When the House adjourned last night, I was making reference to the Minister's plan in regard to the study of the provision of water supplies to houses in rural areas, and I had asked him to let the House know what are the plans he has in mind, alternative to the establishment of a special committee. I pointed out to him that it would take a considerable time to make such plans and that to abolish the committee merely because it was interfering with houses now being designed seemed on the face of it, shortsighted. I indicated that even if it were necessary to plan houses overriding preliminary decisions of this committee, it was nevertheless valuable for the committee to go on with its work.
I should like also to ask the Minister whether he is ensuring that the memorandum on housing standards issued by the former Minister is being closely examined by the local authorities. The memorandum included information on what could be regarded as good standards of house construction, in addition to those already enforced through the sanctioning of grants. It included information on such matters as the insulation of walls, the use of hollow-cast concrete and the use of certain materials for construction. It included also information on the type and dimensions of water supply systems, the size of rooms and the use of materials for partitioning walls and also provided some information on the provision of cupboard space to be included in the design of buildings where possible, and also information as to the desirability of installing such things as drying cupboards within the framework of the house. I should like the Minister to tell us if this memorandum is being closely followed, whether he has received the reactions of county managers and housing authorities generally to it and whether it has been found to have been of service.
Following on the issue of this memorandum during the term of office of the previous Minister, the officials whose duty it was to prepare this memorandum, so far as I recall, had just begun to consider whether or not they could provide standard specifications in respect of certain types of material. At the moment, as I understand it, there is a huge variety of sizes in respect of length, thickness and so on in such products as rainwater goods, copper piping, cisterns, sinks and the like. The suggestion was made that, in order to speed housing and to secure materials in greater supply, and particularly at lower prices, the Department might proceed to devise standard specifications for the ordinary type of house which would enable orders to be given on a very large scale by the different local authorities concerned, so that gradually suppliers would find that they would be able to reduce prices because the number of sizes and specifications had been very drastically reduced. That seemed to me at the time to be worthy of study and I should like to ask the Minister how far the investigation of that matter is proceeding.
I should also like to have some information from the Minister on the relation of the present labour shortage in certain areas not only to the types of houses which are being built and any determination he has made in regard to building licences but also in regard to the number of apprentices. So far as I can gather from reading the newspapers, there have been tentative moves on the part of the Ministers concerned to persuade certain unions to increase the number of apprentices. The unions in reply have said that among other conditions which they would insist on being observed if they so agreed, would be a guarantee of continuous work by the Dublin Corporation and the contractors thereto for a considerable period. The Minister, as a member of the Labour Party, should be in an ideal position to pursue that matter and to find out whether the conditions are possible of fulfilment. I should like very much to hear from him what recent information he has on the question of the number of apprentices allowed in certain classes of trades and in relation again to the volume of building operation.
There has been a great deal of talk since the election about the issue of building licences for luxury purposes, and I think it is necessary for this side of the House to point out once more that a vast amount of what can only be described as clotted nonsense was talked during the elections about the misuse of building materials and labour for building of a purely luxury type. It is only fair to the former Ministers, both the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to keep on repeating these figures until finally the reckless statements of certain members of the inter-Party Government are stopped. The actual fact is that at no time during the past two financial years did the building licences, in terms of pounds, for recreational and tourist purposes exceed 5 per cent. of all building licences, so that the statements of people who pointed to cinemas being built at the expense of workers' houses are patently ridiculous.
In fact, going further into the figures —I have not got the very recent figures, but I am giving them approximately—the allocation of building licences for houses amounted to some 47 to 50 per cent. of the total building licences; for industrial production, power and fuel enterprises, to some 25 per cent.; for schools, colleges, churches and hospitals, to just over 10 per cent. I have already given the figures for recreational and tourist purposes. In respect of housing required for transport, the figure was 1.9 per cent.; Government building, 1.6 per cent.; maintenance, 1.7 per cent.; and distribution, shops, offices and warehouses, 7.3 per cent. These figures, I understand, have not varied very greatly from year to year. The question now at issue is whether the Minister is right in limiting the number of licences granted to houses which do not receive a subsidy.
The most recent figures I can secure in regard to the former Minister's attitude, of the building licences granted for housing are as follows: 37 per cent. were in respect of houses for local authorities and 26.8 per cent. in respect of houses of the same type being built by building societies and others for rent or sale. Of the remainder, only about 7.8 per cent. were houses above £2,000 in value and there was also a certain number of houses of the value of £1,100 to £2,000. These are fairly recent figures. The former Minister has already adverted to the desirability of not cutting out the building of houses of luxury type to the degree of 100 per cent. As the Minister for Local Government may well know, that effort in England by Mr. Aneurin Bevan, the Minister of Health, did not succeed. When he overstressed the question of workers' houses, he jammed the warehouses with materials and he had to modify slightly his plans in that regard.
