Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1949

Vol. 118 No. 14

Private Deputies' Business. - Rural Improvements Schemes—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the present Government contribution of 75 per cent. under the Rural Improvements Schemes is inadequate and should be increased to 90 per cent.—(Deputies Commons and Beirne).

There is half an hour to go on this motion and a decision must be reached by 9.30. We shall then go on to No. 18 on the Order Paper—the Intoxicating Liquor (Holiday Camps) Bill, 1949. Deputy Commons is to conclude on the motion.

When I moved this motion demanding an increase in the contribution for rural improvements schemes from 75 to 90 per cent. I had in my mind the same thought as many Deputies who have spoken in favour of the motion, and that was that it may be unfair to place the people who live in the poorer parts, or, in other on the same basis as the people who live in the richer parts, or, in other words, to expect the small congested landowners along the western seaboard to contribute as much money as the more well-to-do people who live in the richer parts of the country. But, having a certain amount of experience in dealing with Governments of every kind, both in opposition and as a supporter of the Government, I have found that it is very rarely that anybody who looks for any concession with regard to money matters succeeds in getting the actual amount he looks for. Having that in mind, I decided to seek for a 90 per cent. grant for everybody as, if any knuckling down had to be done, if the scheme submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary was satisfactory, I would be only too willing to accept such a scheme, especially if I thought it would be just and fair to those people who are most in need or who are unable to contribute.

In fairness to the Parliamentary Secretary I will say that, while the scheme he is supposed to implement in the coming year may not agree entirely with what I should like to have or what I expected, it is a vast improvement so far as the people who expect to benefit by this motion are concerned and so far as I am concerned, because those who are in a better financial position should be made to pay more and those who are not so well off financially should be treated more lightly. I welcome the suggestion by the Parliamentary Secretary that it might be possible in these rural improvement schemes to allow a grant of 100 per cent. in the poorer areas, and that in some cases it may possibly be 95 per cent., because that is from 5 to 10 per cent. more than I asked for in the motion. He also stated that he intended to hold rigidly to the 75 per cent. and that this would not be reduced for those who were financially better off.

After being some 18 months or so in office, the Parliamentary Secretary says he is determined to recast the whole scheme; that he always regarded the rural improvements scheme as administered as a rich man's scheme. If he had these ideas in his mind for such a long time, he should have recast the rural improvements scheme during the past year. If my motion has not done any good in one way it has done an immense amount of good in another way, because it has given the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to make up his mind to do what I claim should have been done at least a year ago. However, as he has decided to give the concessions I have mentioned and that he spoke of in the debate, that is satisfactory and will suit the constituency which I represent more than any other constituency.

When we come to debate a motion such as this, we have Deputies on all sides of the House giving a certain amount of encouragement, but there is also a certain amount of criticism thrown at it. The chief critic of the motion was, of course, Deputy Childers, who said that he was amazed at the smallness of the demand made in the motion and proceeded to point out that various 100 per cent. grants were given by the Fianna Fáil Government. At a later stage, however, it was found that during the time when he said so many such grants were given only one full 100 per cent. grant had been given for a scheme in County Cork. Since the change of Government, the Parliamentary Secretary can boast that during his term of office in dealing with special employment schemes he has given four full-cost grants amounting to almost six or seven times anything which was given before.

Of course, Deputy Corry can always find defects in any good scheme put up by anybody other than himself. He told us that he was amazed at the smallness of the demand made in the motion. There were many years in which Deputy Corry could have moved a motion similar to this when his Party was in power and when, as he often told us, he had great influence over Ministers and the Government as a whole. If the Government whom he supported were as anxious to help out people in rural Ireland as the members of the present Government, Deputy Corry could then have done a very good day's work in getting an 85, 90 or 95 per cent. grant for the people of rural Ireland, just as I and Deputy Beirne have succeeded in doing with this motion. Of course, the Deputy always prefers to complain. He reminds me of the American who always complained of the heat of the summer and, when winter came, stoked up his furnace so much that he complained even more of the heat. He complained that the grant was not bigger, but in years gone by there was no effort made by him to get any benefit for the people he was supposed to represent or was supposed to be anxious to help.

Another exhibition which amused me very much was given by Deputy Childers, who suddenly found after 16 years that there were such things in this country as cul-de-sac roads. When I was in opposition and tried with members of my Party to bring to the notice of Deputy Childers, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government, that we were gravely concerned with the condition of the cul-de-sac roads, we received very little consideration or sympathy from him. Everybody who was in the Dáil at that time knows that Deputy Childers's chief concern was the laying down of 60-feet wide roads for motor cars and heavy traffic, and that those living on the cul-de-sac roads were only given a meagre 75 per cent. grant. Now we have the same Deputy telling us of the terrible concern he has for the 20,000 or 30,000 miles of cul-de-sac roads which this motion is intended to benefit.

If some of the people who now shed tears over the conditions of people living on cul-de-sac roads had decided, when they had the power, to come to the assistance of those people, would not things be very much better than they are? There would be more sincerity in the man who would stand up in the Dáil and say that he had an interest in and was anxious to help those people out. It seems, of course, that as times change people change. They now begin to realise that there are such things as cul-de-sac roads, that important people live on them and have to be taken care of.

