Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Jul 1950

Vol. 122 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Local Government (Resumed).

Mr. Beegan

I was speaking of the road grants and how they affected us in County Galway, and I suppose that what happened in County Galway was typical of the whole country. I pointed out also that, in my opinion, and in the opinion, I am sure, of nearly everybody, the policy of retrenchment in connection with the roads practised by the present Government when they attained office was an unwise one. As Deputy Walsh pointed out, the tourist industry cannot be brought up to the standard at which we would wish to see it if the roads are left in a bad condition. That is true. The tourist industry some years ago did not appear to be of such value to the country in the view of members of the present Government. They used every conceivable occasion to make it appear that we had no interest whatever in the people of this country and that any interest we had was in foreigners. I am not going to travel along those lines, but I am glad to see their change of attitude and change of heart in this matter. There is very little use in sending commissions to the United States or elsewhere to study the tourist industry and see what we should do to develop it if the roads of the country are left in their present state. I am sure that the Minister will counter that by saying that we are getting a higher grant for the improvement of county roads than was ever given before.

The fact of the matter is if we are to continue only at the pace which is possible on the existing grants it will be 40 years before the county roads, in my county anyhow, are brought up to the standard. It takes £2,000 a mile and as we got £65,000 last year it would mean that 33 statute miles of roads could be surfaced and tarred. Thirtythree statute miles are a very small fraction of the total mileage of county roads in County Galway.

Another reason why I hold that it was a very unwise and foolish thing to reduce the road grants is that no matter whether it might be made appear not to interfere with employment, it certainly did. It caused a considerable amount of unemployment and the emigration figures for the past two years would not be nearly so great if the present Government had continued the grants as they were given by Fianna Fáil—they might change the basis somewhat if they so desired.

Yesterday evening Deputy Childers made a very interesting contribution to this debate and it was remarkable how he went into this matter in detail. He seemed to have a thorough grasp of what he was speaking about and I do hope that the Minister will give his suggestions and ideas very serious consideration. After all, the question of the roads should not be a Party matter at all. It is a big national problem just the same as housing and it should be treated as such by every Party in the House. The money spent on roads is money that will circulate in this country because generally the people who are employed on roads are not people who will go outside this country on holidays. Consequently I would try to impress again on the Minister that he should give very serious consideration to this and fight his corner with the Minister for Finance.

There is a portion of road between Enfield and Kilcock on the main Dublin-Galway road and I am sure that any motorist who travels that road finds it a pleasure to drive on and perfectly safe for himself and all other traffic. If we had—as we should have as Deputy Childers pointed out—a plan on the lines of that portion of road as quickly as possible it would be a very great thing indeed—of course it could not come all at once and nobody expects that it could. The continuation of that is something we want to look forward to. I believe that the work should be started at both ends and at the centre as that would give employment along the whole route and the same, of course, applies to the other roads.

There is another matter which I wish to bring to the Minister's notice. In 1947 we passed in this House what is known as the Local Authorities (Superannuation) Act, which meant, of course, that when employees of local authorities came to a certain age they would retire and get a pension; but it has proved in certain respects to be somewhat defective. Perhaps it went through this House rather hurriedly as it was somewhat prior to the general election of 1948. In my county there are a number of gangers who have been working for Galway County Council for anything from 15 to 35 years and they are deprived of the benefit of that Act by reason of the fact that they had not the prescribed number of days working for the county council. In effect, however, they were working for the county council because the county council took over the supervision of minor relief schemes, rural improvement and bog development schemes in our county, and I presume it was on the instructions of the Department. Our county surveyor generally put the most capable gangers in charge of these schemes and that broke the prescribed period of days in a working year.

Now these people who have made application to be put on the register have been informed that because they were working in such a place from such a date to such a date they would not come within the Act. Of course they will come within the Act if they continue for a further two or three years, but at the same time there are a number of them who are anxious to retire now and who have been anxious since the Act came into operation. I hold that it is unfair to them and that the technical point should be got over in some way. If it requires amending legislation I think that the Minister should do it. I gave his Parliamentary Secretary the reply that was sent to one of these people.

With regard to the Local Authorities (Works) Act, it has worked out satisfactorily in my county, because our engineering staff were very careful to undertake only works of a nature that would not cause damage. They acted in a very careful way in that respect. In the roads estimate which has been presented to us, we find that receipts include an estimated sum of £60,000 which we are to get under that Act. I have no objection to its being credited to the roads, where it is utilised solely for the purpose of the improvement of roads, but, where it is used for the draining of land, it should not be credited to the Government grant we are getting for roads. There should be some segregation there. I should like the Minister to take note of these points I have made, the matter of the housing grant which has been cancelled, although the applicant got a certificate for a first instalment in 1949, and the matter of the gangers deprived of the benefits of the Local Authorities (Employees) Superannuation Act and that he will remedy them as speedily as possible.

Mr. Commons

If any Deputy who is also a member of a local authority were to discuss everything he could discuss on this Estimate, he could speak at great length, but now that we have decided to make our points as quickly as possible, it is only right that I should be brief. There are some matters in respect of which I very definitely find fault with the Department. I may or may not be as critical as Deputy Brennan was last night, but I want to point out that in many cases unnecessary slowness and red tape are holding up very important activities of local authorities. My main cause of complaint is the delay in the payment of housing grants. In the case of the individual builder, the small wageearner or farmer, with very little money in his pocket, who sets out to build a house and builds it solely through the goodwill of the building contractor or builders' supplier, who advances material without payment in many cases until the grant comes through, it is very unfair that there should be a delay of almost two years before the final payment is made.

I will be fair and agree that there must occasionally be delays. Inspectors are asked to make reports as to whether a house has been finally completed and is being occupied, and during his tour of inspection, an inspector may try to examine half-a-dozen or a dozen houses in a particular area and may find that certain individuals have not moved into occupation of their houses. That inspector must then report back that the owner is not in occupation, which involves delay in the payment of the grant. There must, as I say, be delays; but there should not be unnecessary delays. There is no need for a delay of 18 months or for anything more than three or six months, because the intention of every house-builder is to build his house as quickly as possible. Nowadays, when building contractors have so much work on hands and houses are being built, in the main, of concrete block—and three or four good block layers can get a house almost sidewall high in two days—there is no reason for any inspector's report to the effect that a house is not ready for occupation within a certain time, and I hope that during the coming year the Minister will speed up the payment of these grants, because the people who apply for grants want the money. The money is very necessary and many houses would never have been built but for the generosity of the building contractor or supplier. In my constituency and in every other constituency, these suppliers find themselves down by tens of thousands of pounds—they, in turn, owe money to the banks—because of the delay in the payment of these grants.

Another point of criticism is the slowness in sanctioning schemes of waterworks and sewerage which are submitted with the best intentions in the world by the local authorities. There are a number of small-sized towns in my constituency, as there are in other areas, which are going to get the benefit of good water and sewerage schemes, and we have submitted on three or four occasions to the Department plans for such schemes for the different towns, but we find that, after almost a year, there is still no sign of any effort to start. Sanction has been given in a couple of instances, but in other instances, it has not been given. In the case of Claremorris, a waterworks scheme was envisaged six years ago and we still do not know where we stand. The same applies with regard to housing in that town. I asked a parliamentary question six months ago about it and I was told there was no undue delay—in respect of a scheme started four and a half or five years ago. I wonder what is undue delay in the mind of the Department?

I realise the vast amount of work thrown on the officials. During the war years all these schemes were left in abeyance, because, in a sense, it would have been foolish to carry them on—a number of houses might have been built and no one knew whether they might not have been knocked down the following week-end—and there is, as a result, an overload of this type of work on the Department's hands. I feel, however, that the Department should adopt a system of giving a definite answer within a month or two months and of telling the local authority, as in the case of the Claremorris housing and waterworks and sewerage scheme: "You cannot go ahead with this work; we are not prepared to sanction it", or alternatively, telling the local authority to go ahead. The county council should not be left in a vague position about the whole business. I think that would be possible. There is no reason why it should not be possible, because the more schemes of any sort which are stored in a Government Department the longer they are inclined to lie there and the less notice is taken of them. They may never be attended to until the secretary of a county council, on the advice of the councillors, gets in touch with the Department or until a Deputy representing the area raises a question in the House. I hope that during the coming year more attention will be paid to these matters and a greater effort made to give speedy authorisation for going ahead with work of this kind.

