Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Local Government (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Thursday, 21 Jun 1951

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

Mr. Dunne

I want to resume on this Estimate by drawing the attention of the Minister to the very serious situation that exists in relation to the administration of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts as they affect Dublin City and County. The present position is of such a serious nature so far as borrowers or intending borrowers are concerned that it merits the immediate attention of the present occupant of the Ministerial post of Local Government. Many hundreds of people in this city and in County Dublin who are anxious to avail of these Acts are being held up by reason of administrative difficulties which exist in the legal section of the Dublin County Council. These difficulties are not new. They have been there over a long period. They came to a head recently owing to the resignation from office of an assistant law agent who dealt particularly with applications for loans under these Acts.

There are many people, young people recently married, families who have been struggling for years to save sufficient money to make a deposit on a new house, who are now held up and prevented from receiving the first or second instalment of loans and prevented from going into new houses because of the fact that this vacancy exists. It is a scandalous condition of affairs inasmuch as it results in the infliction of very severe hardship upon large numbers of people who are doing a very admirable thing in trying to provide themselves with houses and not placing it a burden on the local authority to provide them with houses. I ask the Minister to take particular note of that situation and to take such action as may be necessary to bring it to an end, to bring about a satisfactory position for the unfortunate people to whom I have referred.

Deputies will be familiar with the situation I am speaking about. As well as the borrowers, and the people who want to get possession of houses to reside in, there are also affected large numbers of building contractors who are engaged upon the building of houses under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and who are dependent for their capital and ordinary running expenses upon the even flow of money from the Dublin County Council in respect of these Acts. That position has existed for some weeks now and it has been a growing sore over a long period so far as public representatives in Dublin City and County are concerned, and must be remedied. I believe the difficulty exists because of the reluctance of some authority to provide adequate remuneration for a competent legal man to deal with the day-to-day problems which arise where borrowers are concerned. I hope that the Minister will look into this matter. On a previous occasion I asked the former Minister when something similar occurred to look into the matter, and it was adjusted satisfactorily. I hope that example will be followed and that the complaints made to public representatives over a long period in regard to the slow working mechanism of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts in these areas will be remedied.

It is obvious to everybody who has had any dealing with this particular aspect of the housing drive that the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts have been of tremendous benefit to the people on the whole. From day to day difficulties and delays arise in the operation of these Acts in connection with the acquisition of title so far as sites are concerned and so far as the price and valuation of houses are concerned. All these matters cause very great delay in the housing of middle-class people and people of that kind who have managed to save sufficient money to put down a deposit for a house. They all seem to converge and to get held up in the bottle-neck of the legal department of the local authorities. I speak particularly of the legal department of the Dublin County Council and I do so in the knowledge that we have in the Dublin County Council one of the most competent law officers in Ireland who is working very hard to clear up the position but cannot do so until the whole thing is reorganised and adequate remuneration is made available for a suitable and competent man so as to provide that there will be no interruption of the work so far as the making available of loans to borrowers is concerned. That is an important matter and I sincerely hope the Minister will give it his immediate attention.

I also want to refer to an aspect of local Government which will, I am sure, come under the consideration of the Minister within the coming year. It is one with which members of local authorities in every part of Ireland are very familiar; it is a problem which strikes into the homes of ordinary people, that is, the question of the size of the houses which are now being built and which have been built. In many cases the houses which were built in rural areas ten, 12 or 20 years ago were of the three-roomed labourer's cottage type. In that period the families occupying the houses have grown from families of one or two children to families of six, seven, eight, nine or ten children. Admittedly, these people are housed, but they are inadequately housed because the number of rooms is totally insufficient to provide living space for the number of people living in them. There is only one method whereby that problem can be remedied, namely, by building additional rooms to these cottages. Every county councillor in Ireland is aware of the tremendous demand that exists and that has existed over the years for the provision of additional rooms to county council cottages.

One of the difficulties in regard to this matter is the eternal difficulty of finance. In County Dublin it was decided to tackle this problem and it was discovered, on an estimate provided by the officials of the county council, that the cost of building one additional room to a county council cottage would be £400. When it is considered that practically every old type county council cottage in the county needs an additional room it is obvious that there is a tremendous financial problem involved. The question, where to find the money, immediately arose. The estimated cost, £400, may be somewhat exaggerated, but that estimate was given to at least one council, the council of which I am a member, by the officials and it was given in good faith as representing the cost of building an additional room.

If county councils throughout the country are to be required, as they must be, to build additional rooms, finance must be found to help them to do it. This is work of a capital nature. It is work which must be encouraged. It can be encouraged in a practical way by the provision of financial aid to enable the councils to build additional rooms.

If Dublin County Council, for instance, is forced into the position of building additional rooms at its own expense, if they are built entirely from funds which the council itself must find, then the position will be that an increased rent will be levied which will be altogether outside the competence of the tenant to pay. It is suggested that in Dublin County, if an additional room is built to a labourer's cottage, irrespective of what the existing rent may be, say, 9d, 1/6, 3/- or 7/6, the building of that additional room will mean a charge of 11/6 per week in addition to the existing rent. Manifestly, that is a ridiculous proposition. That is the charge which the officials of the council say would be required to ensure that the sum expended on the additional room, estimated at £400, would be returned by way of rent to the council over a period of years. That is a ridiculous proposition. The worker living in a rural area and the worker in the town are at the present time lowly paid. They have a hard enough job to meet the ordinary commitments of life and to try to rear their families in decency and in some kind of frugal comfort. The suggestion that they should pay such a sum as 11/6 a week in addition to their existing cottage rent is completely unreal and is one that anyone with any experience of local authorities would not consider for a moment.

The problem is, how are county councils or local authorities to be persuaded to build these additional rooms, which should be built and which must be built, and at the same time bear the full cost themselves? We all know that the predominating factor that influences members of local authorities throughout the country is the overwhelming desire to keep rates down at all costs. That is the overwhelming motive, it seems to me, of most county councillors. That idea may appear very laudable to some people and, within reason, rates should be kept down, but I think it is very often pushed too far by members of all Parties with the result that it has a certain bad reaction in many cases on the well-being of the people who reside in the administrative area of the particular council. As long as that mentality exists, there will not be adequate housing facilities.

It is not sufficient in this day and age that a family of five, six, seven or eight should be huddled together in three small rooms, sleeping in two, eating and living in one. That is not a civilised condition of affairs. It might have been quite acceptable 50 years ago. It might have been good enough in those days for the ordinary people in the mind of those who were ruling this country, but we should have a higher concept of the needs of our people. It is not right that four or five people should be huddled together in a small cell-like room and the rest of the family huddled together in another room. It is wrong from every point of view. It is wrong from the point of view of the preservation of the family unit, of which we speak so much at various times both in this House and outside it. We are never done paying lip service to the ideal of the family unit, but is there an influence more destructive of the family unit than the crowding together of too many people in too small a space? Anyone who has had the experience of being crowded with a number of people, even members of one's own family, in too small a space, knows that it has a bad effect; that it creates dissension. Human nature is not made for that kind of living.

I hope the present Minister will give some consideration to the need for extending the existing living space in county council cottages and to the financial problems that underlie the problem, which must be met in some way. I have found that, as a general rule, the tenants of cottages who need additional rooms are prepared to face a reasonable increase in their rent but, as things stand at the moment, they are being asked to pay unreasonable increases. I would ask that the whole matter be investigated.

While the matter is under consideration and investigation, a little imagination might be applied to the design of council cottages throughout the whole country. It may be cheaper to build a three-roomed house rather than a four-roomed house or a five-roomed house but it is surely a short-sighted policy because, in the long run, it will result in emphasis and accentuation of the housing problem. Everyone knows that a great part of our present housing problem is due to the fact that in county council cottages and working-class houses, when the children of the tenants reach maturity and get married they have no alternative but to bring their bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, into their parents' home. They live in one room in that home. A family comes into existence and for many years they live there waiting for a house. The conditions of overcrowding in such cases are very often nothing less than appalling. If we are to provide against a recurrence in our lifetime—and that is a modest enough ambition—of these awful housing conditions, in cycles, as they seem to have occurred over the last 25 years, we must look well ahead and we must plan a type of house which will provide space for people to live in harmony, to live without friction and to live as they were designed and created to live.

That leads me to the equally important question of the general condition of county council cottages. No doubt, this problem which vitally affects the constituency of Dublin County has an equal application throughout the country. For the period from 1939 to the end of the war, and possibly for a couple of years after, it is within the knowledge of everybody that county council cottages and local authority houses generally fell into a pretty serious state of disrepair—not in ones, or twos, or in isolated cases, but generally, and for many reasons. The reasons which undoubtedly will be given and have been given by the Minister and by representatives of the Party now in Government are connected with shortage of supplies. There are two views on that, but I am concerned now with trying to get something done with the present situation.

In my own constituency, we have approximately 3,500 labourers' cottages, cottages in which working-class people live-most of them rural dwellers, badly paid and struggling to live—and anybody who cares to go out to see them will be shocked by the condition of disrepair into which many of them have fallen in the past ten or 12 years. It may be said, and will be said, that it is the function of the local authority to maintain these houses in a condition of repair, but again we come up against the problem of finance. It has been estimated in my county that, in order to repair these cottages adequately, to bring them into a fair condition of repair, approximately £100,000 will need to be spent in the next three or four years. That gives an idea of the problem as it affects County Dublin, and it is repeated all over the country.

The question of finance arises, and I think that work of that kind is essentially capital expenditure, because the homes and houses we build for our people are the most important work that can be undertaken. Although the building of these houses is undertaken directly by the local authorities in the different areas, indirectly the Government of the day is responsible in no small measure for seeing that houses are built for the people and for making financial provision to ensure that they will be kept in some sort of reasonable repair.

I suggest to the Minister that, in the coming year, he might give attention to the need which exists for a complete revision of the provisions for cottage purchase. Every tenant of a cottage is interested in the proposition that he should own his own house and bit of land and that proposition undoubtedly has a tremendous appeal for the people. That is only as it should be, but the present regulations governing cottage purchase are not of such a nature as to attract the tenants sufficiently to induce them to set about the purchase of their houses. The period of payment of the annuity is far too long. When the tenant hears the length of time he has to pay the annuity in order to purchase the cottage, although he and his people before him may have occupied that cottage for 30, 40 or 50 years, and hears that he has to pay a fixed sum of money for a further 20 or 30 years, his enthusiasm for purchase is killed, and that is a bad thing. If tenants can be persuaded to purchase their cottages, it will mean an easier burden on the local authorities and a lighter burden on the Central Fund, but they can only be persuaded by offering more attractive terms and I trust that some consideration will be given to that very important aspect of the cottage tenants' position.

On the repairs question, it is essential that there should be greater thrust by the local authority to bring cottages into a proper state of repair. I am aware of cottages in my constituency which will not stand much more neglect, which will be beyond repair in a very short time if they are not attended to. I feel that that thrust should be brought about by leadership from the Department. As I said last night, the Minister has a very good example which he might very well follow in respect of many aspects of the housing problem in the work of his predecessor, and this aspect is one which I would commend for his consideration. There should be leadership in this matter and local authorities should be told that it is a responsibility of theirs to see that cottages in which ordinary working-class people have to live all their lives, in which children have to be brought up and from which they must be sent out to be educated to enable them to fight their way in the world—some of them could not be called homes because they are no more than hovels—are made decent for the decent people who live in them, because the most decent people in this country live in labourers' cottages.

The question of building generally and building costs is one which will, no doubt, engage the attention of the Minister in the next 12 months, because it must necessarily engage the attention of any Minister for Local Government. In that connection, it is as well to observe the tremendous measure of success which has followed the adoption of building by direct labour in different parts of the country. All of us recall that for donkey's years in this country there was a fetish, a gospel, abroad that the only way you could build a house was by giving a contractor a substantial profit to build it. That was the only way you could build economically. That particular fallacy has been completely exploded in the past three years and it has been found that, where local authorities built houses by direct labour, the cost of such houses was very much below the cost at which they would have been built had they been built by contractors. I hope that the policy of building by direct labour will be pushed by the Department and that local authorities will be encouraged during the coming year to build by direct labour, because it has been found in practice to be the most economical and the best form of building.

That is not to say that the private building contractor should be eliminated. He can give good service to the community by entering into competition, as regards price, with local authorities, who are building by direct labour. It is obvious to all that the direct labour schemes have been a pronounced success. At present some of them are being held up through the shortage of cement and in some areas some of the workers are being gradually laid off. It is a curious thing, however, that while the private building contractor generally has been able to obtain adequate supplies of cement, the local authorities building by direct labour have been the first to suffer, from the shortage. The shortage of cement is a problem which will be solved only by the erection of a further cement factory, but that is not something with which the present Minister has a great deal to do, though it must be tackled as well as the other problems.

Would the Minister indicate, when replying, for my information and the information of people associated with my constituency, what he proposes to do, if anything, in the coming year with regard to a project known as the Bray Road scheme? A year or two ago, when members of the Minister's Party, notably my learned colleague from my own constituency, were speaking here, or as members of his Party in the Dublin County Council, they were demanding that the famous Bray Road scheme should not be abandoned. In fact, that kindly, charitably-spoken gentleman, Deputy MacEntee, the present Minister for Finance, stated on 5th July here in the Dáil that "this is a public work that must ultimately and inevitably be carried out". That is given in Volume 122, column 695, for the 5th July, 1950. Does the Minister propose to restart that scheme during the coming year or in the future? It was to cost £500,000. I was anxious; with others, that it should be carried through and it would appear that the Fianna Fáil Party were also anxious that it should be carried through, judging by their public pronouncements.

I would like to hear the Minister, in replying, say that it will be carried through, as it would provide much-needed employment, or the continuation of much-needed employment, in my constituency. The fact that it was not put through may be ascribed to the local authority, the Dublin County Council, who by a majority objected, under pressure from certain rate-paying interests. In my constituency, it meant that £80,000 which would have been allocated from the £500,000 and which was to be devoted to the improvement of the main Dublin-Belfast road, was not expended. As this proposal originally started before the advent of the inter-Party Government, I hope it will be brought forward again and I would be glad to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

One of the most vital and pressing problems which beset persons endeavouring to build in Dublin City or County is the problem of town planning and the green belt. Town planning is undoubtedly very beneficial and is essential in this modern age. The general concept of it is one with which no progressive person will disagree. Unfortunately, the application of that concept and that theory to town planning in the City of Dublin has not been so happy. We have had great difficulty at various times in securing permission for the working or middle-class people to build houses in certain areas, where impossible conditions were imposed upon them by virtue of town planning regulations. Under the Town Planning Acts, the Minister has discretion to decide on appeal in favour of or against those who may be aggrieved by the actions of the town planning authority and I am glad to say that the previous Ministers who have occupied the Custom House for the past three years have distinguished themselves by their very liberal interpretation of the town planning regulations. It was an interpretation which brought benefit to those who were trying to build and who were grappling with the mass of red tape that surrounds the problem. I hope that policy of the previous Ministers will be followed by the present Minister.

We seem to suffer in this country generally from insufficient numbers of competent officers prepared to work for local authorities. We have had the experience in County Dublin of one of our most competent officers leaving us to work with another local authority— as it was within his rights to do—for the simple reason that the scale of remuneration offered was infinitely superior to that offered by the Dublin County Council. If we are to attract into the public service the best brains in the country, those whom we need in the line of engineers and persons interested in town planning and building, we must be prepared to offer them terms of remuneration which will bring them in. In some cases at present, the scales offered are the surest guarantee of keeping them out.

I would like the Minister to let us know, when replying, whether he will give some thought to the purely local problem between Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council regarding the city fringe housing ground. It strikes those of us associated with the housing problem here that there should be some reciprocity as between the city and the county housing authorities in the matter of allocations. I understand that the present regulation is that no local housing authority has a right to house an applicant unless he resides within the administrative area of that housing authority. Whether it is a regulation or not, certainly it is the practice and it is unrealistic in the case of Dublin City and County because very often we have cases—not one or two individual cases but scores—of people who reside on the borders of the city and county and while one housing authority, such as the county council, might not find it possible to provide houses for them, it might be an easy matter because of the nature of the case for the corporation to provide them. They are prevented, however, from taking such steps because of the lack of a reciprocal arrangement between the two housing authorities and the Minister should take steps to bring that unsatisfactory position to an end.

I referred last night to differential rents and they were the subject of a question asked to-day by Deputy Alderman Byrne. The Minister indicated in his reply that it was entirely a matter for the local authority. I think I am correct in saying that provision for the implementation of the differential renting system was originally made in a housing Bill which passed through the Dáil in 1947 and finally became law in 1948. It is an easy thing for the Minister to say that it is entirely a matter for the local authority. In my view, it is not; it is a matter for the central as well as for the local authority. It is surely a matter for the Government because we must realise that if excessive rents are being charged to tenants of local authority houses, it needs attention and direction from the central authority and from the Minister.

One of the possible solutions which has been advocated by the Minister's own Party up and down my constituency, and I am sure in other constituencies, is an increase in the subsidy from the Central Fund in respect of the building of houses. That was advocated, as everybody knows, on many occasions. The people of County Dublin who were asked to pay rents of 24/4 a week—and some were to be asked to pay 33/- a week—were told by the Minister's supporters that the Central Fund subsidy in respect of houses should be increased. The Minister has an opportunity now of doing that and his supporters have an opportunity of making good the promises which they made to the people, in my constituency at least. I hope it will be done and I will keep a close eye on the progress of events to see that it is done. I hope that Deputy Burke will exercise the pressure which he is now in a position to exercise in order to bring about this desirable end.

I do not think it is right that a Minister of State should dismiss so lightly this question of rents which is so vital to hundreds of thousands of our people by saying that it is entirely a matter for the local authority. It is not a matter for the local authority, but a matter of Government policy. The people should be told what the Government believes in and what they stand for. I am asking the Minister to attend to that problem because it is a scourge at the present time in areas which I can mention. In Ballyfermot, where thousands of working-class families live on the fringe of the city, in Tallaght, in Clondalkin, in Lucan and in scores of other areas where the differential rent system is now being operated, this system is a scourge on the backs of the working people. Those who went out of their way in the past two years to try to create the belief in the public mind that it was purely the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government and not the responsibility of the local authority have now the opportunity to impress on their own Minister for Local Government that something must be done about it and done quickly.

Mr. McGrath

Deputy Dunne seems to condemn the entire question of differential rents. I think that Cork City has longer experience of the system than any other place as the system has been operated there for a large number of years. Going back 18 years, we let houses from 3/6 to 18/-a week, houses which were built pre-war. There is a lot to be said in favour of differential rents from the viewpoint of the casual worker or the worker with small wages because at times of sickness or of idleness the rent is reduced to an amount which he can afford to pay. The highest rent on the differential system for pre-war houses in Cork was 18/6 a week. Recently we had a scheme for people who had to be removed from a district subject to tidal flooding. We had to shift some 12 or 14 families from the flooded area and we put them into a small housing scheme which we had built.

We found that those people were not in a position to pay the £1 or 25/-a week which they would have to pay if they went into the fixed rent houses being built at the present time. As a result, we agreed with the city manager to have differential rents for that small scheme, the first differential scheme we had since the conclusion of the war, and the rents were fixed from 6/- to 30/- a week. As a matter of fact, 6/- was no rent at all but merely the rates on the house. The manager wanted to fix the maximum rent at 35/- a week, but it was reduced by a decision of the corporation to 30/-. He agreed, however, that he would never see 30/-because the people who were being put in those houses could not afford to pay it. Would Deputy Dunne suggest that that was not a good way of housing those people who were not able to pay £1 or 25/- a week? Is it not a good system for dockers and others in casual employment who may earn a lot of money in one week and none in other weeks? According to the Cork system, when such a man earns big money he pays the maximum rent and when he is idle the rent drops down in accordance with his income.

There are some points in the working of the system, however, with which we do not agree. For instance, in fixing the differential rent certain allowances such as tuberculosis allowances or increases in old age pensions or blind pensions are taken into consideration and are calculated as income.

The Minister should see that these things do not continue. Within the past month I had a case of an old lady who was living in a place called Spring Lane in Cork. While she was within the city borough she was getting 15/-a week blind welfare from the corporation. She was getting into such a state that she was unable to go around the house herself. Her son-in-law decided to bring her up to a corporation house immediately outside the borough, to a place called Spanglehill. Her blind welfare payment dropped from 15/- to 6/-, which was the amount of the blind welfare she got from the Cork County Council. As well as that, her son-in-law's rent was increased by 2/- a week because the household income had increased by this 6/- and the 17/6 blind pension. That is a scandalous state of affairs. Benefits given to unfortunate people like that should not be assessed against them in calculating differential rent.