Deputy Murphy of West Cork made what I thought were some useful suggestions on the motion. His speech was short, but I agreed with very much of what he said. He pointed out, as I did in my opening speech, that there are people who can pay, and people who cannot pay, a contribution of 25 per cent. Deputy S. Collins followed on the same lines. His constituency, if not as poor as mine, is somewhat similar to it. Nevertheless, the conditions there may be bad. Each of these Deputies was most anxious that a scheme with a sliding scale contribution should be brought forward and encouraged. The guarantee given by the Parliamentary Secretary was quite satisfactory as far as I am concerned. I can assure Deputies that, when I stand up here, I will advocate the same concessions for the large farmer as for the small farmer. Everyone knows the respect that I have for the big farmer. I do not put him in the same grade as the small farmer who is more industrious. The latter has to struggle harder to eke out a livelihood.

Deputy Cowan made a very useful contribution. He was slightly out as far as the money for this motion is concerned. He pointed out that, if £100,000 was spent on these schemes last year, all that was necessary in order to make the schemes satisfactory for the people concerned was an extra £15,000. I would like to point out to him and to the Parliamentary Secretary that, when we get the schemes promised by the Parliamentary Secretary and when his guarantee comes into operation, there will be greater demands from the people for such schemes. Many more applications will be coming in and so much more money will be wanted to implement them and to supplement the money already there. Much more, I think, will be required than £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 to supplement the £100,000 already there. I shall keep a very close eye on the Estimate when it is presented setting out the amount of money that is to be spent on these schemes in the coming year. I intend to see that there will be a large enough sum of money provided to meet the demands of all the schemes that will be submitted, and that are bound to be suitable as rural improvements schemes. If that is not done, then this motion and the promise given by the Parliamentary Secretary would not be worth a pinch of salt.

I want to say again, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary has pledged his word. He has given an assurance that the necessary amount of money will be found. I can assure him that it will be usefully and beneficially spent so far as the people living on the cul-de-sac roads are concerned. Those people have not the advantages enjoyed by people living on our main highways. The Local Authorities (Works) Act will take quite a load off the shoulders of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department so far as schemes in regard to drainage are concerned. Everybody realises that, when weather conditions are more favourable, very many useful schemes can be carried through under that particular Act, schemes which would otherwise have to be done by the Department as rural improvements schemes. When that load has been taken off the Department, the money made available for rural improvements schemes can be devoted almost entirely to the repair and upkeep of cul-de-sac roads. These roads have been forgotten over a long number of years. Therefore, I say it is the duty of the Government to help out, as far as possible, the people living on them. So far they have had to exist under conditions which were not a credit to any Government either in the present or in the past.

Take the case of people living along these cul-de-sac roads or on boreens. If they want to take advantage of modern methods of farming they cannot bring heavy farming machinery that would be useful in taking the drudgery out of their work, into their land. In view of that, the people living under such conditions must have felt that the Governments they supported now or in the past did not take much interest in their welfare.

Finally, I want to say that I am fully satisfied with the promise that the Parliamentary Secretary has given that he will increase in certain cases the amount of the grants. I would have preferred, of course, to get the 90 per cent. contribution in all cases. The money on these schemes will be usefully spent. No group of individuals would undertake to make a 10 per cent. contribution to any scheme unless they felt that it was definitely wanted and was going to prove useful in their locality. I do not say that I have succeeded in accomplishing what I set out to achieve. Deputy Beirne and myself have, however, succeeded in getting from the Government an extra amount of money which will enable more employment to be given in doing useful work in constituencies where that employment is most needed. Everybody knows that the western counties are more thickly populated than the better off counties. We have more village roads in the western counties and I can say they are very bad village roads. It is hoped that more and more money will flow into those areas to help to bring the roads and the drains into a satisfactory condition for the people who live there.

I will hold the Parliamentary Secretary definitely to the promise he has given, and which I know he will implement. I do not expect that he can delve into the pockets of the Government and produce £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000 between now and Christmas night in order to carry out rural improvements schemes, but when the Estimates come forward I expect he will see to it that the necessary provision is made for the amount required to finance all the schemes which have been approved by his Department and which are so necessary in various parts of the country.

The getting of £10,000, £20,000, £40,000, or even more from the Government and expending it in rural Ireland is something which should have been done, not this week, this year, or even last year, but it should have been done 25 years ago. It is not at this stage that we should be looking for these things. These schemes should have been carried out long ago and they should be in such a position now that they could be maintained at a lesser cost. But perhaps it is better late than never, and if this motion has not succeeded in getting all it set out to achieve, at least it has done a very good day's work for the rural community.

Is the Deputy withdrawing the motion?

I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it; I am not pressing it.

I object to the withdrawal of this motion. Deputy Beirne's name is also put down to the motion and it asks for 90 per cent. Deputy Commons and the Parliamentary Secretary are making class distinction so far as that is concerned; their point is that 75 per cent. should go to the wealthier classes and 90 per cent. to the others.

Deputy Commons concluded the debate. There is objection to the withdrawal of the motion, and Deputies are entitled so to object. I am putting the question: "That leave be given to withdraw this motion—No. 16 on the Order Paper."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 45:—

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Joseph P.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Connolly, Roderick J.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, William J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheehan, Michael.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timoney, John J.
  • Tully, John.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Ó Briain.
Question declared carried.
Motion withdrawn accordingly.
Top
Share