Vol. 152 No. 6
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £465,300 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).
Under the Vote for Employment and Emergency Schemes, moneys are provided for the annual programme of employment schemes to give work to men in receipt of unemployment assistance in rural and urban areas of the country and for such other services as bog development schemes, rural improvements schemes, minor marine and other miscellaneous works. The Vote also makes provision for the salaries and travelling expenses, etc., of the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office responsible for the administration of the Vote.
The provision, including allocation from the National Development Fund grant and expenditure last year for the various services are shown in the following statement. The expenditure in the year 1953-54 for each service is also shown for comparison purposes:—
|
Service |
Total Provision 1954-55 |
Expenditure (Estimated) 1954-55 |
Expenditure (Actual) 1953-54 |
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
|
F. Urban Employment Schemes |
360,000 |
331,630 |
309,600 |
|
G. Rural Employment Schemes |
60,000 |
57,890 |
54,600 |
|
H. Minor Employment Schemes |
160,000 |
160,000 |
169,000 |
|
I. Bog Development Schemes |
140,000 |
158,000 |
132,000 |
|
J. Rural Improvements Scheme |
247,000 |
223,500 |
233,660 |
|
K. Miscellaneous Schemes |
20,800 |
13,700 |
18,650 |
Including salaries and all other items, the gross expenditure in 1954-55 is estimated at £1,022,000, compared with £990,000 in 1953-54.
At the peak period of employment in December, 1954, employment was given to a total of 5,708 men, of whom 1,076 were employed on urban schemes and 4,632 on rural schemes.
The gross Vote provision in 1954-55 was £721,400. Added to this were £212,756, being the unexpended balance of the 1953-54 grant from the National Development Fund and £350,000 new allocation from the Fund, making a total of £1,284,156. For the current year the gross Vote provision is £722,800. The amount brought forward as unexpended National Development Fund grant is larger at £246,627. It is proposed to give £300,000 from the fund, so that the gross amount available for the year will be £1,269,427.
There has been a substantial drop in the number of unemployment assistance recipients in the past year. According to the census taken by the Special Employment Schemes Office, the number of male unemployment assistance recipients for the whole country in January, 1955, was 33,576 compared with 39,989 in 1954, an overall reduction of 16 per cent. The figures for urban areas were 9,316 in January, 1955, compared with 11,936 in January, 1954, a reduction of 22 per cent. For rural areas, including towns with a population of 200 and over, the figures were 24,260 in January, 1955, as compared with 28,053 in January, 1954, a reduction of 13.5 per cent. The trend of reduction in the unemployment assistance recipients figures, while varying from month to month, is still evident.
Sub-head F—Urban Employment Schemes—is intended to finance employment schemes in the four county borough areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, the Borough of Dún Laoghaire and such of the 55 other urban districts in which there are sufficient numbers of unemployment assistance recipients to form gangs of economic size. These schemes are administered by the respective local authorities through the Department of Local Government and grants are made conditional on the local authority submitting suitable work schemes for approval by the Special Employment Schemes Office and making a contribution towards their cost. The contribution in the case of Dublin is 20 per cent. for the last two years. It is about 17 per cent. in the other borough areas and varies between 5 per cent. and 17 per cent. in the other urban areas, the average for the other urban areas being about 13 per cent. The provision for this service in the Estimates for 1955-56 is £140,000 which it is proposed to supplement by a sum of £160,000 from this year's National Development Fund grant, which gives a total State grant of £300,000 for the authorisation of new works in urban areas. The expenditure on urban schemes from State grant last year, as already indicated, was £332,000. Taking into account the unexpended balances of previous years' National Development Fund grants, the total amount available this year will be £458,773. Some of this money will, of course, be carried forward to the year 1956-57 but it is expected that the actual expenditure in the current year will show a substantial increase over last year.
Some reference should perhaps be made to the situation in the Dublin Borough area last year. A sum of £258,800 was available for new works in Dublin which included a balance of £58,800 from the National Development Fund grant of 1953-54 for which schemes were not submitted to the Special Employment Schemes Office before the 31st March, 1954. Schemes to fully absorb this amount were submitted during the year, including about £131,000 for footpaths and road works and £128,000 for amenity schemes such as parks, recreation centres, canal walks, etc. Many of these road and amenity schemes were not put in hands, until late in the year, so that there is a substantial volume of works, costing over £160,000, available as a carry-forward in Dublin in the current year. The average number of men employed during the financial year ended 31st March, 1955, was 322, of whom 260 were unemployment assistance recipients. Each man gets 12 weeks' employment and as the gangs thus rotate every three months it means that over 1,000 unemployment assistance recipients in Dublin got a spell of employment in the year. The number of unemployment assistance recipients in Dublin fell from 6,361 in January, 1954, to 4,964 in January, 1955, and on the 25th June the figure was less than 4,000. It is proposed to make a sum of £175,000 available for Dublin in 1955-56. With the usual 20 per cent. contribution from the corporation, this will make a total sum of approximately £219,000 available for new works in the Dublin area, and a total commitment for expenditure (including the carry-over from 1954-55) of £380,000.
Employment schemes in rural areas under sub-heads G and H form a joint programme of works. As already stated, the number of male unemployment assistance recipients in rural areas was down by 3,793 or 13.5 per cent. at January, 1955, compared with January, 1954. The provision in sub-head G is £60,000, the same as last year. It is proposed to supplement the Vote provision of £120,000 for sub-head H, minor employment schemes, by a grant of £20,000 from the National Development Fund, making a total sum of £140,000 in the current year. Adding the £60,000 under sub-head G., the gross sum for employment schemes in the rural areas is £200,000.
The provision under sub-head I is for the repair and reconstruction of roads and drains to facilitate the production of hand-won turf by landholders and other persons for their domestic needs or for sale in neighbouring towns. The cost of this service has increased in recent years. The expenditure was £135,000 in 1951-52, £143,575 in 1952-53, £132,000 in 1953-54 and £158,000 in 1954-55. It is proposed to repeat last year's provision, that is £100,000 in the Vote to be supplemented by a National Development Fund grant of £40,000, giving a total of £140,000.
Apart from the proposed provision of £140,000 for road and drainage works for ordinary bog development schemes, a further special allocation will in due course be made from the National Development Fund to facilitate the production of hand-won turf for the four turf electricity generating stations at Milltown Malbay, County Clare; Screebe, County Galway; Cahirciveen, County Kerry, and Gweedore, County Donegal, the first two of which will be in commission and accepting delivery of turf before the end of March, 1956.
Bog development schemes are ordinarily full-cost grants and contributions are required only in the case of privately owned bogs which are let annually to a substantial number of turbary tenants and where the owner's income is such that it would not be unreasonable to expect him to give some help towards providing reasonable facilities for roads and drains for his tenants.
The rural improvements scheme (sub-head J) makes provision for grants towards the cost of carrying out works to benefit the lands of two or more farmers, such as small drainage schemes, bridges and the construction or repair of accommodation roads to farmhouses, lands or bogs. State grants varying from 75 per cent. of the cost in the case of farmers with an average land valuation of £18 and over to 95 per cent. in the case of farmers with an average land valuation of below £6 are available, subject to the balance of the cost being met by the benefiting landholders. Where the work is of substantial benefit to the general "outside" public in addition to the farmers immediately concerned, the percentage of State grants can, where circumstances warrant, be increased. These rural improvements schemes grants are available in any part of the country, irrespective of the number unemployed in the areas concerned.