Outside of little difficulties like that, I think that, on the whole, the differential scheme is a good thing. If a person pays, while he is earning, a little more than he pays in a fixed rent house, it is an insurance for him against sickness and idleness. I have known people who are not in what you call fixed, constant work and who are very glad to have that differential system working. Of course, the person who is earning big money objects to paying a maximum rent, which would be more than he would have to pay in a fixed rent house. As far as Cork goes, every facility is given to people to transfer into a fixed rent house in order that a poor tenant who would be unable to pay a high rent would get into the differential scheme.

At the present time there is a scheme being built for differential rents. It is the first since the war. I would like to point out to Deputy Dunne that, previous to that, when you went down to the City Hall looking for a house for a poor man or a worker with small wages you got the answer: "He cannot afford to pay £1 or 25/-; we will wait until we have a differential house idle." That may not happen in County Dublin but it happens in the City of Cork. I am sure that on occasions it would happen in the City of Dublin. I do agree that the maximum should not be put at too high a limit over the ordinary fixed rent. I think it should really be in the nature of a few shillings more than what the fixed rent house would be. This would then serve as an insurance to the tenant that if he was faced with sickness or unemployment, he would drop to the lower rent. Deputy Dunne will find, after some experience of the differential rent system, that it is not so bad as some people say. I admit that there are a lot of investigations made into people's income, especially in Cork. They work the system very well. They have a good staff — of course, they have thousands of houses. The tenant is supposed to state any alteration in his income. If he does not state that alteration and if the rent collector finds it out afterwards, he will be charged retrospectively the increased rent he has got away with.

My intention in standing up here was really to call the Minister's attention to the appalling state of housing in Cork City. The Minister's predecessor did everything as far as giving us goodwill and encouragement. I would not like to have anybody think anything else. I can say the same about his officials. But we want more than goodwill in Cork.

We got a report from the medical officer within the past month, and he stated that there were over 4,500 families in need of houses in Cork City at the moment — in other words, 24,000 persons. For the past three years the rate of progress in Cork City has been an average of 100 houses a year. There is no necessity to tell anyone how long it will take to fulfil the desire of the present applicants for houses if that rate is not stepped up. I think that it is absolutely necessary that the Minister should take some steps to have some investigation or inquiry made as to why better progress is not made in housing in Cork. We started a direct labour scheme and, as far as it went, it was certainly a success. Under this scheme good houses were built at a lower cost than the contractor's price. My own opinion is that, if 4,500 houses are needed, the Minister should inquire as to the plans in existence for the building of those houses. He should insist that land is acquired, that sites are developed, that contracts, as well as a direct labour scheme, go ahead and that work should not be confined to one contract or to one or two sites at a time. There is no use in telling the members of these 4,500 families: "You will get a house in 30 or 40 years." By that time many more people will be requiring houses because, in Cork City at the present time, there are a number of houses that have outlived their usefulness. Large numbers of people are living in condemned or overcrowded houses. Some have even been delayed in sanatoria awaiting houses, or because they had no proper house to go into.

Mr. Dillon

Without getting cross, would Deputy McGrath tell us what was the cause of the delay in Cork? Was there some exceptional reason?

Mr. McGrath

We have not been able to get at the real reason. We had conferences with the workers in the building trades and we found out a few reasons. We found, for instance, that tradesmen were anxious to get overtime during the summer months and that they were not allowed to work overtime.

Captain Cowan

That is scandalous. It is permitted in Dublin.

Mr. McGrath

The workers went to builders on other schemes who would give them overtime. In some cases, having worked during the day on a corporation housing scheme, they went around the district in the evening to build bungalows. As a result of one of the conferences, it was agreed to allow the tradesmen to work overtime, but the fact was that we had lost a certain number of skilled men by the time we got that concession. They were anxious to earn the money while it was available, and I think they were quite within their rights.

I think the greatest hold-up in building houses in Cork is due to the fact that we are not planning far enough ahead. In my own opinion, sites should be developed and sewerage and water laid on years ahead. Plans for these should be sent to the Custom House for approval before a scheme is built not afterwards. As I pointed out a while ago, sufficient land should be acquired and sites developed for houses for the 4,500 families. I would say that the amount of land we have at the present time and the sites in view, though not developed, would not cover 1,000 houses. I think the Minister should go down to Cork and hold an inquiry into the whole business. I would like to make this clear, that every member of Cork Corporation is wholeheartedly behind the housing scheme. We have given every encouragement to the manager and to his officials to proceed with the work. Recently some houses were completed and 38 of them were to have been handed over a fortnight ago. When we inquired why they were not handed over we were told that railings, for the intersection of the gardens, were not available as they had not yet come from England. That is a sad state of affairs.

The members of the corporation were not aware that these railings were being made in England. Apparently the contractor was responsible. I do not think that railings, or any other commodities required in connection with house building under the Department of Local Government, should be imported while the same commodities can be procured in our own country. Those houses will not be given out to tenants until the railings come from England. The railings required for the direct labour scheme which was carried out by the corporation were made in Midleton, which is about 13 or 14 miles from Cork City. I do not know why the contractor was not compelled to procure the railings in question either in Cork City or in one of the surrounding towns. When one considers that iron, suitable for the manufacture of these railings, was made in Haulbowline, it seems strange that the contractor or whoever sanctioned the importation of these railings did not try to procure them locally. If they had been procured locally the tenants would not now be waiting to go into the houses which are lying there ready to be occupied.

It seems extraordinary—and the Minister should inquire into the matter—why a city such as Limerick, with a population half the size of the population of Cork, should be able to turn out almost twice as many houses as Cork City.

Captain Cowan

There is something wrong.

Mr. McGrath

In April, 1951, the number of houses in course of construction in Cork Borough was 250, while the number in Limerick was about 600.

A certain type of people will never get a house from the local authority and these people now realise that their only hope is to build a house themselves. It is most unfair to those people, who were hoping to be able to get one of the sites to which I referred, to be disappointed like this. There were posters in Cork telling people how to go about building their own houses, and yet when people came to ask for one of the sites they found that they were not ready and were hardly marked out on the map. Another year has passed and no wonder the people are disgusted about this matter.

When the Minister's predecessor brought in the 1950 Housing (Amendment) Bill there was considerable discussion about high ground rents and the fines that some people were paying on sites for houses. We were promised an inquiry into the matter. I do not think that, since that promise was given, anything has happened to prevent people charging the high ground rents which they are charging. There are people paying as much as £15 and £20 a year for sites which they were getting for £5 and £7 10s. 0d. a few years ago. I think that is a scandal. Just consider what £15 must mean to a man who is earning £7 or £8 a week. In addition to that, he has to pay rent and he has to pay off loans. Surely it is most unjust.

We were also promised by the Minister's predecessor that he would look into the matter of getting a reduction in the legal charges in respect of these houses. From what I hear, the position is not improving.

Mr. Dillon

What head rent would the Cork Corporation levy on a site?

Mr. McGrath

£7 10s. 0d. and, I think, £10 for the new scheme.

Mr. Davin

The new ground landlords.

Captain Cowan

They do it in Dublin.

Mr. Davin

Of course they do. You know it.

Mr. McGrath

Of course, the Cork Corporation develop the site and build roads there. However, there are a lot of places around the City of Cork, of which Deputy Corry and Deputy Desmond are aware, where no roads are developed and which are causing a considerable amount of trouble at present to the people there. Before the operation of the Town Planning Acts, people were allowed to build houses where they liked and how they liked. The result of that is that some people within a mile or so of the City of Cork are now living in houses that have not a proper road leading to them.

Deputy Dunne spoke about the building of big houses. I agree with him that houses should be sufficiently large to hold an average family of, say, five or six persons. I should like, however, to ask the Minister to examine the necessity for the building of a number of small houses. We built 22 houses which were supposed to be exclusively for newly weds or lone aged couples. The Minister would be surprised if he saw the hundreds of applications we received for that type of house. In Cork City alone, at least 500 small houses should be built, even in terraces, for newly weds or lone old couples.

There is a pressing necessity for that type of house which could be built at about half the cost and in about half the time of the present type of house. I would not press for this kind of house in ordinary times, but the present state of housing conditions in Cork makes me look for something like that. Unless we do something on the lines I suggest, we will never go near meeting the needs of those people. If a married man is looking for a differential rent house, he must have five or six children before his application is considered. You have the appalling position of people getting married and going home to their parents. As Deputy Dunne mentioned, they go and take a room in their parents' houses, the result being that rows occur and there is quarrelling between in-laws and the older people when a family comes along. When the house gets overcrowded, there is bickering going on the whole day. You also have people in Cork living in houses in which there is no proper sanitary accommodation.

Finally, I would ask the Minister seriously to consider the holding of some investigation or inquiry into the housing position in Cork. Such an investigation is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, you will be forcing more people out of the country. Whether Deputies believe it or not, I know numbers of people who would have stayed in the country if they had houses to live in. It is a very wrong thing that housing needs should bring about a situation of that sort. I even know people who were in constant employment and who could not get a house, with the result that they decided to go across to the other side, where they could get a house to live in.

Dr. O'Higgins

In rising to speak on this Estimate I am not doing so with any intention of either opposing or criticising it. If I were to engage in any criticism of the Estimate it would be to deplore the fact that it has been rushed so early without having it revised in association with the avowed declaration of policy by the Party to which the Minister belongs. In the Dáil, about an hour ago, we had the Taoiseach pointing out that a certain line of action was taken, and saying that that line of action was taken because it was in accordance with the policy and outlook of the Fianna Fáil Party, even though it was unprecedented and unusual. For some years back we have had thunderous denunciations of the housing policy of the previous Government and of the previous Ministers for Local Government and Finance on the grounds that the subsidies for housing nowadays, when one takes into account increased costs and the depreciation in the value of money, were totally inadequate. If those protestations were genuine and sincere, half-an-hour at a desk would have altered this particular Book of Estimates and provision would have been made for carrying out the financial policy, vis-à-vis housing, that was declared to be the policy of the gentlemen opposite.

But this particular Estimate was rushed. It was taken early so that the Minister in charge of it would be in a position to say that he had not the time to go into all that. When we were asking about the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture an hour ago, the Tánaiste said that he had put it last because the Minister in charge of that Department was a new Minister. But the first Estimate that was taken was the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs where there is a brand new Minister. It was necessary to put him first because, if he were put further back, he might be asked some questions about the short-wave broadcasting station. The Estimate that is taken next is again in charge of a new Minister so that he will not be tripped up with the declarations of policy made by his own Party. He will be able to shove up alibis of not knowing his way yet into the Custom House.

However, those are matters that will, with a certainty, be raised again. It is sometimes necessary to rub people's noses in their own cast. There are going to be a number of red noses in Dáil Éireann before this year is out. But, however, that is as far as that goes. We will leave it there for the moment, with the warning that we are going to help the gentlemen opposite to keep their promises with regard to housing and other matters.

The housing situation in Cork City, taken in conjunction with housing progress, and the housing programme for the City of Cork, are both equally scandalous. The idea of reaching a point of building 100 houses a year in the City of Cork is nothing but a joke at the expense of the wretchedly housed people of Cork. We have been told that the city medical officer of health has reported that there are 4,500 families wretchedly housed and in need of housing. Yet, in face of that situation, we are building at the rate of 100 houses a year. What rate should we be building at if there are 4,500 families at the moment in need of houses?

I have been dealing with housing as a particular portion of my professional work for 20 years back. Some 19 years ago, after a full and detailed survey in the County Meath, we found that there was at that time a requirement for 1,000 houses. That was the situation then existing. More than 3,000 houses have been built since, but on the day that I left Meath there was a further requirement for 1,500 houses. Take the position where you are dealing with old and decayed houses. If you build even for what is there and you say: "We will rehouse everyone in the City of Cork who at the moment requires a house; we will rehouse them in six years", at the end of six years you will find a very considerable accumulation of people who still require houses.

I drew attention to this matter previously, and I want it looked into. As a Deputy representing Cork City, I have got a very great number of people writing to me and applying for houses. I inquire into their conditons and I find that every qualification comes within the housing code and within the regulations. I pass along the recommendations and finally they get nowhere. Why? Because there are worse cases higher up the queue and because there is a total insufficiency of houses. There are families in Cork City living in one room with multiple children and with tuberculosis in the house and they are getting nowhere towards a house and they never will at the present rate of building in Cork.

I could never ascertain exactly where responsibility rested for that state of affairs. The previous Minister for Finance stated time and again in public, and assured me, that money would not or was not stopping housing. The previous Minister for Local Government here and in Cork City assured the people that he was doing everything he could to encourage more and more building and that he was disappointed at the rate of building in Cork City. Some explanation was given this evening by Deputy McGrath that there were difficulties with regard to overtime in connection with direct labour; that building conferences were held and that those difficulties have been possibly surmounted, but I could never see why all the eggs should be in one basket. With the immediate requirement for 4,000 houses why limit the building programme to either contract or direct labour? Why not put one up against the other, even though a house may be dearer in one set than in another? Why not have competition in output? Why not have competition in the rate of building? But, whatever way the matter is solved, the present and past output in the City of Cork is nothing but a miserable bluff. It is not meeting the situation at all.

As ex-Minister for Defence, I did make an effort to meet the appalling housing conditions existing in Cork. I offered Rockgrove Camp to the corporation. It would not be an ideal housing site, but, at least, with a bit of adaptation, 80 to 100 families could have been provided with good walls around them and a good roof over their heads. There were three times the number of applications from residents of Cork. Owing to the desperate position in which they lived, they were prepared to go out to Rockgrove Camp where the head of the house would have to come in to work every day. If there was anything like a reasonable prospect of getting a house in the City of Cork, those queues would not have been there to go out to Rockgrove.

I would urge, and urge very strongly, that the situation in Cork City be looked into. There is something definitely wrong there. You might as well build none as build 100 houses a year. Why? Children are being born every day and every hour. Even if you filled your two houses a week, that is, your 100 a year, families are increasing while you are providing two houses per week and places that were not previously overcrowded are becoming overcrowded. People are being brought to these two-room and one-room houses, which are taken and rented by newly weds, and the houses are becoming overcrowded and new slums are growing up. Meeting that situation by providing two houses a week over the period of a year is, of course, clearly a losing battle. That 4,500 will probably be 5,500 at the end of another 12 months, with the 100 houses a year thrown in not worth reckoning. I have seen these situations existing.

On this question of larger houses, I believe in larger houses but I believe the larger houses should be for larger families. I have seen, in an administrative area that I had to deal with professionally, a clearance area where quite good sized houses were built in order to remove people from that clearance area. They were good type houses, fairly large houses. A lot of the people who had to go into those houses because of the clearance were elderly couples. They immediately proceeded to let every room in the house, except one, mainly to young married people. The situation at the end of ten years was definitely appalling and positively indecent. You had four and five families in those houses. I recollect well reporting on one large colony of houses where the smallest number of families occupying any house was two and where the number of families went up to four and five, with children in all the families. If elderly people, because of clearance areas or condemned areas, are to go into larger houses, then faces will have to be firmly set against subletting. Subletting of rooms is the readiest way of creating a new slumdom in a newly built up area.

Surely, this talk about two-roomed houses for newly weds is shortsighted? One hope that nationally and otherwise we have with regard to early marriages and marriages generally is that families will develop. What will be the position in a few years' time? They get rooted in those little houses and everybody washes his hands of any responsibility. We provide a house for a man and there the family of five or six or, perhaps, more are still in that tiny house. I would much prefer, if powers were necessary, that the necessary powers would be given. Certainly build small houses, but put elderly couples, whose families are fledged and gone, into them and put the newly weds into the more commodious house.

I think I should like to see conferences with regard to housing policy generally. The kind of short-sighted policy that meets the situation for the time being leads, in the long run, to trouble. In cases where people coming out of a certain area have to get whatever the standard house is—you may have an elderly spinster occupying a house—it might be advisable to consider a transfer as between houses.

There are divergent views with regard to differential rents. Differential rents came into existence a considerable number of years back in Dundalk. For approximately 20 years back they have been in existence in the City of Cork. There will always be certain differences of opinion in relation to such matters as differential rents. I am perfectly satisfied from inquiries at both ends that the scheme is on the whole satisfactory and worthy of application to other areas. Properly administered, competently administered and sympathetically administered, the scheme is a good scheme. If the rent at one end of the line is high that in itself is due to the inadequacy of housing in the City of Cork.

There is another point which comes under the Minister's field of authority, perhaps not very specifically or very directly. Elections are times when one hears in rather concentrated form the grievances of the ordinary people. One may get these grievances in trickles throughout the normal year; one gets them in very strong doses when an election is pending. There is one matter that has agitated the people in Munster, and particularly in the City of Cork more than elsewhere. Statements have been made here and outside with regard to it. I refer to the fact that a person in the City of Cork can scarcely take up a hammer and a packet of nails and put up a shelf in a room but he finds his house revalued. In nine cases out of ten there is no definite connection between the new valuation and the old valuation.

The Minister for Finance was questioned with regard to that policy. The Minister for Finance said that unless, in the event of a general revaluation, that matter was the responsibility solely of the local authorities; that rent collectors and others had a responsibility to report anything in the nature of alterations, reconstruction or anything of that kind and the Valuation Office then came along and revalued the premises. The initiative, in other words, in connection with that revaluation rests with the local authority. Now, that is a thing that can be pushed too far and too fast. If it is carried out in such a full manner, it will have the effect of discouraging anything in the nature of improvements. It will discourage the provision of reasonably better amenities for families within their own homes.

I admit there is reason in everything and it is only when things are carried too far that reasonable policy become an irritant. A reasonably good policy, however, can very rapidly become an irritant and it can, in its effects, degenerate into an evil. Over a period, there was a high degree of intensity in regard to this particular matter and the authority, which many of us thought was with the central Valuation Office and therefore with the Minister for Finance, turned out to lie in an entirely different direction. We discovered that responsibility does not lie with the central Valuation Office. I would like to have a statement as to what is the policy of local authorities with regard to minor alterations and minor reconstruction. Will anything of that nature be a sufficient justification for a revaluation of the premises affected? If revaluation is based merely on the increased value arising out of improvements, then I think there would be no reasonable cause for complaint. If valuations generally are out of date and a house with a valuation of £20 should, according to modern standards, be valued at £40 and if, because a shelf or a door is put in, that valuation is jumped from £20 to £40, that will discourage anything in the nature of providing better amenities in the home. If, on the other hand, revaluation could be limited to the increased value given to the premises because of the improvements made, no reasonable person could object to that course.

I have one other point to put to the Minister and perhaps I shall only be helping his elbow in raising this. There was a sworn inquiry held in Cavan and the Minister was very vocal with regard to the sinister hand that was holding back the outcome of that particular inquiry. I think he will recollect several of his own speeches where he suggested there was some influence in the background preventing that report being dealt with and the conclusions being published. Whatever urgent necessity existed for the publication of that report some months ago it still exists to-day. The Minister was never satisfied in the past when he was assured that there were reasons for the delay and that reasonable steps were being taken to expedite the matter. Perhaps he will take the opportunity when replying of saying whether that is not so and, if that is not the situation, has he discovered the sinister influence and has he removed it? Will he produce the report at an early date?

Mr. Burke

Listening to my colleague from County Dublin yesterday evening and again to-day, I am rather amazed to discover how eloquent he has become in a week or two. He had three and a quarter years in which to rectify all the matters to which he referred. He seems to think the new Minister for Local Government should have set these things right in one week. I believe in sincerity in public life as well as elsewhere. If there ever has been an insincere speech made here since the inception of this Dáil, it was made yesterday and to-day by my colleague, the representative of the Labour Party in County Dublin. He nearly took down the roof of the House preaching about various grievances that exist in County Dublin and telling us about people who had been affected by the withdrawal of road grants—the road grants for the reduction of which, by £2,000,000, he voluntarily went into the Division Lobby to vote. He wanted to know whether the present Minister was going to increase the road grants immediately—before the man had even time to get a look around his office in the Custom House to see what was left to him to allocate for anything. Of course, a mentality of that kind is beneath contempt and possibly not worthy of reference.

Another point to which he referred was differential rents. I am opposed to the system of differential rents as operated in County Dublin. The differential rent system was brought into operation by a Minister of the Deputy's own Party and now, because the Deputy has had to change his seat from this side to the other side of the House, he is shouting from the housetops in regard to that matter. I am not going to change my views on that matter because I have been opposed to the system, as it is operated in County Dublin, from the time it was first put into operation. We have paid inspectors travelling, around County Dublin and if Johnny So-and-So has three children and sends one of them to work to earn 5/- or 6/- a week his rent is increased as a result of the activity of these inspectors. It may be that a daughter of a tenant of one of these houses goes to work and earns 10/- or 12/- per week. When the inspector finds that that is so, the rent is immediately increased.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. M. O'Reilly)

The Minister has a direct connection with that.

