Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Tuesday, 13 Nov 1962

Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).

Mr. O'Malley

I was referring to the various scales in connection with rural improvement schemes when progress was reported. Under the old scale, some 1,165 offers of grant were made during the year ended 31st March, 1961, but lodgments were made in only 655 cases—553 new schemes and 102 for supplementary or part grants. In the year ended 31st March, 1962, 1,297 offers were made and lodgments were made in 754 cases —657 new and 97 supplementary. In fact, lodgments arrived during March in excess of available funds, and about £22,340 has been sanctioned in April in respect of lodgments made in the preceding month. In announcing the new scale last year, my predecessor said that he had little doubt the full provision of £200,000 would be fully taken up and, as will be seen, his optimism has been fully justified. It is against that background that an increased provision of £225,000 has been made for this service in 1962-63.

Works of a better and more durable standard are done under the Rural Improvements Scheme than are possible under the Bog Development or Minor Employment Schemes, where, as already stated, in many instances the number of U.A. recipients limits the amount of money that can be made available. The average road grant under Minor Employment Schemes was £140, under Bog Development Schemes £120 and under the Rural Improvements Scheme £305. The average bog development drainage grant was £90, compared with £176 for the average Rural Improvements Scheme drain. I should emphasise that the Rural Improvements Scheme is not an employment scheme and, in fact, the payment of a contribution by the applicants does not constitute a claim to employment on the work, either as a ganger or otherwise. First preference in employment is given to U.A. recipients, the second preference to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, and it is only when the claims of these two types of persons have been met that contributors, or members of their families, can be considered for employment on a Rural Improvements Scheme.

Coming to the current financial year, there were approximately 1,200 applications awaiting inspection under this scheme on the 1st April, 1962. In the first six months, some 945 proposals were inspected and some 800 offers have been issued to the representative of the applicants. Over 550 schemes were sanctioned, representing an expenditure of £125,500 out of the £225,000 available, so that all the indications are that the full amount available in the year will be expended. As stated in reply to Parliamentary Questions and in personal correspondence over recent months with most of the Deputies, the Special Employment Schemes Office have been short of a number of engineering inspectors for a considerable time and there has, therefore, necessarily, been some delay in overtaking the outstanding inspections. I hope to have all the vacancies filled in the near future, when it should be possible to overtake the arrears.

The provision for miscellaneous schemes was £15,000 in the last five years and this has been increased to £17,000 for 1962-63. The expenditure in 1959-60 was £14,514; in 1960-61 it was only £9,920 and in the year just past it increased to £16,074. This subhead is intended to meet expenditure on minor marine works, towards which county councils are required to contribute one-quarter of the cost, and which they are required to maintain on completion. It also finances archaeological excavations and other miscellaneous schemes. Last year, archaeological excavations were authorised in: Creewood, Co. Meath, £670; Tawnley Hall, Co. Louth, £240; Templekieran, Loughane, Co. Offaly, £300; Bealboru, Ballyvally, £850; and Raheenamadra, Knocklong, Co. Limerick, £350; as well as a small tidying up job in Tara, costing about £70. Usually about £2,500 is devoted to these archaeological excavations but this year over £7,000 has been allocated, including £800 for further work in Creewood, Slane, Co. Meath, £1,100 for Newgrange and £400 for Knowth, making a total of £2,300, and a special allocation of £5,000 has been made to finance a scheme at High Street, Dublin. Deputies interested in the latter scheme will have seen details of the work being undertaken there in recent articles in the Press: some of the activities have also been filmed.

Dealing with this miscellaneous subhead last year, it was explained that, owing to the existing commitments, there was little prospect of many new miscellaneous schemes being sanctioned. The new marine works approved last year totalled only £2,580, which included the improvement of landing facilities at Cassan Sound, St. John's Point, £350 and a winch at Inver, £60, both in County Donegal; a landing slip at Traagawla, Bere Island, £1,900 and a winch at Travara, £90, both in County Cork, as well as some small expenditure to complete works at Lahanebeg, County Cork, £150, and Ervallagh pier in County Galway, £35. In the current year, a number of further minor marine works have been sanctioned, including the improvement of landing places in Garahies, Bantry, £2,600; Illaun na gCaorach, Bere Island £540; Lahanebeg, Castletownbere, £1,610; Pallas Pier, Ardgroom, £1,500, all in County Cork; Portmagee, Caherciveen and the clearance of salmon fishing grounds in Dooagh, near Cromane in County Kerry, £800; Rathlacken, County Mayo, £260, and additional work at Cleggan Harbour, County Galway, £500. Included in the expenditure figure of £16,074 for last year is £2,000 for accommodation roads on islands, of which approximately £1,700 was expenditure in the summer on roads on Clare Island and Inishturk Island, off the coast of Mayo, the remaining £300 being for a road work on Bere Island, County Cork. Some island roads will also be included in the current year's programme.

The appropriations-in-aid subhead, which is made up almost entirely of the contributions under the Rural Improvements Scheme, amounted to £36,400 in 1961-62 compared with £34,464 in 1960-61. The Rural Improvements Scheme figures are £34,368 and £29,821 respectively. It also includes receipts in respect of development works on privately owned bogs, the contributions from county councils towards the cost of minor marine works and the sale of surplus stores. The figure in the estimate for 1962-63 is £41,000 compared with £35,000 in recent years, in view of the proposed increased provision for the Rural Improvements Scheme.

In addition to the works financed from Vote 10, the Special Employment Schemes Office also acts as an agent of the Minister for Transport and Power in respect of the carrying out of development works to facilitate the output of turf for the four hand-won turf-fired generating stations at Caherciveen, Co. Kerry, Miltown Malbay, Co. Clare, Screeb, Co. Galway and Gweedore, Co. Donegal. These schemes are financed from a National Development Fund allocation of £80,000 at the disposal of the Minister for Transport and Power. New works, costing £11,065, were approved last year.

The Special Employment Schemes Office also acts as agent for the Minister for the Gaeltacht in respect of the carrying out of accommodation road works in Gaeltacht areas financed from the Vote of that Department. New works costing £37,725 were authorised in 1961-62, of which £16,290 was in Galway, £10,100 in Donegal, £6,010 in Mayo, £2,950 in Kerry and £2,375 in Cork. The expenditure on these Gaeltacht schemes and on the works for the benefit of turf-fired generating stations will be accounted for by the Minister for the Gaeltacht and the Minister for Transport and Power respectively and not by the Special Employment Schemes Office. Applications for grants should be made in the first instance to the respective Departments also.

