Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Jun 1954

Vol. 146 No. 5

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

Mr. Glynn

I had been speaking on the desirability, in fact, the necessity of increasing the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The grants given under this Act are very desirable and necessary particularly in certain areas in the West of Ireland. I think we all agree that agriculture is our greatest industry and that necessary and reasonable assistance should be given to promote increased production in agriculture. The Local Authorities (Works) Act could be very instrumental in bringing about that increase in agricultural production if the Act were fully availed of and if the grants were raised to a worthwhile extent.

I would say that the country has lost a lot due to the fact that we are not deriving the full value from the land owing to neglect of one very elementary thing which is necessary not only to improve fertility and consequently production but to enable the land to be reclaimed. I believe that the first essential is the absolute necessity of draining small rivers. Numerous farmers in my constituency have told me that. So far as I am aware there are no provisions to do this work except in and under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I myself know of one river in respect of which the grant is almost exhausted and work is likely to cease on the cleaning of the river within the next week.

Only half of the work has been done. This means that the completion of the cleaning of the river must be postponed for another 12 months with a further loss to the farmers. Most of these farmers are progressive small farmers who are anxious to proceed with the reclamation of those parts of their land adjoining this river which are water-soaked and water-logged. They must wait a further 12 months and all because a very small sum of money is not available. On the other hand, we have stretches of roads torn up in the county. I think it is wasteful and unnecessary expenditure to cut new portions of road through land where it would suffice to ease the corner and leave an island of land between the newly constructed road and the old road. The money could be better utilised on drainage and reclamation.

I only entered the debate with a desire to impress on the Minister the necessity of increasing the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. A Deputy on the other side of the House mentioned that there was an abuse in regard to the grants under this Act. He mentioned the case of a man with 1,000 acres being able to avail of the provisions of the Act. I do not see how a small farmer can afford on his own to drain a river which passes through ten or 12 townlands without the assistance given under this Act, which not only provides the means but brings about the co-operation necessary to have the drain cleaned over its entire length. We must remember that there are 40 to 60 farms involved over the full length of some of these rivers. I do not see why 99 people should suffer because a Deputy on the far side refers to the man with the 1,000 acres. We have no man with 1,000 acres, or at least possibly we have a very few, in the West, but the people I am referring to who would derive benefit from the Local Authorities (Works) Act are small holders ranging from 18 to 40 acres. They cannot possibly reclaim their lands, they cannot avail of land reclamation schemes, until the preliminary drainage work is carried out.

To my mind this is rather an urgent matter. Each year it has been held up for a further year, and until such time as these grants are increased we are not going to progress very far in the matter of increased production. We will just continue as we have been going. There are whole groups of farmers anxious to improve their farms, and this is necessary preliminary work, so I would ask the Minister to seriously consider increasing these grants even this year if possible and not to wait until next year and if necessary I would ask him to look into the expenditure incurred by the Department in the cutting away of entire areas on main roads which I think is unnecessary.

Mr. Beirne

I would like to answer what a previous speaker said regarding the Local Authorities (Works) Act. We all know the invaluable service given to the country by the implementation of that Act, and our regret down the years has been that the grant has been considerably reduced. In the first year of its operation the grant, I think, was £1,900,000. It has been gradually reduced from time to time until to-day it is the very small figure of £400,000, as disclosed in the Book of Estimates for this year. I do not think that that is the spirit in which to tackle this problem of drainage. It means that the grant has been reduced since 1949 to one-fifth of what it was. I would expect the grant to be increased rather than be reduced.

Further, in connection with the Local Authorities (Works) Act I have to complain about delays in notification to the county councils of the amount of grant they will get. Every year since the Act became law there has been unnecessary delay. To give an instance, last year we in Roscommon did not get notification of the grants allocated until October. The amount was very small—£7,000 or £8,000—a matter I deplore very much; and it is regrettable to tell the people of Roscommon that they cannot embark on their drainage schemes until the month of October. I would impress on the Minister and his Department to give timely notice of the amounts of these grants.

