I want now to deal with the position in relation to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Like other Deputies, I regret that there is not more money available for the purposes of this Act. Since that Act was introduced it has proved to be one of the best methods by which improvements can be carried out by local authorities and the more money I would see expended under that Act the better I would like it. I commended the Act when it was introduced by the late Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tim Murphy. That Act has resulted in an immense amount of good work being done. I would make one appeal: I would ask that decisions would be given earlier in the year on applications from local authorities under that particular Act. We all know that the months of October, November and December are not the months during which to put men into a river for the purpose of draining or cleaning that river. A far better return is got for the money expended if the work is carried out in the months of June, July and August. Sometimes the money comes along as late as February and there is then only one month in which to do the work and the possibility is that the work is not done at all.
I wish to deal now with the question of co-operation between the Office of Public Works, the Department of Local Government and local authorities. How is it possible that there are two Departments of State one stating that a road must be 16 feet wide and the other stating that it must be 11 feet wide? Why cannot the two officials concerned get together and come to an agreement as to what the width of a particular road should be? The present situation is a joke. That is what is happening and that is one of the things which is holding up work. The other is that, where grants are given under the rural improvement scheme, the local authority is prohibited from contributing to that in order to get the work completed. On several occasions we have sent a request to the Department of Local Government and to the Office of Public Works to send down an official to meet the roads committee of the county council and the county council engineer to thrash out that matter and to see if we could come to some arrangement on it. There would be a great saving in public money if such an arrangement could be made.
It would also result in the speeding up of work on cul-de-sac roads, a matter which is worrying us more than anything at the moment. At present, with the many mechanical developments in agriculture, it is absolutely essential that this be done. I did not think when I tabled and got passed a motion by the county council that it would be any great trouble for the Minister for Local Government to send down some official and to arrange with the Office of Public Works to send an official, and that those two officials would spend a couple of hours thrashing out this matter and come to some conclusion between the local authority and the Department concerned. I would ask the Minister to let the county council have a reply to that at his earliest convenience and to let us know on what date we can expect those officials to come down.
I do not think there is any Deputy with any sense of responsibility who does not feel perturbed at the present financial position. We had the statements made by Deputy Larkin, Deputy Briscoe and Deputy McGrath in connection with this failure to find money. It is an extraordinary thing that a Department of State should suggest that the local authority should go out to the insurance companies and borrow from them. To my mind it is a joke. I would like to hear from the Minister some definite statement on the total amount of money borrowed by local authorities in this country to date and what is the total burden on the ratepayers in respect of the repayment of that. If that is added to the £13,000,000 a year that we now have to find to service the public debt generally, how much will the people have to pay to be entitled to live here? When we remember that the money to service that public debt has gone up from £4,000,000 to £30,000,000 since 1948 it is no wonder that the people of this country feel perturbed at the situation generally.
If the people opposite find now that those "better times" they guaranteed to the people in the general election have now turned out to be a time when there is no money for anything, the only decent thing to do is to clear out. I think the people of Leix-Offaly have already told them to clear out, and that was the last decision we had. Even the people of Dublin, where we have all the civil servants, were not prepared to give them the support they used to give them. Are they now going to enlist the aid of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, have his monetary reform policy brought into force and print the couple of million pounds that Deputy Larkin wants for Dublin Corporation, the couple of million pounds that Deputy McGrath is looking for in Cork and the couple of million pounds we could all do with? The Parliamentary Secretary, who is the genius at monetary reform, could print that money and relieve the Minister for Local Government of a very severe headache in regard to all those loans.
My point of view is that, following the bad example that has been set in the Department of Local Government in regard to the trebling of officials, every local authority in this country has followed suit. Where at one time you went into an office and found one man and a typist, you go in to-day and find that man has become what is known as a staff officer and that there are 15 more under him. Nobody knows where it is going to stop. My personal view is that, if cattle prices do not improve during the next few months and if we find ourselves with a cut in price of agricultural produce generally, three-quarters of the rates to be collected from the agricultural community next year will be collected by the bailiffs. That will be the "better times for everybody."