Vote 38—Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on motion:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Sweetman.)

Mr. Desmond

Last night I was drawing attention to a statement the Minister made in the Seanad on the sale of local authority houses, and trying to relate that statement to the preparation of purchase schemes by local authorities. Members and officials of local authorities, while they are anxious for the co-operation of the tenants, are faced with many problems in preparing their schemes. I believe that the Minister would do well to give suggestions to local authorities. I have no intention of going into a matter which we cannot claim to have discussed on this Estimate, but we do know that the existing purchase Act leaves us in grave doubt in many respects. I may recall without going into detail the instance I mentioned last night While on the one hand we ask tenants to purchase their houses from the local authority, we have on the other hand such interesting cases as this: a tenant of an old local authority cottage, a kitchen and two rooms, has purchased his cottage under the Act; a son of his with that son's wife and three children occupy one room; the local county medical officer decides that under the heading of overcrowding the son is eligible for a cottage of his own from the local authority.

That was agreed to, and the son went into occupation of his own cottage. Then the old man, believing that, under the Purchase Act, he was entitled to sell, offered his cottage for sale. We believed that that could be done under certain circumstances. It seems extraordinary, then, that the county manager, believing that the powers vested in him warranted such action, should decide that the tenant was not entitled to sell. However, that is beside the point at the moment. Instead of adopting some reasonable measure, he proceeded in court, not against the old man, but against the son, and claimed possession of the newly-given cottage. That new cottage had been given on the advice of the county medical officer and on the responsibility of the county manager himself. Apparently they considered they were entitled to prevent the sale of an old purchase cottage by moving in court for the eviction of the son from his newly-given cottage. If we are interested in getting tenants to purchase their cottages, some other attitude must be adopted. Local authorities are now preparing purchase schemes which will eventually be submitted to the Minister. Instead of waiting until they are submitted, however, and then referring them back, it would be more appropriate if the Minister would now send them, not directions, but advice, which would help them to expedite the preparation of those schemes.

It is an everyday complaint—and people are justified in making it—that there are too many Acts in connection with local government. Even local officials and members of local authorities who want to inquire into any given subject find that the Act they refer to is tied up with another score of Acts. In the last few years a sum has been included in this Estimate each year for the preparation of a textbook on local government law. Surely the time has arrived when that textbook should be in the hands of local officials and others anxious to work within the law to get certain work carried out. The publication of that text-book is long overdue. It should be in the hands of all local officials at the earliest possible moment. It is not within the last 12 months alone that this has been pointed out; it has been brought up over the last few years. I appeal to the Minister to look into this point and see that something is done about it.

Another item of vital importance in every rural area, as well as in cities and towns, is provision for fire-fighting. As the Minister's predecessor mentioned in his time, it is most important that local authorities should treat this question with the seriousness it deserves. It is only on rare occasions that we have disastrous fires, but local authorities should be told, through the Minister, that preparation to meet any such event is a matter of urgency. My colleague, Deputy Tom Kyne, raised this matter here by a parliamentary question, drawing attention to the absence of protection in hotels in case of fire. We were given to understand in reply to the question that it was a matter for local authorities. Now, if so, it also must be a matter for the Minister and he should draw the attention of local authorities to the fact that where hotels have not proper facilities available in case of fire the lives of their guests are not safe and proper precautions should be taken. The Minister should ask local authorities to insist that all hotels within their jurisdiction provide any necessary equipment for this purpose.

We now come to another part of the Minister's statement in introducing this Estimate, the part dealing with housing in the Cork Borough area. The Minister stated that less than 10 per cent. of the programme was completed by March 1951, that is, a total of 332 houses; yet he stated that he was quite satisfied with the progress since his period of office began, because up to the 31st May, 1952, 644 houses were completed. Of course, to commence with, if we are to take into consideration the number of houses completed by the 31st May, we must assume that those 644 were constructed, not in 12 months but in a period of 14 months. He also mentioned that there are 495 houses in course of construction or in progress. The view I get of the Minister's statement is that he is satisfied with the progress made by the housing authority in Cork City. I can tell the Minister that generally the people are not satisfied with the progress. Not being a member of that local authority, I have no desire whatsoever to try to place responsibility on the members of the corporation if the responsibility is not theirs. I cannot say whether the members of the local authority, have pulled their weight or not and therefore I do not wish to criticise their actions.

While, according to the Minister's statement, very little satisfaction was being shown in the Cork Borough area up to the time of his advent to office, it is well to remember that his predecessor, in 1948, was also faced with a grave and difficult problem in Cork Borough area in the matter of housing.

A member of the Minister's Party, who is as interested in the housing problem in Cork City as any Deputy, went so far as to state in July, 1948, when we were discussing the Estimate for Local Government, that there was no site available in Cork City on which to build houses at that time. He stated, I believe correctly, that they were preparing a site at Ballyphehane, with a view to building on it, but he mentioned that, unfortunately, it was being held up for this sanction and that sanction. He clearly stated, as can be seen from the Dáil Debates of July, 1948, that no blame could be placed on the local officials concerned because it was the withholding of sanction prior to 1948 that held up building in Cork City.

I have no intention of discussing the merits or demerits of the case so far as the members of the corporation are concerned, but we cannot say that satisfactory progress is being made in the building of houses in Cork City.

A woman told me a week or two ago that she was pleased, after being ten long years on a waiting list, that she was getting a house. That woman has four children, including a boy of ten, and they were all living in one room. That woman has succeeded in getting her house after ten years, but what of the large number of families in that city who are still waiting? Some of them are giving up hope of getting a house. Instead of being satisfied with the progress in housing in Cork City, we should devote every ounce of energy to building houses for those who require them there.

We know of the long waiting list in the offices of the Cork Corporation. I appreciate that for the members who represent Cork City and the members of the corporation, the problem is much greater than it is for those outside the city, because they have to meet day-to-day complaints of prospective tenants and their repeated pleas for housing.

We need in Cork City in any year at least twice the number of houses mentioned by the Minister. In rural areas, facing much graver difficulties in the matter of sites and other items, we are showing much better results. The necessity to speed up the building of houses in the Cork Borough area should not be overlooked. While the Minister, naturally, is satisfied that progresss is being made and while we are all pleased to see houses being built, it must be admitted that much greater progress is required in this important feature of the lives of people in rural Ireland.

We should relate this matter to the views expressed by members of this House a few years back. Thanks be to God, the prophecy of a prominent member of this House, in 1948, that he was prepared to bet that when his successor retired from office there would be as many homeless as there were then, has been proved, in many respects, in rural areas, completely incorrect. The views expressed by Deputy MacEntee, in July, 1948, have proved incorrect so far as we are concerned in rural areas. We can take pride in the fact that the work done by the inter-Party Government, particularly by the Labour Minister for Local Government, has given hope to those who for so many years were living in tenements and in slumland, people who almost despaired of getting a home. We want a continuation of that policy. Within the last 12 months, as many Deputies have mentioned, delays have been noticeable in building. That should not be allowed to continue. Housing should continue at full swing and we should aim at a higher target each year than an average of 7,000.

