Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Jul 1952

Vol. 133 No. 12

Vote 38 — Local Government (Resumed).

As I stated, there was a parallel in these two actions, the action of the Minister for Local Government in 1952 in insisting on our taking in Kilkenny an architect to lay out a very simple building scheme and in Deputy MacEntee, the then Minister for Local Government in 1947, insisting on our employing a landscape artist. The people of Kilkenny, as I said, lost £900 in that case which could well have been spent on these parks. I suppose I can get no redress for Kilkenny by raising this matter here but I do hope that, in the rest of the country, the Local Government Department will not foist unnecessary architects on local authorities where they are not required. We hoped in recent years to complete these parks through unemployment relief grants but that has been turned down by the Local Government Department. I would ask the Minister to allow us use money made available through grants for the relief of unemployment which I am sure should be much greater this year than in the past owing to the large amount of unemployment in Kilkenny, for the very useful purpose of completing our playgrounds in Kilkenny and not to compel us to resort to other ways of getting the necessary funds. These serve a very useful purpose and it is a matter of the Minister allowing us to use the money for the completion of the playgrounds.

At our county council meetings, members frequently ask the county engineer: "What is the idea of all the road widening that you are doing and why not spend the money where it is badly wanted, on the county roads?" The county roads are in a desperate condition in parts of the county. I admit that the main roads are in good condition and that anyone can travel on them. But, as I say, members frequently ask the county engineer: "Why not spend this money which you are devoting to the widening of corners on some of the county roads?" The usual reply which we get from the county engineer is that the money is allocated for that purpose, that it is a free grant from the Government and that if we do not accept that free grant and spend it on the widening of these bends and other works we will not get it. As a matter of fact, I do not know whether it is actually a free grant or not. I believe it is to the extent of 80 per cent. or so.

The country members, who come from areas where the roads are in a bad condition, cannot understand that. I do not say that the roads in all parts of the county are in a bad condition, and in that connection I would like to pay a tribute to the county engineer for the very good work that he is doing. The members from the country, as I say, find it very hard to understand why thousands and thousands of pounds should be spent on the widening of bends on main roads while most of the roads in their own areas are in a bad condition. Most farmers, if they can afford it at all, find it a necessity to have a motor car at the present time. It is not a luxury for them, because the main roads in their present condition are not suitable for horse traffic. When I say that I do not mean that they are in a bad condition. The position is otherwise, but the fact is that they are dangerous, if you like, for horse traffic. The farmers are not looking for any luxuries when they ask that the county roads should be kept in good condition. Personally, I would be anxious myself to see that the main roads were not allowed to deteriorate. They are a valuable asset to the country and if they were neglected for a couple of years we know the job we would have in restoring them afterwards. I would again emphasise that, in my opinion, the money which is given by way of free grant by the Government could be spent to greater advantage on the county roads than on the widening and straightening of bends on main roads.

The last point I want to bring to the Minister's attention is this. At present, we have several regional water schemes before the Department. Some of them have been with the Department for a number of years. The people in the areas which these schemes are intended to serve feel that they are being shelved completely, shelved at one time by the county council and at another time by the Department of Local Government. Rumour has it that the Department is going to throw obstacle after obstacle in the way of the county council so that the Department itself will not have to contribute its share of the grant towards the provision of these regional water schemes. I do not know whether that is a fact or not. Will the Minister tell me why these schemes are being held up? There are many people who possibly would have got in a water supply to their homes except for the fact that there was the prospect of these regional water schemes being provided in their areas. Will the Minister tell me when these schemes are going to be sanctioned or whether it is a fact that they are being held up?

Members of local authorities know well, of course, how a scheme can be held up. The Department can write back to the local authority asking for particulars, and that kind of thing can go on month after month and indeed for years. All members of local authorities are well aware of that. In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister two questions: (1) will he allow us to use the unemployment relief grant this year for the completion of our playgrounds; and (2) will he tell me if the hold-up in regard to sanction for these regional water schemes is due to want of money, and if not, will he hurry up and get them going as soon as possible?

During the past ten or 12 years a series of distressing tragedies have occurred as a result of unprotected harbours, jetties and canals. Motor cars travelling on the roadways have gone over the edge into the water and quite a number of people have been drowned. This is a problem which, I suggest, local authorities in the towns and cities should deal with immediately.

It is not true to say, as has been said frequently, that these accidents are the result of careless driving. The fact is that there is no protection whatever provided and no indication given, in many cases, that there is a waterway adjacent to the public road. We know that if a local authority is engaged on road repair work, if it is merely engaged in taking up the surface of the road to a depth of three or four inches, it is obliged by law to put up barricades and to provide red lights at night so as to give warning to the public. In that case, the only danger to a car is that if it goes through the barricade a few springs may get broken, but if a person drives a car over the edge of a pier there is, in many cases, loss of life, sometimes of one or more people.

This matter has been raised repeatedy over the years and public attention has been drawn to it, but so far nothing has been done. We know that there are certain difficulties in protecting places where boats unload, but I think these difficulties could be overcome by providing some sort of a barrier—by doing something that, at least, would warn the public of the danger, and particularly a person driving a motor car along the road at night. In the absence of any such warning, he is likely to feel that there is no danger whatever in front of him until he has actually driven over the edge. That has happened far too often to be ignored. I am afraid the position is that what is everybody's business is nobody's business. I think, however, that the Minister for Local Government, who is the chief executive authority in this matter, might give it his attention by issuing a directive to local authorities that some action must be taken. Even a warning notice would, in many cases, be sufficient to avoid some of the accidents that have occurred.

I do not want to prolong the debate on this Estimate, but I should like to express my agreement with the general principle that it is good to increase the grants for road construction even though that has to be at the expense of the grants made available under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. There is a considerable amount of work to be done under that Act, but I think it is not as extensive as the amount of work that requires to be done in regard to the roads. I think that the grants made available in the current year under the Local Authorities (Works) Act are sufficient, if continued year after year, to liquidate all the work that requires to be done under that particular Act. All that a reduction of the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act would mean is that the number of years taken to complete a work might be somewhat extended. That would be compensated for by an increase in the grants for road construction. I think it is essential that these grants for road construction should, in the main, be provided for county roads. I think that our main roads have reached a fairly high standard though they are not, perhaps, perfect. The removal or the banking of a particular corner on a road does not make the road safe to any great extent but it makes it possible for traffic to travel faster on it. Speed does not always imply safety. The more you make the roads suitable for high speeding the more accidents will occur. Let us be satisfied with the tar-bound roads we have. They may not be perfect but they are satisfactory. We should put a tar-bound surface on many of our county roads so that they will be in a position to take the traffic.

I do not hold the view that the tar-bound road benefits only the motorist. It benefits also the man who uses a push bike. Experience has shown us that no other surface will stand up to modern traffic except the tar-bound road. Our aim should be, with the cooperation of the local authorities and of the Department of Local Government, to ensure that the mileage of untarred roads will be reduced as quickly as possible. While I accept the principle that grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act should be reduced, and that grants for roads should be increased, I think that, on the whole, the grants for roads should be directed towards those roads which have not a tar-bound surface. The matter should be examined from the point of view of ensuring that no county suffers financial loss as a result of a change. In other words, whatever the total grants for drainage work, road construction and maintenance were last year or the year before, or any year, they should be maintained in the future, and even increased. I know it is a difficult matter, but the Minister should search out ways and means of finding additional money to help towards the reconstruction of our county roads. This is an urgent problem, and it should be solved as quickly as possible by the provision of additional grants.

In the main, we are making rapid progress towards the solution of the housing problem. I agree with those Deputies who said that the credit should not go entirely to the Minister. I think a very substantial portion of the credit should go to the local authorities and their staffs, who are grappling with this problem to the best of their ability. I do not think we should have wranglings by the different Parties as to what they did. No matter what Government may be in office, the local authorities will grapple with this problem. The sooner they can cope with it the sooner it will be solved. In many counties the problem is approaching complete solution. A very great deal of work has been done in County Wicklow. I do not think any county can show a greater volume of work in the urban and rural areas than County Wicklow. The Minister paid a recent visit to Arklow to open a housing scheme there. If he wished to be critical, I think he could not find very much to complain about in respect of the standard of the houses provided in Arklow and in other urban areas in Wicklow.

