Amend-14 was disposed of, and amendments 15, 16 and 17 were withdrawn.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924,—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED.)
SECTION 17.
I move amendment 18:—
"In Sub-section (3) line 46, after the word ‘experience' to insert the words ‘or special knowledge.'"
I think it is a matter which will not give rise to much controversy. The proposition in the Bill is that the consultative councils shall consist of persons having practical experience of the matters in respect of which they are to give advice or assistance. The amendment is to add two or three words which would enlarge the area of choice by putting in the words "or special knowledge."
It is quite easy to be understood that for certain purposes there are people who may be called amateurs in respect of the particular work under discussion and yet who have special knowledge, and the proposition in the amendment is simply to allow the Minister to have that wider range. It should not be confined to persons having actual practical experience in a given direction, and if people have special knowledge of the circumstances, they should be also eligible to sit on those consultative committees.
I accept that.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 19:—
"To add at the end of Sub-section (3) the words ‘or representing the persons engaged in services affecting the health of the people.'"
I think for the same reasons as those given by Deputy Johnson in reference to his amendment the Minister can very easily accept this one. The words are "or representing the persons engaged in services affecting the health of the people." Their advice I am sure would be useful, and I think the Minister will have very little difficulty in accepting that amendment. The reasons I would adduce are practically the reasons adduced by Deputy Johnson.
I cannot agree to accept this amendment. There is a very big difference in the principle involved in the two amendments. Deputy Johnson pleads for the admission of people with special knowledge. Those can be of help and assistance in giving advice on councils of this kind. In this other amendment, however, I am asked to put on people who have no authority except that they are acting in that capacity and they may have no special knowledge or practical experience of any kind. Such people would be of no assistance at all in the committees such as I intend to set up under this section. They would be useful in committees such as Sir James Craig and Deputy Johnson had in view. As I require the consultative council only for special purposes such people would be of no help to me on those committees.
Is the Minister aware that such representation was recognised and accepted by the Public Health Council in 1920?
Yes.
Mr. HOGAN
Does that not weigh with him?
Circumstances have changed considerably since.
I suggest to the Minister that it is quite possible for persons representative of nurses, for instance, or of medical officers of health, or doctors, or dentists, or veterinary surgeons to be specially qualified by virtue of their representative capacity and to be in constant touch with problems affecting public health. They may be quite useful to have at the call of the Minister. This does not impose an obligation to call in such persons but it allows him to call upon them if he wishes. I suggest to him that it is well that he should have the freedom to call in such persons if he considers they would be of assistance.
Under this section as it stands he would be precluded from calling in any such representative persons. No matter how capable, how well informed, or how fitted for the purpose of acting upon a consultative council such persons might be, he would not have the power to put them on. We are hopeful that he would be free to call in such persons if he found they were specially fitted, and in view of the fact that this amendment merely gives him the power, without putting any obligation upon him, I would urge him to reconsider his decision against accepting it.
If people have any special qualifications they can be called in under this section. If they have not any special qualifications, I do not see what help they could give me, and it might put me to a considerable amount of inconvenience turning them down if the proposition in the amendment were carried.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question: "That Section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) A tent, van, shed, or similar structure used for human habitation, which is in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious to health, or which is so overcrowded as to be injurious to the health of the inmates (whether they are or are not members of the same family), shall be deemed to be a nuisance within the meaning of Section 107 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly.
(2) A sanitary authority may make by-laws for promoting cleanliness in, and the habitable condition of, tents, vans, sheds, and similar structures used for human habitation, and for preventing the spread of infectious disease by the persons inhabiting the same, and generally for the prevention of nuisances in connection with the same.
(3) Where any person duly authorised by a sanitary authority has reasonable cause to suppose either that there is in any tent, van, shed, or similar structure used for human habitation any contravention of the provisions of this section, or any by-law made under this section, or that there is in any such tent, van, shed, or structure any person suffering from a dangerous infectious disorder, he may, on producing (if demanded) either a copy of his authorisation purporting to be certified by the clerk or a member of the sanitary authority, or some other sufficient evidence of his being authorised as aforesaid, enter by day such tent, van, shed, or structure, and examine the same and every part thereof in order to ascertain whether in such tent, van, shed, or structure there is any contravention of any such by-law, or a person suffering from a dangerous infectious disorder.
(4) For the purpose of this section "day" means the period between six o'clock in the morning and the succeeding nine o'clock in the evening.
(5) If such person is obstructed in the performance of his duty under this section, the person so obstructing shall be guilty of an offence under this section, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.
(6) Nothing in this section shall apply to any tent, van, shed, or structure erected or used by any portion of the Defence or Police Forces of Saorstát Eireann.
I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider putting in a new sub-section after sub-section (6). It has been reported to me — and I know from my own experience — that local authorities such as public health committees and urban councils, have great difficulty in compelling owners of property to connect their premises with the sewerage and water systems in certain towns. That omission means that a great number of premises are in a very insanitary condition. In Naas they are still using the pail system, and it is not a very clean or up-to-date method of dealing with sanitary matters. Could not the Minister in some way simplify the procedure for compelling owners to build water-closet accommodation and connect with the sewerage and water services of the town? It is of very little use having water and sewerage systems if we are still to retain the conditions which existed fifty or sixty years ago. That is a very common state of affairs in our small towns, where sewerage schemes have been provided. I would suggest that the Minister should insert a provision somewhat like the following:—
Nothing in Section 268 of the Public Health Act, 1878, shall prevent the Local Authority from compelling owners of houses in their district to provide sufficient sanitary accommodation for such houses when the sanitary authorities so determine.
If the Minister would bring in some provision which would deal effectively and quickly with these matters, it would be a great help to the sanitary authorities in urban areas.
This section is only concerned with tents, vans, sheds, or similar structures.
It mentions sheds and "similar structures."
Is it the Deputy's suggestion that his proposal comes under "sheds or similar structures"?
I contend that some of the houses the people are living in are little better than sheds. I think it should be in the power of the local authorities to compel the owners to provide proper sanitary accommodation even for the occupants of sheds. I would like if the Minister would consider this matter carefully, because such a provision as I have suggested would be a great help to local authorities.
It was suggested during the Second Reading of this Bill that something should be done with regard to barges on canals. I presume the Minister considered that matter. It was, I think, Deputy Wolfe who raised the matter, and I wonder if the Minister is satisfied that anything could be done or whether they could be brought in with other structures used for human habitation.
I would like to ask the Minister how a public authority stands with regard to ships at the quay-side. Would it not be well to have provision made in respect of those in this section?
I wonder whether the Minister is aware that throughout the country — particularly through parts of Kildare and, I think, parts of Wicklow — there are multitudes of these vans going around which are capable of holding a large number of people. I have myself counted thirty people coming out of two vans. That is a state of things that has been going on for a long time. I hope that under this section something will be done to remedy it, because it is becoming a regular nuisance. These people in the vans leave behind them piles of refuse which are liable to spread disease. The attention of the police has been drawn to them from time to time, but nothing has been done. I hope, as we are considering this section, that something will be done by the Minister to render this nuisance less appalling than it is at present. These people in the vans have droves of horses, and they open the gates of fields and drive these horses in. The people have borne this state of things with philosophic calm in my part of the country, but it is becoming intolerable. Potatoes and turnips are being stolen, too. Pending the passage into law of this Bill, I hope the Minister will request the Gárda Síochána to keep an eye on those people, particularly at times of fairs in county towns. At these times these people collect round about the place and there is generally a good deal missing at the end of their visit.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the opinions expressed by Deputy Colohan, but I do not think that the provision he seeks would fit in very well under this section. This section is provided for the express purpose of applying to Ireland an Act which is already in force in England and which was formerly applicable to Ireland. Section 9 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, had provisions similar to these and these were applied to Ireland by Section 15. That Act was subsequently repealed by the Act of 1890. Section 9 was still retained but Section 15 was dropped. Accordingly, it does not apply to Ireland. It is in order to get over that difficulty that I am inserting this section here. The object of the section is to make overcrowded and dirty tents and vans a nuisance which can be dealt with in the same way by the sanitary authorities as a nuisance caused by dirty and over-crowded houses. It is necessary, as Deputy Wolfe has pointed out, that some such provision as this should be made in the Bill. There is no good in having a water-tight sanitary code applied on a county basis if we can have tents and vans of this description wandering here and there and spreading disease and dirt in all directions.
With regard to ships in port, they are dealt with under a different Act, and I have not had any information that the Act under which they are dealt with is not giving satisfaction. I will be prepared, on the Report Stage, to consider the insertion of some provision with regard to barges, because they are much of the same character as tents and vans.
With regard to the Minister's statement as to ships being provided for under another Act, would I be right in saying that it is only when it becomes known that there is contagious or infectious disease on board that the medical officer has authority to go aboard? Is there any Act which enables a sub-sanitary officer to pay periodical visits to a ship, same as he would to an ordinary habitation? I think it is absolutely essential that ships going to and coming from the other side should be kept in a sanitary condition.
I am particularly anxious that attention should be directed to those barges, because they are the means of conveying food. If they are loaded with grain or flour or other foodstuffs it is essential that there should be some system of inspection to ensure that the sanitary conditions are satisfactory.
I understand that the port sanitary authorities have the power that Deputy Corish inquires about. I will see about adding a provision, on the Report Stage, to cover Deputy Sir James Craig's suggestion.
Might I ask the Minister if he would be prepared to consider my suggestion on Report Stage? Obviously it is necessary that local authorities should be given power by some simple procedure to compel owners to connect their premises with the town sewerage and water system. That power would be very much appreciated by the local authorities. The sewerage and water systems in some of our towns are only half utilised, because under the existing law if house owners keep their earthen closets in any kind of order, we cannot compel them to connect them. Therefore, it is almost a waste of money to lay down sewerage and water-carriage systems at all.
I mentioned before that provisions dealing with matters such as those mentioned by the Deputy would not come in under this section, which deals with vans and tents and accommodation of that kind, moving round the country, not stationary. That would come under a different heading altogether to houses. There is a provision under the Public Health (Amendment) Act, 1907, to do what the Deputy suggests. That is an adaptive Act; it is not compulsory. It is not made compulsory in the present case.
Question—"That Section 18 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to
SECTION 19.
(1) The council of every county shall appoint, with the approval of the Minister, for every county health district in such county a medical practitioner duly qualified as such and with such other qualifications as may be prescribed to be the superintendent medical officer of health of such county health district and of every urban district in such county situate in or adjoining such county health district, and such officer shall be known as the County Medical Officer of Health with the addition of the distinguishing name of such county health district.
(2) Where an urban district adjoins more than one county health district in the same county, the Minister shall direct, after consultation with the councils of such urban district and county respectively, which of such county health districts is to have the same county medical officer of health as such urban district.
(3) The salary of a county medical officer of health shall be paid by the county council and shall be charged on the area for which he acts.
(4) A county medical officer of health shall be a sanitary officer within the meaning of Section 11 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878.
(5) Every county medical officer of health in and in respect of the area for which he acts, shall—
(a) be responsible to the board of health and to the council of every urban district in such area for the effective administration of the sanitary laws and of the various powers and duties of such board and of every such council in relation to the safeguarding of the health of the people, the provision of adequate and sanitary housing accommodation and other similar matters;
(b) Advise such board or council, or the county council on any matter where expert medical advice is required.
(c) Perform such other duties as may be prescribed and also such other duties as may be assigned to him by such board or council with the consent of the Minister.
(6) A county medical officer of health shall not engage in private practice and shall devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties.
(7) As from the appointed day the office of medical superintendent officer of health of a rural sanitary district or urban district and the office of medical officer of a county council under the Midwives (Ireland) Act, 1918, shall be abolished and the powers and duties of every such officer transferred to the county medical officer of health.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (3), line 37, to insert after the word "be" the words "Five hundred pounds per annum, increasing by £25 annually to a maximum of £800, with whatever travelling expenses that may be approved of by the Minister and"
This section specifies that a whole-time medical officer shall be appointed, and I think it is necessary also to specify the salary he should receive. Unless that is inserted in the Section, different salaries will be fixed by different boards of health. For instance, a board of health might fix a salary of £350 per year for a whole-time officer who will not be allowed to have any private practice. I think that these positions should carry salaries that would enable the doctors to maintain themselves decently. At present some doctors in dispensary districts receive a salary of £350 per annum. I put the amendment forward in order to get from the Minister some explanation as to how the salary will be fixed, and what the maximum salary will be. If a maximum salary of £800 and travelling expenses were fixed, boards of health would then be in a position to get properly qualified medical practitioners. If the salary is not specified at some such sum as that, the boards of health will not get the proper men for the positions.
I shall leave the Minister to deal with this matter. I am quite sure that the Minister will see the necessity that these men should be properly paid. Personally I do not think it would be at all advisable to have a fixed salary set out in an Act of Parliament. The point I want to raise is of considerable importance, namely, with regard to the recoupment of half the salary paid to these medical officers. I want an expression from the Minister as to whether it will be possible to have half the amount recouped, as has been the case with regard to dispensary medical officers heretofore. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that refund is still available in the case of these whole-time medical officers.
It would be a most unusual principle to embody a salary in any Bill. It would be quite logical if we fixed salaries by Act of Parliament that the next proposal we should have from the Deputy would be to fix wages by Act of Parliament. I do not know that there would be much enthusiasm about the latter.
With reference to what Deputy Good said about the dangerous precedent in fixing salaries by Act of Parliament, may I remind him that the Ministers and Secretaries Act apportions the salaries of the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. The salaries of the Judges are also fixed by Act of Parliament.
They are not under local authorities.
It is in the Constitution that their salaries shall be prescribed by law.
With regard to the amendment, it would be a very bad precedent to establish to fix salaries in this arbitrary way. The county medical officer of health in one county may deserve a larger salary than one in another county, because he may have a great deal more work to perform. At this stage it is very difficult to say what salary should be paid to a particular officer in a particular county. Under Section 4 of the Bill, the county medical officer of health shall be a sanitary officer within the meaning of Section 11 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878. That means that he will be a sanitary officer whose salary is to be fixed by the sanitary authority with the approval of the Minister. I see no reason to depart from that principle, which has worked out very well in practice up to the present.
With regard to Deputy Sir James Craig's suggestion, I am in favour of it myself, but it will require consultation with the Ministry of Finance, and the readjustment of certain grants to local authorities. At the moment I am not in a position to state definitely if we can concede it. However, I will be prepared to deal with the matter on the Report Stage.
Sub-section (3) of Section 19 states that the salary of the County Medical Officer of Health shall be paid by the county council, and charged on the area for which he acts. Surely it is not too much to ask that that salary should be specified. I agree that you may have some areas where there will be more work than in others. If a doctor is appointed for a county, or half a county, he will have to undertake operations in the county hospital. The County Board of Health can fix a salary, say, from £400 to £1,000.
May I remind the Deputy that provision is made for the approval of the Minister.
I understand that. But, if the county board of health fix a salary of £400 the medical practitioner will have to live on that, because he is not allowed to have any private practice. As salaries have been fixed by Act of Parliament for Ministers and Judges, and also for Deputies, to defray expenses, I do not see why we should not fix the salary for these medical officers of health.
Amendment put, and negatived.
I beg to move:—
To insert after sub-section (4) the following new sub-section:—
"(5) The same person may, with the consent of the Minister, be appointed county medical officer of health for more than one county health district."
I do not think there will be much discussion about this. It is quite possible, in certain public health districts, say in a small county like Carlow, that the medical officer appointed would have more time than would be necessary to do the work of the county. This amendment proposes that a group of counties might combine to appoint a superintendent medical officer of health. All the counties are not of the same size, and it might be possible for certain public health boards to come together, fix a decent salary, and have a man appointed for two, or even three counties, if it were found that he could possibly do the work. It is a matter of reducing expenses.
I would be glad if Deputy Sir James Craig would inform the Dáil under what administrative authority a medical officer, working under two counties, would be. Would it be necessary that a special board should be set up to take charge of the administration of the work?
The medical officer would be responsible to each board of health that would appoint him.
Without any central control?
The board of health controls the superintendent medical officer of health. If such an appointment was made by two boards of health each would have control in its own area.
In that case, if the services of the medical officer did not satisfy the board of health in one county, and if they dispensed with his services, would he still continue to function under the other county?
As far as I understand the amendment it provides for the case of a small county, that might wish to combine with an adjoining county for a medical officer of health, and they would probably pay him a lower salary than they would have to pay for a whole-time officer. Carlow is a small county, and it might wish to combine with Kilkenny. For his functions in Kilkenny he would be responsible to the Kilkenny Board of Health, and for his functions in Carlow he would be responsible to the Carlow Board of Health. If either of these boards of health wished to dismiss or get rid of the medical officer they could do so. He might cease to be medical officer for Carlow and continue to be medical officer for Kilkenny. It is quite possible for one person to serve two counties. Deputy Gorey, for instance, represents both Carlow and Kilkenny and represents them most admirably. No doubt there are some medical officers of health quite as big as Deputy Gorey. I think no real difficulty would arise. It is purely optional and permissive and no county is bound to appoint an officer with another county. If any county wishes to appoint an officer of their own they can do so, but by way of economy, they may wish to take on a neighbouring officer, particularly if he is an exceptionally well qualified man, better qualified than they could hope to get at the salary they could offer.
