Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Feb 1968

Vol. 232 No. 12

Local Government (Roads and Drainage) Bill, 1968: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Treacy

Prior to the adjournment of the debate I was commenting on the opportunity which the Minister missed in not providing effective legislation which would be particularly beneficial to those thousands of persons who reside in isolated rural areas and who are, as yet, denied the ordinary amenities of life such as proper roadways, sanitary services, drainage and the like. The Minister decided to transfer very many of the functions carried out by the Special Employment Schemes Office and the Rural Improvement Schemes Office in respect of the administration of bog development, minor employment schemes, and rural improvement schemes generally to our county councils. That would be all right in itself, perhaps, if the Minister had made adequate provision for financing these schemes.

I said earlier that many of our county councils were most reluctant to accept this new responsibility imposed upon them without making proper provision for the money required. The Minister ought to have regard to the desirability of bringing back into effective operation the Local Authorities (Works) Act which, to my mind, catered pretty effectively for those rural problems of roads, sewerage, the erection and maintenance of bridges, the drainage of bogs, rivers, and the like. That scheme is still in operation but the Government abandoned the provision of grants for this purpose and negatived the effectiveness of the Act by withdrawing the grants. Very few county councils or local authorities have been able to carry out any worthwhile works under that Act ever since.

Many reasons were given for the abandonment of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It was suggested that money was squandered or that there was no proper supervision or maintenance. That is a very serious and unfair indictment, in my opinion, of the people responsible for the administration of schemes under that Act: the engineers, the overseers, the gangers, the men who carried out the work, and indeed the county managers concerned. To infer that works were not carried out properly or that they were carried out in a haphazard and unsatisfactory way, that there was mismanagement or misappropriation of money, is surely a very serious indictment of the officers responsible in the counties concerned.

We had hoped that the Government would have a new look at the problem of providing better amenities for the people in the rural areas who are denied these amenities of life and who are, at the same time, expected to pay their portion of the rates for the county. They are expected to pay pro rata with their colleagues in the towns who enjoy the modern amenities of piped water, sanitary services, lighting, good roads, footpaths and the like. The people with whom I am now concerned are denied all those things. They live very much in isolation. They live on mountain sides, miles up boreens, adjacent to bogs, off the beaten track, condemned to interminable isolation, with no regard for access to piped water, sanitary services and so on.

There is also the problem of flooding and the hardship on families who have to traverse many miles to get to the main roads, to get to schools, churches and shopping centres. One could paint a very sad picture of life in isolation of that kind, especially in inclement weather, and of the hardship which so many thousands of rural Irish families suffer as a result of their environment: their inability to get to their places of employment, or to the social services, without having to endure very great hardship in the process because of bad roads, and so on.

Those of us who are members of local authorities are aware that despite the best endeavours of our councils, we have been unable to do things for these people out of our own revenue. The rising spiral of rates would not justify the added expenditure involved in doing all the things we would like to do for those people. Consequently an obligation devolves on the State to enter into this and to provide these amenities in a more tangible form by way of more generous grants, help and advice.

The Minister is deciding that these schemes should be transferred from the Office of Public Works to his Department, and then that they should be further transferred from the Special Employments Schemes Office and the Rural Improvements Schemes Office to the county councils, had a unique opportunity to provide legislation which would have due regard to the hardship I have sought to outline which is the lot of thousands of rural dwellers, and to provide positive help so that this task could be effectively grappled with so that within a reasonable time we would be able to provide these people with decent roadways and eliminate flooding hazards and all the other things which the rural improvements schemes section was set up to implement.

Instead of giving us an effective measure which would bring amelioration to these people, the Minister has shirked his responsibility by merely passing the buck to the county councils. It was obviously the cheap way out to pass on this responsibility to the county councils, and he has not made proper provision for the expenditure which all this work will involve. As I said earlier, I believe that the county councils cannot be expected to carry this extra burden of responsibility to provide bog development and minor schemes of various kinds— the improvement of bridges and the erection of new bridges and the like— without extra staff. It is envisaged that this will require the employment of extra engineers, extra overseers, gangers and so on. The ten per cent grant which the Minister offers is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the local authorities with whom I am conversant, totally inadequate. The Minister has found an easy way out of what was obviously an embarrassment to him in recent months.

I indicated briefly and I reiterate without fear of contradiction that the rural improvements schemes section and the special employment schemes section had largely become ineffective in recent times, that they could not possibly cope with the volume of work imposed on them because of the reluctance of the Department to make the necessary capital available; that they had advised people, farmers, cottiers and rural dwellers generally, not to come to them seeking help and advice with a view to getting a grant for a roadway or the like because there was a colossal amount of arrears of work to be carried out, because there was no money there and it would take years for these arrears to be made up. Work under local employment and rural improvements schemes came virtually to a halt and the Government were obliged to find some way of dealing with the problem. They have now passed responsibility over to the county councils. I am pleased to hear that county councils in the main have accepted this responsibility. What else could they do? They had no alternative. It was Hobson's choice. The Employments Schemes Office and the rural improvements section as we know them were dissolved, abandoned, and if the local authority did not carry out the work, it would not be done. One can well understand the hardship that would be involved in the case of these rural dwellers to whom I have referred.

I should like to ask the Minister what will become of the very important staffs which were attached to the Special Employments Schemes and Rural Improvements Schemes Offices in various centres, the engineers, gangers, overseers and workers generally. It is suggested in the Minister's statements that gangers and overseers should be given priority by the county councils in employing staffs on this work in future. It is true that quite a substantial number of overseers and gangers who carried out this work for the Special Employment Schemes Office were in fact county council employees and there will not be much of a problem there, but in respect of the amount of redundancy involved, I should like the Minister to say what the intention is in relation, for instance, to the engineers concerned in the administration of these schemes, now that their work is being transferred to the county councils.

It was explained categorically in the Minister's speech that the councils would not be responsible for the maintenance of these schemes. I should like the Minister to clarify that because it seems to us that unless we provide for the adequate maintenance of these essential schemes, such as roadmaking, drainage and so on, the money could be said to be very largely wasted. If the county councils are not being charged with responsibility for maintenance, who is? Or is it seriously suggested that we merely provide a roadway, carry out a work scheme and abandon it after that?

I am sorry that the Minister is still holding fast to the idea that local people must subscribe to these rural improvement schemes. I had thought that with the diminishing number of these people, the time had come when they should be provided with roadways, drainage and all the things mentioned without being asked to pay this special charge. They are ratepayers. They pay for these amenities for their fellow county men at large; especially in the urban areas, they pay for sewerage, lighting, roads, footpaths and so on and it is a bit much to expect them to make such contributions. It could be a hardship on a cottier. It is especially hard on the very poor, the widow, the old aged person, the unemployed or the sick person—and there are many such. We also know that it is very difficult in rural areas to secure agreement between the residents of a road in respect of a proposition like this to have a new road provided even on the assumption that the county council would take it in charge forever, when repaired by means of a grant, and maintain it. Differences of opinion arise. First, there are differences in the social status of the families concerned, differences in income. You have the large farmer and the small farmer, the working-class cottier, the widow living alone, the old age pensioner, the unemployed householder and so on. It is difficult to get agreement on a proposal like this. It is difficult to apportion cost over the various categories of families involved. Also, you have the problem of the cantankerous family or individual who will not co-operate but will opt out just to be difficult and thereby deprive his neighbours of much desired amenities. I know of many schemes which are abandoned, despite the desires of most of those concerned, because of inability to secure agreement among all those involved.

I thought this measure would provide an opportunity, if the State was coming to the aid of local authorities, to eliminate this primitive method of apportioning the cost among the people residing on the road concerned. That method has been very largely abandoned for a long time under the policy of most county councils who operate their own policy as regards taking charge of roadways. Minimum standards are laid down but provided a sufficient number use the road, whether residents or users for the purpose of access to their lands or property, and provided the roadway can be classed as a roadway or passageway of general utility, the county council is empowered to take it in charge without apportioning any financial obligation on the residents. Merely by putting down a notice of motion at a council meeting, it is taken in charge and properly maintained by the council ever afterwards. This is only right and fair and equitable in the case of people who are paying their rates and paying for all these modern amenities for their neighbours generally. These amenities have been denied to them for a long number of years and constitute a great hardship on them in their everyday lives.