People, both in city and country areas, are faced with another great problem. In reply to parliamentary questions, both the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance said that they have no direct connection with this matter. It was then raised with managers of local authorities, who said it was not their responsibility. I am referring to the increase in rates as a result of improvements to premises. According to the terms of their employment, rate collectors must submit reports when city or rural dwellers, who wish to keep their premises in a decent condition, carry out some repairs. The result of the reports is that there is an immediate rise in the rates. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government have informed us that the question is outside their jurisdiction, and the same holds good for managers of local authorities. Surely somebody must accept responsibility, and the Minister for Local Government should clarify the position.

It has been brought to my notice that valuations have been increased even when no improvements have been carried out. People have to provide money for the rates at all costs, and I consider it very unfair that they should be subjected to a repetition of the rack renting system carried out by the landlords in bygone years. The rates are increased if people improve their premises. I believe the reverse should be the case, and that a rebate of rates should be allowed to them to compensate them for carrying out improvements. We are aware that this is a matter which cannot be remedied immediately, but I would suggest to the Minister that he should at least tell us with whom the responsibility lies. I assure him that the members of the local authorities are determined to follow up this matter until they can pin the responsibility on somebody.

As I stated last night, our housing problems, from start to finish, are tied up with this question of finance. Local authorities are saddled with a heavy burden by allocating out of the rates a certain amount of money to meet housing costs. It would be well, even at this late stage, if the Minister investigated a minority report submitted a few years back, which suggested that money for housing and national development generally should be free of interest. We should reach the stage when it would not be necessary for any member of any Party in this Assembly to draw attention to increased interest rates on loans for these important matters. This problem will have to be faced eventually; the sooner we tackle it the better, both for the central Government and for the local administration.

I now wish to draw attention to another important matter of direct concern to local authorities. I am sorry to say that it is again necessary for me to repeat the complaint about the delay in giving sanction to local authorities to commence water and sewerage schemes. Time and time again members of this House have had to draw attention to the fact that, in their own particular areas, local authorities have had to wait for long periods before they could get sanction from the Department to carry out these important schemes. It is very often our experience when we inquire at local authority offices about certain water and sewerage schemes to find that the schemes have been sent up to the Department for approval. After a while, we learn that a reply has come back suggesting certain changes and improvements. Local authority engineering staff must then examine the scheme again and carry out suggested improvements.

The project is then sent back to the Department, and after another time lag it is sent to the local authority office again with more suggestions. What is the point in our local authorities paying engineers and qualified architects? The Minister and his Department seem to have adopted an extraordinary attitude towards these professional men. In my view, it is totally unjust that a Department of State should keep a scheme going back and forth between itself and a local authority office recommending trivial changes the meanwhile. Each one of these trivial improvements delays a scheme by at least a period of three to six months. We would like the examination of these schemes to be expedited. This delay has not been created since the present Minister took office. It is one that has been in existence for a long period, and it has been discussed on all sides of the House, year after year. We consider that we have a right to draw attention to the fact. Local authorities are of primary importance to the Department of Local Government, and the sooner the system of sending schemes back and forth, for trivial improvements, is abolished the better.

A few years ago members of the Minister's Party drew attention to the fact that the committee set up to investigate piped water supplies had been abolished. I could not say if the Minister himself mentioned that fact. Perhaps the members of his Party considered they were justified in so doing. I do not know what the Minister's intentions are in connection with this project. In my view we have too many of these committees; we have too many of these commissions investigating matters. The reports—if they are good ones—of these commissions will probably not be put into operation for 50 years.

We have our difficulties in the local authorities when we discuss questions relating to piped water supplies and public pumps. If we can get over our immediate problems, which are of greater concern to us than a general report dealing with piped water supplies all over the country, it would be much more advantageous and beneficial to the people concerned. It would be much better than a report from any committee that may be called in the future to examine and report.

I can appreciate that financial difficulties are the greatest problems in connection with the provision of public pumps. Local authorities are assisted, through the Local Loans Fund, to provide public pumps, but I should like to ask the Minister to help the local authorities to a greater extent in connection with the provision of money for public pumps. All of us who are trying to do our best in the administrative areas in which we work know that it costs an average of £220 to £230 to bore and sink public pumps. Naturally that involves a large amount of money, having regard to the necessity for providing hundreds of pumps throughout a particular administrative area. It would be of great importance were the Minister to come to the assistance of the local authority to a greater degree than at present in helping to have this matter attended to. Such assistance would automatically assist local authorities from the point of view of their own finances.

There are a few other matters upon which I wish to touch briefly. Unlike some other Deputies who find themselves in opposition, I am not shouting for increased grants for this, that and the other thing. We ought to realise the responsibilities and the difficulties which confront any Minister or any Government. It should be possible, even in the immediate future, to provide local authorities with increased grants. Even where loans are available, grants should be given to local authorities in connection with such matters, matters which are of vital importance to small towns and villages, as the provision of public conveniences. Money seems to be the difficulty there. If we are to make any advancement in regard to local government, if we are to give facilities and amenities to local authorities which they, in turn, will pass on to the various areas under their charge, it would be well if we could devise some means of coming to the aid of these local authorities. In that way we would improve the standards throughout the country.

There is another matter of great importance, a matter which has a direct bearing on administration in Cork County. I believe this equally affects other counties on the sea coast.

The Cork County Council considered the necessity of employing life guards at their seaside resorts. After all, not a year passes and not a summer leaves us without there being an account in the local papers about some life having been lost in an unfortunate bathing accident. Cork County Council took cognisance of that position even though the provision of life guards would mean an extra burden on their financial resources. They considered it essential to employ these qualified life guards. A grant towards this important work would not mean a very large amount of money. It can hardly be said that such people will be needed in the Midlands nor can it be said that the number of life guards who may be employed will be large. I, therefore, consider that it would be a great help to local authorities if the central authority came to their aid by giving a grant each year towards this important work.

I know that other Deputies—especially Deputy Corry—are anxious to participate in this debate. I will not keep them much longer.

Mr. Corry

There is no hurry.

Mr. Desmond

I will leave the question of housing and such matters and go on to the problems facing us in connection with the roads. I have tried, in my own way, to make it clear that our approach to local government affairs is somewhat different from the approach of the member who said in this House on the 5th July, 1950, at column 697, Official Reports, dated 5th July, 1950:

"I shall leave a more detailed criticism of the administration of the Department to other Deputies who may wish to participate in the debate."

That statement was made by the present Minister for Finance when he was in opposition. In speaking on this debate, we are attempting at any rate to draw attention to matters that we consider are of primary importance to our people. Neither the Minister nor anybody else can suggest that we are doing that for ulterior purposes. We are doing it simply because we realise our responsibilities to the people who want these matters investigated.