In reference to what Deputy Cooper has said, I am aware that at present in the veterinary service one veterinary officer is serving two counties. That is in County Carlow where the officer also serves half of Kildare. The work is very efficiently done. I do not see why the work should not be as well done under the amendment.
In so far as this amendment does not make it obligatory I do not think there is any great objection to it. I would be sorry to imagine that it will be necessary to put such a proposal into operation. If a medical officer of health was in control of two counties, or more, as Deputy Sir James Craig says, I think the work would suffer from divided control. I can hardly conceive where any two counties could be done together by one man. Even in a small county like Carlow I think if the work was carefully attended to it would give a man all the occupation he would require. Of course, Deputy Sir James Craig was right in saying that in some cases a man could do two counties and there is no harm in giving the option, but I would be sorry to think that in practice that would be adopted.
I think the suggestion is an admirable one, but provision should be made in the Bill by which two counties could combine to form one health district. That would do away with any anomaly that would exist. I am aware that parts of Kildare and Wicklow would be better as one health district than having Kildare one district and Wicklow another. The mountains are a very great obstruction from east to west Wicklow. The Bill should make provision by which a health district should consist of portion of two counties, or of one county, or of two counties linked together.
I would like to have one point cleared up. It has been always considered desirable that the health officer should live in the district for which he is responsible. I would like if Deputy Sir James Craig would tell us, if an officer was appointed by two counties, which district would he live in? That would be a difficulty. I think Deputy Sir James Craig will agree it is desirable that the officer looking after the health of the district should live in that particular district.
I would like to know what is the proposition. I would imagine from the discussion that the supporters of the amendment are supporting something that Deputy Sir James Craig did not propose. The proposal in the amendment is that the same person may be appointed county medical officer of health for more than one county health district. I understood him to mean within the same county.
No.
Well, then, I oppose the amendment. There are likely to be several county health districts within the same county, and the county medical officer will be appointed by the county council and work under the county health board. If you say to county councils that they should go partners in a medical officer of health, divide his services between two counties, then I say you are going to have a chaotic condition of affairs. You will not have a real medical service. Of course if it was only a case of looking after an occasional outbreak of disease, such as was referred to by Deputy Conlan, where the veterinary officer could serve two counties, that is one thing, but I would like to have more explanation before I agree to this.
I would like to have more explanation before I would agree to the suggestion that two county councils should go partners in the appointment of a medical officer of health. To appoint the same medical officer of health for two county health districts under the same county council should, I think, be allowed. But do not let us go beyond that and say that the county councils may go, as I said before, partners in the services of the medical officer of health.
Deputy Johnson does not visualise the cases where, although there is an imaginary line between two counties, still the services of the county would be more easily dealt with if you took a piece of one county and attached it to another county.
Reorganise your counties.
This is not the place to make that provision. That must come in, in another Bill, not here. I take it that Deputy Sir James Craig is taking the counties as they exist now?
Yes, I am taking the counties as they exist now.
I am willing to agree to Deputy Sir James Craig's amendment. I think that this amendment will be helpful in the Bill. There are many small counties in which a medical officer of health would not be occupied all his time in his work in these counties, and it would be well that there should be power to appoint him for an adjoining county. Later on, probably the work of such officers will gradually increase. When set up they will be only working to co-ordinate the work of the various officers whom they will superintend. It will take some time before they will be fully occupied, especially in view of the fact that we have got a very limited number of men in Ireland who would be capable of holding the position of medical officer of health, and for that reason I consider this provision necessary. These officers will require to be very highly qualified men, and experienced men. There are no facilities at the present time for men acquiring experience of this kind in Ireland. We will have to wait a long time before we have enough men qualified to hold the position at all. I anticipate, when we put the Bill into operation at the outset, we will not have a sufficient number of men to fill these positions. Accordingly as they start, it will be a good thing to be able to appoint a man for two counties and allow him to set up machinery for this health administration.
I do not think there would be any great difficulty in having an officer appointed for two different county council areas. I think it is as reasonable to allow an officer to function in two different counties as in the same county. At the present time you have three county health areas in Cork, and probably each is a much bigger area than the Co. Carlow. If we are to allow one health officer for the whole county of Cork, there is no reason why we should not allow one officer to be appointed, say, for Carlow and Kilkenny, or some other adjoining county. On the whole, I think this amendment is an improvement to the Bill, and I will accept it.
Will the Minister allow the doctors an aeroplane, and if not how does he expect them to get through their work? Does the Minister fully realise the number of qualified doctors we have at the present time? Surely one county is enough for one man. I know the idea of the amendment, of course, is to save half the salary paid to the medical officer by one or two counties each paying half his salary, so that where a man would be paid a salary of £800, each county would only have to bear £400 of that. I take it that is the idea. I think, however, that owing to the number of doctors you have at present in the Saorstát, it would be wrong to appoint one doctor to two counties.
In the Saorstát you have fully qualified men and women doctors. I quite agree that where there are two or three boards of health set up in a county that one doctor could look after the whole county. I do not agree that one doctor could look after two counties, because in the first place he will not be able to do the work that will be thrown on him. The Bill, in Section 19, subsection (4) says that the county medical officer of health shall be the sanitary officer within the meaning of Section 11 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878. How will that one man be able to visit every town and every village in two counties? Surely if you have a county with even a population of 64,000 that ought to be enough for one man to look after. I am surprised that the Minister has accepted the amendment. It means that he will allow one man to be appointed to carry out the work of two counties. It is impossible for one man to do that unless he is supplied with an aeroplane and he should be paid a huge salary. What will happen in a few counties will be that that man will be applying for an assistant officer of health, and you will find this thing going on along the line until you have 10 or 12 men appointed as assistant officers to one man, and then you will relieve unemployment amongst the medical profession.
I wonder if it would relieve the Deputy's mind if he were told that the present medical officers of health are still to be in existtence and to continue their work under the superintendence of the medical officer of health for the county? The latter has not to undertake the work now being done by the dispensary doctor. These new medical officers of health will be there to superintend the work that is being done by the existing dispensary doctors. This man will not necessarily have to go into outside districts unless his attention is called to certain cases by the existing M.O.H.
I want to ask the Deputy and the Minister to examine the effect of this amendment if it is intended to embody what the Deputies have stated in their arguments. I do not think that the amendment, as printed, could reasonably be interpreted in the way that has been suggested. The proposal in the section is that the council of every county shall appoint for every county health district in such counties a medical practitioner, and such practitioner and such officer shall be known as the county medical officer of health, and that medical officer may have certain jurisdiction over urban districts. Salary shall be paid by the county council. "The county medical officer of health shall not engage in private practice and shall devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties."
The county medical officer that one county appoints may, and he shall devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties to the county council. Within the county area there may be two or three health districts, and it is quite understandable and reasonable to say that the officer appointed by the county council shall devote the whole of his time to the work of the county council through the boards of health within that county, and may serve two or three county boards of health, but to say that he shall devote the whole of his time to the work for which he is appointed by the county council, and then that he can go to another county council who may appoint the same officer to devote the whole of his time to their work, is obviously absurd. If we are going to accept the amendment of Deputy Sir James Craig, there will have to be a general re-casting of this section, and I would urge that the proposals of the Bill are going to give that medical superintendent plenty of room for the exercise of his ability and authority within any county, no matter how small. I think it is cutting across the plan of the Minister and will mean a considerable re-adjustment of the section and will be going contrary to the scheme, as I understand it at any rate. Quite obviously when the amendment was drafted it was hardly intended that he should go from one county into another.
I do not know whether I have overstepped the number of times that I am allowed to speak, but I want to call attention to the fact that in sub-clause (6), as drafted, a change would be necessary so as to read: "The county medical officer of health shall be a whole-time officer and shall not engage in private practice." I think in any case, it is very undesirable to say that he shall devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties, because what is the whole of his time? Does it mean night and day, or what is it? I think it should not be used in any case, but I say at once, when there is any prospect of his being appointed to two counties, it will be much better to call him a whole-time officer, and to say he shall not engage in private practice. I have also suggested in sub-clause (1) to insert after the words "of any such county health district" the words "or districts."
If this amendment be carried it will be necessary to make it clear that an officer who acts for two councils shall not draw two pensions, that he will not get a pension as a whole-time officer from the two counties. Of course it is obvious that he should only get a pension equivalent to the pension of a medical officer of one county. That is a point that will want to be guarded against later on.
There is a certain amount of difficulty, as pointed out by Deputy Johnson, in accepting the amendment as it stands. Perhaps there will have to be a certain amount of recasting of the section, and accordingly I think it is better to accept the principle of the amendment now, and recast it on the Report Stage. I might point out that as embodied in the section, there is room for an officer to be appointed by more than one authority because he can not only be appointed by the county council but by every urban authority in the county, so it is not much of an extension of the principle. At the same time we think we would improve it by recasting it on the Report Stage. I will take Deputy Good's suggestion into consideration on the Report Stage also.
I take it the amendment is withdrawn?
I would like to have the opinion of the House on this amendment before it is referred back for reconsideration. I would like to have the opinion of the House on the principle.
Does Deputy Johnson object to the amendment being withdrawn?
I have no objection to taking a division on it.
Will the Minister give an explanation of Clause 7? It has a lot to do with the amendment in my opinion. I would like to know from the Minister are the dispensary doctors still to be medical officers of health in their areas?
There will be dispensary doctors in the same respect as before. This is only an administrative officer for co-ordinating all the health services in the county.
That is to say dispensary doctors will have the same duties in regard to sanitary matters as before?
They will.
I want the opinion of the House on this matter. As the amendment stands, as I read it in the first instance, I assumed that he would be medical officer of health for the county health districts within the same county area. Now it appears to be covering more than a single county, and it is on that proposition to cover more than one county, I propose to divide the house.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed —"That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
I am more interested in this particular section: "The council of every county shall appoint with the approval of the Minister, for every county health district, a medical practitioner duly qualified as such." I want the words "duly qualified as such," erased and I want the word "registered" put before the words "medical practitioner," which is the ordinary legal phrase for practitioner. It is quite possible that a practitioner may be qualified and not registered, therefore I would ask the Minister to change the definition and simply put in the first place a "registered medical practitioner," and I am going to press the Minister to add to it "and who is also a registered diplomate in public health." There has been a great deal of discussion with regard to this matter in medical circles, and the reason I want to press it so strongly on the Minister is that it may relieve local authorities of any difficulty in the appointment of men.
They insisted that he should be a registered diplomate in public health. I would press this more strongly than anything else I have said. I would also like to add: "And other such qualifications as may be prescribed by the Minister." It is possible the county board of health may prescribe qualifications that would, I suppose, be referred to the Minister. I do not see any difficulty in acceding to these two requests, first that the man should be a registered medical practitioner, and also that it should be included in the Bill that the man should be a registered diplomate in public health. If the Bill is to do any good it can only do the good because of the efficiency and high qualifications of these men who will be appointed to work it. I would not have pressed for the Bill if I thought we were not to get men of a high standard, and as fully qualified as it is possible at the present time to make them.
I understand the attitude of the Minister is that it may be that in the future certain other qualifications will be given by the licensed body, but I do not think that that is of any importance compared with the fact that we will by this Act stereotype the thing, for the man must be a diplomate in public health. I hope the Minister will agree to add this on the Report Stage.
I do not think there is any serious objection to accepting the amendment of Deputy Sir James Craig. As he mentioned himself, my only reason for not inserting it in the Bill is that we are not sure what qualifications may be insisted on later by universities and medical schools. If we tie ourselves down here now to accepting officers under certain conditions, it might be difficult to justify our refusing to admit an officer who did not hold qualifications that he might hold necessarily later on. Perhaps it might be better to leave it over to the Report Stage to reconsider the matter.
I am satisfied if the Minister will agree. I want to relieve the local bodies of any difficulty in choosing a candidate in case they had a candidate who had not a diploma in public health. I would like to make it impossible for that candidate to be elected.
We will do that certainly under the rules, but it is a serious thing putting it in an Act of Parliament that would take a considerable time to amend.
I think it is present in the English Act.
I do not think it is in the English Act, as a matter of fact. However, I would prefer if it were left over to the Report Stage.
Very well.
Question —"That Section 19 stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, shall have effect as though at the end thereof the following paragraph were added:—
(d) provide for the manner in which any tin or other receptacle containing dried, condensed, skimmed, or separated milk is to be labelled or marked and prescribe the minimum percentages of milk fat and milk solids in dried or condensed milks.
I move amendment 21:
In line 7, after the word "condensed" to insert the word "evaporated."
This is an amendment which, I presume, will be accepted. It is rather to enlarge, or to make a little more definite, the conditions under which milk may be dealt with. It is to add the word "evaporation," because there is a trade term which does not mean condensed, and it might be well, I think, to include in the definition the word "evaporated." I, therefore, move the amendment.
I will accept this amendment. There are, I understand, three kinds of preserved milk. There is evaporated milk, the water in which has been evaporated till the residue is of the consistency of thin cream, with no sugar added. There is condensed milk, which is milk evaporated till the residue is of still greater consistency, with sugar added, and there is dried milk, which is milk with all the water evaporated. I think it is well, as we have mentioned two of those, that we should accept the third. Accordingly I accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
PART III.
ROADS.
SECTION 21.
(1) From and after the appointed day:—
(a) the maintenance and construction of all county and main roads in a county shall be the duty of the council of such county;
(b) the maintenance and construction of all urban roads in an urban district shall be the duty of the council of such urban district.
(2) The council of an urban district and the council of the county in which the urban district is situate, may, with the consent of the Minister, agree that the council of the county shall construct or maintain all or any of the urban roads in such urban district, and where such agreement is so made it shall be the duty of the council of the county during the continuance of the agreement to construct or maintain (as the case may be) such urban roads in accordance with the agreement, and the cost of such construction or maintenance (as the case may be) shall be paid by the council of the urban district to the council of the county in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister.
(3) The council of a county or county borough and the council of an adjoining county or county borough may, with the consent of the Minister, agree that the last-mentioned council shall construct or maintain any portion of any road which it is the duty under this Act of the first-mentioned council to construct or maintain, and where such agreement is so made it shall be the duty of the last-mentioned council during the continuance of the agreement to construct or maintain (as the case may be) such portion of such road in accordance with such agreement, and the cost of such construction or maintenance (as the case may be) shall be paid by the first-mentioned council to the last-mentioned council in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister.
I move amendment 22:—
To delete paragraph (a), lines 14 to 16 and substitute therefor as follows:—
(a) (i) the maintenance and construction of all main roads in the Saorstát shall be the duty of a road board to be appointed under this Act.
(ii) the maintenance and construction of all county roads in a county shall be the duty of the council of such county.
This amendment aims at taking away from the jurisdiction of the county councils the main roads, and transferring them to a body which will be appointed—road board, if you like, whose duty will be to look after the whole main roads of the Saorstát. In that connection I take it that the main roads in this Bill mean also trunk roads, because I see the classification of roads is only under two headings, that is main roads and county roads. The object of the amendment is to place all those main arteries of traffic under a road board which will be established under the Act and take away from the jurisdiction of the county council that duty. It is obvious, if there is any virtue at all in the arguments put forward by the Ministry in connection with the amalgamation of railways, that the main arteries of the country ought not to be divided between 26 or 27 local authorities. You cannot have efficiency, you cannot have economy, you cannot have good services under conditions of that sort. Visualise what the main road from Galway to Dublin is. You have the Dublin County Council, the Meath, Westmeath and Galway County Councils, managing 120 miles of road. In these days, when motor traction has developed and when the upkeep of these roads is essential to the life of the country, you can understand that it would be utterly impossible to have uniform roads through the country where authority is divided among so many people.
A couple of years ago a committee of construction was set up, and that committee of construction recommended foremost a central authority, such as I advocate now. By the present system a county council is supposed to provide for the main roads carrying traffic belonging to other counties. Take for example, County Wicklow. The Wicklow County Council is asked to provide a main thoroughfare for all the vehicles in the City of Dublin which travel through that county. In the summer as many as 60 or 70 cars per hour pass Bray Head and go along those roads, and the ratepayers of that particular area are supposed to provide accommodation which they ought not be asked to do. When speaking of the ratepayers I am specially denoting the farmers. We say we are compelled to provide these services while we are not using these roads. The roads that we require we could readily maintain at a much lower standard than is required for this traffic. We say it is the people who require these roads who should pay for them. Therefore, it is our conception of justice that these main roads should be a national service and that the expenses which will be necessary for their upkeep ought to be provided by a central authority. I saw the other day, in Derry, where the amount in respect of a main road of 48 miles was £152,000.
