridge, you will get adequate cross roads but in the area Cabra-Phoenix Park, across to Crumlin, there are no adequate cross-communications. Kingsbridge, which is the last bridge, is narrow. The roads leading to it are tortuous and there is no direct or straight communication to Drimnagh or that area. I think that there is room for a cross-artery at, approximately, that location. Take the bus routes. If a man wants to get from Drimnagh or one of those areas to Cabra, he has to come east to O'Connell Bridge and go out again. The matter has been taken up with Córas Iompair Eireann but I believe the cross-roads have been the difficulty. I make the suggestion that it is time, with the expansion of Dublin, we had development of a cross-artery further out than Capel Street on the Kings-bridge side.
Apart from that, there is one small area in north Dublin that, I think, requires attention in regard to sanitation. I refer to the Blackhorse Avenue area. As we read in the papers occasionally, when serious rain occurs that area is flooded. A number of persons have gone out on occasion to see that flooding. My friend, Deputy John S. O'Connor, takes a lively interest in that area. That flooding is due to inadequate drainage. Representations have been made to the corporation by a number of persons, but nothing has been done. It has been suggested that materials could not be got, though it is difficult to believe that materials for laying a drain could not be got, seeing that certain building sites can be developed. The fact is people are being flooded out in that area and it is high time something was done about it. If the corporation will not move in the matter, I suggest that the Minister's Department take an interest in it. There is something more to it than that. When I went up there to make some inquiries, I was informed that the sanitary accommodation is not all that it should be. I understand that there are primitive dry-closet arrangements there—in the City of Dublin! One person stated to me—I make this statement with great reserve; I was told that it was true but I have no verification of it—that there had actually been a couple of typhoid cases in the area. The fact remains that not only is the drainage inadequate, leading to floods, but that the sanitary facilities in that Blackhorse Avenue area, and the slope down from Cabra towards the Park are inadequate too. I am further told that, in the county area which it adjoins, satisfactory arrangements have been made by the county council. Again, I ask that, if the corporation cannot be got to do something in the matter, the Minister might take an interest in it.
I got up without apology simply to make these points on behalf of Dublin. I know there are other matters to be taken into consideration. I know that the Minister must balance things for the country as a whole but there have been so many advocates—and eloquent advocates—for the rural portion of the population that I think I am warranted in taking a local view just for the moment and asking the Minister to address his attention to (a) the question of rates in Dublin, (b) the question of developing the outskirts of the city adequately in regard to cross-communications and (c) the drainage and sanitary problems that arise in the portion of the city to which I have referred.
I was rather surprised to hear Deputy de Valera's statement with regard to Dublin. It is a wonder that they have not tried the game which worked so successfully on the country boys down in Cork. I suppose it is a case of trying it on the dog first. The people of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's town and the districts surrounding it and the people of Youghal, Midleton, Bandon, Macroom and Cobh have all to contribute their share in helping the plutocrats of Cork to support their poor. The Minister is aware that there are six rural districts in the area of the South Cork Board of Assistance and that, for every shilling contributed for home assistance, the rural areas have the pleasure of contributing 8½d. In the distribution of the money, Cork City have the pleasure of getting the 8½d. I am rather surprised that some such arrangement has not come into vogue in the City of Dublin. Seeing the Minister is not prepared to play the same game in Dublin, perhaps he would make Cork City look after its own poor in the line of home assistance. This is an old standing grievance—an old sore. A very grave injustice is being done and, no matter what Deputy de Valera thinks, the country boys always have to support the poor fellow in the city. There are a few other matters I should like to touch upon. Firstly, I think it is a pity that the Minister has not yet come to a decision in regard to the grant for rural housing. It is rather peculiar that the Department which has done so much for housing in this country would not now come up to date. There are thousands of farmhouses in this country badly in need of repair. We find that the grant is still continued at the old rate, namely, £70 for the farmer who builds a new house and £40 for reconstruction of a house, if the holder is under a certain valuation. That is completely out of date as regards present conditions. The matter was brought up at the Cork County Council on Thursday, and it was decided to increase from £150 to £500 the loan that the builder of a new house in a rural area can get from the county council and to reduce the rate of interest to 3 per cent. I think the Minister should also come up to date by doubling or even trebling the amount of the grant given. The Minister knows that contracts for the building of labourers' cottages at present are around £700 per cottage, as compared with £150 pre-war. We know also of the dearth of housing and the appalling condition of affairs existing in rural areas at present, which is largely the cause of driving a lot of people into the slums of the cities. It is an absolute impossibility for a newly-married couple to get a house in a country district at present.
With regard to what Deputy Fagan said in connection with houses for agricultural labourers, I have repeatedly in this House called attention to the regulation made by the Minister's Department which is largely responsible for preventing agricultural labourers from getting cottages. No agricultural labourer worth his salt can get a labourer's cottage from a county manager to day. If he is a good agricultural labourer working for a farmer for a number of years and living in a house belonging to the farmer, owing to the regulation that the Minister has made that the worst housed amongst the applicants must get any cottage that is vacant that man is immediately ruled out. What happens generally is that a ne'er-do-well in the district who will not get employment from anybody gets into a hut at the side of the road and applies for the first vacant labourer's cottage. According to the Minister's regulation, it has to be given to him, no matter how anxious the board or the county manager may be to give it to an agricultural labourer who, after all, has the first claim upon it. The agricultural labourer must fall in at the tail-end of the tinker-tailor-soldier-sailor class. He cannot get a cottage at present. The Minister's regulation compels the county medical officer of health to inspect the houses of the applicants and recommend them according to their housing needs. The county medical officer of health, doing his duty, recommends the applicant with the worst house, which means that no agricultural labourer can get the cottage. As one who has experience of this kind of thing, I have asked the Minister year after year to change that regulation as I have seen how it works out.
