With some misgivings, I am allowing the subject matter of the second question to be raised. I do not consider it a good principle that two questions should be raised on the Adjournment on the subject matter of one.
Adjournment Debate—West Cork Rural Improvement Scheme.
It may seem strange that the House should be troubled with a discussion on the subject matter of these questions because, at first glance, it may seem that they deal with relatively simple issues. However, there is an important principle involved in both questions and it is in order to get clarification of that principle, that I am taking up the time of the House and raising this matter on the Adjournment.
Let me preface my remarks by stating that, so far as these two questions are concerned, protracted negotiations have taken place over a considerable period between the parties concerned and their representatives and the Special Employment Schemes Office with a view to arriving at some amicable arrangement. Unfortunately, no such arrangement has been achieved.
The important principle involved in Question 21 is whether or not, when a number of farmers apply for a grant under a rural improvement scheme for the improvement of a roadway and when that work has been approved in principle, some extraneous interest should intrude. This work would be of extreme general public utility to about 15 farmers in the district and to a number of outsiders who would use this road, if it were improved, since it leads to the local creamery stand which caters for the farmers in the area. There is no need for me to labour this question of general public utility as that is not at issue in this case. The real question at issue is that a person outside who has no land whatever adjoining this roadway—let me emphasise that: no land whatsoever— addressed a letter to the Special Employment Schemes Office stating that, if this work were carried out, the blasting operations necessary may interfere with her sister, who is, I understand, an invalid, and may have an adverse effect on her health.
The Special Employment Schemes Office upheld that objection. That settles the big principle involved in this question. Whilst it is true that this lady's house is situated adjacent to this roadway, some 20 or 30 yards from it, it is separated from the actual roadway by a river. This person has no claim whatsoever to any land adjoining the roadway. Neither is it proposed to interfere with any property which she owns good, bad or indifferent. The Special Employment Schemes Office reached an unprecedented decision in upholding this lady's objection. I have been asked by the parish priest, who interested himself deeply in this project, having regard to the advantage it would be to his parishioners, to do everything I possibly could to support the contention of the people affected that that objection should not be upheld and that the work should be carried out. I may add that the parish priest has himself gone to endless trouble to bring about an amicable arrangement as between the conflicting parties, and so did a number of other people, but without success.
Let us examine the nature of the objection. Living, as I do, within one mile of this roadway, I am reasonably conversant with the facts. They are these: unfortunately the family concerned, consisting of two ladies, living in this house adjacent to the roadway, who object to the work, are not on the best of terms with some of their neighbours. Due to some matters which have no connection, good, bad or indifferent, with this roadway, I understand their relations are not of the best. To my mind, consequently this lady apparently saw fit to object to this work for no other purpose but to deprive these farmers and neighbours of the benefit of having an improved roadway. That was the only justification for her objection.
It is, indeed, most strange that that objection should be upheld. It is laid down in the regulations governing the granting of moneys for the improvement of rural roadways, such as this one, that if a person objects, good and solid grounds must be given for that objection. No such grounds were given in this case other than the contention that, if the work were carried out and the blasting operations took place, they may have an adverse effect on this lady's sister's health.
The local parish priest, in conjunction with a number of others, endeavouring to dispose amicably of this objection, guaranteed to this lady who objects that during the course of these operations, which would not take more than an hour at the outside, her sister would be removed to the local hospital only a mile or a mile and a half away, or to any neighbour's house to which she would elect to go. In fact, the parish priest himself guaranteed the lady protection while the blasting would be carried out and so did the neighbours. They made several appeals to her to allow the work to be carried out and in case it might have any effect on her or her sister, they offered to provide first-class accommodation for them.
Surely no group of people in any district could make a better offer than these people made, and the fact that this offer was not accepted indicates that there is more behind the objection than this story that the blasting might affect their health adversely. The Special Employment Schemes officer was fairly conversant with the position because the director of the Special Employment Schemes Office is from the district himself and is in a much better position to adjudicate on this matter than any other person, knowing the neighbourhood as he does. Despite this, and despite the many appeals made to the office, they were adamant in objecting to this work on the ground that if the blasting did cause any injury to this lady, or if the noise from the blasting caused any injury, the Special Employment Schemes Office would be liable for payment of compensation. It is on that question that I am taking up the time of the House this evening.