The Vote provision for the rural improvements scheme is the same as last year at £197,000. A supplemental grant of £53,000 will be available from the National Development Fund. Taking into account the unexpended balance of National Development Fund grant at the beginning of the financial year—£61,838 at 1st April, 1955—the total amount available this year will be £311,838. It is expected that the actual expenditure in the current year will be £270,000 as compared with the estimated expenditure of £223,500 in 1954-55. All the foregoing figures are gross figures and include local contributions by farmers, averaging from 11 per cent. to 12 per cent., which are brought in as Appropriations-in-Aid through sub-head L.
Due to the popularity of this scheme since the change in the terms in 1950 in favour of the poorer farmers, there is an accumulation of applications lodged in the Special Employment Schemes Office and I think it only fair to tell the House that inevitably some of these applications must wait quite a while before being dealt with, notwithstanding the fact that, as stated already, we expect to step up the actual expenditure this year by nearly £50,000.
The provision for Miscellaneous Schemes (sub-head K) is the same as last year. It is mainly to meet expenditure on minor marine works, such as the extension and reconstruction of small piers and slips to facilitate the fishing industry and for the landing of seaweed and sand in the interests of local farmers. The county councils concerned are required to contribute one-quarter of the cost of these marine works and to maintain them on completion. The sub-head also finances archæological excavations at Tara, Lough Gara, Lough Gur and other centres.
The Appropriations-in-Aid (sub-head L) realised £31,500 last year. This sub-head is made up almost entirely of the contributions in respect of rural improvements schemes, but it also includes receipts in respect of bog development schemes, county council contributions to the cost of minor marine works and receipts from the sale of surplus stores.
Before the Estimate was introduced, a motion was tabled by Deputy Childers, Deputy Carter and myself in respect of three of the main sub-heads: minor employment schemes, bog development schemes and rural improvement schemes. The motion would have been taken, I understand, were it not for the fact that at the time the Parliamentary Secretary was not available and that the Minister for Finance had another appointment. It went on until the Estimates were introduced and then the Budget came in. We find no fault whatever with that, but we brought in this motion in order to strengthen the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary in securing considerable increases for these three very important schemes in rural Ireland in particular.
It might be asked why was it we had any doubt in our minds as to what was going to happen, but we had in mind what happened in the two last years of the Parliamentary Secretary's previous period in office when there was a certain amount of economising—very foolish economising, in my opinion—on these three sub-heads. In the year 1949-50, the total expenditure on all three schemes was £249,777, according to information which I got. In the year 1950-51, the expenditure was reduced to £237,529—over £12,000 of a decrease in one year. It was in June of 1951-52 that I took over, and the Estimates were there, but I sought Supplementary Estimates and also grants from certain other sub-heads where there were savings, in order to step up that expenditure.
In 1951-52, the expenditure came up to £385,327—an increase of £48,000— and in 1952-53, the expenditure again increased to £457,347. In 1953-54, it increased to £555,682 which was a big come-up on the figure for 1950-51. It was an increase of more than 100 per cent.—of £318,153. No money can be more usefully expended than money expended under these three sub-heads, sub-heads H, I and J, and I am glad that the tendency now is further to increase it. When we put down that motion, we did not expect it would be doubled, but we did expect that, with money from the National Development Fund, plus the Vote, there would be a very considerable increase. I am glad to see that the trend is now in the right direction, anyhow.
Last year, according to figures I got, the expenditure on minor employment schemes was £160,000. The National Development Fund contribution to that was £40,000 and from the Vote, £120,000. The figure for bog development schemes was £100,000, with a contribution of £58,000 from the National Development Fund, a total of £158,000, and for rural improvement schemes, £197,000 from the Vote and £26,500 from the National Development Fund. When that fund was created in 1953, it was coming near the end of the year when the Office of Public Works for these three schemes got a contribution of £200,000 to be apportioned between the three schemes. There were only four months of the financial year in which to expend that money, together with the Vote, and consequently there was a certain amount of hang-over, but nevertheless a sum of £117,621 was expended, with a carry-over of £82,379.
Last year, the total from the National Development Fund was £124,500, which, with the £82,000 carried over, meant that there was only a sum of £32,103 made available from the National Development Fund for these three schemes last year. Last year, there was a full 12 months period and the organisation was there. It had not to be set up as rapidly or as much in the impromptu manner as in the previous year, and, while admitting that the year was not very favourable for carrying out schemes, I should imagine that more could have been expended on these schemes. I am glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that more will be expended this year and I hope we will have favourable weather for it.
I am very interested in the bog development sub-head, for very good reasons, because anywhere that you have badly drained bogs, and we have many of them, and where there are bad roads into bogs, it is a serious handicap to the farmers at the time of the year when attention to their crops is of very great consequence. Often-times in order to secure the winter supply of fuel for the house the farmers, because of the bad roads and of drainage into the bogs, had to neglect their crops and lose a very considerable amount as a result. Anything that can possibly be done in that way to further the development of the bogs and to make it possible for the farmer, when he has his turf cut and saved, to leave it there if necessary clamped, so that he can take it home any time of the year is in my opinion very sound national economy—in fact, I think money invested there can be regarded as capital development.
As far as rural improvements schemes are concerned, a great deal of work is being done and the standard of the roads has been brought up considerably, but, of course, it takes a good deal more money now to put a road into repair than even five, six or ten years ago, and naturally enough a considerably greater sum has to be estimated for and made available for the carrying out of that work.
The work in general is well carried out, but there are many places where, if it were possible, it would be very useful for the roads to get a steam-rolling. The Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to go into that question. Furthermore, there is a great outcry regarding the poor condition of the numerous village roads or cul-de-sac roads. Legislation was put through this House enabling the county councils to take over roads, repair them and maintain them. We know quite well that, the rates being so high and the amounts expended on roads by local authorities so high in addition to what comes from the central Exchequer, by way of grants, the county councils would be very reluctant to take over the roads in the first instance and put them into repair. Every inducement and encouragement possible should be given to the people concerned to avail of the rural improvements scheme in the first instance and to bring the standard of the road up to the condition of repair whereby the county council could not very well refuse to take it over for maintenance. That, I think, is the greatest hope for roads of this kind, the mileage of which I understand is very great indeed.
I have nothing to say about minor employment schemes other than that I notice there was a decrease in the amount of money expended. That concerns the poorer districts. The Parliamentary Secretary states that the number of unemployment recipients has been reduced considerably. I am very glad to hear that, if that is the position; nevertheless, that should be no great reason for a decrease in the amount because, after all, there are a number of people in the congested areas all the time who are unemployed and we do know how that money is given. It has been given over a certain period. It might be no harm to increase the period or else to take in more of the roads for which that money has been made available in a particular electoral division or rural district and have it expended. I think that money also is very well expended.
I am sure that the Ceann Comhairle and the House will be glad that I am not going to talk at length on this. I have made all my remarks now and I leave it in the hands of others.
Is the Deputy moving to refer back the Estimate?
Yes, in order to give scope to the discussion, but I am not going to call for a Vote.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated in the course of his speech that unemployment had decreased. He put a slant on what might have been otherwise a non-political contribution by not referring to the fact that unemployment also decreased in the previous year, and decreased very steadily. It was down at one time by 10,000 over the previous year. I just merely wanted to mention that in passing and also to state that no one in this House should boast of reduced unemployment, having regard to the very high figure of emigration.
If the Parliamentary Secretary reads the preliminary and provisional report on the population of the country from the Registrar General of Births and Deaths announcing that there has been a small decline in the total population of this country during the last four years, and remembers that, during his previous term of office, 121,000 persons emigrated from this country, he should agree with us on this side of the House that the less we boast about marginal reductions in unemployment the better we will be, because unemployment and emigration have to be taken together. Though I am aware that a certain degree of emigration is due to the tremendous trade boom in Britain and Europe in general, the fact remains that the problem is still with us, and we are not going to help the country in speaking of a reduction in unemployment amounting to 7,000.