The same is true to a greater extent in regard to the houses provided in County Wicklow for rural workers. They are all very nice and very attractive. I think that the people who live in them are very proud of them. The majority of the working people appreciate what is being done for them by the local authorities and they try to keep the houses in the best possible condition.

Now that we are nearing the solution of the housing problem, particularly in the rural areas, I appeal for a little more consideration for a person who applies to have a house built for him. There is a sort of rule in the Department—I suppose it began at the time when the housing position was very bad—that the person in the greatest need should get the house. In theory, that sounds all right but in practice it may work out very unfairly to the person concerned and also from a national point of view. Take, for instance, a young worker in a rural area who decides to get married. He probably approaches his employer or some other farmer for a site. Having secured the site, he applies to the county council to have a house built on it. When the house is completed somebody who perhaps has failed to pay rent in another county and happens to be living in some tumbledown shack or cowshed adjacent to the new house gets preference over the man who, in the first instance, applied to have the house built and who is deserving in every way. That state of affairs should not be permitted to continue. The farmer should have some way of ensuring that the person who has applied for the site gets the house which is built on it. The Minister should clarify this position immediately. People who acquire the site in the first instance and who then apply to have a house built on it should have a definite assurance that the house will be given to them.

There are other people whose applications should now be more carefully considered. I refer to ageing single persons and ageing married persons without families. The married persons may have had children who are now grown up and gone away and they may be badly in need of housing accommodation. Some provision should be made for such people. In many cases a small two-roomed house would be quite sufficient for aged single people. It is possible that local authorities have a terrace of houses or an odd house here and there too small for a young family but which would be quite suitable for ageing single or married persons. It would be a good idea to give these houses to these people rather than demolish them, as frequently happens. I think such houses should be set aside for the use of ageing single and married persons who require accommodation.

As regards this Estimate there is not very much room for contention or controversy. In the main good work is being done. Good work can never be done without money and the serious problem is to find the money in such a way that it will give least offence or injury to the persons from whom it is extracted. As far as road making is concerned we ought to get somewhat larger grants for the county roads. I believe that the burden of rates has reached the limit beyond which it cannot be further increased.

In conclusion I want to say I am not satisfied with the working out of the scheme for the superannuation of road workers. It has created a tremendous number of difficult problems for the local authorities. It would be far better if it had never been introduced because, after all, a road worker is no more entitled to receive superannuation than an agricultural worker. They are doing much the same type of work and the attempt to provide superannuation for road workers has created a situation in which men have to be registered as permanent road workers and registered at a time when there is not a steady quantity of work available. The amount of work available to road workers fluctuates from time to time and fluctuates in the different areas. It is impossible to get a permanent staff of road workers working a certain number of days per year throughout the length and breadth of the county, but where the injustice arises is that you have single men on the permanent staff of the local county councils and when employment becomes available they get the preference for the work over married men with families. That is wrong and undesirable and it is a matter which should be looked into. If a man is unmarried, has no dependents whatever and he is on the staff of a county council as a permanent worker he is not entitled to work which may be available in preference to a married man who may have nine or ten children depending upon him. That is an injustice that ought not to exist.

I would like the Minister to look into the working of this superannuation Act to see whether the whole thing is worth while in view of the recent legislation particularly in regard to social welfare, which includes benefit of many kinds. I know that it is very difficult to put back the hands of the clock once you have taken a certain action. In a matter of this kind it is very difficult to undo what has been done, particularly as vested interests arise. If you deduct an allowance out of men's wages you must compensate them if you cannot carry out what is intended. As I have said, it is a matter which has created difficult problems and complications for local authorities. It also involves the keeping of an increased staff working overtime, perhaps, in the county council offices, keeping a check on every hour of work that is done by road workers throughout the length and breadth of the county. The whole thing was an ill-considered piece of legislation, but I am in considerable sympathy with the Minister in that it is very difficult to rectify mistakes of this kind once they are made.

I cannot find myself in agreement with the surprising statement made by the last speaker that he is quite satisfied, and he thinks it is a good thing that grants towards the Local Authorities (Works) Act should be reduced and the amount involved given to the roads. But it is not given to the roads. The first thing I want to point out to Deputy Cogan is that the amount of the Local Authorities (Works) Act grants was reduced from £1,220,000 to £650,000, and that the balance of £570,000, which the present Government has refused to give to drainage under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, has not been given for road grants or for any other form of rural improvements.

Surely the road grants have been increased?

Not by £570,000 nor the tenth part of it.

Yes, by £700,000.

I cannot understand why Deputy Cogan makes the surprising statement that road works are more important than drainage, unless it is that he is prepared to support the present Government in a very servile manner in carrying out what he himself must know is altogether a wrong policy. Without going very deeply into the history of drainage in this country, we all know that it has been neglected for the last 40 or 50 years or so, with the result that the whole drainage network in this country, whether in regard to arterial drainage or in regard to the small drains, has gone into a very serious state of disrepair. It is common knowledge to those in Government Departments, who have the means of ascertaining it, that an area approximating to 4,000,000 acres of the best land of this country is absolutely useless for want of drainage. The amount of approximately £2,000,000 per year that was being provided towards the Local Authorities (Works) Act drainage during the period of the inter-Party Government was meagre by comparison with the actual requirements, that is if we are sincere in tackling the drainage problem of this country.

No matter what Deputy Cogan or anybody else may say in extenuation of the present position one thing Fianna Fáil stands condemned for is that, when they were canvassing for support to form a Government immediately after the election and before this Dáil sat for the first time, they stated in their 17-point programme that the Local Authorities (Works) Act drainage, among many other things, would be done better than the inter-Party Government had been doing. I wonder how did those Deputies who were fooled in supporting the present Government feel when they opened the Book of Estimates and found that one of the most important items, drainage—sub-head K in this particular Vote—had been cut by half.

That is the cheapest possible kind of political trickery for which my vocabulary cannot find a more suitable name. It is a very cheap kind of political trickery. The proper attitude for those Deputies would be to admit that they had been fooled by the promises that were made in supporting the present Government, and instead of servilely supporting the Government, to break away from them. I remember when Deputy Cogan was a member of our Party and when he was an independent. farmer Deputy, he supported strongly the kind of drainage which our Party supported then approximating to the Authorities (Works) Act.

Arterial drainage is the only kind of drainage——

Arterial drainage will never undertake the type of drainage that is done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Perhaps Deputy Cogan works in a very dry climate. I do not think he does.

I know rivers have been opened in the upper reaches and the water has no chance of reaching the sea.

That is not a condemnation of the Act. It is a condemnation of the engineers who did such foolish work.

It is a condemnation of having it on a county basis.

It is not. It is a condemnation of a particular engineer who did such foolish work and it is a condemnation of the members of the local authority who allowed such tomfoolery to go on within their jurisdiction.

They had no control over the adjoining counties.

Of course they had. It is the representatives on the local authority who select the works to be carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I do not know if Deputy Cogan is a member of a local authority. If he is, he is displaying a serious lack of knowledge as to what his rights and duties are as a member of that body.

The fact is that the work done under this Act in every county of the Twenty-Six Counties, particularly in the counties along the western seaboard where there is an abnormally heavy rainfall, was excellent and met with the approval of all concerned. I want to see good roads in the country and it is within the competence of the Government to enable the country to have good roads by providing the necessary grants. One finds, however, that the money provided for drainage under the Local Authorities (Works) Act has been slashed by half. One finds that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance who is in charge of the Board of Works has not in a full year opened any new arterial drainage scheme. It is not difficult to infer what the Government's policy is in relation to drainage in general. The Arterial Drainage Act was passed in 1945 and stuck away in a pigeon hole for three or four years. Not one penny of the £7,000,000 provided under the Bill was spent on drainage during that period.