Surely no Department in the State ever tried to put over such a ridiculous assertion to a group of people who were anxious to get something done and which they were justly entitled to get done under enactments of this House? I want to protest against the adherence of the Special Employment Schemes Office to its decision to uphold such a nonsensical objection, which was put forward from no other motives but spiteful ones. I think that is accepted by every person from the parish priest down. It is accepted by myself, living as I do, within one mile of these parties.
If we have reached a position in this State in which people, because of ulterior motives, can object to improvements taking place in the lives of their neighbours—and these improvements mean a great deal to the people concerned, involving a roadway for which they have been agitating for a number of years and which would save some of these farmers as much as two miles in carting milk to and from the creamery —it is a sad situation.
The Special Employment Schemes Office also said that the county council would not undertake such work, but I can tell them that the county council do undertake such work and that never has Cork County Council, or, I am sure, any other county council, upheld such a frivolous objection.
Why did they not do this work?
This does not come within the scope of the Cork County Council. It is work which, in my opinion merits at least a 90 per cent. contribution under existing enactments, subject to a local contribution of not more than 10 per cent. from the beneficiaries. However, the contribution and the amount from the State have already been determined and there is no need to labour that point, but the excuse that the county council would not carry out similar work, if such an objection were made, is completely groundless. I make that statement as Acting Chairman of Cork County Council and after having made specific inquiries so far as this matter is concerned.
I had hoped that the director of the Special Employment Schemes Office would see fit to review the position and change his mind in this case because we are establishing a precedent. This happens in Schull to-day, but it may happen in any other part of the country to-morrow so far as these schemes are concerned, if these frivolous objections are to be entertained from any person who is not benefiting under a particular scheme and who is living in the neighbourhood. I think the Special Employment Schemes Office is quite satisfied that the only ground for this objection is that these ladies in this case are not on friendly terms with some of their neighbours.
I am putting this question to the Parliamentary Secretary as the person for the time being responsible for the Special Employment Schemes Office, and I am asking him whether it is fair or not to accept and uphold such a frivolous objection in this case. If it is, this House should busy itself in the not too distant future with removing the clauses which permit that sort of thing, but I do not think the existing regulations governing grants for these schemes do cover such nonsensical objections.
I do not want to take up any more time dealing with question 21, but I wish to emphasise again the desirability of not upholding objections made from ulterior motives, and no one knows better what is behind this objection than the director of the Special Employment Schemes Office——
The Deputy, of course, knows he has only 20 minutes.
I have been asked to make representations on behalf of the people residing on the Lissacaha roadway to agitate for a grant towards improvement of the road for the benefit of two farmers and for the indirect benefit of a number of other farmers using the road which is the subject matter of Question No. 22. The special employment schemes manager is again quite conversant with this area and there was not much necessity for me to labour the point in making representations to him, as he has an intimate knowledge of the district concerned. I am therefore asking the Parliamentary Secretary why these people did not get the grant they are legally entitled to get under existing regulations? The application form states that if the work benefits two or more farmers and is of reasonable general public utility, and if the cost is not out of proportion for carrying out the work, these people are entitled to a grant.
I want to emphasise that this is a connecting road, by which I mean it is a roadway which links two public roads, and, if it were improved, not only would it advance the interests of the people directly concerned, but it would advance the interests of other farmers and other people in the neighbourhood who would use it as a short way to the creamery at Lowertown, Schull. The director states that it would cost £900 to carry out a worthwhile job on this road. I know the road fairly well and I have first-hand information from the local people themselves and from people who are conversant with costings of such work that £400 or £500 would make a reasonable job of it.
I believe the people of these areas are not getting a fair deal. I am surprised at the attitude the Employment Schemes Office are adopting. I shall conclude by repeating the remarks I made at the beginning regarding Question No. 21—that this involves a big question of principle. It is outrageous that the frivolous objection of this lady should be upheld and that the work should not be proceeded with because of that objection.