I want to speak to-day in some considerable detail on the whole long-term problem of the non-public roads. The last time I had occasion to speak of this matter, when the Parliamentary Secretary was in office, he did not give me much encouragement. His Government now have such a comfortable majority that striking innovations in policy are far more possible than they could be to a Government with a fractional majority at its command. One of the features of the present Government is the utter and complete dullness of their programme, the absence of innovations, the absence of any challenging statement by any Minister in regard to the major problems of the day, such as the need for increasing productivity and so forth—and that after over a year in office. The Government have an opportunity for making a far more detailed study of the whole problem of non-public roads in this country. There are 20,000 miles of non-public roads compared to 40,000 of public roads, and, in relation to the rapidly increasing numbers of cars, tractors, and vehicles used by farmers of every type of acreage and every type in every area of the country, the administration and methods used to repair those roads have become just like the poor relief given out by the British in the time of the British occupation of this country. The whole administration and method of repair are entirely out of date and bear no relation whatever to the modern problem of motor traffic on stone-bound roads.
I am amazed at the Parliamentary Secretary and his Government. They have been in office now since June, 1954, and they have not even announced to the House that they are prepared to study a problem which is of almost as great importance as the increase in agricultural productivity. It is absolutely true to say that one can judge the economic state of a civilisation by the state of its communications, and if one judges this country by the state of its communications we could almost be regarded as a country on its way out. I am aware of the fact that it was the Fianna Fáil Government which established under totally different conditions the three main methods of repairing the most important roads—minor relief schemes, rural improvements schemes—amended to a slight extent in their administration by the present Parliamentary Secretary— and bog development schemes, in so far as roads are concerned.
It was the Fianna Fáil Government that established those grants under quite different circumstances when there was very little motor traffic on the roads and during the war, when there was even less motor traffic. One only has to study the increase in the motor registrations in the different counties and the number of tractors coming on to the roads to realise that, from 1951 onwards, the problem was becoming quite a different one. I am not saying that we in Fianna Fáil solved the problem. We were beginning to consider what would have to be done to deal with these new problems covering the whole of the network of roads of the country.
It certainly is a challenge to the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the system of repairing roads based on the formula of the number of persons unemployed in any particular electoral division is a ludicrous method of repairing roads for modern traffic. It depends too much on the economic situation of the people of the area in certain months of the year, when the unemployment statistics are taken. It does not take account of emigration or any recognition of the fact that emigration has been so severe from many districts in the period of office of both Governments that the economic condition of the neighbourhood, both as regards unemployment figures and the technical nature of the work to be done on the road, has no relation to the amount of money available for any particular electoral area.
I do not believe that there is any single country in Western Europe where roads are being repaired in that fashion—that where there are 40 men unemployed, so much money is to be expended on road repairs, and where there are 80 unemployed, twice that amount, without any regard whatever to the various conditions of traffic and the soil and the condition of the road. The whole thing is out of date.
The same thing applies to the rural employment schemes—excellent schemes in themselves which have increased in volume very much since the first day they were started. These are schemes based on the unequivocal consent of the beneficiaries of the work to be done on the road. There are nearly always quite a number of people concerned with such roads who do not want the roads improved—who either live in so simple a way that the repair of the road is of no particular advantage to them, people whose economic situation is such that they cannot afford the cost and whose families are unable to take part in the work, and people whose social position makes it impossible for them to take part in the work and so recoup themselves for some of the cost.
A situation of this sort is quite fantastic, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. We have in some cases the big farmer who refuses to pay an increased contribution for a particular road. We have others who live near the end of the road and who will not contribute and, as a result, you have that scheme regarded as insufficiently important to be taken up as a minor relief scheme.
Then you may have areas in the country where there is a small number of unemployed in the electoral division and where all the people are hoping that a grant for their particular road will come at the end of a long queue. There are a certain number of cases where the people feel that if they wait for another few years to have the road repaired they will sooner or later receive a grant. There are areas of that kind in my constituency where the number of unemployed is very small and where this feeling has a retarding effect on the development of rural improvements schemes.
Then you have the arrangement under a recent Act whereby the local authority may acquire cul-de-sac roads. Local authorities are deterred from acquiring those roads at the rate at which they should be acquired if there is to be a practicable attempt made towards bringing up the mileage of such roads that are fit for motor car and tractor traffic. County councils are afraid of increasing the maintenance rate for these roads and, in addition, the definition of the public interests of the road is still in doubt. County councils are sometimes in doubt as to whether a particular cul-de-sac road could be regarded as of sufficient utility to be sanctioned by the Department of Local Government.
The county council has the last say.
The county councils may have the last say but the rate of acquisition is appallingly slow having regard to the seriousness of the problem. The urgency of this problem is due to the vastly increased motor and tractor traffic. I do not want to make any political capital about this except to say that when the Government has an overall majority of 13, at least some effort should be made to deal with this problem.
The problem is related also to a social change that is taking place and about which there is on both sides of the House far too little discussion. That problem is the decline in the value of farm residences which are situated at the end of cul-de-sac roads which are not likely to be improved to bear tractor or motor car traffic. We lack continuous statistical information with regard to the number of such residences. We have very complete statistics furnished to us in this House each year but one of the big gaps is the fact that, while each year the number of holdings of different areas is given by the Land Commission, there is never a continuous table showing the number of farm holdings and the number of holdings such as I have mentioned. We are lacking that information which is information of a nature which should be the subject of continuous study by members of this House.
The Parliamentary Secretary should study the actual increase in the size of the average farm, an increase that is steadily taking place at a rate that nothing the Land Commission does in the near future is likely to modify. He will find that thousands of holdings are being consolidated as a result of emigration and of poor communications. The Population Commission estimates that if the Land Commission continues along its present lines—and I see great difficulty in its altering its methods—in the course of the next 20 years, the average farm is likely to be one of 46 acres. It would be impossible for anyone here to estimate how much the consolidation of holdings is due to economic causes beyond our control, to the minimum standard of income demanded by the agricultural community, to the comparison of the standard of living here with that in Britain and the tremendous inducements offered in a prosperous Great Britain to workers from this country.
It would be very hard to ascribe the particular proportion of cause to poor communications, but they certainly form part of the cause. People who live down a cul-de-sac road, which cannot bear motor car and tractor traffic, find that the younger generation do not want to live there. This total Vote of under £2,000,000 to cover the repairs along 20,000 miles of non-public roads is absurd; it is a mere flea-bite; it does not represent any real contribution to the modern traffic road problem which is being created by the colossal increase in the number of cars —second-hand small cars owned by farmers of very modest means who find it essential to have a car to do their business—and by the colossal increase in the number of tractors.
The poor communications also affect agricultural production. The present Minister has agreed with this side of the House that some increase in co-operative methods is essential if small farmers are to adopt the scientific standards of farming which it is possible to have and which would double production. Thousands of miles of non-public roads are utterly unsuitable for drawing modern machinery, if it were used co-operatively by small farmers. Thousands of miles of roads would break-up now if the farmers had facilities for the co-operative use of machinery. Thousands of miles are becoming unfit to carry anything but the very lightest of tractors and would not carry a combine.
The same thing applies to comparatively simple operations like spreading limestone. There is extra cost along a cul-de-sac road, and if there does not happen to be the right kind of spreader in the area, a small spreader, the work cannot be done. There are many miles where modern machinery could not turn into a farm gate without the removal of the gate or the pillars supporting it. These are problems that have to be faced. In spite of the efforts made under successive Ministers, the work of developing hillside reclamation, where there is a small proportion of stones, is hopelessly behindhand.
The Deputy seems to be discussing agriculture.