I trust the Minister will take the advice of the former Minister, and, even though he must direct the great majority of building materials and labour towards workers' houses, that he will give each his due proportion. If a certain amount of building of all types is allowed to proceed, the Minister will find that he will escape temporary unemployment problems, and will escape the problem of finding that certain materials can only be used for houses of a more luxurious type; he will find that he can avoid all sorts of difficulties, if he takes a stern, but reasonable, view of the allocation of licences. If he takes the view of the former Minister for Local Government he will not go far wrong. He will find that 72 per cent. of the building licences went for housing, for industrial production and for the production of fuel and power.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered that portion of the housing inquiry report dealing with differential rents. The committee reported that the system of providing differential rents for persons with different means was an admirable one and that matter was being studied. I would like to ask the Minister who, in his own position, must surely appreciate the value of such a scheme, whether he has any views on the matter.
I believe also that towards the close of the last Government's administration the Department had decided to recommend to the Minister that in allocating houses to persons coming from condemned buildings there should be more or less a mixture of tenants of various classes. To put into a particular area only large families, coming from basements, for example, in the City of Dublin, many of whom suffered from tuberculosis—to put a group of such people together in one housing area would not conduce to the very best standards. It would be better to provide a proportion of tenants who had, shall we say, a happier experience of life. That was found to be the case almost universally in Great Britain and other countries. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered that matter. It is obvious that one could not go very far in that direction, but to have a sprinkling of people in the area who had had a happier experience of life would be found to have many advantages and it would be very interesting to hear the Minister's views on that question.
With regard to the question of road maintenance and road development, the officials of the Department of Local Government reported that the programme of road restoration, preserving the present skin on the main roads and restoring county roads, had been completed by 30 per cent. Certain counties were behindhand owing to the diversion of labour to turf and tillage taken together during the summer period. In some counties, such as, I believe, Wicklow and Wexford, restoration had been proceeding at a higher rate. As the former Minister for Local Government indicated, a sum of £3,000,000 is being provided for road maintenance to local authorities, which is over £1,000,000 above the amount available from the Road Fund. Unless that extra sum had been provided from the central funds it would not have been possible to continue with the restoration of county roads. As the Minister must know, for the first time in the history of this country, for the third year running, grants are available for the repair of county roads. As before this the Road Fund provided only for the repair of main roads, the whole programme would have had to be cut out, and although many of the roads were damaged as a result of the haulage of turf, there would not have been any funds for their restoration.
The question which I would next like to ask the Minister is one which has already been asked by the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy MacEntee: Where is the money to come from to provide that £1,000,000? That question is an extremely serious one for the House to face. The cost of road maintenance and road improvement has increased by at least 50 per cent., while vehicle taxation has not increased in any like measure. Therefore, when the road restoration programme is being completed and road improvement commences from one to two years from now, if the Minister borrows from the Road Fund he will be placing a burden on the local authorities which would be impossible for them to carry. It is a very big problem for him to face. He has the difficulty of the 50 per cent. increase in roads costs and of an increase nothing like that in vehicle tax. He may have to consider raising the vehicle tax, but I think that is a course which should only be pursued if nothing else is possible. But at least he should not debit the Road Fund in the future for the repayment of that £1,000,000. That would not be good business. It would not be good business for agriculture or for industry and it would not be good business to make the Road Fund responsible for recoupment.
As the Minister may already know, in the course of the last six years there has been a new approach to road improvement work. There are some 50,000 miles of roads in this country of which some 10,000 miles are main roads, and of that 10,000 miles there are approximately 3,000 miles of important arterial roads. Twenty-five million pounds have already been spent since 1922 on the provision of good roads and the work has proceeded fairly well. Until recently there have been no universal standards for the improvement of roads. County surveyors more or less took their own initiative in widening roads, easing bends and providing certain amenities such as footpaths and cycle tracks and so forth. Now certain road standards have been adopted by the Department to provide a measure for roads by which roads can be improved according to the traffic density on them. The former Minister for Local Government approved of these road standards. They are roughly of this order. Where the vehicle density is over 400 cars per hour, it is essential to construct two carriage ways 24 feet wide with the appropriate footpaths, margins and cycle tracks; where there is density of some 100 to 400 cars per hour, it is necessary to have one carriage way 24 feet wide; in the case of roads carrying less traffic than that it was considered that the roadway could be built with safety 20 feet wide. The question then arose as to how far the Department should advise local authorities to plan ahead. It seemed to be reasonable to suppose that with full supplies of petrol traffic density would increase at the same rate as it did between 1928 and 1939. As the traffic density in 1928 was known in respect of the various roads, it would be possible to make an approximate plan, the conditions of which could be varied at the end of five-year periods and which could be varied by local authorities, the Minister for Local Government and the Department. Surveyors were appointed and are now working out the approximate cost of road improvement on the basis that road widths, at least, should be planned up to 1970. It would be reasonable to assume that the gradual mechanisation of traffic will increase unless there is a major economic depression and money will be saved to the ratepayers if, instead of chopping and changing, making the Cork road, for example, one foot wider in one place and three feet wider in another, it is decided to have increased widths on that road on a definite basis.