If you had a central authority capable of going into the matter they could put up certain sections of the roads for contract by tender. You would not require so many supervisors and other local officials, and you would render better services to the country. To give an example of what is happening, I know perfectly well that the Ministry could be justified in giving £1,000,000 for road grants last year, but there is no service for those grants. £700 or £800 was given to an urban authority in my own area to steam-roll about one mile, or half mile, of road. The £700 was expended, and the distance steam-rolled was 120 yards, costing £7 10s. a yard. That is a positive fact. You can examine your own inspector's report in connection with the Cork roads. He says that the whole object of the county councils is to keep men employed. We all agree as regards keeping men employed, but let them do valuable work. You cannot get a local body to give you the same service as a man tendering for contract roads. He will have his machinery and he will see that his men are there in proper time.
I would direct the Minister's attention to Inspector Quigley's report on the Cork roads. He states that there is no doubt there is an inadequate return in Cork for the money spent. He sums up the whole situation by saying that the remedy is to put such work as rolling and tarring up for contract. The simplest way that can be managed is by the establishment of a road board and by taking away from the local authorities the control of the roads. Let proper machinery be provided, and let us get proper services for the money we are paying. As I said before, the farmers do not require those great roads; they are willing to pay for roads which will be suitable for their necessities. The ambit of their travel is 10 or 12 miles, and yet they are asked to provide roads for vehicles carrying 10 or 12 tons.
The motor tax, if properly administered, would provide for the steam-rolling of 260 miles per year at £1,500 a mile, without asking for a penny from the local authorities. If you want a better class of road, the motor taxes would provide 200 miles at £2,000 a mile, or 133 miles at £3,000 a mile. If you want a cement road you can get every year from the motor taxes 100 miles at £4,000 a mile. That money is being collected, and you are not getting the proper return for it, by reason of the fact that things are mismanaged. In some parts of the country there are no road-crushers for breaking macadam while you have an income which would be sufficient to give 100 miles of road at £4,000 a mile. I say the public has a right to see a central authority established. If you had such a body you would relieve the farmers of the handicaps which they are at present suffering under, and you would be able to provide roads to meet the needs of present-day civilisation.
I thoroughly agree with Deputy Wilson with regard to the county roads. I come from the south of Ireland, and the roads there are perfectly disgraceful. They are hardly laid when they are worn out again, owing to the fact that the material there is unsuitable. The neighbouring quarries, probably neighbouring relatives, supply material that is totally wrong for the roads, and the cost of those roads is far greater than it should be under a properly organised road board. If you had a road board, at the head of which would be a man who knew how to make modern roads, and roads that would last, it would be a far more economic proposition, in my opinion, than the present disgraceful way in which nearly every county council lays those roads throughout Ireland.
They know nothing about material, though of course, they ought to know a little about it. They are most anxious not to use any material unless it is in the neighbourhood of some local friend or even some local neighbour. I have a little to do with the construction of roads in the city of Cork, so I think I know what I am talking about. The cost is higher even than what Deputy Wilson stated. Good roads, properly laid, ought to bring tourist traffic into Ireland. A good road might cost you £6,000, but the tourist traffic would soon pay for this. About a month ago a road was laid near my place that is full of potholes now. The reason is that there was no drainage. Unless roads have a proper foundation and are properly drained they are no good. Sometimes they are laid at the greatest amount of expense with material which is totally unsuitable without any drainage whatsoever, and they wear out in the minimum time. Doing that is simply throwing the hard-earned money of the Irish people into the road to be washed away.
A Central Road Board would be of vital importance to Ireland. At the head of that road board the Minister would see that we would have an efficient modern engineer who would know what materials to use, and who would refuse any other but the proper material, who would see that the work was properly carried out, and who would have a proper foreman over the workmen. He would not have a gentleman with a pipe in his mouth looking three or four ways for Sunday. He would have a proper man who knew his work, who would use proper material and who would not try to make a road out of decayed sponges. He would know all about modern construction and would have experience of the latest kind of road work. If that happens, for the first time we will be able to bring people to Ireland to spend money in Ireland. We all want to encourage that. I have heard it said in England by many people that they would not come over to Ireland because their motor cars would be destroyed. I have heard them say: "We will not take over a Rolls Royce, or even a Ford, because it would be rattled to pieces." If the central road board was set up it would mean that for once in our lives we would have proper organisation, honourable work, and good material. We have had neither up to the present under the county councils, and for those reasons I support Deputy Wilson.
I rise to support the amendment of Deputy Wilson. I think it provides a solution of a most important question for the people of the country. Deputy Wilson, no doubt, has a grievance with respect to his own particular county owing to the fact that it has to bear an undue proportion of the motor traffic, but his grievance is nothing at all compared with the grievance of the County Kildare. Kildare has to bear the weight of the southern motor traffic and the traffic from the Midlands and the West. The result is that a vast sum of money is being spent on the main roads in County Kildare, whilst the other roads which are most essential to the people of the county, especially to the farmers, are utterly neglected. Now, as we all know, the motor traffic is a daily increasing one. From my own observations I can see traffic is being diverted daily from the railways and is becoming more and more road-borne, not alone in the carrying of goods from the metropolis, but in the carrying of produce from the country to Dublin. That involves a vast expenditure which is not at all justified by the results. The present system of road construction entails an absolutely useless expenditure. Our roads were never meant to bear heavy lorry traffic, and we spend immense sums in steam-rolling and tarring them. A road so treated remains more or less in a state of repair for about twelve months, but has to be gone over again then. As Deputy Wilson has stated, we want a board that will control the whole maintenance of roads throughout the country, which will see that the work is properly carried on, and that proper results are given for the money expended.
I desire to support the principle of Deputy Wilson's amendment, but in doing so I want to say that I disagree with the language used in support of his amendment and also his arguments. He is evidently bringing in this amendment in order to try and get us back to the contract system. I think it is within the minds of everybody both in this House and in the Free State that it is the contract system is responsible for the state of the roads in the country to-day. It is easy to laugh, but I think we have a proof of it. I think it is patent to everybody that bad as the roads are now they were infinitely worse under the contract system, and it is only since the direct labour system was adopted that the roads improved. The roads were made under the contract system without any decent foundation, and that is what is responsible for their going into potholes so easily.
That is not the fault of the contract system. It is the fault of the specification under which the contract was carried out.
The reason I dealt with the contract system was because I think there was an ulterior motive at the back of the amendment brought in by Deputy Wilson. I support it on principle. I think it ought to be a national concern to make the roads what they ought to be. We want uniformity. We do not want one county putting on one kind of a specification and a neighbouring county doing the opposite. It is essential in view of the fact that we have such very heavy traffic that roads should be made properly, and to my mind we are not going to have proper roads until we have concrete roads. I do not think anything else will bear the traffic. I understand concrete roads have been tried in other countries and have been proved a great success. It will be found that even though they cost a little more they will be more economical, and I would recommend the Minister to go into the question of concrete roads. At present we are engaged in constructing one at Wexford and the portion of it finished has been a great success. I hope the Minister will have it examined, and if it is suitable for other places recommend the councils to adopt it to some extent in the near future. I would like to see a national authority for roads set up. I believe it will be found on examination that this is the only way in which the roads will be attended to. In consequence of the chaos and the confusion in the country for the past five or six years the roads were neglected, up to a year ago. It is necessary in view of this that the national authority should concentrate on the making of roads. The roads in the Free State are a bye-word as far as tourists are concerned, and they are not going to be anything else unless we have concentration by a national authority on roadmaking in the country.
I would support the principle of the amendment, but I want to disagree emphatically with what Deputy Wilson said regarding the contract as against the direct labour system.
I have in mind as a contract system not the letting out of a road to a neighbouring small farmer. I mean a system by which a contractor would supply the necessary machinery for 50 miles of a road, including crushers, rollers, etc.
It probably would lead to the same abuse. The abuses of the system were great. I suppose it is because Deputy Gorey knows it was notorious that he laughed so much. A contract was put in to do a certain mileage of roads for £100 or £200. The man who got it put out a few loads of stones, gave workmen a few shillings, and did no more. I think North Tipperary was the first county to introduce the direct labour system into Ireland. We have some of the best roads there in the Free State. All the work is carried out by direct labour, and it is not one bit more costly than the contract system. I think the Minister will be able to inform Deputies Wilson and Gorey on that.
I do not think he could.
I think he could. If the Minister will tell you the mileage in Waterford, where there is no direct system, as compared with Tipperary or Limerick, worked under the direct system, he will see for himself. Deputy Wilson drew attention to the Road Inspector's Report with reference to the Cork roads, and seemed to take the inspector's report as being correct, that a sufficient return was not got for the monies expended. Deputy Beamish tells us that the real reason was because the material was bad, and that it did not matter how hard the men worked, that with bad material they could not make good roads. Deputy Beamish said that the county council apparently did not want good material, and would not select good material. I want to suggest to Deputy Beamish that it is not the county council as a general rule which selects the material that is to go on the roads. It is not the county council which makes the roads. In most cases they decide on the amount of money to be spent on a certain road. The county surveyor selects the material, and has full responsibility for making the roads.
Under the county council.
He specified the price too.
Yes, but he has the selection of the material. To come back to the amendment itself, I thoroughly endorse what Deputy Wilson and Deputy Conlan said as to the need of this, because we have large lorries coming down from Dublin to Limerick and Cork on the main roads and tearing them up.
In wet weather, such as we had this summer, you could see these large lorries, with heavy loads, coming through a town down the South and lifting chunks out of the road. They actually tear the road asunder, and the people in that area have to bear the cost. That is most unfair. I think the Minister would be doing a good thing for the country if he accepted this proposal. I do not think we should be so very keen on making this country an attractive place for tourists; rather I think we should first aim at making the country a suitable place for the people who live in it.
I support this amendment. I think the suggestion is a very good one and likely to have good results in the future. It would be more equitable generally if these roads were controlled by a central authority, and it would make for more uniformity. The main roads, as at present constructed, are not fit to carry the present traffic, and a different system will have to be adopted if we are to deal with the heavy motor traffic which has been developing lately. The amendment, I think, should get very serious consideration from the Minister. I think Deputy Morrissey is mistaken when he says that direct labour is not in operation in County Waterford. It has been in operation for a considerable time there. I have no fault to find with it, but I think the expenditure is too great for the return secured.
There are two points that ought to be considered in dealing with this matter. First of all, the grievance put forward by Deputy Wilson is a very real grievance all over the Free State — that is, that local ratepayers in a certain area are called upon to maintain a road which is largely used by traffic from which the local authority derives no revenue whatever. That is the case in practically every county. The local authority to which I happen to belong is called upon to maintain at very considerable expense each year a roadway of considerable length, which is the main road between the city and a number of adjoining places in the county. I think I am correct in saying that at least 80 per cent. of the traffic on that particular roadway does not in any way contribute to the expense of maintaining the road. I do not see any way of getting rid of this particular grievance in all the areas in the Free State except on the lines proposed by Deputy Wilson in this amendment. That is one aspect of the case.
The other aspect of the matter is equally important — that is, the question of the maintenance of the roadways. Let me, in order to make the point clear, give an example. Take a roadway with which practically all Deputies are familiar — the roadway between Dublin and Dun Laoghaire. That main road is maintained by four local authorities, with four different sets of engineers, four different sets of equipment and, probably, four different ideas as to how roads should be maintained. That is only, as I say, an example of what we have all over the country. The only way you can do away with that difficulty — I think we all agree that divided responsibility is a difficulty that ought to be removed at the earliest opportunity — is by centralising those roadways under one authority. There is another advantage that would accrue from centralising the roadways: it would be possible then to let portions of the roadway and have the work carried out by contract. Deputies here are possibly looking at this matter from different points of view. No doubt, one section of Deputies want to get as many men employed on the roadways as possible, quite irrespective of what it costs — I say that without any intention of giving offence. Another section of the Dáil is very anxious that that particular work, like all other work, should be carried out at the lowest cost and in the best way.
Cork has been cited as a case in point. I do not know whether exactly the same conditions apply with regard to the roads in Cork as apply with regard to other work done in the City and County of Cork. But it is obvious to anybody who has any experience of road-making, that the limestone which abounds all over Cork is wholly unsuitable material for road-making. I suppose if any county councillor were to get up and tell the poor people who get a livelihood by quarrying this material for the roads in Cork that it is wholly unsuitable material and should not be used for roadways — incidentally, their occupation would go, as a consequence — I can quite understand, from what I know of the conditions in Cork, that that county councillor would have a lively time. From matters I happen to be identified with, I know that there is a very strong objection in the County Cork to material which can be obtained locally being brought in from anywhere else. That is one of the difficulties one is up against.
Deputies in considering this matter of direct labour have had regard to the cost in one particular area as compared with the cost in another area. That is a wholly wrong basis to go upon, because you may have conditions in one area entirely different from another area. While the cost may work out the same,the conditions may be entirely different. Any Deputies who have experience of local authorities know that in some cases you can get material for roadways quite convenient to, if not adjoining, the roadways, while in other cases the materials have to be brought a considerable distance. If you compare returns with costs you have to go into matters of convenience and questions of that kind, which very largely affect cost. Therefore, on that basis, we would not arrive at a wise conclusion when we would come to deal with the question of direct labour as against contracts. On the whole, when one is anxious to get really the best return that it is possible to get for the outlay, I think the contract system is the only system. Deputy Johnson has told us from time to time that one of the reasons why we are not getting that output of work which we should get is that we have not got that continuity or that guarantee of employment that is necessary in order that a man may do his best.
Hear, hear!
I am glad to hear the Deputy say "Hear, hear" to that. There are many Deputies here who have experience of conditions under local authorities. Let the Deputy give me a better example if he can of the ideal conditions that he has in his mind than those that obtain under the local authorities in Ireland. You have men there on the regular staff, and, provided they conduct themselves, they are assured of continuity of employment. They have payment for holidays. They have full pay while sick. They have clothing and houses provided for them. The conditions of their employment are ideal.
Would the Deputy tell us where road workers enjoy all these privileges that he speaks of?
Under the authority I am associated with, as well as under many other authorities. What do we get on the other side? I said here that many Deputies have experience of the output of work under local authorities. My experience—I think it will be borne out by others who study the question— is that you do not get 50 per cent. of the usual output, notwithstanding all those conditions.
Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an leasú so. Ach ní maith liom an íarracht a dhein sé chun an leasú do chur i dtuigscint duinn. Do dhein sé tracht ar an obair a dheineas na fir oibre ar na mbóithribh. Ni aontuighim leis ins an rud a dubhairt sé.
I think the case for a central authority has been more or less made. If we want uniformity of construction on the roads, if we want the best result for the money expended, we certainly must have the roads under a central authority. What I am mainly interested in at the moment is the refutation of some of the things that have been said—possibly in good faith—regarding direct labour versus contracts. I would like to read some extracts from the remarks of people who, I know, carry some weight with Deputies seated on the Farmers' benches. I have here the report of the Irish Roads Congress, which was addressed by several gentlemen prominent in the public life of the country. These speakers were capable of giving very sound opinions, based upon practical experience, of what is the best method of carrying on the roads of the country. I dare say Colonel Westropp will be known to a good many Deputies on the Farmers' benches. Fortunately, he is a fellow-countyman, and I am very proud to quote him in favour of the nationalisation of roads. Colonel Westropp said:
"I really think that men like myself are looking forward to the nationalisation of the roadways and railways of the country and to their being administered under one system."
I do not know if Colonel Westropp has changed his mind since, but I know that was the opinion he put forward regarding a central authority. I will also give, for the benefit of farmer-Deputies, what he said regarding direct labour:—
"I am an employer of labour myself, and I am only too glad if the labourers can be kept in the country: so let no one suppose that I am against the system of direct labour on the roads. I am not. I am in favour of it."
I hope that will carry weight with the Deputies of the Farmers' Party.
No; the reason is a bad one.
Mr. HOGAN
I will read another extract from a County Surveyor in South Mayo. He has more letters after his name than he has in it. He is an M.E. and a M.Inst.C.E., and several other things. He has had many years practical experience in the making of roads. This is what he says:
"As regards the contract system versus direct labour, there is no doubt, in the writer's mind, that the latter is the soundest policy, and a policy pursued in most parts of England and Wales with good results as regards work done. Contract moneys on analysis, include labour, materials and profit. It is certainly better, theoretically and practically, in the writer's opinion, to wipe out the profits, and spend the whole money directly on a road under proper supervision."
I wonder would Deputy Wilson agree with me and this engineer, that it is better to spend all the money on the roads rather than that the profits should go into the contractors' pocket? Further on he says:
"A certain number of labourers ought always to have the care of the surface of the road, and never quit it for a single day to do anything else; they will always have sufficient to do in spreading fresh material in ruts and hollows, in scraping the road, in cleaning out the side channels, and keeping open the water courses, and generally in maintaining the road in a clean and sound state. A few men constantly so employed will do a great deal towards the preservation of a road, while the greater number of workmen should be as constantly employed in providing materials by contract work—— The writer believes that, with good administration a direct labour scheme is the best for maintaining public roads, and that even for the same moneys applied for under the contract system by County Surveyors, much better, and more, work would result."
These opinions ought to carry weight. They are the fruit of years of experience. In putting forward the contract system versus direct labour, Deputy Good who essayed to make a very good case at the start, fell off towards the centre. I do not think that he actually believes the case he was making.