With all respects, I am discussing the nature of the communications on non-public roads, in relation to agricultural production.
The spreading of limestone is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary.
The repair of non-public roads which would enable limestone to be spread more easily is a matter for him. The question of hillside reclamation has not been stated in a big way. If hillside reclamation is to be effective, far better communication will be needed along the minor roads.
We have all noted that, whatever progress we have made, there has tended to be a tremendous stagnancy in our administrative system. Successive Governments have been scared stiff of altering ways and means of administering schemes. With the exception of the promotion of the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health, the same Government Departments are administering the same schemes for the last 20 years. There has been no concentration of a particular Government activity under a special Minister. For example, this is one of the very few countries in Europe which has not got a Minister for Communications. Sometimes the Ministry of Communications is merged with the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs; sometimes there is a special Minister. So far as roads are concerned, there is a variety of authorities and there has never been any over-all consideration as to whether we could not repair all our roads more efficiently through some greater co-ordination or through a change in the method of administration.
The Parliamentary Secretary has the opportunity to study this problem. I suggest to him that he appoint an inter-departmental committee of those Departments concerned with roads. He should add to it some first-class engineers who are experts in road repair problems. They should make a survey of the problem, taking examples of various counties—an eastern county, a western county, a congested county, a non-congested county, an area where the mileage of non-public roads is high, an area where it is very low compared with public roads. He should get a report on the different classes of roads, the number of persons living per mile, stated in different grades for each class of road, so that he may know what the problem is, so that he can find out, for example, how much it would cost to repair thoroughly, for modern traffic, roads used by more than a given number of persons. He could find out how much more it would cost if he lowered the standard and took a number of persons per mile of road that was less than in his first calculation—and so on.
He could have an examination undertaken of the standards to be adopted in repairing non-public roads. He could find out how much it would cost to make these roads fit for traffic as it may be in ten years from now. This plan should cover a long period. He should examine the possibility of improving these roads by pass-ways, by means of which vehicles could pass each other, by widening the road at various points while maintaining the narrow width for a considerable distance.
He could examine in far greater detail than has been found possible up to now the use of the American method, of making a primitive type of concrete road by spreading cement powder, emulsing it with the soil, spraying it afterwards and rolling it. That is a method adopted throughout the United States in a good-class road, not to bear heavy traffic but to bear the kind of traffic that would go along non-public roads—tractors and so on. So far as I know, the Department of Local Government never brought in one of those machines to experiment with, yet they are widely used in the United States.
He should survey the cost of doing this work. He should try to make up his mind that beyond a certain standard the State cannot afford to go, but that it would be necessary to spend a very considerable capital sum, something of the same kind that we had to spend when dealing with other national problems. Governments never hesitated to replace the huge number of slum houses in this country. Governments never hesitated to spend the money to get over the appalling past history we had in regard to housing. We seem to be terrified of dealing with a problem that is facing us. Over one-third of the total mileage of roads consists of non-public roads about which no one is doing anything of a scientific or realistic character. We are simply spending inconceivably small amounts tinkering with the problem.
Having estimated the various alternative courses according to whatever standard is adopted, the Parliamentary Secretary could then decide what he was going to do about maintenance, whether the county council could ever afford to maintain the roads if they were repaired, whether some increased grant from the Central Fund would be required, and whether the method of financing should be from the National Development Fund or from capital grants. He will have to examine the question of the rates structure of county councils with very great realism. It would appear that on both sides of the House it is admitted that rates have grown to a maximum limit. Something better will have to be done in the earlier stages in order to overcome this problem.
To spend any money on minor roads solely with a view to giving employment is, in my own opinion, ludicrous under modern circumstances. One has only to examine the comparative migration from the land of those people who are only employed on the land for part of the year and those workers who are employed on the land all the year round to see that, however invaluable it may be, the provision of anything from six to 12 weeks' work for a man who is unemployed in the winter at the rate of wages offered on these schemes is not of itself going to cure the migration problem. It may relieve it. It is no doubt a very valuable social contribution at the present time but it is not a fundamental cure.
The only fundamental cure is the doubling of agricultural production in the areas and the building up of far greater purchasing power which would indirectly or directly employ these people. I am not saying that I am opposed to the minor relief schemes. I am simply saying that they are only a stop-gap in so far as migration is concerned. If the Parliamentary Secretary were to survey this problem adequately and put into operation a realistic scheme, he would not only give employment but it would still be possible for him, if he so wished, where there was a large number of unemployed, to add particular contributions to those areas without preventing the inauguration of a thoroughly modern up-to-date scheme for the repair of these roads with modern machinery where it is available and do the job in a really scientific way.
The Parliamentary Secretary has all the experts at his command to examine this problem. I should like him to examine it fundamentally. It is surely possible to have an inter-departmental committee where the whole of this question can be examined. I might add that I know the difficulties he is going to face. There is quite a number of people, not necessarily conservative-minded, who say it is beyond the bounds of possibility that this huge mileage of road can be put in proper order, that the social pattern of life must be allowed to change; that there are far too many miles of roads; that, in the course of the next 20 years, people will change their residences until they line the county roads and the main roads; that, in the long run, that will be the best solution to the difficulty and that, therefore, the present road grants, the minor relief grants and the rural improvements schemes are the best that can be done. The social pattern is bound to change.
There were always too many miles of roads in this country arising from historical conditions and in the circumstances they tend to wear very rapidly. There were provisions in the 1890 Act which continued to 1932. It is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to examine that problem and to fix the standard he is to adopt. A special grant for the repair of non-public roads must be made and there should be a very large number of houses built near those roads. If he changes the system, he will be able to do it only in respect of a small mileage of these roads. We could even point to the precedents in other countries where the social pattern has changed and where people came down from the hills to live or migrate. I am trying to speak as far as I can in a non-political way because I know that no Government has as yet solved this problem. I may be going too far by saying that the present Parliamentary Secretary could by now have produced a solution of it but at least he can announce that he will inaugurate a survey of the problem so that we may know where we stand.
The very able and informative contribution of Deputy Childers in this debate will be lost as far as the Special Employment Schemes Office and the Parliamentary Secretary are concerned, not through any lack of interest on the part of those people but because they are not charged with responsibility for most of the matters mentioned by Deputy Childers. I have no doubt whatever that the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to see all those rural roads repaired and brought into proper condition.
To my mind the problem is so great that it is rather unfair to frighten the Special Employment Schemes Office by suggesting that they should tackle this problem. I am convinced that, on this Vote, we can deal only with the question of getting larger grants to carry out the work that is already planned for this particular office. The major points mentioned by Deputy Childers are a matter of Government policy and are, or should be, directly the responsibility of the Department of Local Government which deals with roads in general.
There is a motion here which I understand is being discussed with this Vote. I must say that the movers of this motion seem to have anticipated my views in this matter because it was my intention to put down a motion on similar lines, perhaps not as wide as this. My motion was prepared to cover the position as I know it in my own constituency of Roscommon. I intended to make a special case to the Parliamentary Secretary and ask him at least to double the amount of money made available from the Special Employment Schemes Office towards the drainage of bogs, the improvement of bog roads, roads under construction and cul-de-sac roads generally within the county.
The motion, as outlined, is a more embracing one than mine and, consequently, I am whole-heartedly in favour of the motion in its present form. There are other Deputies who are more familiar than I am with the conditions in other counties. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary and the House that I happen to know intimately the conditions that obtain in my own constituency of Roscommon. Deputy Childers made a very interesting point when he stated that all Governments seemed to be petrified and afraid to make innovations. I think that is a very fair comment and I like to hear it coming from Deputy Childers who has never been tied up with red tape.