The present Government, in order to secure power, made certain promises to the electorate just as the Minister for Finance did in connection with the tax on beer and tobacco. The moment they took office they went back on those promises. It is not so much the fault of the Government as the fault of those who sit behind them that they have broken their promises. If there were two or three in the Fianna Fáil Party, not to mention any others, who were prepared to call the bluff something might be done. Apparently there are not even three prepared to tell the Taoiseach and his Ministers that they will not stand for double-crossing. The Fianna Fáil Government promised that if returned to power they would carry on the work the inter-Party Government was doing and do it in a much better way. Their method of carrying on the work in a much better way is to slash all the grants that were given.

There is an alarming increase in rates and that increase is contributing in no small degree to the flight from the land. Some solution must be found to the problem. All over the world at the present time there is an inexplicable desire for people to congregate in villages, towns and cities and leave the countryside practically denuded of population. We will hasten that process here if we do not do something to bring about a decrease in the rates. When the Fianna Fáil Government was in power from 1932 to 1948 they were perpetually passing Acts allegedly conferring benefits on the people, and the whole burden of the expense under those Acts was placed on the rate-payers. It is always very easy to give a man a present with some of his own money. Apparently that was the policy pursued by the Fianna Fáil Government up to 1948.

And from 1948 to 1951.

If the Deputy is prepared to substantiate that statement, let him name one Act passed by the inter-Party Government which increased the rates by ½d. in the £ in any county.

What about the circular sent down from the Department of Local Government demanding an increase in the salaries of the staffs of local authorities?

I am talking about legislation. I am asking the Deputy to name one Act which increased the rates by ½d. in any county. I will give way to the Deputy.

He voted for them all.

Deputy Blowick without interruption.

I am prepared to give way to Deputy Cogan if he will answer my question. I am asking him to name one Act.

A circular was sent out——

I am asking the Deputy for an Act. I will not give way for a piece of nonsense.

If that circular had no legislative authority I do not know how it came to be sent out. It was a direction to local authorities to increase the salaries of their staffs and if that was not a direction to increase the rates——

That is not an Act and the authority under which the Minister did that came from an Act passed prior to 1948.

It was an arbitration award.

Of course it was and Deputy Cogan knows that. He knows that this time last year he waded in behind the boys on the Government Benches. Even after 16 years he does not seem to realise exactly what the worth is of a Fianna Fáil promise. It has as much value as a puff of smoke. Rates should be stabilised at a certain ceiling. If that is not done smallholdings will be denuded and the flight from the land will be accentuated. If that is the policy of the Government, it should definitely be stated so that we know where we stand.

Statements made by some of the Ministers would seem to indicate that that is the policy, and we want to have the air cleared once and for all. If the small farmer is, according to Fianna Fáil, merely a nuisance they should say so. I do not agree that he is a nuisance. I do not come in here to whinge and cry for something for the small farmer to which he may not be entitled in justice, but it will be a serious loss to the country if the small farmer vanishes, and he is vanishing fast. The Minister must know that.

Deputies in his own Party must be well aware of all the houses throughout the country that are shuttered up and boarded up, and the lands lying derelict. I think the small farmer is a most valuable man. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the unsatisfactory position in connection with rates on out-office buildings. Losses in crops, farming tools, machinery and live stock because of insufficient housing are enormous. The Minister may tell me that the office of the Commissioner for Valuation comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Finance. That is so, but the Minister for Local Government should bring these facts to the notice of the Government and of his colleagues, and press for a complete change of policy in relation to rates on out-office buildings.

The Minister must be aware that this system of putting an increased valuation on property whenever a farmer increases or improves his out-office accommodation is a relic of the landlord times, nothing more than a carry over from the times when, if a tenant put in new windows, whitewashed his house or kept it better than his neighbour's, the way the landlord showed his gratitude was by immediately increasing the rent. It is a shameful thing that in this year we should still carry on one of the methods by which the landlord sought to oppress the farmers in years gone by.

I should be quite satisfied if I saw the day when the rates as at present were made to stand and any other new out-office buildings put up by the farmer were left free of rates, as they ought to be. In case the problem would present too many insuperable difficulties, I am quite prepared to agree to that. If we stabilised the rates and if each farmer built a good deal of extra accommodation, what loss would it be to the State or anybody in the State?

In this rainy climate, although this year is an exception, the loss of crops because they are not housed must run, at a mild guess, into the region of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year and the loss of farm tools, machinery and equipment, because they are not housed, because the farmer dare not increase his out-office accommodation in order to house them, must be very serious. A good deal of our machinery comes from foreign parts, and we use the very best machinery, whether imported or made at home, and the fact that we are afraid to build out-office accommodation because the reviser will be immediately on our doorstep so that it cannot be housed and must be allowed to rust away in the open, is a scandalous state of affairs. The Minister may give me as an explanation that it is a matter for the Commissioners of Valuation and the Minister for Finance, but he is a member of the Government and if the phrase that we have heard bandied about here so much, the collective responsibility of the Government, means anything, the Minister cannot shirk his responsibility so easily.

I want to refer to a purely local matter in the town of Westport. I was in contact with the Minister's Department and with the Minister some time ago with regard to the matter. When a local authority drainage scheme runs through an urban area, whose is the responsibility for carrying out the whole job? Has the county surveyor the right to carry out the work, not alone in the rural area, but in the portion of the urban area through which it runs? There seems to be a serious difference of opinion about the work in the Westport area in that regard.

There is another aspect of the Local Authorities (Works) Act to which I want to refer. A good deal of land rehabilitation under the land rehabilitation scheme is held up for want of drainage which could usefully be done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, and I want to impress on the Minister that in the case of certain arterial drainage schemes the removal of obstructions is of vital importance. The removal of major obstructions in some of the larger rivers which are clearly on the arterial drainage priority list should be undertaken by his Department wherever the land rehabilitation section advise that their work is held up because of such obstructions in a particular locality.

It may be argued that there would be overlapping, that two separate Government Departments would be messing on the one job, but I do not agree, because, when the inter-Party Government were in office, certain jobs were undertaken under the Local Authorities (Works) Act in order to facilitate land rehabilitation work, and were an outstanding success. I have visited a few of them, and there is no reason why the removal of major obstructions should not be undertaken under that Act. If there is one answer to the argument that there would be overlapping or duplication of the work, it is that if a ton of rock, a ton of silt or a ton weight of any obstruction is removed under that Act, it will not have to be removed by the arterial drainage people when they come along later.

Every ton of stuff shifted in that way is so much work done and it does not matter two hoots which Government Department undertakes it so long as it is done, and farmers, who in many cases have been robbed year in and year out, from time immemorial, by flooding of these rivers, are protected against these losses. The particular river I have in mind is the Moy and certain tributaries of the Moy. The argument that there would be overlapping will not hold because, like the job done in County Roscommon, which was an outstanding success, the rocks removed would be so much work done for the arterial drainage people, so that it is no answer to say that we cannot have two Departments working at it or cannot do the job piecemeal. We should not forget that in the particular case I have in mind some 700 or 800 farmers, year after year, see their crops go out to sea and can do nothing to save them. They see cocks of hay being caught in sudden floods and swept out and their fields of potatoes, beet and corn destroyed. That has been happening year after year.

The removal of certain obstructions which could be undertaken by the county engineer in Mayo, who long ago signified his willingness to do the work and who said it was easy to do, should be carried out. While the Arterial Drainage Act is moving along towards the Moy and will, I suppose, overtake it in three, four or five years' time, if it does overtake it then, the removal of the three obstructions I speak of should be undertaken under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It would not cost a whole lot and would be of immense benefit to 700 or 800 farmers. I am speaking of one river I know and the same conditions must obtain in practically every county where the Local Authorities (Works) Act writ runs.