Such hardship can be caused by the recurring problem of the flooding of lands, land which could be good arable land providing an asset to the community and the nation at large. Not only is hardship involved but grave financial loss as well. They also have to endure, perhaps, the hardship of traversing miles of rugged, slushy roadway—it is a particular hardship for little children—or may have to suffer the damage done to cars on rocky passageways riddled with potholes. In all our counties there are roadways of this kind. One can find better roadways on top of mountains than in some of our more important counties. We have not been able to get around to the adequate repair and maintenance of such roads.

It is to be greatly deplored that in this measure the Government have failed to give us modern legislation which would have regard to all these rural problems and have regard in the first instance to the inability of our county councils to grapple with them. Most of our county councils have been unable to do anything at all in respect of the cleaning and drainage of rivers and the elimination of the flooding of large areas of good land. We have been interminably awaiting the implementation of the arterial drainage schemes. The scheme for my county is scheduled to commence in 1970. In the meantime, the river Suir and its tributaries have not been looked at, not to mention work being done on them, by our council engineers, nor have we been able to carry out any drainage or cleaning whatever on the Suir or its tributaries because of the colossal cost involved which could not be imposed on the rates at present.

This was the kind of work carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Act—remedial measures for dealing with acute flooding and rivers cluttered up with all kinds of foreign bodies which could be said to be a hazard to health in given areas. Even in these extreme circumstances county councils have been unable to deal effectively with the problem and, pending the implementation of the arterial drainage schemes, they are completely helpless to ease the burden of rural dwellers in respect of what they have to endure at present.

Therefore, to take these functions from the special employments schemes section and the rural improvements schemes section and merely transfer them to our county councils on a grant basis, which everyone knows is inadequate, was an insult to the intelligence of the rural dwellers. I assert that this Bill does nothing whatever to bring relief to the countless thousands of rural dwellers in my own county of Tipperary and in County Waterford, a large part of which is in my constituency, and does nothing to bring nearer the taking in charge of the roads they have to traverse in mud and slush, day in, day out, in winter and summer. It does nothing whatever to ease their fear of constant and recurring flooding. It does nothing to make possible the provision of much needed bridges or drainage of any kind. This measure holds out no hope to these people. The Minister and the Government have failed to grasp the situation and to provide effective legislation to aid the efforts of our county councils who are only too anxious to deal with these rural problems.

Those of us who are members of county councils—I happen to have the honour of being the chairman of my council in South Tipperary—have constantly coming before us deputations of rural dwellers, especially farmers, cottiers and householders, pleading with us to provide them with a decent passageway into their homes or farms, pointing out to us the colossal hardship, damage and financial loss sustained through constant flooding, calling on us to provide bridges, gullies and the like. In the main, my council, despite its best intentions, is unable to do all these things because of lack of finance. Only yesterday we had a strong plea from the members for the Fethard area that a grant be provided for the cleaning of the Clashawley River at Fethard town. This river is cluttered up with timber, silt and sewage. It is unsightly and a hazard to health in the town of Fethard. The local development association were prepared to make available approximately £300 towards this project. Again, the council were unable to meet the request of these very enterprising citizens of Fethard town. Pending the implementation of arterial drainage there do not seem to be any remedial measures we can take to grapple effectively with the problems of these rural dwellers.

It is with a sense of regret that we say to the Minister for Local Government that he has failed to avail of a unique opportunity of providing positive help in tangible form, that is, by way of adequate grant to local authorities to carry out all these functions he now asks them to perform and which heretofore were carried by the rural improvements schemes office. Perhaps it is not too late to appeal to the Minister to have another look at this measure, to provide more realistic financial aid for this purpose. Certainly, Sir, it is no wonder that so many local authorities proved so unwilling to co-operate with the Minister in respect of this measure because clearly it is purely a buck-passing piece of legislation, conceived in haste, rushed through in a state of embarrassment by reason of the collapse of the rural improvements schemes section in recent years. It is no wonder that there has been no enthusiasm whatsoever for this measure in the country. When one has regard to the effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Works) Act, when one looks back on the important benefit which this scheme provided for rural dwellers, one has to greatly deplore this puerile effort by the Minister of merely transferring responsibility to county councils without taking adequate steps to ensure that the necessary moneys are provided.

I have said that it means extra staff, extra expenses. Public officials in our councils are on record as saying that this is the case, that they simply cannot administer these various schemes with their existing staffs and that it does involve extra moneys. It may well require the appointment of an extra engineer, clerks, overseers, labourers, tradesmen and the like and a ten per cent grant to meet this additional cost is totally inadequate. With these sentiments we would hope that the Minister would reconsider this proposal and give to us in a more tangible form, a more effective measure which would bring speedy relief to those sections of our rural dwellers for whom I think it is intended.

I would like to know precisely what will happen in regard to the redundant staffs attached to the Board of Works and the Special Employment Schemes Office; where the engineering section will be absorbed and the various clerical staffs that went with it and where too the overseers, gangers and the like are likely to find employment. I know it is suggested that county councils might give first preference to those categories of workers but I also know that in certain instances, perhaps in many instances, the labouring personnel involved in these schemes were, in fact, employees of the local county council.

I am sorry, Sir, that I cannot be more enthusiastic about a measure of this kind. It has been critically examined by my council. My colleagues on the county council represent all shades of political opinion. The Government Party are very well represented on South Tipperary County Council. Irrespective of political opinion, having looked at this measure impartially and without political bias of any kind and without any attempt to make political capital out of the measure, we were unanimous as a council, and so were our advisers from the manager and county engineer down, that this was not a good measure, that there were little or no benefits in it for our council or the people we represent. For some months my council indicated that it was unable and unwilling to co-operate in a scheme which had so little to recommend it and which did not provide for the essential amounts of money required for its proper administration. It was only with great reluctance and in the clear knowledge that if we as a council did not carry out the responsibility contained in this transfer which has brought about the disbandment of the rural improvements schemes section that no one would carry out the work, it was in these circumstances, under duress and having little choice in the matter that my council have taken on these responsibilities but we would much prefer if we had the facilities of the Local Authorities (Works) Act which conferred on us the same powers but provided a reasonable amount of money to carry out the job.

Mr. J. O'Leary

I am fully aware of the importance of good by-roads to serve our rural community, of the importance of the development of bog roads and also of the value to the rural community of carrying out small drainage schemes to serve a few holdings as a result of which land could be improved afterwards. At the outset, I should like to pay tribute to the Special Employments Schemes Office for the amount of good work which they did in Kerry over the years.

Mr. Treacy

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. O'Leary

I would say that we got reasonably good grants in Kerry from the Special Employments Schemes Office over the past few years and their workers did an excellent job on the works which they undertook and carried out. Despite this, however, there are still many miles of by-roads which are in a terrible condition. I would say that there is probably more mileage of these roads in County Kerry than in any other county. They are also there due to the fact that the county council for many reasons—some of which I shall refer to later—could not take over these roads and declared them public roads. The primary reason was that they were not up to the standard to be taken over and it would cost too much to bring them up to a proper state of repair before they could be further improved and tarred. I feel that a very good case can be made for transferring these schemes from the Special Employments Schemes Office to the county councils. Surely nobody could fix priorities better on these schemes than the local councillors or elected representatives? Surely when the engineers' reports are finally submitted, nobody can say with more authority what schemes should get priority than the local council?

As those schemes have been operated to date, it appears, to me that there are no real priorities, that applications are probably taken in accordance with the way they are received and that it has happened that roads which serve only four or five households have been improved and repaired years before roads which served 20 to 22 households. I can see a complete change now when those schemes are taken over by the county councils. I can see priority given to the roads which serve the most landowners and householders. I can also see money which has been spent up to now on the development of bog roads being transferred to other areas, particularly in counties in which you have not as much turf cut and harvested as previously.