The building of subsidy houses by local authorities is going ahead and the biggest delay in many cases is the securing of the site or suitable ground on which to erect these houses. I do not want to go into the question of proposed legislation but we will have a good move made in the near future. It will be possible to get inside the old demesne wall which kept out the local authority on many occasions and the landlord who obstructed the efforts of the local authorities will soon be upset.

I have very definite encouragement and praise for the Department of Local Government in connection with the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I do not know why there is such desire on the part of the Opposition to spend so much money on roads. I became a member of a county council in 1945 and for ten years prior to that I was a very close observer of the activities of the county council. It was my opinion that money was being wasted on roads both pre-war and post-war. I always maintained, and my colleagues on the county councils maintained, that less money should be spent on roads and that the money thus saved should be applied to more useful work. The Local Authorities (Works) Act is one of the most beneficial pieces of legislation ever introduced. I am glad to say that the attitude of the Government and of the Minister for Finance is favourable to the implementation of such legislation, particularly in regard to drainage.

At column 1890, Volume 121 of the Dáil Debates, the Minister for Finance, speaking on the Finance Bill, said:—

"On roads generally, although it is not a subject-matter for this debate, I would like to express a personal point of view. As between devoting money to such a thing as reclamation of land, drainage of land, or the local authority type of work which is progressing under the legislation we brought in, I would be prepared to give £20 any time towards work of such a productive nature to the single 1/- that I would devote to road costs. With regard to the restoration of the roads, that matter was considered and certain moneys were appropriated. My information is that more money than what was expected to provide the full cost of the restoration has been spent. I understand that the restoration programme has, in the main, been completed."

I am in full agreement with that statement of the Minister for Finance. It is statements like that we want to hear. When it comes to a choice as between devoting large sums of money to the restoration of roads or to the restoration of land, as far as we are concerned, we should see that the greater portion of the money would go to the restoration of fertility in the land.

Our county has benefited fairly well, despite a slow start, under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. We favoured the spending of money on schemes under Schedule B, that is, drainage, because it is a wet county of very small holdings. When we are getting free money we decided that we should spend as much as possible under Schedule B, or the land drainage programme. During the winter months, when it was difficult to do satisfactory drainage, we proceeded as best we could. Now, during the summer months, we expect, with the grants that have been allocated, to be able to carry out very useful and beneficial work. On one occasion, to allay the fears of many councillors on all sides that serious flooding would be caused by the opening of drains and allowing more water to flow into rivers from which the outfalls were not satisfactory, the county engineer pointed out that they were not allowing more water in, that they were allowing the same quantity of water to go in at a slightly quicker rate at the outset, but that when upstream was cleaned the amount that would flow would be practically the same as before, and would add only very little to the danger of flooding downstream. We have proceeded almost entirely with Schedule B schemes. It is very useful work. I have always maintained that £1,000 spent on drainage is much more valuable than £1,000 spent on road work in providing employment, because, in drainage, all the money goes into the pockets of the workers. It is amazing how much employment £700 or £800 will give over a period of months to a good gang of 15 men who will work continually. The same amount of money devoted to roads would not provide as much employment because a great deal of it would be spent on the purchase of material and machinery. The position is entirely different in the case of drainage and similar schemes. One needs only picks, shovels and spades and men to work them. The men are available. There should be no complaint in regard to the expenditure of this money and no complaint is being made in regard to it by anybody in this House.

We must maintain a certain standard of roads. That is only fair to motorists who have such high rates of taxation on vehicles and petrol and of insurance. Motoring is a very expensive luxury when compared with the position in any other country in the world, with England, for instance, where the tax per horse power is much lower, or the United States, where the price of cars and the tax on petrol are negligible as compared with what they are here. People with motor cars in this country are definitely entitled to a good-class road. I make no secret of that belief. There is a great distinction, however, between a good, satisfactory road and a luxury road. We can never have straight roads in this country. We can never have the same types of roads which they have in other countries because our roads have grown out of a series of beaten paths in the country. In the landlord days, in order to divide estates, they laid out paths and roads. Later on these paths and roads were made into sanded roads, and from 1922 onwards they have been steam-rolled and tarred. The result is that we have the twisting, winding type of road, and we shall always have it. No matter what Government might be in power and no matter what amount of money might be devoted to roads within the next five years, nothing whatever could be done about the twisting and winding. All that could be done would be an effort to widen a turn where there might be a dangerous corner so as to make it safer for motor traffic. I would say that it would be impossible to straighten out 20 or 30 miles of road in this country at any time. Therefore, we should try to make the best of the roads we have and bring them up to as high a standard as we possibly can.

Another fault which developed in the earlier stages of our road construction was the desire to raise the centre of the road. With regard to almost 90 per cent. of the roads at present, because of the amount of tar which has been spread over the centre in the course of a number of years—without any thought whatsoever being given to the sides—we have a round centre and that is most dangerous, particularly to horse traffic. Very rightly, our engineers in charge of road construction have departed from that concept. Where new roads are now being constructed they are almost level from grass margin to grass margin. Even if, in these circumstances, they should hold slightly more water than the roads which are round in the centre, they are much safer for traffic generally and particularly for horse-drawn traffic and the ordinary cyclists. However, we had to lose in order to learn. I think that if we could start again as we started in 1922, with the knowledge which we now possess, our roads would be laid out in the proper manner.

A useful project in operation in County Mayo at the moment with the approval of the Minister and his Department is the number of good class county roads which we are steam-rolling and tarring each year. We started that programme last year and we did a lot of useful work. These roads could not be described as main roads but they are very useful county roads. We are able to do a very good mileage and to tar it at a very reasonable cost and this year we shall go ahead in the same way and we hope to be able to do the same amount of work as was done last year. I think that we in our county have no complaint in regard to road restoration. I know the roads of the county as well as anybody and there is no complaint whatsoever as to the condition of the main roads. There is no complaint, except in very few cases, in regard to the condition of our county roads which are tarred and steam-rolled and there is great support and enthusiasm for the good work being done in respect of the taking over, steam-rolling and tarring of new roads. We had no authority to do that until last year. I hope that the programme will continue because it is, without a shadow of doubt, useful and beneficial work.

I come now to the question of rates. Last year, a determined effort was made by every county council to hold the rates at their then level. I do not know whether the National Ratepayers' Association were responsible for it or not—personally, I do not think they were responsible for anything. I consider that that effort to hold the level of the rates was due to the commonsense of the county councillors in question. Many difficulties had to be faced. Everybody knows well that the demands made on the rates are now much heavier than what they were nine or ten years ago. There are waterworks, sewerage schemes and other schemes which have to be financed by loan. We have to repay the loan charges. We have to repay the loans in respect of housing schemes. We have to pay our assistants. We have to pay hospital bills for people who are too poor to do so themselves. These and other items tend to force an upward trend so far as rates are concerned. That is where the county councillors find themselves in difficulties. I am glad to say that we in our county are able to forget Party politics: our sole concern is to do our duty by the ratepayers. We succeeded in holding our own rates to last year's level. Our county is heavily rated and we have to pay a lot of assistance and help a lot of poor people. However, we succeeded in holding the rate and so did many other counties. I hope that we will succeed again this year and that rates will be held at their present level. The people are burdened enough as it is. We are constantly hearing complaints about increases in rates. We are reminded of the good old times when rates were only 7/6 in the £. While people smile or weep, as the case may be, and remark that it was well to be alive in those days and that they had wonderful councillors and a good Government in 1914, 1915 and 1916, and so forth—and that the rates were only so high—they forget the many social benefits that have been introduced, are being introduced and must be introduced. When I was a member of the Opposition I never complained about an increase in rates provided the money was put to good purpose and not wasted extravagantly. I was always opposed to extravagant expenditure on main roads. I was always opposed to burdening the people just for the purpose of having 40-foot, 50-foot or 60-foot highways which are not necessary in this country and which should never be necessary in this country. Now that an effort is being made to hold the rates in check and to spend money in the most useful way possible so as to achieve the greatest benefit, very useful work will be done and I hope that it will be allowed to continue.