The expenditure statement which has been circulated shows that almost the full amount, 98.2 per cent., available last year has been expended. All Deputies would, no doubt, like to see more money provided for the different schemes operated by the Special Employment Schemes Office. Apart from the employment they give, these schemes, particularly in rural Ireland, are recognised for their contribution to agricultural and fuel production. The difficulty in finding additional funds is, however, the place in the queue which these schemes must necessarily take having regard to the various calls that are made on the public purse to improve conditions in urban and rural areas. Eradication of bovine tuberculosis, subsidisation of fertilisers, farm buildings, water schemes, arterial drainage, etc. are amongst the things which hitherto have had priority in the payment of allocations from the Exchequer. The funds we are expending on minor roads and drains in rural areas and on amenities in town areas make meanwhile some small contribution towards the improvement of conditions for our people.

I might say for the benefit of new Deputies that the Special Employment Schemes Office has no connection whatever with the Office of Public Works. It just happens that I am supposed to be responsible for this Vote and this Office.

Mr. Donegan

I move:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

The term "Employment and Emergency Schemes" is a sort of misnomer because most of the work done is valuable and necessary. So far as I know, it is only under subhead E, Minor Employment Works, that absolute priority is given to considerations of employment rather than the merit of the work. Inevitably, there is a high level of administrative expenditure in relation to the total sum spent. I say "inevitably" because normally in operations of this kind administration costs would be out of proportion to the normal expenditure, but I think a figure of ten per cent. of the total sum for salaries, wages and allowances —£87,430 out of £822,920—is rather excessive. There may be an opportunity for pruning administrative expenditure in future years, and even this year, thus freeing more money for expenditure on schemes down the country.

The figure for Urban Employment Schemes shows a reduction of £27,000 —from £227,000 to £200,000. The Parliamentary Secretary justifies this by saying there are substantial increases in Road Fund grants. I am a member of a local authority, Drogheda Corporation, dealing with an urban area. Under this scheme we try to do work coming up to Christmas which would not be ordinarily done and which has a high level of employment. We find that the level of employment, in works for which we get Road Fund grants, is falling and that an increase in Road Fund grants does not mean, as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, a higher level of employment. Because of new methods of road making, there is a lower level of employment for the amount of money spent.

I should like to say from this side of the House, that we do not therefore accept the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation. In fact, we believe that, when the figures are produced at the end of the year, the position will be that there will be fewer people employed on Road Fund work so that there is at least an equal necessity for the sort of work I have referred to: the cleaning up of public places and the repair of small, back streets and culs-de-sac where the ordinary Road Fund grant would not apply. This sort of thing gives a high level of employment. In Drogheda this year we had a reduction of £200, which means £200 less for the fellows whose names are sent over on the unemployed list.

Mr. O'Malley

But you have fewer on the list.

Mr. Donegan

If the Parliamentary Secretary looks it up, he will find that is not so in our case. Our problem is that we have just as many.

It is wrong—and this occurred before the Parliamentary Secretary took office—that the amount for Rural Employment Schemes is so small. Louth County Council, of which I am a member, has a much smaller Rural Employment Scheme grant than Drogheda and Dundalk Corporations combined, both of which enjoy urban employment scheme grants. There are many things necessary to be done in the country for which Road Fund grants are not available. For example, there is the repair of third-class county roads, the removal of humped-back bridges and the creation of culverts for minor floodings. Since the Local Authorities (Works) Act has been removed, there is more and more need for Rural Employment Schemes. At £35,000 the amount for Rural Employment Schemes is extremely small and is ridiculously low compared to the £227,000 for urban employment schemes. In Dublin city the urban employment scheme runs throughout the year. All we can ever get from our allocation is a few weeks before Christmas. That is the normal experience all over the country. You can be just as hungry down the country as in Dublin.

Mr. Sherwin

Half the people in Dublin are from the country.

Mr. Donegan

That is true. There are other fellows, however, who take the ticket the other way.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Some of the best jobs in Cork are held by Dublin people.

Mr. Donegan

We have in this Vote the clash between what the rates should pay for and for what the central administration should pay. You have the case of the decent farmer, paying £200 or £300 rates on his land, who lives at the end of a long lane, which normally he could never hope to repair to a decent standard. You might say that is his property, that it is a capital asset and that it is not for the State to appreciate it for him by giving him a good road. That would be a material outlook to take. This man is paying a large sum in rates.

In addition, he cannot keep tyres, axles, spring or shock-absorbers on his car, while his neighbour is in the position of paying perhaps a similar, or a lesser rate, but enjoys this very good road provided by the county council.

When you consider that for development works under Subhead F on bogs used by landholders and other private producers a sum of £160,000 is provided, it is a question, then, of whether there should not be available to this farmer more opportunity to have this road up to his own house repaired. I believe it is necessary that there should be an improvement here. I am well aware that the Rural Improvements Scheme does give him an opportunity to do this on payment of a small contribution but, mark you, he will be waiting a long time for that. I shall deal with that later. Just as it is necessary to develop roads into bogs when a group of farmers want to cut their own turf and provide themselves with fuel, it is also necessary to consider the case of the man who has no hope at all of his lane being taken over by the county council and no hope, in relation to the capital asset he has, of ever bringing it to the stage of development at which he will have a decent road in and out.

I took the figures for my own county off the file this morning. We have a list of roads not taken over by the county council. It is a very lengthy list. To bring that list up to third-class county council road standard, after which there might be a possibility of the county council considering maintenance, would require a capital sum of £212,460, and that in the smallest county in Ireland. The maintenance would be £8,582 and, in respect of that, there would be a 50 per cent. grant available. Deputies can relate this to their own counties. For 4d. on the rates we could in Louth. as far as maintenance is concerned, take over all of these accommodation roads provided something could be done under the Rural Improvements Scheme grant to bring them up to the stage at which no capital sum would need to be spent by us. If we were to spend the capital sum necessary, we would have to queue up with the other county councils for our share of the £200,000, and, if we were to do it ourselves, it would be 212d. on the rates because a penny gets £1,000. If, however, the job were done for us by extending this scheme we could take over and maintain those roads for 4d. a year. That is the picture. These are the figures produced to us at the request of our county council. I am sure similar figures could be produced for all the other counties.

Mr. Dolan

Is the Deputy prepared to take over the lanes in Louth if they are put into proper condition?

Mr. Donegan

Yes. We are prepared to consider taking over anything that is brought up to third class standard. But the Deputy sees our dilemma. If he is a member of a county council, and I am sure he is, it is his dilemma too. The capital sum is so frightening that it could never be faced—212d. in Louth. The Deputy's county would probably be worse. But, when you take the Road Fund grant, the cost of maintenance, the roads having been put into third-class standard, would be only 4d. per year. That is the reason why the Rural Improvements Scheme, as distinct from the Rural Employment Scheme, should be extended.