I welcome the request which the Minister sent to the council to give priority on the new schemes to the gangers and the supervisory officials who were formerly employed on such work. I also welcome the proposal that the priority in the improvement schemes will be given to suitable unemployed men registered in the unemployment exchanges as was the system previously under the Special Employments Schemes Office. In that way we can feel satisfied that the men who have been employed on those schemes down the years and who have given good service and have obtained a certain amount of experience in this specialised line will still be available and will still be employed to carry out those schemes for the coming years.

I would ask the Minister to give special consideration to hauliers and contractors for the supply of gravel and material for the roads which are improved by the Special Employments Schemes Office. It now appears to me that some of those hauliers and contractors who established pretty good business by supplying the material may find themselves having to look for alternative markets for their produce. Unless special consideration is given to their claim for priority, unless the Minister contacts the county council and asks them to give special consideration to their cases the local councils may use their own materials produced in their own quarries for their own roads. It may, therefore, be very difficult for the people who are employed as contractors down the years to secure an alternative market for their produce.

I would like to know whether the selection of the scheme and the fixing of priorities will be an executive function of the county council. It is very important that this matter should be clarified. Personally, I consider it should be a reserved function of the county councils and that the members of the councils should fix the priorities and decide the order in which the roads are to be repaired and improved.

I want to refer to one aspect of those schemes which has caused much concern in quite a few areas in Kerry—the fact that one man or one landowner can hold up a worthwhile scheme by reason of the fact that he does not consent to the scheme, that he refuses to contribute and that he ensures that the scheme will not be carried out. I know one road which serves 22 landowners and on a number of occasions the county council were approached to take over this road but due to the fact that one landowner in the very centre of this strip of road refused to agree to have this road taken over and refused to take off a gate which opened on to the road, down the years the county council fought shy of the proposal.

I also know that applications were made on several occasions to the Special Employments Schemes Office for a grant. The road was repaired and improved at both ends and at various points on the road but at no time was it possible to carry out a proper scheme over the whole of this road by reason of the fact that this particular landowner would not agree, would not consent and would not pay a contribution. If there is no legislation at present to deal with such a case it should be introduced as quickly as possible. I would suggest that the Minister should give serious consideration to making such a provision in this Bill. It is an awful state of affairs if one man can prevent 21 of his neighbours from improving their road which would benefit himself as well. I feel the very same method could be employed by such landowners in regard to the present scheme as those taken over by the county councils.

If a county council passed a resolution in regard to taking over special roads and agreed to accept liability for the maintenance of such roads and if someone objected, what are the powers and the functions of the county council in such cases? It may be that there is legislation somewhere to cover this matter but most councils seem to be in the dark in the matter. I would strongly recommend that the Minister would urge the councils to ensure that those schemes are carried out, in strict priority, having regard to the number of landowners and householders served by each road and also ensure that the roads which carry the heaviest traffic, which serve the largest number of landowners, are repaired and improved first. I would strongly urge the Minister, when allocating the grants for those schemes to the councils for the coming year, to give special consideration to the western and south-western counties. We probably have more miles of schemes on by-roads than other counties. In channelling increased grants into these counties, a certain amount of extra employment is given at the time of year when it is most required, particularly in the period October to April. The money would be very well spent in the provision of better roads to carry everincreasing traffic.

To my mind, the expenditure on these schemes would be offset to a great extent by a reduction in the expenditure on unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. I have no doubt that there would be a substantial saving in unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit in the areas where these schemes could be vigorously undertaken, particularly during the winter months. I cannot see any reason why the county councils should not snap at the opportunity of taking these schemes away from the Special Employments Schemes Office and other central authorities. Surely they should be delighted to have a say in the carrying out of these schemes and the fixing of priorities.

With regard to the provision of staff for the operation of the schemes, I think it should not be necessary for the county council to employ an extra engineer. I cannot see why the local county assistant engineers cannot submit a report and recommendation on the applications. In my opinion, one clerical officer in each council could deal with the administrative side of the schemes. The administrative costs should be low, far lower than at present and than up to now when these schemes were carried out by the Special Employments Schemes Office and controlled from a long distance.

It would be an easy matter for the local assistant county engineers to supervise the works because they are travelling the roads and they could supervise the works on the roads in the performance of their normal daily duties. In that way you would not have any extra expenditure involved in the operation of these schemes. The fact that these schemes are handed over to the local councils should show a big improvement in the mileage repair every year. In addition, I think more money will go into the provision of materials and the payment of wages than heretofore and less money will be needed for administrative costs.

I am also glad to note that it is intended that the county councils will in future act for Roinn na Gaeltachta and for accommodation roads in the Gaeltacht and that the Department of Transport and Power will act in respect of grants for roads and the drainage of bog roads used in the production of turf, that is, hand-won turf in Donegal, Galway, Clare and Kerry. This should save a certain amount of duplication of work as well.

Mr. Reynolds

I should certainly like to pay tribute to the staff who operate these schemes in the Special Employments Schemes Office. Whether they operate under the Department of Finance or under the Department of Local Government, I feel it only right that we on this side of the House should pay tribute to them. Whether it be the director of the Schemes Office or any of the people employed there, supervisors, field men, gangers, or any others, I should like it put on the record that we pay them a compliment for the good job they did with the limited amount of money available to them over the past few years.

This scheme has got some shifting about for the past two years. Up to two years, or 18 months ago, it was under the Department of Finance. It then shifted to the Department of Local Government and now the Minister, in his wisdom, has decided to shift it to the county councils. One can only look at and think of it as the Government taking the part of a particularly bad draughts player, making his moves without giving them any thought or without any attention to the other player. The intention here is to limit the amount of money available for these schemes. We all know that up to four years ago, there was, if any, little by way of waiting list in the Special Employment Schemes Office but the number of applications have poured in and there was no work being done. The number of applications have accumulated and they have now found themselves behindhand in every county council in Ireland.

This was a double-fold scheme. It dealt with drainage, on the one hand, and with roads, on the other. Some drainage up to a few years ago was dealt with under the LAW schemes. This scheme at that time was withdrawn by the Government, and the reason given was that the money was being squandered and badly spent. That clearly indicated that the county council concerned was not spending the money in the way the Government would like them to spend it. Now when we come to switch this scheme, we are switching it over to the people who, the Government said a few years ago, were not capable of carrying out the LAW schemes. I wonder what has convinced this Minister for Local Government, more than his predecessor, that the local authorities have now become capable of dealing with the expenditure of money. I should like the Minister to refer to this.

As I have said, we have a question of drainage. I represent a constituency in which no arterial drainage work has been done. We very often hear talk about the Suck. It is not necessary for me to talk about the Shannon or the Boyle rivers. The politicians on the opposite side think of these only during elections or by-elections. One can recall the famous statement made by the present Minister for Health, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, when he found time during the Roscommon by-election to get down to Castlerea. We all read what he said on the papers the following day and we thought the Shannon would be drained in the next few hours. As I said, if the Fianna Fáil party could suck as well as they can blow, I have no doubt it would be drained.

These schemes are of a very minor nature. They certainly serve a different purpose in the counties in which they are operated. People often want to get small rivers cleaned and there is no scheme under which this can be done except the rural improvements scheme. For that reason I think that in the course of the next few weeks the Minister will find that every county council will accept responsibility for this scheme and operate it.

As I said before, when one compares the scheme with the Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes, there is this danger, that those schemes gave employment to people who needed it and 90 per cent or more of the money spent went into the pockets of the labouring man and the small farmer, but when this scheme comes to be operated, the local authorities will use all the machinery they have available for road-making, and, as Deputy O'Leary said, the contractor will move in and there will be no employment available for the very small farmer. If he is to exist at all, his income will have to be supplemented. This was one way in which his income was supplemented previously. The Minister has amalgamated the rural improvement scheme, the bog development schemes and the minor relief schemes and is calling the new scheme the local improvements scheme. On the amalgamation we found that while heretofore no contribution was needed under the bog development schemes from an applicant for whatever work was to be carried out, and the same applied in the case of the minor relief schemes, under the rural improvement scheme there had to be a contribution and there has also to be a contribution under the local improvements scheme.