Mr. McGrath

I want to deal mostly with the housing problem in this country. I think that the Minister and the Department and the people generally have not a proper idea of what is necessary at all, especially in places such as Dublin and Cork. Some months ago, I asked the Minister a parliamentary question and I was told that, according to a recent survey, 3,761 people needed houses in Cork and that it would take ten years to provide that number of people with houses. I discovered that that survey was made in 1944 and, a few months later, I put down another question in connection with the matter and was told that there were 5,000 applicants for houses in Cork, that is, applicants for houses from the Cork Corporation. The Minister and his departmental officials must be aware of the rate of progress in regard to the building of houses by the Cork Corporation—an average of 200 per year. He can work out for himself how long it will take, at that rate of progress, to provide 5,000 houses for the present number of applicants for houses. I suggest he should make a few trips now. He has had a very pleasant time going round different parts of the country and opening housing schemes—sometimes of a very small kind. I suggest that now he and some of his officials should take a walk around the slums of Dublin and Cork, and perhaps the two other county boroughs, and get an idea of the conditions under which the people are living in these places. He should try to find out how many people who are married a few years and who are living apart. He should try to find out how many families are living in overcrowded houses with their in-laws. He should try to discover what friction is caused between those young couples with young families and their in-laws, and get some idea of the continual disputes and arguments that are going on. Find out how many people there are who have not even in-laws to live with and how many have to live in the county homes when their houses are condemned. I think that would be very important from the point of view of the Minister and his Department.

I can see no hope for the majority of the present-day applicants for corporation houses in Cork City ever getting a house. Some of them have their applications in for the past ten or 12 years. I am not blaming the Minister for all this. Most of it is the result of the legacy left us when the British got out of this country. A certain amount of progress was made by the two previous Governments, but it was interrupted by the war. I am thinking, from the complaints I am continually hearing almost hour after hour in Cork, that we are not taking this matter seriously enough. There are grown-up families, boys and girls of 15 and 16, living and sleeping in the one room, and I think that is all wrong. It is a matter that other authorities should take serious notice of.

I really believe, from what I see of building in the County of Cork, that if half of the forces at work providing houses in North, South and West Cork were concentrated in the boroughs, it would be much better. No matter what the people in the rural areas may think, I believe there is not anything like the necessity for housing there as there is in the county boroughs, where people are living under scandalous conditions. I am sorry to have to say that after 30 years of native Government.

Dr. Brennan

No family life?

Mr. McGrath

Many of them have no family life, none at all.

Dr. Brennan

That is disgraceful.

Mr. McGrath

When the first parliamentary question was down it was pointed out that there were 3,761 houses required to be erected, but that represented only two-thirds of what was wanted and it was stated it would take ten years to provide those who needed them with houses. It all depends on the capacity of the building organisations in the area. We cannot build houses because there is no one to build them in the city. I would nearly go so far as stopping any other kind of building in order to house the people first.

Mr. Corry

The majority of the city contractors are building in the country.

Mr. McGrath

I can tell you that so far as the suburbs of Cork are concerned—and I said this in the presence of the Minister when he was down there some time ago—the South Cork Board of Health entirely neglected it until within the last six months. That is so far as the suburbs are concerned. I can tell Deputy Corry, as the Chairman of the South Cork Board of Health, that we have had to house numerous people from his area in the city because they happened to be working in the city and we felt we should house them. There has not been a house built in the suburbs of Cork in ten years.

Mr. Corry

I would like to point out to the Deputy that we built 77 houses in the suburbs of Cork at Dublin Hill and out of the 77, 60 are housing city workers.

Mr. McGrath

I would like to point out to Deputy Corry that it is more than ten years ago since they built them. This matter is too serious for an exchange of views now between Deputy Corry and myself; we can have that going down in the train any day. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the mentality of the Cork Corporation and the mentality of the person in charge of the Cork Corporation. The Minister was present when the Cork City manager said at a luncheon after opening the Ballyphehane scheme:—

"There are matters we should consider such as finance, and then, should we build rapidly now and maybe have idleness after, or should we have a steady programme of building?"

I was surprised that the Minister did not pass some remark on that. Probably as he was only a guest at the luncheon, he did not like to.

"Should we build rapidly now and have idleness after, or should we make steady progress in building?" If that was the mentality behind the rate of progress in Cork for years, it only shows the position we are in. That statement was published in the Press and it was made in the presence of the Minister. I know that houses will not grow and I know they take a considerable amount of trouble and organisation, but I think there should be a greater advance in Cork, at any rate— some serious effort to overcome the desperate state of affairs that exists there.

I now come to another matter, and this was mentioned by the city manager—finance. In the Dáil on 16th May, the Minister for Finance, in Volume 121, column 50, said:—

"Take a house at an average price of £1,400. The total assistance given in respect of the building of such a house is £765, excluding Dublin and Cork. In Dublin and Cork the assistance given in respect of such a house would be £667. The figures vary in relation to the cost of the house. In the county boroughs, except Dublin and Cork, the total assistance given for a £1,000-house is £712. In Dublin and Cork it is £667. I do not know how anybody can expect anything more."

I thoroughly agree with the Minister for Finance, I do not know how anybody could expect anything more. I put down a question to the Minister on 17th May asking what financial assistance did Cork get for houses built since 1945 for each financial year and what assistance was given to the four county boroughs. I was informed that up to the financial year 1948-49 Cork built 182 houses and that they did not get one brass farthing by way of assistance from the Government. There was not a farthing offered to encourage housing in Cork. I was told that Limerick built 148 houses and got £101,600 out of the Transition Development Fund.

It was only by probing and putting down questions that I could get any information. I asked more questions, and I was told that Cork could not get anything from the Transition Development Fund because they were awaiting final figures. I was told that Limerick got about £40,000 for houses completed in March, 1950, but Cork could not get anything at all for houses that were actually occupied in April, 1946, four years previously—not one brass farthing.

I was told that they could not get it because we had not the final figures. I am perfectly well aware that money was paid out of the Transition Development Fund in many cases as soon as the houses were started. I need not go outside County Cork for that. The £400 was paid when the building of the houses was started, but in Cork County Borough we must wait for the final figures four years after. I do not know whether we are going to get this or not. After putting down several questions, I was informed one day that we were getting an instalment of £25,000. We have 340 houses built that were occupied since the establishment of the Transition Development Fund. We have about 320 houses in the course of construction. As regards the houses in course of construction, we should at least be getting half the grant in respect of them. I contend that there is at least £200,000 due to the Cork Corporation at the present time, that is, if Cork is going to be treated the same as the rest of the country. I do not think the Minister or anybody else expects the taxpayers in Cork to pay taxes and to give grants of £400 to the rest of the country and not get the same grants themselves. If we assume that we are going to get these grants, I would like to know from the Minister who is going to be responsible for the payment of interest on this money that we should have got. I put down a question about the overdraft and of how the Cork houses were financed. I got a reply stating that the Cork Corporation was authorised to borrow by means of raising stock a sum of £400,000 for the financing of their housing schemes. That was in December, 1948. The reply went on to say:—

"It is understood from the local authority that at present the overdraft on the housing capital account is £125,000."

That was after the instalment of £25,000 had been paid in to reduce it. I have got figures here with regard to the amount of interest that has been paid. The figure is £14,939 4s. 2d., paid by way of interest on that loan and overdraft. I want to know, if we are going to get our grants, are we going to get a refund of the interest that we have paid since, the interest that should be due to us for these houses, 90 of which were occupied in April, 1946.