There are many problems confronting us in connection with our roads. These problems seem to be increasing instead of diminishing year after year. I cannot now, no more than I did in the past, adopt the same line of approach of the Deputy who was so anxious to come in on this discussion. I am not saying that the Road Fund is an inexhaustible source of revenue which can be placed at the disposal of local authorities to carry out all the improvements suggested by members and officials. In spite of the improved financial position in regard to the Road Fund, we must admit that if that money was apportioned to the administrative areas in our Twenty-Six Counties it would not go very far towards solving our present difficulties.

Before coming to this question of the roads, I should like to say that I deeply regret the fact that the amount of money being expended this year in important work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act has been reduced. There is no use crying about spilt milk, but if we are to criticise, we must be prepared to extend that criticism to everyone to whom responsibility can be attached.

As reported in column 687 of the Official Reports for 5th July, 1950, in a discussion on the Vote for Local Government, Deputy MacEntee as he then was, referring to the Local Authorities (Works) Act, said: "But there is something more than spending money merely in order to get thousands of schemes under way and tens of thousands of men employed", although at an earlier period when that Act was going through the House he said that it would give little or no employment. I consider that that statement of his was a reflection on the engineers employed by local authorities, and Deputies who are members of local authorities can refute that charge. We can say that these improvement works have certainly given more satisfaction than even the most optimistic of us hoped for.

I am sorry that the money provided for schemes under this Act should be reduced to any extent. After all, we cannot yet say that the works which were being so ably attended to under this Act have been completed. Many of them have been completed, but many of them still remain to be attended to. I have a suspicion that the work under this Act is not alone being cut down this year but that it is on the road to complete oblivion. There is no use in saying that these projects which are giving satisfactory returns should not be continued. We should not say, as the then Deputy MacEntee said, that much of this money was misspent in order to gain political kudos. If he were correct in that statement, surely it must have applied to members of his own Party, because I know members of his Party in County Cork who, like myself, have taken pride in the improvement works which have been carried out under that Act. I must say, in justice to these members of his Party, that I have never yet heard them trying to claim political kudos for the works executed, any more than I have. It is fantastic that we should now be placed in the position of having that work reduced because it may be considered that some Deputies are looking for political kudos.

As reported in column 688 of the Official Reports of the same day, the present Minister for Finance, then Deputy MacEntee, said: "Public money should only be spent if the results of that expenditure, in terms of the executed work, justify it." I suppose it is a case of the end justifying the means. Surely no Deputy can say, even before the works have been commenced, that public money should only be spent if the results of that expenditure, in terms of the executed work, justify it. Surely we must see the results before we arrive at an honest and just decision as to whether these schemes are giving the return we had hoped for. In my opinion, these statements have a direct bearing on the fact that we are now faced with a reduction in the money being provided under that heading.

The present Minister and members of his Party stated a few years ago that they believed that the Minister for Local Government in the 1948-49 period was anxious to get as much money for the upkeep of the roads as possible, and that they considered it was the hand of the Minister for Finance that was tying up the purse strings. If they believed that, we are entitled to say with regard to the Local Authorities (Works) Act that we consider that the same approach is now being made in connection with this matter, in view of the statements made by the present Minister for Finance when in opposition.

Deputies may say that under the present Administration road grants have been increased. That is so. They may even go so far as to say that the increase in the road grants makes up for the reduction in the amount provided under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. If, in 1948, when they drew attention to the robbing, as they called it, of about £2,000,000 from the Road Fund, they considered that that money was being taken unjustly from the Road Fund, and that more money should have been given for the roads, why is it that now, when the responsibility is theirs, an increased amount of money has not been given to the roads? If they believed in their own statements at that time, instead of giving the increase which they have given from the Road Fund for the upkeep of the roads, they should have at least trebled the amount.

At that period I knew that the Road Fund could not continue to provide the amount which we would wish, and I say that this problem must be faced from a different angle perhaps. The only point on which I differ with other members of local authorities is with regard to finance for road works. I find no great pleasure as a member of a local authority in saying that members of local authorities, certainly in my county, have a somewhat conservative outlook. The problem is a grave one, but it must be faced ultimately.

The longer we let it go on without facing it the greater the problem will be. Members may say that we have no suggestions to make in regard to it. I shall not deal with the suggestion which I made in my own county, nor the statements made by members opposing me, because they knew that the statements made were not correct. They knew that the important matter as far as we are concerned is to keep down the rates. In order to justify opposition to any proposed scheme it is unfair for members to take out of its context any statement regarding the amount of money and the responsibility of the ratepayers.

I, therefore, suggest to the Minister that the proposed five-year plan which we are hearing about and which is now going into operation will not help to solve our problem in Cork to any extent. In Cork, we have up to 7,000 miles of county roads and 1,700 miles of main roads. The five-year plan, no matter what way we tackle it, will not give us the results which we are anxious to get. The task is so enormous that we must be prepared to throw all our weight into the solution of this problem. At this stage we are asking for advice from the Minister and his Department as to how we can, without placing an undue burden on the ratepayers, deal with this very great problem. Whether this is a long-term or a short-term problem we want to surmount it, and we surely are entitled to ask the Minister and his Department for any information at their disposal to help us to try to solve it.

We have heard mentioned in debates on this Estimate on different occasions the question of the use of stone, quarried locally, for various purposes. We have come to the point, apparently, in the history of local government when anything produced locally cannot be considered satisfactory. I should like to point out a fact known to other Deputies in my county that the majority of our roads—and I am speaking of our good roads, not the bad ones—have a foundation of stone from local quarries. No complaint was made at the time these roads were made about the quality of this stone. Now it appears that we have advanced so much that a stone analysis must be carried out to test the quality of the stone, to ascertain, against the records of all time, whether the stone in local quarries is of suitable standard. The rejection of stone locally quarried as material suitable for public works means that there is a lowering of the number of men employed in local quarries. Many of us can recall that some years back a large number of men found constant work in these quarries. The fact that the contract for the supply of necessary materials for the upkeep of the roads is now very often confined to a few individuals is but another indication of the extent to which centralisation has been carried on in recent years. When we consider the large amount of money involved, we surely are entitled to question the whole procedure inasmuch as we are not satisfied that it has ever been proved satisfactorily that local stone is not of a quality suitable for this important work.

This is a problem which affects not alone Cork but every county in the country. I recall a statement in that connection, made a few years ago during the period of office of the inter-Party Government, by Deputy Burke, of County Dublin. In that statement he called attention, and I think he was justified in doing so, to the fact that apparently the time had arrived in County Dublin when local stone could not be considered as suitable material. We do not wish to be too parochial in our outlook but we do say that an obligation should be placed on the central authorities to insist that local stone will, as far as possible, be used and that local quarries will be kept working so that the people engaged in this work will be assured of continuous employment.