The Minister referred to valuations under £5 and said that the rate will be 2½ per cent but he did not refer to the average valuation of over £5 or say if it will operate in the same way as the rural improvement scheme operated. I hope he will make some reference to this. He also said that priority in the recruitment will be accorded to suitable unemployed men who are registered with the employment exchange. Very often we find that where people contribute towards one of those schemes, let it be either a road or a drainage scheme, they feel they are entitled to be employed. Usually these are small farmers and people who do not register with the labour exchange. I should like the Minister to have another look at this and embody in the Bill a clause ensuring that people who make contributions to the scheme will get employment, if they need it, and that they will be put in the same category as people registered with the employment exchange.

The Minister also said that the scheme will not involve any responsibility on the county council for future maintenance. I know that in the two counties I represent it is bound to, because the usual procedure there was when money was spent on a minor relief scheme, or a rural improvement scheme, and when the road or a cul-de-sac road was made and put in a reasonable state of repair, the people asked either Leitrim County Council or Roscommon County Council to take over the roads. Both county councils did this at all times. This means that the county councils will have to provide money for the maintenance of such roads and they will have to allow for this in the rates. Perhaps other counties did not operate in this fashion but that is the way in which my two counties operated.

The provisional allocation to Roscommon County Council is £15,000. They received that notification some time ago and a few days ago they received 27 or 28 applications back from the Special Employment Schemes Office. They have also received some 14 or 15 applications from people looking for application forms in order to get a grant under the scheme. I do not think the £15,000 will cover the number of applications, between what they have received and what they will receive in the current year. The position is somewhat different in Leitrim. They were told they would receive £23,000 but they received from the Special Employment Schemes Office 125 applications, some of them dated back to August, 1964. That clearly indicates the arrears involved in the scheme. If we average out these applications at a job costing in the region of £200, we find the figure will run into £25,000 and they will not receive sufficient in this year to clear off the arrears which they have received from the Special Employment Schemes Office.

The average cost per scheme is much higher in County Roscommon and I have no doubt they will find themselves in the same position. I do not think it is any great boon to these county councils because instead of the Department of Local Government being blamed for not doing the work, the particular county council will be blamed in the county in which there is not sufficient to cover the schemes. I can see no reason other than that for the switching over of this scheme.

Section 2 of the Bill confers power on the county council to enter into an agreement with the landowner. One very often finds three or four people who live on a road looking for a grant from the Special Employment Schemes Office and perhaps one man, for some unknown reason—perhaps because he dislikes his neighbours— is not prepared to give his consent or sign the prescribed form saying that he has no objection to the scheme being carried out. The net result is that the scheme is cancelled and the money is not spent. The Minister should give power to the local authority to carry out the scheme, irrespective of whether or not they get agreement from all the landowners concerned. The situation is quite desperate when schemes are not carried out. One objects, and five or six others whose lands are flooded or whose roadway is potholed must go on suffering simply because one individual holds all the others up to ransom. The Minister should have another look at this with a view to giving power to the local authority to do the scheme, irrespective of whether or not they get consent from all concerned.

Mr. James Tully

This is a small Bill and it has been pretty well debated by those who have preceded me. I shall confine myself, therefore, to a few matters about which I am not quite clear. The Bill replaces the various grants given under the special employment schemes and I am wondering whether one of the schemes, which was governed by the number of unemployed on a certain date in January, is covered by this new arrangement or has the Minister taken this into account at all?

I should also like to know whether or not the Minister has taken into consideration the fact that there was a slowing down of this work for the past few years and the amount of money allocated—I am referring now to my own area in particular—was down to something between £3,000 and £4,000. Apparently the allocation will be made on last year's expenditure. As far as I know, very few people bothered applying for grants over the past two years because, as a result of public announcements here and elsewhere, they felt there was not very much money available. The amount available for Meath was between £3,000 and £4,000 and this will represent a very small amount of work to be done this year.

The amount being apportioned to the local authority for the running of the scheme is ten per cent. I wonder how that compares with what it was costing before these schemes were transferred. I understand that most local authorities are unable to run their own schemes under ten per cent, or anything like ten per cent. If that is so, it seems extraordinary that they should be expected to take on a new type of work and run it at this particularly small amount. Would the Minister have this matter examined and considered because, if what I say is correct, there will be a reluctance on the part of local authorities to take on work which will necessitate taking money out of the rates because, if they do not get it, they must naturally find it out of the rates? We are rather lucky in Meath in as much as we have taken over and repaired over the past four or five years every lane from two houses up and declared all lanes so repaired to be public roads. That means that what is left now for repair are those lanes on which there is only one house or on which there is only agricultural land.

I was rather interested to hear Deputy O'Leary talking about the fellow in the middle of the job holding up the 15 or 20 house lane because he would not agree to participate and pay his share; he would not take down a gate. If there is a gate on a lane or if it is unfenced, the local authorities can do nothing with it. How will that situation be affected under the new scheme? Are some regulations laid down or can the council repair the lane even though it is not properly fenced and even though there may be gates or fences along the length of the lane? The Minister may have explained this elsewhere but I have failed to find any such explanation.

The Minister also refers to the fact that employment should be given to the gangers and other people heretofore employed on this work. He said men should be recruited from the labour exchange. The men have always been recruited from the labour exchange, in theory; in practice, local authorities who are about to lay off men usually do not put the men to the trouble of signing on at the exchange; they take them on to do these jobs. I wonder how this new regulation will work because, as far as I know, a percentage payment was made to the county engineer as agent for the special employment schemes. Naturally, if he is expected in future to do this work as part of his normal work, some financial arrangement will have to be made.

As far as the supervisory people are concerned, I do not know what the Minister means because gangers have always been seconded from the local authority. The gangers were borrowed because they knew how to supervise and they knew how the work should be done. Time and again we have had some difficulty about gangers from the point of view of superannuation. There was a slight difficulty in ensuring that they would have their pension rights guaranteed when engaged on this work. In counties where there is a great deal of this work to be done, the situation is probably different, but in those counties I know best, the situation has been that the gangers were recruited temporarily from the local authorities. In some areas there were special arrangements about hours because the Special Employment Schemes Office insisted on working the hours laid down, even though the local authority normally worked a different set of hours. That is one thing that will cease when this Bill goes through.

The Minister says almost every local authority has agreed to work the scheme. There is, of course, no option. If the Special Employment Schemes Office is closing down in Dublin, then local authorities must either operate the scheme or not operate it. There is really no choice. They either say they do not want to have anything to do with it or they must agree to operate it. The Minister should make a special effort to ensure that there will be a proper allocation made to cover the cost of carrying out the scheme.

There are only one or two other matters I want to mention. It is very difficult to know what type of drainage will qualify. Would the Minister make it clear whether the choice of work to be done is to be left exclusively to the engineers of the local authorities? If it is, then I can understand the way in which it can be carried out. What I want to know is if there is any further check from Departmental level. No matter what is being laid out by the local authority engineers, we usually have somebody from Dublin having a final say. Is there any final veto, and if so, does it lie with the Minister for Local Government?

Mr. Fanning

There are very few points I wish to make on the Bill, which I generally support. When this matter arose at my county council, I was doubtful. We thought that extra engineers and staff would be necessary to operate the Act and we wondered if we would get enough financial support to do so. We know now that we need not have worried. At the beginning, the Local Authorities (Works) Act did good work. Many schemes were done in my area. The trouble was, however, that no maintenance work was carried out afterwards, with the result that some of the good schemes done went for nothing.

There is one thing that worries me about the Bill. The Minister said that there would be no responsibility for maintenance. That is the only objection I have. As I have said, schemes done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act went back to their original condition because of lack of maintenance afterwards and the money spent, which did good work originally, went for nothing. There will be a few snags here in the matter of taking over by-roads. Some Deputies have said that a person living along a road can object to contributing. A man living at the opening of a by-road might say: "The road may be bad but I will not be passing through it so I will have no part of it". There might be three or four farmers living two or three miles up the road and yet this one person living near its opening could object. I hope the Minister will tell us how such a difficulty can be got over.