Now, I do not know who is to blame. I certainly think it is not the business of an individual member of the corporation to go probing into things like this, to find out, question by question, what the position is, and to go and interview people who have had experience of the building of these houses and of getting paid those grants. Why is there discrimination made as regards Cork? I hope the Minister will tell me that, and also who is going to be responsible for the interest that has been paid on this money. It is a terrible state of affairs that up to 17th May this year Cork had not got one brass farthing from the Department after all the talk of the Minister for Finance saying we were getting £667 a house. I had to prove by way of question that that was quite untrue as far as Cork is concerned and that we did not get one farthing. By persisting in asking questions we did get an instalment of £25,000. This is a matter that I think would cover some of the finance that was spoken about at the luncheon at which the Minister was present. I do not think it is the business of an ordinary individual to be probing into these matters. I think there are people appointed and paid for looking after them, for checking them. I hope the Minister realises the great injustice that was done to the people of Cork.

I asked this question about Limerick:—

"To ask the Minister for Local Government if he will indicate how much of the sums of £15,000 and £86,600 mentioned in his reply to a question on 17th May, 1950, as being payments from the Transition Development Fund to Limerick Corporation, were referable to the 148 houses built in the financial years 1944-45 to 1948-49, and to what houses, giving the numbers, location and date of completion, the balance was referable and the amount of grant per house."

The reply I got from the Minister was:—

"The reply to the first part of the Deputy's question is £59,200. The balance of the sums referred to by the Deputy, namely, £42,400, was distributed as follows:

(a) £40,000 towards a scheme of 128 houses at Ballinacurra, Weston, which was finally completed in March, 1950."

The Cork houses were occupied in April, 1946, and not a farthing was paid. The reply goes on:—

"The amount of the Transition Development Fund grant per house already paid is £312 10s. 0d.; and——"

that is clear proof to me that an instalment had been paid on houses in the course of construction. The reply concludes:—

"—— (b) £2,400 towards a scheme of 36 houses at Palmerstown, which was finally completed in May, 1949. The full grant of £400 per house has been paid."

I want to draw attention to another matter. I think the Minister should seriously look into it. It deals with the rents of houses. I put down this question to the Minister:—

"To ask the Minister for Local Government if he will indicate (a) the number of prosecutions during the past two financial years of corporation tenants for arrears of rent in each of the four county boroughs; (b) the minimum and maximum number of weeks' rent due in these cases in each area, and (c) the number of evictions carried out by each local authority concerned."

The reply I received was:—

(a) The number of prosecutions during the past two financial years of corporation tenants for arrears of rent in each of the four county boroughs was:

Dublin	12,193	Cork	183
Waterford	28	Limerick	20

(b) The minimum and maximum number of weeks' rent due in these cases were:

Dublin Corporation	2 weeks,	10 weeks
Cork ,,	3 weeks,	10 weeks
Waterford ,,	8 weeks,	15 weeks
Limerick ,,	8 weeks,	16 weeks

(c) The number of evictions carried out by each local authority concerned was:

Dublin Corporation	21	Cork Corporation
Waterford ,,	3	Limerick

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that people are prosecuted for as little as two weeks' rent and in Cork three weeks' rent. In Waterford and Limerick they do not prosecute anybody who is in arrear for less than eight weeks. I know it is easier to get two weeks' rent than to get two months' rent when the tenants go into arrear. I know of cases, however, where people threatened with prosecution brought down the rent to the city hall and the rent was refused. The lord mayor asked me to draw attention to one case this week where a woman, the mother of nine children, had a clear book up to the month of May this year. In that month, two of her children were confirmed and she had to let the rent go for two weeks. The rent collector subsequently, I take it on instructions, refused to take the money. She went down to the county manager and he accepted it. In the past fortnight she was preparing to go into hospital to have her tenth child. While she was away making arrangements the rent collector called. On the following day she offered the rent and it was refused. The city manager was away and the lord mayor accepted the rent from her and gave her a receipt for it. He told the official in charge that he would hold him responsible if anything happened to the woman. She got notice to quit.

We have been told that the differential rent system will cure a lot of this. The Minister can take it from me that most of these things happen in cases where there are differential rents. The county manager recently boasted to us of the prosperity of the people in the differential rent houses because the income from rents had increased so much. I can assure the Minister that there are people paying rents who need the money very badly for the ordinary necessaries. They know that if they do not pay the rent they will get short shrift. I do not think that is the kind of attitude that should be adopted in these cases.

During my inquiries in relation to Limerick, I asked for a few particulars there about houses. I was told of six houses in Clancy Strand with an area of some 730 square feet, four rooms, a bathroom and scullery, the rent of which is 7/6 a week; £400 was paid from the Transition Development Fund in respect of these houses. I was told of six houses at Crosby Row, 780 square feet, the same number of rooms, bathroom and scullery, 17/- a week, exclusive of rates; 30 houses at Palmerstown, 633 square feet—observe the reduction in the floor area—four rooms, bathroom to be provided later, at differential rents ranging from 11/- to 30/- a week; 106 houses at Pennywell, 720 square feet, four rooms and a bathroom, differential rents ranging from 11/- to 30/- per week, inclusive of rates. I do not know what the feelings of an industrious, hard-working man will be when he discovers that a tenant in Clancy Strand with an area of 730 square feet, ten square feet more than him, and, in the case of Palmerstown, 100 square feet more, when he is called upon to pay 30/- a week, while the other man pays a fixed rent of 7/6 a week and the man in Crosby Row 17/-. Surely the Minister does not think that position can make for contentment amongst the tenants. Surely 30/- a week under a differential rent is out of all proportion. We had such a scheme in Cork, and I heard Deputy Hickey say that the people were paying more than an economic rent for the houses. I might point out that in that case the maximum rent was 18/6 a week. I do not know what the differential rents are in other areas. My object in these questions was to find out principally why Cork was neglected so far as the Transition Development Fund is concerned or any other financial assistance given for the building of houses. That situation cannot make for contentment. All these houses were built recently.

As far as my experience of the Department goes, I have nothing but praise for the officials. I have always received the greatest courtesy from the Minister. We have known one another for a long time. I might mention, however, that recently Cork Corporation applied to have a deputation meet the Minister in relation to the Transition Development Fund. We were told that the Minister was not available. So far no arrangements have been made for that deputation. We were also told that the officials of the Department would have to meet the officials of the Cork Corporation first and go into the figures with them. There could have been no need to go into figures. There was no need to go into figures in other places. The Transition Development Fund moneys were paid in other areas just as soon as the scheme started. I believe there is a necessity to go into figures in relation to the payment of contributions towards loan charges, but the £400 grant, as far as my information goes, was acknowledged as due to any local authority which had built houses for the working classes. The Minister may not have been able to meet us. The lord mayor and I went over and met the officials, together with the city manager and city accountant. We were not able to make any headway, and I was told by the secretary of the Department that we could not expect any finality in an interview like that. I agreed with him that there could be no finality when the Minister was not present. It was a very short interview and we got no satisfaction. We were asked to wait until the officials went into the figures. We agreed to that, but I did ask how much of the £101,600 was given towards the 148 houses; £400 multiplied by 148 only amounts to £59,200. I wanted to know what the balance was given for, and I was told that it was probably given for houses in course of construction. I had to put a parliamentary question in order to get the information, which was that the Limerick houses were completed in March and were paid for in the month of May. I omitted to ask how many months previous to that they were paid for, but they had been paid for when I put the question down. The Cork Corporation did not get a penny for houses that had been completed in April, 1946. The answer I got was that no claim for contribution was made from the loans fund and that payment from the Transition Development Fund could not be made until the final figures were given. I think I can prove conclusively that other people did get the grants before the final figures were given.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I am afraid I have to follow in the same critical lines as the two previous speakers, on the position of housing. Like Deputy McGrath, I have always received the utmost courtesy from the present Minister and his officials, personally and on deputations, but courtesy is of no avail to people in dire need of houses. There are 26,000 families living in tenement houses in Dublin or 28,500, according to the figures for 1938 given in answer to a question yesterday, and the Minister will agree with me that the position has not improved. Courtesy is of very little use to those people. They are commencing to lose confidence in their public representatives as well as in the Government. We receive letters in reply to applications from people who, we feel, should get houses, on the lines that they are still "dealing with families of six" and we wonder what the position of the parents with one, two or three children is, and whether there will ever be any hope for them. In a previous question to the Minister some two months ago, I asked if there was any hope for those people under the present rate of progress, whether they would ever be housed, and his answer was that my guess was as good as his.