Another problem with which local authorities are greatly concerned is that of car parking and the question of motor taxation. It would be well, even at this stage, if we could get a directive from the Minister or his Department, by way, for instance, of suggestions to mitigate the difficulties attendant on the problem of car parking on both sides of the streets in towns. Another matter which the Minister might consider, in consultation with the Minister for Justice, is the question of ensuring the sobriety of drivers of motor vehicles. Coupled with that, he might discuss with his colleague the question of speed limits in our cities, towns and villages. There is no security of life at present in many of our villages due to the fact that many motorists drive at a rate of from 40 to 50 miles an hour through these villages. I hope that the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Justice will soon arrive at a decision with regard to these matters. A request was sent by the Cork County Council to the Department some considerable time ago asking for an inquiry into the question of speed limits in our towns and villages. We should like to see that request dealt with within a reasonable time. We do not wish to have it merely stored in some corner of the Custom House for the next few years. It is a pressing problem but one which can be solved if we have the will to find a solution.

Some time ago by way of parliamentary question I drew attention to the problem of motor taxation charges. When we remember that it is the employees of local authorities that are concerned with the administration of these matters, I consider that is totally unjust and unfair that such heavy charges are made on lorry owners or car owners, if a vehicle is taxed for part of the year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Local Government would not be responsible for the taxation of cars.

Mr. Desmond

It is done through the local authorities. I do not wish at any time to question the ruling of the Chair but the question which I put down in this matter previously was answered by the Minister for Local Government.

I am simply saying that I would appreciate it if the Minister would have the matter investigated. Whereas it costs a lorry owner something like £44 or £45 to tax his lorry for the year, if it is not within his financial resources to pay that amount all in one sum, and he wishes to have the lorry taxed by the quarter, he will have to pay £10 or £11 more. The same applies in the case of cars. I consider that that is a matter which should be investigated with a view to having the position remedied as soon as possible.

Many members have mentioned, and I suppose will continue to mention, the question of the allocation of grants for roads. The method by which these grants are made available has not been made clear. I speak not only of the grants given to County Cork. The suggestion which I am making will not make much difference to Cork but it could, and should, make a big difference to other counties such as Leitrim and Donegal I believe that we should be prepared, first of all, to take into consideration not only the total road mileage of each county, but the valuation of it as well. By dividing its total valuation into its total mileage, we can then see to what extent the ratepayers of that county are being handicapped as regards the amount of money that is made available to it.

I believe that some counties have, so to speak, been getting away with this for many years past. You have small counties near Dublin with a small mileage of road and high valuations. These high valuations mean, naturally, that the circumstances under which their inhabitants are living are altogether different from those that obtain in the counties where the valuations are low. In the case of the latter, the holdings of the people are small and the land is poor in quality. I therefore suggest that the time has arrived when counties such as Leitrim and Donegal should be getting a higher percentage of road grants than some of the other counties where valuations are high. The situation amounts to this, that under the present system there is no hope that the roads in the counties with low valuations can be improved because, in my opinion, a just share of the road grants is not being made available to them.

There is one other thing I have to say in connection with the roads, and I believe that the present Minister must take on himself full responsibility for it. Some time ago a request was sent up from a local authority for sanction to an increase of 6/- a week, or 1/- a day, for the carters employed on the roads. That request was sent forward only after the county manager had gone into the matter in great detail, and had received the views of his county and deputy surveyors. It is an extraordinary fact that the brains in the Custom House under the control of the Minister should think it suitable to send back that request and ask why it should be made. The request was for a 1/- per day more for the carters, cottiers with an acre of land who find it so hard under present conditions to feed a horse and keep him on the road, and for small landowners, men with a few acres of land who also get employment as carters. Apparently, the position is that the administrative staff in the Custom House, assembled under the Minister, do not consider it correct for a county manager of high repute to make such a request. It is well known that he never makes any request unless he has a very good reason for doing so.

It is a sad reflection on our system of local government that such a request should be refused almost immediately it is sent up. It is a continuation of the policy of ignoring the requests of local authorities and of driving people out of employment in rural areas. It represents, too, the total ignoring of requests made either by local officials or by members of local authorities. We may get poor satisfaction—I do not mind—by raising the matter here. We may get poor results from doing so and be told that certain parties are interested in road workers and carters. I suppose I would be a fool to expect that this request will be considered, or that the present Minister would even think of having such a matter investigated, especially when the investigation would mean nothing more than a request concerning carters in the County Cork. Time, I think, will prove again that the policy of 2d. per day increase in the past, and the present refusal of 1/- per day increase to carters, means that local government is coming to a period of crisis in this country, when even county managers will be made the slaves, willing or otherwise, of the dictatorship of the Custom House.

It has frequently been said throughout the country that many people refuse to go forward for membership of local bodies because such little power is vested in them, and when they realise that the smallest matter which comes before a local authority has to be sent to Dublin for sanction. If the Minister and his staff in the Custom House were prepared to give the same co-operation to local authorities as the local staffs give to the members of the local authorities there could, I believe, be some results achieved in trying to improve local authority work in the country. We could then hope to see improved conditions in local areas. We can never hope for that, however, when requests dealing with the smallest matters have to be sent up here to be checked by officials.

I am in doubt as to why it is necessary to have so many officials in certain state Departments. I am not going to say that any of them are sponging or idle, but I believe that many of them could easily be transferred and employed on national work in other Departments if the Minister would agree to give to local authorities the responsibilities which they have been asking for. The present policy is certainly not to the advantage of the local areas. I refer, in particular, to the policy of refusing permission to a county manager to promote local authority officials. We hear a good deal about various appointments having to go before the Local Appointments Commission contrary to the views of officials such as a county manager and the county and deputy surveyors. These men know the capabilities of the officials whom they would be prepared to recommend for promotion to higher positions of trust when they become vacant. It is because of that knowledge that they would be prepared to recommend them for promotion. I consider that the less we hear of the Local Appointments Commission the better for the country as a whole.

There is one other matter that I want to refer to. I would not draw attention to it were it not for the importance and seriousness of it. I believe every man and woman in this country is entitled to his or her views on any matter, be it political or otherwise. Not for one moment would I suggest that a man, because of his particular type of employment, should not be free in this democratic country to express his views, within reasonable limits. We are aware that men in certain types of Government employment must be careful about what they say. I recognise their right to whatever political views they may hold.

I am sorry to have to say, however, that a man who is not a minor official nor a secretary of a Department nor a secretary of a section, but at the same time a prominent official connected with local government, has thought it suitable on certain occasions to attack the reputation of a man who is no longer able to defend himself. It is possible that the official forgot himself owing to certain circumstances. I have no objection if that official sees fit to attack members of the Party to which I belong, including myself. I do not know the official concerned, and I have heard of him only recently. However, I can answer for myself. It is a serious matter if a prominent official of the establishment section of Local Government finds it suitable to attack and slander the name of the late Deputy T.J. Murphy, who was, at the time of his death, Minister for Local Government. If that official wishes to continue those attacks, or if they are made simply because on certain occasions he may be worshipping Bacchus, I will demand a full investigation into the matter. The late Deputy Murphy cannot answer for himself, but so long as some of us have the breath of life in our bodies we will answer for him and, should the attacks continue, we shall ask the Minister to have the matter investigated. I regret that I have had to mention this matter. That official is, however, in the section which deals with staffs throughout the country. Having mentioned it briefly, I hope that that official will realise that he has made a mistake. I trust that this matter will not have to be mentioned again, but, if it should, I will go all the way to have it investigated.