Mr. Dillon

Has he direct responsibility for the County Dublin rent collectors?

Acting-Chairman

He administers the system.

Mr. Dillon

I hope the Minister agrees with that.

Mr. Burke

Deputy Dillon, with his usual play-acting, is trying to queer the pitch to put me off the point, but he will not. Deputy Dillon's colleague when he was Minister was the man responsible for asking the Dublin County Council to administer the scheme to which I am referring. These are matters that the new Minister will have to consider in the light of the circumstances appertaining to the various points that have been made and will be made on this subject of differential rents. I am totally opposed to the system as it is at present administered.

Another matter to which reference was made here was the North County Dublin regional water scheme. That scheme had been far advanced three years ago, but there is only a small portion of this scheme in operation, or about to be put into operation, in the Blanchardstown-Castleknock area. I do not think that the previous Administration would have that scheme so far advanced were it not for the erection of the sanatorium in Abbotstown; it was mandatory on them to provide a proper scheme there. The North County Dublin regional water scheme, however, which I had envisaged, has been scrapped, with the result that people over a wide area are in a very bad way owing to lack of a proper water supply. The scheme which I had in mind covered areas as far out as Rush, Lusk and Donabate.

At present in Rush, Lusk and Malahide there are many complaints about the lack of water. This is a matter, I suggest, of national importance and, whether I sit on this side of the House or on the other, I am going to press very hard for the completion of the scheme. There is an urgent necessity for proper water supplies and sewerage in the various towns, villages and seaside resorts in North County Dublin. A proper scheme for these areas is long overdue. I am not going to be so uncharitable as to say that the Minister could provide all these supplies with a wave of his hand. I know that he will have a very hard job to revive some of the schemes that have been scrapped during the last three years.

There is also an urgent necessity for proper sewerage schemes in these areas. One of the first acts of the inter-Party Government was to scrap the Portmarnock sewerage scheme, which was sanctioned by the previous Minister, Deputy MacEntee. That is a tourist area which is visited by thousands of people from the city, and this is a matter in regard to which we should have taken a long, national view. The Portmarnock scheme was scrapped, but now Deputies in opposition talk about putting these schemes into operation within a week.

I ask the Minister to consider in his own good time the representations I am making in regard to the sewerage scheme. There are various areas in the county in which the people, in this year of grace, 1951, are still deprived of ordinary amenities which the people of every other civilised country enjoy. In these North County Dublin seaside resorts we have to cater for a large body of people from the City of Dublin when they come out to spend an evening there. Deputy MacEntee, when he was Minister, took a long national view of these things and it is a pity that the work which he initiated has been delayed or scrapped during the last three and a quarter years.

Another urgent matter referred to by the previous speaker is the overcrowding in council houses and the necessity for the building of an additional room where there are only three rooms and there are nine or ten in family. The Deputy who is now crying salt tears had an opportunity for three and a quarter years of rectifying that matter. He was not concerned about it during that period. He is concerned now when he has no power to do it. The previous Administration stated that they were going to charge 11/6 if such a room were built. Now they expect the present Minister to be able to rectify that matter inside a week. If the Deputy could not succeed in getting that done in three and a quarter years, surely he does not expect the present Government will be able to do it in one week. However, I urge the Minister to take up this matter because it is an urgent one for people in my constituency.

On numerous occasions when dealing with public health and local government matters I have referred to the necessity for the provision of an extra room to houses for tubercular patients, which was provided for under the 1945 Act. If you bring this matter to the notice of the Department of Health, they tell you that it is a matter for the Department of Local Government, and when you go to the Local Government Department they tell you that the Department of Health deals with matters of that kind. I should like to see more co-operation between these Departments to make it clear who is responsible for the building of such rooms. I brought to the notice of the ex-Minister for Health, Dr. Browne, the cases of three people who were leaving a sanatorium and for whom I wanted such a room built and I was told that that was a matter for the Minister for Local Government. Surely in a matter of that kind something should be done? There is no use in giving up-to-date treatment to people in a sanatorium and then sending them home to live again in some hovel. They should be provided with an additional room or given another house. This is a matter of vital importance and I should like the Minister, in co-operation with the Minister for Health, to consider what can be done about it.

The Minister has some responsibility in connection with the maintenance of cul-de-sac roads, because if the county council are willing to take them over he can give his sanction to that. We have a number of such roads in the County Dublin and I should like the Minister's Department to take up this matter. This is a big national problem, as there are over 20,000 miles of cul-desac roads in the country. It is a serious problem. If there is any money left in the kitty after the last three years' administration, I urge the Minister to consider what can be done to deal with this problem.

Deputy Dunne also referred to the very fine design for council cottages in County Dublin provided by the previous Minister and condemned what he called the awful hovels which had been built during the régime of the Fianna Fáil Government. While I have the greatest respect for Deputy Keyes, the previous Minister, as an honourable decent man personally, I do not like to hear misrepresentation of facts. The facts are that any houses built in County Dublin during the last three years had been planned and designed by the Fianna Fáil Government before they left office and everything was ready for the houses to be gone on with. In 1944, when I first spoke in this House on local government and dealt with council cottages, I suggested a change in the design of these cottages. I had the full backing of my own Party at that time and the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy MacEntee. That change was brought about, not by the last Government, but by the Fianna Fáil Government and the people in these houses in County Dublin have not to thank Deputy Dunne or the ex-Minister for Local Government for it.

Another matter which I should like the Minister to consider is the provision of proper shelters and public conveniences at seaside resorts in North County Dublin. Places like Portmarnock, Malahide, Donabate, etc. are visited by a large number of poor city people during the summer time. I urge the Minister to encourage the building of more shelters in such places, because on a number of occasions I have seen families getting wet through after a shower of rain and having to wait in their wet clothes for a bus or a train to take them to Dublin. I know that this matter has been neglected during the last three years and I ask the Minister to do what he can to assist in having improvements of that kind carried out.

As to the provision of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, there is a problem in County Dublin which needs to be dealt with. If a man saves £150 or £200 and puts it down as a deposit for the building of a house under these Acts, when the valuer comes along the applicant for the loan finds to his amazement that the house is valued at £200 less than he thought it would be. In the city and County Dublin a number of white-collar workers find themselves entering married life with a millstone around their necks as a result of that. Not alone have they to repay the loan received from the local authority on the house, but they have also to repay a second loan which they had to get owing to the house not being valued as they thought it would be. If anything could be done to rectify that matter it would be a great relief to people who find themselves in grave difficulty.

This matter has been raised by myself and other Deputies during the past few years. The house is valued at the market value. I know of one case, where a house cost £1,800 to build and it was valued by the valuer at £1,200. The borrower received only £850 or £900. He had to procure the remainder of the money otherwise. I know of a number of cases where the differences between the cost price and the price quoted by the valuer were £100, £300 and £400. I thought that that problem would be solved under the 1950 Housing Act but, unfortunately, we are up against the same problem to-day.

Captain Cowan

Who is at fault? Is the builder charging too much or the valuer valuing too low?

Mr. Burke

That is a question I often ask myself. I must give due credit to the officials of the Department of Local Government. They have been very helpful in matters of this kind but the valuer's word is final. A number of people have been placed in a very unfortunate position as a result of the fact that these cases are dealt with solely on the basis of the valuation.

I know the Minister has not very much control over the matter to which I now wish to refer. A number of council cottages that have been built in County Dublin have been valued rather high. The result is that the tenants have to pay a high rate for electricity to the Electricity Supply Board. Hundreds of people are complaining about this matter.

It is a dangerous thing to the very institutions of democracy itself that a situation should arise in which every administrative organ of this State wants to build houses and in which there are abundant resources available wherewith to build them and an urgent need for the houses, but some amorphous, indiscernible force operating to prevent these houses being built. I do not think it ought to require a formal inquiry into how this came to pass, but if the Lord Mayor of Cork cannot tell us—it may be that he is in the same position as his colleagues in the corporation who cannot accurately discern what the difficulty was—I think there ought to be an inquiry and responsibility fixed on my colleague, the ex-Minister, on the Cork Corporation, the Minister for Finance or wherever it lies, so that a situation can never arise again in which every administrative element in our community desires a common end and has abundantly at its disposal the resources requisite to achieve that end, with an urgent need existing amongst our people, and all frustrated for lack of co-ordination of these several things.

I am afraid that in regard to the administration of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act an exactly similar situation is arising. I understood, when we enacted the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1950, that, in effect, we had secured that any person in this country, and more especially the young married couple who could put down £100 of their own money, would be able to get the grant and the loan requisite to enable them to build their own house and pay for it by instalments, and that that Act provided the Minister with whatever powers were necessary to require the local authorities to take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that a young person who came forward with two solvent securities, £100 of his own money and a house which, in all the circumstances, was reasonably valued, would be facilitated in the purchase of his own home. I am slowly being forced to the conclusion that, in so far as achieving that purpose is concerned, we might as well never have passed that 1950 amending Act, because the valuers and red tape merchants have gone to work again and have managed to wangle us back into exactly the same position as we were in before; that no matter what we want, no matter what the Government want, no matter what the local authority wants and no matter what the people want, they will not let them buy the houses if they are not in a position to produce £200 or £300 to put down as a first instalment.

I do not think it is wrong to say that at this moment in Ireland there is only one commodity of which we stand in urgent danger of having too much, that is, money. There is, undoubtedly, a danger of inflation threatening our economic stability and if there is one desirable means available to us for checking it, it is by persuading the people who have spending money in excess of the potential supply of consumer goods to lend that money to the Government, so that the Government may invest it in housing and other capital projects for the benefit of our people, allowing those who lend that money and forgo the consumption of consumer goods to have their money paid back in 20, 30 or 40 years when the present danger of inflation will have passed and when they may lay out that money on consumer goods without putting the economic fabric of the country in any danger.

So far as I know, the more people we can induce to avail of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, the greater service it will be to this nation. This interesting fact is true—and this is what strikes me as so daft—that the present basis of subsidy payable by the Exchequer on a municipal house built to rent is approximately seven-twelfths of the total cost. If the corporation is to build a house costing £1,200 to rent, the Treasury must give a subsidy on that house of, in toto, from various sources and by various devices, £700 out of the £1,200. If you can induce the man who would otherwise become a tenant of a corporation house to build his own house, the only charge that falls on the Exchequer is the housing grant of £275; but we have managed to get ourselves into this fantastic position that, instead of urging a young man to buy his own house, to build it to his own plan and desire and to feel that every year's rent he pays brings him closer and closer to the day when he will own his house outright, we are harassing him, deterring him, putting difficulties in his way, and not for the purpose of effecting an economy for the benefit of the Exchequer, because every person whom we successfully harass out of building his own house, costs the Exchequer £425 more than the fellow we facilitate to build a house.

I am convinced that the Minister and his predecessor are just as solicitous as I am to promote the widespread user of the facilities of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, but this I am certain of, that the time has now passed for any more "cod-acting" with county managers or local authorities. The Minister ought to tell the county managers and the local authorities that the purpose of this Oireachtas is to see that any person who comes with two solvent securities to guarantee his preparedness to pay his rent or the instalments on his Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act house and with £100 of his own money is to get the help he requires to build his house over the agreed term of years and that the Minister does not give a damn how they do that, but, if they do not do it, they will never know what hit them. If you once start arguing and chopping logic with valuers and local government officials down the country who have got it stuck into their heads that there is something risky, something dangerous, something extravagant about letting people buy their own houses—"How do we know that he will be able to pay this rent in five or six years' time?"—you will get nowhere. What the hell does it matter whether he can or not? Is the house not there? If he cannot pay his rent and wants to get out of the house and into a municipal house, let them sell it to some other fellow who can pay.

There is a whole lot of shell-backed crumpauns amongst the local authorities who would seem to take the most diabolical delight in thwarting the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. If I had my way—I do not suppose this is practicable — I would warn every county manager in Ireland that that was his quota of Small Dwellings Acquisition Act houses to be built during the course of the next 12 months, and for every house that he fell short of that I would fine him £20 of his salary. If you did that, you would have the county managers out on bicycles canvassing people to apply for loans. Now they take a pride in the fact that they are so wise, so cautious, so prudent and so careful. If they want my opinion, they are a pest, and they are doing the State and the Exchequer, and the local authorities which they serve, a grave public injury. They ought to make up their minds, big and all as they are—whether it be county managers, county secretaries or county councillors—that Oireachtas Éireann knows its own mind and in the last analysis has the right to determine policy and law, subject to the Constitution, for this country.

Now, if I understand what Oireachtas Éireann said correctly, it is this. Any citizen of this State who puts down £100 of his own money and who produces two sound sureties that he is going to pay the instalments on his house, is to be facilitated by the local authority in building that house—and we want no alibis. One of the delightful devices of certain local authorities in order to thwart and frustrate the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act is to prepare what they gracefully describe as the questionnaire, if you go to ask for a loan. Did any Deputy ever see the questionnaire? If you applied at the Soviet Embassy in London for a visa to travel to Nijni Novgorod, you would not be asked as many questions as you are asked by the county manager if you want to get a Small Dwellings Acquisition Act loan in this country.

Remember, every answer you supply is furnished to your neighbours— excellent men; but anyone who lives in rural Ireland knows that if you are going in to get a loan, you do not want to be telling your neighbours what your income for the last four years was, especially if you are trying to look as if you are earning £400 and in fact you can pull down only £240. What the deuce does it matter to the county manager, if you are prepared to bring in two solvent men who are prepared to say: "We will go bail for this man that he will pay his rent; on the understanding that, if he does not pay, the local authority will proceed to sell his house to someone else, though should any loss or injury be suffered we will stand bail to make it up to the county council." I do not want to be extreme or reckless. I am prepared to give it to the fellow who wants to build a house, who is able to put down £100 of his own money and get two solvent neighbours to go bail for him. If he does not, or if he is not in a position to get two solvent neighbours, he must be prepared to answer a more detailed series of questions than he would be called upon to answer if he had the guarantors. Is it unreasonable to say that if a man comes in with £100 and two solvent guarantors and wants to build a house——

Mr. J. Brennan

The first charge on the property should be sufficient, without the securities.

Mr. Dillon

Well, you see, I am a bit more radical than the Deputy. That is what the valuer wants you to say. If the valuer can get you into the position of saying that the first charge on the property ought to be enough, that strengthens his hand in saying: "I must value the property in an extremely conservative way." I want him to value it not primarily for the purpose of protecting the financial interests of the local authority but in order to protect young people who are all eagerness to buy a house when they are going to get married and who are liable to be cruelly exploited by certain types, and only certain types, of speculative builder. The function, I think, they will be called upon to discharge is to report back to the county council: "Oh, I do not say that if this fellow had been advised by an architect he would, perhaps, have got this house £10 or £30 cheaper than he is paying for it, but it is a fairish price for the house; he is not robbed and if he has agreed to pay £1,500, while if he had asked my advice he might have got it for £1,420, I am prepared to value it at that for the purpose of the loan."

I have certain sympathy with the Deputy's view that the local authority should give on the sole security of the first charge on the house, but, after all, every member of a local authority is, in a degree, trustee for public money. I do not want to set the strict basis on the valuation of relating it to adequate security for the local authority. If we do that, the valuer must be charged with the responsibility of saying to the local authority: "If that house were to be sold——"

Mr. J. Brennan

New houses are exempt for the first seven years.

Mr. Dillon

You have to charge the valuer with the duty of saying: "If that house were sold a month after those people went into possession it would realise 90 per cent of the loan made on it." I do not think we ought to do that. If we do so we are assisting the obstructionist in preventing the fellow with £100 getting a loan requisite to build his house. I want the valuer to say to the county manager: "By and large, the house is fairish value for the money; he is not being robbed; give him the loan; his guarantors would cover any loss." The statistics prove that there is no scheme under which less money is lost by default than the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.

Captain Cowan

None at all, no money worth talking about.

Mr. Dillon

That is not altogether true. Take a town like Carrick-macross. There are certain areas where restrictions are put in force against making further loans when the default reaches a certain percentage. You will find that in certain small urban districts in rural Ireland they have had that experience. In Dublin and Cork—I do not know if the experience in Limerick is so good—by and large, the loss accruing under the Act has been microscopic.

I do not deny that in certain circumstances the collection in some areas has given difficulty. What the deuce are they paid for? Why should they not take trouble? Is it not a good, desirable social scheme? Is it not worth taking trouble? It would not worry me one bit if we had to take lots of trouble, in order to get the houses into the hands of people with moderate means who will ultimately become their owners in fee simple and who will not therefore become permanent rent-paying tenants in municipal houses. I am attracted to that primarily because I love to see young people advancing to the stage when they can call the house their own. But even if we forget that social side of the thing and look only at the narrowest viewpoint of the Minister for Finance, every individual we can induce to buy his house under the Act saves the State £425 in housing grants.

Now, may I commend to the Minister as one laudable movement he could set on foot to-morrow—to put behind him the whole idea that the Act was a favour, reluctantly and grudgingly to be granted to suspect applicants? Instead of that, take large advertising space in all provincial papers and suitable advertising media in the City of Dublin and the City of Cork asking the people: "Why will you not build your own houses? Come and ask. We have the money. We want you to use it. There is no difficulty about the security and do not let any man who had £100 be worried about the difficulties.

"Come in to us and if there are any difficulties we will smooth them away. We are not bound by the existing state of the law. If there are further difficulties for which we have not provided, Oireachtas Éireann is allowing for the possible necessity of further amending the law to make the scheme a genuine success. Far from being something that anyone must come for hat in hand this is an invitation, an exhortation to any young man who is contemplating matrimony or any other person who wants a decent home for his family to come to us and we will help him to get it. Everybody wants it."

I think that the Minister for Local Government will find that every side of the House will sustain him and help him whatever administrative difficulties may confront him with the local authorities. I do not doubt that this is a proposal which commends itself just as strongly to him as it does to everyone else but I do not doubt that he will be confronted with many perplexing dilemmas that will be propounded to him as sound reasons for not adopting a radical course. I would like him to feel that on every side of the House he would be assured of unqualified support if he took up the position: "I am not asking I am telling you what Oireachtas Éireann requires to be done. It is the duty of a local authority to carry out its own administration for local government and I have no desire to interfere unduly in your internal administration but this is certain: if by your own exertions within the sphere of your own administration as a local authority you cannot produce the results to which the citizens within your jurisdiction are entitled, I will interfere and if necessary lay down a uniform procedure which will bring that result about and effectively administer this Act in accordance with the expressed will of Oireachtas Éireann." I think that in the last analysis the Minister would be justified in going that far. I do not think he will have to go that far once he carries conviction to the minds of the local authority that we literally mean what I think we meant when we passed the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1950.

There are many other things which we might profitably discuss at this stage but I will dwell only on that matter. It is a matter upon which we feel deeply and I think that every other Deputy feels the same. It should be possible for us all by putting our shoulders to the wheel to bring about a state of affairs where any young person or mature person who wants a house should be able to get it if he has £100.

One last word. Deputy Dr. O'Higgins rightly expressed concern about a certain housing problem and said that there was no use in trying to limp after existing problems; your aim should be to overleap the problem and make excessive provision for existing problems because, by the time you have dealt with the matter, the problem will have increased. Let us not interpret that entirely as a development to be deplored. I think this is true and if it is true, it is something upon which we may congratulate ourselves. When I was a child growing up in the George's Street area of this city around Parnell Street, Gardiner Street and Mountjoy Square, the common case was when the son and daughter of two tenement-room tenants got married, they thought themselves fortunate to get a two-pair back to marry into and they added their family to the tenement population. I think that the time has come when housing experts agree that the tendency now is—and it is something we have every reason to be proud of—when the son and daughter of two tenement-room tenants in Dublin, or perhaps in Cork, embark on married life, they aspire to and expect to get a municipal house in which to set up a home. There is a tendency—by no means yet fully realised—for tenement rooms which in Dublin, thank God, are being rapidly improved, to be the home of elderly people and from which their children are progressing into houses to which, 25 years ago, they would not even have aspired. The credit for that can be shared among us all. Everybody on both sides of the House has been striving to improve housing conditions in the country since the State was founded.