I particularly regret the slashing which has been done in this sub-head relating to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It is a bad job of work; it is short-sighted; and it shows a complete disregard for one of the major problems of the country. The work being done in every one of the Twenty-Six Counties was outstanding and the amount of flooded land which was drained and brought into fruitful cultivation almost impossible to calculate. It is a job which would have succeeded, on the basis of the grants which the inter-Party Government allotted to the various counties, in clearing up what I would describe as a small drainage problem of the whole country and putting the network of small rivers and main drains in every county in a state of first-class repair in another four or five years.

I am not asking that it should be a recurring charge, either. Under the Local Authorities (Works) Act a local authority has power to compel the annual cleaning or scouring of drains once they are put in first-class shape. I do hold that it is not good enough to spend anything from £200 to £1,000 on a particular drain, to make a good job of it and then to leave it to fill up with silt, weed, rocks and every other obstruction so that it will become as bad as ever in 15 or 20 years' time. Drains are like roads; they need constant attention. The drainage system is one of the most valuable systems we have.

This Act which was initiated by the late Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tim Murphy, was one of the best and most beneficial Acts to pass through this House in many a long day. From the point of view of the sum which appears on the cover of the Book of Estimates, almost £95,000,000, to slash this scheme and save a paltry £75,000 is a mean and cheap act particularly when 12 short months ago we were told that if the present Government attained office they would carry out the Local Authorities (Works) Act not merely as well as the previous Government but better.

Much inconvenience has been caused throughout the country by delays in the payment of new house grants and reconstruction grants. I want to make it clear that I am not attaching blame to anybody in the Custom House or indeed, to the outside inspectors either, but there is not a sufficient number of outdoor inspectors to cope with the work. Down my way one housing inspector is supposed to look after new houses and reconstructions over four counties, Roscommon, Westmeath, Longford and Offaly. Everyone must realise that with the present amount of work in housing and in reconstruction it would be utterly, physically impossible for any man to do that. I know that he has been relieved periodically to cope with arrears, but with the amount of work to be done there are terrible delays in the furnishing of final reports and consequent delays in the payment of grants. This inconveniences not only the people who are erecting the house but the contractors also because in many instances the contractors have to await the payment of the grant before they are paid. I would ask the Minister to look into the matter and enlarge the outdoor inspectorate so that they may deal with the work more expeditiously.

I, too, like many other Deputies, deplore the lack of rural housing. A great deal has been done over a long period by local authorities with regard to urban housing; I think that no complaints could be made on that score, but rural housing has travelled at a very slow pace. There are many houses throughout the country unfit, I submit, for human habitation. Now that urban housing has been brought to a fairly successful level, it is time for local authorities to concentrate on rural housing.

The Department could relieve local authorities on the question of wages, road workers' wages in particular. Councils are faced every year and at different times throughout the year with demands for increased wages and, of course, this is not a demand which any councillor likes to oppose because there are always reasonably good grounds for it. I need not go into the demands that will be made by organised labour for increased wages. It would aid considerably the work of local authorities if wages could be fixed on a regional basis, if in each province or section of a province a standard wage could be fixed. It would simplify matters for the local authorities as they would not be faced with the question: "Why are they paid so much over the Border? Why are we paid so much less?" A regional standard would be a very proper idea, and the Department is the proper authority to deal with it.

It is a well-known fact, and everybody connected with the local authority knows, that the two heaviest items of expenditure, the items placing the heaviest burden on the ratepayer, are the upkeep of roads and the upkeep of mental hospitals. I do not think that any amount of money spent on roads, either main or country, at the present time will keep them in the condition we would like to see unless they are graded and a certain limit is placed on the laden weight of vehicles passing over them. It is well known that many of the roads in this country were never intended to bear the weight of the vehicles which now pass over them. Many indeed, particularly in the West of Ireland, have bog foundations and you are absolutely throwing money away in putting a new surface on a bog foundation road if you allow a lorry laden with ten tons to pass over it with often a six-ton trailer behind it. It will never be possible for the rates to bear the burden until something is done to schedule the roads and limit the laden weight that will pass over them.

I too, like many other speakers, deplore the reduction in the Vote for the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It was a very misguided thing to do. Anybody who has anything to do with the management of land—I do not say this in a political sense at all—knows that extraordinarily good work was done in the reclamation of land under the Works Act. I would say this if a Fianna Fáil Government had introduced it instead of the inter-Party Government. I am not creating a side issue. In my view and in the view of the ordinary people, that Act was the greatest boon the people of the land had known for 35 years since the old Congested Districts Board carried out a certain amount of drainage. It was money well spent. It put into production land which hitherto was wasted and unproductive. That is an established fact. I do not want to exaggerate the position at all, but the reduction in expediture was a misguided action. Considering the amount of employment it provided in rural Ireland I think it was doubly short-sighted to slash that particular item. However it is done. What I say now I intend to be taken into consideration when this Estimate is discussed next year.

I agree with what Deputy Blowick said about permitting local authorities to carry out works under the Works Act on rivers scheduled under the Arterial Drainage Act. I am principally concerned with the River Suck because it has done considerable damage in Roscommon, particularly in South Roscommon, because fallen trees and sandhills have accumulated in the river. If it were permitted that the county council should operate a small scheme to clear away those obstructions it would be of great benefit to the farming community in my county.

Galway County Council has submitted a scheme under the Local Authorities (Works) Act for certain work at Ballinasloe. If it is approved and carried out, it will confer a greater benefit on Roscommon than on Galway. I would ask the Minister and the officers of the Department to see that that scheme gets favourable consideration and a high priority amongst those schemes to be carried out this year.

My local authority in particular is a bit disappointed at the manner in which this matter of sanction was handled. Local authorities have been told about approval for £5,000 worth of drainage schemes, but have been given no indication as to which schemes have been approved. They are aware they will have £5,000 to spend, but for the past six weeks they do not know what schemes the Department are prepared to allow them to carry out. The sooner that is dealt with the better. Everyone knows that this is the proper time to carry out drainage schemes, and that you can get more useful work done for £10 now than for £40 in November.

I referred earlier to the heavy burden which the maintenance of mental hospitals is imposing on the rates. I submit to the Minister, as a sensible man, that it is time some consideration was given to that aspect of our expenditure. The capitation grant for mental hospitals has remained the same over the past 100 years. In 1851 it was decided that 4/- per head was the proper capitation, and if I am rightly informed it was then suggested that that was supposed to represent approximately 50 per cent. of the maintenance. If there was any such intention, it would be ridiculous to suggest that 4/- or even twice that would represent 50 per cent. of the maintenance cost to-day.

If the rates were relieved in the matter of roads and mental hospitals, they would be a bearable burden. With the present upward trend in rates in every county every year, it is time some serious effort was made to examine the whole situation of local rates, which are becoming an impossible burden on many people not alone on the land but in towns and cities. Some means should be found to transfer the burden from the ratepayers to the central authority, as the ratepayers will not be able to continue the payments and something will have to be done about it.

I want to enlist the sympathy of the Minister on the question of the employment of architects by local authorities for certain minor jobs. I have before my mind a matter we had in Roscommon and at Ballinasloe Hospital Committee, the question of the erection of a land steward's house at Castlerea Chest Hospital. The employees there were quite prepared to erect a good house for the land steward at £2,000 but the Department and the architects suggest £3,200. If the local authorities both in Galway and Roscommon are satisfied the house can be erected for £2,000 and if the potential tenant is quite satisfied also, is there any reasonable excuse for compelling us to spend £3,200?