Mr. Corry

As chairman of a local authority I have succeeded in getting 20 motions on the agenda through at every meeting, with Deputy Desmond as a member of that local authority. I think that, having listened to Deputy Desmond for the past three days, the House will now realise the feats I have accomplished.

Deputy Desmond dealt with housing I thank no Minister of any Party for the position of housing in this State to-day. I am glad Deputy Davin is present, because Deputy Davin was in this House when his present allies, from these benches, made a solemn statement that they were not going to look after rural housing.

It was only when Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly, as Minister for Local Government—I am glad to say that he is now the first citizen of this State, and he deserves it—started to prepare a decent rural housing scheme for this country that housing went ahead. Every Minister who followed him in that Department only followed in his footsteps. Some of them were pretty good and more of them were fairly bad. From the moment that that line was taken by Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly in his capacity of Minister for Local Government, housing in this country depended practically altogether on the local authority.

Housing in any area is the direct responsibility of the local authority. Whether the housing schemes are good or bad and whether or not the work is proceeding at a satisfactory speed, the local authority is partly responsible. The only thing that Governments and Ministers have succeeded in doing— particularly during the régime of the inter-Party Government—was to saddle the ratepayers with a larger burden in respect of the financing of housing in this State. That is the only thing the inter-Party Government succeeded in doing during their period of office. Consider the loans for housing and the new scheme of grants for housing. How many people realise that the majority of the individuals who benefit by these schemes are far better off, financially, than the ratepayers who have to pay the piper? I remember a scare and tally-ho by Deputy Desmond recently in my board of health area. We had got some houses built and the people were living in them. What was the next move? If you do not mind, the rents were too high. We had to have an investigation into the means of the gentlemen whose rents were too high. Here is what we found. The worst-off person had £6 10s. a week and 75 per cent. of them were drawing between £15 and £21 a week. Those are the people whom the ratepayers and the unfortunate farmers in Watergrass Hill must subsidise to keep their houses at a low rent. There is too much of this game. I do not know where the training for it came from but it did not come from inside this State. The training that I have seen worked out to a fine art by some members of local authorities at the present day did not come from inside this State. The first move is to get the houses built. The second move is: "Keep the pressure on now and we will get the houses for nothing."

Deputy Desmond, in the course of his speech, mentioned the purchase of labourers' cottages and purchase schemes. The present Minister for Local Government acted as chairman of a committee of which I was a member dealing with the purchase of labourers' cottages. That scheme was prepared by the Fianna Fáil Government and it was introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government. It was designed to put the labourer in possession of his house and his acre as independently as the farmer on his farm. Why was that scheme not a success in my county, at any rate?

You can directly place responsibility for the failure of that scheme and responsibility for the fact that so many labourers in my constituency had not purchased and are not the owners of their houses on the Labour representatives in the Cork County Council and the Labour representatives of Cork in the Dáil.

Mr. Davin

Was there not power of eviction?

Mr. Corry

You were the gentlemen who were here applauding the Act going through this House and who afterwards came along to damn it in the country.

Mr. Davin

Keep cool.

Mr. Corry

That is absolutely true, and carried on that way for the sole reason that Labour feared that the ordinary labourer in the country would become too independent if he became the owner of his own house. I speak with a certain amount of pride as being chairman of a local authority which has done more in the line of housing than any other local authority in the State, taking population on both sides into consideration. The only barrier I, as chairman, placed on my members was: "Go out and, every man who requires a house, bring his name and address in here; as soon as we have him vetted by the doctor we will build the house for him." It did not matter what Government was there. No Government that ever existed had anything to do with it.

We carried on with scheme after scheme and it did not matter what Minister was there to open them up or close them, the schemes went ahead just the same. My only complaint in connection with housing is the burden that is being thrown on local authorities by the State in those matters.

There were other statements made here in connection with the Local Authorities (Works) Act, and we had quite a stream of speakers lining out from Deputy Sweetman down. We had Deputy Sweetman speaking on this Estimate on the 8th July—column 362, Volume 133 of the Official Debates:—

"One of the reductions which will be considered by many Deputies on this side as being a very unfortunate reduction and an unfair reduction, is that being made in the Local Authorities (Works) Act allocation. The reduction, as the Minister indicated, is £570,000."

He went on and returned to it again to tell us the amount of trouble that was involved. He was very ably followed up by the late Minister for Local Government, Deputy Keyes, who said at column 378 of the same Volume:—

"I deplore the slashing of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The cut of £570,000 is a very drastic one. It almost looks as if the Government is anxious to put the Act out of operation altogether."

He was followed up again by my friend Deputy Desmond, who attacked us and said it was due to the influence of Deputy MacEntee, Minister for Finance, who hated this Local Authorities (Works) Act, that the slashing was done. Then we come back and we consider the angels themselves when they were here, and it even went as far as the last hour that they sat here, or at least the last day, for on 2nd May, 1951—column 1900, Volume 125 of the Official Debates—Deputy McGilligan, speaking on the Budget and accounting for his cuts, told us that local authorities' drainage expenditure was now estimated at £1,220,000: "The more urgent work," he said, "has now been completed, and this accounts partly for the lower provision this year."

Deputy Keyes when he was Minister for Local Government sat as mute as a mouse while Deputy McGilligan was slashing £570,000 off the Local Authorities (Works) Act in 1951. He sat as mute as a mouse and there was not a word from him, when he was told that the more urgent work had been done and that in regard to what was left to be done, anything that could be spared would be thrown into it. Deputy McGilligan slashed the amount by £570,000, and then the Opposition come along and complain because there is a further reduction this year.

There was a reduction this year. There was a change and a very big change. For three years the roads of this country were robbed of £2,000,000 a year in grants. They were deliberately robbed. Then we hear Deputy Desmond coming along pleading and talking about grants and looking for money. It is very easy for the old spendthrift who has gone and put the last blanket on the old bit of land and raised the last bob that could be raised from the Jew or the moneylender in mortgage to come along to his successor who comes in to find the cupboard bare and say: "Why not give more grants." Surely when they were borrowing so much there was no necessity for slashing the road grants or for taking that £2,000,000 a year off the roads. I have a totally different viewpoint on roads from that of Deputy Desmond. I believe that the State has responsibility just as the man who might come along and do damage by trespassing on my land and have to pay for that damage. I am sorry that I have not got the latest figures. May I point out that the yield in petrol taxation went up from £782,000 in 1944-45 to £3,078,000 on 31st January 1951; for 1949-50, which was the last complete year the figure was £3,213,000. Receipts for customs and excise duties on motor cars and the parts thereof coming into this country went up from £25,000 in 1945 to £1,089,000 in 1949.