Many of us have often felt disheartened because progress seemed so slow. It would be folly to suggest that we are in sight of a solution of the problem but I think we are entitled to say that we may legitimately feel ourselves definitely on the road towards solution. One of its most gratifying aspects is the constant inadequacy of the additional houses we build. This is not an indication that things are going backward but that the standard of living of our people is rising and that those who would have been accommodated in one tenement room 25 years ago now happily require a municipal house with three bedrooms and corresponding accommodation. It is truly encouraging that in respect of a high proportion of the new families being founded it has become possible to provide them. Let us, therefore, not be foolishly optimistic or unduly pessimistic. I think we are gradually travelling in the right direction. There will be disappointments and checks but so long as all of us on all sides of the House are prepared to collaborate to eliminate the housing problem of Ireland I think we may say now that at last we have reasonable grounds for belief that our joint efforts are headed for success.

Captain Cowan

I realise, as the majority of Deputies, in fact all Deputies do, that this Estimate was prepared by the Minister's predecessor and that the Minister is simply putting it before us for sanction without having an opportunity of examining it in any great detail. I think it wise that Deputies should avail of the opportunity of indicating to the Minister what, in their view, ought to be the line of action, the line of development and the line of progress in regard to local government. Undoubtedly, a number of matters have been raised which are more for local authorities than for the Minister. If one studies the local government administration over the past 25 years, I think one will find that, in the laws and in the administration, local authorities have been encouraged, particularly in this matter of housing, to do everything possible to bring about a solution of the problem. I have observed that, for the past three years, no obstacles have been placed in the way of local authorities by the Department of Local Government and that any that were discovered, both within the past three years and previously, have been removed by amending legislation in this House. I think that if we were to concentrate on pointing out to the Minister where the obstacles that should be removed by legislation or by administrative action in his Department are we would be doing valuable work.

Like other Deputies, I was somewhat dumbfounded when I heard Deputy McGrath tell us this evening the story from Cork. Cork is our second largest city, and I certainly had the idea that it was in line with the rest of the country in regard to house-building. This evening was the first time that I heard that things were not right down there and that during the past three years they have not been able to progress more than 100 houses a year. I think that every Deputy will agree that the Department of Local Government cannot be condemned for the failure to build an adequate number of houses in Cork. Knowing Deputy McGrath in this House for the past three years I am aware that he is interested in housing. I know also that the Lord Mayor of Cork, Deputy MacCarthy, is interested, and one need not be told that every Party and every individual in Cork Corporation was, and is, anxious that a sufficiency of houses should be built in that city. Apparently, some obstacle has arisen in Cork, and my complaint is that that obstacle should have been permitted to remain in the way of housing development there for the past three years. I hope that the Minister will personally investigate that obstacle and see that it is cleared out of the way as quickly as possible.

The smallest village in Ireland could, by organisation, build more than two houses in the week. It is right that the housing question should be raised here because it is a national problem. We are all anxious that houses should be built in every part of the State where they are required, and I think that it can go forth from this debate that, as far as the Dáil is concerned, we will be unanimous in our support of Cork Corporation in removing the obstacles that there are to the building of the houses that are so badly needed in Cork.

I am a member of Dublin Corporation for a short period and in that short period I have been a member of the housing committee. We are now building in Dublin, for persons living in overcrowded conditions, an average of 2,500 houses a year. We have reached that average at the moment, but we are not satisfied that it is sufficient. Through the efforts of the housing section of the Dublin Corporation, through the co-operation of the housing director, Mr. O'Mahony, and through the goodwill and enthusiasm of the members of the housing committee, the drive is being speeded up so that the serious situation that did exist in Dublin will be brought under control in a reasonable period. I am informed that there has been a slight check in the production of houses in Dublin, due to the shortage of cement. I think that is a matter that must be dealt with by the Minister for Local Government. Local authorities should have priority in regard to supplies of cement from Cement, Limited, and priority in regard to cement that is imported. The position seems to be that cement is controlled by some form of ring and that local authorities can be deprived of their essential cement needs by persons who are not very much interested in the solution of the serious social problem of housing for the ordinary people.

I understand there is a further difficulty arising in regard to overtime. While the housing committee in Dublin will do all they can in regard to that matter, it is of sufficient seriousness to warrant consultations between the Minister and the Trade Union Congresses so that any possible check to the building of houses from that source may be removed.

In Dublin recently—I think it has ministerial authority now—we decided to build houses ourselves for sale to prospective purchasers, to people who might not come within the letter of the regulations regarding housing—to young married couples, persons with one or two children. We find that in our first scheme of 200 houses of that kind, we have already—before inviting applications—hundreds of applications. Those of us who are councillors know that an excellent type of young person is doing everything he possibly can to be brought within that scheme and we are so satisfied with it that the corporation intends to build more and more houses in that way and sell them under a purchase scheme to suitable applicants living within the State for a period of five years. I think it is a desirable thing to encourage as many people as possible to own their own homes, because I can see a big problem arising in this country in ten or 20 years if all the houses that are required are to be built and maintained by local authorities. In Dublin we have 30,000 houses or dwellings now owned by the Dublin Corporation. In ten years' time we hope to have increased that to 60,000. We can take an average of five persons living in each of these houses. That would mean 300,000 citizens of Dublin residing in houses owned by the Dublin Corporation. I do not think that that is a desirable development. I think we are doing the right thing in Dublin now by starting these new schemes of building houses to be purchased by people themselves under the machinery that the corporation will provide. The deposit required for the new scheme of houses at Philipsburgh Avenue is £50, plus £25 to cover stamp duties and outlay. No other legal charges come into it. A £75 deposit, and an all-in payment of 35/- a week, gets a £1,800 house in Dublin City for persons who are able to put down the £75 and to pay the 35/- a week.

We have gone further in Dublin. We have adopted the principle—quite a lot of administrative detail will have to follow from it—of selling corporation houses to tenants residing in them who wish to buy them. The prospect of 60,000 or 70,000 or 100,000 houses being owned in Dublin by the Dublin Corporation and maintained by the ratepayers is a frightening one. It is desirable, and the Dublin Corporation think it is desirable, that as many persons as possible should be encouraged to purchase their houses and own them. I hope that when the schemes come through from the corporation to the Minister he will encourage in every way, not only the corporation but other local authorities, to transfer ownership in these houses to the occupiers themselves. I think the average cost in Dublin to maintain a house is £10 per year. With 30,000 houses, the charge on the ratepayers of Dublin for maintenance is £300,000. If those houses were owned by the occupiers— and it will not cost much more than the present rents to buy them under the schemes we are devising—these houses would be maintained, and properly maintained, by the owners themselves. From a civic point of view it is desirable that people should be encouraged in that way.

Under the present system, no matter how anxious the occupant of a Corporation house may be to improve his house he is not permitted to do so. If he makes any alteration, he may find an inspector coming along and telling him that he must remove some partition or some other improvement which he has effected. The result is, therefore, that corporation tenants are discouraged from doing anything themselves in the way of properly maintaining their property. Under the new system they would be anxious and delighted to maintain their property and maintain it in good condition.

There are quite a number of matters to be dealt with in regard to housing in Dublin but I feel that they are not matters for this House. They are matters that we can properly deal with in Dublin in our own Dublin Corporation and in the housing committee. Our anxiety is that the Minister and the Department will encourage and help us in the schemes we have in mind for the improvement of housing conditions in the city.

A thorny problem arose in Dublin, and elsewhere, in regard to the matter of differential rents. I am opposed to the present system of differential rents. Dublin Corporation, on a certain occasion, adopted the principle of the differential rent. It is in operation now in regard to some few thousand houses. We find that we have nothing but complaints and objections to the system. I heard Deputy Dunne last night, and again to-day, condemning that system. What troubles me in regard to it is that in the Dublin Corporation the Leader of the Labour Party is all for differential rents. Now, Deputy Dunne is all against differential rents. This is one of these matters on which there should be a consistent approach. The Labour Party is the Party that should say whether they are for differential rents or against them. We have had many meetings in the Dublin Corporation in regard to this very troublesome problem. We have come round to the stage now when the majority of the councillors are opposed to the differential rents system and it is very likely that in the immediate future a positive decision will be taken by the corporation to abandon the differential rents system. Undoubtedly, the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Keyes, has encouraged the differential rents system. I have read his speeches in many places all over the country. He encouraged local authorities to adopt the differential rents system. There ought to be some principle in regard to it. I ask any Labour Party speaker who may speak subsequently in this debate to state the position clearly so that we will know where we stand. Is the differential rents system Labour Party policy or is it not? You cannot carry the two sides of the fence with you in this important matter.

Mr. Desmond

You are succeeding in doing so.

Captain Cowan

Since I was elected to the Dublin Corporation I have opposed the system of differential rents. Deputy Alderman Alfred Byrne opposed it also. I think he was one of two who opposed it when it was first introduced.

I would like the Minister to say what he proposes to do in regard to the County Administration Bill which has received a considerable amount of attention and consideration in this House. We did arrive at a stage in the discussions on that Bill when there was general agreement on all sides of the House in regard to it. I feel that the Minister might indicate what he proposes to do in regard to it. If I might make a suggestion, it is that, where there has been all-round agreement in regard to it here, perhaps he might be able to indicate that that general agreement in the House will have his support.

Deputy Dunne referred to the Bray Road. Those of us who have travelled on it know that it is an absolute deathtrap. There are so many dangerous bends and corners on it, and it carries such a heavy flow of traffic, that it is entirely inadequate for its purpose. I think it was a very wise decision in the first instance to decide to build the new road—Dublin to Bray. The cost, I think, was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £500,000. It is essential that an improvement of that kind should be made. In fact, it is necessary that it should be made. It would be a great saving of life with a necessary speed up of the heavy traffic on that line.

Mr. Cogan

Speed and safety do not go together.

Captain Cowan

They can and do go together. The strange thing is that that scheme was killed by reactionaries who are always grumbling about a shilling or a pound. I understand it was killed by certain elements on the Dublin County Council.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

I would put that to any other Minister in the same circumstances. It is an important matter in regard to local government. I am putting that viewpoint here before the Minister.

I am not altogether certain whether general elections come within the control of the Minister. I think they do— the preparation of the register and things of that kind.

Mr. Kyne

Sometimes a single Deputy decides them.

Captain Cowan

I do not want to be too often in that position.

Mr. Kyne

You will not be.

Local Government is of such importance as a Department of State, affecting as it does the lives of our people especially in rural areas, that I believe our approach to it should be from the point of view of constructive criticism if necessary. Local Government should be approached, first of all, from the point of decentralisation of control. Coupled with that must, of necessity, be the then position of the local authorities and their full sense of co-operation with both the Minister and his Department. Not until you have that full sense of local responsibility can we hope for a really up-to-date system of local government. There is one other point upon which, perhaps, the Minister may not be able to give any assurance at the present time —I appreciate the fact that I cannot go into this particular matter in more detail in case you, Sir, may consider it outside the scope of this discussion— and that is that no matter what Minister of State is here on behalf of local government, no matter what Government is in power, until such time as there is some understanding as regards both the county managers and the County Management Act, can local government be improved. I wish to be very frank and state openly that I would wish for a greater sense of freedom for the responsible officials in county councils.

In passing, I may say, as I have in mind the present county manager and his staff in Cork, that they have done their work excellently. I think it is unreasonable even to suggest that these officials—I believe the same appertains in every other county—must send every petty question to be answered to the Custom House, the Minister for Local Government and his staff. I am not blaming the present Minister, nor do I say that he is going to continue that, but it would have been much more satisfactory for the incoming Minister if the County Management Act had been altered. In that event, he might find the situation in the Custom House easier to deal with. I hope the Minister will take into consideration that the least red tape we have in dealing with our responsible county officials down the country the better for us. I honestly say that it is out of all reason in this so-called progressive age that many of the day-by-day questions, which could and should be solved locally, must be sent to the Custom House and there await the decision of both the Minister and his staff whose time may naturally be taken up with other matters of vital importance. Until we have a true sense of co-operation between the members on the various local authorities and the county officials, local government will be under a definite handicap. I would like to know from the Minister—it may not be possible at this stage for the Minister to answer and I have no intention to press him for an answer until it suits him to tell us—what may be the possible outlook as regards the whole system of county management.

Another item of vital importance in regard to local government has been the Local Authorities (Works) Act. There is no need to dwell on it because every member now, as in the past, knows full well the importance of that measure. Every member knows what it meant to the various county councils. Everybody knows what it meant to the large number of employees of the county councils and everybody knows what it meant to the landowners. I do not want to be harsh but it is a strange anomaly that in another Department there is a colleague of the Minister for Local Government—he is a Minister who will be responsible for handing out money—who had the audacity to call the late Minister for Local Government, Mr. T.J. Murphy, God rest his soul, that outstanding man, the Red Minister, when he was introducing the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The people of this country have now realised the importance of this measure and the advantages which it bestows throughout the country seem to indicate clearly that the people expect this important measure to be continued.

The question of roads is one that has been bound up with local government at all times. A couple of years ago, I had occasion, both here and elsewhere, to put forward a certain view regarding the question of the improvement of roads. Unfortunately, that view was not accepted two years ago but I am very glad to say that, since then, the view of the Department seemed to change somewhat from their view in the past. I wish to inform the Minister that it was indicated clearly by his predecessor, Deputy Keyes, that he was willing to consider allowing local authorities to raise loans to be repaid over a number of years for the improvement of roads. Naturally I am interested in Cork, and I consider it of importance to understand that if we are to put the roads in our county in a decent state of repair we must move directly from the line of approach in the past.

Coupled with the improvement of our roads is also the question of an increase in rates. In practically every county council in the Twenty-Six Counties the majority of the members are anything but progressive when the question of spending money for road improvements arises. I believe that the suggestion I made to the former Minister is the only one to meet the present situation. I suggested then that the Minister for Local Government should give both the power and the right to managers and county councils alike to raise by way of loan sufficient money to put our roads into a proper state of repair. I know there have been quibbles in the past and I know that there are differences of opinion as to the meaning of the word "improvement". I maintain that there should be a little more elasticity in our interpretation of the word "improvement". It is no use tinkering with our roads unless we are prepared to let our roads deteriorate more and more every year. If we are not prepared to do that, then we must adopt a different system of financing our roads. We must give local authorities the power to raise loans, repayable over a number of years. If those loans are based on the valuations of the county's property, surely it should be an easy matter to obtain sufficient money from the banks.

I have actually heard Deputies asking for £500,000 to be made available for one road near Dublin. Down the country we can get nothing. May I remind the Minister in this connection that this is not a question of maintenance? Deputy Corry and I may differ in many things, but he can bear me out out when I say that some of our roads in Cork are in a deplorable condition. Will they be left in their deplorable condition? Money spent on their maintenance is money thrown away.

May I remind the Minister, too, that we must recognise the fact that the people who suffer most when rates are increased are the ordinary workers? It is not the farmers and the big business people who suffer. Every increase in rates bears more heavily on the ordinary worker than it does on other sections. Those who champion the cause of the farming community fail to appreciate the enormous advantage given to that section of our people by way of the agricultural grant. Therefore, when considering the problem of raising a loan for the improvement of our roads one must consider, too, the position of those people who will find it difficult to meet their commitments if rates are increased.

Deputy Dr. O'Higgins spoke about valuations this afternoon. A somewhat odd situation has arisen where occupants of county council cottages have had their valuations increased from £2 to £5 merely because they erected an old shed at the back.

I have already made it quite clear that I do not intend to apportion any blame either to the present Minister or to his predecessor, because no Minister could possibly solve all the problems that confront him in a Department, particularly in a Department like the Department of Local Government. I believe, however, that the first Minister for Local Government in the inter-Party Government, the late Deputy T. Murphy, did set a headline. If the present occupant of the post comes up to his level he will be a lucky man. I doubt if he will surpass it.

An important point in connection with the use of the our roads is the problem of the very heavy lorries passing over them. Our roads were never constructed for anything heavier than horse traffic. Yet, to-day lorries carrying very heavy loads are constantly passing over them. I believe that traffic should be diverted to some other system. There are actually bridges at the present time which carry notices forbidding loads over a certain weight. So long as heavy traffic is permitted to use our roads we will be faced with the recurring problem of road reconstruction.

Credit is due for the work done by the Department of Local Government over the past three years in relation to sanitary services. Deputy Burke this afternoon had his own complaints about Dublin. Our problems are not the same as the Dublin problems. The work done in the Department during the past three years should be an incentive to the present Minister. An adequate water supply and adequate sanitary services are of vital importance to our people. Both services are closely allied to housing.

Another matter to which I wish to refer is the right of county councils compulsorily to acquire land for road improvement. I have in mind questions such as the taking over a piece of land to improve a dangerous corner on a roadway. I know it may be said, as was said recently to me, that the various county councils had such powers already under an old Act of Parliament but, realising my responsibility as a Deputy and also as a member of a local authority, I want to go a little further. There is more than one legal opinion on that matter and the legal opinion I got is that the old Act under which a county council can acquire land compulsorily for an improvement in roadways is so slow and long-drawn-out in its operation, that it can take years to gain that little advantage. Naturally, coupled with these powers of the compulsory acquisition of land, must be the right of the landowner to a fair and honest compensation for the land so acquired, but we sometimes see instances where county councils are completely held up in their efforts to acquire a small bit of land for the improvement of a road. I am aware of cases where fatal accidents— not in my own county, but in others— could have been prevented if the county council had the right to acquire just that small piece of land which would make all the difference between a good and a dangerous roadway. I would urge the Minister to see what can be done to assist local authorities in dealing with this important matter.

There are a few other points to which I should like to refer. There is, first of all, the question of wages. Again I appreciate that only as a last resort has the Minister anything to do with the wages of employees of local authorities. I am glad to know that the last Minister saw fit, as he believed it was his duty, to give sanction to an increase in salaries for the various staffs of county councils. I do not know what the personal approach of the present Minister may be in regard to the wages of road workers, but I do know what his attitude was in regard to farm workers. I am not going into that now but I earnestly ask the Minister to realise that so far as this Party is concerned, no matter what part of the House we occupy, our obligation, be it an individual or collective responsibility, is to fight at any time against miserable increases of a type similar to that given by the gentleman who was so well known in the Custom House formerly for ordering bells to be rung on his approach. I speak of the present Minister for Finance. May it never come about that the present Minister will suggest, as that Minister in his time in Local Government did suggest, a niggardly increase of 2d. per day for the workers.

The road workers are giving a good return for their wages and if people clamour and say that roads must be improved, and if above all, as is suggested all over the country at the present time, turf must be saved, who is to carry out this important work but the road workers who are at present being transferred from the roads to the bogs? I am glad to say that some county councils even in the west of Ireland recognise their responsibility to these workers. I notice that one of the first county councils to give an increase to those workers transferred to turf production was the Mayo County Council. It has been done in County Cork now, though rather slowly I will admit. I know the present Minister does not have to sanction it because his predecessor made it clear by way of circular that councils could increase wages up to £4 a week without waiting for sanction. I am just reminding the Minister that our attitude is a very definite attitude when it comes to the question of wages of employees of local authorities.

Some Deputies spoke here on the question of housing. I think they might leave that for a little while, because it is an item which needs no elaboration, but I should like to know what will be the approach of the Minister, or perhaps more properly of the Government, to the question of the cottage purchase scheme. The Labour Party many years ago advocated a 50 per cent, reduction in annuities for the purchase of cottages. Our Party at that time were defeated in regard to that matter, but recently Deputy Keyes, when Minister for Local Government, gave the right to cottage tenants to acquire their cottages under a 50 per cent. purchase scheme instead of 75 per cent. as in the past. My colleague, Deputy Kyne, and I were interested in the question of how those who had already purchased would stand and we got a clear assurance from the then Minister that at the first available opportunity he would, by way of a Bill, give the right to the people who had already purchased their cottages of a 50 per cent. reduction on the same basis as those who may purchase their cottages in future. I believe that is a matter on which we should have some pronouncement of Government policy.

I think it is only right that we should have some indication as to what will be the position of tenants who have already acquired their cottages under the old Act. Can we have legislation introduced in the near future giving them the advantage of a 50 per cent. reduction, as in the case of those who may in future purchase their cottages? I believe it is only right to say that in the original Act introduced about 1936 as many flaws have been found as were ever found in any Act of Parliament. We have heard about the coach and four. I believe half a dozen of them could be driven through that measure. We know of cases where decisions have been arrived at which have been totally unsatisfactory from the point of view of the tenant and from the point of view of the local authority. Time and time again questions are posed for us by tenant purchasers who want to know where they stand in certain circumstances and we cannot answer definitely. When we ask for advice from the local officers or, indeed, from the Department, there is still doubt as to the actual position. I believe it is necessary that that Act should be amended. I know that legislation cannot be suggested but where it is a question of the introduction of a new policy I believe it is most important both for the Minister and for the Government to consider the improvement of conditions in connection with cottage purchase.