The amounts should be known now, as a matter of fact, so that the county councils could embark on drainage at the proper time of the year, which is during the summer or the early harvest months. We have been discussing it at our county council meeting and last month when we inquired we were told that the amount of grant had not been made known by the Department. In all sincerity, I would ask the Minister to expedite notification of these grants so that drainage could be carried out in the dry months of the year and not in the winter, when drainage is ineffective and drains are flooded and inaccessible.

In connection with housing, I would like to say a few words. The payment of grants has been particularly slow for the last few months in my constituency. To-day I was looking up a list of cases having reached various stages of housing grant, and I have about 12 cases to hand in to the Department of Local Government of delays in payment of half grants and further grants.

I would ask the Minister to give some further assistance to our local engineer, who is a most efficient man, a man I have seen working at 10 o'clock at night on inspection. He is an ordinary human being and cannot possibly cover the ground and give the service the people want because he is so overworked. Some of these cases are months waiting. I am not attaching any blame to anyone, but I say that more help is needed to assist the housing inspector in my area. As the House knows, it puts a very great strain on builders' providers to have to wait for months and months for the money from applicants. They are a bit hesitant in giving credit to new applicants. A contractor came to me the other day, a man in very small cirmcumstances, and he told me that at least £3,000 or £4,000 was due to him from the country for grants which had not been paid by the Government. That man has reached the limit of his credit. The bank is beginning to close down on him and he cannot attempt any more work unless he is paid for what has been done.

Further in connection with housing, and particularly with new housing grants, I have come across cases where complaints have been made about the fees payable when plans are handed to what is called the appointed officer. I always understood that his fee should be £2 2s. but for some small alteration in a plan I have known people to pay as much as £12 12s. I think that there should be a check on that, that it should not be allowed to continue. There is something like fleecing of the public going on. A reasonable fee would be a few pounds. I know that it is obligatory to pay £2 2s. for joining a public utility building society, but it is unfair and unjust to charge anything in the neighbourhood of £10 for a plan for one of those houses. I suggest that the Minister should have stock or standard plans in the Department which could be used by those inspectors or appointed officers. He should have seven or eight of these plans on which no alteration would be necessary. He has a few of them in the Department, I understand, but the slightest alteration, even drawing a straight line, may cost an applicant £10. I would ask the Minister to look into that very seriously. I could give him cases of where the most unjust demands were made for fees for plans.

Another matter I would like to call to his attention arises out of our county council meeting in Roscommon —the question of wages of workers. Perhaps it is not the Minister's function, but I would suggest that he should consider it and make it a function of the Department. I would suggest that wages of county council workers should be fixed on a regional basis, and fixed the same as wages for various other officials such as forestry workers and others are fixed by Government Departments. The Minister should take this in hands and fix wages on a regional basis, taking into consideration the conditions that prevail in each region and making an exception, of course, for county council workers residing in places like Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway, where the cost of living is naturally higher than in the country. There should be some uniform rate for rural areas such as the West of Ireland—Galway, Mayo and Roscommon.

It is amazing to see how much diversity we have in the rates paid in those areas. We have demands now from unions and when we try to make comparisons we do not know if we are treating them unjustly or not. I would be the last in the country to do anything in the way of putting any burden on the workers, because workers on the roads are not overpaid by any means, but there should be some uniformity. We find a different rate in Galway from that in Mayo; we find a different rate in Mayo from that in Roscommon; and we find that, in Cavan and Leitrim, the rates vary also. I suggest that the Minister should take that into consideration and have a rate of a uniform type.

Mr. Gogan

This debate has covered every phase of the Department's work, without reference to Local Government officials. May I be permitted to mention some of the grievances which concern these officials? On Wednesday last, we heard Deputy Lemass speak of his efforts in 1947 to relate the cost of living to wages and salaries and of the conferences he held with the Federation of Employers, the Trade Union Congress and the Congress of Irish Unions. I should like to appeal to the various Parties to do something in the shape of a united effort for a group of our citizens who, during the past number of years, have got very scant consideration from any of the Governments. I refer to the retired local government official. From the time of the war, no increase has been granted to this body of citizens, and I ask the Minister to consider granting an increase in the pensions of these men comparable with the various increases granted to existing officers.