The self-same argument that I put up two years ago I am putting up now. Extra damage is being done to the roads which are the property of the local authorities because of the extra motor traffic. The State is drawing increased revenue out of that motor traffic. This Government is proceeding on the same lines as the previous Government, namely, borrow, borrow, borrow. We will soon come to the time when the roads will no longer be fit for motor traffic. I have taken the line in the county council—it is one for which I am not a bit sorry and one that I shall continue to follow—that I will not ask the ratepayers to put their hands in their pockets and pay for the extra damage done to the roads because they get no extra benefit from the increased revenue drawn by the State. That increased revenue is put to other uses. That is my attitude. I make no apology for it.

I am entitled to make my charge and my statement here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

There is a slanderer speaking now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry should come back to the Estimate.

Mr. Corry

I am on the Estimate.

Mr. McGrath

He should be allowed to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And the interruptions should cease.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Corry will speak, no matter who interrupts, I promise you. That is the case I want to make in connection with roads. I expected from the representatives of local authorities in this House better support, support to which we, as representatives of ratepayers in another sphere, are fully entitled. We find that a burden is being thrown on a body of people who should not be asked to bear it. It was a fine decent gesture of the Minister who gave us the increase this year, but he should remember that the roads of this country were robbed by the State of over £6,000,000 in three years and that money has to be put back by the Government which followed that Government, just as they have to pay the £6,000,000 a year for the money they squandered. The responsibility is still the responsibility of whatever Government is in office.

I want to say a few words now in connection with the Sailors' and Soldiers' Land Trust. I understand that legislation in this respect is to be brought before this House. At present, that trust are engaged throughout the country in evicting the tenants of houses. Where one of these houses is taken over by an ex-soldier who dies, the wife then gets the house. If she dies a month afterwards, the trust fire out on the roadside the children of these tenants. There are at present two cases listed for the courts in my district and here is one who will resist by every means in his power any manouvre by these people to get away with the kind of stuff they are trying to put across.

I have here a number of complaints in connection with water supplies. I asked a question on 31st May, 1950, in connection with the Boultra-Ballynoe water supply. I was told that the preliminary reports had been received in the Department on 4th May, 1950, and that the scheme was being proceeded with. This is July, 1952, and I can state publicly here that proposals seeking tenders or sanction for that scheme in any completed form have not yet been received in the Department concerned. I want to know the reason for the delay. On 13th March, 1950, I asked a question in connection with the Ballyhooly water supply. I was told that tenders were being invited. This is July, 1952, and there is no trace of water there yet, although houses are being built there with bathrooms, God save the mark. What they are to put into the baths, I do not know.

Mr. Allen

Coal.

Mr. Corry

We have the same conditions of affairs with regard to Ballycotton sewerage scheme, which has been dragging along for five years now between the Department and the local authority. I suggest that it would be far easier and simpler for the Minister to send one of his officials down to Cork, or better still, to open a branch office of his, Department in Cork to deal with these matters on the spot. I was amused listening to the Dublin Deputies when the debate on this Estimate opened. One would think that the Custom House was 200 miles from the Mansion House, in view of the difficulty which the engineers and architects of the two authorities concerned had in getting agreement. The proper thing to do, when any difficulty turns up, is to have somebody from the Department, if the Department are not satisfied with the proposals, to go down and meet the engineers of the local authority on the spot and have the matter rectified there and then, instead of this letter-writing from one to another which is being deliberately carried on in order to make work for the overpaid and underworked gentlemen.

The next matter to which I want to refer has been a bone of contention between the Minister and myself recently in connection with an outrageous manæuvre. I know that most of the Acts passed by this House during the past three and a half years were half-baked. The Acts shoved through here were passed without consideration and without any knowledge of their effects, and it is only by degrees that we are finding the unfortunates who are paying the piper. I raised here the position in regard to certain urban councils who wrote to the Department for grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, who got the grants and administered them themselves, who had no connection whatever with the Local Authorities (Works) Act as administered in the county, and who now find themselves plastered with a levy of 8d. in the £ to pay for the administration of that Act in the county. In that respect, the town of Cobh was levied in the sum of £700, a town where 1d. in the £ brings in something like £70 or £80. The same applies to Fermoy, Youghal and Midleton. I got from the Minister here a fortnight ago the exact sums levied on each of these four urban areas, to pay for work for which they have no responsibility whatever, and for which they did not get one penny.

I spent 12 months in jail while you were abolishing the Republic.

Captain Giles

And I spent 12 months trying to keep you there.

Mr. Corry

I have no wish to delay the House on what we are dealing with. I have given my opinion as to the case to be met by whatever Government is in power. It is the duty of this House, apart from politics or Party, to see that that policy is carried out and that no Government is allowed to rob the local authorities so that the central authority may benefit. The robbery and the damage is being done to the roads, which are the property of the local authority. The money is being drawn by the State and it should go back to the local authority and nowhere else.

Mr. O'Higgins

Listening to Deputy Corry, one would think he was sincere in his strident attack on the Minister and his Department. Just as he is running from the House now, he will run very shortly to vote for this Estimate and for the continuance of the policy announced by the present Minister. I prefer to listen to Deputies from either side of the House sincerely advocating what they believe in, rather than the show of windmilling we have had from Deputy Corry—it is all hot air and no sense.

Naturally, the Estimate for this Department is concerned with housing and roads, and, as a result, with employment. If there is any radical change in housing or road policy, there is an immediate corresponding change in the employment situation. When we come to discuss employment under local authorities as affected by the policy contained in this Estimate, I am afraid it shows that a very serious situation confronts the country to-day. Some years ago the then Government reduced the temporary road grants which were made in the financial year, 1947-1948. Those grants were made by the previous Fianna Fáil Government on the basis that they would not be renewed the following year. In the following year the inter-Party Government slightly reduced them—in my own two counties the reduction was not very much, but they were reduced— and that reduction was met by an ollogón here from the Fianna Fáil Party. I recollect that Deputy Walsh, as he then was, and Deputy Davern, in 1949, moved what was in effect a motion of no confidence in the inter-Party Government on account of the reduction in the road grants. That motion was defeated, with the opposition of Deputy Cowan, Deputy Cogan, Deputy John Flynn and others who now support the present Government. Deputies of that kind appear always to support any Government.

The case was then made that the reduction in road grants was going to cause wholesale, widespread, drastic, serious unemployment throughout rural Ireland. In fact, that unemployment never took place. In fact, by reason of the passing of the Local Authorities (Works) Act, considerable stable employment was maintained in rural Ireland throughout the three and a half years that the inter-Party Government was in office. These facts cannot be denied. There is not a Deputy representative of any rural area who is not well aware that from 1948 to 1951 local authorities were able to maintain a full list of employed persons. I do not believe that ever before in the history of local government employment were the figures as high as they were from 1948 to 1951. Deputy Allen seems to disagree with me. I am willing to bet Deputy Allen £1 that in the County Wexford there was in these years, 1948 to 1951, the highest number ever employed.