The man who is afraid to take action is, to my mind, no use but the man who is prepared to make a mistake should at least be given credit for trying to do something. The man who is afraid to alter regulations and conditions within his Department, who sits back and takes the conservative advice tendered to him by officials is a man, whether Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, who is a sheer waste of time in any Government and is of no advantage to any Government. As far as the present Parliamentary Secretary is concerned he was one of the first men in this set-up who made an innovation —it was a minor one I grant you—in so far as the working of the rural improvements scheme was concerned.
I support the regulation or the system whereby the contribution from the local people was low and that in itself proved very beneficial in so far as families living on by-roads are concerned because more areas began to look for the Government grant as a result of the reduction in the local contribution. I am in complete support of this motion and I understand from the remarks made by Deputy Beegan that he is quite satisfied with the amount of money made available by the Government this year under this Vote. I want to say I, personally, am not satisfied or anything like it. The last 12 months have been catastrophic, so far as rural areas are concerned.
We have heard people here talking of the Commission on Emigration which is sitting to try to ascertain the reasons why Irish people leave rural Ireland. I would only like to take some members of this commission down to a townland in the West of Ireland, take them in a by-road to a small village and ask them to stay in that village for two or three days. I think if they did that, they would have no doubt whatever as to some of the reasons why young people, and old people, are fleeing from these areas at the present time.
I can assure the House that there are villages in rural Ireland to-day where all the members of families have to wear Wellingtons for ten months of the year and that the only opportunity they get to wear normal footwear, shoes or boots, is while this period of fine weather lasts. Going to Mass on Sunday morning means Wellingtons from the father to the smallest child; going to schools on week mornings, it is a well-known fact that fathers in many families have to carry their children on their backs out through a half mile of boreen to put the children on the main road before they can go to school. And then we ask—why do people leave rural Ireland?
The effect of this Vote reaches into the very heart and depths of rural Ireland. It could be one of the most important Votes to come before this House if sufficient money were made available so that the effects in the rural areas would be far-reaching. At the present time in rural Ireland, the benefit of rural electrification has been conferred on most of the people there. That is about the most progressive step taken in years. While that is being done, people are beginning to appreciate a different type of living because the contrast is so awful—I might say—between the advantages of rural electrification and the conditions of the roads serving these villages. It only spotlights the problem far more than before rural electrification came along.
I do not disagree with Deputy Childers at all where small farms are being consolidated and where once more the system of usurpation is coming into operation and a landlord class is being established. One of the prime causes of that is bad communications. The position, as far as I knew it, became so serious that I tabled a Private Members' Bill in this House which would enable local authorities to declare as public roads all roads which in the opinion of a particular local authority should be taken over. I want to express my appreciation of the action of the then Minister for Local Government in accepting that Private Bill because, in time to come, the benefits of that Bill will show in no uncertain fashion in the rural areas.
In my constituency, where we have —at least where we had—a fairly enlightened council, that council took full advantage of the powers conferred on it under this Private Members' Bill and last year they spent—it may sound small to this House—over £8,500 on the repair of cul-de-sac roads alone. That may not sound a large sum to this House, but that sum of £8,500 meant all the difference in the world to many villages which up to that had been completely neglected. I think it is very unfair that, because a county like Roscommon is prepared to accept its responsibilities under that Private Bill and take over and declare as public roads these roads serving villages, it should have to bear the full cost of repairing these roads.
Due to the fact that that county council is spending £8,500, it is saving the Special Employment Schemes Office the sum of £8,500 on the repair of these roads and I consider, in view of that, that the grant to County Roscommon from the Special Employment Schemes Office should be increased by at least the same amount of money as the county council is spending on the improvement of culs-de-sac. I think that is not an unfair request to make to the Parliamentary Secretary at the present time.
What applies to my constituency applies as well to every other one in the West of Ireland, I am sure. I want to say that while you have a number of authorities responsible for the construction, improvement and maintenance of roads, you will not have satisfaction. There must be co-ordination, so far as the road programme is concerned, and, if there is to be co-ordination, we must first get the main body to accept its responsibilities. The main body in this regard —if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will forgive me for mentioning it—is the Department of Local Government. All we can do on this Estimate is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, so far as he is concerned, to consult with the Department of Local Government for the purpose of setting up a special inter-departmental committee which will examine thoroughly this matter of the maintenance and repair of by-roads throughout rural Ireland.
The question of main roads at the present time is not as urgent as it has been over previous years. In recent years tremendous steps have been taken in the steam-rolling of our county and trunk roads. Both Governments deserve congratulations for making the money available for this desirable purpose but the very fact that these main roads and county roads are being repaired again shows up the terrible conditions of the roads which lead off these county roads and which, in many cases, serve villages where, perhaps, anything from five to 18 or 20 families live. Deputy Childers wants to see these roads in such a condition that they will be able to bear tractors. That is only a sensible and a reasonable suggestion. The awful position at the moment is that it is impossible to walk on some of these roads not to mind driving a tractor or a motor car on them.
If in the immediate stages, before there is any Government survey carried out, the Special Employment Schemes Office are prepared to co-operate with local authorities like Roscommon by making grants available for the construction of these roads, then I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary— and I am sure Deputy Beirne who is here will agree with me—that the county council in Roscommon will be prepared, if these roads are constructed by the Special Employment Schemes Office, to take over these roads, declare them as public roads and maintain them, that the responsibility of the Special Employment Schemes Office will cease there, and that we will go to the Department of Local Government, as the responsible authority, to give us the extra money if the maintenance problem proves burdensome to the local authority itself.
I would ask the Special Employment Schemes Office not to shelve their responsibility in this respect because we in the county council have relieved them of expending, at the minimum, £8,500 last year and the same or more this year by doing the work that normally the Special Employment Schemes Office should do. Of course, if the Special Employment Schemes Office had carried out these schemes there would have been no need for my Private Member's Bill in this House. Conditions were so bad in the county that the Roscommon County Council, a body that is anxious, like every other local authority, to keep rates down, had to get the necessary funds to do the job which up to this the Special Employment Schemes Office was charged with carrying out.
I wish to make another point as far as the special case for Roscommon is concerned. Last year, as I said, was one of the worst years we ever experienced from the weather point of view. Every Deputy knows what bad weather can do to main roads, to say nothing of what it will do to by-roads. For some reason beyond my comprehension, Roscommon suffered more than any other county in Ireland as a result of the bad weather of the last 12 months. Perhaps I can explain in this way. It is a county that is surrounded by rivers. On the eastern side of the county we have the Shannon flowing down the full length and on the western side between Roscommon and Galway the River Suck parallels the Shannon as a boundary line almost completely over the length of the county. In the north-western portion you have the Lung River and in the north-eastern area you have the Feorish River. These four rivers between them flooded 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the county in the last 12 months. No other county in Ireland got as bad a crack as Roscommon.
There are Deputies here who are well aware, as is the Minister, of the considerable hardships imposed on people who live within three or four miles of the River Shannon because of the flooding in this area which made the roads practically impassable. The same applies to the Suck and the other two rivers. I am making the case, without apology to anybody from any other constituency, that special consideration should be given to Roscommon in view of the flooding that was caused last year.
There is no departmental body in a better position to meet our requirements than the Special Employment Schemes Office because it is in connection with roads and drains that this body functions. Deputy Beegan and others have mentioned at length the condition of bog roads, and I will refer to them briefly. In connection with bog roads and drains the position is very serious. There are many people in rural areas who could not cut turf this year for two reasons, firstly because the roads to the bogs were impassable and, secondly, and more important, because the drains were all choked.