Let us see what has been happening in this country for some years past. The contract system left the roads in a very seriously-impoverished and bad state. Anybody who knows anything regarding administration of the roads, knows that invariably you find the two ends of a road made well and the middle badly made. When the surveyor goes over the road he travels, perhaps, a mile of it at each end, finds that it is good, and concludes that the whole of the road is good. But what way was the centre? Wretched! I wonder do the members of the Farmers' Party know that?
That is the Clare stuff.
Mr. HOGAN
It may be Clare, but perhaps that was what induced Colonel O'Callaghan Westropp to support direct labour. The roads in this impoverished condition were handed over to direct labour and direct labour was not long putting them in a fairly decent condition. What happened then? You had several revolutions in this country, and for some four or five years people were more interested in breaking roads than in making them. I have no fault whatever to find with that. It was necessary at one time, in order to save the lives of the people. The breaking of a road was just as good a national action as any other action at that time. To say that the state of the roads at present is the fault of direct labour, is saying something that is not based upon fact, and can only be said by people who have not analysed the thing back to its source.
I have heard nothing said that would convince anybody that the direct labour system should be scrapped and the contract system substituted. I have quoted from experts who are capable from experience of giving opinions. I have not heard a solitary opinion quoted from the opposite side to prove that the contract system is the better one.
From the point of view of the ordinary taxpayer, it is quite immaterial whether a road is maintained through direct labour or indirect labour. He simply wants to see that results are produced. He has no other concern. In this connection, I think I would be failing in my duty if I were to allow this discussion to take place without saying what I have personally observed in this respect during the last few months. I am speaking now of the rural districts alone. I have been very much over the country, largely on official business.
Electioneering?
Not electioneering. In the course of my travels I have made it a point to observe the amount of work being put into those roads by direct labour. I am satisfied, from what I have seen, that a very appreciable improvement in the output has taken place. I have come across scores of gangs of workmen, and in no instance have I found any evidence of idleness. I found men who were giving a reasonable output, apparently doing an honest day's work. That fact ought to be stated here. When the opposite is the case, it is equally our duty to say so. But it is also our duty to give credit where credit is due.
That is not what we came to hear.
I think the Dáil has got away from the amendment. The principle and the merits of the amendment can be usefully discussed without going into the question of direct labour versus the contract system. That might form the subject of a very useful discussion on another occasion, but it is not a matter that ought to be discussed on this amendment. I thoroughly approve of the principle of Deputy Wilson's amendment. It seems to me to be quite sound and, in the circumstances of the time, a progressive amendment. When roads were originally made they were made by, and for the use of, the very few people who used them. As traffic began to develop, the area of charge was increased to the parish or the district. It must be a comparatively short time ago that the county was made the unit of administration and got control of the roads.
At that time the number of people in a county who travelled outside it was proportionately small. But that state of things has now changed, and it is not the people in the county who use the roads in the county. That is obvious to everyone. I think the time has come when the country, as a whole, should be considered as a unit for main and trunk roads. The mileage of main roads in any particular county is not in proportion to the size or rateable capacity of that county. You may have a small county, like Kildare, in which there is considerable mileage of main roads. You might take another county, like Donegal or Galway, where the mileage in proportion to the size and rateable capacity of these counties is not as large as it would be in a small county. Why should small counties be expected to maintain out of the rates a disproportionate mileage of main roads? I do not think it is fair or equitable to ask them to do so. The people who use the roads should pay to the extent to which they use them. I think the time will come when the question of putting a proportionate tax on every vehicle might usefully be considered. Some of the farmers might not like to hear that suggestion, but I think it is one that might usefully be considered.
That is a field tax, and it is out of date.
Mr. O'CONNELL
If the owner of a lorry or of a motor car is to be taxed for using the road, there is no reason why a lorry drawn by other than mechanical means should not be also taxed. The general principle that I advocate is, that those who use the roads should pay for them. I think the principle that main roads should be nationalised, constructed and maintained by a central authority is a sound one. It is the only way in which we can possibly hope to get unity of control and efficiency. Otherwise, as Deputy Good has pointed out, you will have people responsible for sections of a road with varying ideas as to how it should be maintained and kept. I think there should be no difficulty on the part of the Government in accepting the amendment. The time has come when the Minister might say what his intentions are with regard to it.
I have had to refer to this amendment on several occasions during the discussion to find out what part of it dealt with direct labour or the contract system. It seems to me that the discussion broadened very much. Even the amendment lays down a principle which I submit to the Dáil is too big a one to embody in this Bill. If I understand the Bill, it lays down the lines which Local Government shall follow. The functions of the county council are a very important factor in that. I suggest to the Dáil that the time is not opportune for revolutionary changes in our administration. What we want to do at present is to get things on a proper basis so as to have a foundation to work from.
And keep on paying.
This proposal to change your system and form a central board is big enough to warrant legislation in a separate Bill. All the points that have been raised are distinctly arguable, and I suggest that such a Bill should not come along until the legislation embodied in this and other Bills is in operation. That is the first thing to do in my view. All these questions as to the users of the roads have to be settled. A Deputy said that everybody who uses the roads should pay. Where does that get you to? The children going to school use the roads. Are you going to put a tax on them?
You have taxed boots already.
I am only mentioning that, as showing that this is not a simple question to be settled by a wave of the hand. It is going to lead to complicated argument. Even granting that the substance of this amendment may be acceptable, I submit that the time has not yet come for the Dáil to take the whole matter fully into consideration. To do such a thing without due consideration would be a great mistake. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that the Dáil has already embarked on too much legislation. In itself, this Bill is a very big move in the settlement of the affairs of the country. Give it a chance and do not overload it.
Mr. P. HOGAN
Do not overload the lorries.
The Deputy wants to get me into an argument on the road question again, and I am not inclined for it. I am not going to get into a controversial argument. This is not the time to consider the whole question and deal with it in a manner that will stand the acid test of time.
I would like to support the amendment.
The Minister has accepted it.
Silence gives consent.
The Minister has not had an opportunity of speaking yet; Deputies seem so anxious to discuss it.
I think the section goes further than we have gone heretofore. It gives full control of the main and trunk roads in the county to the county council. Up to the present the estimates for the different districts were put forward by the urban district councils, and those councils always had a say in the local administration of the roads. I think, if the amendment is accepted, that it will not interfere with the working of the roads, whether that is by direct labour or by contract. The only thing I take exception to is the manner in which the amendment is put forward by the mover, Deputy Wilson, and supported by Deputy Beamish. Deputy Wilson is of opinion that the men working on the roads are idling, and Deputy Beamish is of opinion that the men working on the roads should not smoke. I am sure that the Minister for Local Government will quite agree that the greater the amount of smoking the better it will be for the Exchequer.
And the better for the roads?
I think the Minister should accept the amendment. In doing that we would be meeting the views and wishes practically of the county councils. The county councils do not want to be annoyed about raising money for those roads. At every meeting of a county council there is nothing but the question of road work. You are giving the county councils nothing to do now but road work, and if you do not accept this amendment that position will be made all the more pointed.
The general tendency of the discussion seems to be very much in favour of centralised main roads. I must say that, in principle, I am in agreement with that myself. I think we are all agreed that at present the roads are not in a very efficient condition, although reports from various parts of the country give me to understand that things have improved very much since we started to expend road grants, notwithstanding the remarks of Deputies. I know that tourists all over the country have remarked with astonishment on the changes and improvements on the roads during the last few months. The whole system of maintaining roads in the past has not been satisfactory. The main reason for that is, not that the roads were maintained by direct labour or by contract, but that they were under dual control of the old rural councils which had their fingers in the fire as well as the county council. I think the cutting out of the rural councils will go a long way towards improving the roads in the future.
You had in the past no centralised control over important national roads of the country at all. In the old days every county council could make its main roads declaration—that is to say, it could decide what roads should be maintained on a high standard and what roads were to be by-roads, with the result that in one county you had certain roads maintained as main roads and those in the next county degenerated into bohereens. That was responsible for a great deal of inefficiency in road maintenance, and that was responsible for the fact that our main roads on the whole were anything but satisfactory. In this Bill we are getting over this difficulty by our definition of what a main road is. A main road is such as is declared a main road by the Minister. That means that the central authority, accordingly my Ministry, can decide, taking all the national factors into consideration, what road should be a main road, and what road should not; and in that way there can be maintained a high standard of trunk roads throughout the country. Deputy Beamish and other Deputies refer to the fact that the main roads were not, in certain cases, up to a high standard owing to the kind of materials used on them.
In Section 30 of this Bill I take power to decide what kind of material can be used on the roads, particularly with the object of ruling out soft limestone, which has been such a serious hindrance to road improvement up to the present. Another clause of that section gives me control for the purpose of setting up signposts. We will discuss that when we come to deal with that section, but this Bill gives me a considerable control over the roads and in the direction of nationalisation. We could go too far with this idea of nationalisation. On the Continent you have road-board departments. In France you have the national roads maintained by the national authority. The experience in these countries is that it costs a great deal more to maintain these roads by the central authority. I believe you would not have those roads maintained by the central authority only for the fact that the roads are of great strategic importance. In these countries, for military necessities, they must keep the roads up to a very high standard and cannot leave them to the control of the local authorities, who would not be capable of looking at the question from the national view point.
Is that the reason it costs more?
Apart from that, under the present circumstances, it would be extremely foolish to set up a road board in this country at the present moment. Only last year we expended £200,000 centrally in providing road machinery for the different county councils. It would mean duplicating that machinery if we were to start now maintaining roads by a central authority. It would mean the setting up of a central staff. We would require to have our engineers all through the country and it would mean in many cases having to pension the existing county surveyors, who would be superfluous, if we took over the main roads from the county councils. On the whole it would lead to very great and unnecessary expenditure. It is much better to hasten slowly in matters of this kind. As I have said, by the definition of main roads I have gone a certain way towards nationalisation. In Section 30 I have taken authority to control the kind of material to be used on the roads, and if Deputies will look at Section 34, which is a very modest little section, and which does not appear to effect very much, they will see that that section means a revolution in road policy. I think if Deputy Wilson had realised its significance he would not have moved his amendment at all. That section proposes to extend sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Roads Act of 1920 to any road instead of any main roads.
Under that section I have power at the moment to make grants with the consent of the Minister for Finance from the Road Fund to any highway authority for the maintenance, construction, and upkeep of any road, and also to make grants to any highway authority in conjunction with any company for contract or otherwise for the maintenance of that road; and, thirdly, I have power to maintain those roads myself, that is if they are new roads, to maintain them centrally under that section. Now, by deleting the word "new," that gives me authority to maintain these roads, if necessary, and to enter into contract with a contractor to maintain roads. In other words, it gives me power to constitute this Ministry a regular road board. It does not make that obligatory. It gives me power to do it in an emergency, and it is a thing, for the reasons I have stated, that I would be slow to do. It might mean duplicating machinery. There is a possibility that I might find it advisable to enter into a contract or get a form of contract for the taking over of fifty or one hundred miles of a road which might be done more economically than by leaving it to the county councils. I believe, accordingly, that everything that Deputy Wilson desires is provided for in the Bill, with the exception that I am not compelled to set up an expensive staff and to duplicate machinery through the country, and in some places to get rid of officers who are giving very good service.
There have been complaints made about injustices to various districts or counties throughout the country, having to pay for the upkeep of roads which are being greatly hacked and ruined in many cases by the motor vehicles from other counties altogether, and it is suggested that every county should have only to provide for the vehicles existing in that county itself. Of course that is really contradictory to the idea of having a nationalised road system. You must look at the whole question from a national point of view, and if motor cars from one county can run over the roads of another county, what is good for one is equally good for the other. In the administration of the Road Fund we take all these factors into consideration. If, by reason of its proximity to Dublin, Wicklow has a greater number of cars running through it than if it were two hundred or three hundred miles away, that is taken into consideration in making a grant, and in that way there is not as much injustice as appears on the surface. The tendency is, at the present moment, to keep the main roads out of the road grant, that is from motor taxation, and as motors become more common, motor taxation will become greater, and we will have a larger fund to maintain these roads. We will have to wait until these are developed, but at the same time the Road Fund is not sufficient to maintain all the roads in the country, and it would mean only a complete breakdown and a collapse of our machinery, if such a revolutionary policy were adopted at the moment.
I am glad to hear the Minister say he is in favour of the general principles of the amendment. But I cannot see why he cannot agree to making the main roads a national charge, and bring relief to the county councils by means of this road grant. It is a heavy burden on some of the councils, like Kildare, with a large number of roads. I do not see what elaborate machinery he would have to set up if he had to deal with the matter, because he has the Road Board here in Dublin. He could send down instructions or general specifications as to how a road is to be maintained through the county surveyor, and he has a competent staff of surveyors, overseers and roadmen. The principal point, as far as I can see, in the amendment is that the Minister takes over these roads and that they become a national charge, not a county charge. There is no use in beating about the bush. That is the question, because it is important to the county councils, and that is what we want the Minister to agree to. Now, something has been said about the contract system——
Leave it alone.
We are not discussing direct labour or the contract system. But, as the matter has been introduced by one or two other Deputies, I will allow the Deputy to refer briefly to them.
If you permit me to say a word or two, I will not say anything that is controversial. I was glad to hear the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs stand up for the road workers, and give an honest opinion, that they were doing good work. It is the first time I have heard any public representative saying a word for the unfortunate road workers, and I hope it is a good omen for the future.
The Minister is in agreement in principle with the amendment put forward by Deputy Wilson. We have gone a stage on the journey. Apparently his argument is, that the failure of our county councils in the past to bring the roads up to a satisfactory standard was because of dual control, control by the district councils and control by the county councils. Whatever may have been the cause of failure, he goes on to point out the powers he has taken to himself under this Bill, and we take it that he must have in his mind that he shall have some body in existence to exercise these powers on his behalf. Are we, then, to have two bodies in authority still, for the maintenance of our roads? He is to have attached to his Department a body that may be responsible for the maintenance of roads under certain conditions under his control, and the county councils are to be the responsible authorities under certain other conditions. Is not that still dual control, the sort of control that he has admitted was responsible for the failure of the whole system in the past? I cannot see the consistency of the Minister's argument, and I think he must admit himself, if dual control has been a failure in the past, the body he is proposing to have in the future is not going to bring us a satisfactory system, and the improvement in our roads and in the expenditure on our roads that we all desire. The truth is, as Deputy Colohan has said, that it is a question of cost, and we would like if the Minister would be candid enough to say that it is the question of cost that is frightening him off taking the authority we seek to give him. We have been trying to curtail his powers in other sections of the Bill, but when that was proposed he was very unwilling to submit to it; and now, when we are giving him other powers, he refuses to take them.
If the Deputy will give me the money I will take the power.
Exactly; I am glad the Minister has admitted that it is a question of cost. It comes down then to a question of finance. Now we know where we are. The position is that the Minister is prepared to confer on the county council authority to make roads, authority to find money to make roads, and at the same time he is not prepared to take to himself the authority we wish him to take and that he is conferring on the county council. We all admit, it is unfortunately true, that our roads are in a bad condition. We want better roads, but it will take more money to bring them up to the standard in which we desire to see them. The position at present is, and the position in the future under this Bill will be, that the people who found the money up to the present will have to find it in the future, and these have very largely been agriculturists. To-day it is true to say they are being actually taxed out of existence to maintain the main roads of the country. Even at that our main roads are probably the worst of any country in Europe.
I do not know if the Minister is satisfied with that state, and I do not know if the Minister believes himself that things are going to be better under the present system of administration. He cannot certainly argue that his dual control, that he admits is a failure, is going to bring him success. What we feel is that in other days we might say the roads in a county belonged to the residents of the county. That state exists no longer, and it is as unfair to expect a resident in one end of a county to pay for the upkeep of a road in the other end of the county as it is to expect a resident in Donegal to pay for the upkeep of a road in Kerry. It has come to this, that in very many counties the people who are paying for the maintenance of the roads use them least. The people from outside counties who in many cases are not contributing at all their fair proportion towards the upkeep of the roads are using the roads entirely out of proportion to the use made of them by residents in the counties. It is that system which we seek to bring to an end. We cannot see that it can be done by any other means than by the establishment of a central authority to take over control of the maintenance of the main trunk roads of the country.
I have here a report that was issued in reply to a communication from the Ministry of Local Government in 1923, requesting the views of the Association of County Surveyors on road administration in the Saorstát. This report was supplied to the Ministry of Local Government in 1923. It suggests the establishment of a central authority of three commissioners, with suitable staff, to administer the main and trunk roads of the country. Further on in this report the Association points out that they are satisfied that the present taxes will not bring in a sufficient revenue to build up the trunk roads as requested here. They estimated the trunk roads to cost 8 millions and the main roads 6 millions. Is it that that has frightened off the Minister for Local Government? Is it not natural to assume that what has frightened the Minister off is also to-day frightening off our county councils? In many counties the position is, that money cannot possibly be found for the maintenance of main and trunk roads. Bad as they are, the result of all that is that the smaller roads that are really more important to the rural dwellers are being entirely neglected, with the result that all the roads of the country are going down. I do not say it is the contract system or the direct labour system that is responsible, but these are the facts. There is no use in the Minister putting off the evil day. This problem has to be faced. The roads of the country have to be recognised as a national service and as a national charge. There is no use in putting off the evil day to twelve months hence. It is better to take the responsibility now. The fact that we have different bodies responsible for road administration, each working from its own point of view and not having sufficient money to spend, and in some cases not getting value for the money spent—all these things are against our building up in this country a system of roads that is essential to the life of the country. Now is the time for the Minister to take on this power.