In the last few years I have had to report on many occasions the holding up of grants to people for the building or reconstruction of houses in County Cork. I know what the cause of the hold-up is and I think it could be easily remedied. The trouble is that, owing to lack of inspectors, it has not been possible to get that speeded up. In a large county like Cork there should be a few more inspectors who would divide the county on a more equitable basis and work out more compact areas so that they can report on the question of final grants in a faster time than at present. There is no use blaming them. While there have been many cases of grants being held up, I know that it was physically impossible for an inspector to cover the various areas in the time we would expect him to do it. Therefore I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of allotting one or two more inspectors so that they can deal with these grants in a more expeditious manner. While a delay of a month or two months may not seem very long from the point of view of the State, a delay of a week can make a very big difference to an individual expecting a grant. People depending on these grants are not in a position to put their hands in their pockets and pay all their bills while waiting for the grant. Local traders who supply them with timber or other materials will be pressing for their accounts to be settled and they cannot be settled without the person concerned being able to avail of the grant. The only way to speed up the matter is to have a few extra inspectors.

This is a vital matter because coupled with that is the importance of our approach to one of the most important Acts passed here for many years, the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1950. If we want to work that Act so that local people will be able to take full advantage of it, while local authorities must face up to their responsibility, it will also be necessary, owing to the possibility of their getting a double grant, to have local inspectors available in order to have the Government grant speeded up. We sincerely hope that local authorities will face up to their responsibility, a responsibility which ultimately will be of material and financial advantage both to their counties and the country as a whole, in seeing that their weight is thrown wholeheartedly behind the Housing Act of 1950. It certainly must be if people are to be in a position to avail of it, and it is one of the outstanding measures introduced in this House.

I know of people in local authority houses who, if that Act had been passed 12 or 18 months earlier, would be in the happy position of being able to avail of the double grant and acquire their own homes and the local authorities would be in the happy position of having the houses, which these people now occupy as tenants, available for others. Therefore, I ask that the Minister should, by way of circular, inform local authorities not alone that it is an advantage to them to avail of Sections 7 and 8 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, but that he expects, from local authorities and local managers, full co-operation. He should also ask them to make periodical returns of the number of applicants and the number of those availing of the grants. The greater the publicity we can give this important measure, the greater will be the success we will have in regard to housing.

Deputies mentioned Cork and Dublin in connection with housing. We Cork people do not expect sympathy from any Dublin people. Some of them have the idea that we only buy a single ticket to Dublin. Not alone are they in sympathy with us in this matter, but I had the idea that they were anxious to go to Cork to start building houses for us. They think that they are doing it so well in Dublin that they want to go to Cork. We are proud of the progress we are making as, by the end of this year, as I was told in reply to a Parliamentary Question recently, in the South Cork Board of Health area no less than 600 houses will be completed. That is not bad progress in one and a half years. They may say that we are country boys, but that shows that the country boys are producing houses for the people to live in. If Cork City is lagging behind in regard to housing, at least South Cork is doing its part. In a couple of years more, with the programme we have before us, which is supported wholeheartedly by every member of the council, the people of South Cork will not be queueing up for houses. I do not know what problems they may have in Cork City, but I suggested three years ago to the then Minister that the one way to remedy the housing conditions in Cork City was to form a housing or consultative council, as they have done in Dublin.

Mr. MacCarthy

We have that in Cork.

Mr. Desmond

It has not the same swing as here.

The trouble is that in Cork what is everyone's business is nobody's business. I know that the members of the corporation, individually and collectively, are anxious to get on with housing. I shall not take advantage of my presence in this House to say anything that would hurt anyone but, from the small information that I have got from time to time, I believe that the drive, force and sincerity which were put into the housing problem in the South Cork Board of Health area by the members and, above all, by the manager through the full determination of the members, are lacking in Cork Corporation. The city manager should put his weight into it more than he has done. He may be trying to do the best he can. I do not know. The information that I have got, in a small way, perhaps indirectly, is that the city manager and the officials in the City Hall in Cork have not put their backs to this important question, that they have not dealt with it as they should have dealt with it.

Deputy Corry, as chairman of the board of health, knows that we had our problems in South Cork. We had to travel miles and miles looking for sites for cottages. We spent days and weeks trying to get a site for one or two cottages. Yet, I should like to know, even at this stage, how many sites did the Cork Corporation acquire in three years. In spite of all the honesty and sincerity behind the statements of the late Minister, T.J. Murphy (God rest his soul), and of the ex-Minister, Deputy Michael Keyes, I would like to know, as the city manager is responsible for this important matter, how many sites has he or the Corporation of Cork acquired in that time. We have to travel the country to try to get a site for one cottage, whereas they can get sites which will accommodate a couple of hundred houses. They have facilities available in the city that are unknown in the country in the way of purchasing materials in large quantities and in the way of tradesmen—a matter in which we have been held up in the country.

I believe, honestly, that the question that has been put in this House to-day, the question that has worried Deputy Peadar Cowan, should be transferred to the city manager. Deputy Peadar Cowan is bubbling over with sympathy for the Cork people. He should put the question to Mr. Philip Monahan, who is the city manager; he is not a Cork man, I believe, but, nevertheless, he could be a good man.

I should like to have this question answered. The Cork people should not be blamed. When the Cork City people are looking for houses they can compare the position obtaining in the city with the position obtaining outside the city; they can see to it that political kudos will not be gained by one Party or another. They can also see to it that in Cork City, be it at election time or any other time, instead of each Party saying that every other Party was at fault, or instead of individuals complaining that they did not get co-operation, they will as a body, as we have had to do, when dealing with our assistant county manager, simply say: "We want the thing done." Not until that is done will you see houses built in Cork.

In regard to the question of repairs to cottages, in the South Cork Board of Health area repairs are being carried out to cottages. For some years the cottages were in a bad state of repair owing to the scarcity of materials during the emergency. We are hoping to straighten out the position. I wish to get information on one very important aspect of repairs. We realise the importance of housing. A very important question in this regard is, what should be the viewpoint of the local authority in regard to the repair of their own houses? What right should assistant county managers or the members of an urban council have to state that they do not wish to repair houses which are their own property? Is it not a glaring case of injustice that, just because a few people—worse still, an assistant county manager—can gloat about a miserable bit of personal power acquired under the Act, they should say to the tenants who have been paying their rent regularly for years that they will not repair their houses? Why should a local authority, an urban council, be so neglectful of their own property as to decide that it is better for them to allow floor boards in the kitchens and rooms of their houses to get into disrepair rather than put in a stitch in time, which, as we know, saves nine?

I am very mindful of my obligation to follow up this particular matter in connection with an urban area and if that urban authority and the assistant county manager fail to carry out what I believe is their responsibility, then, even in this House, I will show them up for it.

Reference was made here to ground rents. It is appalling that this problem should be allowed to continue. Undoubtedly there has been abuse in regard to this matter year after year. To deal with the problem of ground rents, any Government would require a long time and, in my opinion, would need to have no other problem to deal with. I appreciate that there are many vested interests involved. It reminds me of the moneylenders that we heard about in old days. There are many of the species still in our midst. Many of them are supposed to be members of benevolent societies, whereas they are robbing people. They must appreciate that they are robbing so many people year after year of something to which they should have no claim. I understand that it is a very big question, but the bigger it is the more determinedly should we set ourselves against such an imposition and such injustice. We heard a great deal about absentee landlordism, but some of these rack-renters are not even in the category of absentee landlords. There is quite a number of them in our midst yet and the sooner we let these people see that they cannot continue to rob others, the better. It is important for us to realise our responsibility in that respect.

My final remarks are in regard to one local matter. I should like to say for the benefit of the Minister and for the benefit of whoever may be in the section of the Department that will be dealing with it, that there may be recommendations made in the near future in connection with proposed housing sites. I know one of those housing sites. I have travelled in the particular area. I know the advantage of that housing site. I do not know of any disadvantages connected with it. It is convenient in every respect. For building purposes it will have advantages over alternative sites. I hope there will be no tinkering with that proposal and no suggestions accepted by those responsible in connection with that site. If there are, the matter will be fought out here on the floor of the House.

Mr. Corry

In view of the appalling mess in which our agricultural industry is, I felt that the present Minister for Local Government should not have been removed from the Department of Agriculture, but I realise that, with his undoubted ability as Minister for Local Government, a position which requires a hard man at present, he is the right man for the right job. I say that in view of the comments made here by Deputy O'Higgins about the reasons for bringing this Estimate on and not bringing on the Estimate for Agriculture. Deputy O'Higgins should realise that we spent a month on the Estimate for Agriculture, that it had to be dodged every week, and surely, when his Party could not stomach that Estimate, we cannot be expected to take it without at least remedying some of the crying grievances.

Mr. Davin

It is an old story.

Mr. Corry

That is your chance. This is one of our most serious problems to-day; the roads are definitely unable to stand up to the heavy motor traffic that is on them. It is wrong and unjust to ask the ratepayers of any county to pay for the upkeep of those roads when the local authority does not get the income from them which goes to the Central Fund. £6,000,000 was taken from them and I do not know what was done with it.

We certainly want some liaison between the Board of Works in connection with rural improvement schemes and the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear!

Mr. Corry

Some four months ago Cork County Council wrote to the Department of Local Government asking them to send down two of their officials to meet the roads committee and the county surveyors to go into this matter. We got an acknowledgment all right from the Department of Local Government but we got no more. I am not concerned with the gentlemen who build in the suburbs and think that somebody else should build a new road for them, but with the unfortunate bunch of farmers living up a boreen who spend their lifetime paying for tar-macadam roads for those more fortunate than themselves while they have to tow a load of stones over the deepest ruts in their boreens. They are entitled to have something done to get a road for them. I know that under the old Fianna Fáil scheme, which was carried on by the last Government, a grant of 75 per cent. was given towards those roads, but unfortunately the position was that the county council could not give anything towards any one of those roads; they were prohibited.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

At Cork County Council you strongly opposed——

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sweetman)

Deputy Corry will carry on with his speech.

Mr. Corry

If somebody will get a bottle for the baby we will be all right. That is the reason why I looked for officials of the Local Government Department to attend our meetings to endeavour to find some way of bridging that gap, some means by which the county council could themselves give the 25 per cent. out of private members' proposals. In that manner we could get over this definite block as far as the ordinary country people are concerned. When a line of houses is built in a suburban area there is an immediate howl from the occupiers of those houses and their representatives for a proper road, but there is no consideration for roads where five, six and in some cases seven families live on an accommodation road. Nothing can ever be done for them. I know it; I have experience of it. I have spent the last two years at the Board of Works hammering in connection with one of those proposals, but hammering uselessly. They were prepared to pass a rural improvement scheme of 75 per cent. but where would you find the other 25 per cent. of £2,000? You could get it easily enough from the members of the district by private members' proposals but that could not be done because the Local Government Department would not sanction it. That is why I want an immediate liaison between the Local Government Department, the Board of Works and the local authorities in connection with schemes of that kind.

I would ask the Minister to see that there will no longer be a hold-up of schemes coming from local authorities to his Department. These schemes lie there for months awaiting sanction and I think that that is a scandalous thing when local authorities have done their utmost. I know that Deputies of all Parties and county council members of all Parties have travelled around with the housing inspector from one site to another and have gone to the trouble of interviewing owners and have endeavoured to get over delays in the compulsory purchase Order by getting agreement on prices and everything else, but when after all that trouble to cut red tape and speed the matter up the local authorities accepted tender for the scheme is sent to the Local Government Department it lies there for three months without anyone looking at it. There is no justification for it. A scheme was sent up on the 16th March last and sanction for the acceptance of that tender had not arrived in Cork on Monday when I left despite the fact that I telephoned the Department last week and begged them to send it down. I hope I will not have the trouble of doing it again because if I have it will only mean a row here and rows elsewhere and I do not want any quarrels or trouble.

I want to congratulate the Minister on the important post he holds. When you have a hard job you put a hard man into it and I am glad to see that Deputy Paddy Smith is facing the job into which, in my opinion, he will put the same ability, courage and work which made the farmers of the country thank God up to 1947 that they had him and curse the day they lost him.

Captain Giles

He can now cut tape instead of barbed wire.

Mr. Davin

I am not going to ask the new Minister to answer any awkward questions because, like other Deputies, I appreciate the fact that he has not been sufficiently long in the Department—although he has had experience elsewhere—to answer some of the questions that I would have addressed to his predecessor if he were still in office. I am, however, going to ask the Minister a couple of questions on a policy which, no doubt, he fully understands—questions which he ought to be able to answer when he is replying to this discussion. In the first place, I want to ask him what the Government, of which he is a member, intends to do in connection with the County Administration Bill which had passed through the major portion of the Committee Stage before the last Dáil was dissolved. I do not intend to go into the details of that Bill, but it appeared to me, and I am not an expert on matters of local government administration, that, in the long drawn out discussion on the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage, there was a good deal of agreement between both sides of the House on the question of amending, to some extent at any rate, the County Management Act, thus restoring to the representatives of the ratepayers and the local authorities some of the power that they held previous to the coming into operation of that Act. It appears to me, from what I have listened to here in the House this evening, especially from Deputy McGrath and from other Deputies who have long experience of the administration of the City and County Management Act, that a lot of the complaints that were directed, wrongly in my opinion, to the Local Government Department, really should fall to the lot of the city and county managers. That applies in particular to the justifiable complaint that was made by Deputy McGrath in regard to the lack of progress, or the very slow progress, made in connection with housing in the City of Cork. The Minister, as a member of the Fianna Fáil Government, ought to be in a position to answer that policy question. I would like to ask him a further question. Does he intend to pursue the policy, so far as it applies to the putting into operation of the cottage purchase amendment scheme, which was announced by his predecessor three or four months ago and, if so, if he will speed up the administration of the amending legislation which was conveyed to the local authorities in the early part of the present year?

Arising out of that question, I want to suggest to him that, if it is his intention to speed up the amending legislation, so as to enable cottage tenants to become the owners of their cottages and plots, he should do so particularly so far as certain portions of my own constituency are concerned. It is not the first time I raised that question in this House. I pointed out to his predecessor the necessity for carrying out the arrears of cottage repairs that are overdue for such a long time, particularly in Laois, in my own constituency. The present Minister knows, and his predecessor knew, it was laid down as a condition of the coming into operation of the Cottage Purchase Act, 1936, and that it also applies to the amending legislation announced in the early part of the present year that, before a tenant comes into the possession of his cottage and plot, the cottage concerned should be put in a proper condition of repair. I am sorry to say that, notwithstanding the repeated representations that I made to the Department, there is an accumulation of arrears so far as cottage repairs are concerned in Laois, and particularly in the Portlaoise electoral area. I do not intend going into this matter in detail. However, I think the Deputies representing rural areas will have to admit that it is a scandalous state of affairs to have to complain, and with justification, that repairs, which were requested by the occupants of labourers' cottages three or four years ago, and about which repeated representations were made to the local authorities and the county engineers, are still waiting to be carried out. I know of some such scandalous cases.

I do not regard it as my job as a Deputy, not being a member of a local authority, to raise these matters, but I can assure the Minister that if the arrears I mention are cleared up I will not, on any future occasion, take up the time of this House making further complaints of this nature. I am making these complaints now because representatives of the local authorities for the areas concerned have failed to impress upon the manager and the county engineers the necessity for carrying out these repairs, some of which are urgently needed. The Minister will admit that if the cottage tenants are entitled to purchase and to become owners of their cottages and plots within a reasonable period of time, it is urgently necessary in every area that these repairs should be carried out without any further delay.

I want to emphasise, very briefly, if I may, one of the questions that were dealt with at some length by Deputy Dunne, and that is, in regard to the cost of building. I want to say here what I have said to the Minister's predecessor, that, in so far as they affect certain towns in my constituency, I strongly object to the high tenders that have been received and sanctioned in the Department of Local Government in the last year or two for the building of houses. It is a terrible scandal that the building of houses in a town commissioners' town like Edenderry should be given to any contractor at a figure between £1,600 and £1,700. I say that because I know that the cost of the erection of the houses must in the long run, be found between the tenants, the ratepayers and the taxpayers, by way of grant.

I have no complaint to make against, in fact I congratulate, the local authorities in my area for having made what I regard as a generous contribution to the building of houses in every town where they were needed. I think it is a generous thing, and the representatives of the ratepayers and the representatives of all Parties on these local authorities are entitled to that credit.

I am not claiming credit for any particular Party in saying that they were prepared to contribute as they have done in urban and in rural areas a figure equivalent to 5/-, and 6/- in some cases, per house per week in order to make it possible for the houses that were so badly and urgently needed to be built. However, I think it is a scandalous state of affairs to have to admit—and I am claiming it to be quite true—that the generous contributions that are being given, that have been given and that will, I suppose, be given by taxpayers from the Central Fund and by ratepayers through the local authority, are not being used as they were intended to be used, to bring rents down to a reasonably low level so far as prospective tenants are concerned. They are being used in some cases in my area to add to the profits of building contractors. I cannot understand, for instance, why houses could be built by one contractor in a town like Tullamore, an urban area where certain rates of wages are being paid to skilled and unskilled workers, at a figure of less than £1,100 and let to the tenants at 11/6 per week, while houses in a town like Edenderry, a town commissioners' town, cost between £1,600 and £1,700, and are being let, if they have people to take them—some of them are empty to-day after the high prices that have been paid for them— at as high a figure as 32/- per week. There are people waiting for houses in the town of Edenderry who are living in slums and overcrowded apartments and who cannot pay the graded rents or the differential rents that are being asked from them by the local authorities, while some of these new houses are still vacant. Is not that a scandalous state of affairs? Why do not the county manager and the county engineer, and, if you like, the Local Government Department responsible for sanctioning these schemes at such a high price, urge the public to experiment, as has been done so successfully elsewhere, with direct labour.

Experiments have been carried out in the two countries of that constituency in previous years and under previous Minister and the results have proved to be very satisfactory so far as the tenants, taxpayers and ratepayers are concerned. I should like to think that our new Minister for Local Government has no prejudice on the question of the building of houses by direct labour as against the building of houses by contract. I am not trying to tie him to the building of all our houses by direct labour. I think it is healthy for the taxpayers and ratepayers and tenants to have competition between the direct labour system, where it can be justified, and the contract system. Deputy Corish can tell you of the result of a decision by the Wexford Corporation. That corporation has not a labour majority. It is not tied to the idea that a direct labour scheme is the only kind of scheme that can give good results from the house building point of view. I understand that, for the last scheme undertaken by the Wexford Corporation for the building of houses, the lowest tender was close on £1,600. The Wexford Corporation unanimously, and in their wisdom, decided that they would experiment with the direct labour system for the erection of 88 houses. The result of that experiment is that nearly £500 per house was saved to the ratepayers, taxpayers and tenants. The tenants who occupy these houses to-day can afford, without any grumbling, to pay the fairly low rents they are being asked to pay.

I could quote other cases where the direct labour scheme has been carried out to the advantage of all concerned. I should like to think that the new Minister will be prepared to give a fair trial to the direct labour system wherever there is evidence that the cost of building by contract is prohibitive or excessive. This is all I am concerned about.

A war has been going on for some time past in several towns in my constituency in regard to the high rents that have to be charged, even under the graded or differential rents system, because of the excessive prices paid to contractors for building under the contract system. I do not want to get back to what has been said in the recent election, because everything imaginable was said on the platforms, but the Fianna Fáil spokesman in my constituency—and Deputy O'Higgins knows about it—made a good deal of political capital out of the subject of the high rents charged in respect of houses let in Portlaoise, Edenderry and Birr. They gave the tenants to understand that if they had been in office when these schemes were submitted to the Minister's predecessor they would not have sanctioned them— or, in other words, that they would, whenever they got into power again, bring these excessive rents down to a reasonably low figure.

I will finish on that aspect of the case, while reminding the Minister of this—and if there is anything wrong with the figures I quote I hope he will correct me either when he is concluding this debate or at some future date. I am assured, and I was assured by the officials of the Department of Local Government on more than one occasion, that in the pre-emergency period the average rent charged to the tenant of a house built and let by a local authority was equivalent to about one-eighth of the weekly income of the head of the family. Before I go any further, I should like to say that I have never had any reason to complain about the officials of the housing section of the Minister's Department since I became a member of this House. The Ministers for Local Government have been fortunate in having good men in the housing section of that Department over a long number of years—the Minister in the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, the Fianna Fáil Government, the inter-Party Government, and now the present Minister. I am sure he will find that his officials are very good. I was assured by the officials of that Department that in the pre-emergency period the average rent charged to the tenant of a house built and let by a local authority was equivalent to about one-eighth of the weekly income of the head of the family.