The Minister mentioned a long waiting list. He said: "Coming to the current financial year, there were approximately 1,200 applications waiting inspection under this scheme on 1st April, 1962. In the first six months some 945 proposals were inspected and some 800 others have been issued to the representatives of the applicants." That is the situation where you have a long waiting list. Do not think for a moment that I am hypercritical of this waiting list. I fully appreciate that there has to be a waiting list. Sometimes I get annoyed with Ministers who deny that such is the case. I think it was a bit churlish of the Parliamentary Secretary, however, to advert to certain steps that were taken in 1956-57 in view of the fact that we had at that time an international credit squeeze and financial difficulty out of which we, by our decisions, got the country.

I think the particular line he took earlier could have been saved for the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis next week. I did not start this. The Parliamentary Secretary started it. Since he did, I think I am in order in taking him up on it and giving the House one simple set of figures. He says: "The Government of the day was not, however, prepared to finance the scheme on this generous basis," and he goes on to speak of the new scheme. He does not advert to the fact, a fact which is quite clear from the figures issued, that in 1956-57 this Vote was £888,129. Notwithstanding his statement of an announcement that the reception of applicants was being suspended, the position is that in 1956-57 the expenditure was £888,129. In the following year, 1957-58, it was £857,719.

Mr. O'Malley

On what?

Mr. Donegan

On Employment and Emergency Schemes. In 1958-59 it was £834,931; in 1959-60 it was £852,104; in 1960-61 it was £837,952; in 1961-62 it was £844,594, and in 1962-63 it is £868,920. Let us consider one increase in the meantime in relation to another aspect; in this year there is an increase in salaries, wages and allowances of £3,000. Without looking at any other increase in cost, you are up £3,000. I do not want to claim any credit for this side of the House. I do not want to produce any sort of political argument. I just want to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that next Tuesday or Wednesday might have been a better place and a more appropriate time for the sort of statement he made.

Finally, we believe that there is a case now for an expansion, at least, in rural improvements in order to look after the capital expenditure necessary on many accommodation roads throughout the country to bring them up to the stage where county councils, in their wisdom, can consider whether or not to take them over and put them on the rates. We believe the figures I have given show that the charge upon the rates, if county councils had to bring the roads up to the standard necessary, would be quite impossible and would be absolutely unfair to the ratepayers. We think the Parliamentary Secretary—a young, active man, and often described as brilliant—could have addressed himself to this Vote with greater enthusiasm and greater energy. If he had done so, we believe he would have come to our conclusion that the Subhead should have been extended considerably to look after this matter and we have, therefore, decided to move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

Mr. Corish

I just want to make a few general remarks on this Vote. Frankly, I want to say in the first place that I consider that not enough money is provided for the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote. It will be seen from the tables, with which the Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to furnish us, that there has been no appreciable change in the overall figure over a period of six or seven years.

While expenditure under these subheads for the year 1956-57 was £888,129, this year we propose to provide something like £20,000 less, that is, a total of £868,920. Of course, the immediate reply is to the effect that we have not the same number unemployed, but we have unemployed. While we have not the same number unemployed, it is accepted that we have some unemployed. In that case, we should be prepared and able to afford more for those people who have not employment in this country. I do not think that is unreasonable.

The most recent figures issued by the Taoiseach's Office show that at the week ending 3rd November we had 40,064 unemployed. When we compare that with the figure of 43,338 last year, we see that there are slightly less than 3,000 fewer unemployed this year than there were last year. Anyone who has had experience—or should I say knowledge—of providing relief for the unemployed knows that the money provided in the rural areas, and particularly in the urban areas, does not do a great deal to relieve unemployment. It never did provide employment for a sizable number of workers.

We should accept the responsibility that we undoubtedly have, and that the Government particularly have, for the unemployed, because if they are not sustained here by way of employment or assistance from the Department of Social Welfare they have no option but to emigrate. I do not think we are killing ourselves in this Vote by providing less than £1,000,000. Let no one misinterpret me by subsequently alleging that I said that less than £1,000,000 only is provided for employment. There is much more from the various other Departments, from practically every other Department in the State, but this is the only Department which states it is providing money for the main purpose of giving employment to unemployed Irishmen.

Frankly, I say it is not enough. I have often advocated in this House, and members of my Party have advocated, the provision of millions of pounds, if necessary, to keep Irish people at home. I think it would be worthwhile because while emigration is not as great as it has been, while it still stands at about 20,000 per year, there is still the problem of providing work for our people to induce them, as I have said, not to emigrate until we can provide good, remunerative and secure employment for them.

In my own town, which is an urban area, while the effect of this sort of money might have been good some years ago it is pretty negligible today. It does not do a lot for what I might describe as the genuinely unemployed and, therefore, the Government would do well, at smaller cost than they would have some years ago, to provide much more money now—double it, treble it or multiply it by six—in order to give some happiness to some of the 30,000 or 40,000 who are unemployed during the year.

I remember Government speakers being very enthusiastic some years ago about a measure about which was introduced—and that enthusiasm was subscribed to by the Labour Party— by the Minister for External Affairs who was then either Minister for Finance or acting Minister for Finance. It was, I suppose, about ten years ago that he introduced legislation to provide what was called a national development fund. I honestly had hopes for it, but it seems to have been forgotten.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Corish

I do not propose to go into it in detail. I only want to say that it seemed at that time that the Government, a Fianna Fáil Government, were determined that no one would be unemployed for want of money. It disappeared. Compared with the millions which were mentioned in the debate when that legislation was being introduced, we now have a figure of £868,920 which certainly does not fill the Bill or provide against the unemployment situation which we have.

The Parliamentary Secretary, as I know him, and as the House knows him, is not a man who will stay in a rut. He has been rightly applauded for the changes he has made. I do not say that he has made revolutionary changes but he has certainly demonstrated that he is not prepared to do what the previous Parliamentary Secretary did, or what other Parliamentary Secretaries did away back since that office was established. I should like to appeal to him now to give serious consideration to the idea of not allocating moneys for unemployment in accordance with figures for unemployment which are given in the previous January. That annoys many urban authorities. It annoys many local authorities because the situation changes or can change — it does not necessarily change every year —in every single one of the 12 months.

In my home town, January is a reasonably good month for employment by reason of the pattern of employment in the foundries. I think it is totally unjust to relate the grant that is to be given with the number unemployed in January in respect of Wexford town. Dundalk, Drogheda, Cork or Dublin may be the same. The whole scheme should be more flexible. The Parliamentary Secretary should take the power to have regard to the situation of unemployment that exists, say, in the month of October or November or any other month in which there appears to be distress in an area. That could easily be got. I have mentioned my home town of Wexford. There is a particular problem there in regard to employment in the foundry. Unemployment is worse there now than it is in January and the relief granted will operate in relation to the figures of unemployment for January of this year.