The Minister, I hope, will not have to face the criticism which we faced when in office in regard to the road plan. A lot of farmers, eager apparently to save rates, went around the country talking about our constructing luxury autobahns of a type which could never be afforded by the public. In actual fact, the programme is a most reasonable one as can be seen by the House when it is realised that the first-class road, the road with a double carriage way, 24 feet wide for each track, was only planned in respect of 125 miles for the first five years, or roughly 25 miles a year in the whole country. Only 25 miles of double carriage way roads are to be built each year. That is not an unreasonable proposition and is not one which would provide too great a burden on the taxpayers or the ratepayers.
As to the second-class roads, 24 feet wide, it was planned to improve them at the rate of some 220 miles per year. Again, that does not provide a very heavy burden. I am outlining the plans made by the former Government in order to assure the House that we felt we were not going beyond what was needed to be done and in order to persuade the Minister not to allow the Minister for Finance to take the £1,000,000 away from the Road Fund because it would be disastrous. Whether he continues to adopt our road standards and principles or whatever system he adopts, he will not have nearly enough money for that minimum of improvement which must be effected on the roads if he allows that money to be taken. Therefore, I should very much like to hear from him what is his present view on the matter.
There are a number of other minor problems about which a great many Deputies will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. A grant was made from the Road Fund for certain very bad stretches along the main arterial roads of the country. Deputies from the West will know the appalling condition of the road from Enfield to the West. Deputies from Roscommon will know the very bad condition of parts of the main road leading from Dublin through Strokestown. There is another very bad portion of road going to Cork. A sum of, I think, £250,000, had been granted from the Road Fund for immediate repairs on these stretches of arterial road before the main improvement plan begins. I should like to ask the Minister whether the plans for the repair of those stretches of road are being pursued.
Money was also made available from the Road Fund to the Dublin Corporation, particularly with a view to repairing the appalling stretches of road where tram tracks still exist. I should like to ask the Minister if he has received any report from the Dublin Corporation as to whether they are doing anything to remove the tram tracks in various sections of the city and how far they have been able to plan to procure materials for spending that £100,000, which would not only give much-needed employment, particularly in the winter, but would go far towards restoring the roads of Dublin to pre-war condition.
There is also the very urgent question of doing something to improve the Bray road. This is only one small stretch of road, but it is used very widely. The Minister knows that the difficulties in arranging for compensation are very considerable and that the time which elapses before you can improve any road in County Dublin is very great indeed owing to the difficulties of acquisition. So far as I remember, the improvement of the Bray road will cost anything from £50,000 to £80,000 a mile and provide a ticklish financial and administrative problem for the commissioner of the Dublin County Council, and the Department when they consider the plans. It is a matter which should receive urgent and prior consideration by the Minister and the Department.
I should also like to ask the Minister how far the reorganisation of the engineering staffs throughout the country is proceeding. I think that about December last in the great majority of counties the final determination of what a good and efficient staff was to be had been completed. In most places the qualifications had been established for a certain number of additional engineers and, with the ending of the turf campaign, it should now be possible to provide a first-class engineering organisation in every local authority area. I should like to ask how far that has proceeded in the last four months and whether the Minister is satisfied that the engineering organisation of the country as a whole is adequate, modern, and able to carry out the duties efficiently.
One matter upon which we insisted with great force was the provision of sufficient clerical assistance for assistant engineers throughout the country so that they will have no excuse to stay in their offices in order to fill up forms and in order to do the pay sheet work which could be done by a minor clerical officer. One could almost say that the efficiency of assistant engineers depended directly upon the length of time they were able to be out on the roads. A considerable number of authorities, where there were no such clerical assistants appointed, agreed to appoint them. In other places the matter was under consideration. I, myself, from my experience in the Department, regard it as absolutely essential to see that county surveyors and their assistants are out of their offices as much as possible, supervising the work on the roads and seeing that good and efficient work is done at all times. I trust the Minister will press forward that necessary change in local authority administration.