I know of a small number of cases in my constituency where, even with the increased rates of wages paid to workers, the rents are about one-third of the weekly income of the head of the family. I am fairly well acquainted with the position and I could not help hearing about it. The average has now come down to about one-fourth of the weekly income of the head of the family. How can a married man, with a wife and three or four children to support, afford to pay or to continue to pay one-fourth of his weekly income on rent, and at the same time provide clothes and food for himself, his wife and children out of what is left? We have to get back to some sanity from the financial point of view on the question of the finance of housing. I raised this question outside the House, during the lifetime of the inter-Party Government. I was given an assurance by Ministers that this matter was under consideration by, I was told in this House on one occasion, a subcommittee of the Cabinet, as it was regarded as being so serious.

I should like the Minister to pick up the very serious matter of the financial structure of our housing activities so far as it affects the building of houses by local authorities, and I hope that at some future date he will be able to make a statement to this House on this very important matter. I give the Minister a friendly warning that he is going to be up against a difficulty if there should be any depression arising out of a weakening of the international position, if there should be any slump or anything like that —or even as it is now. I am aware of cases and places where workers in receipt of £4 or £5 a week have to pay one-fourth of their weekly income on rent although they cannot afford to do so. I warn the Minister that he will have rent arrears before he realises where he is. I am sure the Minister will give this important matter early consideration when he finds himself up against that problem so far as it affects many local authorities in the country at the moment.

I mentioned the County Management Bill. I have no prejudice in this matter. I am not a member of a local authority. I have had no experience of local administration. However, I admit that even though the City Management Act, originally, and then the County Management Act, were strongly opposed by members of this group when these measures were going through this House, I know of cities and counties where the city and the county managers have made an honest and honourable attempt to carry out a difficult job. I know of cases and places—some not very far away—where the city and county managers came to their city and county councils and said that, although such and such a matter on the agenda was a reserved function, they would take the opinion of the city council or the county council, as the case might be, and carry out the wishes of the majority of that authority.

That was a democratic approach and a decent and honourable attempt by these sensible men to carry out their responsibilities. I know of other instances, however, where the city and county managers carried out their administrative duties in real royal red-tape fashion—and that is the cause of some of the complaints to which we have listened in this House this evening. Is it right that the contents of a letter on an important policy matter sent from the Minister's Department, even in the course of the past three months, to a county manager in my area should be withheld from the members of the county council? A most disorderly scene, lasting a couple of hours, took place because the contents of a letter from the Minister's Department, which the county manager had in his possession, were not communicated to the members of the county council, not even to the chairman. I will give the Minister the particulars at a later date if he has any doubts on the matter.

Mr. MacCarthy

That is not at all unusual.

Mr. Davin

I would appeal to the Minister, for the sake of harmony between his Department and the local authorities, to see to it that the contents of communications addressed by his Department to a city council or a county council, especially when they deal with policy matters, are conveyed to the members. If you do not want harmonious co-operation, then you will hold the contents of those communications in your pockets. The new Minister, I am sure, will agree that the representatives of the ratepayers on local bodies, whether they be a city council or a county council, are entitled to respect. They have the responsibility of deciding on the amount of the rate that is to be struck when the estimates are put before them. In recent years, the rates have been increasing, and so it becomes their duty to go back to the ratepayers and justify an increased rate if such has been struck. The county manager has not to do that. He has not to go to every cross-roads in every electoral area and justify an increase in the rates.

The Minister has been a member of a local body for several years and I am sure that he will agree with me privately, if not publicly, that the representatives of the ratepayers on the local bodies are entitled to that much respect—that the contents of communications addressed by the Department to their body should be made known to them. They certainly should be given the viewpoint indicated in the communication sent out by the Department, particularly where it bears on policy matters. I hope the Minister will see to that. I may tell him that I would have raised this matter with his predecessor if he were still in office. In fact, I have raised it with him in the House. I am not raising it now because there has been a change of Government or a change in the political head of the Department.

There are some other matters which I could have raised on the Estimate, but I do not intend to do so. I hope, however, that the new Minister will deal with the two policy questions which I have put to him. I am anxious to know what his attitude, and the attitude of the Government is to the County Administration Bill and to the cottage purchase amending legislation which was announced early this year.

Mr. Gallagher

Listening to Deputy Dunne last evening and this afternoon, I felt that he had a wrong approach altogether in the matter of housing. He tried to score over Fianna Fáil by conveying the impression, or at least intending to convey the impression, that the housing drive commenced only three and a half years ago. Well, he failed miserably in that attempt because he knows or should know—most Deputies know it—that when Fianna Fáil first came into power they inherited a legacy of bad housing. He also knew that, at that time, especially here in Dublin—I can state this to be a fact as a member of the Dublin Corporation—from one-quarter to one-third of the people in Dublin were living in single rooms. The Deputy also knew that, during its term of office, Fianna Fáil built over 100,000 houses. I have not the exact figure with me, but I think that was the number.

The Deputy also tried to give the impression that he could not get anything done by the Dublin Corporation: that he, himself, had made representations in respect of a family of 11 living in one room, and that he could do nothing, but that within 12 months he could get houses for a family of four living in one room. Any member of the Dublin Corporation knows full well that years ago, long before the inter-Party Government came into power, you had families of six and seven living in one room. I repeat that the Deputy's approach to this question of housing was all wrong. As a new Deputy I want to say that no Party should try to score over another Party on this matter of housing because it is the duty of any Government to provide houses for the people, and not try to make political capital out of it.

I was glad to hear Deputy Dillon approach this matter in the way he did. I do not agree with a lot of thing that Deputy Dillon says or does, but I think he made a proper approach to this question. He did so in a way in which it should be approached by every Party. It is a question that calls for the co-operation of all Parties, and of trade unions and of workers. The co-operation of all Parties is required to solve this great problem. I appeal to Deputy Dunne to be sensible and fair, to be fair to his constituents in the County Dublin and to his colleagues in the Labour Party. They should be prepared to come along here and say: "We will support the new Minister in this housing drive." The Deputy need have no fear that Fianna Fáil will slow down the housing drive. They started it. I want to say, in all fairness to the late Deputy Murphy and to his successor, Deputy Keyes, that as Ministers in this Department they carried on the good work started by Fianna Fáil. I appeal to Deputy Dunne, when our new Minister for Local Government is prepared to continue that good work, that he and those associated with him should give him their co-operation.

A lot has been said on the delays that arise in connection with the granting of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. I appeal to the Minister to go into that thoroughly. I know from my experience of housing that these delays create great difficulties, not only in the City of Dublin but elsewhere. I know of cases where people are in houses for the last nine months under a caretaker's agreement. They have not yet got the loans, in some cases from the county council and in others from the Dublin Corporation. That may be due to lack of staff for handling applications. I think that when the surveyor from the county council or the Dublin Corporation has made his final inspection, it is reasonable to expect that the loan should be granted within a period of two months. That period should give the legal department of the local body concerned sufficient time to go into the question of title and other details. In my opinion, eight weeks is a reasonable time to allow for the investigation of title. I appeal to the Minister to see that every effort is made for expedition in these matters.

The delay in regard to the granting of loans also affects the builders. They have to make their settlements with the builders' providers, and that is an important matter for them. Generally speaking, these delays create a great deal of trouble. If the Minister can do anything to bring about expedition he will certainly earn the gratitude of every Deputy and, most important of all, of young married people who are faced with many difficulties at the present time.

There is one other matter that I would like to bring to the Minister's attention. I have not heard it mentioned in the course of this debate so far. I do not want to convey the impression that the construction of houses is really bad, but there have been complaints, particularly in the case of houses built on sites situated on low-lying ground—there have been complaints of flooding. The surveyors of the local bodies concerned should be careful to see that there is a proper damp course carried out in the construction of these houses. If that is not attended to there is the danger of flooding, as a result of which dry rot sets in, so that in ten years' time the houses will not be worth the money that was paid for them. There is also the point that the health of the people occupying such houses will be endangered.

I would ask the Minister to get into touch with the surveyors engaged on this work with a view to ensuring that they will be strict in seeing that the regulations are complied with, and that they will make as many inspections as possible during the construction of the houses. I assume that they make frequent inspections, but I should like to see them make even more with a view to ensuring that the construction work is carried out in a proper manner. I do not want to convey the impression that there are a lot of bad builders in Ireland. There may be a few. This is such an important matter that they should not be given the opportunity of getting away with such a thing as not putting in a damp course in the houses they erect.

As a new Deputy—I do not want to be like Deputy Seán Collins, who said about 20 times that he was a young man—I will say that I am deeply interested in housing. I ask the Minister to make every effort to help local authorities on any matter they may put before him. From my experience of the Dublin Corporation and in my dealings with other bodies I know they are doing a great job. They have a very difficult job and are making every effort to house the people. I ask the Minister to afford them every support.

Finally, I will say to the Minister: "Continue the Fianna Fáil drive and you will be doing well both for your own Department and the people of this country."

Mr. Rooney

It makes me laugh to hear Deputy Colm Gallagher ask the Minister to continue a drive that has not started so far as he is concerned.

Mr. Gallagher

It started in 1932 and you know it.

Mr. Rooney

He gave it up when the war started and he never took it up again until we gave him the start. We have handed over a very good machine to the Minister for Local Government. The machine is purring just like a Rolls Royce. He has nothing to do except let it run. Do not put the brakes on. Do not ditch it. Do not interfere with the machine. That is my advice to the Minister.

There is a housing drive in progress in spite of a certain lack of co-operation on the part of Fianna Fáil. There is a housing drive in progress at the moment with greater momentum and there is a greater number of persons employed in building than ever before. Last year we broke all records in the matter of building houses. That was only after the inter-Party Government took office. It was painful to hear Deputy Burke say that the inter-Party Government just took up where Fianna Fáil stopped, that the plans and the sites were there and that all we had to do was to put up the houses. Let us remember that if Fianna Fáil had any intention of pursuing a housing drive such as we have at present, or even of trying to tackle the problem in any way, they would not have exported cement in 1946 and 1947. Anybody who wishes to know the tonnage of cement that was sent out in 1946 in order to build houses demolished during the war years in Great Britain has only to look up the records and see what money we received from Britain in return.

An Ceann Comhairle

What happened in 1946 has nothing to do with this Estimate.

Mr. Rooney

I agree, but when you hear people talking about what their plans were regarding houses it is good to see what exactly happened at that time. When the change of Government came in 1948 we found in progress in Dublin County the building of 12 cottages. We also found that in the previous seven years eight cottages had been built, the reason being, of course, that Dublin County Council was abolished and a commissioner was there instead.

When we took over, it was necessary for us to proceed with the acquisition of sites. It was necessary for us to secure approval from the Department of Local Government and to go ahead with our housing programme. The result is that, in the last three years, we succeeded in providing 1,200 new homes in Dublin County. In fact, that represented one-third of the total number of cottages existing at that time in Dublin County. We have under way a further 800 houses in Dublin County. Our housing programme is almost completed, and I have no doubt that, even with the change, the machine will go ahead towards the completion of that housing programme. The Dublin County Council was restored in 1948 and I must give credit to all councillors, both Fianna Fáil and all others, for their co-operation to provide houses for the people as soon as possible.

There are a few matters I want to refer to the Minister. One is the machinery in connection with the giving of sanction for the acquisition and development of sites and the eventual provision of houses on those sites. There appears to be some kind of clumsy machinery between the local authorities and the Department of Local Government. I think there is a duplication of work. I think each particular aspect of the job is done twice. There is a double check on it and it is inclined to slow down the effort to provide houses as quickly as possible. I have in mind at the present time — I hope the Minister will look into it — the proposed provision of 40 houses at Baldoyle. It will be found that plans for the development of the sites and for the housing have been sent to the Department of Local Government. There appears to be an unreasonable delay. Possibly there is one difficulty or another, but I think it is desirable that something should be done at this stage because in the Baldoyle and Coolock areas of North County Dublin the housing position is what I would describe as acute.

Another matter to which I would like to refer is the delay of the grant to developers, builders and persons who sometimes provide their own houses. I have often been approached by these people who tell me that they were financially embarrassed; that everything was all right as far as they knew and that they were still waiting for the money. Possibly, there again the Department of Local Government has to consult the Dublin County Council or the local authority concerned. Similarly, the local authorities must keep in touch with the Department. I think the result is that the person waiting for the money suffers. I hope that some alterations will be made in that machinery which will enable people to be paid promptly as soon as the job is completed. Actually, it is the completion of the papers that seems to hold up the final payment.

I would like also to refer to the valuation of houses which qualify for loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. In 1950 we introduced a housing amendment Act which in part was designed to ease the position so far as the valuation of houses was concerned in connection with loans. The difficulty was that hitherto when a house was being valued the valuer had to say to himself: "The builder made a profit on this house; therefore we will take that sum off the total cost; there is a grant of £275; we will take that off what is left and we will then proceed to make our calculation, giving a percentage"— probably 80 per cent.—"of the net amount arrived at." The 1950 Housing Act was designed to ensure that the loan and the percentage would be based on the reasonable cost of building a house. The point I want to bring before the Minister is that I have in mind at least half a dozen cases where the actual cost of building the houses can be proved on paper. The cost amounted to something like £1,950, just on the £2,000 mark.

The small dwellings loan applies to houses with a market value not exceeding £2,000. In these half dozen houses to which I refer there was one in particular where, although the cost was less than £2,000 in 1950, the valuer placed the market value of the house at round about £2,300. The result was that the white collar worker, who had no other method of financing the building of his house and thereby providing a home for himself, could not qualify for the 80 per cent. loan on the reasonable cost of building the house. It was pointed out that the house was a particularly good one. It was above the average and if it were put on the market it would sell for more than £2,000.

Now, that situation was a great shock to some white collar workers who could not otherwise have provided themselves with homes of their own and who were depending on the loan being made available to them. The net result was that they had to go to some kind of building society where they are compelled to pay 5 per cent. interest, apart from other convenants which are not required by a local authority and which put a further strain on the financial commitments of these men who are struggling along on a fixed income.

I hope the Minister will look into that problem. If it can be shown to him clearly that the cost of a house did not exceed £2,000 I hope that he will take steps to ensure that loans will be made available in such cases as I have mentioned and that technicalities in relation to market value will be eliminated.

The requirement should be based solely on the reasonable cost of building the house. The valuer at the moment is inclined to say: "I do not know how it could have been built at that price." If the auditor can verify the figures, I see no reason why any person should be penalised and I do not think that is the spirit of the Act. I believe the Act was intended to come to the rescue of the white collar worker anxious to acquire his own home over a period of years.

Another matter that comes within the province of the Minister is the North Dublin regional water supply scheme. That scheme received a considerable amount of publicity prior to 1948 and a number of people believed that they would wake up one morning and find their houses connected with a water supply. We find now that the Dublin Corporation considers that this proposed scheme cannot be extended beyond Swords because of the contour of the county. Swords is regarded as the farthest point north which can be served by such a scheme. Even if that is so, I hope the Minister will continue whatever work is in hands in connection with that scheme so that those areas which can be serviced will be serviced as soon as possible. I understand some kind of undertaking was given by the Dublin Corporation concerning the provision of water in the north county under this regional scheme. I think orginally it was intended that the scheme should apply all over the county. Possibly the levels had not been examined when that undertaking was given and the difficulties had not been foreseen. I hope that whatever schemes are in operation at the moment will be expanded. I know arrangements have been made to provide water for both Blanchardstown and Castleknock.

Reference has been made here to the differential renting system. I heard Deputy Cowan refer to it. He dealt with it particularly in relation to Dublin Corporation. I think he was causing Deputy Briscoe some embarrassment in bringing that matter up because Deputy Briscoe is chairman of the finance committee which is responsible for the differential renting system in Dublin City. I think the system has the approval of the corporation generally. Possibly the present scheme can be improved upon, but we must face the situation squarely. We must decide whether or not the scheme will be retained in principle.

We must decide whether or not the family with the low income will be required to pay as high a rent as the family with a high income. I believe that the adoption of this differential renting system enabled the housing programme to be pursued more rapidly than would otherwise have been possible. Had we not decided on that general principle we would have had to say to the workers that where the income of a house exceeded £6 per week they could not be considerd for a house because we would have to concentrate on housing those people with less than £6 per week. I merely take £6 for the purpose of example. We might have said £7 or £8, or any number of pounds. We decided, however, to adopt a differential renting system and, if the medical officer was satisfied a particular family needed to be housed and deserved priority, the question of income did not arise until the payment of rent became due. We had to decide then whether we should ask the people with the lower income to pay the same rent as those with higher incomes.

In the course of his speech Deputy Cowan said there were some people in corporation houses paying a bigger rent under this scheme than that paid by white collar workers for what would eventually be their own houses. I find it difficult to believe that that is so. I think any family which found itself in that position would have a more business-like approach in the matter because they would realise that it would be far better for them to purchase a house under the Small Dwellings Act—a house which they would own at the end of a term of years—instead of continuing to pay a rent higher than that payable for a house acquired under the Small Dwellings Act.

Some mention was also made of road grants and the inter-Party Government was criticised very severely when the policy of giving road grants was discontinued. I think when the Fianna Fáil Government were last in office they made it quite clear that these grants were being made available because practically no money was spent during the emergency years, as tar and other road materials were not available. However, the present Government have now power to revert to the policy of giving road grants, and I hope they will stand by the attitude they adopted and increase the road grants to the various local authorities. I consider that the road grants made available to the Dublin County Council are not sufficient, from the point of view that it is the premier county and a county in which the amount of traffic coming from other counties is much heavier than that which other counties receive from outside areas. I feel that, if we cannot get some kind of allocation from other local authorities, we should get an extra allocation from the Road Fund in view of the fact that the roads in County Dublin are so much used by persons travelling from other parts of the country into Dublin City. I believe that there are technical difficulties in the way of allocating a greater grant than that which is available at the moment to Dublin County but certainly the ratepayers of Dublin County feel, and rightly so, that they are paying more than their share for road maintenance and that they should be compensated in some way by the allocation of a greater road grant than they receive at present. I hope that that matter will be examined because as traffic increases—and it is on the increase—road maintenance is going to become a heavy liability on the ratepayers of Dublin County.

I heard somebody here advocating that the scheme for a new Bray road should be proceeded with. That scheme was abandoned by a majority of the Dublin County Council some years ago. Different aspects of the matter were taken into consideration at the time. Not the least of those aspects was the position of landowners, owners of holdings and houses, who would have been disturbed and deprived of their homes.

Mr. Killilea

You would not like to trouble the big shots.

Mr. Rooney

There was also the question of traders who would be left without the little businesses they had established between Dublin and Bray. All these things were considered and it was decided that it would be far better to seek a grant for the widening and improvement of the existing road instead of its replacement, because that was what it would amount to for many parts of the road. We believe the road can be made safe and we have no apology to make for taking the line which was taken and for which the Irish Independent was criticised here in this House for advocating. I believe their attitude was a sensible one. They showed the folly of proceeding with the making of an entirely new road and of abandoning the road which at present exists. That scheme was to cost £500,000 but that would be only a small part of the financial problem because when the road would have been provided the ratepayers of Dublin County would have been required to maintain it. That was where the great difficulty arose. If it was proposed to make it a State road, to be maintained by the State, a different problem might present itself but when it was a case of making a road to be maintained by the ratepayers of Dublin County—a road which was to cost £500,000—the Dublin County Council, in my view rightly decided that they would not proceed with that scheme. They decided instead to seek a road grant which would enable them to improve the existing road. I belive that the existing Bray road can be improved in several ways and certainly the expenditure entailed would bear no relation to the expenditure involved in the construction of a new road. What would the construction of a new road mean? It would mean that people who drive very fast on the existing road could drive faster still on the new road. I believe myself that the traffic position could be eased considerably by improvements on the existing road.

I do not propose to delay the House any longer but I hope that the Minister will give particular consideration to the matters which I put before him concerning applicants for loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. I know that it is a great hardship on a white collar worker who has gone to the trouble of saving up a deposit and then going through all the formalities of getting a site and building a house to be told when the valuer steps in that the market value of the house is more than £2,000 although the total cost of the house was less than £2,000. He has then to suffer the disappointment of getting no loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act and in that way the purposes of the 1950 Housing Act are defeated. I hope the Minister will be able to make some statement in regard to the matter.