Mr. Allen

A lot of them left permanent employment, and they were thrown on the scrap heap afterwards.

Mr. O'Higgins

That may be so, but I am concerned that in local government employment the figure was higher than ever before.

Mr. Dunne

A lot of them were taken out of slave jobs.

Mr. J. Brennan

We should consider the work done as a result of the expenditure.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is a different issue, but I am prepared to argue it with Deputy Brennan. The fact is that from 1948 to 1951 suitable employment was maintained in rural Ireland under various local authority schemes, housing, road-making and works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That was apparent on all sides of the House during those years, and can only make one doubt the sincerity of the kind of propaganda that Deputy Dunne had to meet from Deputy Burke in County Dublin, and that other Deputies had to meet from Fianna Fáil Deputies during the days of the inter-Party Government—that we were "throwing everyone out of work; the reduction in the road grants had swollen the unemployment queue, and swollen still larger the emigrant ship". I believe in hard-hitting every time; hard-hitting is necessary, and therefore I welcome this opportunity, 12 months after the present Government has come into office, to call attention to the present situation which obtains in my constituency, and which I am certain obtains in other constituencies.

This Estimate shows a drastic reduction in the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The figure shown is merely a book-keeping entry. We should be more concerned with the results which follow that reduction. In the County Laois in the spring of this year, 300 men either married or single, were thrown out of work. Three hundred county council employees were sacked overnight because the Laois County Council had not received a sum equal to what they got last year for works under that Act.

Mr. Allen

You are putting your foot in it now.

Mr. O'Higgins

These 300 former employees of the Laois County Council are still unemployed. They were amongst the first victims of the change of policy which resulted from the formation of the present Government. I do not know what the situation may be in Deputy Burke's constituency. I hope that in the part of County Dublin that Deputy Burke represents there has not been a 50 per cent. reduction in local government employment, as we have had to face in the County Laois.

I would have thought that that serious unemployment would have been ventilated in this House by some of the people who had been so noisy some two years ago—Deputy Corry, Deputy Davern, Deputy Burke, Deputy Allen, and all the rest of them. Look at them now, as silent and as mute as the proverbial mouse. Not a word have they to say——

Mr. McGrath

Do you want us to interrupt? Is that what you want?

Mr. O'Higgins

It actually is.

Mr. O'Higgins

There is the situation, and I would like to hear from the Minister for Local Government the reasons which prompted this reduction. It could not be that the money was not there. There is plenty of money always available for any worthwhile scheme. The Minister for Defence only had to raise his finger and he got £2,500,000 for increasing the Army, taking young lads from the land, where they could be working and putting them in barracks. I would prefer to see that money spent on drainage. I would prefer to see it spent on reclaiming land. However, that, apparently, is a difference in policy, and it is on that that I think the Minister owes some explanation to the House.

The second matter I want to refer to is housing. I do not think anyone, in spite of the bluster of Deputy Corry, can be satisfied with the present housing situation. Whatever the reason may be, the housing drive has slowed down considerably in the last 12 months. That may be due to circumstances outside the control of the Government, but it is a situation that requires immediate and urgent attention. I think it was rather a pity that Deputy Corry spoke about records in relation to housing. Members on any side of the House cannot afford to be complacent with regard to the housing problem. Members on both sides spent a number of years knocking down houses, and there are more demolished houses than new houses in this country to-day. In spite of all the boasting we heard from Fianna Fáil about housing in 1948, 100,000 families were in need of houses. If tributes are to be paid to anybody for the initiation of a new housing drive, a tribute is surely due to the work and worth of the late Tim Murphy as Minister for Local Government. It was he who initiated and put into operation the greatest housing drive that this country had ever known. It was his sincerity that put that drive into operation. I suppose it was only natural that, after a period, the drive would begin to slow up. That would probably have happened even if Tim Murphy continued to hold the office of Minister for Local Government. Enthusiasm always begins to wane after a period in any movement or in any undertaking. It should be the concern of both sides of the House to arrest immediately any suspicion of a reduction or a loss of enthusiasm in the housing drive.

In my constituency we are again getting back to the days when there did not appear to be much done in relation to rural housing. I always judge the housing requirements of an area by a simple method: every time a labourer's cottage becomes vacant in either Laois or Offaly, I get 20 letters from people in the hope that I might be able to assist them in securing the tenancy of that particular cottage. That is an indication to me that, in that particular area, there are 20 or, perhaps, more people whose housing conditions are not good or proper, and that a very serious want in the matter of housing is still evident. I feel that considerably more could be done in the matter of the erection of labourers' cottages and for rural housing generally. I realise, of course, that local authorities have problems, but they seem to be more and more frightened of building costs and more and more anxious to say: "Well, now that we have finished that scheme, the housing requirements of this particular area are satisfied." A housing scheme was started very recently in the town of Portlaoighise, and a similar scheme will shortly be started in Mountmellick. I was sorry to notice in recent months that it is the opinion of officials of the local authority concerned that those contributions will solve the housing needs of Mountmellick and Portlaoighise. I do not propose to bore the House by giving details of the housing requirements of these towns. I am sure that whatever I might say would hold good for the towns represented by every other Deputy. We all know that rural housing requirements are an urgent matter. The houses built already or the schemes that are at present planned should not give any grounds for complacency. I appeal to the Minister to make housing a number one priority and to continue the drive that may be waning by reason of familiarity with the problem.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to be so kind as to tell the Minister that I again raised the problem of housing in the Pullough area of Offaly. I have pointed this matter out so often to the Minister that I am beginning to doubt whether or not he hears me or whether he reads the Official Reports. This is a barren and desolate area—one of the worst in the country—where over 1,000 people live in 80 houses. More than 20 people live and sleep in many of these tworoomed cottages. I have seen them myself.

Mr. Allen

What do they live on in this barren part of the country?

Mr. O'Higgins

They make a living from turf. The houses in which they live were built many years ago. They are small houses, because only small houses could be built on that bog; foundations for larger houses could not be got there. I have raised this matter with the Department, with the Offaly County Council and, with the assistance of other Deputies, I have done my very best. In this House recently the Minister offered a housing scheme in Ferbane to the people in the Pullough area. However, this scheme would not be at all suitable, because it is four or five miles away from the bog on which the Pullough people make their living. Therefore, that scheme would not meet their requirements. I suggested to people there that they should build their own houses, and that they would get a housing grant from the county council. They are only too anxious to do that, but the houses which would have to be built to comply with the minimum standard requirements suggested by the Department would not stand in Pullough; they would sink into the bog.

Mr. Allen

Houses with an area of 750 square feet?