Taking this question in a general way, I personally and many members of my county council feel we would be able to carry out just as efficiently and far more economically much of the work done in our county if we were not compelled to have the advice of architects at all. To begin with, they are a very expensive item. The system of remuneration is a temptation in itself as it is on a percentage basis of the estimate and naturally the higher the estimate the higher the fee. Every architect, being a human being, is naturally inclined to get the most he can out of any project that is drawn up. There should be a certain reasonable standard of work—say, nothing over £10,000 should be carried out without consultation with an architect, but where an item under £10,000 is to be done it should be done by the local authority without the assistance of an architect at all. Not alone are they expensive to employ and the system of their remuneration a temptation to a high estimate, but in many cases they cause considerable delay. At the present time this question of the land steward's house is being sent from Ballinasloe Joint Mental Hospital Committee to the county council and back again, while the house the man is occupying at present is not a suitable one at all.

There is a good and efficient staff employed at the chest hospital in Castlerea and they are quite capable of erecting the house. They have intimated that if the work is entrusted to them they will erect a house according to the plans approved by the Department for £2,000. That is one instance. There are other instances where architects have insisted on certain expenditure which does not appear to the members of the county council or to me to be justified at all.

I do not know if the Minister can do anything about the point I am going to raise now, but I feel that it requires attention. Owing to an alteration in the 1950 Housing Act, provision was made for the payment of reconstruction grants where a grant had been paid over 15 years before. There were certain strings attached to that—a new roof must be provided or additional accommodation to relieve congestion. It is on the second point that I find myself in difficulty with the Department, in the interpretation. It may so happen that at the time of reconstructing a house there may not be a sufficient number of occupants to justify the argument that it is to relieve congestion. Everyone knows, however, that in many houses throughout the country at this season of the year members of families return on holidays from England or America, and it is often to relieve the congestion that will occur then that the additional accommodation is provided. I had one specific case in mind, which I mentioned to the Minister before. There is an occasion where you must have a wider interpretation of the meaning of the Act, if a man were able to say: "Well, I am only living here with my wife and my two children at present, but when the summer comes or Christmas comes there will be her brother or sister or her family coming here and we have no place to put them." In such circumstances, is it not only reasonable to suggest that the reconstruction grant should be made available even though normally the number of occupants would not justify it?

I submit that there are not many cases of that kind giving trouble and that the Minister would be doing a good day's work if he would have the few cases examined that are being contested, so that he may deal with them sympathetically and act generously to those people who have expended twice and three times the amount of money which they hope to regain by grant. If he does that and if he attends to the other matters that I have raised I will not have any grouse with him.

I do not propose to prolong the discussion unnecessarily. A Deputy who is not a member of a local authority is probably at a disadvantage in discussing an Estimate of this kind but there is the other point that a Deputy like myself, who never has been a member of a local authority and never will be by his own free will, can take a more detached view of some of the aspects of this Vote. I hope it is not too late to join the Deputies on this side of the House—I have not heard very many from the other side of the House; I do not know why—in encouraging the Minister to review his attitude towards the operation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

During the three years of inter-Party Government they allocated to all the local authorities a total sum of £4,327,365. The provisional allocation to the same local authorities, for the current year, amounts to the small sum of £128,000. I am quoting from figures supplied to me on a recent occasion in the House by the present Minister.

I do not know whether the Minister admits it or not or whether he has been informed or not, but I have been informed by a highly qualified engineer in one of the counties in my constituency that 85 per cent. of the amount allocated to the county concerned found its way into the pockets of additional men employed in carrying out schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. If that is so and if that was applicable throughout the country, the Minister and his advisers can find by arithmetic the average number of men that have been thrown out of work as a result of the drastic reduction in the allocations.

I do not want to repeat what has been said by my colleague, Deputy O'Higgins, but it is a fact, known personally to the Minister, that 310 men were struck off by a stroke of the pen in the two counties in my constituency as a result of the refusal of the Minister and his Department to grant more money to complete the works that had been previously approved by his Department under the terms of the Act.

It does not matter to me personally which of the 14 Governments that I supported or opposed in this House was responsible for the passage of good legislation. All of them, including the inter-Party Government, were responsible for the passage of legislation that I did not like. I would like to encourage the Minister, as I would have encouraged his predecessor, to take advantage of this Act, and to carry out wherever necessary the works that can be carried out only under this scheme, and thereby provide employment and do useful and urgently necessary works which cannot be carried out under the terms of Road Fund grants, the Arterial Drainage Acts or any other legislation. I leave it at that in the hope that the Minister—I will not blame him personally—may be able to persuade his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to loosen up more than he has expressed his willingness to do up to the present.

I am seriously concerned, and alarmed in some cases, about the position in regard to housing, particularly the high cost of building as revealed in the towns in my constituency. There is no worker that I know of, whether he is employed in an industrial concern, in agriculture or by a local trader in a town, who can afford to pay the high rates that must be charged under the financial machinery of existing Housing Acts. I do not want to repeat what has been said here, but I do not mind repeating it because it is pertinent to the debate.

I have been advised when discussing housing matters with people who know much more about the financing of Housing Acts than I do that in pre-1939 days the tenants who were lucky enough to get new houses built by the various local authorities paid on an average one-eighth or one-ninth of the income of the head of the particular family in rent. It is alarming to find that to-day, with a higher cost of living, with inflation, with higher wages, the worker has to pay in rent roughly one-third to one-fourth of his weekly earnings. If that is the deliberate policy of the Minister, does not he realise that the head of the family has less to give his wife for necessaries such as food and clothing than when the rent was only one-eighth or one-ninth of his income? That is a serious state of affairs.

As far as I can gather, Deputy Corry was very unfair in his criticism of some of my colleagues who are members of the Cork County Council. He referred to an organised campaign that was supposed to have been supported by Labour members of the Cork County Council. I believe that charge is definitely untrue. He said the "no-rent campaign" was supported by Labour members in the Cork County Council. There is nobody associated with this group in this House or no Labour member of a local authority that I ever heard of—and there are about 20 or 30 of them on local authorities in this country—who ever advocated the "no-rent campaign that Deputy Corry speaks about. He also suggested that that was fomented by some unnamed outside organisation. That is the old story by the enemies of this Party—that our inspiration comes from some funny outside source. I think that has been exploded. In any case, it is untrue.

I was glad to see the Minister when he opened a number of housing schemes that were completed in Laois and Offaly. One of the schemes he officially opened was carried out through direct labour. There was considerable trouble in the local authority there because of the opposition of officials, particularly engineering officials, to get sanction for the carrying out of that direct labour scheme as an experiment.

The engineer, on the instructions of the county council, delayed for a long period, and during that period of inactivity prices and building costs were rising. Eventually the estimate was produced for the carrying out of this particular scheme in Rathdowney by direct labour at a cost of £1,400 per house. I do not want to blame the Department for the delay that occurred. In fact, the Department were very helpful on this occasion, as on many previous occasions. Before the engineer, who was carrying out the direct labour scheme, appeared on the site, and before the men were actually paid, the cost of labour for unskilled men who had been employed on the scheme over a long period had gone up by 3d. per hour. Notwithstanding that heavy increase in labour costs, the houses were eventually completed, as the Minister will probably remember, at a figure of £110 per house cheaper than the engineer's estimate. I understand that if tenders had been accepted for the carrying out of that scheme, as they were in comparable towns in some of the adjoining counties, the cost would have been about £1,600 per house. Where would the money have gone? It would have gone into the pockets of outside contractors. On the other hand, by doing the scheme by direct labour every penny of the money was left locally except, of course, the profits that accrued to the suppliers of the materials. In addition, the best possible type of house was built at the least possible cost.

I am sure it would be very difficult to get the Minister to agree to this, but nevertheless I urge him to encourage county managers to provide the best possible type of house at the least possible cost. If they cannot get contractors to do the work reasonably in any particular area, the alternative is obvious; they should get the work done by direct labour. Of course, engineers are opposed to the direct labour system. If an engineer is carrying out his duties under a contract system, he probably calls on the contractor once a month or once a week if he is the energetic and conscientious type.