As the Minister is aware, local government officials, since 1939, have enjoyed an increase of 30 per cent. bonus on salary. We can all agree that prices are becoming stabilised. If there is a drop in the foreign market, there will be an equal drop in the subsidies we have to pay, with the possible result of a total abolition of subsidies, and, for some years to come, the cost of living will be stabilised. I, therefore, appeal to the Minister to consider the consolidation of that 30 per cent. bonus on salaries. This particularly affects the younger official in the service who is about to marry and who is anxious to purchase a house and undertake the commitments involved in that.

In that connection, I ask the Minister to consider the granting of the marriage increment to all officials. At present, the marriage increment and long service increment is payable only to clerical staff and I suggest that all officials should be given it.

I agree with Deputy Byrne in deploring the depopulation of the centre of the City of Dublin by the corporation under their housing schemes. I refer particularly to the area around Meath Street, Mercer Street and Stephen Street. Shopkeepers in that area have been brought to near ruin by the exodus from the city. I want to make a strong appeal also for the erection in the satellite towns being created by the corporation of a public hall with proper facilities for enjoyment for the younger members of the population. In that regard too—it may seem a small point—there is a body known as the National Garden Guild, and, though I do not know whether the Minister has any power in the matter, I suggest that, if he has, a small grant might be made to that body which has for its object the beautifying of the various districts around the city.

The system of differential rents has been in existence for three or four years and the Dublin Corporation should now have sufficient information available to enable the Minister to modify the scheme. As I have seen it operating in Ballyfermot, Crumlin and Cabra, it presses very hard on the tenants and I would urge a modification of the percentage rent, which at present is one-sixth of the total income, to at least one-eighth. I, too, wish the Minister every success in his new office.

Mr. Lahiffe

I agree with those Deputies who say that a large amount of good work has been done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, but I also agree with those who say that an amount of money has been washed down the drain under that Act. I cannot understand why any Minister, no matter who he is or what Party he belongs to, can sanction the expenditure of hundreds of pounds on a drain when the work on that drain must stop in the flood season. Such money is wasted and it should not be sanctioned.

The Minister should ensure that, when he sanctions the expenditure of money on such works, the workmen will at least be able to see the drain. I believe that, if this work could be tackled in the dry season, hundreds of pounds could be saved on every drain and five times greater effects achieved, both from the point of view of relieving flooding and assisting the reclamation of adjoining holdings. I have had experience of seeing men fishing for a drain before getting into it to cut the sides and then they merely cut the sides into the body of the drain and could get no further. They have not gone any further since and the result has been that the situation is five times worse. Weeds which never were in the body of the drain grew up the following year and local landholders whose land adjoined the drain and even those several miles away found their reclamation works nullified by the fact that the condition of the drain is worse than before. Moneys should be made available in time for these works and local authorities should not be held up for lack of these moneys.

It is very easy to transfer from the roads to drains in the dry season, and, while a dry season this year may come at a different time from a dry season the following year, it should be left to the local authority engineers to draft their men into a certain drain at any time of the year at which it can be easily tackled. If they can tackle a drain in June this year, they may not be able to go near it until September the following year and it should be left to the discretion of the county engineer to get his men working on the drain at a time when they can get down into the drain and make a job of it. There is a more important point. A drain that is done this year may relieve flooding and assist reclamation next year or the year after. What about the year after that? If a sum of money could be left aside to maintain the drains, say, every three years—a very small sum would be necessary—the effect would more than pay for the amount of money it would cost. I feel sure Deputies on all sides of the House will agree with me on that.

Another small point I wish to mention is in connection with housing. At every meeting of our own county council, and, I think, of every other county council, we have complaints that there is a hold-up in the building of labourers' cottages, due principally to the lack of suitable sites. It is hard, we know, for adjoining towns to get people to agree to sell sites for cottages but, at the same time, in every small town and village we can find derelict sites right, left and centre that are merely an eyesore to the public. Why are these not acquired by the local authority for the building of suitable houses?

