It is very nice to be in the Dáil and to hear all that has been said by Deputies from rural areas, and to see so many more of them trying to get in to speak on it. I regret some of them will not be able to do so. I can hardly congratulate Deputy Martin O'Sullivan for saying that, as a city Deputy, he had not a terrible lot of interest in rural schemes, because I know, from what I have seen in my office, that he takes a very great interest in one rural constituency. In the special employment schemes office we deal with three classes of schemes: There is first the minor employment schemes, in respect of which we give a full cost grant where there is a sufficient number of registered unemployed. Secondly, in the case of bog development schemes we also give a full cost grant where the case can be made that, by doing work either on a bog road or on a drain into a bog, the work will increase the production of turf or will be a big advantage to people who get their turf from that bog. The third class is the rural improvement schemes that we are dealing with now. Owing to the fact that many Deputies talked of the other two schemes, I am sure the Chair will bear with me while I state the position. These schemes relate to roads, bog drains or drainage work of any description. As I have said, in the case of minor employment schemes, they are undertaken only where there is a sufficient number of registered unemployed. We can give a full cost grant on bog development schemes. In the case of rural improvement schemes 75 per cent. is the minimum grant given. We can give up to 100 per cent. and have done so in cases.
Deputy Corry made the statement, when speaking here last week, that since this Government got into power not one full cost grant was given. I assured him that there had been. He said "no", and that he knew in his own area that full cost grants had been given by the previous Government, but that none had been given since the present Government got into power.
He asked, in column 1338, Volume 9, of the 23rd November, 1949, if, when replying, I would produce one case in which a 100 per cent. grant was given. I looked over the list of rural improvement schemes since they were started in the year 1943 and I find that from 1943 to the day I took over the Board of Works and the special employment schemes office, on the 24th February, 1948, that two full cost grants were given in County Cork, amounting to £620. I also find that since 24th February, 1948, not two years since the present Government came into power, we gave four full cost grants, amounting to £2,743, to the county. Surely democracy is a great thing, but when democracy inflicts on us, or at least a quota of the electorate in Cork, a Deputy to challenge us in this House and to make false statements of that description, thanks be to God we can live with democracy—I hope we ever will—but I hope to God that class of democracy will soon change in Cork.
Of course, it is a grand thing to try to make out that I made certain statements I did not live up to. Deputy Childers and some other Deputies asked what is the position, and suggested that some county councils did not exactly know the position. They wanted to know the position so that full cost grants might be given. Deputy Beegan, an intelligent Deputy, put a question down to me some time ago in regard to that matter. I will quote the reply I gave him, in column 2256. I said that under the existing procedure for the rural improvement schemes a grant can be made for the repair of any road which connects two county roads without requiring a contribution from the adjoining landholders, provided (1) that the link is sufficiently important as a public road; (2) the cost is not excessive in relation to its utility; (3) the work is not one which the county council would otherwise have done out of its own funds; (4) the county council, with the approval of the Minister for Local Government, undertake to maintain the road on completion. I gave that reply to Deputy Beegan in the Dáil and any statements I made through the country in connection with it are definitely statements on that line.
Now, a rural improvement scheme possesses many advantages that Deputies here do not seem to realise. First and foremost, we give preference of the work on that road to the people who contribute. They will get the first preference if they are willing to work on that road. They can earn their 25 per cent. contribution plus the 75 per cent. given to them by the State, making a road into their own village. Not alone that, but we give them permission to appoint a ganger, one of their own, provided he is a suitable man. That looks all very well, but there are objections. I am quite sure you all remember when, on my Estimate last year or the year before, I said I was not too well pleased with the scheme. Deputy Smith, I think it was, wanted to know what I would do and what changes I would make and would I let the House know. Ever since I worried over things that could be done. Very often when you have a scheme you will find some loophole and you may have to scrap the whole thing. I pressed our people on different occasions to take advantage of this scheme and, even though I did so, I felt it was not a good scheme; I felt it was a rich man's scheme because the position was that you found two people in an area, probably people with £200 or £300 valuation, living a mile off the public road. According to the Act the State was bound to contribute 75 per cent. of the cost of making the road for those two people. In other areas you found ten or 12 householders huddled together, people who did not qualify for a full cost grant and they were asked to contribute the same amount of money. I thought that was very unfair.