He has a look around the place and says: "You are getting on fine. You would be entitled to another £10,000 as a result of the work you have carried out since the last occasion I visited you." He signs a paper recommending another £10,000 to the contractor, and off he goes. He probably has other work to do, but he has more time for pleasure than if he had to supervise a direct labour scheme. Most of his time would be spent supervising such a scheme. Therefore, the engineers' opposition to the direct labour system is understandable from that point of view. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary is that a justifiable reason for forcing the ratepayers to finance dearer houses and forcing the tenants, eventually, to pay a much higher rent than would be the case if direct labour had been resorted to.

A colleague of mine has brought to my notice the results of a direct labour scheme carried out by Wexford Corporation. That corporation received contracts for a scheme of 88 houses. When they received the contracts they sought a number of tenders. I am speaking now from memory, but I think I am not far out when I say that the lowest estimate received was £1,570 per house. The members of the corporation decided unanimously—it was not a political matter—to experiment with the direct labour system and to take the consequences. They employed an engineer, one or two foremen and a number of workers. They then got the trades union council in Wexford to agree that if the workers were not pulling their weight they would interview them once or twice and give them the works on the next occasion if they were not satisfied that they were carrying out their work in a conscientious manner. The scheme was carried out and it resulted in a saving of £43,000 so far as the ratepayers and tenants were concerned. The houses are now completed, they are much better than if they had been built under the contract system and the occupants are paying remarkably low rents. Why should not that system be adopted in other areas?

In my own area I notice that there is a delay in the carrying out of the scheme for a small number of houses —20 in all. Tenders were received in the same way as they were received by Wexford Corporation. The manager came to the conclusion, without submitting the figures to the local authority, that he would accept none of the tenders because they were too high. The scheme is now being readvertised instead of resorting to the direct labour system which has been shown to be successful in other places. I assert that it is a complete waste of time to be readvertising for tenders from contractors who are in a ring and who show each other their prices. If there are four or five contractors in a ring, Mr. A. gets a contract in one town, Mr. B. in another town, Mr. C. in the next town and Mr. D. in the next town and they all get a bit out of it. They all charge in or about the same price for the same type of house. Is the Parliamentary Secretary defending that system? Is he defending delay for the purpose of allowing contractors to compose their differences and bring down their prices so as to give a county manager and his advisers the idea that they are tendering for a reasonable figure. I protest against this carry on. It has been going on in certain towns in my area, and I want the Minister to encourage county managers to instruct county engineers, when the tenders received from contractors are unreasonable, to experiment, more than they have done up to the present, with the direct labour system. That is the only way to bring the cost of building down to a reasonable figure. Let it be quite clear that I am not advocating the abolition of contractors. There are some very decent contractors in the country, but they are in an organisation so as to better their own position.

Did you have any direct labour system in Laois-Offaly?

Before you came into the House a little while ago I gave the Minister particulars of one. However, I think he must have known those particulars already because he opened the scheme himself. It was carried out in Rathdowney under the direct labour system and the tenants there are now living in beautiful houses, some of them paying only 6/- per week rent. In fact, tenants in other towns in Laois are very jealous of the people living in Rathdowney. Rathdowney is situated in the southern end of Laois on the borders of Tipperary.

There are 32 new beautiful cottages in the area built at a figure that enables them to be let at a very low rent. Of course, some of the tenants of these cottages, for instance, Gardaí, teachers and other professional or semi-professional people with incomes of over £10 and, in some cases, up to £15 per week, have been obliged to pay the economic rent. I do not believe in asking the ratepayers to subsidise the provision of houses for such people. By paying the economic rent they are helping to subsidise the rent of the fellow on the lower rung of the ladder. In fact, a couple of the tenants who got some of these houses at the lower rent were in receipt of home assistance at the time.

I do not want to prolong these remarks. I am sure I am talking to the converted in addressing some of the members of this Assembly, because they know more about this business than I do, being members of local authorities. I have never been a member of a local authority or I never will.

I would like to raise another matter arising out of the figures supplied to me to-day by the Minister, in reply to a parliamentary question. As I already said, I am not a member of any local authority and, therefore, I do not interfere in the administration or in the work of the local authority in my own area unless I am pressed to do so. In most of these cases I only do so after members of my Party on the local authority have failed to get any satisfaction in regard to these matters from the county manager or from officials of the county council. Considerable annoyance is being caused to hundreds of tenants of local authority houses in the rural areas of the County Leix and to some extent in Offaly in regard to the delays in carrying out repairs to labourers' cottages. As the Minister and his advisers know, this is also causing delays in the coming into operation of the cottage purchase scheme. Cottage purchase scheme preliminaries cannot be completed until the cottages are put in a proper, habitable condition. I do not want to blame the Minister or the officers of his Department for this but I want the Minister and his advisers to ensure that the tenants of labourers' cottages, who have been making repeated complaints for the past two years, have their cottages repaired before the coming winter.

In his reply to-day to a parliamentary question, the Minister said that 207 cottages had been repaired in the County Leix at a cost of £9,895. That is a fairly hefty figure but I am not the person to challenge the accuracy or fairness of that figure. The Minister admitted in his reply that the number of cottages awaiting repairs was 289. That is an unreasonably high figure, especially when you consider that there are skilled tradesmen and other workers looking for work in the area where these cottages are awaiting repair.

I want to assure the Minister that the real reason for the delays in some of these cases is that the contractors will not tender for the carrying out of the work because in their opinion—it is not my opinion—it would not pay them to do the work at the maximum figure laid down by the county engineer. I do not know whether or not that is justifiable. I hope the Minister and his advisers will not leave these cottages unrepaired for a second winter while this dispute drags on. It would be very unfair to do so. I do not think there is any justifiable reason for delaying repairs.

If the county manager, the county engineer or whoever is responsible cannot get contractors to carry out the repairs to such a large number of labourers' cottages, the job should be done through the direct labour system. By accident, I happened to be in one of the worst portions of my constituency in Leix on last Saturday week, the Luggacurran area. Some of the cottages awaiting repair there would not be seen in North Korea under existing war conditions. It is the desire of all Deputies from the constituency and of all the members of the Leix County Council that something effective should be done to have these repairs carried out before the coming winter, especially in the case of cottages in respect of which complaints have been lodged as long ago as 12 months and two years. That is not an unreasonable request to make to the Minister. I do not think it is right to press the Minister in regard to this matter as there may be another opportunity, under the cover of another discussion that may take place before 12 o'clock to-night, to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister for Finance.

If it is a fact, as the Minister for Finance says, that interest charges on loans from the Local Loans Fund to local authorities will be increased still further as a result of the recent increase in interest charges under the terms of the Budget, it is going to pile on the agony in the case of building costs, especially when we realise that half the amount of money that has to be repaid under the terms of existing loans at 3¼ per cent. for 50 years represents interest on money.

If a local authority borrows £1,000 under the existing regulations in regard to the Local Loans Fund, at 3¼ per cent., to be repaid on a 50-year loan basis, at the end of 50 years, £2,030 will have to be repaid to the Local Loans Fund. For the services of the land that is required, for the services of purchasing the material with which to build the houses and to pay the wages to those who build the houses and for legal and architects' fees, £1,000 is borrowed. But £1,030 has to be paid to the lads in College Green for printing the £1,000 notes advanced to the local authority for house-building purposes. It is criminal folly and is part of the rottenness of the present capitalist system.

I am sorry that Deputy Captain Peadar Cowan is not here to support me in making the protest because I know, from previous statements made by Deputy Captain Cowan, that he would even go further than I am going and even use stronger language in regard to this particular aspect of our financial machine. I want to give the Minister reasonable time to reply but I hope he and his principal advisers will use their influence and good offices with the county manager, especially in regard to the urgency of having the repairs carried out before winter to the 289 cottages I mentioned.

If I were to attempt to cover the whole field and reply to all the points that have been raised in the course of the debate on this Estimate, I would take up a few hours. The Department over which I preside is one that concerns a great many people all over the country, and it affects the lives of many people. That being so, it is only natural that members of this House, who are in many cases also members of local bodies for many years, should use the occasion to refer to a great many matters, however small, in which they are closely interested.