There is also the question of title which comes up now and again in this regard. The people who have owned these places for the last 20 years cannot furnish proper title. Surely the Minister could take this House into his confidence and get the necessary legislation passed, and thus be in a position to acquire these sites without spending years and years trying to clarify the titles to them?

In my own town there is a long street which has a string of derelict sites with nice plots attached to them. Why could not some semi-detached houses be built there with plots behind them rather than that we should go into the so-called town planning business which is most involved? If the people in those areas have to wait until the local authorities get sites, I am afraid it will be Tibb's Eve before some of them get houses. If the matter of acquiring the sites could be simplified, we would have houses more cheaply and more quickly.

Deputy Beirne, I think, mentioned the delay in the payment of housing grants, a complaint which I have also received. I know of a number of applicants who have been held up for months for payment and they are being pressed by their contractor for payment of the grants. I would ask the Minister to try to expedite payment of grants for new houses and for reconstruction, in both of which cases delay has occurred. I wish the Minister every success while he is in office. I have known him a good many years now, including the old campaigning days of the emergency, and I wish him the very best of luck.

Mr. Connor

As a member of a local authority, I would like to support the views expressed by the Deputies who have spoken especially with regard to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It was a retrograde step to reduce the amount allocated to one-fifth of the 1950 sum. It renders the scheme practically useless now because the local authorities are not in a position to undertake any worthwhile scheme such as they were able to do in the 1949 to 1951 period. I would impress on the Minister that if the sum could be increased up to the 1950 figure a great benefit would accrue to the local authority. The local authority should also be allowed to set aside a small sum for maintenance of drains and streams which were done during that period. You have banks slipping in, the free flow of water retarded and sand and silt setting up again, so that in a year or two our streams will be just as bad as they were when this Act was introduced.

I would also support the Deputies who spoke with regard to the system of inspection of houses, especially grant houses. If the attitude of inspectors were changed a little and if they were of more assistance to the people rather than the opposite, it would be a step in the right direction. Another point is that their address should be known. Applicants come to members of local authorities and Dáil Deputies to find out about Inspector So-and-so. Their address should be public so that applicants who have business with them from day to day would know exactly where they are. It is no exaggeration to say that people were in fear and trembling when these inspectors came along like mystery men; they appeared out of nowhere and raised Cain about this, that and the other. If they were a little more co-operative and imparted the benefit of their experience and knowledge to the unfortunate small farmer or labourer who was providing himself with a house, that would do much to improve the position. I would ask the Minister to look into that particular matter.

Mr. Allen

There are just a few matters arising out of the Estimate on which I would like to speak. I am sure the Minister is tired listening to requests made to him that he should, in addition to fixing rents, lower the rents of various houses. I heard Deputy Beirne a while ago suggesting that he should fix wages for road workers. It is rather significant, seeing there is an attempt side by side with that to give more powers to local authorities, that some Deputies want to get rid of some of the powers they have and hand them over to the Minister. If the Minister could lower the rents of all the houses that have been built in recent years he would be a miracle man. Deputies suggest that the Minister has it in his hands to lower these rents. I do not see how he could do it except by legislation or by providing more subsidies. Neither can he fix wages without legislation. I am sure he will not take that power on himself. I do not think he requires it.

There has been a good deal of discussion about the Local Authorities (Works) Act. A number of Deputies seemed to think more money should be given to local authorities under that Act. I am one of those who hold a somewhat different view in the matter. I believe all land drainage should be under one authority. At the moment we have three or four governmental authorities looking after land drainage. The Office of Public Works looks after main drainage. The Department of Agriculture looks after drains running through fields in connection with the reclamation of land. The Department of Local Government looks after minor drainage of a certain type.