It is an extraordinary position and I feel that some of us are wasting our time in getting up here in Leinster House and voicing our criticism, giving our views, recommendations and suggestions to the Minister, when they are let in one ear and out by the other, and the Minister proceeds to-morrow and the day after to act on the advice of the officials and ignores the suggestions made by us.

Two years ago, in response to a request from his predecessor, the late Deputy Murphy, I suggested that, to relieve the appalling situation in Dublin and other big centres, smaller houses should be erected. I suggested that a system could be adopted whereby a basic house would be erected first, that would suit small families and, as the families grew, a second and even a third storey could be built on. The present Minister's predecessor gave that suggestion very sympathetic consideration, and I thought at the time that I was making progress. The objection to the suggestion in the start was that the people in Dublin deserved something better, when they did get a house, than just one storey or a three-roomed apartment. I was not satisfied, so I called several meetings of the people in Dublin who were living in tenement houses and received their suggestions. I had representatives from all Parties here attend such conferences and the people were not alone satisfied, but with open acclamation received the suggestion, as anything would be better than the conditions under which they were compelled to live.

There were many excuses and explantations at the time, as to why this system of mass production could not be entered into. Later, it was money or material that was the difficulty. Responsible people said that we had the money and material, but there was a shortage of labour. The principal shortage there was of plasterers. On behalf of the people who wanted houses, I suggested at a conference that we were prepared to accept the houses without plaster, as they would be more congenial and more hygienic than the present slums, where the plaster on the walls was 100 years old and now a breeding-ground for mice, cockroaches, wood-lice and other insects detrimental to the health of the family.

My experience has been that, instead of any of those suggestions being adopted or entertained, a sort of frozen hostility to myself or anyone else who approved of what was termed revolutionary schemes was adopted. Anyone that I have recommended for houses to the Dublin Corporation, any families who are in a bad state, have not been facilitated. I have received the customary polite reply: "Your letter has been received and it will have sympathetic consideration". On one occasion, when there was a slight change of officials, about last June 12 months, I received one letter here in Leinster House in reply to an application for one individual. It asked: "Will this man be prepared to take a house and be in a position to pay 22/6 a week"? I went over to the man's dwelling, climbed up four flights of stairs and presented the letter and asked him about it. He said he would be prepared to pay 22/- or even 42/- if he could get out of the place he was in. He said: "I was ordered out, by medical advice, seven years ago". I wrote to the corporation, rung them up, and was informed on the phone: "Well, do not hold us to a week or two; give us at least a month". A year has passed by and this unfortunate individual has hobbled over to the corporation several times, to be told: "Well, Deputy Fitzpatrick was wrong". Seemingly I was wrong; there were no houses available in Sarsfield Road; they all had been occupied. He was asked to try Donnycarney. There were over 100 houses vacant there, but they were being held for some other purpose, and so he was sent from Billy to Jack. He has got no house yet, and I do not think he has a hope in the world that he will. I want to state that, due to the attitude I adopted on this housing question, anyone I recommend for a house has no hope of getting one. I feel that to come in here and make a demand that is critical of the officials of this Department and of the Dublin Corporation is not in the interest of those who are looking for houses, and that we Deputies who are not on the corporation should keep quiet if we want to help the people that we represent. Until the position changes, I do not feel that I can do anything for those people.

I am convinced that the present Minister or his Department will not adopt what his predecessor asked for, some suggestions that would change the orthodox system of building houses, if they continue to build for families of six a certain type of house in Crumlin, Cabra, Donnycarney or Sarsfield Road. They are all corporation houses. Seemingly they must be that and anyone who goes along and passes by there, can see they are corporation houses. There is no reason why the outward appearance and size should not be changed. However, it is appalling that small families have no hope of getting a house.

This morning I opened a letter, since I came into the Chamber, which is an indication of the type Deputies receive possibly every day in the week. It is:—

"No. 1 James Street (South Dublin Union).

4th July, 1950.

Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,

We were evicted from a condemned lodge on Saturday and this is the only place my child of five years and I could find a bed to sleep in. It is a shocking state of affairs for an Irish mother, coming from a family that suffered so much for the old cause... I believed that we were due a house, being evicted from a condemned dwelling, but we must go into the union and my home is broken up and I am separated from my husband."

I wonder does the Minister or those responsible in his Department or the Dublin Corporation realise the conditions under which these people have to live. I wonder if in the years to come they will make any change to give some hope to them. They are not in a position to build a house for themselves or buy one, and have not the number of children required to put them on the list for a corporation dwelling.

The number of houses built last year and the year before, I am glad to say, was in excess of the previous years. It has not yet reached the peak reached in pre-war years, but it seems to be developing in the right direction. I must appeal to the Minister to find out from his officers if some system for small houses could be adopted, to suit small families and newly-weds, who could be changed when the family grows. Where a man with two or three children is condemned to live in two rooms in a Dublin slum, some provision should be made, and could be made if we could force those responsible to give up working a system that was handed down from their predecessors.

There is a lot more I could say, but I do not wish to waste the time of the House. This is a deplorable position, and we come year after year with the same complaint, without any great hope. I hope the new Bill, which may come before the House this evening, will give hope to a certain section of the community. We will offer it a welcome and be glad to see it come, though it will not provide for those who cannot put down a deposit.

In a great number of houses there seems to be a system I cannot understand, whereby the family anxious to be house-proud and keep gates, doors and windows painted are not allowed to do so. The corporation say it must be green paint or red paint, and if the occupant likes white paint he is not allowed to use it, as that seems to be a crime. I cannot understand why there should be such a rule or regulation. Any such old stereotyped regulation should be removed.

As on previous occasions on this Estimate, I wish to refer to the traffic congestion in Dublin which, day by day and hour by hour, is getting worse. Leave Leinster House at 5.15 and if you are lucky you will reach Nelson Pillar at 5.45. If you are in a hurry and have a car, leave the car; do not take a bus, but walk. That is the only possible hope of getting to the pillar at the peak traffic hour. Driving a car has become slow enough and also daily more dangerous. I suggested a few remedies last year, but, like my suggestions on housing, they were not noted or were listened to and put off. I suggested that some drastic action be taken to relieve the congestion in the centre of the city.

We heard from the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday in reply to a question from my colleague, that there was under consideration the question of erecting a further bridge across the Liffey below Butt Bridge and a road at the back of the Custom House, coming from Amiens Street. I suggest that if that is done, it will speed up the flow of traffic into the bottleneck in Pearse Street, where it cannot turn to the right into College Green. It will be jammed in Pearse Street. I have driven through that street at 5.30 and find the longest way round is the shortest way home. Any suggestion of a new bridge and road from the far side would relieve congestion on the north side but would jam it completely on the south side. In the peak hours, coming from Pearse Street, College Street, College Green, D'Olier Street, Dawson Street, or Nassau Street, it is impossible to get through. What is responsible for it? I will have the courage to mention for the second time that what is definitely responsible for the jam in the centre of this city is Trinity College and the lawn attached to it. Trinity College being the cradle of British imperialism here, it is heresy for any Irishman to get up and suggest that a tree should be pulled down there so that we might see where we are going or some railings or walls knocked down in case people who drive cars and pay for the right of driving them, people who believe they own this city which is the capital of the Republic, should dare to look over the walls of that college.