Mr. MacCarthy

The housing problem is so vast that I think it is not at all surprising that it has become the principal feature of this debate but if the legislative provisions are adequate and the financial arrangements are encouraging, it then requires to my mind only a general co-ordination to make the programme effective. We have had introduced into the debate many matters which no doubt are mainly of local concern and which perhaps should be settled locally. At the same time certain features are of such general interest that perhaps it is no harm to give them a passing reference.

A good deal of notice has been taken in this debate of the differential rents system. I think it was in Cork this experiment was first tried out, on any large scale at any rate. The system was that some houses were built to be let at fixed rents, others under certain purchase terms where a small deposit was required, and then, particularly for the clearance of slum areas, a considerable number of houses were built and let on a differential rent basis. The system was worked like this: the rents were to vary from 3/6 to 18/-, according to the income, but the first 10/- of what you might call the bread-winner's earnings and the first 5/- of the earnings of any other person in the house were not taken into account in the calculation. They were subtracted and the income was divided by six, and that was the rent as between the figures I have mentioned, up to a maximum of 18/-.

As was stated by Deputy McGrath, that was an insurance, first and foremost, for the casual worker. If he was not in regular employment, even though he earned from time to time a good weekly income, he had no guarantee that he would be able to save up enough continuously to pay the rent of his house. It was a kind of insurance, though the top figure might at that time have been considered a little high, that if he got ill and became non-earning, or if he lost his employment, his rent went down to a figure as low as 3/6, thus giving security of tenure to his family. That was a very important scheme, and it worked out very well indeed.

As time went on, other housing schemes were undertaken. People who thought they would prefer fixed rent houses and that their employment was sufficiently good to ensure they would be able to pay the fixed rent got the option of transferring to new housing schemes, and other people from the tenements and derelict buildings were moved in to replace them in the differential rent scheme houses. We had the advantage, perhaps, of starting that scheme at a time when building costs were lower than they are now, but we found that there were many slum areas still to be cleared, and we have had to reintroduce that system. But the top figure is really so high that already it is becoming a burden on some of the tenants, as Dublin Deputies have said.

For example, I came across a case recently where the breadwinner had died and his widow became the tenant. She had then only the widows' pension, but she had three daughters working. As only the first 10/- of her income was deducted and the first 5/- of the daughters', the rent became rather excessive. That is one thing which ought to be examined in connection with the differential rent system. The allowances which were fixed at a time when money was of a different value ought to be increased, at least as far as the earning capacity of the other members of a family are concerned. I have dealt with the general scheme and how it works out. At any rate it dealt with the condition of things in the south.

Reference has been made to the slow progress made. Of course like every other walled city, as the surrounding area was developed by market gardeners and others in different ways, we could not allow ribbon building along the roads because the time was bound to arrive in the course of building when it would be necessary to extend the borough boundary to include the sites where the corporation had built and were paying rates to the county councils for them. In the clearing out of the tenements certain derelict sites were left and in speaking of co-ordination and co-operation in regard to the effectiveness of the building programme I wish to point out that last autumn the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Keyes, sent down a circular about the clearing of derelict sites. The matter was examined by the corporation in committee and the suggestion was made that the clearance of these sites would provide employment at Christmas time for the unemployed and that they could be used as building sites when acquired.

Whether the fault lay with the corporation officials or the Department of Local Government, the proposal for the clearing of these sites by manual labour was turned down and it was stated that they would have to be cleared by machinery because it would be quicker and more effective. I did not agree with that. While we had people unemployed, I thought they should have been cleared gradually and built upon. Then it was put up that the development of these sites would be too expensive, even though roads, sewerage, lighting and all the other things necessary were available, and that sites would have to be purchased from the market gardeners or farmers in the surrounding parts of the city. The whole thing for one reason or another was scrapped.

Reference was made in the debate to-day to conferences with the building trades as the progress of building was so slow in order to find out the availability of skilled workers. At these conferences we found that the skilled men were not allowed to work overtime because it was the official view that that would add to the rent of the houses. Considering the urgent need for houses and all the other things, that increase would not have been a severe burden and the people would have got the houses more speedily. In consequence of this, the Cork builders started to build in other cities and towns instead of building in Cork City. One of the skilled workers told us at that conference that 20 skilled workers left Cork on the same train as himself to build for a Cork contractor elsewhere. My view is that, in addition to the direct labour scheme which was opened by the former Minister, Deputy Keyes, and the contracts which were being carried out in competition with it by the bigger contractors, the smaller contractors would always keep a small staff of skilled men to keep their business going and they could have been put working on these derelict sites and in that way we would have had far more progress than has been made.

The next question I wish to refer to is one that was dealt with by Deputies on the Opposition Benches, that is, the question of revaluation, which is seriously impeding progress in Cork and, I am sure, in other cities. I know of a case that occurred recently of a little building where you could touch the roof by just putting up your hand. The son of the family was getting married and the father decided that he would put in a better window and give better ventilation to the house, in order that his son could go in there when he got married. The result was that the valuation was raised from £2 to £4 10s. I do not think that anything that happened in the old days of landlordism when you were taxed for the panes of glass and the appearance of your house could have been worse than that. I maintain that where a person simply develops the ground, or the existing structure and improves that, the increase in valuation should be very small, but where a person takes in more territory and expands his business, nobody will object to a reasonable revaluation.

The point is that the revaluation is so exorbitant that people are being driven into the courts day after day to defend their interests. We have seen cases appearing in the courts where the revaluations were reduced by as much as 33? per cent. Then the local authority is blamed and there are Press reports of the cases. Who do the citizens of Cork think is the local authority? They think that I or my colleagues are the local authority whereas in such cases, unless the individual brings it to our notice, we never become aware of it until we see the case in court. The local authority in that case is the city manager. It is his work and his responsibility, through whatever channels are devised for making these revaluations. This matter should be effectively tackled once and for all because it is impeding progress and cutting down employment. People are not prepared to improve their premises when they expect that to be the result.

Deputy Dr. O'Higgins mentioned this evening that, in order to provide for the urgent needs of the city, he had offered what was during the emergency a military camp as temporary housing for the citizens. That was examined very closely and we discovered that the amenities that existed for an Army would not suit families, and that the drainage was of such a nature that the railway company were objecting to any discharge into a pond near the railway. Our engineers stated that it would take over £700 to put those houses in proper order for habitation.

The point raised by Deputy Corry about the suburban area and the condition of the roads there is a matter to which I should like the Minister to give some attention. Deputy Corry mentioned that before the Town and Regional Planning Act was made effective many builders entered into fields and other sites and built houses. Undoubtedly, although they charged the purchasers of the houses for the making of roads, they made very bad roads and the county engineer—and rightly so—said he would not take over those roads until they were put into a condition comparable with surrounding roads because the general taxpayer would have to pay for what was the responsibility of the builder. Then one could not get at the builder because in many cases he had sold out the ground rents and perhaps three or four different builders had been on the site.

The purchasers of these houses are the people for whom I have sympathy. They have been paying full rates over a big number of years. We cannot put in light because the road is not taken over. We cannot take over the road because it is not in a condition comparable with surrounding roads. These people are paying rates and getting no service whatever. The amount involved to put these particular roadways into condition is only about £3,000. At a time when employment is being considered the Minister may be able to go some way towards providing grants for these particular roads. Those who have built more recently are kept in check by the town and regional planning regulations and we have not the same thing to say about them. Many of them are contributing in a decent way towards the making of the roads.

I would reiterate what Deputy McGrath said here to-day about the building of smaller houses—not too small. Deputy Dillon objected to it, I think, but if there were a scheme whereby, after five years, when vacancies occurred any of those in the smaller houses would be transferred to the nearby bigger houses on their own scheme, it would work out splendidly in my view, and we would get houses built quickly for the newlyweds and for the old retired people who require only small accommodation under modern conditions, and who would be quite satisfied with that.

As regards the cottage purchase scheme in the rural area and the repair of cottages, which is a big burden on the local rates, if a man purchases a cottage and gets some local person to keep it in order, it would be a great relief to everybody, including himself, because he often has to wait long before the housing authorities can get around to repair any defects in his house. I hope that scheme will go ahead and that, with the goodwill of all concerned, as we have had up to the present, where progress is slow, as it has been in Cork, it will be speeded up.

What Deputy Davin said a while ago was perfectly right, about letters coming and perhaps a bit of a check being made by the Department, and these letters never seeing the light of day. As far as the Corporation is concerned, a Labour member some time ago felt the position was so bad that he put down a motion to the effect that the headings of letters would have to appear on the agenda or some folio attached to it, so that a member could ask for any letter that he thought would be of sufficient interest to the Corporation, but there was such a list of letters of perhaps a routine nature that we had to abandon that plan. Sometimes we have to come to the Department to see what letters have gone down in regard to housing and other matters.

These are matters that I am sure the Minister will remedy. I do not blame any Minister that these things have occurred, because many of them are local problems and, with the co-operation of the Ministry, I am sure the difficulties that I have mentioned to-day will soon be remedied.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I wish to put before the House a few points in which I am interested. It is agreed by all that housing has made great progress during the past few years. It will also be agreed that it has been a great boon to many building contractors. I do not know whether it is as a result of that, or not, that at the present time some local authorities are experiencing great difficulty in getting contractors to tender for the erection of houses. The local authority of which I am a member have on a number of occasions during the past few years got only one contractor to submit a tender for the erection of a housing scheme. Naturally enough, that produced the effect that the tender was very high and was considered, in some cases, by the members of the local authority and by their engineering adviser as being excessive. To combat that, we had to fill the void by creating competition by building schemes of houses under the direct labour system. As a result, we saved well over £2,500. That could apply in the case of any local authority if they adopted the direct labour system. However, at present we are not carrying on the direct labour system, for reasons which I will not go into here, and a number of building schemes are being held up in my constituency because the ex-Minister for Local Government and his Department refused, and very rightly refused, to sanction tenders submitted by contractors. It is very unfair to give individual contractors a monopoly of erecting houses for local authorities and I believe I am stating a fact when I say that a ring or combine exists amongst many of these contractors and that one of them will not trespass on the other's ground.

It was alleged by some people and by a member of this House who is here at present that the Department was responsible for holding up the erection of houses in my constituency during the past seven or eight months. I think the Department is perfectly right because it is imperative that the Department should see that houses are provided at the lowest possible cost. The only solution, as Deputy Davin pointed out, is to operate the direct labour system side by side with the contract system and thus endeavour to create competition which is essential if the housing drive is to be successful.

So far as the differential rent system is concerned, there are, I am aware, advantages as well as disadvantages in that scheme. The main disadvantages were pointed out by a number of Deputies to-day, namely, the necessity for making inquiries into the private means of people and the necessity of appointing inspectors to make those inquiries and to make them perhaps from time to time as the means of livelihood of the occupants would fluctuate.

Mr. MacCarthy

The rent collector does that.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The rent collector or the home assistance officer. We have no differential rents system in County Cork. It has its advantages. First of all, at the present time, before a housing scheme is initiated, the county medical officer of health or one of his assistants will visit the district where they intend erecting houses. They will go around to a number of prospective tenants, find out their means and report that so many houses are required to meet the housing needs of the particular district. That has been done. I am sure, all over the country. I have found out that in County Cork in general, where the county medical officer of health recommended the provision of, say, 20 houses to meet the housing needs of a particular district, when the houses were built, the tenants for whom they were meant were unable to take them because of their inability to pay the rent. I believe that these tenants would benefit immensely from a differential rent system, because, first of all, local authorities are supposed to provide houses only for people who have not got the wherewithal to provide them for themselves and, on the other hand, for any person with a fair income, there are facilities available in the form of substantial grants and loans repayable over a long period of years by which he can build his own house, so that, in building houses which will be publicly owned, our main responsibility is to those who cannot build from their own resources, and I believe that a differential rent system would, in many instances, be advisable.

I know people in towns in my own constituency who could not avail of houses because it would be impossible for them to find the rent plus the rates chargeable, amounting in many cases to 10/- and 11/-. Some of these are people whose income is 10/- or 12/- per week home assistance and even though some of them are living in the most wretched conditions and even though they are the people for whom the houses were primarily built, it would be impossible for them to go into them as tenants. They know very well that they could not continue to live in them because they would not be able to meet their commitments in the form of rent. It is only right and proper that some special provision should be made for these people and if a differential rent system or a graded system of rents were put in operation, it would be very helpful to the poorer sections. I do not see what pity the man is who is earning a fairly good salary and who is able to pay a good rent, even the economic rent, for his house and I do not see why any taxpayer or ratepayer should subsidise any individual who is in receipt of a salary which enables him to pay the full economic rent. I believe the advantages of a differential rent system would outweigh the disadvantages.

Another matter to which I want to refer—I do -not know whether this applies generally in the country—is the fact that recently in Cork County it is very difficult for a new contractor to get his tender for a house accepted. At the last meeting of the local authority in West Cork of which I am a member, a most disgraceful and uncalled-for action was taken. I mention this matter even though it is a local matter because in this debate each Deputy confined himself more or less to matters affecting his own constituency but it could apply to the country generally. A young fellow who saw an opening in the building trade and who had a little capital tendered for the erection of one cottage to the local authority. His tender was the lowest, but it was refused on the ground that he had no building experience. Admittedly, he had no building experience, but I do not see why that should weigh against him, because, if he had got the contract, he had it in mind to get a few competent tradesmen to co-operate with him, as I know, and I have not the slightest doubt that he would have erected that cottage to the full satisfaction of the county engineer. The Constitution of this country states that all citizens are entitled to equal rights and I believe the action of the local authority in refusing to accept his tender was repugnant to the Constitution.

There is another matter which is mainly responsible, in a way, for the small number of contractors submitting tenders for the building of houses. It appears that some contractors are afraid to submit tenders, because, if they are turned down by the county engineers, the fact that they have been turned down will be detrimental to their general trade. I believe from my three years' experience as a member of local authorities that everything that happens and has happened in connection with house-building in this country is not and has not been altogether above board and should get the closest investigation.

Before leaving that point, I want to put it clearly to the Minister that on no grounds should he sanction the tender submitted to his Department which was turned down by his predecessor on behalf of a firm of contractors in Bantry for the erection of a number of municipal houses. I agree that houses are very urgently needed not only in Bantry but in many other centres but this tender, which is for a sum between £1,700 and £1,800 per house, is altogether outrageous. Houses could be provided for these people for a sum at least £400 less than the sum set out in that tender. I am sure every member of the House will agree that if we are going to spend £1,800 on the erection of a single house, we will never find sufficient houses for those who require them. I have no ill will against the firm concerned, but the development cost of the particular site, £571, is outrageously high. If that sum were allocated for a single houses in West Cork, it would cause a revolution, as in the general public opinion it is altogether excessive.

The greatest possible attention should be given to county roads and the grants should be increased. The former Government were at least more generous than their predecessors in the matter of county road improvement grants. Every attention is given by county councils to the main roads and to the roads contiguous to the more populous centres and passing through them. People in isolated areas, however, find it just as hard to meet their commitments to local bodies as those people, even though the amounts contributed may be far less. The roads in my county in backward places are in a wretched condition, and I am sure the same applies all over the country. It seems to be the policy that the main roads, used by those fortunate enough to travel in motor cars, must be kept in repair, but a man travelling in a horse and cart or a donkey and cart is told that any road is good enough for him.

Deputy Corry introduced the question of granting powers to councils—I think they should be granted—to allocate money to back up a grant given to them by the Department for the improvement of roads in backward places. Where grants are made available under the rural improvement schemes, I know that, because the people who would benefit were too poor to pay the local contribution, they had to forgo the grant. In such cases the local authority should be empowered to provide the money, where they are satisfied that the people who should benefit could not do so, and where they are satisfied that the work is necessary.

Deputy Corry mentioned that he was in full support of this measure. However, this matter came up at a meeting of the county council a few days ago and, so far as I could judge by his statement, he was entirely opposed to public funds being used to pay a local contribution for grants given by the Department for the improvement of roads in isolated districts. I am sure the Minister knows the hardship involved in travelling over these roads, and I would ask him to give the matter as much consideration as he possibly can. The only argument is that those using them are not providing as much money in rates or taxation as the people living in towns and in other areas with higher valuations.

I cannot understand the delay in sanctioning water schemes. In West Cork, a number of schemes have been held up for a couple of years. I know it takes a long time to go through them, but to take two, three or four years is altogether too much. They are urgently required in West Cork, and I would ask the Minister to expedite those awaiting approval in his Department.

In regard to the County Management Act, I have always held the view that closer co-operation should exist between local authorities and managers. In County Cork, the closest co-operation does exist, but I am entirely against giving the manager of any county the powers he has at present. It is outrageous that local representatives who have to go before the people to obtain their trust and confidence should find their powers removed completely and entirely, as they have been, by the County Management Act. It has been alleged that if these powers were left to the representatives, they were liable to corruption and that local affairs would not be carried on as they should be. If a local representative goes before the people and yet is liable to corruption, the same can be said of any member of this House. People have to be elected to the local authorities, just as Deputies here go before the people for election. It is the general concensus of opinion throughout the County Cork that the members of local authorities should get far more powers than they have at present and that the County Administration Bill introduced by Deputy Keyes should be enacted. It is a terrible reflection on them that they are not to be trusted with these powers and yet are expected to take an active interest in the affairs. Cork County Council has 46 members, who come from every corner of the county and have a better knowledge of matters appertaining to their immediate vicinity than any manager or official of the county could have. I am voicing the opinion of every member of the Cork County Council, even the Fianna Fáil members, in saying that the provisions of the County Administration Bill should be enacted.

Deputy Davin has dealt with the cottage purchase scheme and I would like to know whether the Minister is empowered to revise and increase the rents of cottiers who are in occupation, without making any reference to the particular cottier concerned. Is there any provision in the Rent Restrictions Act which precludes the Minister from revising those rents? What period of time, if any, is given to a tenant of a cottage to enable him to make up his mind whether or not to purchase his cottage—when he is threatened, as has occurred in County Cork, with an increased rent if he does not avail of the purchase scheme? Whether or not a particular tenant should avail of the purchase scheme should be left entirely to his own discretion and threats and intimidation should not be used against him. I would like the Minister to refer to this when replying and say whether any assistant county manager has power to increase the rent on an existing tenant—not an incoming tenant—and whether or not that increase is subject to ministerial sanction.

Mr. J. Brennan

I have been listening with great interest to the points made by many Deputies in this debate, and sometimes I was inclined to conclude that a Minister for Local Government would be required for Dublin and Cork Cities alone. Deputies on both sides of the House sometimes seem to think that the only problems are those which pertain to the Cities of Dublin and Cork, and I would like to impress on the Minister that there are counties which have pressing problems with regard to local government equally great if not greater.

I have tried to be present for most of the discussion in the House and I failed to hear any reference to the consolidated health grant which has not been a great boon to the County of Donegal. I understand that it has had the opposite effect in other counties. The consolidated health grant which is based on the expenditure of 1947-48, that year being taken as the standard year, places us in an awkward position in so far as our expenditure in 1947-48 was one of the lowest in our history and, therefore, we have already reached saturation point with regard to the benefits to be sought under the consolidated health grant. Under the consolidated health grant the local health authority get a grant of 100 per cent. of anything spent over and above what was spent in 1947-48, but when they go over 200 per cent. they get only a 50 per cent. grant from the Central Fund. I am afraid that we in Donegal who have, I think, the second highest rate in Ireland, 30/- in the £, have reached saturation point as far as that grant is concerned. We can foresee, not merely in the year ahead, but for several years, a tremendous increase in our expenditure for health services.

We are only now getting going with our hospitals scheme and we have a gigantic programme of repairs for existing hospitals and institutions which will entail a remarkable increase in the amount we must provide. Therefore, we will only benefit to the extent of 50 per cent. of much of the money which we must provide for health services in the years ahead. This will, I am afraid, create a burden for our ratepayers and remember that our ratepayers are different from those of Dublin and Cork. Seventy-five per cent. of them are smallholders and I doubt if they can face a greater burden than they have at the moment —30/- in the £. When the Minister has time to go into the consolidated health grant I would ask him to review our situation. He should consider whether it has not fallen inequitably on some counties. He will find that it has and that we would be very much relieved by the substitution of a more suitable year as the standard year.

I think that the Minister mentioned yesterday that water and sewerage schemes would be accelerated in the years ahead. We hope that they will because we cannot share the views of those Deputies who said that remarkable progress has been made in that direction. We have a number of schemes pending for the last three or four years and little progress has been made so we hope that there will be an improvement.