It may be no harm to advert to the fact that originally this Local Authorities (Works) Act had nothing to do with the general drainage of land at all. It was meant for the purpose of draining and improving roads. Its primary purpose was ostensibly to relieve unemployment and at the time, I think, that was its major object. I can never understand why local authorities, their staffs and engineers should be asked to go in and drain land. Local authorities are more than fully employed in relation to housing and roads and all the other activities they have to perform. They have in their hands the spending of a considerable amount of money and they have to supervise that expenditure during the year.

While an amount of useful work was done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act there was also a colossal waste of money, a waste over which no Government Department or local authority could stand. If the Minister is prepared to give us more money, I have no objection to taking it. I am sure every local authority will do its utmost to spend any extra money to the best advantage. A good deal of money in the past was not spent to the best advantage. Its expenditure was not justifiable. It gave much needed employment, admittedly. It took men off the dole and gave them a weekly wage, but the output and the results left much to be desired.

I suggest to the Minister that he should use his influence in order to have all land drainage brought under the one authority. At the moment if the Department of Agriculture sees a stream running through three or four farms, those responsible for land reclamation will not touch that stream or drain those lands. They will wait for those responsible for implementing the Local Authorities (Works) Act to come along and drain that particular stream, two or three miles long. Once they engage in land drainage, they should do the entire job. Better results would be achieved if the available moneys were handed over to one authority, the authority already dealing with land drainage.

I appeal to the Minister to do something in relation to the delays that occur through local authorities having to await sanction of the Department of Local Government. Any speeding up will be of advantage. There are many minor matters off which the Department might take its hands altogether and leave full responsibility to the local authorities themselves. When departmental grants do not enter into it, local authorities should have full responsibility. That would be an advantage in many directions. Provided local authorities spend the money within the law, there is no reason why the Department should insist on having its say in every aspect of local administration. There is considerable delay in relation to minor works which could be carried out by the local authority without waiting for sanction from the Department.

Local authorities are, after all, composed of responsible men. They are spending their own money and they will not try to justify expenditure which is neither necessary nor desirable. Greater freedom would make for a more active interest by local authorities in local government.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I wish him well in that very big Department of which he has control, a Department whose activities affect the lives and interests of so many of our people.

Mr. Maher

I would like to congratulate the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, on taking up office. I wish them both every success in the tremendous task that lies before them.

The Department of Local Government is one of the most important in State. As far as the people in the rural areas are concerned, it is the most important. If it is properly administered, it can confer very great benefits on the people living in rural Ireland. Unfortunately, it seems to have been the policy of successive Governments to load the dice in favour of the people living in the built-up areas in the bigger towns and in the cities. Far too much has been done for the people in these areas and far too little for the people in the rural areas.

The Minister comes from a rural constituency, and there is not much that I can say to enlighten him further in so far as conditions in rural Ireland are concerned. I appeal to him to reverse to some extent the tendency that has grown up to improve the lot of the people in the built-up areas and neglect the people in the remoter parts of the country.

There are two problems in relation to rural Ireland. The first is the question of culs-de-sac. Last year a measure was passed here enabling local authorities to improve these roads. It is the policy of county engineers, however, to do those roads for which they are already responsible before they go ahead with the improvement of cul-de-sac roads. I believe it will be many years before any benefit will be conferred on the people living on these roads if something is not done to encourage the county engineers to give some consideration to the plight of those people who have the misfortune to live on cul-de-sac roads.

The Minister would be well advised if he could see his way to encourage county managers and county engineers to set aside a specific sum every year for the purpose of meeting the local contribution towards the financing of the rural improvements schemes.

Those of us who are members of local authorities know that, when we recommend a rural improvement scheme, the people living on these cul-de-sac roads, who are obliged to contribute 25 per cent. of the cost of the work, are reluctant to do so. They say that they are paying their rates, that they are getting nothing by way of return for them and that they are not being treated as fairly as the people who live on the main and county roads. Therefore, they are reluctant to put their hands in their pockets a second time to make a 25 per cent. contribution towards a rural improvement scheme of the kind I speak of. The Minister would be taking a worthwhile step if he were to arrange with the local authority, or if he were to encourage the county manager or the county engineer to set aside each year a specific sum, so that when a rural improvement proposal comes forward the council would be in a position to make a local contribution. That would overcome the situation we have at present whereby the people living on a cul-de-sac road have to put their hands in their pockets and contribute towards the cost of its improvement.