What will these people do for fuel during the coming winter? Is it not only reasonable to suggest that, having put up with this kind of hardship and inconvenience for a couple of years, the people will lose hope and say: "To Jericho with the whole business" and get out of the country? I have seen applications made for bog development schemes. Maybe an application was made two years ago and there is a blue card delivered to the applicant. If I make representations in order to see what the cause of the delay is or to see if this scheme can be speeded up, I get a blue card. I have a bagful of blue cards, but I have seen very few schemes carried out. I am not blaming the officials. If there were money available the people who get these blue cards would be satisfied because the sight of a blue card would mean hope. Instead of that all it conveys is despair, because they know that blue card will be coming annually to them, perhaps for four or five years.
These are some of the reasons why I think the motion in the names of Deputy Beegan and others is one of the most important motions to come before this House for a long time. However, I am rather disappointed that Deputy Beegan is not prepared to press this motion to the limit because, as far as rural areas are concerned, no other Department reaches so closely into conditions there. More can be done in the way of relief by giving extra money under this Vote than can be done under arterial drainage or any other grandiose scheme. We are all in favour of these schemes of arterial drainage but it will be a long time before arterial drainage will show its effects along the Shannon and the Suck. Surely in the immediate stages it is the duty of the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary to alleviate the distress that exists amongst people in those areas.
I urge now that the motion in its present form be accepted by the Government and that the necessary funds be made available to the Special Employment Schemes Office so that they can, in some small measure, alleviate the distress that was caused last year by the very bad weather.
Táim cinnte nach raibh an ceart ag an Teachta Dála atá taréis labhairt nuair adúirt sé go raibh Pádraig Ó Beagáin sásta leis an méid airgid atá le fáil an bhliain seo. Cuireann an rún seo in iúl go bhfuil na bóithre ag dul in olcas agus go bhfuil nios mó airgid ag teastáil chun na bóithre sin d'fheabhsú. Dá bhrí sin, ní raibh an ceart ag an Teachta atá taréis cainte nuair adúirt se go raibh an Teachta Ó Beagáin sásta.
I thought he said he was more or less satisfied?
Dúirt sé sa rún gurb é tuairim Dháil Eireann, mar gheall a olcas a bhí na bóithre i rith na bliana seo caite, go raibh níos mó airgid ag teastáil i gcóir bóithre na bportach agus bóithre eile.
In the beginning let me say that Fianna Fáil has given all the good ideas to the inter-Party Government; and one of the good ideas so given was the rural improvements scheme. Deputy McQuillan paid a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary because he increased the grants and lowered the contributions in his last term of office. Now we will give him another idea, free, gratis and for nothing and we will appeal to him to put the idea into operation.
I remember being at a Fianna Fáil Cumann meeting—it is at these meetings that one gets the best brains in the country—and they said to me at that meeting: "We have put up the money for rural improvements schemes. We have put it up in one case twice. But what about the maintenance? If we had a sufficient cadre of unemployed in our area we would get a grant under the minor employment schemes. We would have to put up no contribution. Here we have to put up a contribution, and what about maintenance?"
In our local election appeal to the electorate, to which they responded not badly at all, we said that in future Fianna Fáil, on returning to office after the next election, would when the people put up a contribution under the rural improvements scheme maintain these roads. We said it would be the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government to maintain these roads. Now we make a present of that idea to the present Government. Let them anticipate our return and do this now and we will get some other schemes when we come back for improving conditions in rural Ireland and dealing with this very vexed question to which Deputy McQuillan has referred and which is of national concern, namely, the maintenance of the rural population in the rural areas. I wholeheartedly agree with Deputy McQuillan in that. This is not the first time on which I have agreed with him on this specific problem in which we are both interested and in which my Party is interested, namely, the alleviation of the terrible conditions under which the people live in rural Ireland.
A Dubliner will say to one: "It is well for you in the country. You have everything in it." But there is no sign of that Dubliner going back to the country to live in it. Not a bit of it. When a child steps out to school in Dublin it steps on to the equivalent of a billiards table. When a child steps out to school in County Galway, Roscommon or Westmeath, it steps into a pool of water in a pothole. Those are the equivalent conditions.
There was a time when one could maintain these roads co-operatively. This is the age of motoring and we have not yet reached saturation point where motoring is concerned. County Westmeath is not by any means the biggest county. It is not as big a county as the county the Deputy who has just spoken represents. I remember a friend of mine getting a registration number for a car in the beginning of the year—LI7000. "Good gracious," I asked, "are we gone to that?" The other day I was looking at a vehicle going into a certain place and the number on it was LI7600. In six months there were 600 mechanically propelled vehicles purchased and registered in County Westmeath.
Everything—the egg produced on the farm, the chicken, the sod of turf, the calf—is brought by motor now. It does not matter whether or not one has a car of one's own; the man who conveys what one produces charges for its conveyance and indirectly one is therefore a contributor to motor taxation.
We support this motion because we say that this matter is rapidly becoming a national problem, namely, the maintenance of the by-roads, the boreens and the culs-de-sac. Would anyone in Scotland or Wales tolerate the way into a coalpit if it were full of ruts and holes and impassable for motor vehicles and, indeed, for the miners using these roads irrespective of whether they go on foot, on bicycles or on lorries? He would not, even if high time, that action were taken. I know what I am talking about because I have been in Scotland and I have been in Wales and I have studied this matter. Here the roads leading to the source of our national fuel are in a shocking condition. It is time, and high time, that action was taken. I live beside one of these places. The road into Coolnagun is a cul-de-sac and 600 tons of turf are carried over that road every day even though it is not fit to take these lorries.
Deputy McQuillan spoke about the Shannon floods. I agree with him that County Roscommon got the worst belt. We in County Westmeath got the next. The blow in County Westmeath was not as severe, but it was severe enough and the roads around Clonboney near Athlone are practically impassable. They were months under water. Some of these were well surfaced roads prior to the flooding. Since the floods one would think they had never been rolled. A deputation went to the Minister for Local Government on this matter. It is still under consideration. In the interim we were told we might take money from the grant under the Local Authorities (Works) Act for the whole county and devote it to these roads. We did that because the work was urgently necessary. But I was present in this House sitting close to the Deputy who spoke last when the debate on the Shannon floods took place. He asked the Minister for Agriculture would special grants be provided for these roads which had deteriorated and which had become practically impassable owing to the Shannon floods and the Minister categorically stated in everybody's hearing here in this House that funds would be provided. Months have passed and I have seen no funds either from the Office of Public Works or anywhere else earmarked for these roads.
Surely, this resolution, in connection with this Vote, is pertinent to this very important national problem—the roads that adjoin the Shannon? We have got experts from America to examine the Shannon and all that kind of thing but, pending the issue of their report and pending whatever is done to ease the flooding, the people living on the Clonbunny Road and on every other road in County Roscommon, will have to use these roads; these people will still have to go to church, Mass and meeting and the children will have to go to school. The summer is passing and when the Parliamentary Secretary is replying to this debate he should indicate what will be done in connection with the roads in the Shannon basin.
This is the right time, while the weather is good, to have work done on these roads. We should not forget them, and the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is replying on this resolution standing in the names of Deputies Beegan, Carter and Childers, should give us some indication of what is proposed. In my own county—and I am sure the figures are proportionately bigger in certain other counties—some years ago when the county council tackled the problem of the county roads, we found there were 900 miles of county roads to be done. We were doing them at the rate of ten miles per year—it may have gone up to 12 or 14 miles now—and at that progress it would take 90 years to complete the programme. We have information from the Statistics Branch that there is approximately half that mileage of cul-de-sac and accommodation roads, and so I find it safe to assume that in County Westmeath we have to tackle a problem of 450 miles of cul-de-sac, accommodation and link roads, and even if we put the Act sponsored by Deputy McQuillan into operation in full in the county, how could the rates bear it all?