I believe also that it is necessary to provide much more employment in the rural areas or we will be confronted with a situation that will be detrimental to the agricultural industry, because of the scarcity of the agricultural workers. It seems to me that the agricultural industry either does not want to, or in many cases cannot, give 12 months' employment to those who are generally regarded as agricultural workers. There are so many attractions in the towns, and particularly in the towns and cities of Great Britain, that they are not content with eight or nine months' work, or even ten months' work, when there is the prospect of 12 solid months of employment with reasonably good wages and security in Coventry, Bristol, London or any other city. Therefore it is necessary for the people themselves and for the agricultural economy, until such time as they can be fully, gainfully employed, to fill the gaps that undoubtedly exist so far as agricultural workers are concerned. Possibly that is not the fault of the agricultural industry but the problem is there. In many parts of the country when these workers are needed by the farmers in the busy time, they are not available and that can be detrimental to the whole agricultural industry.

Similarly, in regard to forestry workers and road workers, one thing that attracts workers especially in the rural areas to emigrate is not entirely the inadequate wages they get but the feeling of insecurity. There are tens of thousands of such workers in the rural areas, those who are taken on by the county councils, say, for six, eight or nine months. They just will not be there in a short time to do the road work if they are not guaranteed security or if there does not appear to be some guarantee of security of employment for them.

I do not think many of those who are in responsible positions have an appreciation of the circumstances of agricultural workers, forestry workers and road workers in that respect. I have been told on many occasions by an engineering official of the county council to whom I make representations for a job for a rural worker: "That fellow got nine months' work last year" or: "That fellow has just completed three months' employment with us." These officials believe that should satisfy the man for another three months, that if he gets eight or nine months' work in the year, he should be satisfied—that is his quota for the 12 months. However, the workers are becoming a little wiser and have begun to cast their eyes on the cities here and, unfortunately, on the cities in Britain. If they can get 12 months' work not necessarily in Dagenham but in other industries in Britain, they will take it and will leave the county council, forestry and agricultural work there.

This is a problem the Parliamentary Secretary will not resolve in this Vote and possibly will not resolve in the next 12 months but one which is dangerous because, while we have these 40,000 odd unemployed, we may find ourselves in a situation where we shall, like many countries in Europe, be crying out for manpower, the manpower we are now exporting at the rate of 20,000 to 25,000 per year.

While I am, in the first place, concerned about giving the man work and good wages, the general problem is to retain the labour in this country. After all, even if it is considered to be a pool or reserve of labour, 40,000 is not a big number if we are thinking in terms, as the Taoiseach seems to be, of bringing over another 40 German industries, of attracting American, British or Belgian industrialists here to establish factories. In those circumstances, that is, providing we are not to have redundancy on our entry into the Common Market, there will be a scarcity of workers in Ireland.

Somebody may say: "On the one hand, he is talking in terms of scarcity of employment, while on the other hand, he says if we enter the Common Market, there may be a redundancy problem of 30,000, 40,000, 90,000 or 100,000." That may be so, but if we are to believe the Taoiseach and the Government claims that we will not have a redundancy problem, if we are to believe them when they say we shall have much more employment, we should spend money to keep the workers here. Goodness knows, we have let enough of them out of the country in the past 10, 15 or 20 years. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to do all he can to get the money to keep the unemployed in the towns or rural areas in some sort of employment. I do not necessarily mean gainful or productive employment but some sort of employment until the other opportunities arise.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to take a new look during the next year at these special employment and relief schemes. We have been trying to get roads repaired such as those of which Deputy Donegan spoke. I do not often agree with him but I agree with his remarks on the problem in various county council areas dealing with roads leading to farmhouses. We have had some of these roads repaired in County Dublin, thanks to the rural improvements scheme provided by the Parliamentary Secretary. However, there is one thing holding up this work in County Dublin, the fact that such schemes cannot be worked unless there are a large number of people unemployed in the area. That policy will have to be changed if we are ever to improve the very bad roads leading to homesteads in Ireland.

It is unfortunate sometimes that when, say, seven people using a road may agree to a contribution under the rural improvement schemes, one or two contrary people hold up the scheme. Now that the country has become more prosperous and there is more money to hand for schemes of that kind, we should tackle this on a national basis. The county councils are only too anxious, if these roads are put in a third or fourth rate condition, to take them over and keep them in repair. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do something to speed up the rate at which these roads are being repaired.

Relief grants at Christmas are very acceptable but the system under which they have been given over the years should be changed. It should be changed for the betterment of the workers. In a period of prosperity, more generous treatment should be extended to unemployed persons. The system adopted over the years has been to provide niggardly relief schemes at Christmas.

December-January is a lean period for certain people. There is not a great deal of unemployment in County Dublin at present but there is some in every district. One person is as important as another. Every citizen has the right to get a living in his country, if the country can afford to give him a living. In County Dublin. a great deal of work has been carried out under employment schemes. The cleaning of intermediate rivers in County Dublin at an estimated cost of over £500,000 is a very generous contribution from the State to the constituency and I want to avail of this opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his assistance in matters of that kind.

Instead of relief schemes, there should be special work schemes during the Christmas period which should not be confined to persons registered as unemployed. The schemes should be reasonably flexible. If there is unemployment in a district, it should be possible to allocate money to that district for the purpose of providing employment. I would recommend the adoption of such a scheme, whereby grants could be given to areas where there are a number of persons unemployed as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the Government, and which would eliminate all the restrictions inherent in the old system that has been operating since the establishment of the State.

That suggestion of mine could not have been adopted at a time when money was not available. There has been an improvement in our financial position and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to examine the possibility of providing special work schemes for the relief of unemployment. Such schemes could include road improvement, the taking over of culsde-sac, laneways and so on. Any scheme the county engineer recommended should be carried out. We should not be tied to an outmoded system. The Parliamentary Secretary is a highly intelligent and resourceful person and will be able to put up a good case to the Minister for Finance for a review of relief schemes as at present operated.

Mr. A. Barry

I rise only because of some words Deputy Burke used. I take it the allocations to the urban districts are related mathematically to the unemployment problem? That is all I have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary: Is there a relationship between the allocation to the urban district and the unemployment situation in that district?

Mr. Tully

I have a few remarks to make on this Vote. One is in connection with a matter to which Deputy Corish referred, that is, the qualification period for the grants. I suppose for the purpose of making the allocation, it is convenient in the month of January each year to reckon the number of persons at the labour exchange drawing unemployment assistance and to base the amount of grant on that figure, but, as Deputy Corish said, it is a most unrealistic way of dealing with the matter. While there may be a surplus of work left over from unemployment schemes until after Christmas, it could happen that there would be very few persons unemployed in an area in early January, whereas towards the middle of the year or perhaps over the remainder of the year, there might be ten times that number on the unemployment assistance register. The allocation must be related, nevertheless, to the number of persons on the register in the previous January. If the Parliamentary Secretary could be empowered to exercise his discretion, after an amount had been made available for the relief of unemployment over the entire State, it would be a far better way of dealing with the matter.