This problem is a very big one in most county council areas. There are a couple of hundred miles of these cul-de-sac roads, and the hope is a very thin one that we shall see the improvements that we would desire in this respect carried out in the foreseeable future so long as the present system is allowed to remain. The improvements that need to be carried out in this respect, certainly the urgent ones, could be made if the county councils would co-operate to the extent that I think they should. If anything appreciable can be done for the people who live on these cul-de-sac roads to bring about the improvements that are so urgently needed, then I believe that the Minister will be doing something which will earn both for himself and his Parliamentary Secretary the appreciation of the people who live in these backward parts of the country. They feel that they have been forgotten and neglected for too long a period altogether. The conditions under which they are living have not been improved in the last 50 years to any extent whatever. They still have to flounder in the mud and the muck on a Sunday morning on their way to Mass as have their children day after day when going to school. I am of the opinion that their health is being impaired as a result of the conditions under which they are obliged to live, and of the difficulty they experience in getting out to the county roads. In my opinion they are deserving of better consideration than they have had up to the present. I would therefore appeal to the Minister to try and do something worthwhile for them.

There is also the question of houses for small farmers. I have said here before that the county councils should have power to build a cottage type of house for a farmer whose valuation does not exceed £15. I know, of course, a council can, in certain circumstances, build houses for people in that particular category. I want to say, however, that in my opinion more encouragement should be given to county councils and that, in turn, the county councils should be more generous in meeting the housing requirements of the uneconomic agricultural holder. The two grants that are there already are entirely inadequate to meet the needs of an uneconomic agricultural holder. Even if he avails of the full State grant and the supplementary grant, the total of both will still only meet half the cost of erecting a cottage type of house. Most of these people are unable to undertake the financial liability involved, even if they were fortunate enough to get a loan, in making the repayments. If you have £15 or £20 tacked on to their half-yearly annuity then these people will be unable to face up to that financial liability.

I believe that the county councils should come to the rescue of those people by building the cottage type of house on their holdings for them. It is a problem that deserves the active and sympathetic consideration of the Minister, and I feel that he will do what he can for them. I am certainly of opinion that it would be a good thing if the county councils were encouraged to build the cottage type of house for the uneconomic agricultural holder whose valuation does not exceed £15. Those people are not in a position to do it themselves, despite all the assistance that is given under our housing legislation. They are unable to go ahead with the building of houses for themselves because of the fact that the gap between the amount of the grants available and the total cost of the house is too wide.

A lot has been said, and many opinions have been expressed in the House, on the merits or demerits of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I, personally, at any rate think that it was a good Act, and that our county derived much benefit from it. Perhaps some of the improvements carried out could have been administered in a more efficient manner. Without going into details, I would say that if the Minister could see his way to increase the allocation under that particular heading we would certainly welcome it, provided it is not done at the expense of the Road Fund. I do not think it would be wise to reduce Road Fund allocations for the purpose of increasing the allocations under this Act. If, however, the county councils are given additional moneys for this type of drainage work, it would certainly be welcomed in the constituency of Laoighis-Offaly, as would any system that can be devised, whether under the Arterial Drainage Act or any other Act, for the carrying out of urgent drainage work. Any step that is taken towards alleviating the lot of people whose lands are subject to flooding will be welcomed, whether it is done under the Arterial Drainage Act, the Local Authorities (Works) Act or any other heading. Anything which is done to ensure that more money will be spent to bring about an improvement of the conditions under which the people in rural Ireland are living at the moment will be welcomed.