Deputy Tully mentioned gangers and said that all the gangers employed in rural improvements schemes were from county councils. I agree they were very good men and my information is that those men will be re-employed when this scheme comes into operation. That is good. I am particularly interested in the drainage schemes which will come under this Act. Who will do the drainage and will the people who benefit have to contribute? I have not read the Bill fully. The Minister has said that the Bill will not involve any responsibility on the part of the county councils for future maintenance. That is wrong because, as I have said, the Local Authorities (Works) Act provided good schemes at the beginning but they were rendered useless by lack of maintenance later on.

On the question of maintenance of roads by county councils, there are roads in North Tipperary which have been taken over by the county council. They will be rolled and tarred and maintained afterwards. They will not be affected by this because the county council have taken them over. One Deputy said this Bill should provide particularly for places in which people are drawing unemployment benefit. That would not be fair to the rest of the country, to the people who pay rates and who produce for the good of the nation. People who have to send milk through bad roads to the creameries will have the owners of tractors and trailers saying: "The road is too bad". They are people who help the country to a large extent and yet it has been suggested that we should not assist them but that we should assist people who are not doing anything to help themselves. I have known people who refuse to travel with tractors and trailers over roads which they consider to be bad. The people so affected are entitled to consideration.

I welcome the Bill and hope it will prove successful, but I dislike the suggestion that county councils will not be responsible for maintenance. Councils will take over roads when they are put into good condition but will they take full responsibility for minor drainage? Deputy Treacy spoke of drainage in South Tipperary and said a good job had been done at the beginning.

Mr. McLaughlin

From what I can see, this measure assumes somewhat the role of the Local Authorities (Works) Act but when that Act was initiated we had the rural improvements scheme, the minor employments scheme and the bog development scheme. Now we are to have them all under the one heading. Anybody connected with a local authority knows that the money to be allocated will be far from sufficient to meet the demands. During the past two years public representatives have been approached continuously about the rural improvement, minor employment and bog development schemes and the only answer we had to give was that we were not receiving any applications. I think I am safe in mentioning the period of two years. It was too bad we should have had to say this to our people, particularly in the west of Ireland where we have such a high mileage of accommodation roads and such a large number of small streams which develop into big rivers in stormy weather. Now we are making the change but under the provisions of the Bill local authorities in rural areas will have to handle a large backlog of work that has been lying in Dublin, some schemes dating back to 1964.

I think it is time for any Government to take note of this. The demand is there for the grants. The necessity is there to have the work carried out. The one thing the Government should do is to try by all means to get down to those rural areas and to get those jobs done. What do many of our people think when they see big schemes being carried out, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds in some cases, and emphasis being put on tourism which lasts only from about June to 1st October? Those people are continually crying out for their applications to be dealt with. Only now, on 1st April, can we tell them that applications will be made available but, then again, that is only getting the applications sent forward. Those applications still outstanding in my constituency of Leitrim will have to be cleared off before we can get to the new applications.

Since I came into public life, I have been a great believer in the rural improvement scheme. I have continually been in touch with the rural improvement scheme office. I should like to say a special word of thanks to everybody connected with that office, from the director down to the most junior clerk in it, and to the inspectors who came out and did their job and did it well. They were always helpful and courteous and, as far as possible, did a job that satisfied everyone. I will say this: a generous grant was given. It was a fine scheme. Another very satisfying aspect of it was that, with a bit of co-operation, a local man got the gangership. Furthermore, if there were not too many on the employment list, lads who contributed were lucky enough to get a bit of employment. That system after five or six years in my area, achieved an amount of useful work and the people were availing of it to the full. I should again like to say that special word of thanks to all those people who made it such a success.

This is going down now to the county councils. We hope, and I would ask the Minister seriously to consider, after this year, to increase the allocation of money for those schemes. Those are the people who really count. In Sligo and Leitrim, we have a very high mileage of accommodation roads —mountainous roads, country roads, bog roads and other roads—that do not measure up to be put on the county council and, anyhow, their time has not come because we have county roads that have yet to be tarred and that will add extra miles.

Again, I should like to say that this scheme, if enough money were given for it, could make hundreds of acres, perhaps thousands of acres of land, useful for grazing, in some cases useful for tillage and, all in all, of use to the farmer who owns them. I know some streams that are completely closed in. The stream, before, acted as a fence between two farmers but, with continuous flooding, it has grown in. People have to put up wire now whereas, before, there was no need for it. They cannot put up a fence because the stream is still running through but cattle can walk across without any difficulty.

I should like to remind the Minister that the minor scheme should never have completely been done away with. Let us take, for instance, bog roads which are far removed from farms. The time will come when some of those bog roads will need repair—some need it already. Nobody will induce five or six or ten people down the country to contribute towards this kind of road. When we had a meeting with the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, we pointed out this fact. They know well that, once a couple of bad floods come, the mountain road is torn away again. The Minister should seriously have considered allocating a small amount of money for some of those roads because he will not succeed in getting rural improvement schemes or local improvements schemes to be used in some of those mountainy districts.

At this stage, after two years, there are people who can scarcely get as far as their homes. The accommodation roads have grown in. There are briars and bushes. Roads can become impassable for the want of being cleaned up. In days gone by, those roads were even laid by the Congested Districts Board without any contribution. I think that, in many cases, it is hardly fair that we, at this stage, who are willing to repair them, should be so slow to get as far as them. On the basis of the figure given to me as the allocation of money for Leitrim, I can still see a long waiting list after 1st April. For the past twelve months anyhow, we have been telling people to hold off until 1st April, 1968, when the scheme would be got going. Those people are only waiting to get their applications in. I wonder how long they will have to wait after that. Wages today are pretty high.

Another thing I should like the Minister to bear in mind is that, where at all possible, when carrying out those schemes the raw material should in future be taken from the local quarry. I notice a tendency by engineers—just in order to make it easy— to have a lorry driven into one of those big quarries where road material is piled up. It would leave more money locally if the material were taken from the local quarry. In the past, all those local quarries were used for the servicing of roads for which grants were made.

If at all possible, we should not encourage the driving of lorries into a big quarry to take away road material for districts outside the locality. Because of the steady rise in wages, the grants should be increased. As I have said, the grants were very generous but from now on we must see to it that they will be increased. Grants given for this purpose mean availability of steady employment. The grants may have been sanctioned early in the year and the usual procedure was to commence work as from October. That created employment for unemployed men, for some local farmers lucky enough to be employed on the schemes and for a local ganger. The result was that money was kept in circulation. That type of employment practically ceased in the past two years.

As an indication of the demand that exists for these schemes, I should like to inform the Minister that on a few occasions that I offered to have contributions paid early in October or late September, I was told that the contributions would not be accepted, that allocation to the various schemes had already been made. That meant that there was a big gap from late September to April. All the work is now embodied in one scheme and I can assure the Minister of the demand that exists for this work.

Those who contribute should be considered for employment. If people knew that they would not be employed on a scheme, there are many who would not contribute to it and would perhaps be responsible for holding up the scheme. The local authority should be empowered to deal with the situation where an individual is behaving unreasonably in holding up a scheme. My experience is that if the supervisor did not get everybody concerned to sign, there would be no more about the scheme and the person who refused to sign was responsible for the withholding of, perhaps, £100 from each of seven or eight workingmen. There should be some law whereby a scheme could not be held up because of one individual. Sligo did not avail of the scheme for the reason I believe that there was not enough money for it, that ten per cent was not sufficient for administration.

Mr. Donegan

It seems a pity that Sligo did not avail of the scheme because there is a bog road going up the middle of their soccer pitch. That is a joke and Deputy McLaughlin may forget about it.

It was my duty, as chairman of Louth County Council, and holding a majority there now, to decide whether or not we would accept this scheme. We accepted it on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread and non-acceptance would have meant that some roads would not have been done.