Towards the end of last year, in fact even before then, the Minister for Finance had agreed to an increase in the engineering staff of the Local Government Department owing to the need to carry out more research upon the best method of constructing roads, owing to the need for greater inspection, not only when road works had been completed, but during their completion, in order to ensure the provision of the highest possible standards and to ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent to the best advantage. Indeed, the county surveyors would have no possible objection to that. Most of them would welcome more numerous interim inspections by Departmental engineers, particularly when the new plan is in operation. In fact, an increase of staff would be essential, in the first instance, to see that that plan of building roads according to certain standards is carried out efficiently. I trust the Minister for Finance is not going to allow the heavy hand to fall on that. From looking at the Estimates it appeared to me that there had not been sufficient increase for the engineering staff to allow for the increase in the number of officials which had been authorised by the former Minister for Finance. I may have read the figures wrongly. I hope my mind will be relieved by the Minister.
So far as the provision of engineers to do a certain amount of research work is concerned, that is absolutely vital to this country. We have received every year a mass of material from the British Road Research Department on the strength of concrete, the use of various kinds of bituminous mixtures, and the use of various new machines. A great deal of that does not apply to this country because of the rate of rainfall and special experiments have to be undertaken here. Unfortunately, for quite a considerable time the right kind of machinery has not been available for that purpose. More machinery, however, will be on the market in the future and more engineers will be required in the Department if something is to be done to reduce per mile the enormous cost of improving roads, particularly having regard to what I said earlier in regard to the increase in the taxation of vehicles and the cost of improving the roads, no matter what standards you adopt, taking only the minimum required for a proper standard in this country.
Another very fundamental step taken to improve the technical standards of road construction was insistence upon stone analysis. Good work had been done in providing roads in the past. I am not in any way complaining of the work of most of the surveyors but, as time went on, both in America and in England and in this country it was found possible to improve the standards of the stone used. It was found possible to measure absolutely in a laboratory the extent to which stone would polish when mixed with tar and literally millions of pounds could be saved if stone is used for the main roads which does not polish easily. Literally, millions of pounds can be saved in the next 20 years if proper stone analysis is insisted upon as the absolute sine qua non for the granting of money from the Road Fund for road work.
At the end of last year a very large number of samples of stone had been sent to the British Road Research Laboratory and to the universities here for analysis with a view to securing stone of proper quality, raising the standard throughout the country and providing central quarries for work on the main roads. The Department was not concerned so much with minor roads. The Department was concerned with the 3,000 miles of main arterial roads and certain important link roads. It has been found, contrary to what might be imagined, that the extra cost of bringing stone a considerable distance is negligible compared with the saving in money through not having to renew the surface at frequent intervals. Any person who has been through Wicklow will have observed the extraordinary resilience of the stone, what is known as its rugosity. Some of the roads there have lasted for ten years and have not shown the faintest sign of polishing. In Wicklow, almost all the stone available is very suitable for road work. In other parts of the country limestone only is available, and is highly unsuitable. We made a rough calculation that it only cost 1/4 more per square yard to bring stone over 20 miles by lorry in order to ensure an extra good surface for roads under heavy traffic. I hope the Minister will encourage the Department to continue the work of providing lectures for county surveyors on modern methods of road construction and by visits to areas where very first class work is being done. He will find this an advantage in overcoming his difficulties in the increase of the cost of road improvement.
When we left office circulars had been issued to all local authorities encouraging them to provide adequate protective clothing for workers, clothing of an ordinary type for any type of work, clothing of the type suited to tar spraying and to work with crushers and grinders where there was a tremendous outflow of dust. Replies came in that were fairly satisfactory, but there were a number of areas where there were difficulties to clear up and advice to be given. I hope the Minister will pursue that matter. I feel sure he will regard it as in his own interest to pursue the matter of providing proper clothing for workers.
The same thing can be said of the conditions for wet-time working under local authorities. Of course, the Opposition, as it then was, always blamed the Minister for Local Government, not only for relating in some way agricultural wages and road workers' wages but also wherever the wet-time conditions were bad for the worker, the Minister was automatically blamed, as though he himself had imposed severer conditions in a particular area than in other areas, whereas most Deputies should know that the wet-time conditions are a matter for the county manager and also for the county council who have to raise the money to pay the workers if the wet-time conditions are improved.