I will conclude by emphasising the points which I have already made. As far as the rural areas are concerned, I respectfully ask the Minister, during his term of office, to load the dice in favour of the people living there. If he does that, he will earn their appreciation and will at the same time be doing sound national work, because if the present trend is allowed to continue, if the people are allowed to continue running away from rural Ireland, it will be just too bad for all of us. In my opinion, the two main factors which are operating at the moment as regards that trend are those which I have already mentioned —the cul-de-sac roads and the old thatched houses which we have in so many places, almost all of them occupied by uneconomic agricultural holders. I am of the opinion that if some improvement can be brought about under these two headings it will go a long way towards making life in the rural areas much more attractive. It will help towards keeping the people on the land and in the rural areas, a thing that we are all so anxious to do. My last word is to wish the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary every success.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. O'Donnell)

At the outset, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary and myself I should like to thank sincerely the members of the House for the very good wishes which have been extended to us from all sides. It was quite apparent to us that these wishes were quite genuine, and I should like to say that we are indeed most grateful for them. We are also most grateful for the non-Party spirit in which the Estimate and the administration of the Department were discussed. As a result of this debate, I personally have received a very liberal education in local government. The ramifications of the work of local councils have also, as a result of this debate, been brought very forcibly to my notice. I think I know more about them now than I did before. Another aspect of local government which has been unfolded to me during my very short time in office was revealed in the wide variety of pleadings put before me by a number of deputations.

I consider that ministerial responsibility for local government is twofold. First of all, it is the duty of the Minister to receive deputations from local authorities, to hear their complaints and to accept advice from them for the betterment of the services which they administer, as well as to seek and procure advice from them in cases where they are contemplating additional expenditure. In considering these various matters, the Minister, of course, has also to bear in mind the capacity of the taxpayer to bear the additional expenditure urged on him by local authorities. He has the further responsibility of acting, as it were, as a liaison officer between the local authorities and the national administration, to see that the moneys allocated to local authorities are not only properly spent but spent to the best advantage. At the outset, I should like to say that my primary task will be to ensure that no urgent social service will be stinted—that is, in the light of what I have already said about my responsibility to see that local authorities will give the best possible service for the least possible amount. Many matters raised in this debate are matters which could better be raised in the local forum. They are matters which should not be debated here—I respectfully say—in Dáil Éireann, because they are matters of local and not national significance, and I do not propose to follow the Deputies into the various culs-de-sac, laneways and, as somebody said, the hills around Cork City. And if I do not, it is out of no disrespect to what they said. It is merely that I think these are matters of local importance which should be discussed in the local forum and not here. Certain matters were mentioned by the various Deputies which I consider deserved to be discussed and are of considerable national importance. In my opening remarks on this Vote, I mentioned the general principles of county management and the manner in which county managers generally perform their duties, and I think it is reasonable to debate these matters on this Estimate.

I am concerned with the relations which exist between local authorities and the county managers and I am most anxious to find out at first-hand what these relations are. Not only am I anxious to find them out from an official point of view, but I am also anxious to find them out from a local authority point of view. I propose to make myself informed at the very source and within the next few months I intend to visit every county and county borough in this country and interview in each case at least the chairman of every local authority and the county manager. I want to have the county manager's point of view and I want to have the point of view of the local authority and as many members of it as I can on the question of county management. I propose to go on a useful summer course by interviewing these local authorities and the county managers, as soon as I possibly can, because I do not want second-hand information as to the relations that exist between them.

A considerable portion of this debate has been taken up on the question of roads, as you know, and as I have already mentioned a sum of £1,400,000 has been voted for main road improvement grants and county road improvement grants amount to £1,700,000. This shows a small differential in favour of county roads and that is a development which has taken place over the last few years. I think it was in 1949 that the first programme of county road improvement to be financed out of State funds was initiated by one of my predecessors, the late Mr. Tim Murphy. The technical advisers of the Department of Local Government and the county engineers quite properly emphasise the importance of the national capital asset which is represented by our main road system and which must be conserved to meet the various needs of modern traffic.