The ten per cent allocation, which the Minister says will effect worthwhile economy, is totally inadequate. There is the engineering work to be done. The inspectors from the SESO, which is now transferred to this new-named local improvements scheme, which is really the county council, did an enormous amount of negotiation and kept contact with the spokesman and, perhaps, the officers called to one of these reluctant people that Deputy McLaughlin spoke about, who would not subscribe. The net result was that the engineers from the Department were, in addition to being engineers, negotiators. Even if they went no further than the spokesman they had a considerable amount of negotiation to carry out and there were time-wasting procedures before the scheme was finally got through.

It must also be remembered that many county councils find it impossible to get engineers. I can speak for Louth County Council. Our county engineer is finding it extremely difficult to implement the policies of the county council because of lack of engineers. Repeated advertisements have resulted in either no reply or an engineer being appointed who after a short period left to take up a position in industry or elsewhere or, possibly, a better position within the county council. One of the problems will be the physical one of processing these schemes.

The engineering work on these schemes is extremely expensive relative to the amount of money spent. It probably costs as much money to plan the work to be done on an accommodation road as to plan a stretch of main road except, perhaps, where it is major construction of the main road on uneven land. It is obvious that the ten per cent is inadequate and will not compensate county councils for the amount of work that now has to be done by their officers. It just means that the rates estimate for roads will be that much greater. Alternatively, there will be proportionately less work done on other county council projects. There will be delay or increased cost.

Deputies have dwelt on the inadequacy of the allocations. About five years ago, the late Councillor William Woods, who had been a Senator, proposed that our engineering staff be asked for a rough estimate of the cost of reconstruction to third-class county council road standard of the accommodation roads in the county used by four or more persons. In other words, we did not go to extremes but just wanted to get an estimate that would guide the county council in regard to its policy. The estimate was £212,000, which, if related to rates in Louth directly, apart from the subventions from the scheme, would have cost in the order of 250 pennies on the rates. It could not be done and the council wisely decided that the right thing to do was to advise that applicants for such schemes should bring the roads up to tarmacadam standard and at that stage the county council would take them over, make them county council roads and maintain them ad infinitum.

We have done this already in respect of ten or 12 roads but on the basis of a cost five years ago of £212,000 not including tarmacadam but merely to bring the road up to third-class county council dirt road standard, it will be realised that the cost today of doing this would be, at a conservative estimate, £250,000 or £300,000. Our allocation this year is £3,500, and of this £3,500, there is £1,864 already allotted, because three schemes were processed, and the county council decided to do these three. However, there are 12 more applications which are unprocessed and we now have to decide which of these we will do, and it has been made clear in the Minister's speech that we are carrying the can, that we are making the selections now. We have to decide from our limited resources plus the local contribution what applications we shall deal with. This means that our effort in this regard will be restricted. We cannot see the accommodation roads used by four, five, possibly ten families in County Louth brought to tarmacadam standard being taken over by the county council in the foreseeable future. If there is no upsurge in the amount of money allotted for these accommodation roads, then the situation is practically hopeless.

There was a proposal a few months ago to ask the Minister if he would allow the county to borrow £10,000 and to vote this £10,000 as a capital sum towards a similar scheme to that operated then by the SESO. In other words, from the £10,000 loan we desire to borrow we would add to the applicant's subscription a proportionate amount based on the Minister's circular, and therefore we would extend our activities possibly three or four times. This would, perhaps, seem a rather profligate way of approaching the problem, but if you want to give service and you have a quarter of a million pounds worth of work to do and the allocation of the Minister is £3,500, you can take your pick: either abuse the Minister or try to do something about it yourself. A little abuse is perhaps no harm; the Minister is used to it and I do not think it would worry him. Apart from that, I think Louth County Council made a wise decision in asking the Minister—or is in the process of asking him; I do not know whether he has an application yet—for permission to borrow £10,000 per year and apply it to the expansion of this scheme or to an expansion of a facsimile of the scheme, because it really would not be the same scheme. I should like the Minister to deal with that when he is replying.

Another point I want to raise is that it appears to me that there is a restriction county by county, and I do not know whether or not there was a restriction county by county in previous times. I rather thought that it was not a restriction by county but that if my friend, Deputy McLaughlin, made an application on behalf of his neighbour who lived down the lane, and if I made an application on behalf of a constituent, what would have happened was that if his application arrived the day before mine his would be dealt with first on the basis of a waiting list. That was not a restriction county by county but was a countrywide restriction. I should like to be informed whether or not there was a county by county restriction or whether this is a new departure.

What I want to know from the Minister now is whether or not in regard to new schemes the Minister's circular in relation to old schemes holds. I want to use an example. There is a lane in Louth—the Minister will smile at this if he ever smiled—in which there are four cottiers and at each end of it two substantial farmers. The substantial farmer at the inner end of the cul-de-sac certainly would get extreme benefit for his motor car, himself and everybody else going up and down the lane; but the farmer at the other end of it would not be that much affected because he could walk with a dry foot on to the public road and if he wanted to go down on to the land to look at his cattle or to do agricultural work he could wear wellington boots, and his sons and nephews could go down on the tractor, trailer, plough or whatever it was.

However, in the course of my political duties I interviewed one of this man's nephews and the local teacher, and explained to them in detail all the workings of the SESO scheme, told them how to make out the application, and named the local teacher, who was to be one of my great political supporters and workers, as the spokesman. Imagine my chagrin and my dilemma when I found on the advent of the local elections that the local teacher was the Fianna Fail candidate, and imagine worse when he was elected. However, he is still a good friend of mine, and we will forget about that aspect of the matter.

Here is a situation where two substantial farmers whose land valuation adds up to an average of £96. This means a contribution of 50 per cent. The Minister's circular states that the local contribution must be on the basis of land valuation; this would mean there would have to be a substantial local contribution from only two substantial owners, because naturally the four cottiers would not be expected to subscribe much. In fact the local contribution was £518. The county council were prepared to subscribe £70, and we had £448 to get. The two large landowners were decent enough to say to the chairman of the county council: "We will give you £125." We have a deficit now of £178 to be made up among four cottiers. What we in Louth County Council would have desired to do and what we could do now is to count the number of beneficiaries from the scheme not as two but as six and, therefore, divide the total valuation of land not by two but by six. This would mean, of course, according to our scheme, that the contribution from the beneficiaries would not be 50 per cent but of the order of ten per cent, because the average valuation would no longer be £96 but would be possibly of the order of £15. We would have less money to use on schemes, because the contribution from us now as distinct from the Minister would be increased and the contributions from the beneficiaries would be decreased. However, in a situation where you have a most horrible lane where, I think, 15 schoolchildren are coming up and down and where there are potholes with water to a depth of 12 inches we feel it would be proper to bring that lane up to county council road standard, and to adapt it as a county council road. Our position in the matter is that we are restricted by this deficit of £178. In fact, I have suggested to the local Monsignor that we should get these people to make an application to the credit union for a loan of £178 to get the job done.

I would be greatly facilitated if the Minister would tell me if we are bound by the circular. I know that if the county council drafted a scheme by themselves, they would expand it and it would be the number divided by the total valuation rather than the number of landowners. One of the landowners has been very decent to subscribe at all because he does not benefit very much, and the other has gone as far as we could expect him to go in giving £125. At the same time, there are unfortunate working people living on that land who are restricted because of the accident—and it is no more than an accident—that there are two landowners whose valuation added up to an average of £96. In dealing with this matter, I have mentioned two landowners. In fact, there are three but one is not there. He is not near the lane and he is not involved as much as the other two, and it would be hard to expect that a contribution would be forthcoming.

This is a detailed approach to a particular problem which could be repeated many times in a county like Louth. In the West, more luck to them —they get £20,000 whereas we get £3,500. I am not complaining about that. I am just saying that there are four cottiers on that lane and two landowners. The landowners do not need a tarmacadam road but the unfortunate people who live on the lane do. I am saying this in a most amicable fashion and not in a spirit of criticism. I should like the Minister to tell me whether we are bound by the circular or whether he intends to issue a new circular.