Deputy Fagan also spoke of the changes of county managers and secretaries in his county. Deputy Allen had something to say about the rugged road to Dublin. We cannot spare our trained men in Cork for all the counties. The time came when we had to bring back men like Jim Hurley and Tom Hayes from the Deputy's constituency. We cannot afford to be providing brains for the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties. If you go down to the Dunlop factory or to the Ford factory in Cork or even to Haulbowline, the first thing you are asked if you meet a fellow with a collar and tie is, "Where do you come from?" You know that he came from Dublin. After all, if the road is a rugged one it is because of the Dublin fellows coming down to fat jobs in Cork.
I agree with Deputy Fagan also as regards the main roads. We see Córas Iompair Eireann putting super lorries on the roads which have been made and maintained by the ratepayers. It is a very easy way out for Córas Iompair Eireann to get the ratepayers to keep the roads for them. We have come to the point when this burden should be borne by the State and when these people should make a contribution. I have seen 200 yards of road about five miles from Cork reconstructed recently at a cost of over £3,000. I wonder does the Minister think that the ratepayers, in order to provide super roads for the new Córas Iompair Eireann lorry traffic, are going to pay £3,000 for every 200 yards of road that he thinks should be reconstructed. Another matter that has come to my notice is in connection with the registrar of births, marriages and deaths for the six rural districts.
That is not the responsibility of the Minister's Department.
The official concerned is a pensioned official of the Minister's.
It is not the responsibility of the Minister's Department.
In computing this official's pension the Minister took into consideration the fact that he was getting £150 a year for doing this work. In plain language, the Minister pensioned him for doing this work.
The Minister disclaims any responsibility for that.
The Minister pensioned him. I am chairman of the board concerned and do you think I am blind? He is drawing £1,200 a year. The fees for births, deaths and marriages in that area come to £1,200 a year and these are now being collected by that official who is drawing a pension. The bargain they made with him as secretary of the board was that he would get £150 on to his salary for doing this work. Under the Minister's regulations he was ruled out at 65 and he was pensioned and they pensioned him on the £150 as well as on his salary. He went out as secretary of the board of health and he continued as registrar of births, deaths and marriages for six rural areas and he is drawing £1,200 that should be the ratepayers' property. I am wondering how the Minister will disclaim responsibility for that.
He is an officer of the Minister for Health.
It is nobody's business, of course; as some of the boys down the country would say, when pulling off a fat job, "it is only the ratepayers' money, anyhow". I would like the Minister at least to investigate how a man whom he pensioned out of a particular job, and who drew a pension as registrar for births, deaths and marriages on the portion of the salary he was drawing in that connection, can still continue as registrar and collar £1,200 of the ratepayers' money. I can assure the Minister it is not a matter that can be lightly glossed over; it is a matter that will have to be investigated and we want a decision.
The Deputy must bring that up under the Estimate for the Minister for Health.
This official was pensioned last March, and he was pensioned by the Minister for Local Government.
I am not responsible for his subsequent employment.
I cannot enter into any fine points as to who is responsible. All I know is that we are losing £1,200 a year. That is all that concerns me and I do not care whether it is the Minister for Health or the Minister for Local Government who will take responsibility. The fact remains that the assistant secretary of the board of health has not got this particular portion of his job. It is held by the old secretary who, in addition to being pensioned out of his job, is also drawing a salary from this. It is rather a joke and I am surprised that an efficient body like the Department of Local Government would allow it to continue.
It is not a matter for Local Government.
The Department of Local Government pensioned him and I want to know why they are allowing him to draw all this other money.
The pension is not from the Department of Local Government.
It is.
The Deputy will have to bring this matter up on the Department of Health Vote.
Then we can have another go at it, but it is a rather serious matter and it should be investigated and straightened out.
With all due credit to the Minister and his predecessor for the manner in which they have dealt with housing, I suggest that the time has arrived for pressing forward, as far as we can, our housing schemes. It is impossible to go ahead with these schemes whilst we have so many delays and whilst we are held up to such an extent. It seems practically impossible to get in touch with the Minister in the Department. I do not know what is wrong with him in that respect. As chairman of the board of assistance, I had at the last meeting to send a telephone message in order to see if we could get an answer in regard to a matter that was hanging over for six months. Surely there are enough officials in the Department to send a reply to local authorities. I suggest our communications should be more promptly attended to.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Allen about changing our steam engines into oil-burning engines, I find, in connection with our county council operations, that the steamrollers and stone-breakers are held up for weeks for want of oil. There is little good in changing from coal to oil if you cannot get either coal or oil. I would like the Minister to investigate that side of the problem. We have more than enough to do trying to repair the damage done by floods to our roads without having our machinery lying idle for weeks for want of fuel oil. That is a matter the Department might concern itself over and the Minister should tune up the Minister for Industry and Commerce to see that there is a sufficient supply of oil.
We have practically the same position as regards turf. We know very well that we will be facing a fuel famine next winter. We know also there are hundreds of lorries lying idle around Cork because they cannot get petrol to enable them to travel to the bogs to bring in the turf. The Minister should approach the Minister for Industry and Commerce about that, because when the turf is scarce it is not the Minister for Industry and Commerce who will be blamed, but the Minister for Local Government.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.