Certainly I have sympathy with Deputy Murphy. No man has done more or could do more to fix up this dispute set out in Question No. 21 than he has. He talked about the work done by the parish priest, but I think it can truly be said that nobody did as much work to have the matter fixed up as did the Deputy himself. He went to the house of those two sisters and told them he would make provision in the hospital for the sister who is ill to get her out of the way while the work was being done. However, the Deputy must realise we are not a law court and that no matter what Deputy Murphy or any other Deputy may say, I will not do anything, nor will the director do anything, that would involve the office in a law suit.
On what grounds could you be liable for damages?
Let me read from this letter:—
"The doctor called this morning and said that as my sister is in a critical state, shock of any kind could cause death and owing to the road being only a few yards from the house I should see there should be nothing done to make her case worse than it is at present. One man consoled me by telling me that if my sister would die of shock I could claim compensation."
That is the gist of the case. That is what the doctor told this lady and what some good neighbour told her. Deputy Murphy dealt with the utility of this road and the necessity for it. There is no doubt about it. I gave a 94 per cent. grant for it.
We are quite satisfied with the grant.
Outside the house of those ladies, there is a certain amount of rock which would have to be excavated. Dynamite would have to be used on that. This lady is in poor health and might be injured by such excavation work. I think Deputy Murphy will realise how we sympathise with his case when he remembers that we gave a grant of £408, subject to a local contribution of £24, for this road.
We cannot get grants like that in Donegal.
It is the biggest grant I ever sanctioned. It is 94 per cent. of the total cost of the road. Deputy Murphy pointed out that the director knows this place. He does In fact, six of the people in that area were school pals of his. Surely if it were possible to do this work, he would do it. It just is not possible for us to do it. A law case could be slapped at us that would involve us in thousands of pounds. I will not allow that to happen. However, the director has decided that at the earliest opportunity he will go down there. Where the Deputy has failed and where the parish priest has failed, the director might succeed. He has decided to visit the area at the first opportunity and see if he can do anything to get those people out of the way for even two hours. That is all we would want.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied it is due to the bitter feeling that exists between the different parties that this scheme is not allowed to proceed?
The Deputy is likely to know more about that than I am, What I do know is that we would be likely to cause the death of this lady and would be liable for damages. We will not agree to carry out blasting operations that would cause injury to this lady. As I have said, we have given a grant of 94 per cent. for this scheme and it is a pity that it cannot be settled.
Is it the contention of the Parliamentary Secretary that these people should be allowed to hold up a scheme that would benefit local farmers trying to make a living on their land?
No, but we are not entitled to interfere with the property of any party against the will of that party. Particularly we are not entitled to interfere with the life of any party.
You are not interfering with their property. These ladies have no property, no land adjoining this road. They live adjacent to the road.
This lady owns her life, and the doctor says anything we may do might be responsible for her death. We will not take that chance. I hope efforts to fix the matter up will be successful in the near future.
As regards the Deputy's other question, it refers to 150 perches of road in the townlands mentioned. Application for a grant was made on 23rd October, 1954. Four of the six beneficiaries signed the application form. It is estimated that the cost of the scheme would be £920. It is an old abandoned country road which is of no advantage to the general public. Of the six landowners concerned, two did not sign the application form because they are not active beneficiaries at all. They are only using small sections of the road at either end. The third person concerned is only slightly interested because he uses only 45 perches at one end to gain access to some conacre. The three remaining families use 150 perches at the eastern end as an alternative access to their lands. Thomas O'Neill and Thomas King are the two real beneficiaries.
The Act says "two or more farmers".
We admit these two people suffer hardship, due to the bad condition of the part of the road that concerns them. It is, however, not considered justifiable to carry out a scheme costing £920 to relieve the slight hardship imposed on two farmers.
These people would be satisfied with half that amount.
I have been speaking to the director about this matter and I can tell the Deputy that he will look into the matter again and see if part of this road could not be repaired.
I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary did that.
I certainly shall. As regards the other question, I hope the difficulty will be settled up in the near future because I consider it a very worthy project.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 21st November, 1956.