I should also like to know what is the position about approach roads to groups of cottages. In Louth, we have a difficulty which I suppose is the fault of county councils in the past. We built certain groups of cottages and we did not adapt the roads around them. We did not bring them up to any proper standard and now our legal position is that it is doubtful whether we can bring them up to the proper standard and adapt them as county council roads. We have voted £1,000 this year towards this problem. I should like to know if under section 2 of this Bill we can go in on these approach roads and do certain works on them. We find it difficult to bring them up to tarmacadam standards where we desire to take them over and maintain them. We have a policy for the next five years to try at least to surface-dress these roads and in future to bring in all the roads to groups of cottages as county roads. We hope the Minister will subscribe the ordinary percentage of the subvention.

Are we bound by the Minister's circular? Can we borrow this £10,000 and apply it to an expansion of a facsimile of the scheme? The council will now have the onerous duty of selecting those who will get priority. We have to decide whether to take those with more people on them, or whether to take those whose need is greater, or whether we will take them one by one in order of application. I should like a lead on this from the Minister. Is he leaving it wide open as our responsibility, or will he send us a circular instructing us how to proceed, or will he leave it in the same position as under the old circular?

The other point is in regard to our legal position where we built cottages without taking over the approach road and where the cottages are now vested. This is agitating our county manager and engineers. Indeed, we have taken counsel's advice on it. I would be obliged if the Minister would inform me whether section 2 or any other section empowers us to do any works on roads which are not county council roads but which are approach roads to cottages which were our cottages but are now vested and for which the occupiers are paying over a period of years.

This is of great interest to anyone involved in county council work, and has any responsibility in that regard. The policy of Louth County Council is to tarmacadam all dirt roads. In four years, we will have no dirt roads in the county at all. Provision has been included in the estimate for this. I am sorry I have not got the Minister's circular with me. I am speaking from memory. What is the position in relation to priority for work for subscribers? I understand that the position was that a person who subscribed could apply and get priority for work while the reconstruction was going on. I should like to know what is to happen now. Does this circular stand, or will the Minister make changes, or where are we going?

I will finish by saying that I had hoped to raise a smile from the Minister when I told him what happened to me, but I did not. I did not raise these things in a spirit of criticism, but I think the ten per cent is an inadequate amount to pay the county council. We just cannot do it on that basis. It would cost us far more and this Bill, of itself, is restricted. It amazes me to find that certain county councils in the west of Ireland which receive large sums for these schemes are not co-operating. No matter how much you disagree with the move— and personally I disagree with it—I think you cannot act as a dog in the manager if you are responsible in the matter. You must co-operate and try to get the most for your people from Government coffers. Is it not true that they are paying enough in taxes? If so, one should try to get as much for them in return as one is capable of getting.

My last word is that I regard the amount voted as inadequate. I regard the ten per cent being given to county councils to defray the cost of operations as inadequate and I hope there will be expansion. I can see the reason for the Bill, which is simply to enable the change to take place and to allow the county councils, which are acting merely as agents, to become principals. Having said that, I would be much obliged if the Minister would give me the information I have sought, if he can do so; if he cannot, I should be obliged if somebody in his Department can give it to me in the next few weeks.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This is a most disappointing measure. When it was announced that the Local Government (Roads and Drainage) Bill would be introduced, we all anticipated a comprehensive measure covering large schemes, particularly in regard to drainage. I do not know what Deputy Donegan had in mind about what the Bill would do but, to my mind it will do nothing. It just transfers from the Special Employment Schemes Office to the local authorities the power and duty of carrying out minor jobs heretofore carried out by that Office, some works of road improvement in the case of roads serving two or more farmers, small drainage works and bog roads.

The allocation for the work has not been increased. For Cork county, I understand the allocation is £17,500. It is very peculiar that since Fianna Fáil got back into office in 1957, they have again and again refused to listen to representations made all over the country for the restoration of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. There is no need to remind the House of the benefits of that measure not only in improving roads but in carrying out small drainage schemes which are so essential if we are to develop farming. Every county council in Ireland and every such organisation irrespective of political affiliations, including the General Council of County Councils, made representations to the Government through the Department of Local Government for the restoration of that Act but without avail. The feeling is—and it is unfortunate that I have to say so in the House—that because that Act was brought in by the first Inter-Party Government and because so many of the advantages I have mentioned already flowed from that measure, the Government have shied away from it during their 11 years of continuous office since 1957.

Cork county is no different, I am sure, from any other county and at council meetings and area committee meetings, we have been besieged by farmers trying to get us to clear smaller rivers and streams to enable them to develop their land. In common with a number of other councils, we have again and again sent requests to Dublin to have deputations received but with little or no avail. When it was found necessary to introduce a drainage Bill this year, why were not such works included? The arterial drainage schemes are not operating in many parts of the country because of their cost, and seemingly— or so I understand—they are allocated on a political basis, and unless you have strong political pressure from a given area or possibly unless the area is favourable to the Government, it is unlikely that an arterial drainage scheme grant will be made available.

We have smaller rivers which badly need attention because unless these smaller rivers are cleared, farmers cannot avail of land reclamation grants to clear smaller streams flowing through their land. Hence, we have this outcry for a comprehensive drainage scheme to enable such small rivers and streams to be cleared. Why is it that the Department cannot heed the widespread requests from all over the country for the restoration of the Local Authorities (Works) Act? I know that if that Act were restored it would cost money, but I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is well aware, as a rural Deputy, that no public representative, whether Minister, Deputy or local councillor, would vote against, or voice opposition to the allocation of money for drainage of land which is so badly needed. It is most disappointing to find that in February 1968, we have a Bill with a high-sounding name like this before the House but containing nothing.

We expected more from the Minister and the Government. Cork county is more than one-eighth of the total size of the State: we have many roads to be attended to and we have drainage schemes. The sum of £17,500, the annual allocation for the year commencing on 1st April, will not go very far towards carrying out the necessary improvements. I have agreed again and again in connection with this scheme as administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office, for the improving of small roads serving two, three or four people that the money expended under that heading was useful and most helpful in getting local householders to avail of grants to bring their roads or boreens up to a standard sufficient to qualify for taking over by the county council. But drainage is the main problem and it is for drainage grants we are crying out in all local authorities. This measure before the House contains little or nothing for drainage. I do not know why the term "drainage" is used because it was made quite clear in the Minister's speech that there is very little scope for drainage under this Bill. It will possibly be used to drain a few small bogs here and there.

I am concerned not so much with what is in the Bill, because there is so little in it, as what is not in the Bill. Can the Minister say if grants will be available for farmers to enable them to have these rivers cleared? In my own area 45 farmers have been held up for the past 8 or 9 years having failed to secure any Government grant under any scheme for the clearing of a river in the Skibbereen area. The general manager of the local co-operative creamery has made several representations to the Departments dealing with drainage and memoranda have been submitted again and again to get a grant under any possible heading. I have raised the matter in the House and the answer has been that grants cannot be given until such time as arterial grants are made in the area. I do not know when, if ever, arterial grants are likely to be available in that area. I am sure it will not be in our lifetime judging by the present pace.

The case I have given is only one of many throughout the country. Can the Minister say what remedy there is for such people? Will he make grants available under any other heading, or has he in mind that in the not-too-distant future there should be a more comprehensive measure involving more money to enable local councils to carry out such work? I have no doubt county councils would carry out such schemes if they were empowered to and had the money to do so, the same as they administered the Local Authorities (Works) Acts.

It is most disappointing to find that the representations of local public representatives of all Parties, including those of the General Council of County Councils, should be ignored in this Bill. We want a clear-cut statement from the Minister this evening. We are tired of receiving deputations for drainage work and telling them we have no money or no function to help them. We have expressed the view that we were hopeful that some legislation would be enacted. Indeed, even without the enactment of any legislation, the Local Authorities (Works) Act is still on the books and we could have got money under that heading to enable this work to be done. As a rural Deputy and speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, we are very disappointed that the Minister has not given heed to representations concerning drainage, particularly in a year in which he has slashed the road grants extensively. We had a reduction of £127,800 in the road grants in Cork. When we heard of this new Bill to be introduced, covering drainage schemes as well as roads, we thought that possibly there would be a transfer of the money taken from the road grants to this work. We withheld criticism, thinking that this may have happened. However, even before the Bill was circulated, we knew from advance information that it was to contain little or nothing.

I want to avail of this opportunity to protest as vehemently as possible against the dictatorial manner in which the Government are discharging their duties, particularly the Minister for Local Government. It is unfair to the farming community to deny them the right of having their land drained. We know they cannot be drained overnight but if we had a reasonable allocation for each county the work could be carried out on an order of priority determined by the local councils. A secondary benefit, of no little importance as far as local councils were concerned, was that this type of work gave a good deal of local employment in rural areas. Therefore, you had benefits to the farming community, to the economy and to the local workers.

I hope the Minister will not adopt the dictatorial attitude he has adopted while Minister. Unfortunately, I have had to comment on the Minister on previous occasions. He seems to me to be very dictatorial. This is a democratic country and we do not like dictatorial people in executive positions. The word "Minister" means he is a servant of the people. He should bear that in mind. He is not their lord and master, as presumably he thinks he is, but a servant of the people appointed to this executive position and he should give heed to the people's representations. I hope the Minister will change his mind so far as the availability of grants for drainage work is concerned and also in relation to increasing grants to the local authorities to enable them to carry out such works as minor road works. So far as voting money for such works is concerned, the Labour Party will support measures to provide the money. We are not unmindful of the fact that drainage works cannot be carried out without money. But we believe it is vitally essential to have drainage schemes other than arterial drainage schemes carried out—the schemes in between the small works carried out under the land reclamation schemes and arterial drainage. The country is crying out for the implementation of such schemes and the Minister would do well to pocket his pride and restore the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. Boland

A number of Deputies have described this measure as merely passing the buck from the Department of Local Government to the local authorities and have said that there was no reason or justification for the scheme. This is obviously wrong. I gave very good reasons why this was being done. These three schemes previously administered from a central office in Dublin were dealing with purely local matters and it appeared to the Government they would be more efficiently done and better value obtained from them if they were dealt with by people who knew local conditions. The new scheme will mean that all the schemes that it is decided to do can be selected on the basis of urgency and of the benefit that they will bring to the local community. The three schemes that are there already dealt basically with the same types of work—accommodation and bog roads and drains—and the pooling of the schemes ensures that the grants can be allocated impartially for the most necessary work. The local contribution is small in the case of low valuations. It is higher according as valuations become higher but I think the fact that there is a local contribution is a test of the real need for the work to be carried out. The distribution of minor employment schemes which was on an unemployment basis took no account of the real volume of urgent work in each area. In some electoral divisions with high unemployment saturation point was reached and there was, in fact, a shortage of suitable work, while in other areas the employment allocation was too small to do worthwhile improvements. Now while in the recruitment of workers priority will still be given to the unemployed registered with the employment exchanges it will be possible to do the work where it is needed.

In addition to that this unified scheme should be much more economical to administer. I feel that this is an obvious example of practical decentralisation of administration. The overheads should be reduced as a result. I was disappointed that so many Deputies should have adopted the attitude that the ten per cent allocation for administrative expenses was too small. I do not think this is so at all. It is obvious that there should be some saving in administrative costs and I feel it was reasonable to ask that this scheme should be adopted on the proposed basis. I feel that all Deputies and public representatives if they are really interested in getting the maximum possible amount of actual work done for the money spent should endeavour to have the schemes carried out within this ten per cent allocation for administrative costs.

Mr. Donegan

It could not be done.

Mr. Boland

I do not think they do any great service to the people who will benefit from these works by making this case that the allocation for administration is too low. It is not correct to say, as some Deputies did say, that this has been received rather resentfully by the local authorities as a whole. In fact, generally speaking, it has been welcomed and although there was a considerable amount of representations with regard to the alleged inadequacy of the ten per cent allocation still I think most counties accepted the scheme with a good grace and there are in fact only four councils that have not yet agreed to operate the scheme.

Mr. Donegan

What counties would they be?

Mr. Boland

Cork, Dublin, Offaly and Sligo have not yet formally notified their agreement but it is expected that they will, in fact, agree to operate it. There are only those four and there has been no formal refusal on the part of any of them. A number of councils did ask for an increase in the ten per cent allocation for administrative expenses and my Department have pointed out to them that one of the main reasons for amalgamating these schemes and for asking local authorities to operate them was to try and save as much as possible of the administrative expenses.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Boland

It is a pity that opposition Deputies should have adopted this attitude of trying to force up the amount of money for this very important work which is to be allocated to administrative expenses. Since Deputy Donegan is obviously in such a great hurry to have this dealt with, maybe I will just gloss over a few points and instead, as he requests, drop him a note with regard to the particular points he raised.

In regard to this question of the amounts that were notified provisionally to local authorities, it was made quite clear that these were based purely on the hypothesis that the amount available would be the same as this year. As I pointed out in reply to a supplementary question here this amount has not in fact been fixed. If there is more available, then the amounts notified to individual counties will also be increased. Deputy Treacy, of course, as usual made the allegation that there was no money at all available for those things, that the schemes had in fact ceased. Of course, that is not true at all. There was a total of £350,000 made available for the three schemes this year which is an increase on the year before. Admittedly, the amount has not got back to the figure which obtained prior to that. Deputy Treacy described it as reluctance on the part of the Department to make the necessary capital available to them. As I pointed out in reply to the debate on the Estimate, the Government decided that this year it would be feasible, in view of the level of economic activity in the country, to allocate to the State's capital programme a total of £109 million and of this amount for all purposes, the Department of Local Government was allocated over 25 per cent, £29 million. I think that was a reasonable proportion to expect for Local Government purposes. Needless to say, we could utilise more if it was available, but the Fianna Fáil Government believe in allocating money for the State's capital programme in relation to the state of the economy. That is why we are able to keep the services going continuously at a high level of activity whereas the Coalition Government were not inclined to do that.

Mr. Donegan

That is not true.

Mr. Boland

The only other point I want to refer to is this suggestion that this is merely an imitation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act and that the powers to do all the works proposed under this scheme are already available under that Act. As Opposition Deputies know, the Local Authorities (Works) Act deals with drainage only whereas this Bill deals with roads as well. The Local Authorities (Works) Act is not appropriate to the minor drainage works which are done under this scheme.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Is that not all you were asked to do by all councils?

Mr. Boland

I am not prepared to do it because it was wasteful expenditure.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

There was no maintenance.

Mr. Boland

It was damaging in certain cases.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It was the most useful scheme ever enacted by this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is in possession.

Mr. Boland

As I said, not alone was it wasteful expenditure but in a number of instances at any rate, it was damaging because it created worse problems. It is obvious to anybody who looks on anything in a responsible way that the proper way to deal with it is by means of arterial drainage schemes; in other words, the river and its catchment area should be dealt with as a whole from the outfall right up to the tributaries rather than on a piecemeal basis, in an unplanned way, creating worse problems. The remainder of the debate dealt mainly with local problems.

Mr. Donegan

I asked the Minister, and I thought he might be able to give me a reply, whether or not the county councils would be bound by the circular in relation to the SESO schemes which operated up to this moment? Are we to be bound by the same contribution and the same system as exists at present? Does the Minister intend issuing a new circular? Will the Minister's circular be binding?

Mr. Boland

The circular will be binding. In regard to the cases Deputy Donegan raised, if he gives me full details, I will be able to give him a ruling on the particular case.

Mr. Donegan

That would be a help. I also asked the Minister if he would allow a county council to borrow themselves and produce a facsimile scheme to the one he issues to them?

Mr. Boland

No. The cost of those schemes will be met by way of State grant and local contribution.

Mr. Donegan

Am I to take it that the sum is merely provisional and if there is a greater demand, the Minister will give it?

Mr. Boland

I have already said a number of times that the figures are provisional and that the amount has not been decided. It will depend on the amount provided in the coming year's Estimates.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next Stage?

Mr. Donegan

As far as I am concerned there is nothing in it.

Mr. Carty

If there is nothing in it, you can give it now.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We will not take it now.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 5th March, 1968.