Deputy Hewat may say that it is too big a problem to tackle now. Deputy Hewat should remember that the problem is being tackled, but it is being handed over to the county councils to tackle. If the county councils and their staffs are capable of undertaking these services, I think the Minister is putting a low estimate on his own ability and the abilities of those in his service, and those he may call into the service, if he feels that he is unable to undertake the responsibilities that he is putting on our county councils for finding the money or spending the money. I hope that the Dáil will declare that the time has come when the Minister should take on this responsibility in the interests of the nation.
Mr. EGAN
The speech which Deputy Baxter has just made would have been a very excellent speech indeed if it were on a different subject. Deputy Wilson's amendment is trying to do in three or four words what it would take a whole Act of Parliament with very many pages to do. The first words of his amendment are "the maintenance and construction of all main roads in the Saorstát shall be the duty of a road board to be appointed under this Act." It finishes there. He makes no regulation as to what the functions or powers of this board must be. It must be perfectly apparent to anybody reading the Minister's Bill that this Bill could not possibly set up a central road board authority. I am in absolute agreement with almost every word of what Deputy Baxter has said. In fact, I venture to say that I go a great deal further than any of the Deputies who have spoken in my efforts to provide good roads, because I have long been in favour of concrete roads, and that is a very much further step than any of the Deputies have indicated in the discussion here. I am in perfect agreement with Deputy Hewat when he says that the establishment of a central road authority is utterly too big to be embraced in this Local Government Bill. There are no powers set out for this road board. There is nothing about their duties.
Deputy Baxter complained about the expenses of the road system. I quite agree with him that the roads are very expensively constructed and managed at present, and there is very bad value given to the farmers for their money. But does he think that the farming community are at present in a condition, with their depressed business, depressed agriculture, to put up the money necessary to establish a central road board, which will entail an enormous amount of money and which will entail a great deal of duplication of plant? What will happen I can see will be that the existing road-making machinery of county councils, either to a very great extent or altogether, will be dropped, and new machinery, new plant, to deal with these proposed trunk roads, and to be the property of the new road board authority, found. The country will have to take its time with such a reform as this. I am absolutely in favour of the principle of it, but I do submit that the time is not opportune, and certainly this Bill is not the opportune place to try and embrace in three small lines such a large reform as this.
I notice that very few Deputies on the Government Benches spoke on this matter, and when the Minister stood up, I think he left us in considerable doubt for a long time as to what his attitude on this question was. He approved of the principle but he raised obstacles as regards the methods, obstacles as to who was going to administer it, as to whether it was going to be a central authority or a county authority. That is not the important question. Who is to find the cost? Whether it is a central fund or a county fund it matters very little to us whether this is going to be administered by a road board or a county council, provided the cost is provided by the State. If it is not provided by the State, I want to tell the Minister and tell the Dáil that the cost will not be provided at all.
Deputy Egan has said that a new Bill is required. Perhaps! He has also said that the question ought not to be dealt with in the form of this amendment. In reply to that I will say that it is the Bill that Deputy Egan refers to that we should be discussing now and not the Bill that we are discussing, because the Bill that Deputy Egan forecasts is a vital necessity. It is very much more necessary in the interests of the people who are going to foot the bill than the Bill we are discussing. Deputy Egan has referred to the incapacity of the rural taxpayers to deal with the present position. That is quite true. At the same time he allows the present state of affairs to continue, and he allows the cost of the maintenance of the roads of the country still to be borne by the rural taxpayer. The heavy-lorry Deputy is of one mind with him on this question. It is just as reasonable to expect that the railways should be maintained by the inhabitants of the county they pass through as to expect that the present roads should be maintained by the county they pass through. Some ten or twelve years ago the railways were the national arteries of the country. Are they the national arteries of the country to-day and to what extent, if they are? The main roads of the country have supplanted them. As Deputy Hewat and other Deputies said here when discussing a former Bill, the railways are obsolete, they are a thing of the past.
I did not say that.
It has been said in this Dáil that they were out of fashion. They were scarcely being used at all. No wonder they are not used. We are maintaining the main arteries of the nation. I say it is just as reasonable to expect the ordinary rural population of the country, who travel very little, to maintain the railways as it is to ask them to maintain the roads, in view of the way traffic has developed on them. The question of contract versus direct labour has been discussed. I will not refer to it. It does not come within the terms of the Bill or the terms of the amendment. I will only say in passing that this question has been so often put up as an argument that those who use the argument have some considerable doubt as to the truth of what they say. Deputy O'Connell used some very funny arguments. He said that the users of the roads should pay for the damage they did to the roads on a graduated scale. Then Deputy O'Connell would be paying a different tax from Deputy Wilson. Big fellows like Deputy O'Connell, the LeasCheann-Comhairle, and myself would pay a different tax from the smaller men.
It is no wonder some of the Deputies said "I do not know where this will end." Deputy Wolfe is also thinking of his share, which would not be a small one. The Minister referred to the interference of district councils with regard to the main roads. I wonder did he know what he was talking about. The district councils have nothing to do either with the trunk roads or with the main roads. They have only to do with the little feeders.
The main road under this Bill is not the same as the old main road.
All I have to say is that the district council has nothing to do with any main road.
There were no main roads in some counties.
I would like to see a map of that county that has no main roads in it. I am waiting for information.
It has "mean" roads.
There are bohereens there, if you could call them "mean" roads. With reference to the expenditure the Minister states that a million has been spent. Some of it was spent and some of it was misspent. Perhaps as much was misspent as was spent. Reference has been made to raw materials. I have travelled as much as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs over the roads, and I have seen some of the material going out. There was soft limestone and soft stone of every description. True, it will give you a surface, but only for a few months. Every class of stuff has been put out. Work has been done, too, but I do not think it is good work. In some cases I have seen decent work done. In four out of five cases the work is not well done. It is said it would be foolish to set up a central authority now—the whole system would break down. I want to tell the Minister that funds must be found somewhere. This State or the ordinary taxpayer will have to find it. The farmer will have to find it. Who ought to find it in equity or justice? If you think it is justice to ask a rural population who benefit nothing by the new system of main roads to find it, I do not. If you think it justice to ask them to do it, we think otherwise, and the people think otherwise. I say, and I take the full responsibility for what I am saying, that if the system is not altered we will go to the people and ask them to refuse to pay taxes on the present lines.
If he does I will put Deputy Gorey in gaol.
Deputy Gorey and the country might put the Minister and his Government in gaol, where some of them perhaps ought to be. The writing is on the wall. Difficulties have been raised over existing surveyors and officials. The remedy is there. Let the people supply the money. Let the county council carry out the work through one authority. Have uniformity in the scheme or in the system. Have uniform roads. Let money be supplied by the nation, and if you think it more economical for the scheme to be carried out by the local authorities, let them do it under your supervision. One man will do for that board if he knows his job. I appeal to the Minister, knowing the state of the country as every man must know it, knowing how hard it is to pay taxes and debts, to alter the whole system absolutely and to adopt the method whereby the user of the road will pay for the road. Any other method is trying, with the force of the law, to put your hand into the pocket of the man who does not benefit. We are told the time is not ripe. That may be, but I do not agree with that. If the Deputy who says that the time is not ripe does not help to make the time ripe, and does not alter his mind, he will have very few people in the country to cater for, very few people who will have money to buy anything, even coals, and there will be little use for main roads for traffic. I made a statement a few minutes ago, and the Minister threatened to put me in gaol if I suggested such a thing. I again repeat that it is our intention and the position may as well be faced honestly. The present system is a robbing, unjust system which was founded fifty or sixty years ago when conditions were entirely different from those of to-day. Does anyone tell me—the system may have been fair sixty years ago—if that proposition were being discussed to-day that the present system would be still applicable? The sooner this question is faced honestly the better. If it is not faced a position will arise when the people not only will not but cannot pay, and they may as well refuse now as when they are starved and hungry.
Deputy Gorey is interesting. He even managed to work himself up to the pitch of enthusiasm when he was prepared to go to gaol.
It is a matter of life or death to the average taxpayer.
Deputy Gorey is willing that all the money we will gather in should be spent on the roads. He says it must be provided by the State. The first point I would like to make is, who is the State? Does the State get money out of the air, from hydro-electric schemes, or where does it get it? Does not Deputy Gorey know that if the State spends money on the roads he has to pay his share?
Certainly, a fair share.
I think it was the main plank of Deputy Gorey's argument that the railways running through the country are not maintained by the district through which they go. Did anyone ever hear anything so absurd? Of course they are paid for and maintained by the people of the country through which they go. Make no mistake about it.
By the people who use them.
Yes, go a little further, what do we find? In various parts of the country we find light railways. At whose request? The people candidly recognised that the railways running through the districts benefit the people themselves and they were prepared to back their opinion by submitting to the baronial guarantees. And because this was done for the developing and carrying on of their industry, the farming community want to evade their obligations. One of the things in connection with the Railway Bill was the attempt of the farmers to get rid of the liability which they had volunteered to put on their own backs. This is all bunkum.
Which part of it? Yours?
I may be talking a good deal of nonsense, but, if I am, surely there are two or three of us at it. Coming to the roads, this Bill says that the country shall be divided up into county councils, etc., and included among the county councils' functions is the administration of the roads. One must naturally look after the roads under the present order of things.
And pay for them.
Hand the railways over to the county councils.
As we go through the country we judge the roads as we find them, and the county councils as we find them, according to the amount of intelligence used in the construction of the roads. I venture to say that the roads under the county council will be maintained in accordance with the wishes of the council. Deputy Gorey may agree with me or not that the abolition of the rural councils is right or wrong, but at all events the objection put forward to the abolition of the rural councils is that there is a certain amount of taking away from localities the power of interfering in and administering their own affairs. Deputy Gorey comes along with a revolutionary proposal altogether and says the State should manage their affairs.
Deputy Hewat knows very well that I do not object to that at all. What I objected to was the local individuals of any county paying for what is national work, paying for other people's accommodation.
As far as I know, there is no obligation put by this Bill on the county council to spend any more than they wish on their own districts.
Do we want good roads or not?
That is for yourself to say. You have it in your own hands. The county council have to spend their money on their own roads, and if they take the view that their county is to stand out for bad roads, I do not see anything in this Bill to prevent them gaining that unenviable notoriety and keeping the money in their own pockets. When you talk about main roads and say "We will not pay for the upkeep of roads because you in Dublin go on them," is not that a two-headed argument? The farmers come up to Dublin and use our roads. The various communications between the different counties are on the principle of reciprocity. There is no use in saying that one county gets traffic on their roads that they are not entitled to bear. Equally against that they have the use of roads of other people for the upkeep of which they do not pay. Supposing I have got a beauty spot in County Wexford which I want to develop. Do you not think it is worth my while or the country's while to develop that by every means so that people should go down there and leave as much money as they can behind them?
There is no use in talking as has been done here and saying that Deputy Gorey, for instance, does not use other people's roads. He does use other people's roads—roads that he pays nothing for. It is all nonsense to say that one county does not benefit equally with another county as regards the use of roads. Everybody knows that the roads of the country are really highways, that everybody gets the benefit of them, and that everybody pays more or less for them. I am not, in that sense, objecting to a central board, but I say that when you put in a few lines here about this question, you are only touching the fringe of the subject. Do not assume that any point you raise on this question is not going to be answered by points on the other side. It is a very big question, and it would require a great amount of argument on every section of a Bill to arrive at a proper conclusion as to what should be done. There are interminable arguments on every aspect of the question. The only thing, however, that I rose to controvert was Deputy Gorey's idea that he is going to get money from the State gratuitously. He is not.
I have remarked with pride the way Deputy Hewat has pretended to turn the argument advanced by one Deputy, while his remarks were really directed against the Deputy who sits on his right. While everything he said was apparently directed against Deputy Gorey, his argument was really directed against Deputy Good. Deputy Good pointed out, in an earlier speech, the folly of having five different authorities for the road between the city and Dun Laoghaire, and urged the advisability of having a single authority. He deduced the desirability of having a single authority for roads where inter-communication was frequent, particularly intercommunication of heavy traffic. Deputy Hewat, consistent as always, wants to see individualism carried to its logical conclusion; every man a law unto himself, every family and every little community acting independently, looking after their own affairs, and having no regard for anybody else's affairs. Of course, Deputy Good cannot carry that to its ultimate conclusion. If he could, he would not be here, because when he is here he is really taking upon himself a responsibility for helping to regulate the whole affairs of all the people, so that unfortunately he has to break his record for consistency in that respect. He would like in the matter of roads, at all events, that every district—every parish, if possible—should maintain its own peculiar roads——
In its own peculiar way.
Yes, and trust to the interests of one parish being sufficiently like the interests of every other parish as to secure some uniformity. The day for that method of administering public affairs has gone, especially when you are dealing with a matter such as roads and traffic on roads. We all know—and Deputy Hewat, perhaps, more than anybody else—how important it is to have roads suitable for the new methods of transportation. It is desirable, surely —if we admit that roads should be suited to the methods of transportation—that there should be uniformity. And if there are to be uniform roads for heavy traffic, communicating from town to town and from city to city, surely it is desirable to have a single authority administering and caring for those roads—particularly those which communicate between the different counties.
The case for uniformity of administration has been proved up to the hilt. The Minister, at least, has accepted that principle and his difficulty is to find the money. Whatever be the views of Deputy Hewat and others in regard to that, the amendment does not make any provision in respect of the money. That does not come within the purview of this amendment, notwithstanding what Deputy Gorey and others have said. We can vote to have this amendment incorporated into the Act and the question of how to raise the funds will arise in due course. The allocation of the charges as between the central fund and the local funds will have to be considered and determined. It is surely right, notwithstanding what Deputy Egan says, that on this, the first real opportunity we have had to express our views freely on the question of a central authority and a uniform system of trunk and main roads, we should do so and embody the idea in the Bill. It may mean and will mean some enlargement of the Bill. It may mean and will mean a certain responsibility placed upon the Minister and his Department for adding details. But let us on this opportunity record our opinion that in this Bill dealing with Local Government, main roads in the Saorstát should be placed under the authority of a road board, and that the maintenance and construction of such main roads should be the duty of that board.
I want to stress the word "construction." I agree with Deputy Egan that when you are dealing with re-construction of roads on a large scale, it may be quite satisfactory to let out such a job to a contractor who knows how to make roads by modern methods and who has the best appliances. I am not objecting to that at all; I would like the road board to be in a position to do it. But I can quite imagine that an enlightened Ministry would say "Here is an opportunity for a big policy in regard to roads." Many people in the country believe that one of the most valuable assets of the country would be its tourist traffic if it were encouraged. I am not going to express an opinion on that now. To some extent, I think it is right. But there surely is a case to be made for trunk roads being constructed in such a fashion and of material of such durability as would satisfy the requirements of modern traffic, at least between the main centres of population. It would require a central authority to do that work properly, and it may be that it would require a firm of road constructors to undertake such a big job.
And a bit of money too.
And some money. But I suggest that Deputy Hewat would find a great deal of support within his own constituency, particularly from Chambers of Commerce and the like, for the expenditure of very considerable sums of money for that purpose and that it would be regarded as a good investment. You would probably find that you could raise a loan for that purpose much more satisfactorily than for other purposes. I can imagine quite well that an enlightened Ministry would take into serious consideration such a proposition. But can that be done without a central road authority? It cannot. I think the powers the Minister is seeking in this Bill will assist him; but he is going too gently, too cautiously, too timidly towards what he conceives to be the ideal in this matter. We are helping him now, I hope, to have his own ideas realised. We are helping him in his struggle with the Ministry of Finance. We are helping him to incorporate in this Bill what he really wishes to have—a central road authority. I hope that the Dáil will approve of the proposal which, in effect, will be an instruction to the Minister and his advisers to amend the Bill in some respects—perhaps, to prepare schedules and rules for the guidance of such a road board. I think we ought on this, the first opportunity offered us of expressing our opinions on this question, vote for the amendment of Deputy Wilson.
resumed the Chair.
I had intended replying to some of the disorderly remarks of Deputy Good, but as you, A Chinn Comhairle, ruled another Deputy out of order when he touched upon questions of local authorities and direct labour, I will not risk your displeasure. When we are told that a private employer cannot get out of his workmen more than 50 per cent. of the work done in England and only about 20 per cent. of the work done in America, and that public employers can only get half what private employers get, I wonder how roads are maintained at all. We used to hear once upon a time a certain section of the community being described as "carrion crows," who fouled their own nests. I do not want to be so strict in describing Deputy Good, but surely there is a limit to the decrying of the amount of work done in Ireland as compared with that done in other countries. I hope Deputy Good will break with Deputy Hewat on this occasion, because Deputy Good has made a good case for the amendment and Deputy Hewat's attempt to destroy that case has certainly failed.