Last year, when I made the suggestion in regard to this matter, the only support I got was criticism. It was suggested that I should not have mentioned it, that it was heresy to mention such a thing, that, after all, those connected with Trinity were Irishmen, that they are entitled to their playground, that they are as good Irishmen as those who suggested they could go to the Phoenix Park to play. While that plot of ground stands in the way of traffic regulation in this city, I shall, here or elsewhere, voice my objection to it. As a ratepayer who drives a car and pays for the right of doing so, I believe I have the right to be protected. There is no protection in this city at present. At the peak hours, it is impossible for traffic to get through owing to the congestion. I am not telling a story or trying to build up my case. I came to Leinster House a couple of months ago from the north side and when I got to the front gate of Trinity College I saw two cars locked together by the bumpers. That happens quite regularly in the city. I did not take much notice of that, but when I came to the corner of Dawson Street I saw three cars locked together. The Garda who was trying to regulate the traffic there held up the first car. A second car, which was a military vehicle, bumped into that and then another bumped into the second. They were there quite a long time. Yet the lawn of Trinity College, surrounded by its walls and railings, which should be used to relieve the traffic congestion, is regarded as sacred to the memory of people who wanted to keep Ireland within the British Empire and therefore should not be touched. The Minister should have the courage to bring in legislation giving him power to take over the lawn of Trinity College and, instead of building bridges or making tunnels under the Liffey, try to relieve the traffic congestion by running two roads through the lawn at the back of Trinity College and use the space in between for a car park. That would do a lot to relieve the traffic congestion which is growing in this city.

Mr. Lynch

Like Deputy Fitzpatrick, I presume I have become hardened to having any appeal I make here fall on deaf ears. However, I shall mention some of the more urgent problems that call for the attention of the Department. Unlike Deputy Fitzpatrick, I have, fortunately, had some success in the matter of trying to procure houses for people who asked my assistance in the matter. In the course of two and a half years as a Deputy, out of hundreds of people who have come to me for help in procuring houses, I have received letters on two occasions from people who thanked me for my efforts on their behalf and said they were successful in securing houses. Whether my efforts were responsible for that or not, I do not know. Anyway, that is more progress than Deputy Fitzpatrick was able to report.

My main contribution to this debate will also refer to housing. As Deputy McGrath pointed out, on 3rd March last year there were 5,225 applicants for corporation houses in Cork. Taking those applicants as the heads of families and taking an average of four people in each of these families, we can assume that there are approximately 20,000 people looking for houses. On the same day, the Minister informed me that the rate of progress of building in Cork in the current year was 120 houses for the first half-year and 146 for the second half, making a total of 266 houses per year. People who know the problem better than I do tell me that that is quite a reasonable rate of progress, having regard to the labour difficulties and the difficulty of providing money. It is poor comfort, however, for the people who are on the big waiting list to know that before they are provided for 20 years will have elapsed at the current rate of progress. It is poor consolation to any public representative, be he a member of the Dáil or of a corporation or a council, to have to tell these unfortunate people that there are difficulties in regard to skilled labour and the providing of money.

Deputy Cogan touched on the question of skilled labour and I think he did it in a bold manner. There is a habit in this House to speak with reference to trade unions and other monopolies of that kind with bated breath, as a result of which all but very few public representatives are afraid to speak their minds. So far as the bottleneck with regard to the admission to trades is concerned, I have a very definite view as to what should be done. I think, as most other people think, that that bottleneck should be appreciably widened so that people who have had no relatives in a trade for a number of years should be allowed to be apprenticed to many of these trades. By all means, there could be a safeguard for families who have had a monopoly of certain trades by ensuring that if any members of these families who are skilled tradesmen are idle none of a new category should be allowed to be employed. But, so far as the shortage of skilled labour is responsible for the slow progress in building, I think steps should be taken to open up the bottleneck and provide more skilled workers by allowing more young men to become apprenticed to skilled trades.

We have had the cry for many years now that our universities are overcrowded. That is not due to the fact that the average person looks upon a tradesman as belonging to a lower social grade, but because a young lad going to school, who might normally turn his attention in the direction of a good trade, finds he is not able to get into that trade, continues in school for a few more years and eventually finds himself in a university if he fails to get a job elsewhere. I think that few Deputies will deny that many of those attending universities at present, if they had been lucky enough to get jobs earlier in life in trades or in business, would not have gone to a university. If they had succeeded in getting other employment, we would not have the problem of sending our professional men, doctors and engineers, etc., abroad. I ask the Minister, as a staunch trade unionist all his life, in association with his fellow trade unionist Ministers, to give this problem his urgent, sincere and unfettered attention. In that way he will be going a long way towards overcoming the shortage of houses which exists all over the country.

As regards the type of people who are looking for houses, nobody will deny that the man who has a large family is entitled to first choice. But, as Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, there is another class of persons who have very little chance of procuring a house while those with large families are without them. That is the young married couple who may have one or two children. I would urge on the Minister to introduce a system as a general scheme into all local authority houses, whereby a certain percentage of the houses would be allocated to newly-weds and young married couples. A system has been in operation in Dublin—whether it is to be continued or not I do not know—of building a certain number of houses and distributing them by way of lottery amongst young married couples. I think that that system, whether operated by way of lottery or by providing a certain percentage of houses for these young people, should be applied generally. The young man who at present is forced to live apart from his young wife should be given a chance of meeting his commitments to humanity. I think that the present system, whereby a man and his wife have to live apart, is not only anti-social, but is anti-Christian. Everybody in the country is interested in the propagation of our people, but while this position exists, and is permitted to exist, I am afraid that, with the drain on population by emigration and the restraint put on it by these means, we shall never be restored to the position in which we had man-power in the country capable of utilising the resources of the country to the full.

I would also urge on the Minister that, in most of his housing schemes, he should make some provision, if only by way of a vacant lot, for recreational facilities for people in newly-built areas. I agree, by all means, that all the available man-power and materials should be utilised for housing at present, but it would not add to the difficulty of the problem to leave at least an area sufficient to permit children to play games and frolic around. In one area I know well, where there is possibly one of the biggest housing schemes in the country, the Gurranebraher area in Cork, whether by accident or design, such a plot was left vacant. The people of the district got together, formed various leagues and provided funds by various means, and the playground so provided is one of the outstanding amenities in the district where young men and children can play hurling, football and indulge in other forms of sport.

Last year, I advocated the provision of swimming pools, and I am still of the opinion that, in built-up areas, particularly in large housing schemes, some provision should be made for swimming pools. If they cannot be provided at present, at least a space should be left there in which they can be provided when the housing shortage becomes less acute. It is folly to cover up square yard after square yard with houses and make no provision for the ordinary amenities that a modern community requires in the way of recreational facilities. As I say, I am not advocating that money should be poured into it immediately, but at least the necessary vacant space should be left so that these amenities can be provided at some time in the future.

Some time ago I asked the Minister if he had any request for a tenant-purchase scheme from Cork. The Minister said he had no knowledge of any specific application. I am aware that there is a movement amongst certain of the tenants, at least, to have a tenant-purchase scheme initiated. People who have been paying from 15/- to 22/- a week for houses over a number of years would, I think, be prepared to pay a little more in order to put themselves in the same position as those who were a little better off and who were able to put down £100 or £200 each as an instalment towards the purchase of their houses from the local authority. I would ask the Minister to examine the possibilities of a tenant-purchase scheme and to announce his decision to the House, if he is able to make up his mind one way or another.

With regard to roads, since I became a Deputy I have had occasion to drive between Dublin and Cork almost every week and I could not help noticing the lack of progress in putting the highway into the condition in which it should be as one of the main highways in the country. There is a stretch which I have particularly noticed between Cahir and Cashel, where certain very ambitious schemes are in progress, but in many parts of the roadway, which have been newly cut out and newly surfaced with some temporary dressing, I see the grass protruding. I think that is a position that should not be allowed to continue. If the project was one that was worthy of being commenced, it should be worthy of being pursued to completion. I think Deputy Commons supplied the answer to that particular problem when he quoted the Minister for Finance, as reported in Volume 121, column 1890. That was the reference the Deputy gave. The Minister, in that statement, made some reference to the amount of money which was being poured into the maintenance of roads and said that it would be far better to devote the money to drainage and other schemes. I presume it was in the course of the same speech that the Minister for Finance said that he feared too much money was being put into the roads.