Many Deputies also referred to the voters' lists. I think in opening on this Estimate, I too referred to the lack of faith in the present method of compiling voters' lists. Deputy J. Kennedy mentioned it here during the course of the debate and I would like to add to what I have already said on the Estimate, and in reply to a parliamentary question some days ago, that I have already taken steps to ensure that something will be done to rectify the omissions which occur whether it be through malfeasance or non-feasance of the rate collectors in compiling voters' lists.

I have instructed departmental inspectors to go down the country and interview each and every rate collector and remind them of the fact that there are pecuniary penalties attached to the compilation of the register and that these penalties will be enforced if some of the omissions whether through malfeasance or non-feasance are not rectified. It will also be a matter for discussion between me and the representatives of the local authorities when I go, on the proposed visit I have already mentioned, through the country.

A considerable amount of time was taken in discussing housing problems. I have no hesitation in saying that our aim will be the completion in the shortest possible time of the programme of rehousing persons living in slums or in overcrowded and insanitary conditions. After all, the slums are the hard core of the housing problem and while I appreciate that slum clearance and the rebuilding in the slum areas are not sufficient to house the families or the populace displaced from these particular areas, it would go a long way towards easing the problems referred to by the former Lord Mayor and the present Lord Mayor of Dublin, Deputy Butler and Deputy Alfred Byrne. The Department appreciates, and I appreciate, the difficulty from a school or church point of view, of having people removed from slum areas and put out on the hinterland of cities, and the educational and ecclesiastical problems it creates. We would like to see the slum areas redeveloped in conjunction with the demolition of existing insanitary houses.

With regard to the housing problem in Dublin, I have had a memo made out on it, and I find that in the current year work has commenced on 1,048 houses and contracts are about to be placed for 325 dwellings. Between now and the 31st March next, the corporation proposes to advertise 1,158 further dwellings, making a total of 2,531 for 1954. The corporation's programme for 1955 embraces 737 flats and 1,835 houses to be put out for tender, or to be undertaken by direct labour, a total of 2,572 dwellings for the year.

With regard to Cork, Deputy Barrett suggested that the estimate of 2,600 families still to be rehoused in Cork is conservative. It may be so. And it may also be so that there is a possibility of some families being rehoused in the neighbourhood, or as Deputy Barrett said, in the hills around the city. One scheme is intended to meet the demand for some rehousing. It is a small scheme of 12 maisonettes and six flats. I was very much impressed by what Deputy McGrath and other Deputies said as to the corporation being allowed to proceed with this work without having to wait for detailed plans or lay-out for what is known as the "marsh" area in Cork. I am sure that the planning of centre city sites presents unusual difficulties and these are completely different from the difficulties of planning open sites. A reasonable standard of housing density has to be preserved and there must be a reasonable allocation of open space to preserve rebuilt areas and adjoining central city areas. The considerations I have already mentioned in regard to Dublin apply to Cork also: you can never rehouse on the old sites as many families as you displace, but a serious effort should be made to rehouse as many families as possible and as soon as possible, on these derelict sites. We are not going to look at this stage for a detailed town plan for the whole of the central part of Cork. All I would ask is that the minimum requirements of density standards be met. If that is done, I hope that the impending visit of the chief housing architect and the planning officer to Cork will make for an early clearance of any obstacles in the way of an early commencement of the work. That is in regard to the marsh housing site.

Deputy Larkin referred to housing finances in Dublin. As Deputies are aware, Dublin Corporation is one of the few bodies which rely on sources of capital other than the Local Loans Fund. Deputy Larkin asked me to refer to the rate of interest on loans but I think he will agree, being himself a member of the corporation and the housing committee, that it is a matter for the corporation itself to determine the rate at which money may be advanced from the recent corporation loan. It is a matter for the corporation itself to regulate or determine the rate at which money will be lent to borrowers under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, subject, of course, to the condition that the rate will not be greater than one half per cent. more than the rate at which the corporation itself has been able to borrow the money. That is the regulation and I am sure the Deputy knows it. I do not think there is anything further I have to say at this stage on the future programme of my Department. It merely remains for me to present the Vote as it stands and to ask the House to agree to it.

Vote put and agreed.