If, in the course of the reply which I am about to make, I do not deal with all these matters, all I can say to the Deputies who raised them is that the records of their speeches are available. It is the duty of the officials of my Department to have regard to these reports and if there is any criticism of the Department's activities or of my own, it is their duty to have regard to these matters and see if there is any justification for the complaints made. If justification is established, it is their duty to try and remedy any defects in the system of organisation which may exist.

There were a few general points made by Deputies in the course of the whole discussion. These points dealt with such matters as the success of the policy of the Department and the Government in regard to housing, housing by local authorities, the progress that was being made, the progress that was likely to be made in future, the employment that was given and the employment that is likely to be given, and a number of other questions affecting housing activities by persons in every walk of life.

As I indicated in my opening statement, I think I was able to convince those who have any kind of an open mind that we are pursuing the matter of housing strenuously and steadfastly and giving to local bodies, who are also facing up to their responsibilities in this regard, all the encouragement and assistance and guidance that we can possibly give them. While the number of houses completed in 1952 was some few hundreds fewer as far as local bodies are concerned than in the previous year, that can be accounted for. There might be a falling-off in Dublin because of a cement strike or the failure of a contractor to proceed with his contract or something like that. Therefore, when there is only a slight movement one way or the other in the output of houses, although Deputies opposite may draw attention to it, it does not prove that there is any change in regard to policy or the vigour with which it is being pursued. There is no reason to think that in the years ahead, so long as the problem of housing by local bodies remains with us, we will be less successful or less energetic in that regard.

So far as the housing activities of private persons are concerned, many complaints have been made during this debate and on other occasions, of factors which are held to hinder private persons in providing themselves with houses. I am speaking of people who are building new houses or reconstructing houses in rural parts of the country. Complaints have been made of the delays experienced by such persons. No matter what you do to reach perfection, there will always be some cause or other to bring about an accumulation of applications for payment of grants or for initial inspection and it might take a month or two months to clear this up.

I have been looking at the figures for 1951 and for 1952 and I find that the total sum paid in April, May and June of 1952 was £466,844, and in the same three months of 1951, £333,265. That shows that the amount of money paid out to these persons was considerably larger this year than it was last year.

At the same time, I am prepared to admit that in a few counties, or in some counties which are grouped for the purpose of inspection, the number of outstanding claims was very high, and we are endeavouring to take steps to ensure that it will be reduced.

Deputies have not only spoken of these matters in the House but they have come to me privately about them. I have figures here showing what the position is. We have divided the country into 13 areas. We have 16 inspectors, 13 of whom are permanent. The other three are moved about from place to place where arrears are accumulating in order to have them wiped out. There is also some illness amongst the staff at the moment and that has been responsible for a fairly large accumulation of applications in many counties in regard to which inspections have not been made or reports sent to the Department. Unless you employ such a staff of inspectors that some of them will be idle for half the time you will always have this accumulation from time to time from one or other of the causes I have mentioned or from some other cause.

In regard to the activities of local bodies and the efforts of private persons to provide themselves with houses, if any difficulties should arise between local bodies and my Department—difficulties do arise and questions crop up and sometimes cause delay and criticism by local bodies—I want to assure the House that when these matters are reported to me and I am made aware of them I will take every action that is necessary to ensure that the attitude of the Department in regard to such questions will be reasonable as far as my judgment will permit it and that help will be given in every respect. When, however, a very big scheme which is likely to affect housing activities, such as the proposed Howth outfall works scheme which, when completed, will enable an enormous development to take place in the matter of housing, is sent to us for approval we must, naturally, be critical when it comes before us.

Deputy Cowan, Deputy Belton, Deputy Gallagher and other Deputies who are members of the Dublin Corporation are aware of the facts in this case. While these facts were recited here, and I would say not unfairly recited, it might seem, because this scheme has been in the offing for the last three years or so, as if the action of the Department would hold up the sanctioning of this scheme and thereby deprive the corporation of planning wisely and in a long-distance way so far as housing is concerned. I have gone into the whole correspondence that has passed between us. I do not want to give the impression that I am placing blame on anybody, because I do not think that there is anybody blameworthy in this regard. The corporation have their own technical experts and they employed consultants. They did all they could do to put their house in order, as it were. They submitted certain proposals to us. When these reached us, it was the duty of our engineering staff to be critical and to examine them carefully, not because we felt that the permanent officials of the corporation or the consultants were flippant as to the proper discharge of their responsibility, but because we know that when major technical problems arise the only way in which you are likely to get a proper solution is that one should examine and pick as many holes as it is possible to see in any proposed scheme so as to give those on the other side a chance of showing the reasons for this, that or the other proposition.

Ultimately—I do admit that a time is reached when you must have finality— when you think the technical people have examined and approved of the proposed scheme in every respect, then of course somebody will say: "Well if we are not entirely satisfied that the scheme is 100 per cent watertight, a chance must be taken some time" and will be afforded.

The corporation seem to think that because we have referred the most recent documents back to them, we have indicated our intention to refuse to sanction what their engineers and consultants have proposed. All, in fact, that we have done, in the most recent letter which we have sent to the corporation, is to reiterate certain doubts we have. We are entitled to do that. While these doubts had been mentioned before, we are entitled to do that so as to enable the technical people and the corporation to say if they so desire: "Well, yes they may be there; we admit that there is the immediate or remote possibility that there may be justification for these doubts but that is the best we can do and we are recommending that scheme." If we can get these technical people to come along and to support their point of view firmly, I can assure Deputies who are members of the corporation that we shall not stand in the way very long. When some officials or consultants employed by local bodies come up against a difficulty like this, they invariably seem to me to act in such a way as to place the onus upon us and our technical people to sanction the scheme. If we should do so, even when we are in doubt, and anything goes wrong later, these are the very people who in all probability will say: "Well, was the proposed scheme not submitted to and discussed by the technicians of the Local Government Department?" I am, therefore, saying to Deputies, who seem to be justifiably concerned about this question of the Howth drainage, that they should take it up again with their own people and, while I admit that there is still some doubt in our mind, I shall give them the assurance that if their technicians come back and firmly say that that is the best that in their view is possible, while not committing myself definitely at this stage, they can feel satisfied that they will not find any unreasonableness, so far as I am concerned.

Some Deputies complained that there was a falling off in the employment on housing. I am not going to weary the House by giving figures in that regard but the figures I have in my possession go to show that is not so. In the discussion of this matter here, there has been a lack of recognition of the fact that the employment afforded to skilled and unskilled persons on housing by local bodies and private persons, amounts to only about 50 per cent. of the employment given in building activities generally. Employment is also afforded in the building of schools and institutions and in all kinds of repairs to business houses carried out by private persons. While local bodies cannot be held responsible for the tendencies from one year to another that may exist in that outside world, I can only say to Deputies that so far as the figures of employment given by local authorities and by persons engaged in the building of private houses are concerned, these figures seem to be as good, if not a little better, than in the previous year. That does not mean that the over-all position of employment in the building industry, including the activities to which I referred, was satisfactory to the same extent.

One other matter raised by Deputies in the Labour Party and other Opposition Deputies was the provision made in the Estimate this year for works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The amount this year has been reduced by one-half. The amount last year was reduced by my predecessor by £530,000. Let me comment on some of the statements made in regard to works carried out under the Act since it was passed in 1949. I travel the country a fair share and, as I travel through the country, I usually have a look at what is to be seen. I have seen what has been done in my own county under this Act. I represent a county in which drainage is as vital a question as in any of the other 26 or indeed in the whole 32. I am a farmer, a non-technical person in this matter, but I know as much about the drainage problem as any other Deputy here, and I say without the slightest hesitation that a considerable amount of the money expended on work done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act was money ill-spent.

If any Deputy wants proof of that fact I can take him to several places in which the proof will be staring him in the face. Naturally, where such a volume of money has been spent as was expended under this Act, some good work was also done. It is only reasonable, I suppose, that Deputies opposite would make the case they have made. A 100 per cent. State grant to cover all costs is not an easy thing to resist.