I should like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the fact that he does not, in his capacity as head of the Board of Works, operate on the principle that because a thing has been done in a certain way for years, that is the right way of doing it. I hope he will adopt the same approach in regard to the administration of this Vote.

With regard to Christmas relief schemes, it is rather unfortunate that while schemes are notified to the local authority relatively early in the year, the local authorities do not bring the matter to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary's Office for sanction until it is too late for the Christmas period. It is a shocking thing that when a number of persons depend for their Christmas dinner on these schemes, some local authority is too lazy to get the engineer to prepare a scheme and submit it for sanction. The result is that these people cannot get work until January when the record is being taken for the following year's allocation.

Mr. O'Malley

I am sorry. They are submitted to the appropriate county council in the first instance.

Mr. Tully

I am well aware of that but there are numerous instances where the local authority has not forwarded the schemes in time for sanction for the Christmas period. It has happened that some local authorities, on the advice of their technical people, have submitted completely unreal schemes which the Parliamentary Secretary's Office have had no option but to refuse to sanction. In such a case the scheme goes back to the local authority and by the time it is reviewed, Christmas is over and that is that. I do not say that the people concerned do not need work at other times but the most important time is between now and Christmas. Every effort should be made by the Parliamentary Secretary to force local authorities to submit schemes in time so that employment could be given for the Christmas period.

The question of grants under the rural improvements scheme for work on lanes leading to dwellinghouses and leading to agricultural land has been raised by a number of speakers. Many local authorities like to give the impression that the only way these matters can be dealt with is by a scheme submitted from the Parliamentary Secretary's Office but the local authority of which I am a member has dealt with this matter in a different way. As a result of an Act which was passed some years ago and which was sponsored by Deputy McQuillan, that local authority has declared every lane on which there are two or more houses a public road and has repaired every such lane.

There is one complaint, that is, that when they do that, they are not allowed to avail of the grant which the Special Employment Schemes Office would make available, if the tenants themselves had repaired the lane. It may be asked: why do the tenants not undertake the repair, in the first instance, and the council could take it over afterwards? If the council waited for that they would wait a long time. Deputy Burke referred to a lane which six or seven people were using and where there was one contrary person. If there is one contrary person who will not pay his share of the cost, the whole thing is held up for years. The Parliamentary Secretary should have a good look at this and while it may not benefit County Meath very much because we have almost finished with our schemes, I think it would benefit rural Ireland very much if some arrangement could be made whereby the grants which normally accrue to the tenants, if they do the lanes, could be passed on to the local authority when they in fact take them over and declare them to be public roads to be maintained and repaired by the local authority.

The whole question of schemes has been dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary in a very detailed manner and there is little more comment that I would, or could, make on it except for one last point and that is the question of the allocations for those amenity schemes. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to the last list of amenity schemes which are, in fact, administered through the Local Government Department or whether he was dealing with the schemes which he has referred to as having been carried out at Newgrange and Tara. If he was referring to those, if his office can do anything about them every effort should be made now to end the very long trail which a number of people have been following to have something definite done about Tara.

Tara was the seat of the high kings of Ireland and one of the most historic places in Europe. Yet we have people wrangling over years as to whether they should put up a public convenience there and a shed in which they should show a few items or whether they should in a decent way try to perpetuate the memory of Tara. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any say—I do not know whether he has or not—or any money, I would ask him to give every assistance possible to Meath County Council who are at present trying to have this matter finalised because, unless everybody gives goodwill to this issue, we shall finish up in another 15 or 20 years, if we live so long, still wrangling over what type of monument should eventually be placed on Tara Hill.

Mr. Geoghegan

I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary and the staff on the way this Estimate has been introduced. He has certainly gone into very great detail. I also thank him for including in this year's list of minor employment schemes the figures allocated to each road. I think every Deputy will welcome—it is the first time it happened since I came to this House—the showing of the exact allocation to each road on the same sheet as the mention of the road itself. Heretofore, when you were asked how much was allocated for a particular road you were unable to tell the people and, when you came to the Office, it was like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I think it is time that some Parliamentary Secretary in charge of this section or Department would examine the whole scheme because I feel we are not getting the results we should get. When we get a job of work to do, to complete a road or roads, these should be completed up to a certain standard and then ask the local authorities to take them over and maintain them thereafter. As it is, you get an allocation of from £100 to £300 for a road of one or two miles and what happens is that the engineer comes out, gives an order to the ganger or foreman that so many perches must be done. The men go along and throw in a few shovels of blue sand into the potholes but the first tractor that comes over it slashes out the sand again and it is just as bad in six months' time.

Some of the public money spent on some of these schemes is just wasted. The work should be done up to whatever standard is set by the engineer and the local authority should be asked if they are prepared to take it over and if it is brought up to that standard, let them take it over. In my constituency we have done that for the past few years and I feel we shall do it in the future if the roads are brought up to that standard.

I do not know how schemes are selected in different areas. The Parliamentary Secretary may say they are picked on the distribution of unemployment. Granted that is so; yet certain villages in different townlands with more than a gang, as they say, of unemployed are left out year after year. I know a few of them which I shall not mention that have been left out year after year and the same has happened this year as for the past five or six or seven years. You will find a road on which a certain amount of money was spent last year and a certain amount the year before. This year it is cut out, without the road being completed. That grant will not be spent again for perhaps three or four years and when the Office comes back the money allocated will be spent on the first few yards and the people living at the far end of the road never see the road at their end being repaired.

I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary especially for the development of Clifden Harbour, for the protection of fishing boats and the boom which is being erected at present. I urge him, before he finishes the job there, to lift the silt at present in the dock, so making the harbour deeper and better.

Another objection I have is to the spending of money on drawing sand over long distances for road repair purposes. You can see eight-ton or tenton lorries bringing sand for 15 to 20 miles when sand might be obtained nearer. If you have a scheme to relieve unemployment and you hand it over to a contractor to draw sand you are not taking unemployed off the register. I think that is wrong and wherever available I think sand should be got in the immediate locality to which the money is allocated.

Finally, I am sure every Deputy from rural Ireland would agree with what I am about to say now. It concerns the consent form that has to be signed by people living on the road before work starts. Somebody in the village may have had a falling-out with the neighbour ten or fifteen years ago and for that reason will not sign. If it were a new road, I should have no objection to the form but, if the road is there for the past 60 or 80 years, surely there is no need for a consent if you want to spread a bit of sand on it? If I have a grudge against my neighbour I will not sign and the road cannot go ahead. I do not see why that should be so. There is no need for it. If it were a question of widening the road, taking off corners, touching an individual's field something could be said for it but in cases where you are not affecting anybody's property but merely repairing the road the consent form should be abolished. The sooner that is done the more satisfactorily these schemes can be carried out.