With regard to differential rents I only want to make a brief observation. When the ex-Minister visited Donegal recently in connection with the opening of some houses he gave us every encouragement and advocated differential rents. As a member of the local authority I was given to understand that it was an admirable system and one to be practised but we were worried about it. We put it into operation in one scheme as an experiment. While we have not had much time yet to ascertain whether it would be a success I am very much afraid that it will not be the success which the Minister on that occasion led us to believe it would. I agree with those Deputies who condemned it as an unsuitable scheme and I can see great difficulties in the purchase scheme which is to be applied to houses under the differential rents system.

Turf production is important in Donegal. This year, owing to the unusually fine weather which prevailed, it will be very successful in Donegal although I am afraid that we will not reach our target. Local authorities should not take turf production out of the hands of Board na Móna, who would make an excellent job of it if they went a bit faster. God knows that local authorities have enough work on hands with housing, sewerage and water schemes. If, as we expect, Bord na Móna goes ahead more rapidly with the development of our bogs they are more competent to make a good job of turf production than the county council, which must switch workers from roads and other schemes to turf production at particular times of the year.

Some people seem to have a great deal of difficulty in their respective counties with regard to the contract system and I am glad to say we have not experienced any such difficulty. We have had healthy competition with tenders and our county manager never failed to put forward our programme speedily and effectively. I do not agree with those people who have disparaged the work of county managers. We have always had a good few tenders quoting keen prices. We applied direct labour to one particularly large scheme and I would not be prepared to say that the result would justify our continuing direct labour. It may have the effect of creating healthy competition with the contractors but certainly it did not work out more cheaply per house than the contract system. There may be something to say for the type of job turned out; it may be a little better—it was good, anyway—but I would certainly not say that it was more economical from our point of view because we always had healthy competition in the matter of contracts and received a good number of tenders.

Roads, of course, have always been a great bogey for our county council. Being a turf-producing county we had traffic on the roads for which they were never built. Therein lies a problem which will require a considerable amount of money—more than our ratepayers could ever afford—if our roads are to be put into proper condition. We hope that the matter will be considered by the Minister and by other Ministers in the Cabinet and that some solution will be found whereby our county roads, bog roads and culs-de-sac will be undertaken on a big scale and put in a moderately decent state of repair.

County managers have come under fire in this debate. Thank God that we, in Donegal, have nothing to say against the managerial system. Under the present system they have certain reserved functions and I would ask any Deputy to consider whether these reserved functions are carried out better than the county manager would carry them out. Take, for instance, certain appointments which are in the hands of the county councils themselves, such as that of rate collectors. Does any Deputy here believe that these appointments are made on merit by the county councillors whose reserved function it is to make them?

I think that there are various matters in the hands of the county managers that are more likely to be carried out on merit than if they were given as functions to the local bodies themselves. I would ask the Minister to consider seriously the position before he applies any amendment to the Managerial Act. He has experience, over a number of years, of seeing the Managerial Act in operation, and I think it was originally intended that, as time went on, certain amendments might be applied where necessary. I do not think, however, that the giving back to the members of the local bodies of certain functions would be one of the things that the general public would desire. I believe that, whatever else may be said against the managerial system, it has in many ways, succeeded in cleaning up local administration; wherever a suitable manager has been appointed, local administration has gone on fairly and squarely and decently.

I would like the Minister to look into the consolidated health grants. I think that in doing so he will have no difficulty in realising that that system has fallen altogether on the local authority, particularly in Donegal itself, which has now a gigantic programme of health services envisaged. This, I hope, will shortly get going. I would particularly appeal to the Minister to have the standard year changed to a more suitable year, thus enabling local authorities to benefit under that scheme to the extent which is intended.

Mr. Cafferky

For a time here this evening I wondered if I were listening to a discussion by Cork County Council on local matters, or if I were listening to a discussion in Dáil Éireann.

The fact of the matter is that housing has dominated the business here to-day in relation to the Minister's Estimate and that it has, more or less, over a period of years, taken up a great portion of the time of this House. However, we still find ourselves in the position that the shortage of houses is as great to-day as at any time since we took over the administration of the country—indicating clearly that something is wrong with the direction of housing.

There are other matters in relation to the Minister's Estimate with which I, coming from a rural area, am particularly concerned. I am most anxious that the Minister, in his concluding speech, will indicate what his policy is and what Government policy is in relation to the points which I am about to raise.

During the time the inter-Party Government were in power the then Minister for Local Government introduced a Bill, known as the Local Authorities (Works) Act, and the change of Government has caused uneasiness in my constituency of South Mayo as to whether or not it is the intention of the present Government to continue the scheme. While the inter-Party Government may not have satisfied everybody, at least some of their achievements were very satisfactory and one of them, at least, deserves credit; that is, the introduction of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That Act has brought relief beyond measure to the small farmer, relief which was long awaited from native administration but which, hitherto, was not forthcoming. I would like to impress upon the Minister, and upon the Government, that it is absolutely necessary that they should continue the implementation of that scheme, and that the moneys voted in the Minister's Estimate for this purpose—£1,220,000, I believe—will be spent evenly among the counties most deserving of drainage.

The introduction of that scheme was a godsend because of the delay in the implementation of the arterial drainage scheme. I do not set out here to blame the Fianna Fáil Administration because they failed when they were in office to implement that scheme. They introducd the legislation; the failure of implementation was due, I understand, to the lack of material and machinery which were needed for its implementation.

Mr. Davin

They did not introduce it.

Mr. Cafferky

They did.

Mr. Davin

Oh yes, the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. Cafferky

Due to the fact that the machinery was not available for the implementation of that scheme, the Local Authorities scheme had, to a lesser degree, to take its place. As might be expected, it was of immense benefit to the farming community in the west of Ireland and in every county in which it was put into effect. That being so, I impress upon the Government that they should continue with that scheme until such time as every small river, brook, and drain in Ireland is clean and open.

In regard to housing I would like the Minister to realise that something should be done in relation to the reconstruction of houses. The grant at the present moment is not adequate. £80 to-day is equivalent to only £20 of some years back. There is need for the doubling of that grant, at least making it £160. The Mayo County Council on the occasion of its last sitting passed unanimously a resolution requesting the then Minister for Local Government to increase the reconstruction grant from £80 to £160. I am asking the Minister to give his consent to that and to increase the reconstruction grant from £80 to £160 and more if he thinks it is essential.

There are many people in rural Ireland who cannot avail of the erection of new houses for certain reasons best known to themselves, notwithstanding the fact that there is a reasonable grant available at the moment. Many of them are prevented by lack of finance from having new houses erected, so they try to reconstruct the old houses in which they dwell. The grant at the present moment is inadequate and, therefore, I am asking the Minister to increase it. The Mayo County Council, irrespective of Party or politics, passed unanimously a resolution requesting the then Minister for Local Government to double the reconstruction grant. I hope the first thing the Minister will do is to give consent to that resolution.

I am a member of the local authority of the Mayo County Council and I must say that a lot of the talk that took place this evening is really connected with local administration. The conclusion I must come to is that the county councils of the areas from which these Deputies come must not be doing their work properly. In County Mayo we have done a good day's work in the field of housing. In every town and village in Mayo, north and south, large schemes of housing are in progress or are completed. We have found no difficulty whatever in putting these schemes into operation and in securing sites. Most of the discussion that has taken place here would be more appropriate to the respective local authorities or county councils than to this House. The conclusion I came to was that something was drastically wrong in their respective county councils.

Some time ago the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Keyes, sent out a circular to the various county councils asking them to provide the equivalent of the housing grant to aid people to erect houses in rural areas. During the discussion on that circular some of the county councillors who represent the Minister's Party indicated that they felt that the responsibility was on the Government to increase the housing grant if they felt that the grant was inadequate to meet the erection of houses arising out of the increased cost of material and the increase in wages over a number of years. It was with reluctance that they considered the adoption of the contents of the circular sent out by Deputy Keyes who was the then Minister for Local Government. Only when they discovered that it was popular, and that the ratepayers were quite prepared to shoulder the extra increase in rates, only when they realised that the moneys which would be collected by way of an increase in rates to meet this grant would be spent, and well spent, on something which was very badly needed, only at the third sitting of the Mayo County Council did they agree that the contents of the circular be passed unanimously. Will the Deputies who opposed the acceptance of the contents of that circular on the first and second occasion and who made a very strong case that it should be the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government and his Department—and that it should be Government policy— to increase the grants and provide aid for the development of houses, now insist that Government policy will be directed towards the doubling of the housing grants from £275 to £500, and relieve the ratepayers of the burden which, they asserted on that occasion, the ratepayers would be shouldered with? For my part I should be pleased if the central authority would accept that responsibility. On the other hand, if the Department of Local Government and the central authority are not prepared to shoulder their responsibility in that direction then it falls upon the local authority to supplement the grant to the extent of £225 so as to enable people in rural Ireland to procure a decent home to live in.

During the course of the lifetime of this Government, whether it be long or short, and, I may add, in the immediate future, I shall be anxious to see what will be the policy of some of the Deputies who are members of the Mayo County Council. I shall be anxious to see what their policy will be in relation to increasing the housing grant. I hope that these Deputies will be as realistic now as they were when they were in Opposition in this House and when they were speaking some months ago in the Mayo County Council.

A lot has been said during the course of this debate about the managerial system. As I said in the 11th and 12th Dáils, I am not in love with that system. To be truthful and honest, however, the Mayo County Manager, from what I know of him, is a very decent and respectable man. At all times he has given prior consideration to the opinions of the elected representatives of County Mayo and on every occasion he has sought their advice and assistance. I agree with the Deputy from Donegal that the one snag about giving back to local authorities the power which they enjoyed before the operation of the Managerial Act is in relation to the filling of vacancies. It would be an untruth to say that these vacancies are filled on merit. They are not. Human nature and human frailty do not permit of that. While we may have reason to complain of the way in which a county manager fills vacancies, in my opinion he does the job better than the local representatives could do it if they were given back the power of appointment. From that, it does not follow that we should have the managerial system. We should be capable of devising a way to give back to local authorities the greater part of the responsibility they enjoyed heretofore and yet reserve the function of appointment in some other manner. When that power was taken from local representatives it became most difficult to secure men to stand for the local authority. It became difficult to get the right type of men to stand as candidates because they felt they had no function and were only duds. For that reason, if for no other reason, I think it would be wise and democratic to restore the greater portion of the powers which local authorities enjoyed heretofore.

There has been much talk about main roads. I reaffirm what I have said in this House on previous occasions, namely, that until the central authority take responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of main roads we shall always have a grouse in this House and in each of the Twenty-Six Counties. Modern traffic being what it is, I feel that mechanically-propelled vehicles have as much claim to the highways of one county as to the other counties. I think that the day is at hand when the upkeep and maintenance of roads must be the responsibility of the Department of Local Government and of the central authority.

I admit that reasonable assistance has been forthcoming and that the grants are reasonable. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the social welfare service, the increase in rates, the constant demands by the people on the local authority, the day is fast approaching when we cannot put up the rates any further and when we must cry a halt. The sky is not the limit in this case. That being so, I think that the upkeep and maintenance of the main roads of every county should be the responsibility of the Department of Local Government and of Dáil Éireann.

There are other matters, which are not pertinent now but which I shall raise when a suitable occasion arises, that I think should be the responsibility of the Dáil if we are to ease the situation with regard to rates and keep them at a reasonable level. I was a member of the 11th and 12th Dáils. On a number of occasions the then Minister for Local Government was approached in relation to county council workers and their wages. We failed to secure any consideration. We were met with contempt. I must pay a tribute to the late Minister for Local Government, the late Deputy Timothy Murphy, and to his successor, Deputy Keyes, on the way in which they handled the demand made in relation to the wages of workers engaged by the Mayo County Council and every other county council.

The road workers in Mayo to-day are earning £4 per week, while a man with a horse and cart is able to earn 25/- a day. There are very few other counties where the workers are treated so well by the local authority. I wonder what those men would have been earning if we had not had the inter-Party Government, and men who approached the workers' problem in the way that the late Deputy Murphy and his successor, Deputy Keyes, did? If the cost of living has risen over the last 18 months that was not the fault of the former Government. It was due to world conditions and a threatening war. The former Minister for Finance, and the members of the Government, tried to keep the cost of living within bounds. We all appreciate the efforts they made to face up to the big problem which confronted them. They did great work in keeping the cost of living at the level at which it has been during the last 18 months. I hope that if it is necessary to approach the Minister for a further increase in wages for the workers, he will not adopt the attitude that was adopted by a member of his Party when he was Minister for Local Government some years ago.

I would ask the Minister to give consideration to the important point I have raised with regard to doubling or even trebling reconstruction grants. In that connection, I would like to see his Department take a greater interest in the design of new houses for rural Ireland. When speaking here some years ago on the subject of emigration, I urged that it was essential to provide the people in rural Ireland with the amenities which are enjoyed by those living in our towns and cities. Welldesigned modern houses are an essential if we hope to keep the people on the land. I am quite prepared to concede that all the Governments we have had since the setting up of the State have played their part in trying to solve the housing problem.

My main point is that the new houses must be designed from a labour saving point of view. I advocated that here some years ago. I remember I was laughed at when I urged that the new houses in rural Ireland should have the same amenities as those provided in housing schemes in our cities and towns, such as a bathroom and a toilet. I think it is totally wrong not to provide these amenities in the houses in rural Ireland. They are essential for the health and comfort of the people. The modern young woman is not anxious to get married and remain on the land if she has to go through the drudgery that her parents experienced. One way of abolishing that drudgery and of encouraging the young people to remain on the land is to have our new houses well designed and equipped from the labour saving point of view with the provision of amenities, such as I have mentioned, as well as water and electric light which, I am glad to say, are on the way.

I have dealt with the question of main roads. The Minister has responsibility also for the country roads. The policy of his Department, I understand, is to have these county roads steamrolled and tarred. I agree that from the long term point of view that is a sound policy. It will ultimately lead to a saving. My complaint is that with the niggardly amount of money that is made available these improvements to our county roads will not be completed in 1,000 years. We have been told that there is no scarcity of capital. Here is an opportunity for spending money and keeping our young men at home in good employment instead of allowing them to emigrate to Great Britain where they are employed developing modern highways, aerodromes and shipyards. How sad it is that they should have to leave their own country and employ their skill in executing modern developments in other countries at a time when they could be engaged in bringing our county roads up to a proper standard of maintenance. Why is not the capital made available to enable them to do so?

What good is a sum of £1,000 for work such as I speak of on a ten or 20-mile stretch of a county road? All we can get from the Mayo County Council is a miserable £1,000 for the tarring of a county road that may be ten miles long. What use is that when we know that it takes at least £2,000 to do a mile of road. Each successive Government has stated that it is interested in preventing emigration and in providing employment for our people. If this House is really serious in facing up to its responsibilities it will have to see that money is made available to keep our young people at home in useful employment such as I have been speaking of. Otherwise, it will have to admit failure.

I am often amazed at the nerve which members of Governments in this country, of all Parties, display when seeking the suffrages of the people at election time in trying to vindicate their policies and their actions during their term of office. No Government can vindicate their conduct when they go before the people so long as you have the flower of the country emigrating. That is an answer to any Government. Any foreigner can stand at Westland Row or Dún Laoghaire and discover for himself how the country is functioning and whether it is progressing or going backwards by seeing our sons and daughters emigrate. We have never denied that there is not emigration. There has been emigration for the past 100 years. We have been told that for the first time in history there has been a decrease in emigration. I do not believe it. I am not saying that the figures are wrong, nor am I questioning the statistics.

An Ceann Comhairle

We seem to be drifting somewhat away from the Estimate.

Mr. Cafferky

I was speaking on the development of county roads and on the niggardly sum made available for work on county roads. Work on county roads is a source of employment. Thousands of men could be employed if the money and material were made available. That is one way of providing employment. Those who could be employed in the making of these roads are doing the very same job across the Channel. Why not keep them here doing something which would be of benefit to the nation? Is it reasonable to expect the people who live in the depths of the country to travel on such bad roads to Mass and to towns? In many instances they have to remove their boots and shoes owing to the condition of the roads. Have they not the same right to the highway as those who live on the sides of these highways? These highways would not be what they are were it not for the gentlemen who travel them in their motorcars, but these gentlemen do not travel the county roads.

I hope the Minister has taken some notice of what I have said in relation to local government administration, and in relation to his Department. If he has, by this time next year we will have a good idea, provided we are all alive and here and provided he is still Minister for Local Government. If he has not taken notice of what I have said, then he is going to fall in for criticism. I admit he is presenting another man's Estimate. I admit he is not responsible for that Estimate. Therefore, I do not attach any blame to him. I do say however that, while the criticism I offer to-night would be offered by me were the late Mr. T.J. Murphy or the present Minister's predecessor here, I will have the same criticism to offer in a year from now if the matters to which I have referred are in the same state as they are at the present moment. I would ask the Minister to give consideration to the points raised. Some of the things mentioned by Deputies in the course of the debate are matters that should be dealt with by the county councils in the areas from which these Deputies come.

So far as housing goes, I have no fault to find, with this one exception. If I build a new house I have to wait before I get my first instalment and, before I get my final instalment, I may have to wait two years. I ask the Minister to look into that. If a small farmer builds a house at considerable cost to himself—perhaps he has borrowed the money from some businessman or, perhaps, he has got the material or loan on credit and his creditors are pressing him—and if the Department of Local Government deliberately, and for no reason in the world, holds up payment of the instalment, then I say it is a shame. That has been and is being done. I know people who erected houses and who had to wait a considerable time for the first instalment.

The Deputy from Cork told us that there were not sufficient inspectors. There are too many inspectors. Too often the houses are inspected but they are not inspected properly and that is what is wrong. Many of these houses have been put up by men who have not sufficient knowledge of how to erect a house. It is definitely wrong that moneys provided by the State should be utilised for the erection of a house that is not properly constructed. We have plenty of inspectors and engineers but, having seen some of the houses that were erected, I must confess that the engineers are not doing their job. The houses are damp and leaking and not in plumb. In some of these houses the windows and doors are not of the one size. These are matters that should be seen to and these are matters which engineers are expected to look into.

But that is not the position. Innocent farmers and innocent people do not know the difference and have been kidded, on going into occupation of these houses, to find, after spending a few hundred pounds in reconstruction and building, that the houses are damp and leaking. That is due to the fact that the building of these houses is being given to individuals who have not the ability to erect them properly.

With regard to the material that goes into the construction of these houses, I am convinced that some of the slates used are not suitable at all. They are soft and fall apart. They are like an overtoasted piece of bread in that they go to crumbs. I would ask the Minister to see that good material is made available for those houses and in particular good slates.

I hope the Minister, in the course of his reply, will indicate what the policy of the Government will be in relation to houses. I hope he will indicate what his policy will be in relation to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I hope he will indicate what his policy will be in relation to the reconstruction grant to which I have referred and which I urged the Minister to consider. I hope he will indicate what his policy will be in relation to the County Managerial Act, which was before the House prior to the dissolution of the Dáil. These are matters with which the people are wondering how the new Government will deal. What is the Minister's policy in relation to the county council grant? The people are wondering whether the Government, if they wish to do so, are going to double the grant and relieve the county council of providing this grant as they were asked to provide it under the late Minister for Local Government. These are matters about which all the people are anxious to know. I would like the Minister to reply to these matters in the course of his concluding remarks.

Mr. Killilea

There was one remark made by the previous speaker with which I am in agreement, and that was that a number of speeches to which we listened this evening had no relation whatsoever to the Estimate that is before the House.

There has been a good deal of discussion to-day in relation to housing. One would imagine that the Fianna Fáil Government never built a house.

Mr. O'Higgins

You knocked down a few anyway.

Mr. Killilea

I think the Fianna Fáil housing programme during the years in which houses could be built is one of which any Party could be proud. It was not to-day or yesterday that Fianna Fáil was interested in housing. There are a few points in relation to housing which call for consideration. In the Galway County Council we have tried to throw the responsibility on the individual of building a house for himself by giving him every assistance we possibly can. In order to do that we gave effect to Section 7 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1950, which authorises a county council to make a further grant available. The section lays it down that the housing authority may, in accordance with the scheme approved by the Minister, make to a person erecting or purchasing a house in respect of which a grant is made, either under Section 16 of the Act of 1948 or Section 6 of the 1950 Act, a grant not exceeding the amount of the grant under such section. Galway County Council gave effect to that particular section. The Department of Local Government sanctioned the proposals made by the county council. However, our trouble is that further steps have to be taken. We are held up and cannot give effect to that because of the fact that the Department of Local Government, interested though it appears to be in housing, has not as yet authorised us to raise a loan in order to give effect to that section.

Acting-Chairman

Acting-Chairman

Mr. O'Higgins

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Jun 1951