Committee on Finance. - Road Fund (Grants) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1962—Second Stage. – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Thursday, 15 Mar 1962

Committee on Finance. - Road Fund (Grants) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1962—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Bill, in effect, provides for the cancellation as from 1st April, 1962, of the Road Fund debt on foot of borrowings from the Exchequer and, also, for the making of additional grants to the Fund from the Exchequer over the period of three years commencing 1st April, 1961.

A sum of £900,000 was borrowed by the Fund from the Exchequer in 1957/58 and of that amount a sum of £622,603 principal will be outstanding as a debt due to the Exchequer on the 31st March, 1962. In addition, the Road Fund (Grants and Advances) (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1959, empowered the Minister for Finance to supplement from the Exchequer the income of the Road Fund by an amount not exceeding £2 million spread over a period of 5 years and payable as to one-half by way of free grant and one-half by way of repayable loan. Up to 31st March, 1962, a sum of £1,200,000 will have been received by the Fund under these provisions, £600,000 of which is in the form of repayable advances. Of this, principal amounting to £553,082 will be outstanding as a debt due to the Exchequer on 31st March.

As announced by the Minister for Finance when moving the Vote on Account for 1962-63, it is proposed that the Local Taxation Account, which includes the Estate Duties Grant issued annually to local authorities through the Account, should be terminated as from 1st April, 1962; this matter is to be dealt with in legislation which will, in due course, be introduced by the Minister for Finance. In compensation for the termination of these payments from the Local Taxation Account, the Bill proposes that the Road Fund debt on foot of the borrowings already referred to from the Exchequer up to 31st March, 1962, will be cancelled. In addition, two grants will be made in lieu of the two repayable advances of £200,000 each which would otherwise be made under the terms of the 1959 Act in the financial years 1962/63 and 1963/64. This accounts for £400,000 of the £700,000 provided for in Section 1 of the Bill; the balance of £300,000 I will deal with later on. As I have already announced, local authorities will be compensated out of the Road Fund.

The special assistance provided by the 1959 Act was designed to enable the Road Fund to meet applications from particular road authorities for grants to assist them in dealing with two special types of road problem, viz.: (a) that created in certain counties by the closing (in whole or in part) of railway lines; (b) that created by traffic serving certain important industrial undertakings, the public road approaches to which have been found to need improvement.

The amount of £2 million has been fully earmarked against specific schemes and programmes of road authorities and supplemental grants are now required in the cases of some roads serving major industrial undertakings where the original estimates have been found to have been too low. Moreover, further applications have been received from road authorities affected by recent railway closings or by new industrial undertakings. These new applications have been examined by my Department and I have obtained the approval of the Government to make special assistance available in certain cases.

A further supplement of £300,000 to the Road Fund will be made to assist in meeting the cost of these additional special works, making available a total additional allocation of £900,000 for this purpose over a period of three years. From this sum, substantial grants have been allocated to the county councils of Cork, Clare, Westmeath and Waterford and to Waterford Corporation for the improvement of roads affected by recent railway closings. In addition, substantial grants for roads affected by major industrial undertakings have been allocated to Cork Corporation and the county councils of Louth, Kilkenny, Offaly and Laoighis.

A number of applications have been received from other areas and while I cannot, of course, guarantee that they will all be granted, I can assure the House that they will be fully and carefully examined. I am sure the House will have no hesitation in accepting the principles of the Bill and in giving it a Second Reading.

On the question of the Supplementary Estimate for Local Government which, I understand, is being discussed with this Bill——

An Ceann Comhairle

That will be moved subsequently.

Mr. Sweetman

We will discluss them together.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes. The Estimate will be formally moved afterwards.

Mr. Jones

We may take it that this measure is, in effect, a book-keeping transaction. What it really does is to transfer the liability from the Road Fund to the national debt. Since it is being transferred, it will have to be paid for at some stage and the service of it will eventually mean additional taxation.

With regard to the Road Fund itself and the allocations from it, there is, as everybody knows, discontent at the manner in which the money is being distributed and the way it is being raised and that discontent is being shown by the organisations which represent the farming community. They are gravely concerned about the increasing impact on the rates of road maintenance. Other sections of the community who are not as organised, perhaps, as the farming community are concerned about this matter. Everybody is of one mind that the charges which fall to be met in regard to roads ought to be transferred. We believe more discretion should be given to local authorities as to the use of their allocation from the Road Fund.

The Minister told me last week that approximately half the roads in this State are dust-free and that there is great demand for the improvement of secondary and minor roads in county areas. What were known as boreens in county areas are no longer amenities but necessities. The increased use of mechanical transport on farms, and so on, has led to the necessity for improvement of these roads. The local authority deals with them at present by way of allocations from funds available to the county engineers from the rates.

If local authorities had more discretion in the use of the funds available to them I believe they could do a good deal of useful work. Local representatives consider that some road schemes are expensive, particularly in relation to the straightening of main and secondary roads. A good deal of expense is incurred in removing dangerous corners. Very often, an appropriate danger sign at the approach to the corner would serve equally well and obviate the outlay of a large sum of money.

While the straightening of roads may lead to an improvement from the point of view of through-traffic and give the impression of wide and spacious roadways, in the long run it does not greatly reduce the problems local authorities have to deal with.

The Minister mentioned the Excise Fund. It would be no harm if he could see his way to deal with contributions made under old enactments of this Oireachtas and other legislative authorities in the past. It would be of advantage to accountancy on either side and generally would be most useful and helpful.

The Minister is making road grants in respect of the cessation of rail traffic and of access roads to industrial undertakings. I notice he has taken certain counties into account where changes have already occurred in the transport system. I mentioned on previous occasions that a very good case could be made for my constituency. For years, heavy traffic has been carried over sections of the road there which was not brought about by cessation of rail traffic. Take West Limerick as an example and the traffic to Shannon Airport. Consider the fuel transported from Foynes through the county and city of Limerick and, indeed, through Clare. That is a national undertaking. A case can justifiably be made for compensation to meet that heavy flow of traffic.

Apart from the closing down of certain rail sections and the consequent transference of traffic to roads and, indirectly, the imposition of a burden on the ratepaying community, there is a tendency amongst firms having their own transport to use the roads to a much greater extent than was formerly the case. Tourism has brought about a heavier flow of traffic which is not confined to any one portion of the country or, indeed, to several sections but is widespread. Many roads in Connemara, Kerry and Donegal have been dealt with under various grants because they were classified as tourist roads, and so on. Certainly, they have opened up the countryside to visitors The result has been that a very large number of roads, particularly in Gaeltacht areas, have been dealt with through 100 per cent. grants.

I saw recently some information published by the Tourist Board to the effect that our road mileage is the highest in Europe, according to population. We have something like 55,000 miles of roadways. Certainly, that must represent the largest mileage of traffic-free roads in any country in Western Europe. That is an advantage in that it attracts people to come here who enjoy that type of motoring. However, it no less involves the local authorities who are not covered by such 100 per cent. grants because they will obtain the percentage grants for main and secondary roads which are applicable under the Road Fund.

In regard to these percentage grants, the central authority is imposing on the local authorities an obligation in regard to certain services which enables it to maintain control over services locally. In the initial stages, it does succeed in obtaining for the central authority the carrying out of the programme that is envisaged, but in the long run, it leaves very little choice to the local authorities in the exercise of any discretion in dealing with local problems. It is something which the Minister, in his review of these matters, might consider, whether the time has not arrived when more autonomy ought to be left in these matters to local authorities.

Over the years, we have been improving our main roads and county roads. We have not reached the millennium yet in that respect, as the Minister's answer indicated. I think there are only about three authorities in respect of whom the Minister was able to say they had passed the 80 per cent. mark in dust-free roads. If that is the picture, we may look forward for years yet to heavy expenditure on our roads.

I do not know whether the Minister has taken into account what is likely to happen in regard to the transport system and the review which is taking place in regard to further closures or whether at a later stage, should such closures take place, the Minister will not have to come back to the House to seek further authority to make up the leeway in that respect.

With these reservations in regard to the funds which are being made available, we have no objection to the measure. Anything that can help in solving this problem is certainly to be desired. On this side of the House, we have expressed the opinion and hold it firmly that, in regard to expenditure from the Road Fund and the funds being made available under this measure, the local authorities ought to have far more discretion.

Mr. Desmond

Perhaps much that may be said in connection with this measure would be better held back until the Estimate is introduced. I agree with Deputy Jones that the local authorities should have greater autonomy in connection with the spending of funds within their county areas and the grants allocated by the Government. The various local authorities are confined to the spending of a fixed sum on main roads and a fixed sum on county roads. I realise that the Minister and his Department may consider that essential, in case any local authority may devote more to one private road than to another. Nevertheless, it is a pity that the local authorities—I refer to the members, not to the managers—are not in a freer position to decide for themselves whether they should concentrate, for instance, on the county roads rather than on the main roads. Main roads are important from the point of view of tourism, industry and transport in connection with industry, but perhaps too great an emphasis may be laid by the Minister for Local Government— I mean any Minister for Local Government, not necessarily the present Minister—on main roads as against county roads. It is essential that the people living in these areas all the year round should have good roads.

Much is being said at the present time about the maintenance cost of roads being made a national charge. I am not so sure that the people who make these suggestions really understand that ultimately such a charge might not be very satisfactory for a particular county. We are confined to the amount of finance we can raise locally, plus the grants within our county boundaries. If it comes to a free-for-all, it may easily happen that some counties on the western seaboard, in the south-west or wherever they may be, will get less than they are getting at the moment because of the amount of money that must be spent on the roads in, say, Dublin, Kildare, all the roads leading to the south, to the Minister's county, and to the west. If the other counties are in the heel of the hunt, it will be readily seen by those who advocate that the cost of maintenance of main roads should be a national charge, that it may not be of so much benefit to their own counties.

Many people connected with local authorities and not connected with local authorities are calling out in a loud voice: "Reduce the estimate for the improvement and maintenance of the roads." Very often that cry is connected with the county roads. I wish to make my position clear here, as I have done outside. The people who are living in areas where they have very bad roads have been for years back contributing as ratepayers and indirectly as taxpayers towards the maintenance of other roads. If we are not to adopt the selfish system: "I am all right, Jack; do not mind the other fellow", we must not listen to that. If we were to listen to the cry to reduce the rates solely based on the clamour of people who already had good roads, as representatives in the local authorities, we would not be just to the other people.

I know it is a big problem. I know the cost. The cost of improvements to the roads, particularly county roads, is very big. Naturally, I would wish that we could get it, if possible, from the national fund, but we must provide our own as well. Unless we are prepared for some years to come to provide the money for that, then whether we speak of improvements to the main or county roads, or of the advantages for tourism or transport in connection with industry, it will not in the long run suffice to say that some of the roads are all right and some of them are bad because we cannot provide the money.

There is one point in the brief which strikes me somewhat forcibly. It concerns the paragraph which deals with the substantial grants allocated to the county councils of Cork, Clare, Westmeath and Waterford. Again, I do not intend to go into the matter in great detail. The Minister must know that the allocation made to Cork is in no sense of the word substantial, having regard to the loss of the railway sytem.

Those of us who are members of local authorities in Cork made it clear to the Minister in this Chamber at the time that we had full trust in the competence of our county engineer and staff who prepared for us an estimate of what would undoubtedly be the cost of improvements necessary in County Cork, particularly in West Cork and part of South Cork, following this closure. We now know, as we then knew and as we told the Minister, that the grants offered to Cork were completely inadequate. The word "substantial" should, in my opinion, be completely removed from this text when it refers to Cork. We know that even the Taoiseach abused the staff of the Cork county council engineering section in a most unfair manner because they did their work conscientiously in reporting the amount that would be necessary to provide an alternative to the railway service.

I know that a junior member of the Government went so far in the Dáil debates at the time as to suggest that the county engineer in Cork should be surcharged for having prepared this report. When we were faced with such a situation and when we realised that the head of the Government was prepared to attack our officials who had the full trust and confidence of all members, including the Fianna Fáil members, in the council, we knew what we were up against. Now salt is being rubbed into the wounds because the Minister talks of substantial grants.

I do not begrudge Donegal or Sligo what they got, but I am entitled to say that the same fair treatment as was given to Donegal should be given to Cork. I made my position clear in regard to the question of rates and provision for improved roads. Over and above that, we are faced with the extraordinarily difficult position of having to provide extra money in Cork at the expense of the ratepayers because of the unfair way we have been treated by the Minister for Local Government in connection with the provision of roads as an alternative to the railway service.

We have the figures in connection with Donegal, Sligo and elsewhere. The Minister knows that the allocation given to Cork is not fair. While it is quite correct for the Minister to say that the grants given to Donegal and Sligo are substantial—and good luck to them—we are put in the extraordinarily difficult position of having to impose on the ratepayers of Cork a burden that should not, in all fairness, be imposed upon them. I would ask the Minister to review even at this late stage his proposals and keep his word in connection with this county. Perhaps, he would respect the views of the members of his own Party who in this Chamber stated clearly for everybody to hear that they knew Cork was not being treated fairly in connection with the financial provisions at that time. If the Minister does that, we would be in a happier position.

Why impose on the ratepayers of Cork such a severe financial burden ? As compared with Donegal, Cork has been robbed. To that extent, Donegal has gained. That is the difficult situation we face. At the present time, we are dealing with our estimates. We in the Labour Party are prepared to face the issue as we have in the past and will the future. In the meantime, we have no intention of acting as a buttress for the Minister and the Department by saying to these people that we will have to increase their rates. Could the Minister not do better for Cork, having regard to the fact that he has done so much for his own county?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I welcome this Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

That goes without saying.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am delighted that the Minister is able to give more money for the improvement of roads, but, having said that, I am very sorry that the Minister did not consider giving more to County Dublin. The roads in County Dublin are used by heavy traffic from all over Ireland. The city is an industrial pivot. People come to Dublin by car and otherwise from all over the country. Quite a number of heavy industries are situated in Dublin, necessitating the use of heavy vehicles on the roads. Traffic has increased very considerably over the past nine or ten years on our main roads.

We in Dublin County Council feel we should get a bigger grant for the upkeep of the roads in County Dublin. We are carrying the traffic of the greater part of the country, including the Six Counties. We feel that, owing to the heavy traffic, we should be considered for a special grant. I do not begrudge the other counties what they got. All I say is good luck to them. At the same time, I feel that no area in Ireland has a greater claim than County Dublin. County Dublin roads encircle the city. Other counties may be in the same position as Dublin in regard to certain heavy traffic but the traffic is not concentrated to the same extent in those counties as it is in my constituency. For that reason, I appeal to the Minister to consider County Dublin favourably. We have a good case and we are only asking for fair play and that we should be considered the same as other counties. If he does that we will be well up on the priority list.

If I may digress for a moment, I should like to refer to the problem we have in the city and county of Dublin in regard to laneways. I shall deal with County Dublin first.

Mr. Corish

And last.

Could we get back to the Bill ?

Mr. Sweetman

I do not quite understand some of the calculations in the Bill and the Minister's statement and I should like some clarification of them. Before dealing with them, I want to make one other point in principle. It seems to me that we are arriving at a position in relation to our roads in which we need an entirely new method of classification. Classification of roads, between main roads, on the one hand, and county roads, on the other, has now become quite out of date. I am not referring alone to the fact that within the classification of main roads, there are now many roads no longer of main road importance and equally within the classification of county roads in certain counties, there are now roads which are of main road importance. That is a matter of individual road survey and the changing trend of traffic and a matter which perhaps could be considered in every county individually.

Quite apart from all that, there is another and bigger problem which must be tackled. We shall have to increase our classification of roads to three, namely, trunk, main and county roads. The arteries that go out from the city of Dublin to Cork, Belfast, Limerick and Galway, all radiate rather like the fingers of one's hand and the counties which have to bear that radial traffic will have to bear an undue proportion of the cost of maintenance of those arterial main roads. In relation to improvement work, I apreciate that it is not a matter of consequence because the improvements are made out of the national pool provided by motorists.

No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think improvements on arterial roads are done on the basis of 100 per cent. grants from the Road Fund and the only cost the counties concerned have to pay is the cost of the acquisition of the land. When these roads have been improved, when, for example, one with which I am most familiar, the Naas Road, has been dealt with, the situation remains that the local ratepayers have to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of its maintenance. That would seem to be an unfair distribution of the burden. As I say, we have arterial trunk roads running from Dublin to the major points, going around the coast to Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway and up to the Six Counties, and then coming down again to Wexford and the south-east coast.

The counties through which those roads pass bear traffic that is not related to the local traffic at all. The time has come, particularly with the closing of main railways, when there should be a new classification: trunk roads, the cost of the maintenance of which, as well as the cost of the improvements, should be a charge on national road users as a whole ; link main roads which would naturally be partly the responsibility of the local people, because they would use them, and partly the responsibility of national road users, through the Road Fund ; and, finally, county roads. In individual counties, a case would be made that certain individual roads should be shifted from one category to the other. There should be more flexibility there to provide for such an eventuality.

I was amused to hear Deputy Burke refer to the culs-de-sac and the boreens and was glad to see he now agrees with a provision of last October which was very necessary.

I do not understand the tot of the figures in the Minister's speech. As far as I can follow it, on 31st of this month, these will be a sum of £1,175,685 outstanding in respect of these advances and I should like the Minister to check that I am correct in thinking that that is the debt from the Road Fund to the Exchequer which is being wiped out and that it is the only debt there to be wiped out because the 1926 Act is being repealed in its entirely, as far as that type of provision is concerned.

I am not clear as to the term of years for which that money was borrowed and therefore I do not know how much that redemption was costing the Road Fund each year. The reason I ask is that it seems to me the additional Exchequer grants to be made now to cover the renewal of the Estate Duty grants from the county councils is limited to 1962-63 and 1963-64. As far as I can understand the Minister's speech, it is only for those two years that the additional amount may be paid by way of Exchequer aid into the Road Fund, but the old form of Exchequer aid by way of Estate Duty Grant is being stopped for all time.

The Minister was good enough the other day to give me, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, information that the Exchequer figure was about £150,000 and I think he said the new grant would be £225,000 or thereabouts. That is so for these two years he has named, but it is in perpetuity that the Estate Duty Grant is being wiped out. I am not therefore clear where the balance lies, unless it is that the calculation has been made that in relation to the sinking fund and interest on the £1,175,685, it would run over such a period of years that it is not necessary at this stage to take account of what will happen thereafter.

Perhaps in answering some of my queries in that respect, the Minister would let us know what the outstanding term of years is in respect of the borrowings to which he has referred. Perhaps the point he made in relation to the new classification might be one which would be taken better on the Minister's main Estimate. If that is so, he has plenty of advance warning that I intend to raise it then.

I was somewhat intrigued to see that the counties mentioned by the Minister in his speech did not include Donegal. I presume the reason is that the Minister has had an attack of conscience because of the fact that the allocation he gave Donegal at the beginning was so outrageously large in relation to what other counties got that he simply could not dare put in that figure again.

Mr. Donegan

I shall be very brief on this Supplementary Estimate. Deputy Sweetman made a most relevant point when he said we now need this new classification for roads. I am a member of Louth County Council and I therefore know the amounts of money we have devoted to a road running from Drogheda to the Border—a road which carries a vast volume of traffic. I cannot fully fix in my mind the book-keeping operation involved here, but there are certain aspects of the Minister's statement with which I should like to deal. Deputy Sweetman pointed out that the 100 per cent, grant for main roads left the maintenance to be done by the local authority concerned. That is so. I am not satisfied with the present operation of the 100 per cent. grant system.

I suppose the Minister could rejoin that perhaps Meath County Council should get less than 100 per cent. in respect of these roads but I am not convinced that in every case the 100 per cent. grant system is working properly. The planning for such roads is done in detail by the officials of the local authority and every attention is given to the economic aspect of the plan.

I am not satisfied that in many cases better value could not be got for less money, and while I can see the difficulty that could arise through duplication as between the central authority and the local authority, I can particularly understand that the central authority could hardly be expected to produce plans for roads which are, in fact, related to local needs and about which the local authority concerned would know more regarding problems that arise locally. At the same time, I think a more detailed application by the Department of Local Government to main road works is warranted and in fact in my county it is absolutely necessary.

I have seen a figure of over £100,000 spent on a road at my very front door. That figure was to eradicate a bend which 15 years ago could have been eradicated for £28,000. It involves a stretch of three miles of road. I do not want to cast a reflection on anybody involved in that work but I have the feeling that if more stringent control were exercised, better value could be got for less money. That is an opinion which I do not expect will be popular in my own county or in the local authority of which I am a member, but when I come here, I say what I think. In other places, similar circumstances have arisen, emphasising that the 100 per cent. grant system is not the answer to everything, the be-all and end-all.

Without doubt this question of maintenance must be attended to. Deputy Sweetman made an important point in relation to it but one aspect he did not touch on was that the more prevalent use of rough tarmacadam involves much heavier maintenance every year. The road I referred to earlier, from Drogheda to the Border, was a cement road. For the most part, it is still a cement road. Those cement roads require practically no attention in the matter of maintenance, but, with heavier traffic and the introduction of cheaper tarmacadam surfaces, it is quite true that the maintenance charge could be much greater over the years. Indeed, it could easily involve the local authority in higher sums of money than that provided in the 100 per cent. grant originally.

The Minister said that grants for roads affected by major industrial undertakings have been allocated to various county councils, including Louth County Council. There are two individual items on which that could have occurred, and I am a little hazy as to which one he refers to. I think it is the road from Dundalk to Greenore. I should like to inform him that, in keeping with his statement on this question of industrial grants not having proved substantial enough, the situation there is that the grant allocated will not do more than approximately 50 per cent. of that road.

I should like also to point to the fact that the Greenore-Preston container service is now a booming business. Heavy traffic, including various agricultural products in containers and machinery in containers, is moving from Dundalk to Greenore twice a week. We have two shipments out of the port per week.

I should also like to point to something which, in equity and fair play, he must consider when making further grants for roads affected by industrial undertakings. It was intended that the plasterboard factory in Clondalkin would be moved to Greenore to absorb some of the labour which was lost by the closing of the Dundalk-Greenore line. In fact, a loan was given by the then Minister, Deputy Norton, for that purpose, but because of a change in the financial structure of the company involved, and a change in financial circumstances, the succeeding Minister, the present Taoiseach, had to vary that grant and Greenore lost that source of compensatory employment. As an additional factor, I should like to point out that in the north end of the county we have, by a coincidence, made most of our roads dust-free under our five year plan, so county council employment is extremely scarce there indeed.

I make that local approach simply to inform the Minister of the situation. I have nothing further to say at the moment. We will have plenty of opportunity to deal in a general and a particular way with the Road Fund and its application, on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government quite soon.

Mr. Treacy

I propose to be brief on this measure, but I should like to dwell on the human element involved in the Road Fund, and not so much the road user as those engaged in the repair, maintenance and construction of our roads. It is evident to many of us who are members of local authorities, and especially those of us who have the well-being of our fellow workers at heart, that too much of the Road Fund is used to buy rather costly machinery and materials, and too little is spent on the human element involved in the labour.

I would ask the Minister to ensure, if at all possible, that county engineers and county councils, as such, are restrained from purchasing the unnecessary and very costly machines mainly of foreign make, imported from Germany or Great Britain, for the purpose of making our roads. I do not want to seem to be against progress, or to be seeking to put the clock back, but in a country such as ours, with such a high unemployment content, we have a primary obligation to our workers, and especially to our county council workers who are superannuated servants of the Department of Local Government. I feel we have a special obligation to keep them in employment. It may seem economically wise to purchase these machines to do the job at the lowest possible cost, but I say that if it means the displacement of hundreds of council workers, it is socially bad. It is socially bad that we should utilise so much of this colossal figure on foreign machinery, upsetting our balance of trade and displacing hundreds of workers as a result.

Many of us were appalled at the cost of the very important jobs done by our county councils, such as road widening. Some of them cost up to £100,000. We have seen all these construction jobs done with the most modern machinery from Germany and elsewhere — excavators, bulldozers and various other Bucyrus machines — and indeed it seems that some county councils cannot cut hedges now without getting a machine for the purpose. I say that is going to extremes. We were appalled, too, when we saw that the employment those jobs, which cost anything up to £100,000, gave could be counted on the fingers of one hand. That is bad. It is the tax-payers' money and it is also the ratepayers' money.

I have always felt we have an obligation to keep those men in employment in order to give them an opportunity of maintaining their wives and families and to put back into our counties the rates money and the tax-payers' money, and to spread prosperity all around rather than to create unemployment and force people to go abroad. I am particularly happy about one aspect of the grants under the Minister's jurisdiction, that is, the unemployment relief grants at Christmas time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I doubt if that would arise.

Mr. Treacy

I am making the point that enshrined in that scheme is the principle that there must be an employment content in each scheme. I would ask the Minister to see that to some extent our county managers and county engineers are imbued with that principle. They should restrain themselves from going mad and importing ad lib. The county engineers are vying with one another as to who has the most modern plant and machinery, and every one of those machines is a labour-saving device to put men out of employment wholesale. I contend that they are not necessary economically.

I know of councils—and I congratulate them—which have not resorted as yet to that type of modern plant. We see many men with picks and shovels. I do not want to go back to the pick and shovel. I believe in progress, but it seems to me that where we see roads made mainly by labour and with the ordinary mechanisation that goes with it, they are good roads, comparable with the best.

I want to ask the Minister to see to it that the human element involved— which is very important in this country—is safeguarded and I ask him not to allow our balance of trade to be upset by reason of the importation of machines which we feel are unnecessary. The Minister will probably tell me that it is unwise economically to do that, that it is the obligation of the councils and the county engineers and managers to do the job in the most efficient and practical way, but I say we have a bounden obligation to safeguard Irish human beings who are our most cherished assets.

The main emphasis is on our main roads. I think the Minister will agree that most of our main roads are of a high standard and are virtually dust-free. We need to turn our attention to county roads. I should like to see some of the money for main roads diverted to county roads. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Sweetman that many main roads are losing their importance and many county roads are becoming main roads. I am also deeply conscious of the inability of local authorities to maintain county roads. Many of the roads in borough and urban areas are in a shocking condition and are extremely pot-holed. The local authorities are unable to carry out the necessary work because of the impost this would put on the rates. If the Minister could see his way to divert money towards county roads, it would be appreciated throughout the country. I am also concerned with the question of by-roads and culs-de-sac with which local authorities are unable to deal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter would not arise at this stage. The Deputy will get a further opportunity of discussing that.

Mr. Treacy

I think it is relevant to the whole question of roads that the Minister should not have regard to priorities which no longer apply. County roads are now becoming of more importance and money should be diverted in a more equitable manner to these, as well as to link roads, by-roads and culs-de-sac.

Mr. Clinton

Reference has been made by Deputy Jones to the desirability of giving the engineers in the various counties much more discretion in the expenditure of road moneys. We are long past the time when grants from the Road Fund should be conditional on a contribution from the rates per mile of county and main road equal to the amount in the previous year. In other countries there is a sort of block grant arrangement, which works out extremely well. It has the effect of setting up competition between the various local authorities to see who is able to do the best job with the same amount of money.

Efficiency is what we should look for. If we are considering employment, we should not do so at the expense of the ratepayers. If there is an unemployment problem, then there should be a 100 per cent. grant from the Road Fund. We should not get mixed in this. We should consider making more use of the contract system in regard to both making and maintaining roads.

Reference has been made by at least two Deputies to the roads radiating from Dublin to the various parts of the country. Deputy Sweetman, I think, referred to the necessity for reclassification. I should like the Minister to say if there are now any standards in his Department for classification. Some time ago, in answer to a question of mine, he said he was contemplating a reclassification of the roads. It is very necessary that this work be put in hands soon. Certain local authorities are being very badly treated at present. Deputy Burke made an appeal for greater consideration for County Dublin, but he failed to refer to the most important point: that the ratepayers in County Dublin are called upon to contribute a sum of £640 per mile for main and county roads while the ratepayers in the Minister's own county are called upon to contribute £62. I am not saying there should be equality in these things but that discrepancy is much too large.

The claims being made by counties like Dublin, Kildare and Louth are justified because they are the counties contributing by far the most from the rates. There is no county contributing as much per mile as Dublin. The nearest is Kildare and the next is Louth. With regard to the main arteries I do not think it is sufficient to give a 100 per cent. grant for the remaking of roads to meet the demands made upon them today. These main arteries as they stand are more than adequate for the people of Dublin. The ratepayers would be quite pleased with them. However, they have to be enlarged and improved because the traffic of the country is using them and the ratepayers in County Dublin have to maintain a much greater surface area of road as a result of these improvements.

When Deputy Burke was appealing for greater consideration for County Dublin I saw the Minister writing rapidly. I know he was preparing to give the old answer that a considerable amount of the grants for the improvement of these main roads remained unspent. The reason for that could be laid at his own doorstep. We were for six or eight years without a county engineer because the salary could not be settled. The whole business of road making and improving was in an unsettled state. The Minister will have to agree that we are getting on with that now as rapidly as possible.

Not only should we be paid a 100 per cent. grant for those roads, but we should also be paid a 100 per cent. grant for their maintenance. In many countries that is done. The State makes and maintains the main arteries. A change along those lines is called for. In County Dublin a section of railway line was closed. As far as I can remember, we got no compensation by way of an improved grant for maintenance on that account, as other counties did in similar circumstances. The appeal I would make would be for a reclassification as soon as possible, a block grant, a 100 per cent. maintenance grant for main roads and more use of the contract system for road making and maintenance.

Mr. Corish

It would be correct to support the view that not alone should there be a reclassification of roads but that the Minister should consider changing the present basis of allocating grants. He might consider making the grants from the Road Fund on a mileage basis—not entirely on a mileage basis but taking into account the mileage a particular county council has to maintain. Under the present system, the Minister allocates the ordinary grants to the county councils in accordance with the amount of money they themselves provide for main and county roads.

I am sure the Minister is aware, as most Deputies are, that there is a big difference between the road mileages in the various counties throughout the Twenty-Six. There are varying degrees of prosperity, or one might say poverty, in the 27 county council areas. So long as the Minister allocates the grants on the basis established over the last 20 or 30 years the poorer counties will continue to find themselves unable to do the roadwork necessary in their particular counties.

A question was asked last week—I do not now remember by whom—which sought information with regard to the percentage of dust-free roads in each county council area. The answer was one of the most revealing we have had in relation to roads, road improvement and road maintenance. The answer disclosed that the percentage of dust-free roads in the 27 county council areas varies between 20 at one end and 80 or 90 at the other. There seems to me to be something wrong in that and I suggest that the "something wrong" is that the road grants are not allocated on a proper basis. That is why I suggest that, apart from ability to raise money for road works, the mileage in each county council area should be taken into consideration.

The other item I want to raise is a matter in connection with which I approached the Minister in accordance with a request I received from the Wexford County Council. I refer to the possibility of a grant being given to improve the road from Rosslare Harbour to Wexford town. In accordance with the description of this Estimate the Minister may, I think, allocate moneys voted for it to such a purpose. As a result of the correspondence the Minister has had with the county council he is very well acquainted with the reasons why this road needs to be improved. Rosslare Harbour is the south-eastern gateway from Great Britain. It carries a tremendous number of tourists all the year round, particularly from June to October. The majority of the cars entering this country enter through the port of Rosslare Harbour. Apart from the fact that the road is bad, we ought to be concerned with giving visitors—we value the tourist industry very highly—the best possible impression of the amenities and attractions the country has to offer. The Minister has all the arguments. I merely raise the matter in order to ask him not to close his mind to this application for assistance in respect of this road but, rather, to consider it sympathetically in view of the weight of argument in favour of giving a pretty substantial grant.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I welcome any move to provide a greater measure of financial support to local authorities, particularly in regard to roads. I have a very special request which should receive the Minister's sympathetic consideration. Local authorities should have a greater say and wider powers in relation to the spending of moneys from the Road Fund. I suggest that at an early date the Minister should summon a conference with his road experts, the county managers, and county engineers, and give them a lesson in common-sense and intelligence in regard to the spending of allocations from the Road Fund.

We are living in the year 1962 and it is high time that a little sanity and common-sense were exercised in regard to main roads. There is one way in which existing difficulties could be overcome. There should be a statutory road sub-committee in each county council and every decision of a local authority to spend money from the Road Fund on a particular road should have the approval of that committee.

We all know that huge sums have been expended in removing bends and corners and levelling hills. A good deal of criticism has been levelled at that policy by the majority of ratepayers living on county roads, in culs-de-sac and along lanes. We have succeeded in turning some of our main roads into speed tracks on which the well-to-do can drive over other people. It is all very fine to say that our main roads are in very good repair. Many representatives of local authorities believe that a good deal of the money so expended could have been spent to better purpose.

I should like the Minister to tell us what plans are available in his Department for bypassing country towns. I want to make special reference to three towns—Naas, Kildare and Portlaoise. No one will convince local authorities that it is in the interests of speeding up traffic that large towns must be bypassed. That is bad for business, for trade and commerce. Local authorities would be well advised to view with suspicion any plans for the bypassing of country towns and villages. Bypassing in the past has proved very detrimental to business. I understand there are plans in the Minister's Department and that, within the next 10 or 15 years, a number of very important towns will be by-passed. I want to sound a note of warning. The Minister should proceed very cautiously in the matter of bypassing towns.

I endorse what has been said with regard to the amount of machinery now replacing manpower on our roads. In the interests of economy we probably want to get a good job done as quickly and as cheaply as possible. We should, however, bear in mind that we have an unemployment problem and one way in which employment can be provided is in the construction, making and maintenance of roads. Special consideration should be given in the allocation of grants to those counties which have a large number of workers employed on the roads. The problem has become rather serious in many counties; machinery is depriving the fathers of families of work on the roads. The Government should implement a policy making grants contingent on the number of men employed.

I have been a member of a local authority for close on 20 years and I know one local authority has given increases in pay on three occasions to its workers; on every occasion the increase did not entail one halfpenny out of the pockets of the ratepayers. It was paid out of the grants provided by the Department of Local Government. If the Department provides grants for road-making or extension, the grants should be utilised for those purposes. It is high time serious consideration was given to devising a new scheme for assisting local authorities and giving them wider powers in regard to road grants. I shall have something to say in regard to county roads, by-roads, lanes and culs-de-sac on the Estimate as that will be the most appropriate time.

More branch lines have been closed and C.I.E. have abandoned the railways in many instances and have taken to the main roads for merchandise transport. There is one road in my constituency about which I am particularly concerned and it should concern the Department of Local Government also in the near future. It is the main road between Mountmellick and Portlaoise. It runs parallel to a branch line, one of those that C.I.E. decided to close but left like Mahommed's coffin. It has not been abandoned but there are no trains on it except during the beet season. Neither is it a line which is properly functioning since there are no trains on it. It might be helpful to the local authority if C.I.E. would make up their mind one way or another in respect of this branch line. The fact is that both the line and the main road are built on bog which has been cut away practically on both sides with the result that at present the road is almost completely sliding into the bog. It will cost a fabulous sum of money to undertake the necessary work on this road. This is a road in respect of which Laois County Council, in view of the fact that C.I.E. have taken transport from the railroad and transferred it to the road, will seek a 100 per cent. grant from the Department.

A condition should be attached to those grants that where possible local quarries will be opened and local material where available will be used. In many cases ratepayers are asked to contribute very extensively towards road maintenance and construction while at the same time a large volume of road materials is imported. Where there are good stone quarries and good sand pits which could provide suitable road-making materials the Department should insist on their being developed. That would provide extra work in the area. Practically all counties have suitable quarries and sand pits and while it may be considered uneconomic to develop them and may involve large costs, an effort must be made to provide employment at home which will help the farming families to live in their own land. We cannot neglect resources such as quarries and sand pits which could be utilised for road purposes. As part of the roadmaking drive the State should give special grants and facilities for the development of quarries and the opening of sand pits.

Apart from the Road Fund grants, suitable grants should be provided by the Department for the provision of lay-bys. The present grants are insufficient. The Department should stress to every local authority the importance of these lay-bys and, as I suggested originally, county engineers and county managers should be lectured on Government policy in relation to these matters. There are some counties where there are no lay-bys for considerable distances. These should be provided so that lorries and heavy traffic can pull in, night or day, so that the occupants may have a meal or a rest after a long drive. Every local authority should be asked to provide lay-bys at appropriate distances to be decided by the engineering section of the Department.

The engineering ability shown and the manner in which Kildare County Council and their engineering staff have carried out extensive work in that county deserve congratulation and appreciation. They have done very fine work and Kildare County Council should be an example to every county in having a job done quickly, efficiently and satisfactorily.

I should like the Minister to consider assisting and advising local authorities in arranging for the planting of suitable trees or shrubs along new roads. Nothing beautifies a road more than trees along the side. I would recommend this as a tourist attraction. The straight, poplar type of tree commonly grown along the roads in France would be suitable. The Department should also give financial support to local authorities where, at the entrance to towns, they endeavour to make the roads as attractive as possible by providing flower beds on waste or cutaway portions. This is commendable.

Another point which is very important in relation to rural Ireland is that a number of land projects are held up in the Department of Agriculture because local authorities are not in a position to undertake certain works convenient to main roads and county roads where bridges have to be removed, gullies sunk and deepened and wider pipes laid down in many cases where road drainage must be provided. In those circumstances, county engineers should lose no time in obtaining the sympathetic consideration of the Department and small grants should be given to cover these small cases.

When we draw the attention of county engineers to the matter, we are told that these things have not been provided for in the rate estimates and that no money can be expended on them. We know of many instances where lands have been drained on both sides of the roads and the failure of the local authorities to make and maintain gullets, or lay pipes or put down wider pipes has held up drainage considerably. I would ask the Minister to consult the other sections of his Department on this very important matter and that grants of £50, £80 or £100 should be provided for individual cases. Some effort will have to be made to meet the need.

We have now reached the stage when the standard of our main roads is almost good enough but it is very heartening and dispiriting for people living on by-roads, county roads and culs-de-sac to come out on the main roads and see the amount of grant available for such roads, while there is none available for the roads on which they live. I would ask the Minister to modernise the whole system of co-operation between his Department and local authorities with regard to the maintenance of roads. It seems to me that there has been little improvement in that system since the time we had an alien Government here. I cannot but say that there has been some improvement with regard to expenditure which is not unknown to the ratepayers, but I would ask the Minister to co-operate more with the local authorities, to give more say to the local representatives and more discretion in the use of the money from the Road Fund.

Mr. Tully

Some remarks have been made that should be commented on from this side of the House. I must say that there is far too great a tendency on the part of county engineers and county managers to use machinery for work that could be done by manual labour. It is the Minister who is responsible. He sent out a circular to local authorities specifying that the money should be spent in the most economical way and that is the whole cause of the trouble. I would suggest to the Minister that if the job can be done as well and as cheaply, even if it takes a little longer, it should be done manually, if possible. Where men are laid off and go to the labour exchange and draw £5 a week for six months, they could be usefully employed full-time doing work on the roads which is now being done by machinery at about £6 a week. That is a great loss to the State.

We frequently see large lorries hauling little tar cans for the mending of potholes in the road. The Minister should tell the local authorities doing that kind of thing to grow up. A horse is much cheaper for that kind of work.

Then there is the question of the roads that have been affected by the partial closure of railway lines. The passenger trains have been taken off these lines but an occasional train travels over them carrying goods. In my constituency, this has resulted in industries like the gypsum works in Kingscourt sending all their goods by road. The cement company in Drogheda are using the roads in County Meath to transport their goods to the North and also to Dublin and the effect on these roads has to be seen to be believed. Bridges have been damaged and the lorries have had to alternate from one road to another. The condition of some of the county roads as a result of that traffic is shocking. There is no 100 per cent. grant to repair them and most of the cost falls on the backs of the ratepayers.

There is also the situation where passenger trains to the seaside have been taken off. If we get a decent summer we have thousands of cars and all sorts of motor vehicles travelling to the seaside over very narrow roads which were never made to carry that type of traffic and there are no grants available to do anything about it. This is a direct result of the closure, or partial closure, of the railways and there is no other way that people can get to the sea.

Local authorities can deal with drainage outfalls through the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister is not operating that Act. The Local Authorities (Works) Act is not functioning.

Mr. Tully

It is functioning in my constituency and that is all I know. If the local authorities do not make provision for it, that is their business. There was a suggestion made here that more work should be done by contract. All I can say is God save us from the kind of contractors we see carrying out some road work and some road repairs. The suggestion that the making or repairing of roads should be taken over by contractors who would do the work in their own time and in their own way is something that none of us wishes to have anything to do with. Road-making in these cases would entirely depend on a few contractors who would reap quite a harvest. There would be very many more people taking the road to the emigrant ship. There would be far less employment in rural areas.

I come now to the amount of the grant. The Minister said he was not quite clear what I meant when, following an answer of his last week, I asked about making up the amount from the Department of Local Government of increases in grants and costs of materials. I presume the Minister studied the point since and appreciates that what I meant was that local authorities must make available the money to cover wage increases and, in the Estimates given by his Department, unless the wage increases are noted to him before the grants are available there is no arrangement by which that money is available.

I want to put this to the Minister who is now at his luncheon. Is there any inconsistency in the proposition that, for the purpose of securing a higher degree of efficiency in road-making, we proceed to amalgamate the road-making authorities? That is a proposal that could well be considered on its merits. Is there any inconsistency in viewing that possibility favourably and, at the same tme, saying: You have a social pattern over a large part of this country in which you have property-owning farmers, that is, small farmers with less than 50 acres of land and their ordinary life means that at certain restricted seasons of the year there is not full-time occupation of them on their own land whereas, at other seasons of the year, if they are to make their land productive, they are working 12 and 14 hours a day? Even working as hard as that, at the times of the year when it is possible to work their land, their income is out of all proportion to the income earned by other elements in our society who are working a five-day week. For that reason, in areas where there are farmers in those circumstances, we ought deliberately to provide them with employment on road works so as to expand their individual income and to do it on exactly the same principle as we encourage a factory to go down to a congested area rather than to an industrial area — because we want to get employment for the people there. We do not want to create exclusively employment which involves closing the small farm and abandoning the home. There is a case to be made for that proposition.

It is the duty of a Minister for Local Government to say to the local authorities: "While we expect of you to get the best possible value from the rates you expend, while we expect you to do all the work as economically as it is humanly possible so to do, you ought to bear in mind the social aspect of this question as well and, while observing all the canons of economy, see that you do not render 100 or 200 small farms in the area for which you are responsible uneconomic by refusing to provide any outside employment for the occupants.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 15 Mar 1962

Committee on Finance. - Road Fund (Grants) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1962—Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Mar 1962