asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that the cul-de-sac roads in County Roscommon are badly in need of repair and that the local authority, although willing and anxious to improve these roads, are prevented by statute from doing so unless the roads were repaired in the grand jury days prior to 1898; and, if so, whether he will take steps to remedy this position, if necessary by the introduction of proposals for legislation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Roscommon Roads.
As I intimated in reply to a similar question put down by the Deputy in November, 1949, it has long been the practice for the local people primarily interested in the improvement and repair of the type of road to which he refers to co-operate in the preparation of proposals for which grants may be made available by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance through the Special Employment Schemes Office.
Roads may be taken over as public roads by road authorities in two ways:—
(a) under Section 25 of the Local Government Act, 1925. Cul-de-sac roads cannot be taken over as public roads under this section, as one of the conditions laid down is that the non-public road shall connect two public roads:
(b) under powers arising from a number of legal decisions a cul-de-sac road can be taken over provided it is of general public utility. General public utility is a question of fact which must be decided by the road authority in each case, the decision being subject to review by the auditor.
I feel sure that the Deputy will appreciate that a very high mileage of public roads is already being maintained by road authorities and that these roads must of necessity be accorded priority of claim on the funds available for maintenance. To add at present to the existing public road mileage would not improve the condition either of the existing or of the additional public roads. The volume of road works to be done in any year on public roads must be limited by the amount which can be made available from the Road Fund and from local rates.
Having regard to existing and future commitments on the Road Fund, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by conferring further statutory powers on road authorities to deal with the question of cul-de-sac roads, but that road authorities in dealing with these cases must examine in each case the question whether or not a particular road which they propose to take over is in fact of general public utility.
I should like to point out that in my question I stated that the local authority were willing and anxious to repair these roads if the power and the authority to do so was given by the Department. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the position that exists in that county at present is that you can have two villages side by side with an equal number of families in each village; that the county council is empowered to repair the road leading into one village because the road had been repaired prior to 1898, in the time of the grand jury, but that the county council has no authority to repair the road leading into the other village, although it serves an equal number of families, just because the road was not repaired prior to 1898? Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that that is a fair state of affairs?
I am not aware that there is a legal obligation on a local authority to distinguish between roads which were repaired before or after the passing of the 1898 Act. The Deputy suggests that the Roscommon County Council are willing to repair these roads. In reply, I would suggest that they have ample power to do so if they wish, under the Act of 1925 which I quoted. The local authority are empowered to take over a cul-de-sac road where, in their opinion, the road is of general public utility. It may be then repaired, maintained or reconstructed. Of course, the expenditure on such work is subject to review by the auditor, but expenditure on any other road, whether a county or main road, is subject to the same scrutiny by the auditor.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the whole trouble lies with the auditor; that in County Roscommon the auditor has knocked off 150 miles of these roads in the last two years? How was it possible to repair these roads previously when the county council felt like doing so? Now we have the auditor taking up the attitude that these roads are not public utility roads.
Is it not a fact that any decision on the part of a local authority to take over such a road for general maintenance is subject to the sanction of the Department of Local Government; and that in cases where local authorities decide to take them over, the Department of Local Government raise every obstacle to prevent them from doing so?
That is not correct.
That is my experience.
The manager has power to make an order to take over such a road as Deputy McQuillan has described, or, failing that, the council can, by resolution, order the manager to take over the road. It is not subject to the approval of the Minister. Expenditure on the road is, of course, subject to review by the auditor, as is expenditure in every case.
It is all very simple until a local authority goes to do it.