You, naturally, find councillors very pleased when the State comes along and says: "We will give you 100 per cent. of the cost of this work and there is going to be no maintenance and no responsibility in the future." When the 1949 Act was passed, and when the people responsible for its administration were in a hurry to get applications in from local bodies, the applications actually poured in from every county council. I know myself, and Deputies on the opposite benches who have spoken on this matter must know it also, that there was very little care and very little attention given to the selection of these works. All of us who want to admit it know that the county engineers who felt that they had enough work on their hands, and their assistants who were not getting a reward of any kind for the selection or supervision of works when approved, and when money was provided for them, behaved as human beings do everywhere.

When the matter was mentioned by certain Deputies on these benches, some other Deputies tried to give the impression that the charge was being made that these officials were not carrying out their responsibilities in a satisfactory fashion. I am saying it now, as Minister. I say that, to my own knowledge, county engineers and their assistants did not give the care and attention in regard to works that were proposed under the 1949 Local Authorities (Works) Act that they would give in regard to matters for which they are normally and legally responsible. There is no member of the House who would be more enthusiastic in regard to the execution of drainage work than I would. Surely to goodness, however, no matter what Party we belong to, we should be serious with regard to the expenditure of public money and should say to ourselves: "Let us endeavour to get some reasonable results from such expenditure."

I heard a Deputy from Roscommon talk about the valuable work that was being done in the County Roscommon. Some time ago I passed through the County Roscommon. I saw there a fairly substantial job of work that had been done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I also saw the bullocks grazing alongside it and tramping in the earth that had been removed from the river only a few months earlier. Do we not all know that when money is spent on works of this nature and, especially, when works are selected in that casual way, things of that kind can happen? It was even known that engineers who were sent out to inspect some of these works actually went along the county road, stood on the fence and had a look up the river, the stream or whatever it might be, and just made some kind of a rough estimate as to what it would take to clean it in order to relieve flooding either on the road or on the land adjoining. I am not saying that I myself did not see that some useful work was done in relieving flooding, where roads were being flooded or where land adjoining these roads were being flooded. I do say in the most deliberate fashion that while I did see some works that were useful I saw others that were of no value whatever, works that in the course of a year or two will be in just as bad a condition as they were in before money was spent on them. Some Deputies may think that it is a wonderful business to spend public money in that way. Deputies may be able to make speeches as to the amount of employment and so on that was given, but such employment could not be regarded as steady or permanent employment. If this was merely for the purpose of giving employment, then I would say that there are far more suitable works on which that employment should be given.

I know, as I said at the outset, that it is the practice in this House when an Estimate is reduced in this fashion —and why should it not?—to seize on that fact so as to try and give the impression that the Government is deliberately setting out to destroy something that was created by their predecessors. I can only give the assurance that I have no such intention whatever. In fact, I would be encouraged to continue something that had been started by my predecessor. I would believe that it should be continued in order not to give the House or the country the impression that I was just destroying it, and for that purpose alone.

There was one other matter referred to, a certain decision which I made recently in regard to the administration of reconstruction grant work. When I came into office I did not believe at all in what my predecessor had done, that is, in segregating the administration of this work throughout the country and making each county council responsible for it. I deliberately refrained from giving effect to what I thought was the right policy, fearing that someone would say: "You are doing that in order to give the impression that your predecessor was wrong in the decision he gave." My approach in regard to this work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act is entirely the same. I believe that we must be very careful as to the way in which we spend money on work of this nature, of the things on which we spend it, and in regard to the results which we are likely to get from such expenditure.

I remember the time when, on this Vote, we used to have many complaints from people representing the rural areas to the effect that the new modern method of making roads was such that farmers could not bring out their horses on them to go to a fair or a market. For years, as a member of a county council and as a member of this House, I listened here to those who claimed to be farmers' representatives making that case. You do not hear that case made now.

They all want the tar now, and are pleading for the tar. The number of mechanically propelled vehicles is increasing daily, and the weight they are carrying is increasing. It is the farmers and the rural communities whom you now hear clamouring to have the condition of the roads improved. I do not mind saying that the employment which is given on that kind of operation is far better than what is held up to us here as a source of employment for rural workers under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, because you cannot properly undertake much of this drainage work at a time of the year when you could carry it out to the greatest advantage. The reason is that sometimes there is a shortage of labour in certain parts of the country, and it is necessary to ensure that, for the usual operations in agriculture, production of turf, and so on, men will be available. The result is that, in many cases, drainage operations have to be postponed until the winter, when the very worst results will be obtained for any money spent on them.

I say then that we need an improvement in our roads. It was because of the fact that I was convinced that we must set out in a determined way to improve the standard of our roads that I struggled as best I could—and fairly successfully, I think—with the Government to induce them to leave the Road Fund, as some Deputies have stated, for our roads, and to take the necessary steps to increase the amount that would be available in the Road Fund in the future, so that we could, in a period of five or six years, in a planned way, hope to secure a much higher standard in our county and main road system. As a countryman myself, I say that I prefer to stand over that as a policy of wise spending and a policy that will give employment at all times of the year, and that will give results to the community. I will stand over that.

A much lower percentage of employment.

It will not give a lower percentage of employment. I had no desire to approach this matter in the sense in which I am accused of approaching it. When the Local Authorities (Works) Bill was introduced to this House it was introduced in a very hurried fashion. Some Deputies have said that we were critical of that Bill. Of course we were critical of it. We divided this House against it on a number of occassions.

Eight times.

We secured its amendment on eight occassions. I told Deputy Davin in another place that it is the duty and the responsibility of the Opposition to make honest and constructive criticism. While we are on the Government Benches we shall not complain if any Opposition Party divides this House on a measure which we introduce, for the purpose of improving that measure. We do not object to honest criticism. Only by honest and helpful criticism can we get the best which this House can give to the country. The record will show that that Bill was hurried. It was brought in here as a three-line Bill. Then the Minister who was responsible for the Department at that time, the late Deputy Murphy, changed his mind and it became a Bill of many sections. By the time it left this House it was amended beyond recognition. It will be seen from the record also that if the late Deputy Murphy had had his way the money spent under the provisions of that Act would not have been spent in that fashion. We now hear all the Opposition Deputies lauding the measure but there is nothing on the records, so far as I can discover, which indicates that anybody was very much in favour of spending the money that way. They just had to do it.

The Minister made a very serious statement to the effect that a number of engineers did not even trouble themselves to look at works. Has the Minister ordered the county managers to take any action against those engineers who—if what the Minister says is true—have wantonly wasted funds just because they received no commission on the schemes?

I was only a humble Deputy at the time. I could not raise my hand to stop it.

If what the Minister says is true, surely those men should have been dismissed?

If it is true.

They were all getting substantial remuneration for their services.

My predecessors knew that under the terms of their appointment they could refuse to carry out that work. Deputy Murphy and those associated with him are more conversant with trade unions and trade union conditions than I am. They know what it is to insist upon certain rights, and so forth. These county engineers are just trade unionists—the same as people in any other walk of life. They have a full consciousness of the terms of their appointment. They will not exceed those terms very much.

The Minister has cast a very serious reflection on these men. I have a better opinion of them.

I am in a shockingly nervous condition about what I have said. I do not think I will sleep tonight as a result of it.

If the Minister's statements are correct, it is his duty as Minister to take action against these men. I am not saying that the statements are correct.

They will always get their pound of flesh, anyway.

The worst position ever to find yourself in is to have too much ammunition when you have not the inclination to use it. That is exactly the position in which I find myself now.

Take the will for the deed.

I think I will let the House off and let myself off. No really serious matter was raised in the course of this fairly long discussion. When the Dáil reassembles, all these local problems will appear in one form or another on the Order Papers. Perhaps that is a more satisfactory way of dealing with the small questions that arose during the course of the debate on this Estimate.

Question—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"— put and declared defeated.
Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn