asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that grave dissatisfaction exists throughout the country in connection with that part of the road policy of his Department whereby large sums of public money are being spent on the removal and easing of bends on main roads, and, if so, if it is proposed to modify this policy in future so that only such operations as will be absolutely necessary will be carried through, and, in such cases, with the minimum of expenditure.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Road Policy.
asked the Minister for Local Government whether, in view of the fact that the steam rolling of main roads is now nearing completion in most local authority areas, he will arrange for an early re-classification of important secondary county roads with a view to scheduling them as main roads eligible for steam rolling, or, alternatively, if he will divert some of the future main road allocation grants to supplement current county road grants, particularly those scheduled for expenditure on steam rolling under the five year road improvement plan.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 56 and 57 together. In the allocation of road improvement grants the stress is, and has been, on county road improvement, and it is the policy of my Department to give priority to that work.
In view of the higher proportion of Road Fund grants being made available for county roads, re-classification of these roads as main roads would not be likely to achieve an acceleration in their improvement.
Was it not actually the fact that in the last financial year a substantial part of the road grants originally scheduled for main roads was diverted to county roads and is it the Minister's intention to give effect to that policy in this year and the year that lies ahead?
The allocation this year was exactly on the same basis as in the previous year. There was an attempt at diversion some months later for a purpose into which I shall not go at Question Time.
Wait a moment. I pray the Minister to be as frank and as open as an angel. Is it not so that a considerable part of the total road grants last year was in fact diverted from main road improvement schemes to county road improvement? Is it the Minister's intention to maintain in this year the same proportion as was finally determined last year as between county and main roads?
I have made exactly the same allocation from exactly the same amount of money as was made by my predecessor for 1956. In 1956, some month or two after the allocation had been made, because of a number of difficulties that arose at the time, there was some effort to divert Road Fund grants to county road improvement but that was really done with the intention of saving somewhere in the neighbourhood of £250,000, which did not in fact result but the intention in doing so was to save money, not by way of indicating a change of policy.
Without making fantastic allegations, is it not so that in fact there was such a hope as, I think, inspired Deputy Moloney's question, that the diversion of money from the large improvement schemes on the main roads to the county roads would provide more employment for road workers in rural areas and would tilt the balance somewhat in favour of the residential farmer as opposed to the transient motorist by diverting the money on to the county roads, whether that was successful or not? Does the Minister propose to pursue the allocation scheme on that basis of trying to multiply the employment in the rural area on the county roads while at the same time giving the local resident that slight degree of preference over the transient motorist?
In 1956, my predecessor had at his disposal, with Finance sanction, a sum from the Road Fund of £5,000,000. The allocation to county roads of that sum was £2,400,000; the main road improvement allocation was £1,000,000; the main road upkeep allocation was £900,000. There was an allocation of £400,000 for tourist roads, an allocation of £150,000 for bridges and an allocation of £150,000 to county boroughs, making an allocation of £5,000,000. I made exactly the same allocation for the year 1957.
No. 58.
That was the original allocation.
That was altered.
After that was the time you were all panicky and did not know where to get £1.
May I put this further question?
I cannot allow any further supplementary questions because I have called No. 58.
We shall ask him again.