Mr. O'Sullivan

So far as the main representation of rural Deputies of the House goes, no doubt they are more interested in rural improvement schemes than in any other part of this Vote. That section of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department can do much more than is being done at the moment. It is certainly a matter of interest to see the amount of work that is being done. This is extremely important.

I listened to Deputy Tully referring to what the Meath County Council were able to do to bring roads up to standard. He is very lucky in that Meath happens to have a good, solid terrain. I can assure him if his county council had to face up to a problem similar to that in County Cork, 5/- in the £ in the rates would not make much of an impact on bringing up to standard the tremendous mileage involved in counties so large and so diverse as County Cork.

In that respect, I am glad that a number of us in the council have over the past few years been responsible for implementing a closer liaison between the engineering staffs of the county council and the rural improvements scheme office. We now have the happy situation that it is almost automatic that when a road is brought up to standard by that office, the county council take it over and mainit thereafter. This is a very good encouragement to those prepared to contribute to get such work done. In the past, contributors found that when the work was done, the standard deteriorated and after the passage of some years, their condition was almost as bad as it was before the investment was made. Now we have this situation and it is working satisfactorily. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to proceed as quickly as possible with the job in hand and to encourage as many as possible of those people who have not yet availed of the scheme to avail of it. We speak of the necessity for increased agricultural production and about the difficulties of people in remote parts. Here we have an opportunity of assisting them in a very sensible and tangible manner.

I suggest we could not put State moneys and the energies of the Department to better use than to proceed apace with the improvement and taking over of such laneways. It should also be borne in mind that with the use of large modern farm machinery, wider roadways are necessary. We are aware of the legal difficulties in regard to the widening of such roadways but nevertheless if anything could be done, I suggest it would be worthwhile in ensuring that farmers who are prepared to work harder and extend production would be facilitated by being provided with access for the type of machinery necessary for them in order to carry out this work.

Some references were made to objections by the type of person who will object for some petty reason but up to 1950 many of those who objected had greater reason for their objections because it was only then that the sliding scale was introduced. There is no doubt that that was the big break-through in obtaining agreement among landowners on such roadways. The fact that the small landowner could not see his way to pay as much as his more prosperous neighbour was understandable, but with the graded payments, that difficulty has been eased to a considerable extent.

I should also like to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that we should not accept that because in the Book of Estimates there appears some little increase in the amount of expenditure, we must relate that to the increased cost which every Department, and every employer, has to face in carrying out any type of work. In order to get the work done, a greater amount of money will have to be allocated and let us hope when this is forthcoming, he will have sufficient personnel in his Department to ensure that applications are dealt with as rapidly as they are presented to him.

One further point I wish to make is in relation to improved facilities on the coast and to bring to the Parliamentary Secretary's notice a pier which is deserving of attention at Clonakilty Harbour. It is Ring Pier where the situation at the moment is that it appears to be nobody's child. It has been examined by a number of people who are prepared to go as far as they can go but the major work necessary to provide facilities for fishing and pleasure boats will have to be carried out by the Parliamentary Secretary's office. I hope if he is in the office during the coming 12 months, we will be able to avail of his services to ensure that the conditions there, which at the moment are pretty grim, will be rectified. I emphasise, both from the point of view of tourism and the point of view of local fishing interests, that the repairs to that pier should be undertaken with the shortest possible delay.

Mr. MacCarthy

As the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his speech, this Estimate deals with very important features of town and country life. Consequently, instead of approaching it from the viewpoint of the employment content which it provides, it should, as some speakers stressed, be looked upon more as improving the rural conditions of our people, in outlying areas particularly. The rising generations are not prepared any longer to put up with the muddy approaches from the road to their homes which have now been brought up to standard. The contrast is too great and should not be allowed continue. The dynamic approach of the Parliamentary Secretary is to be commended. In the first instance, we have the Special Employment Schemes for cities and towns. The grants are related to the amount of unemployment and the diversity of work for them is limited. They may improve the footpaths; they may perhaps get rid of bad corners on some of the roadways or of projections constructed on urban roads by people who are unco-operative, and even though the sites may be derelict, they are not prepared to allow the council to straighten out the bends.

When Deputy Barry was Lord Mayor of Cork, we made some progress in regard to amenities like the planting of trees. We debated for a considerable time whether grants could be got either under the amenity scheme or under the Special Employment Schemes for such purposes. At the present time when some of the railways are being closed, we will have big vehicles approaching the cities. The roads may have to be improved so that non-stopping traffic, such as large beet lorries and so on, may be diverted into the marginal roads in the city, rather than have them holding up traffic, causing delay at traffic lights and generally obstructing the flow of traffic in the city. These are the principal problems to be dealt with in town and city areas.

I am sure the local councils will in due time be able to tackle these problems if they get sufficient co-operation from the Departments. I am more concerned with the rural position. I have in mind the roadways approaching farmhouses and, in some instances, cottages. In the past, cottages were built in very out of the way places without any proper roadway to them —at the end of lanes, and so on. The people are left there, all their lives, in these conditions. Under the law and regulations applying to rural improvements, these people cannot improve their position because they cannot afford to make the contributions that may be needed in these cases.

I am one of those who feel that every link roadway, no matter how small it may be, should be declared a road of public utility and improved by the county council. Sometimes we are told by the officials that it is not a road of general public utility because it is not used by very many. It cannot be used because its condition is too bad. Very often, such a roadway would shorten the distance of travel between various places if it were brought into proper condition so that people could travel along it. That is the first thing I would say about these rural roads. If they are a bit narrow, they can be improved and brought up to standard. Somebody is using them all the time and some people must stay in them all the time.

Another point for consideration is that we have some roads where, as members of the council know, only a few people reside, but they are pretty long roads. It would take a considerable amount of money to bring them up to standard. In some cases, it would cost hundreds of pounds. Surely, one or two men cannot be expected, from their own resources, if they have high valuations as they sometimes have, to give the necessary allocation for the improvement of these roads which, when repaired, will be of general public utility and used by the people generally? Some of these are in old estates where, I suppose, farms were confiscated, in days gone by. When the landlord saw the trend of events, he sold off some of these farms individually. The only roadways there now are the old passages that were there in the landlord's time. These matters should be dealt with rapidly if we are to attain the standards we desire in our country areas.