Surely, this is a national problem. We are now in the motoring age, and we have not yet reached saturation point as regards the number of cars or as regards motor taxation. This is a national problem which requires immediate attention, and we ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an answer, when replying to the debate, particularly dealing with bog roads and with minor employment scheme roads and rural improvements scheme roads. I would urge that, where people contribute under the rural improvements scheme, the Government and the county councils—principally the Government—should take the roads over and maintain them. I would emphasise the necessity that the beneficiaries of such action keep their hedges breasted and pruned as they do along the main and county roads.
I have stressed again and again, and I think it is important to do so, that we would not have so much expenditure on the construction of these roads if we did not have these canopies over the roads which destroy the surface and which catch the hay going in and pull the sheafs of corn off the farmer's cart and which create the drip that makes pot-holes appear sooner than on roads where hedges are kept down. That is my contribution to this debate, beyond saying what I have often said here before—that 74 per cent. of our farming community live on holdings of £30 valuation and under. These people make the biggest percentage of our rural population. They are selling their farms because the way into them is impassable. The conditions under which they live are becoming unbearable because when you improve the conditions around them along the county and main roads, no matter how much poets in Dublin write about the grandeur of the country and of the sunsets, the people would still leave the farms to which they cannot gain proper entry.
As one of the signatories to this motion, I wish to endorse what my colleagues, Deputies Beegan and Childers, have stated. The problem facing us at the moment, not to mention the long-term problem of a survey or going into details regarding the upkeep and maintenance of those accommodation roads, is an urgent one in the Shannon valley. Other Deputies have emphasised that and I think there is no need for me to dwell on that particular aspect of the problem at any length. But I should say this, that following the heavy rains of 1954 the problem in the Shannon valley regarding accommodation roads has become acute.
I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary, when dealing with the subhead regarding bog development schemes, referred to the fact that if a road accommodated others over and above those who lived on it special consideration would be given to it by his office. At the moment, we have roads of that description in Westmeath and Longford bordering the Shannon which, as I say, as a result of the heavy floods and the lack of drainage resemble nothing better than dried up river beds. That was the reason for our tabling this motion—to bring to the Government's notice the immediate problem we are confronted with in connection with the gathering of this year's harvest and the drawing home of turf, provided we are able to win the turf at all.
In dealing with sub-heads H.I. and J., I do not think that out of the total budgetary expenditure such as the size of ours this year we are asking too much when we seek the repair of those roads. I do not think we are asking anything out of the ordinary. We are not asking for too much when we ask that the grants should at least be doubled in view of the deterioration. One can visualise an accommodation road leading into a farm residence in an isolated townland following the floods of last year; one could visualise a man trying to draw hay or turf over that type of road. No amount of talking here on our part will improve that man's predicament and so this motion was put down to get immediate results, if possible, while considering the long-term implications of the matter as well.
Deputy Childers outlined some of these points very clearly. One of the points he made was that we should be made aware of the mileage of roads of this description that we have in the country. It is generally assumed that we have about 20,000 miles of this type of road. We should be able to get information either from the Department of Local Government or the Special Employment Schemes Office as to the exact mileage involved. If we are ever to get an over-all plan, seeing that housing and the extension of electricity to the rural areas are now so well advanced, I think this is the moment to begin to grapple with that question.
I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary or finding fault with the Special Employment Schemes Office. I can well understand that they are perhaps crowded out at the moment with applications under all the sub-heads to this Vote, but I think it would be desirable if they had some system of priorities for areas affected by severe flooding. I make that merely as a suggestion to relieve immediately cases of very bad road accommodation.
It is not news to members of this House to be told that we were left with a bad legacy in regard to roads and drainage and other things following the occupation of our country by an alien Government. During the last 25 or 30 years a native Government has functioned here. I think it will be agreed on all sides that it was not for the purpose of political play-acting that we put down this motion. In connection with the working of rural improvements schemes, we are always up against the problem that where a number of people are asked to contribute a sum of money, whether it be large or small, and where one individual holds out and refuses to pay his contribution, he, by his action can hold up and wreck a contributory scheme. It is assumed by farmers in general, and by the people who benefit by these grants, that a rural improvement scheme can be very beneficial.
These schemes are being availed of to an increasing extent as the years go by. It is also agreed that we are getting better value for the money spent on them than we get from money expended in other directions. Somehow or other the money seems to go farther when employed on the making of a road. It would be a good idea, I think, if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider what action can be taken either by the general body of contributors concerned or the Special Employment Schemes Office to bring to book those people who live on a road and refuse to pay their share of the contribution necessary to improve it. I know that is not an easy matter. I am not asking the Parliamentary Secretary to coerce those people. It is a legal question. The method at present is that you begin immediately above and immediately below the land belonging to the man who refuses to contribute to the improvement to a road. The result is that his action, very often, results in nullifying the beneficial results that would otherwise accrue from a rural improvement scheme.
On the wider issue that arises under the three sub-heads—minor relief and minor employment, bog development and rural improvement—the report of the Commission on Emigration has been mentioned. That report is a very good one. I have read some of it. One paragraph, in particular, deals with unemployment, especially in rural areas. It suggests that, instead of providing unemployment assistance, there should be a scheme involving the expenditure of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, the return to be that for roughly £100 one worker in each household would be put into employment. I think the suggestion a good one. It would enable us to grapple with schemes such as we were discussing. Once the harvest is gathered in, there is usually a slack period during the winter months until the following spring. During that period, provided the weather is favourable, a good deal of work could be put in on schemes such as the commission has suggested.
All the experts seem to have arrived at the conclusion that the small farmer, or the farmer under £10 valuation, is on the way out. I am not inclined to agree with that and I hope it will never come about. I hope that, no matter what Government is in office, they will always resist a suggestion of that type. The might of the British Government over a long period was not able to drive the small farmer out of production and I hope that the mass production methods of the future will not be able to do it either.
Good man.
I do want to say, however, that the small farmer himself must grapple with the problem. He must not rely on the Government of the day to create conditions for him. He can do much, I believe, under proper leadership, and he will do it. It will, however, be up to whatever Government is in power to give him all the help at their disposal. One help above all others which a Government can give to the small farmer is good road accommodation.
As my colleagues have spoken on this Vote, I do not propose to detain the House any longer. I would urge on the Parliamentary Secretary to make representations to the man who holds the purse to loosen the strings of it this year and step up the moneys to be made available under the three sub-heads H, I, J in order that something may be done to check the deterioration that has taken place on all these types of roads following the floods of 1954.
I will start off by saying that, like Deputy Beegan, my predecessor, who spoke on the Estimate, I am not very satisfied, and never was, as regards the roads that we do, whether under bog development schemes, minor employment schemes or rural improvements schemes, with the idea of giving a little here and a little there and a little somewhere else, probably giving £100 where we should give £500, in an effort to please people for the time being.
It is my intention to consider the suggestion of Deputy Childers. I intend to do it in the coming year. I also want to say—I do not know what Deputy referred to it—that a certain amount of rolling should be carried out on the road that we do. Under many rural improvements schemes, the office did a very good job, a perfect job, so to speak, but if a little extra were spent, so that pieces of road would be rolled, the road would last at least three times as long as it would under present circumstances.
When that Bill was brought in here some time ago, I wonder would I be right in saying that Deputy McQuillan said that the Bill was all they wanted —power to do it—and the county councils would be satisfied?
That is known as the thin end of the wedge.
That actually was the way in which the Deputy spoke.
We could not get it through otherwise.