There is one aspect of this question that has not been touched upon. As I understand, under this Bill it is proposed to absorb the officials, at present employed by the district councils, in the county councils. That means a rearrangement of the staffs of the county councils. Is it proposed to rearrange these staffs and break them up twelve or eighteen months hence when the new central scheme which the Minister approves of comes into force? That is an aspect of the question that I do not think has been considered by the Minister, and ought to be considered. On the question of the plant, I do not agree with what the Minister states, because the plant is necessary to do a certain mileage of road. If that mileage is to be undertaken by a central authority, I do not see any difficulty in that authority taking over the plant of the local authority. I do not see that the duplication that the Minister has in his mind will arise. That is a matter that can be arranged, and ought to be arranged. But I would say that if we have made up our minds—and as far as I can gather, the Dáil has made up its mind that a central system is the proper system for the control of our roadways—I think the Minister ought carefully to consider what temporary measures he will take in the meantime, and I think they should be only temporary measures. That is not exactly what we have in the Bill, which provides for the setting up, more or less, of permanent staffs. If we adopt that, we will have a number of officials who possibly will not like to come under the central scheme when adopted, and we shall have this terrible question of pensioning up again. I agree that if we are going to settle this question, now is the time to do it, and settle it finally.
The point has not been met that twenty-six local authorities are to deal with the main arteries of the country. A central authority could do the business much better. No argument has been adduced to prove that the twenty-six local authorities will do it as well, or half as well. The Minister has not replied to that point. With regard to the plant, Deputy Good has shown the way out of that difficulty. As to the officials, they can be absorbed by the central authority, if required. The time is ripe for the tackling of this question. There is no use in saying we cannot deal with it now. It is proposed to reorganise the whole local administration of the country. That is the time to effect the change which is necessary and give the community the service which the community desires.
On a point of explanation, several references have been made to staffs. There will be no staff interfered with under this Bill in connection with the roads. The staffs that will be interfered with will be the staffs connected with the rural district councils, but not those connected with roads. There will be no county surveyors or assistant surveyors interfered with.
What applies to one class of staffs applies to all. You have to interfere in one case, and you can also interfere in the other. The Minister says that he accepts the principle but that he gets some of the powers under Section 34. The case has been made plainly that this is a necessary reformation. Why not accept all the powers given by the amendment, set up a central authority, face the problem, and settle it in a way which will give satisfaction and enable the people to have good roads?
I, too, would like to support this amendment. In the County Longford this is a vexed question. Some short time ago a prominent resident in that county—Dr. O'Halloran—went to gaol voluntarily as a protest against the manner in which the roads were maintained in that county. It is also very likely, as Deputy Gorey has said, that the people will refuse to pay the rates in future. In fact, it has already occurred in the County Longford, as a protest against the maladministration of the Roads Department. Deputy Hewat asked what is the State. I will give him the definition of a very able Irishman who said: "The State is you and I, and the man around the corner." We have 600,000 houses in the Free State, of which 420,000 are occupied by agriculturists. That proves that the principal contributors to the upkeep and maintenance of the State are the people living in the rural areas. I am not surprised at the attitude taken up by Deputy Hewat, who, as Deputy Gorey pointed out, speaks for the men who run the heavy lorries—for the capitalist class. He speaks also for those who own the railways. How are we going to get down freights in this country? That is an aspect that has not been touched upon. We are all complaining of the excessive burden of railway rates. One way of cutting down the rates is by competition on the roads. Go to England and see the kind of roads they have there. A month ago I was all over Yorkshire, and had some experience of the traffic on the roads in England and of the competition there is there.
Are they national roads?
See the competition they have there with the railways. In one of the counties I represent, an egg merchant, a short time ago, wanted to send his eggs to the port of Dublin. He complained to the railway company of the excessive rates they were charging, but was told, "These are the rates; take them or leave them." He bought a lorry and put it on the road to Dublin. In a few days he had the railway company's canvasser coming to him with the concessions he had asked for. Deputy Good would not point that out. That is the kind of thing we want —competition with the railways. We are prepared to pay for it, no matter what the cost is, because we believe we are going to get it back on the double. I am glad to see the Labour Party and the Farmers' Party united on this question, because they are in touch with the people of the country. In matters of this sort the work should be left to the men who are in touch with the people. In my county, meetings of protest have been held at Ballymahon and Longford about the condition of the roads. In Tullamore I see they have set up a roads board. That shows the feeling all through the country on this matter. We are living in a fool's paradise. The voice of the people is not listened to. But it will be listened to when it is shown through the ballot box. As Deputy Gorey has said, the writing is on the wall. The sooner a change comes the better.
We are after having an enlightening discussion on this subject. We were supposed to be talking about Deputy Wilson's amendment and with regard to that I may say that I have power to do practically everything that is looked for, with the exception of not making it mandatory. There is no good compelling people to do things they are not in a position to do. I have power under the definition of a main road, in Sections 30 and 34, to establish practically national roads in the country. The main discussion, however, was not directed to amendment 22 but to amendment 28. Some of the Deputies called me to order for not discussing amendment 28 when we were discussing number 22. As every other Deputy has discussed that, it will be necessary for me to say a few words about it. The main objection to accepting this amendment is that it is absolutely impracticable as it stands. You could not apply it in any way, and if allowed to go into the Bill it would be a dead letter. It will achieve nothing, and would only amount to a pious aspiration. The main difficulty is: how is the money to be provided to set up this Central Road Board? As I pointed out, it will cost a very considerable amount of money, and it will mean duplicating expenditure and having big establishment charges unnecessary at the moment. It will mean spending, say £1,500, to do work that could be equally well done at present for £1,000.
As I said, in all continental countries where they have roads maintained by the central authorities the cost is very much higher. There is no reason to expect that it will not be the same in Ireland. Under present conditions we are not in a position to incur that cost. The only way we could provide money for these roads is by borrowing. We had to borrow, and at the present time the National Loan is not, in every respect, in a flourishing condition. If I were to put an additional charge on the credit of the nation, in the shape of a road fund of several millions, I would want to start with ten millions before I could do anything at all in the shape of reconstructing roads in the way suggested. That would have a most unfavourable effect on the credit of the country in other respects. It is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Executive Council and the Ministry of Finance. I am not in a position to state that such money would be available at all. Deputy Wilson has provided for maintaining these roads. Amendment 28 states:—
The expenses of maintaining and constructing all main roads shall be defrayed out of the produce of motor vehicles tax and the balance, if any, from a flat rate levy of not more than 6d. in the pound of the rateable value of the whole area of the Saorstát.
That would not go here nor there towards maintaining the main roads of the country at the present standard. It would want to be nearer to a 6/- tax. Deputies made a great cry about local authorities having to maintain main roads. As a matter of fact, they are doing very little maintenance at present. One million pounds was granted this year for the maintenance of main roads. Most of the county councils granted very little of their own money to maintain the roads. In addition to that we had the road fund derived from motor taxation. It is from an increase of that road fund that we may hope to be able to develop a national road policy such as is suggested. At the present time that fund is not adequate to maintain the roads on a national basis at all.
Deputies have spoken of how unfair it is to have heavy lorry traffic going from Dublin, say, over the roads of Wexford or Wicklow. As a matter of fact, Dublin is paying more than its share. If all the money raised in the taxation of motor cars in Dublin were expended in Dublin, it would get twice as much as it is getting at present. Half of the money raised out of the taxation of Dublin motor cars is expended over the rest of the country. It would be absolutely impossible for me to put this into operation. It would mean that it would have to lie there a dead letter. There are no means of putting it into execution legally or financially.
Would the Minister consider making the transfer of roads to the county council temporary, pending the provision of the Central Board? That, I think, would get out of the difficulty. We are setting up here a permanent authority. If we have in our minds that a central authority to control the roads is the desirable object, whatever you do in the meantime, let it be of a temporary character. If that were done, I think it would meet the views of the Dáil, as we see that the other question is a very big one and requires more consideration than we could give it now.
The Minister stated that one million had been granted for the roads, and that the county councils had not provided any money out of the rates. I think about £13,000 was given in County Carlow, of which £4,000 was spent on machinery in another country, and £2,000 was given to the Carlow Urban Council. The other £8,000 was spent on one road on the far side of County Carlow, the trunk road to Kilkenny. He need not say that that £13,000 was spent on the roads in County Carlow.
It is a great boon to spend one million this year. That was got from the road tax and from the ratepayers under the 6d. in the £ struck in connection with the Malicious Injuries Act. It is the ratepayers paid that. Under the financial arrangement in my amendment there would be £800,000 provided every year, which is not such a small amount. If one million pounds is such a great boon now, would not £800,000 be a great boon to have every year, and would we not get some service from it?
The Committee divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Richard H. Beamish.
- John Conlan.
- Sir James Craig.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- John Good.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Risteárd Mac Líam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Séan O Duinnín.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhín.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig K. O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- William A. Redmond.
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- William Hewat.
- Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niócaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhair O Conghaile.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich. Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghin O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 23 is consequential on that.
Amendment not moved.
I beg to move Amendment 24:—
"In sub-section (1), lines 14 and 15, to delete the words ‘county and main roads' and substitute therefor the words ‘county roads and main roads (excluding any part thereof within an urban district),' and in line 18, after the word ‘district,' to insert the words ‘and of all main roads so far as they are within an urban district.'"
This amendment standing in my name is to the effect that main roads passing through a town shall be the care of the urban council of that town. To my mind it would be only making confusion worse confounded to be bringing in the county council to maintain roads passing through a town, because you may have different plants, and different staffs, and different rates of wages, and these would not at all make for anything like uniformity, either in administration or anything else, in the maintenance of the roads. Furthermore, the main roads that pass through a town are invariably the main streets and business thoroughfares of the town, and it is quite conceivable that the public representatives in that town would be very anxious that these roads or streets would be kept in proper repair and condition. The maintenance of roads by such an outside body would not make for ease in administering or working. Therefore I think the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment, and I formally move it.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendment, and I hope the Minister will insert something in the Bill that will, perhaps, meet the wishes of Deputy Hogan. He, like myself, represents an urban area. Now, it is all very well to say that the county council can maintain roads in an urban area or district as well as or better and cheaper than the people of the district could do it. That may be so in the case of a small urban district where you have, perhaps, a thousand, or two thousand, or even as many as five thousand of a population. The county council may be able to maintain the streets of such a town better and cheaper than the people living in the area could. But when you come to an area that is largely an industrial area, and largely an area that at the present moment has its own machinery, its own engineers, and its own staff, it is a different matter. What is to become of that staff if the county council comes in to do the work that they are doing? I have in my mind two towns in my own county, Drogheda and Dundalk, where they have installed their own machinery for carrying out the road work in their own towns. They have their own surveyors and all that is necessary to do that work. If in the future the county council takes over the work of maintaining the roads in such urban centres of the size of the towns I have mentioned, or, perhaps, towns of a smaller population, it would lead to confusion which perhaps would not be very easily got over. Now I want to mention that what does not happen in all urban areas does happen in towns like the ones I have mentioned, where you have main sewers, main gas supply, telephone mains, and mains for water supply, and all such things have to be maintained. On top of that you have, at certain periods of the year, to water the streets and do such things, and it would not be possible for the county council staff to come along and do this work as effectively as it was being done by the local authority. I think when the Minister considers this matter more fully he will insert something to meet the cases I have mentioned.
Looking at the section, it seems very innocent, but when you go back and look at the definitions, there is a point that troubles me somewhat: "The expression ‘main roads' means any roads which the Minister by his order declares to be a main road; the expression ‘urban road' means any road in an urban district except a main road; the expression ‘county road' means any road in a county except main roads and urban roads." If the Minister will bring in a definition that will satisfy Deputy Hogan and me he will meet us, but I would impress upon the Minister for the reasons I have given that he should not go back to the time when the county council maintained the streets. In my own town at one time people going to Mass found cabbages planted along the roads. That was disgraceful and I do not want to go back again to it. I do not want it to be said that the county councils should get back to these primitive days, but I do want the Minister to say that he will put in a provision whereby he will give to an urban district with a population of five or ten thousand people, who are able to bear the expense of maintaining the streets and bear the expense of purchasing their own machinery, power that will enable them to do what is necessary. That is the better way, in my opinion, than leaving it to the county council to come into a town with all these gas works, water works, and sewerages and run their engines over them. It is only the men in that town and the surveyor in that town, who know the difficulties, who can do that work and do it properly.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Hogan's amendment, and I think that, as modified by Deputy Hughes, there is a good deal to be said for it. It is absolutely necessary that the main roads of the country should be maintained at a very high standard. The experience of any person motoring through a country where the roads are maintained by the county council, is that the main roads are maintained at a fairly high standard owing to the steam-rolling that has been done. Coming to the smaller urban districts, you find the roads are maintained at a very much lower level. The explanation is, first of all, that the urban districts have not got the same machinery. They are not in a position to purchase the same machinery that the county council is able to purchase, and they have not got the same highly-qualified staff for doing the work, but at the same time there is, of course, a great deal more traffic over the urban roads than there is over the ordinary country roads. At all events, it is the right thing to do, to try and bring the main roads up to a uniform standard both in urban and rural districts. It is with that intention that we made main roads the roads that are to be cared for, constructed, and maintained by the county council instead of by the urban council. They are also to be paid for by the county at large, including urban districts.
Therefore, the county council has a great interest in seeing that the urban roads are maintained at a high standard and that they get a proper return for the rates expended on their maintenance. There is, on the other hand, the difficulty that we have throughout Ireland in the case of a considerable number of important towns with a fairly considerable population. These towns have adequate machinery of their own—towns like Drogheda, Clonmel and Dundalk—and have experienced officials to carry out their road work, and they would naturally resent the intervention of the county authorities to do work which they consider they are not so well qualified to do as their own officials are. Deputy Hughes has adverted to the point that these authorities have to do other work, such as maintaining sewers, water mains, and lighting. For that reason I think it is only right that we should give some consideration to these larger towns.
With regard to the smaller towns, I do not think that we could make any exception in their favour unless there were exceptional circumstances which could be put forward on their behalf. There are several ways in which we could give special concessions to towns which fulfil the conditions which I would consider necessary to bring them out of the category of small towns which are unable to maintain their roads at the same standard as the county council. I think the easiest way of dealing with the problem is to allow the urban district of a certain size and valuation to contract with the county council to do the roads themselves, instead of having the county council to do them, just as in another section I am making provision to enable urban councils to contract with county councils to maintain urban roads. I think that by allowing towns of considerable size to contract with the county councils we will get over that difficulty. As a general policy I think it is better to allow the main roads to be maintained by the central authority. I will meet Deputy Hogan's amendment by promising to introduce something on the Report Stage which will meet his wishes to that extent.
In that event I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I desire to move the following amendment:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 18, after the word "shall" to insert the words "subject to the provisions of any local or private Act."
It is necessary for me to give some explanation concerning this amendment. I do not know whether the position that prevails in Wexford town prevails in other centres. There, under an Act of Parliament called the Wexford Harbour Act, 1874, the Harbour Commissioners maintain the quay and streets leading thereto. The quay, of course, in this instance, would be the trunk road. What I want to prevent is those streets and the quay coming under the control of the urban authority, because it would mean that the rates would be increased greatly and the people in Wexford are generally opposed to this, because if their rates are sufficient to maintain the quay and the streets leading thereto there is no necessity to ask the ratepayers to pay more. The Minister may not be able to accept the amendment now, but if he would allow me to confer with him between this and the next stage he could consider the matter.
I am prepared to accept the principles of the Deputy's suggestion, but I have not had much time to consider the matter. It is very complicated, and if I agreed to the Deputy's requirements and gave concessions, they might react in other ways. On the Report Stage I think I will be able to bring forward something that will meet the Deputy's difficulties.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The question is—"That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."
In connection with the whole question of road making, I think it would be better if we had a statement from the Minister as to what is going to be the policy in the future so far as the grants are concerned. Are grants to be given every year to the different county councils, and in what proportion will they be given? Can the Minister say, each year when the estimates are being prepared, what proportion of the cost of the roads he is going to give to the councils? I also think if he brings in an amendment such as is proposed, or something like what has been proposed, by Deputy Hogan he should consider the advisability of paying grants direct to the urban council. Personally, I think that this is absolutely necessary. When dealing with that amendment the Minister stated that the roads in urban centres are not kept up to the same standard recently as those in rural districts. One reason is, I think, that the urban authorities have not grants to maintain the trunk roads in their areas. In the last twelve months they got part of the special grant given to county councils pro rata. Hitherto when grants were given by the Roads Board, urban authorities, so far as I know, did not get any proportion of them.