In order to do that, it would perhaps be necessary to decentralise our administration. Take the Rural Improvements Scheme in the County of Cork, for example. I think the headquarters for these schemes is in Tralee, County Kerry. The person responsible for whatever works are done in the southern area is there. I have no objection whatsoever to him. He is an excellent man. He does his work well and supervises it well. However, how can a person who is so remote from County Cork as the farthest point of Kerry, almost—leaving out the Dingle Peninsula—look after these schemes in a county the size of Cork as well as in the county of Kerry? I think our administration should be decentralised.

I would further suggest that the services of county engineers and district engineers be used to a greater extent in the ordinary survey of these roads in relation to rural improvements schemes. They would be able to give the occupiers or the persons concerned an indication of the cost. On the document presented today by the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the percentage of payments required, the people concerned would have a good idea of their responsibilities. Perhaps it would be an encouragement to them to go ahead.

I find it very difficult, and I suppose most Deputies find it very difficult, to get people in rural areas to sign forms of any kind involving contributions. In effect, they say: "We do not know what this will lead to in the end or how much we shall have to pay." You may tell them, when you see the figures: "This signing of the document in relation to the proposal does not commit you to anything. If you feel it is beyond your capacity to pay you can leave it there until future conditions permit or until the law is changed or until some other scheme will come up which will improve your condition". Nevertheless, such people do not wish to sign. These are two points which I think everybody meets with and consequently these schemes are frequently delayed.

The question of bog roads does not affect our areas very much. Some improvements were made there from time to time. However, in relation to rural improvements schemes, we also meet with the position that sometimes they lead off the road down towards the sea: they are culs-de-sac. They are not improved. They may lead to a little bay or to some place where people might like to disport themselves in summer, and so on, because the well known beaches are now becoming very crowded, particularly those within striking distance of big populated areas. Grants are not given for them. It is said, in effect: “This road is not really an established road. Even though you are living on it—one person only— or your farm is there, very much cannot be done for you because you are alone. In any case, you would have to pay your proportion of the grant right down to the sea. It would have to be one job.”

Very often, farmers, in consequence, consider that such a proposition would be beyond their capacity. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give the local authority the same power as, say, in the case of a small farmer with, say, 15 acres of land who may allocate an acre to the housing authority who will build a cottage there for him. That is looked upon as a special instance case. If there are any of these problems where one man is living in one of these laneways and is trying to have the position improved, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could, on the recommendation of the county council, consider some of these cases as special instance cases when it is obviously beyond the capacity of the man, who may have a high valuation but who is in a lonely place, to pay the required contribution, based on his valuation.

I make that suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether or not he may be able to put it into operation. However, he is managing to surmount many problems which were difficult up to this.

The provision of proper piers and landing places also deserves special consideration because on a large coastline like that of Cork and Kerry, regard must be had to the demands of these people who risk their lives in sea fishing in order to provide a livelihood for themselves during the periods of the year when they have nothing to do on the land or elsewhere. When the county councils deprived them of the system under which they could build small sections of road by contract, part of their livelihood was taken from them. That type of thing is in great measure gone; all the work is done now by direct labour by the employees of the county councils and it would be a great thing for these people if part of this road building were given back to them. They must continue to be encouraged to live where they do, in places which, though they may be beautiful and attractive in many ways, do not provide the natural resources for a decent livelihood.

We have the problem of the clearing of obstructions in minor rivers flowing into the sea or into tidal estuaries. I know a number of these cases and I have been in contact with the Parliamentary Secretary regarding them. The local people are often reluctant to sign the necessary forms to have this work put under way because they have had previous experience of inspectors visiting the districts at a time when the whole place was flooded and coming back with the story that there was not sufficient fall and that they could do nothing about it. Farmers who live in these places, and others acquainted with the conditions, say the first inspection should be made in the summer when the rivers are low. At that stage, if there are trees obstructing the water or which may obstruct it when the river is in spate, or if there are banks which have subsided into the stream, they can be seen clearly. There is no use in inspecting a river when it is in flood because the only inspection that can be carried out in such conditions is from a hill above the flooded area. As the saying goes, it is only when the inspector can walk the land, when he can walk along the bank of the stream and see the situation properly that the potential obstruction of the water can be properly gauged and a genuine report made so that proper steps can be taken to improve the flow of the water.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary indicated here today that he is trying to recruit more inspectors. Because of understaffing in that office, it is hard to blame the inspectors. It is very difficult for an inspector, under present staffing conditions, to do his work properly. I know some of them who work night and day trying to facilitate people and keep ahead of their schedule. If the work were decentralised, a number of these small streams could be cleared each year and much fertile land improved consequently. If there is difficulty about getting the machinery on contract locally, it could be provided by the Department itself.

The last point I wish to bring to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention is the problem of the island roads, to which the Parliamentary Secretary himself referred earlier. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that he was spending money on those islands. Some of those island people agitate— they say they will not pay their rates because nothing is done for them. There would be no great gratitude due to us if we were to spend on these island roads the amount of money the islanders pay in rates because in most cases they have not the services of doctors, nurses or teachers. Anything we can do to improve their way of life, whether by way of Departmental schemes or otherwise, should be considered favourably.

The Parliamentary Secretary deserves our thanks for having done so much under these heads since he assumed office. He has done a considerable amount of work in trying to push things ahead, very often in the teeth of local obstacles and old prejudices by reason of which local communities fear that if they fill out forms, the authorities will impose on them as a result. The only way in which we can overcome that attitude is by pursuing a progressive approach to it ourselves. If we adopt such methods, we shall be helping and encouraging the rural population, giving them some return for the rates they are paying and providing their sons and daughters with an opportunity to grow up in better conditions than their fathers enjoyed in bygone days.

Mr. W. Murphy

When I came into the House, I did not intend to participate in the debate. As a matter of fact, I have not even seen or read the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. However, I have listened to some of the speeches made here, I feel I must say a few words. Every speaker so far has heaped bouquets on the Parliamentary Secretary. By all means, he is entitled to some of them, but so are the members of the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office. I have been in this House during the past 11 years, I have been a source of great trouble year in year out to that office and I say sincerely that I am grateful to the staff for what they have done. I am not for a moment trying to detract from the tributes paid to the Parliamentary Secretary since he took office.

Most Deputies who spoke tonight tried to tell the Parliamentary Secretary and his staff what they should do. From my experience of the Parliamentary Secretary since he took office, and of his staff, I say that much of what Deputies said tonight could be more beneficially directed to the people who apply for grants for different works because I can say from hardearned experience that if the people concerned co-operated with one another in respect of the facilities and the grants offered by the Department in the past, the Estimate introduced tonight would be for a far smaller amount. I say this in all good faith.