I do not know whether the Minister for Finance has to drive his own car and tax it at the present time but I would ask him and the Minister for Local Government to look at the position from the point of view of the ordinary person who is forced to drive a car in this country at present. Even with a 10 h.p. car, the first thing a driver has to do is to pay £15 tax, apart from insurance. I take as a typical example my own case. In the course of my duties, perhaps intermixed with a certain amount of pleasure, I drive approximately 25,000 miles a year. That represents a consumption of 800 gallons of petrol. According to a reply given by the Minister for Finance some time ago in the Dáil, the cost of petrol to the State or to the importers is something like 1/1 per gallon and the State gets something like 1/9 per gallon profit. To anybody who makes up these figures, 1/9 a gallon on 800 gallons a year, it will be apparent how much the motorist contributes to the State annually for the purpose of keeping the roads in a fit condition to drive his car. I am not going into the motion in regard to roads to any extent but I would ask the Minister to appreciate that point of view. The motorist, first of all, pays £15 in taxes and he then pays from £30 to £80 in petrol duties, so that apart from ordinary rates and taxes, he has to pay between £50 and £100 for the privilege of driving his car whether for business or pleasure on the road.

The last matter to which I wish to refer is the question of development associations. I do not know what cooperation there is between the Department and the development associations that have been springing up all over the country recently, but I know, and I am sure the Minister does, that these development associations, apart possibly from being a little bit of a nuisance to his Department and local authorities, are performing a very useful function in the areas which they serve. These associations are possibly the best form of voluntary effort any Minister for Local Government could have in the background. In Cork we have some, largely concentrated in the suburban areas. We have one in Bishopstown, Spangle Hill, Blackrock, Ballinlough and Gurranebraher. We have about ten associations altogether. These people have got together for the sole purpose of advancing the amenities of their own district, making the residents aware of the value of developing the districts for their own enjoyment and trying to instil into the young people a certain amount of civic spirit and pride. I would ask the Minister to hearken more to the appeals of these associations. They are not looking altogether to the Department to provide everything they want. The Minister must know that there is a large degree of self-help among each of them and in his future dealings with them I would ask him to give them all possible assistance, because, in nine cases out of ten, at any rate, I know that there is a certain percentage of local contribution for the purpose of providing whatever amenities they require.

To revert to roads for a moment, many Deputies have complained in this House over the past couple of years of the reduction in the grants that they have been getting from the Department in their respective counties. I would like to register a complaint on behalf of the constituency I represent: In the last year of the last Government's administration £16,000 was provided for road maintenance and repair; since this Government got into power, not one penny has been provided for a similar purpose. That does not mean that the roads and streets of Cork City are in such excellent condition as to require no contribution from the Government. There is a very heavy charge on the rates in Cork for that purpose. Many of the roads and streets are in such condition as to require immediate attention, and I would ask the Minister to provide at least as much money as his predecessor provided to keep the roads and streets of Cork in proper condition and not to leave them as they are at present in such a condition as to be dangerous not only to horse traffic but to pedestrian traffic.

Mr. T. Brennan

On this Estimate the two principal matters which came under discussion were housing and roads. On the question of housing I have very little to say, except to support the statements made in reference to the figures given by the Minister showing that in 1947-48, 729 houses were built; in 1948-49, 1,871, and in 1949-50, 5,299. The average individual outside reading the Press reports of this Dáil meeting will receive the impression that this great increase from 1947-48 to 1949-50 was all due to the work of the Department under the Coalition Government. Of course, we all know that the schemes by which those houses were built had all been initiated under the Fianna Fáil régime. While in the county for which I am a Deputy we have not made the progress anticipated, the Minister, in advocating the system of the erection of houses under the Labourers Act and the erection of houses in urban areas last year, held up the direct labour scheme carried out by County Wicklow to local bodies as an example to be followed. I can assure the Minister, however, that even we in County Wicklow who are responsible for that all-glorious scheme have not made the progress anticipated by those upon whose shoulders fell the responsibility for the organisation of housing throughout the county and I am not surprised at that. I can say that we have made fairly good progress, taking into consideration all the factors that militated against a big drive, largely the dearth of skilled tradesmen. At the same time, I think that that scheme has never proved itself to merit all the praise it received from the Minister and his Department when it was held up to other local bodies throughout the country in order to influence them to adopt direct labour methods for the erection of houses.

References have been made to the difference not alone in cost, but in quality of the finished article between direct labour and contract houses. I have heard people expressing views on that subject, and I believe that they know nothing about it at all.

Mr. Davern

They would not know anything about the cost.

Mr. T. Brennan

So far as the cost of houses is concerned, we in County Wicklow are on practically a 50-50 basis, so far as direct labour and contract building are concerned. The claim that you get a better finished article under the direct labour system than under the contract system, I suggest, is all boloney. If the contractor can get away with anything, it is the funeral of the engineers, the clerk of works and those responsible for seeing that the contractor carries out the job in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted and they should not be in their jobs. On the other hand, in cases where the last word in the matter of quality is expected, it is well within the bounds of possibility that the material may not go into a house which would go into it where a contractor is operating.

I am a member of the housing committee of Wicklow County Council and we are building close on 500 cottages under the Labourers Acts. The scheme was initiated in 1946 and was started late in 1948. Our attention was drawn by the Minister to the methods which should be adopted in the carrying out of the scheme under the direct labour system in relation to the filing and collecting of costings, and the Department even went to the extent of allowing the council to appoint an extra official in the person of a costings clerk to keep records of all the moneys expended on labour, materials and otherwise, so that the costs would be available to the Department and, I presume, to the members of the council.

Of the scheme of close on 500 cottages, 110 or 120 have been completed, some of which are single and some double cottages. Influenced by the fact that the Department insisted on proper costings being kept, I repeatedly asked at the housing committee meetings for information as to the cost of a particular cottage. I maintain that, with this official and the general staff, professional and otherwise, whom we are paying, if any member of the county council at any time asks for the cost of a particular cottage—naming the cottage—if the officials are carrying out of the instructions of the Department, they should be in a position to give the required information. I have repeatedly asked for that information and I am still awaiting the information as to the cost of the particular cottage. I will not get the information. What I will get is the average cost of a number of cottages which may be distributed over an area three-quarters of a mile or a mile from a central point. They bulk in ten or 11 cottages and give the average cost. I maintain that that is not carrying out the instructions of the Department. The county engineer, the county manager or any other official should be able to tell any member of a local body, if he asks for it, the cost of a particular cottage in a particular townland.

When I argue that that information should be available, I find that the officials concerned consider that, in looking for that information, my attitude is absurd, that it could not be given and that I, as a building contractor, do not keep accounts to that extent. Of course, I do. If I am building a house at a particular point and another house three-quarters of a mile away, I know what goes into one house in a particular townland as I know what goes into the other house, and I know what time it will take to carry out certain works in one or the other. If it takes any more than I think it should, I will make inquiries why that is so. In this case, we have timekeepers, storekeepers, clerks of works, local engineers, assistant engineers and county engineers, and still we find that, when a member of the local body asks for information as to the cost of a particular house in a particular townland, he cannot be given it, but will be given instead the average cost of a number of houses spread over a radius of one, one and a half or two miles. I could not get that information. A very responsible official was prepared to argue the matter with me and considered that my attitude in looking for that information was unorthodox. I asked him why it could not be given. They had timekeepers. The time-book would show the time given in the respective trades and unskilled labour. There were storekeepers who could indicate where the cement went and the amount of timber, tiles and other materials that went to each cottage. While all that information is there, I could not see why I could not get it. What am I told? That the material goes out from the store in the lorry for two, three or four houses, that that is the check. There is no check. I told them that. It was tantamount to telling me that there was no check on each particular house as to the amount of material that went into it. It would take an average of 12 tons of cement to erect a house. There is no guarantee that 12 tons went to a house. "Jerrying" can be done in direct labour, but if the engineers responsible to the county council carry out their work properly, the contractor cannot carry out any "jerrying". I will say no more on that point.

Mr. Davin

Is it being done—the "jerrying" or whatever you call it?

Mr. T. Brennan

When I use the word "jerrying", I mean that the materials may not go to a particular house, but could go somewhere else. One house could get more than another. The possibility is there. It cannot happen in the other case if the engineers are carrying out their work.