I think it was in 1919, immediately before the trouble started in this country, that the roads board circularised the public authorities in Ireland with a view to trying to ascertain what would be the amount of expenditure on each road year after year, and they had agreed to give a large proportion of the cost for maintaining the roads. I think, as a matter of fact, that the system which they were about to bring into operation prevails in the North of Ireland. I think they give a grant of 75 per cent. for trunk roads, 50 per cent. for main roads, and 25 per cent. for local roads. I think it would be advisable if the Minister could set up a scheme like that, so that the county councils would know at the beginning of the financial year what grant they might expect from the Minister. It would enable them to have better estimates, and to satisfy their constituents, and also, at the same time, to make better arrangements for maintaining the roads in their area. I think it is necessary, in view of the importance of road making and of its neglect in the past, that the Minister should make a definite statement as to his policy before this section is put.
Can the Minister give us some explanation as to how he defines a main road? Under this Act a main road is to be defined by the Minister. Could he tell us exactly how he arrived at his conclusions, and on what data he bases his decisions?
I would like to know whether the words "main roads" include roads already scheduled by the Department as main roads and trunk roads.
It is not easy for me to answer these questions without notice. It is more or less out of order questioning at this stage, but I would like to deal with them as far as I could if I had got any notice of them. Without notice it is very hard to answer.
I will not press my question.
Surely it is not out of order to ask the Minister to state his policy in the administration of a certain section he has asked us to pass?
We are discussing the administration of the Ministry, the administration of the county councils, the administration of rural councils, and the administration of a great many things under nearly every section of this Bill. I must pay Deputy Corish the tribute of saying that he is very skilful at that kind of thing. I am afraid that it is out of order, strictly speaking, to ask the Minister to state the amount of money he is going to give away next year.
What I want to know is whether we are going to have the administration of this as a special grant, or as a grant given at certain periods. Are they always going to be special grants, or to be yearly grants, and what are the principles upon which grants are made?
That is more skilfully put than before.
The only answer I can give is that the main source of the grants will be the motor tax, and that runs from £250,000 to £300,000. It will increase as time goes on. At present it is not possible to form an estimate of what it might be. It has not been possible to expend the grants we provided this year so far, but I am sure if there is any necessity for expenditure on main roads in the future we will always be ready to meet the demand for it, but it will be really impossible for me to say in advance how much. There are too many considerations to be taken into account to enable a statement to be made as to what amount of money would be available in a given year twelve months ahead. With regard to Deputy Good's question, I am not the person who goes around the country and decides what road would be a main or trunk road, but the idea under this Bill is that the main roads would be the old trunk roads, that is, the arterial roads carrying national traffic, and as well as those, roads that link roads together on to trunk roads, are being classified as main roads. I cannot give any technical explanation as to how that is arrived at, at the moment.
I think a more elastic explanation will have to be given of the words "main roads" in the future, because traffic conditions have altered so much. In the past there were roads carrying certain traffic, and that traffic has now been diverted to other roads. The whole question would have to be considered. I do not want to press for an answer now, but the matter could be considered and an answer given at a later stage.
Deputies will understand that we have Roads Advisory Committees who keep us informed in all these matters. They deal with the question of motor tax, too, which is a very pertinent matter.
I think in connection with a previous amendment. I tried to show that in my opinion this whole subject was such a very big one that it would require due and careful consideration.
By an advisory committee.
Deputy Johnson wants to draw me into a discussion. As regards the roads of the country, I have been over a fair number of them, and I would like to say that it would be a very good thing for us all, and for the country as a whole, if there were a great deal more traffic over these roads than at present. With regard to the talk about bye-roads and main roads, I have as I said, been over some of the main roads not very long ago, and when our farmer friends talk about the wear and tear of roads, all I can say is that I have gone 20 or 30 miles without finding a person to give me the slightest information as to whether or not I was on the right or wrong road. The great trouble is not the traffic on the roads, but that we have miles and miles of roads on which there is quite insufficient traffic. Roads are suffering more from want of use than from use.
I am afraid the Deputy is on the wrong road now.
With regard to the money refunded to the county councils from the motor tax, will that be a free grant or will it be necessary for the councils to raise an equivalent amount, the same as under the British Government? The refund of motor tax to county councils was fifty-fifty. Will the same thing apply as regards this Bill?
I think the Deputy has an amendment a little later on dealing with motor tax, and he could raise the question under that amendment.
Question—"That Section 21 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
From and after the appointed day:—
(a) the Minister may, on the application of the council in whom the duty of maintaining any road other than a main road is vested under the provisions of this Act, by order to be published in such manner as he shall direct, declare that such road is to be abandoned, and from and after the date of such order no expenditure shall be incurred by such council in respect of the maintenance of such road, but such order shall not affect the right of way of the public over the surface of such road;
(b) when a council proposes to apply to the Minister for an order under this section, the council shall before making such application, give public notice of their intention so to do by advertisement at least once in each of two successive weeks in one or more of the newspapers circulating in their functional area, the latest of such advertisements being published at least fourteen days before the application is made;
(c) no order shall be made under this section until proof of such advertisement as aforesaid has been given to the satisfaction of the Minister, and until at least one month has elapsed after the publication of the latest of such advertisements.
I put down an amendment to delete the section, and my intention in doing so was to get information. Deputy Heffernan had an amendment on the same point, and I think I will leave the matter to him to deal with.
Amendment not moved.
I move:—
"In paragraph (b), line 60, to delete the word ‘weeks’ and substitute therefor the word ‘months,’ and to add at the end of paragraph (c) the words ‘provided that if within fourteen days of the insertion of the advertisement a petition signed by not less than 50 per cent. of the voters registered as being entitled to vote at local government elections, and residing in the townland, rural district or other such convenient area, within which is contained the road to be abandoned, sign a petition asking that the road be not abandoned, such road shall not be abandoned.’”
My idea in bringing forward the amendment is to prevent arbitrary power being used by the county councils to close a road. As the Bill stands, a county council, by giving a certain number of days' notice, and inserting an advertisement in a paper within a certain period, has the right to apply to the Minister for power to close a road that is not a main road. I think there is a possibility of grave wrong being done to certain people in outlying districts. The tiniest, narrowest road or boreen is often of the greatest importance to people in these outlying districts. The people living in these out-of-the-way places, near these boreens, or roads which might possibly be abandoned, contribute to the rates and to the upkeep of the main roads we hear so much about, and which are maintained, not for the use of these people, but for the heavy traffic going from town to town.
took the Chair.
My amendment is put down with the object of guarding against such a thing happening. If it happens that a road is considered by the inhabitants of a particular district to be of use to them, then I ask in the amendment that the people in the townland or parish through which that particular road runs should have the right to sign a petition asking that the road be still maintained. If the petition is signed by more than 50 per cent. of the people in that particular area, then I suggest in this amendment that the county council shall not have power to apply to the Minister for the abandonment of that road. I also ask in the amendment that in paragraph (b) the word “weeks” should be deleted, and the word “months” substituted. The idea of that is that the people in the area affected would get sufficient notice as to the proposed abandonment of a particular road.
I support this amendment. At first it was my desire that the Minister should not be given any such power at all. There is a feeling that the tendency might be to leave district roads, and roads of minor importance, derelict altogether to the great detriment of the residents in what might be called backward districts. It is very probable that these are the roads that might, under any circumstances, be abandoned, and in respect of which the Minister's powers would be exercised. It is the people in the remote districts that we are thinking of. These people are sufficiently penalised by being obliged to live in remote districts. The convenience they have at present, if it can be called a convenience in the matter of roads, should certainly be left to them. If it is felt at any time that a particular road ought to be abandoned, we think that the decision on that matter ought not to be taken by the Minister over the heads of the residents in that district without sufficient notice being given to them to declare whether or not the road is necessary for them. It is in order to safeguard these people, and the rights that they enjoy at present, that this amendment has been put down. The fact that 50 per cent. of the registered voters in the district must declare that they desire the road to be kept open is evidence that we do not ask that a road should be kept open at the request, say, of a noisy few. When we ask that 50 per cent. of the people should declare in favour of keeping the road open, it shows that we are anxious that a decision should not be come to until at least half the people in the area make a declaration in respect to that matter. I hope that the Minister will have no hesitation in accepting this amendment. If he should refuse, his action must necessarily leave an impression on the minds of the people who are already badly served in the way of roads, that the service they are to get in the future will be a good deal worse than at present.
I desire to get some enlightenment on this amendment. If a road is to be closed in a certain district, the amendment asks that before a final decision is come to on the matter, a referendum should be taken as to the views of the people in the area. I want to know what the area is to be. Is it to be a district or a whole county.
If Deputy Hewat would read the amendment he would see what is intended. If the road in question goes through a townland, then the suggestion in the amendment is that the views of the people in that townland should be obtained. If the road happens to go through a parish, then the views of the people in the parish should be taken.
The procedure in connection with the matter seems to be rather elaborate. I want to ask the Minister, in connection with this section, what is a "road?" When one goes down the country one often sees places which might be roads within the meaning of the Act, but I do not know whether they are roads or not. No one in his senses would wish to shut up a road on which there is a reasonable amount of traffic. I think it must be admitted, however, that the country, as a whole, has far more roads than are required for the traffic that passes over them. It ought to be a comparatively easy matter to cut down the expense of maintaining unnecessary roads, that is to say, roads of a minor character the closing of which would not create undue inconvenience. I would like to have a little more information from Deputy Heffernan as to the sort of road that he thinks will be shut up if the section passes in its present form.
It is a rather ominous thing for the people living in remote country districts to hear this novel suggestion relating to the abandonment of roads. I have had experience of county councils and of district councils for a great many years, but I have never known of a proposal to be brought before them for the abandonment of a road. On the contrary, I have known proposals to be brought forward for the repair of roads, that is to say, roads that had not been under the control of the county council up to the time that the proposal was brought forward. I think the Minister would do well to accept this amendment, because its acceptance will give the people interested an opportunity of voicing their opinions as to whether the road should be closed or not.
I desire to support this amendment. People not living in remote districts or in the country do not understand all the inconvenience that would result from the abandonment of a road. A road, for instance, that had been abandoned might not be suitable for a Rolls-Royce motor car, but it is good enough for the people who use it and for their donkey cars. Therefore, I think these people ought to be considered, especially as they are obliged to contribute to the maintenance of the main roads in a county. I desire to ask for some information from the Minister on points relating to this matter that have been put before me by my constituents. I want to know from the Minister if he contemplates keeping in a passable condition all roads leading off the county roads and ending in a cul-de-sac. We have several roads of that description in the county Kildare. They are almost impassable, and they are a source of great danger to clergymen and doctors who are obliged to travel along them for the purpose of attending to the residents in these areas. These people have to pay rates, and their interests ought to be considered. The least the Minister should do is to give the county council power to maintain these roads, not in the same excellent state as ordinary by-roads, but to keep them in a passable condition for the people who live in these cul-de-sacs.
In one case, in my constituency, we have forty families on one of these roads, which is about three-quarters of a mile long. It is also used by the children of about 50 other families. We have one of these roads down near Clongorey. It was formerly maintained by the county council, but after the evictions in that district some thirty years ago it was abandoned. The people who live on it are complaining bitterly that while they have to pay rates for the maintenance of the roads in the country, they have no roads leading into their own holdings. I think it is time that the county councils should be given power to maintain these roads in a passable condition. We have another of these roads at Newbridge. It is 150 yards long, and is used by 25 families with a population of 105 people. That road is not being maintained simply because the county council has no power to maintain it. I would ask the Minister to consider that, and see if he can do anything. It is very serious, and affects people in every county in the Saorstát.
I want to enlighten Deputy Hewat, who showed an extraordinary lack of knowledge about the condition of roads. Apparently the only road he recognises is the 24-foot road, steam-rolled or concrete, on which a six-ton lorry could roll gracefully along. It does not matter about the kind of road that Deputy Colohan talks of. The trouble with our roads, according to Deputy Hewat, is not that there is not sufficient traffic, but that there is any traffic at all. He must have an extraordinary notion of the condition of our roads when he makes a statement of that kind. I would like to invite him down to my constituency. You would think, according to Deputy Hewat, that there was no traffic on the roads instead of too much. I thought I made it clear already to him that the roads I meant were the roads maintained by the county councils and for which they are paying money. They are maintained either by contract or by direct labour; that is a sufficient definition of the type of road that I wish to protect by this amendment, and I need not enlarge upon that any further. I would like to hear what the Minister thinks in the matter.
Deputy Hewat raised the question: What is a road. I may as well give him the definition which is contained in the definition clause of the Bill and which is the same as the legal definition in every Bill dealing with roads. The word "road" means "any public road and includes any bridge, pipe, arch, gulley, fence, railing or wall forming part thereof." That is a pretty wide definition.
I am enlightened.
With regard to the general question of abandoning roads, I think Deputy Conlan suggested one reason for abandonment. In the past there was never any attempt to abandon roads at all, no matter how useless they were, and all the attention of the rural district councils—I do not know whether the Deputy was ever a member——
I was, but never again.
Was concentrated on constructing new roads of very little importance. Oftentimes they might serve a useful purpose, but owing to circumstances of one kind or another they no longer serve a useful purpose, and there is no reason why they should continue to be maintained by the rates. One hundred years ago the population of Ireland was much greater than at the present time. The holdings, on the whole, were considerably smaller than at present. In many parts of the country there were settlements of small farmers and it was necessary to have these populations served by roads. During the famine times these settlements were wiped away, and big estates took their place. There are no longer houses in these places, but the roads remain, and are serving lands upon which houses no longer remain. There is no provision, at present, to abandon roads, although councils may be in favour of doing so.
Then again, when distress became prevalent, the usual way to relieve it was to make grants for roads. If the distress was very urgent people were not very particular whether the road served a useful purpose or not. A great many roads were made and were quite unnecessary. They were made only for the sake of giving employment. The few families that might make use of them disappeared, but the charge remained upon the rates.
Another reason is that in some places there were bog-roads leading to the bogs. These bogs are now cut away and there is no longer any traffic on the roads. Another reason is that we find, and in the future it will be a more common condition than at present, that the present roads are not adequate for modern motor traffic. Oftentimes it is necessary to straighten a road instead of having to continue it round the corner, but if there was no provision of this kind it would be necessary to continue that curve instead of allowing it to disappear as a road. Of course, if there were houses along that bend or curve the road should be maintained in the ordinary way, but supposing the curve is serving no useful purpose, there is no reason why the ratepayers should continue to spend money on the upkeep of such roads.
I think the interests of people who have holdings on such roads will be adequately safeguarded in that the county councils will have to decide first of all whether a road will have to be abandoned or not. It is not a case of my deciding it up in Dublin, 100 miles away from where the road runs. The county council has to decide it. They will not do that without acting upon the advice of the county surveyor, so that there are three safeguards provided, namely, the county surveyor, the county council, and lastly, my Department. If an adequate excuse is given to any of these three parties it will be sufficient to prevent the road being abandoned. If we were to accept Deputy Heffernan's amendment it would mean in practice that we abandoned all hope of ever being able to abandon a road in the future. Everyone knows the man with the small holding, even although he might only use the road once in twelve months, and although he had only a vague idea that in some future time he might need the use of it, certainly would vote against having the road abandoned. It would be to his interest to get the ratepayers to keep the road up even though he was not using it at the time. In many cases the population in a townland is very small; in some cases the number of people registered would not amount to more than two, but those two individuals would be certain to vote in favour of the retention of the road although the ratepayers in the rest of the county might be opposed to it. For that reason I do not think that Deputy Heffernan ought to press his amendment. The only thing I believe in connection with this section is that there will not be sufficient use made of it. It will probably be a dead letter. At all events, it is well to give power to the county council if it is inclined to use it.
I would ask the Minister if the county council, having abandoned a road, would have power at a future time to reinstate it if conditions changed. I think we ought not to leave out of view the activities of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, who is about to dot the countryside with colonies of smallholders. They will require more roads than at present exist in the country.
The county council has that power at the present time. It can revise the maintenance of the roads at any time it desires. In this particular case I do not think it would mean the closing up of a road. If anybody likes to maintain it, to throw a shovel of sand on it or a thing of that kind, as a great many people do with private roads, it can be done.
Would the county council have power to take control of a road and repair it after they had abandoned it, if the conditions changed?
They would.
I am sorry that the Minister has not met me better in connection with this amendment. I would like to point out that I do not endeavour to prevent the abandonment of a road by this amendment. I recognise that there are certain roads that in certain cases may be abandoned. I also recognise that we have a very large mileage of roads in Ireland, altogether out of proportion to our population. Perhaps there are reasons for that. We are peculiarly situated with regard to our farms. We have our isolated farms rather than farms grouped together in villages as they are in other countries. Very often even to two families living on a small bye-road it is of the greatest importance that that bye-road be maintained. I think it is hardly fair for the Minister to use the argument that the population of many townlands is very small. In certain cases it might mean only two families—I think that is a very rare thing. We may have dozens and hundreds of people living in a townland, and I think it is very unlikely that fifty per cent. of a townland could not be got to sign a petition to prevent the abandonment of a road unless there was very good reason for its abandonment. I do not see that these safeguards the Minister mentioned are real safeguards. They are not real safeguards. It is not a matter of any vital importance to the county surveyor; probably he would like to see certain roads abandoned. It would take away some of his work. As far as the Minister is concerned, he will know nothing about the road. It may not appear on the map, though it probably will be on a large-scale Ordnance Survey map. Unless a great noise is made by the local people and a deputation is sent to the Minister he will probably hear nothing about it.