Mr. O'Higgins

Houses with an area of 500 square feet. Not being an engineer, I do not know anything about the technical side of the matter. However, I suggested to the Minister, time and again, that he should send some knowledgeable official from his Department down to the area, to find out the conditions existing there, and to devise some house that will stand in the bog. After all, 80 houses have been standing there for over 100 years. Surely, it is not beyond human power to build houses which will meet the requirements of the inhabitants of this area.

The conditions obtaining there are not Christian. They are certainly ones that should not be tolerated in this country. I recall going into one of these cottages. It was occupied by five families—all relations; 12 people were sleeping right around a small kitchen floor. These appalling conditions tend to make one annoyed. I realise that the fault does not lie with the Minister, but it is very difficult to understand why, when this matter is raised by way of a parliamentary question, the Minister's reply should be: "I have had the requirements of Pullough investigated, and I am quite satisfied that no houses are required in that area." I would like if the Minister would inquire into that matter again.

There is only one final matter I want to raise. I am sorry the Minister is not here, because I want to raise, as a matter of principle, certain proceedings which took place in the County of Cavan arising out of the local inquiry and a decision by the Minister in the last 12 months. I raise this as a matter of principle. I think an important principle is involved. I know nothing about the rights or wrongs, the allegations or the counter-allegations which gave rise to the Cavan inquiry which was held in September, 1950. That inquiry lasted a period of 22 days.

It was initiated and called, of course, by the Minister's Department. The board of inquiry heard the evidence, listened to the charges made against the county manager and by him against the county engineer. The board also listened to and heard evidence in relation to other matters that arose as charges against other officials and persons in Cavan.

That was the job of the board of inquiry. I am not concerned and the House should not be concerned with anything that took place at the inquiry or any evidence that might have been given or any report that might have been made to the Minister. What I am concerned with, however, is that the Minister, as a Deputy for the constituency of Cavan, took an important part in the deliberations of that inquiry. I am told that he attended the inquiry himself on a number of occasions. As a Deputy for the constituency and, perhaps, being friendly with some of the people who might be involved in the inquiry one could understand his attending and taking an interest in what was going on. Unfortunately the Minister went further.

In the General Election of 1951 the Minister campaigned the County of Cavan with the thesis that the Cavan local inquiry was a fabricated inquiry by the Fine Gael Party and by the Labour Party to show the faults of the county managerial system. In a speech—portion of which I am going to read to the House—the Minister went so far as to say that the whole business was a dirty business, that it would end in a bottle of smoke and that he challenged the then Minister for Local Government to publish not merely his findings but the report made to him by the board of Inquiry and the evidence on which those findings were made.

The Minister in his speech reported in the Anglo Celt on the 26th May, 1951, dealt with the Cavan inquiry in the following terms:

"We had a sworn inquiry here in Cavan last year."

This was on the 28th May and the inquiry was in September. He goes on to say:

"We have not heard since of the findings, but there are all sorts of reports in circulation to the effect that it has sort of ended in smoke. It will not end in smoke for the ratepayers of the county, I fear, but may end in their having to pay an additional charge of 4d. to 6d. in the £ in their rates. Why was this inquiry held is the question that has agitated the minds of many. It had, at least, in my opinion two objectives, none of which appears to have been fully achieved. There was a Bill promised by Labour to amend the Managerial Act. Fine Gael did not like it too well, and it was Fine Gael who first mooted this system— or Cumann na nGaedheal, I should say. Anyhow, Labour pressed and all was set for amending Bill. To justify this course though, it was necessary to have some evidence that all was not well with things as they were, and about the same time the Bill came up for consideration the inquiry was in full blast."

The Minister smiles. The Minister thinks, on recollection, that was an amusing speech but the Minister's sense of humour does not appeal to me. It would, I think, have been a nicer thing if the Minister, on reflection, had hung his head in shame that a speech like that should have been made. The Minister goes on to say:

"There is no reason for the delay in reporting the findings to the county council and the public. I invite the Minister for Local Government to do so in order that it will not be said that we later will have suppressed, or in any way cooked the evidence in the case. I challenge the Government to do this now, and in a very special way I challenge those here in this county who were primarily responsible for the inquiry at first, to see that the findings are made known before the 30th May, 1951."

Mr. Smith

Hear, hear!

Mr. O'Higgins

Mr. Smith

I am not asking the Deputy not to quote the whole speech if he finds it of use to him. I am suggesting that he should not comment on a portion of a speech which he has not quoted. I would be obliged if the Deputy would have the whole speech placed on the records of this House.

Mr. O'Higgins

I shall certainly do that to oblige the Minister. In regard to Deputy Allen, I will continue the particular paragraph to which he has referred, and I hope and trust that the Deputy will be edified:—

"It was very noticeable, during the progress of that filthy business in the courthouse, that certain people were completely absent. It was not a matter of their being so busy that they could not attend. Their failure to be present at some stage of that long-drawn-out affair suggests to me that, just as the murderer squirms on being taken to the scenes of his crime, so would the prime mover in causing the inquiry squirm, should he allow himself to be present during the proceedings. If it was necessary to have a victim so as to convince the many who were in doubt as to the need and wisdom of the proposed amendment of that Act, why should the County Cavan ratepayers have to bear the expense, apart from any attempt at injustice to the individual, that was not too hard to detect in this whole affair?"

The Minister wants me to continue?

Mr. Smith

Yes. I am grateful to the Deputy.

Mr. O'Higgins

He is not afraid of some repercussions in the other House? The speech continues:—

"It is true that a limited number of our legal people here in County Cavan did well out of the inquiry, but that could scarcely be advanced as a good reason for having it and making the ratepayers of the county pay for it. Those same legal gentlemen are active these days in the elections. I have heard them at public meetings. I have not heard them deal with this inquiry that paid them so well."

Mr. Dunne

Who were the legal gentlemen?

Mr. O'Higgins

Mr. Hartnett was one:—

"I will return to this subject nearer home before this contest is over unless we get news, after all these months, about (1) the Minister's findings; (2) the report on which the findings are based; (3) what portion of the costs is to be met from the rates; (4) since it was the Department of Local Government forced the manager to ask for an inquiry, or resign, why should the Cavan County rates have to carry any of the cost? We don't want the inter-Party squabblers to `board out' this child of theirs on Fianna Fáil."

I do not know anything in regard to the issue involved in that inquiry. Were I a Deputy for County Cavan, were I a Deputy dealing with that inquiry while it was still sub judice, I would have a sense of responsibility, as the legal gentleman whom the then Deputy Smith attacks in that speech had a sense of responsibility, to keep my mouth shut and allow those who are charged with finding the facts do that without violent outbursts and gross language of that kind being introduced into controversial matters. It was most unbecoming for any Deputy to speak along those lines with regard to a matter which was still sub judice and still under consideration by a responsible Government Department and a responsible Minister of State.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 24 Jul 1952