On the question of the allocation of tenancies, I agree with the remarks made by Deputy Tom Walsh and Deputy Beegan. A scheme having been initiated, applications having been invited for cottages, the inquiry where necessary having been held, naturally the applicant would expect that, when the particular cottage for which he applied is built, he would get it. I can assure the Minister that the memorandum in regard to the new regulations for the allocation of houses came as a bombshell to the County Wicklow Housing Committee. It must be admitted that the regulation was there under a certain Act, but it had never been put into operation. Why introduce it now? I have no objection to the principle, but where an individual applies, in response to a public advertisement, and has got a voluntary site from a farmer, it is altogether wrong that he should not be given the cottage when it is built, irrespective of whether there are other people who, in the opinion of the Minister or the Department, are in need of houses or not.

Let me draw the Minister's attention to this fact. Lately I have attended housing meetings in certain areas where there was a big demand for house. People were invited to attend and to make their case. One would be surprised at the number of people who are looking for houses. When you ask them did they make a application under the 1949 scheme—which is a supplementary scheme to the 1946 scheme—they say "No". These are the people who are clamouring for houses, and yet they will not take advantage of the opportunity that is given to them to make application. Then they expect the council to be in a position to provide them with a house right away.

The Minister should not insist on the regulation governing the allocation of cottages being carried to its logical conclusion, at any rate, in cases where schemes had been initiated and were in progress, and persons had applied before the Minister decided to issue that particular memorandum to the local bodies. I hope I have made clear to the Minister what I have in mind. I have no objection to the regulation in general. I admit that it is the most deserving people who should get houses but we are placed in the very awkward position, where a voluntary site is in question, that the farmer concerned would not have given that site but for the fact that he had a certain amount of respect for the applicant and was confident that he would treat his property respectfully. He would not have given it voluntarily to some other individual but would have insisted on his rights and would have put the council to the trouble of an inquiry. I do not wish to labour that point at length. I think I have made it clear to the Minister.

I think it was a mistake that the grants for main roads were not continued. The Minister will agree, I think, that the roads deteriorated during the emergency period and that deterioration set in when the amount of traffic that it was possible to have on the roads was very light, when there was no motor traffic worth talking about. I think the Minister will admit that the work done during 1946, 1947, 1948 in resurfacing main roads was a very good job. It is a pity that it was not completed. Within the past few years the demand made on our main roads and on our county roads, due to the enormous increase in motor traffic, is something that I do not believe either the Minister or his Department contemplated would occur within such a short period of time. If we are to keep our main roads up to anything approaching a decent standard we shall be compelled in the immediate future to carry out a certain amount of maintenance work on every square yard of them in the country not every two years or every three years but annually. The position is becoming more acute every day.

Most Deputies must be aware of the condition of the county roads in Wicklow. I heard a Deputy from Mayo speak on this Estimate and he gave the impression that the county roads in Mayo are very good. He is lucky— and so are the farmers in that county— if that is so. I regret that I cannot say the same of County Wicklow. We have roads there which are in an extremely bad condition. How the local authority is going to meet all the clamour which has been going on for the past 12 months and the demands of representatives from every area of the county to have something done to the roads in their respective areas I do not know. Certainly the local authority will not be in a position financially to meet the cost. Therefore, the Minister or his Department will have to take some steps to provide moneys for the purpose. There is hardly a consecutive meeting of the Wicklow County Council at which we do not have a deputation or deputations from different areas demanding further expenditure and demanding also that further work be carried out on the county roads. Something will have to be done about the matter. I believe that the best possible method has been adopted by my county with regard to the distribution of the amount of money allocated. How far it will bring us towards the objective which we should all like to attain as far as our roads are concerned, I do not know, but I must say that I am afraid it will not bring us very far and that, as some of the Deputies have said to-day, we shall be all dead and gone before some of these roads are improved. Something should be done and done at once. All those county roads lead to the approaches and residences of the largest section of the community in this county and of the people who pay a large portion of the rates of the county. Something should be done to satisfy those people by giving them decent approaches to their residences and to satisfy them that it is not our job alone to cater for the big motorists and the other types of individuals who use the main roads but that we have an obligation also to that section of the community which is the mainstay of the whole lot—the farming community. How it is going to be done I do not know, and I cannot make a suggestion, but I am only too well aware that something needs to be done and done immediately because there is a general outcry from the people who are affected. The ratepaying community are not able to meet anything approaching the financial demand necessary to carry out the work. All we can do is to suggest that we pass it on to the Minister and the Department to see what they can do in connection with the matter.

There is one suggestion I can make in connection with county roads. When the Local Authorities (Works) Act was first being operated the Department asked the county councils to prepare and submit schemes for the carrying out of necessary works such as the cleaning of rivers and so forth which rivers, during an abnormal period of rainfall, are responsible for the flooding of roads or are a danger to other property of the county council. There was also provision for the cleaning of rivers in order to prevent the flooding of land. That scheme is all right. It was anticipated that it would be very helpful. While that Bill was going through this House it received a certain amount of criticism from Deputies on this side of the House but I think time has proved that that criticism was not altogether sabotage on our part. Time has proved that it was not criticism for the purpose—as has been stated down the country, and elsewhere—of holding up the passage of the Bill. Be that as it may, schemes were prepared and one scheme, which was referred to by Deputy Cogan, was in connection with the Derry River in that portion of my constituency in which I live. I heard Deputy Beegan pay tribute to the work carried out in County Galway under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and I heard Deputy Commons pay a sort of a tribute also. While we all—certainly in my own case—are prepared to commend any scheme which will give employment, I must say that I am very particular in regard to the manner in which public moneys are expended. We were told, and as a matter of fact the statement was broadcast, that the grant was to be a 100 per cent. free grant. It was a 100 per cent. free grant so far as the ordinary ratepayer was concerned but we all know that the money has to be paid back. Therefore, it is public money which is being expended and there is nothing free about it. When we come to the expenditure of public moneys such as these, it should be the responsibility of every officer on the professional, administrative and technical side of the job to ensure that not alone should the idea of giving employment be taken into consideration, but also the results that are to accrue in the interests of a community as a whole.

We had a very big scheme on the Derry River. The outlay on it from November or December, 1949, up to March or April, 1950, must have been in the region of £20,000 or £24,000. To expend such a large sum of money, steps other than those that were taken in the early stages of the scheme should have been taken. A scheme was submitted, and immediately it received the sanction of the Minister the work started on this river without a proper survey being taken and without any discussion with the representatives of the engineering sections in County Wicklow and in County Carlow, the counties through which the river passes before it enters the Slaney. This work was rushed and, because of that fact, I came to the conclusion long ago that the principal objective in having that scheme put into operation was to get men employed. "Put men on the job, irrespective of where you get them, and later on we can talk about whether a survey was carried out or whether the scheme will be any addition to the land concerned or the roads and bridges that are involved." When I speak about this particular scheme, I am not doing so with any personal motives, but merely in the best interests of those who will eventually pay through the nose.

There is one particular piece of road which was affected heretofore by an abnormal rainfall and there was a certain amount of flooding caused. Knowing this road, and knowing what could happen there on a dark winter night, I would be prepared to go to a lot of expense to ensure that the flooding of that road should be prevented as far as possible. I think even to carry out that job it was not necessary to undertake the big scheme that was undertaken on the Derry River. It cost £20,000 or £24,000 to drain it from its source. If there was any possibility that I could see of reaching finality with regard to that scheme, I might not be inclined to speak so strongly. I was down there only a fortnight ago and, having walked over certain areas there, I got up on one of the heaps of muck or gravel, or whatever it is that is thrown there. I had a bird's eye view of the whole scheme and I must confess—and I think I am one who can visualise the intention of any engineer or engineers in a lay-out —that the whole thing to me was a jigsaw puzzle. I could not say what is going to happen or what is the intention.

When the Minister is replying I would like him to inform us what is his intention with regard to the completion of that scheme. Will he take any steps to ensure that both County Wicklow and County Carlow will play their part in ensuring that the money expended on the work that has been carried out on the Derry River will not be regarded as wasted money because of the failure on the part of either council to carry out its obligations? I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.