My amendment does not prevent the abandonment of the road; it is simply a safeguard. I think that the signing of such a petition would only occur where there was an actual need for the maintenance of the road. The real danger is that certain roads leading into very inaccessible places would be abandoned. There would not be a great number of people living on the roads, and they would not be of great importance to the county councillors, but they are of the greatest importance to those people. It would be a considerable disadvantage to those people who live in out-of-the-way places and who have to cart their produce long distances to the markets, which, in itself, is a great handicap to them without having their roads abandoned. Deputy Colohan has given a definite instance of certain roads which are cul-de-sacs and on which large numbers of people reside. I think he said there are as many as 180 people on one road. It would be a pity if such a road should possibly be abandoned. This amendment simply places a safeguard against the abandonment of such a road. I would ask the Minister to give it further consideration, because I think it is an amendment that could be reasonably accepted.
I would ask the Minister to consider my suggestion about cul-de-sacs. In doing so I think he would meet the wishes of a large number of people who feel very sorely on this matter. Would he be able to bring in any clause enabling county councils to maintain those roads in a passable condition?
A county council or an urban council has full power to maintain such roads.
My information is that the county council could not legally spend any money on such roads.
It is altogether a question of reasonableness. If it is a public road in the true sense, dedicated to the public service, it can be maintained. It is a question of fact in each particular case.
Would the Minister be prepared to insert a clause in the Bill giving that power to the county council, because I believe myself that county surveyors are of opinion that they cannot spend money legally on those roads?
As far as I am aware they get ample power, in a case where there is any necessity for spending money. I would be very slow to give them more power to spend money on roads that are not of public importance. If the Deputy could put up any specific case I would be prepared to consider it, but on a general statement of that kind I cannot undertake to make any concession. I really feel that Deputy Heffernan's amendment, if adopted, would defeat the whole intention of this section. As I said before, even if there was no person living in the townland at all the fact of having property there that abutted on the road would make it of some service, perhaps, for driving cattle from a fair once in twelve months. That would be quite sufficient to make them vote against the abandonment of the road, if we were to have a proviso of that kind. In the section that would be absolutely useless. I would, however, go so far as to say that before abandoning any road I would be willing to hold a public inquiry in the district that would enable anyone who had any case to make to come forward and do so. I think it is a good point about increasing the notice. I am willing to accept a month instead of a week.
The Minister has met my ideas fairly well, and I am willing to withdraw the amendment provided the Minister at a later stage will introduce in the Bill provisions for the holding of an inquiry and the extension of time within which notice has to be given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 22 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
From and after the appointed day—
(a) the expenses of maintaining and constructing county and main roads and abandoning county roads shall be raised and defrayed out of the poor rate;
(b) the expenses of maintaining or constructing any main road in a county shall be raised equally over the whole of such county;
(c) the expenses of maintaining, constructing, or abandoning any county road in a county shall be raised equally over the whole of such county excluding any urban district;
(d) the expenses of maintaining, constructing, or abandoning any urban road in an urban district shall be defrayed out of the fund or rate out of which the cost of paving and cleansing the streets in such district are or can be defrayed, but shall be excluded in ascertaining any limit imposed by law upon any such rate;
(e) the provisions of this section shall take effect notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any Local Act or in any Provisional Order confirmed by or having the force of an Act, in force at the date of the passing of this Act.
Amendment 28 is consequential on amendment 22.
Amendment 28 not moved.
I ask the leave of the Dáil to withdraw amendments 29 and 30.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
I suppose it is a recognised principle that the roads should be maintained out of the poor rate. It has always appeared to me to be an extraordinary thing that the maintenance of roads should come out of the poor rate. I suppose it is on account of the poor roads. I think if the Minister would consider the introduction of some clause segregating the road fund from the poor rate it would be a very good thing. Poor rate is levied for the benefit of the poor, and roads, according to the farmers, are maintained for the benefit of the rich.
There is an amendment by Deputy Lyons which I overlooked.
I desire to move the following amendment:—
To insert after the words "poor rate," line 12, the words "and each county shall retain the amount of motor vehicles tax collected by them and shall utilise such monies collected by the way of motor tax, for the maintenance of county and main roads."
I put this amendment down in order to get from the Minister some explanation as to his future intentions with regard to the amount of money collected in each county by way of motor tax. I realise the Minister may possibly tell the Dáil that this amendment, if accepted, will mean that several counties may be losing thousands. He may say that as regards the £100,000 given for road maintenance, if this amendment were accepted there would be no such thing as a grant given and that each county would have to do with the amount of money collected in each, and consequently they would not have as large an amount for road expenditure. I want the Minister to enlighten the different county councils as to his future intentions. At least in the constituency I represent, the counties Longford and Westmeath, it has been an old custom that the amount of money collected in motor taxes has been sent forward and pooled in the city for the purpose of being given to other counties.
We maintain that we are not being refunded the total amount of money collected for motor tax.
I quite agree that there was a grant given, but that grant was supposed to have nothing to do with motor taxes. Can the Minister tell me if, when a county council, in order to give employment, gets £5,000 or £6,000 out of the £12,000 or £14,000 collected in motor taxes, they can consider it a free grant, or will it be necessary for them to raise an additional £5,000 in order to have more money to relieve unemployment by attending to the upkeep of the roads? In every county in the Saorstát grants have been given, but these have been exhausted. The amount of relief given by means of those grants has not brought about any better way of living amongst the people. The wages given under those grants was not at all in keeping with the cost of living.
The Deputy is travelling outside the terms of the amendment.
I want to know whether councils that collected £10,000 in the year will have that refunded to them. Up to the present the practice has been that a certain amount was refunded, but not the total amount collected. The amount of motor taxes collected in Westmeath in 1924 was, I understand, something like £10,000. From 1920 to 1923 the total amount of grants received from the Government was £29,000. The total amount collected in motor taxes in Westmeath during the same period was about £45,000. My amendment is mainly for the purpose of having an explanation from the Minister as to his future intentions with regard to the refund of this money to county councils.
I do not agree with this amendment, but I want to make use of it in order to ascertain the principle underlying the granting of this money. Speaking on a former amendment, the Minister said the collection of taxes for motor vehicles in the city of Dublin, as to half, is divided amongst other counties. If the Minister would go down on the Wicklow roads and observe the number of char-a-bancs and other vehicles that come from Dublin and that travel over those roads, and the money in respect to which is paid into the Dublin fund, he would see at once that half the collection made in the city, if given to Wicklow, would hardly be a sufficient recompense. It is not right to allow a fund amounting to £395,000 to be administered in a kind of subterranean manner and which could be used—I do not say that it is—in order to promote political ascendancy. If you bring sufficient influence to bear on the people in authority you will get a grant. I do not think that is a proper system. Too much money is involved, and I would like the Minister to make some reasonable proposal as to how this money will be administered in future.
As I understand the Road Fund, it is a central fund into which all the motorists pay their taxes. Deputy Lyons approaches this subject from, if I may call it so, the little Irelander's point of view, because he thinks he will get something out of the fund by doing so. It is just within the memory of the Dáil, when the same Deputy was dealing with the question of roads a short time ago, that he adopted the big Irelander's style. He suggested that a county should not pay for the upkeep of the roads because those roads were used by other people. Now, he cannot have it both ways.
I did not get anything, though.
The Deputy is mending his hand. I do protest against this little, narrow-minded aspect of the question. It very much reminds me of other matters.
You are copying Deputy Lyons; you are on the other side, too.
I am not nimble enough to follow what Deputy Corish is referring to; but what he says, goes.
Thank you.
As regards the question of where the taxes on motors should go, at present the money is dealt with on the basis of a central fund which is supplemented by additional funds from the Government, taking the broad view of the necessity for improving the roads, and by that is meant the straightening and broadening of roads, and the doing away with corners. Now, the aspect that is presented to the Dáil is that this fund should be distributed amongst the different counties. I think that is wrong. However, it is one of the big questions that come up in connection with the whole consideration of those roads. I protest against the basic idea that underlies Deputy Lyons' amendment, and that is that every man who pays into anything must get his money back again by hook or by crook. Somehow or other he must get it back and still have a claim on the community for something additional, or for whatever can be got. That is the system that prevails in this country—grab anything you can from anywhere or from anybody, and as regards anything you pay for you must get full value for your money, and even overflow measure.
That is not a principle on which the Government of the country, as a whole, can be carried on, because if it is analysed down to the incidence of taxation nobody can make out a tax where everybody is going to get something for everything they pay.
What is the motor tax? Why is it paid? Surely it is paid for the purpose of making decent roads for motorists to travel on. If that is the idea why not allow the money to be expended in the county where it is collected? I do not want to grab anything. I want to get back the money we subscribed. I think Deputy Hewat has taken a wrong view of the amendment. I do not want the people of Dublin to be paying for the people of Westmeath, and neither do I want the people of Westmeath to pay for those in Dublin.
Would the Deputy agree to add those words to his proposal: "That each county shall retain the amount of the motor tax collected by it, and as much from the neighbouring counties as it can get"?
I do not think the amendment is out for grabbing anything. I only want the amount of money collected from each county. I am quite sure every county council will be satisfied to retain the money collected by them and to utilise the money for the upkeep of the roads. We may be told later on that they will not make well. To my mind they will.
I, at least, am not sufficiently inconsistent to support this amendment. Deputy Wilson this evening proposed an amendment asking for the nationalisation of the main roads, and the Minister agreed with that in principle in a general way. I look forward to the time when the Minister will see the necessity for adopting that in its entirety. If this House agrees to the amendment suggested by Deputy Lyons, I do not think we would get to that state of affairs suggested by Deputy Wilson in a short time. I cannot understand Deputy Lyons' point of view. I think it is far better in the interests of each county that this money should be pooled. I have to be a little selfish again in this—not so much as Deputy Hewat suggests Deputy Lyons is—but there is a better chance of getting a special grant if the money is pooled. If each county were thrown on its own resources, we would have great difficulty in getting the roads made. If each county were dependent on the motor tax of the last few years very few roads would be built. I think to be consistent, Deputy Lyons ought to confine the motor cars in each county to their own area if he is going to retain the tax because they might be tearing up the roads in other counties. In the case of Wicklow you have a great deal of motor traffic from Dublin.
Deputy Lyons confuses maintenance with the road board fund. I think the road board fund is not for maintenance, but for improvement of the roads. I think that is the proper designation of it. Maintenance, according to this Bill, is going to be put on the county council. According to the proposal in the Dáil to-day, there may be a road board established in the future, but at all events, maintenance is entirely separate from the amount levied for this road fund.
I think Deputy Hewat was unfair to Deputy Lyons, and I think he misunderstood him. Deputy Lyons appeared to have a selfish motive, but really he was stirred by feelings of the greatest magnanimity, and the imputation was scarcely just to him. Deputy Lyons has asked me to accept an amendment which goes rather far, but under certain conditions I would be willing to grant that amendment, as long as it applies to his own county alone, and if he were willing to agree to Deputy Corish's proposal that motor cars in Longford did not circulate outside their own area. Deputy Lyons appeals to me for enlightenment. I propose to give him a little enlightenment for his own county. For the year ended March, 1924, quoting the figures for the Deputy's own constituency in Longford, motor tax produced £4,500, and the 6d. rate £3,800, a total of £8,300. The Council received out of the road fund £14,730. Similarly Westmeath contributed £8,000, and £8,300 or £16,300 in all, and received £25,730. The Deputy wishes to lose by his amendment £15,860. So far as the Deputy is concerned, I will be quite willing to agree to the amendment if it is prompted by some fine magnanimous feeling for Westmeath and Longford, so long as I get the consent of Deputy Shaw.
I was going to lodge an objection to Deputy Lyons' amendment.
The Minister did not explain the principle on which those moneys were divided among the counties. The road fund was £395,000 last year. Add to that the 6d. tax for the malicious injuries, which makes another £60,000. How is that divided. Is it divided by the road fund board, and who are they? Who gets it? If you are a Cumann na nGaedheal man you get it, but if you are a farmer you cannot.
I am sorry the Minister forgot to reply to Deputy Wilson, for this reason, that the Minister, I understand, is allocating this special grant of £45,000 to Deputy Wilson's constituency, and £23,000 to one of the county councils in his own constituency.
The Minister when replying referred to the fact that Westmeath received £25,000 and subscribed something about £16,000. The £16,000 was collected in one year. There is nothing at all about what was collected in 1921, 1922, and 1923.
You were not paying taxes then.
We were, and it all came up to the central pool, and it remained in the pool.
Some of the Deputies who have spoken are rather unfair to Deputy Lyons. What Deputy Lyons means is this—that his area is to get back 100 per cent. of what was collected there, plus as much as he possibly can get of what is collected in every other area.
No. That is one of the things that the Transport Union stands for.
The road fund is allocated on a very complicated system. The area, the road mileage, the population, the valuation and the volume of traffic are all factors that are taken into consideration in allocating the grant. The Deputy has made a very unfair suggestion that the grant varies according to the amount of pressure that is exercised one way or another. That is absolutely untrue. The matter is decided on the basis of valuation, mileage and other factors. At the present time the Roads Advisory Committee is busy with this whole question of the allocation of this fund, and also with the matter of the taxing of motor cars and motor vehicles. I am not in a position until we get their report to say what will be the basis on which this money will be applied. All I will say is that it will be on a very fair basis.
Might I ask one question arising out of this discussion—has the whole of the motor taxes as received, been distributed in the different areas?
Yes, it has been fully allocated but not in the particular area where it was collected.
What I mean is, has the whole of it been allocated for roads or has any of it gone to the purposes of revenue?
Certainly not.
I only put in this amendment for the purpose of getting from the Minister some explanation as to how these motor taxes are allocated to the different areas. I had no intention of forcing a division on it, and I now withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 23 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
On the application of the council charged with the maintenance of any road, the Minister may by order made after giving such public notice as may be prescribed in that behalf by regulations made under this Act and after holding such (if any) local inquiry as he shall think necessary, authorise such council to close such road or any particular portion thereof to public traffic for such period and subject to such conditions as the Minister shall think proper and shall specify in the Order.
At the present time there is no power of completely closing a road when maintaining it. It is necessary, particularly under present conditions, to be able to get such power. In the old days, when roads were maintained simply by throwing road metalling along them in patches, it was not necessary to close a road completely. Nowadays when roads are maintained by concrete, tar and pitch, it is necessary, in order that the whole section might be done at the same time, to close the road. Otherwise cracks are left on the surface of the road, into which water gets with consequent cracking and breaking away of the surface. For that reason it is necessary to have power to close a road.
I would like to know from the Minister if he would be prepared in this section to substitute the county surveyor for the county council. The Bill as it stands says: "The Minister may ... authorise such council to close such road or any particular portion thereof to public traffic and for such period and subject to such conditions as the Minister shall think proper." There are some county councils that only meet quarterly, and there may be necessity to close a bridge at a very short notice. In the case of a broken bridge it would be necessary to close the road almost immediately. Under the section it can only be done on the application of the council made to the Minister.
I will look into that matter between now and the Report Stage. I do not see what the implications might be if I accepted it straight away, but I will bring something forward on the Report Stage.
I would just like to say that in the other sections the county surveyor is referred to as the authority. In this section it is the county councils, and some councils only meet quarterly and application could not be made to the Minister in any reasonable time if there was a sudden necessity for closing down a road owing to a broken bridge.
Does this really mean that no road can be closed off, even when a sudden damage occurs, unless the council, under whose jurisdiction it is, applies to the Minister?
At the present time there is no power to close completely any road.
It does not say "completely close" under this section.
It does, yes.
I think it would be a wise thing if the Minister made an alteration in that, giving the council power to close the road. Otherwise, I think we ought to adjourn the discussion on the section until to-morrow.
There is no amendment down.
I understand that, but the council should get this power.
This is giving them power.
It is not unless they make application to the Minister, which may mean sending down an inspector and various other details. If you give power to the councils without application to the Minister they will not abuse it. No council desires to close a road unless it is absolutely necessary. In case of sudden damage it follows as night the day that the road must be closed. I think it would be a more efficient way.
Might I point out that as the law stands at the moment, neither the council nor the Minister has power to close a road.
It is the unwritten law.
Excuse me, you have no authority; neither has the Minister, to close a road once it is opened. This will give an opportunity to the council to close a road temporarily, which is a most useful thing.
I quite agree. I am not objecting to that. I know there is no legal power to enable a council to close a road, but I do say there will be a lot of expense and a lot of time lost if the council has to apply to the Minister in order to enable them to close the road. They might want to do it on an hour's notice. I want, under this Bill, to give the council power to close it, temporarily of course, and I do not think it will be abused.
This is a rather drastic power. It may result in seriously inconveniencing certain people. A hotel maintained on the side of the road may be cut off for several days, and it is only right to give anybody who has an objection to make, an opportunity to make that objection.
Could not they lodge it with the council?
I move to report Progress.
Question put and agreed to.