When the Deputy was saying that, I was on the other side of the House and Deputy Beegan, then Parliamentary Secretary, was here. I laughed and I know Deputy Beegan did also, for the simple reason that, old experienced campaigners as we are, we knew very well that, when members of the Galway County Council or members of the Roscommon County Council or of other councils would go to their county engineers, the statement would be—"adding to the mileage of roads—we cannot afford it".
Excuse me. We told our county engineer what to do. We did not go to him. We directed him what to do and he did it.
There appears to be another direction here. Deputy McQuillan tells me that Roscommon spent nearly £8,500 last year on roads of that description. I hope I am quoting correctly. Now he says the Special Employment Schemes Office should allocate that amount. We have not that amount to allocate to County Roscommon and we cannot do it.
I was listening to Deputy Carter. I want to congratulate Deputy Beegan, strange at it may appear, for one thing —the way he stood fast for three years against his Minister to prevent him from changing the rural improvements scheme. I congratulate him for doing so. Deputy Beegan knew the advantage the change was.
I had not a hard fight in anything I put up to the Minister.
You were three years at it.
The Deputy had surrendered just before he left office.
No, never.
I am glad to hear it.
I give credit where credit is due. Deputy Beegan knows well as do Deputy Carter, Deputy Deputy McQuillan and every rural Deputy, that the change in the rural improvements scheme was the greatest advantage to the poorer sections, whether they are in Longford, Roscommon, Kerry—down in Deputy Flynn's county—Wexford, or any other part.
You did not say Galway.
Ah, well, there is too much about Galway. It was of the greatest advantage and I congratulate Deputy Beegan as Parliamentary Secretary. I read the correspondence, Deputy. You stood solidly against it. I congratulate you on it.
The three years' war.
The grand finale.
It is the truth. I always tell the truth. Fianna Fáil, do you know, started everything that was ever started in this country?
Of course—every social service in the State.
The Lord save us! Many a strange hare they started and never caught, but I caught the strange hare of the rural improvements scheme. The rural improvements scheme, as started by Fianna Fáil, what did it mean? I was present on a platform when Deputy Paddy Beegan condemned it, and rightly so. What sort of scheme was it at the start? I will tell you what it was. It was a scheme where any two farmers who made application and qualified under the scheme, although they might live a mile from the public road, although they might be two gentry, although they might be two of the landlord element with a big mansion each, according to the Act were entitled to 75 per cent. of the cost. If they contributed 25 per cent. they were entitled to 75 per cent. of the cost of making an avenue to their doors.
When I came in, in 1948, I found that to be the position, as Deputy Beegan knows very well. Many of the people in the poorer areas, such as the areas represented by Deputy Beegan, Deputy McQuillan, Deputy Palmer, Deputy John Flynn and myself, for whom the scheme was really intended, were asked to contribute 25 per cent. of the cost. There might be nine or ten families huddled together and they might be unable to contribute. After the scheme was examined by the engineers and an estimate made out for it, it was found that they were unable to contribute. The result was that 90 per cent. of the money went to the richer areas, went to the people who were able to contribute. That was Fianna Fáil's rural improvements scheme.
Hear, hear!
For the big fellow.
No.
That is the way it worked out.
The Parliamentary Secretary is talking about two. I know 22 that benefited.
I found that many of the schemes that Deputy Beegan's people had lodged came up again and, instead of having to contribute £20 apiece, they had only to contribute £2 10s. and in some cases £1, according to their valuation.
That must be in Galway.
They will be found just as poor in South Kerry and they take just as much advantage, too, and even a much meaner advantage. The result was a change in the scheme. The money went into the poorer areas. There was a doing away with a certain bias that was there. I will tell the House what it was. On one side of the fence, you found in our poorer areas— no poorer than are to be found in South Kerry—that the number of registered unemployed was sufficient to qualify the people there for a full cost grant and on the other side of the fence, where there were not enough registered unemployed, the people did not qualify for the full cost grant. The people in the areas which did not qualify for the full cost grant could not understand how the people on the other side of the fence did qualify.
The inter-Party Government and, indeed, myself—not that I want to boast about it—were responsible for a situation in which, by contributing, for instance, £5, in many cases they got £95. I think it was a great change from the hare Fianna Fáil started and that Deputy Kennedy talks about. I congratulate my predecessor in office for standing solidly against the then Minister, Deputy MacEntee, who wanted to change it and bring it back to its former position. It is time for rural Ireland, through its representatives, to assert itself. There are more places than Dublin City. Dublin City would not last long were it not for rural Ireland, were it not for many of those people who have to go into the bog roads, were it not for many of those people who can barely afford to pay the contribution of £5 towards the £95. I think Deputy Carter was more or less on the same lines that I am on now.
The Special Employment Schemes Office is a very despised place: at one time it was said that it was used for politics, or something like that. God knows that is not true. I want to pay a tribute to the hard-working officials of that office. Even though it is only a small office, remember that at one time it was called a "slush" office. At one time people felt that it should not be there at all. Coming, as he does, from rural Ireland, I am sure Deputy Beegan will agree that it is a very important office for the people of rural Ireland. It does a lot of good work. We hear talk of other Departments spending so many millions on, for instance, roads. What about the people who live two miles away from a public road but who contribute their share for the maintenance of the steamrolled tarred road? Only one office can help them and that is the office on whose behalf, I am proud to say, I speak here to-day and that Deputy Beegan was proud to speak on behalf of. It does valuable work.
And what about maintaining that road when they contribute to it?
It is not bad to repair it first. Build your bridge before you cross it.
I believe Deputy Kennedy is right. I think he said that when Fianna Fáil would get back into office they would maintain those roads.
Yes.
When Fianna Fáil are in power they cannot do anything but once they are out of office they would put legs of trees under hens.
You do not get heaven overnight.
I believe the Deputy is right. I believe that the Deputy who spoke said the roads should be rolled and that they would last twice as long. Sure, Rome was not built in a day.
We are undoing the Conquest now. You will not undo 750 years of conquest in ten years.
That is a sensible statement.
When we are dead and gone there will be improvement.
Why ask us to undo 750 years of mismanagement in one year?
The Parliamentary Secretary is in possession.
Surely Deputy Kennedy does not expect me to do in one year what Fianna Fáil failed to do in 16 or 17 years?
I would expect the Parliamentary Secretary to do twice as much as last year. He has the funds.
I hope I shall be able to do three and four times as much.
We are giving you the money on motor taxation.
Who?
The people.
I thought it was the Fianna Fáil Party.
Deputy Donnellan is in possession.
I want to assure every Deputy who spoke in this debate that I will get the office to reply to the points they made. I ask for the close co-operation of rural Deputies so far as this office is concerned. Do not have it belittled—I am glad Deputy Bartley is listening to me—and let us have no such questions as: who appointed the ganger here, who appointed the ganger there and who appointed the ganger elsewhere? The man with experience, the man who knows the job gets the appointment. God knows, I do read some files—as Deputy Beegan knows well.
Certain ones, anyhow.
When I first came into office I saw letters from Deputies to the effect that a ganger in one place, for instance, was a Clann na Talmhan man, a ganger in another place was a Fine Gael man, and so forth, and should, therefore, be immediately dismissed. When I came into office for the second time I found that the same type of thing kept coming in. Again, as far as the office was concerned— from the director down—as Deputy Beegan will agree with me, the best men are employed and every man employed does his work: if he does not, he is dismissed and that is all about it.
As I have already said, any points which were raised in the course of this debate will be answered from the office and once more I ask for the close co-operation of all rural Deputies for this office in particular. It is an office that works well and conscientiously whether it be a bog road, a bog drain, a road into a village or any one of the thousand things that affect the people of rural Ireland and the majority of the Deputies of this House no matter what Party they may belong to. I appeal for that close co-operation and Deputies will always find that that office will serve well and loyally.