A group of people were offered a grant of £1,000, which I thought was very liberal. They were asked to contribute £9 apiece. There were one or two of them who would not do it. Even the Special Employment Schemes Office, with whom I took the matter up again, agreed to halve it. Half the work could be done this year for half the cost and the other half could be done the following year, but they would not do it. It is all very fine to tell the people here what they should do and what they should not do. Something should be done to educate the people and make them appreciate the grants which are made available at a small cost.

Deputy Tully spoke about the roads. As a matter of fact, in County Clare, we have too many roads. Due to the grants given by the Special Employment Schemes Office, through the Parliamentary Secretary, last Monday I got two roads taken over by the council. If I did, the men who got the grants contributed to the making of the road. It is all very fine for Deputies to say that the council should take over those roads. If people live on a roadway such as I have described; if they have any interest at all in their holdings or in their family having a decent entrance to their homes, surely it is not too much to ask them to contribute some small sum, whether it is £5, £6 or £7, towards the making of the road and thus provide the comfort they are looking for?

We cannot always be looking to the Government, any Government, to fork out money for everything. It is up to the people themselves to avail of what the Government can give them at a very small price indeed. If the people co-operated among themselves and with the Special Employment Schemes Office, this Estimate need not be as much as it is tonight and the drains on the roads in the County Clare would be in a much better condition than they are today.

Mr. Dolan

I listened with interest to the last speaker. His approach to the whole matter of roads and public finances was reasonable and sane. We are all well aware that the Celts were more or less an urban people. Penal laws and invasions drove them into the wilderness and backward places. The history of our people is reflected in the story of these cul-de-sac lanes that are not yet taken over by the county councils.

It is an immense problem. From the beginning, the question of the roads was a very big item for any Government to tackle. During our lifetime, modes of transport have changed considerably. Traffic has increased out of all proportion on the roads and even on these cul-de-sac lanes. We have got away from the horse traffic. Heavy vehicles of all kinds are now seen in the most backward places. All these changes have led to the problem of trying to meet the desire of each individual householder in this country to have a tarred road at his door. It is only reasonable to put the main arteries into condition, first of all, and then devote the rest of our resources, gradually, to bringing the others up to the same standard.

The rural employment scheme has worked reasonably well. Any scheme must have its growing pains and this scheme, naturally, had its growing pains. It has done a tremendous amount of good. The greatest fault I find with it is that many county councils are not prepared to take over these roads when they are put into repair under the rural improvements scheme. Therein, I think, lies the greatest disadvantage. It is the county councils who have refused to take over these roads who are at fault.

So far as the comparison which the Deputy from County Meath made, I wish to state that there is a vast difference between his constituency and mine, which is a neighbouring constituency. It is a well-known fact that you could actually drive a tractor or lorry through any field in his constituency but I should not like to predict what would happen if you tried to do the same on the lanes, not to speak of the fields, in my county.

It is all very well to say that it is easy for county councils to face the problem and to put all these cul-de-sac lanes and roads into repair. That would be a colossal effort on their part. I do not think it is something the ratepayers would welcome. This scheme has worked reasonably well. I do not know whether the county councils could legally be asked to do this. There are county councils which are unwilling to face up to this problem. It would be wrong for us to try to get it across to the ordinary people living in these parts that the Government or anybody else can solve this problem overnight. I feel that the scheme is a reasonably good one and until we get something better, we should continue as we have been doing, with, if at all possible, a recommendation that the county councils in the various counties, immediately one of these roads is put into proper repair, should take it over and try to maintain it in the same way as they maintain the ordinary county roads.

Mr. Gilhawley

I, too, wish to express my appreciation of what has been done in my constituency and what is still being done by the Special Employment Schemes Office under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary but I regret to say, at the same time, that in my constituency, at any rate, it does not appear to be adequate. I should like to point out that if our farmers are to compete in the Common Market with a hope of success, they should be given the best possible conditions and an adequate reward.

I think the wheat subsidy recently was for a certain section of the community in this country—the larger farmers in the midlands and the south of Ireland. What I am trying to tie in here is that in my constituency we derived very little benefit from that subsidy.

I intend to find out by Parliamentary Question what we actually did get. I presume we contributed to the tax from which that subsidy was drawn. In the case of areas, such as my own, which did not benefit from that subsidy, there should be an increase in the grants available to farmers from the Special Employment Schemes Office.

I want to deal first with roads. There are 13,000 holdings in my constituency under £20 valuation, and you can therefore imagine the network of by-roads and laneways throughout my constituency. Very few of these roads are county roads, and many of them are in a deplorable state. The farmers' method of working has changed and heavy traffic, such as tractors, are using these bad roads. Quite a number of these roads are little more than quagmires. Farmers should be helped as much as possible by providing them with proper means of getting in and out of their farms and houses.

The second matter I wish to deal with is drainage. I want to refer again to the amount of money being given to a section of the community in respect of wheat. Surely every encouragement should be given to farmers all over the country and not just to a particular section? There should be a reasonable reward for the labour involved. We are told we will have to work harder if we are to compete successfully in the Common Market. If we have to work harder, there should at least be an incentive in the form of proper roads and drainage. There are practically 150,000 acres of water-logged lands in my constituency. I do not say all these lands can be drained under Special Employment Schemes, but I do say if the Government made an allocation to be used for the drainage of these lands, it would be of very great benefit.

I attended a meeting last night in Rathcormac, County Sligo, where the main matter dealt with was drainage. They could not carry out the Land Project there because there was no outfall for the water off the land. It is rather hard to see a couple of million pounds going in subsidy to a section of the community and finding ourselves with 150,000 acres of water-logged land. I appreciate what has been done in respect of bog drainage and the provision of bog roads. This makes up 75 per cent. of the work done in my constituency. If any money could be made available from the Special Employment Schemes Office for the drainage of small rivers and the removal of obstructions, it would be well worthwhile. It is no use asking for increased production. Production is diminishing year after year because these streams and rivers are choked. Perhaps some method could be devised of providing money for the drainage of these smaller streams before the larger rivers are done.

I should like to refer to piers. I spent my holidays at Rosses Point, Sligo, where they have been looking for a pier for the past 20 years or more. I understand some progress has been made in this regard and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will bear it in mind and do something about it.

The final point I wish to deal with was also referred to by the previous speaker—the taking over of cul-de-sac roads by the county council. I am afraid the ratepayers have reached the limit so far as roads are concerned, and especially in my constituency, where there is such a large network of cul-de-sac roads. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would review the matter to see if there is a possibility of giving to counties which did not benefit from the wheat subsidy extra grants from the Special Employment Schemes Office. I can assure him the money would be very well spent indeed. I should like to see a supplementary list from the Special Employment Schemes Office coming down to my constituency this year. What we got was reasonably good, but we could do with much more.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 13 Nov 1962

Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Nov 1962