I move the Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill. It gives authority for the issue out of the Central Fund of the amount of the Supplementary Votes of last year and the Votes on Account, and it also includes the usual provision for borrowing on behalf of the Exchequer, if necessary.
CENTRAL FUND BILL, 1926—SECOND STAGE.
This Bill makes provision, amongst other things, for the issue of a certain amount of money from the Central Fund for the service of the League of Nations. Therefore, I can conceive that this is an appropriate occasion to raise the question of the recent Assembly of the League of Nations, which was held for the purpose of admitting Germany but which did not succeed in admitting Germany. It is also an occasion on which we can discuss the action of the Saorstát delegation at that Assembly. I would like to say at once that the mantle of Mr. Lloyd George has not descended on my shoulders, though I may be followed in the debate by the leader of the Labour Party. This is not a vote of censure. I have deliberately refrained from bringing it forward as a vote of censure. I am bringing it forward mainly to secure information. There may be occasion for censure later. That I cannot tell. At the moment I am mainly seeking to obtain information. We know that the Minister for External Affairs went to Geneva. We know that, because the President told us and because we saw his picture in the papers. We know that he made a great impression on a journalist from a French provincial paper, who apparently learned, among other things, the fact that the Minister had been nine times condemned to death. I really think the journalist must have confused the Minister with his Department, in which case it was a gross understatement. But while we have seen these pictures and read these comments we are still ignorant of what happened at Geneva. In reply to a question by Deputy Esmonde the President stated that:
"The primary object of this extraordinary assembly being to further consolidate the peace of Europe by the admission of Germany to membership of the League and to a permanent seat on the Council, the Saorstát delegation has been instructed to oppose the consideration of any claims which would be calculated to prevent the realisation of that object."
That, I thought, was a perfect statement of our position and one which I rejoiced in. It is highly desirable, in the interests of the peace of the world, that Germany should be admitted not only to the League of Nations but to a position of influence in the League of Nations. You cannot ignore Germany. Germany's geographical position, the size of her population, her immense national resources, and, above all things, the influence of the German mind in literature, in philosophy, in science, in industry and music, make it impossible to ignore Germany. There are only two things you can do with Germany. You can make an agreement with Germany or you can fight Germany.
Would I be in order, a Chinn Comhairle, in interrupting my address until some Deputies here are finished their conversation? It is almost impossible to speak with the conversation going on close by.
I beg to apologise to Deputy Cooper.
Deputy Hewat does not realise how nervous I am in dealing with international matters. There are two things you can do with Germany —one is to fight her; the other to make an agreement with her. I have tried the first way, and I prefer the second. It was my sincere hope and it was, I think, the sincere hope of most people in Ireland who take an interest in these questions, that before now we should have seen Germany both admitted to the League of Nations and given a permanent seat on the Council of the League. We know now that she has not been admitted. We know that when the Assembly was called for this purpose various other nations thought the time opportune to make their claims. I do not want—and I do not think you would allow me, sir—to criticise foreign nations. I will only illustrate the situation by quoting a verse from Goldsmith:—
The dog and man at first were friends
But when a feud began,
The dog, to gain some private ends,
Went mad and bit the man."
Three nations at Geneva, to serve their private ends, went mad and bit the League. They bit the League rather seriously and in a manner which, though I hope it will not entail permanent injury, will undoubtedly involve temporary injury and loss of strength. The Dáil has a right to know what action was taken by the representatives of the Saorstát in face of that situation. I did not finish the quotation which I made a few moments ago. To tell the truth, I was giving the Minister for External Affairs an opportunity to make a telling reply. I hope Deputy MacNeill will join in the debate and take the advantage. The first question I want to ask is: What part did the Assembly—a body on which we had a seat—play in regard to the various matters that arose? It may be said that permanent seats on the Council are matters that, under the Constitution of the League, concern the Council and that only the Council can bring forward a proposal to make a seat permanent. I think that is so. But the temporary seats, about which there was a lot of negotiation, concern the Assembly and are filled by the nominees of the Assembly. At one point the negotiations got to such a pitch that it was suggested that Sweden and CzechoSlovakia resign their temporary seats to enable Poland and Spain or Poland and Brazil to fill their places. That was eminently a matter for the Assembly. Sweden and Czecho-Slovakia are representatives of the Assembly on the Council, and if there are to be deals and negotiations about these temporary seats on the Council the Assembly has not only a right but a duty in the matter—the duty of asserting itself and expressing its views. I think the matter is one that ought to have been raised and discussed in the Assembly, instead of being discussed by the Council behind closed doors. I should have felt very proud if the Saorstát delegation had found it possible to play the same part as Sweden did in the Council and say, as the President said, that we were opposed to any other power but Germany being admitted to the Council of the League at that sitting.
This question has been adjourned until next September. I do not know why they always hold the meetings of this Assembly at the time of the equinoctial gales—March and September. It seems to be a bad omen. The second question I want to ask the Minister is: What will be our action next September if Germany renews her application for admission? I am afraid it is a very big "if." Germany has received a serious rebuff which makes to some extent the entry of Germany to the League of Nations difficult and must make it difficult. There are many Germans who cannot forget that the League was founded on their defeat and humiliation. The majority of Germans have, I am glad to say, agreed to overlook and forget that, but how long they will be a majority is, in the present circumstances, doubtful. It is, however, my earnest hope, and I think the earnest hope of everybody interested in the question, that Germany will renew her application. What attitude are we going to adopt then? Are we prepared then to say that only Germany should be admitted or have we any further policy?
The British Foreign Secretary—and I want to say in passing that everybody who has ever had anything to do with him respects his sincerity and straightforwardness, though they may hold that his policy has not always been the wisest and best—gave in the House of Commons, on Tuesday night, the outlines of his instructions. The last paragraph reads:—
Neither Poland nor Brazil could be made permanent members at present, but Poland should be given a non-permanent seat as soon as possible.
Is that our policy also? Is it our policy to see Poland elevated to a non-permanent seat on the Council? I ask these questions, and I would like to have them answered by the Minister. There may be an opportunity on the Vote for the League of Nations to discuss whether we should support Poland's application or not.
The events that have happened within the last ten days have shocked the League. They have injured it, and they have forced people to examine the Constitution of the League with a view to preventing a recurrence of events which would injure an Assembly like this. Various alterations and amendments to the Constitution of the Assembly are being mooted and discussed. I want to refer to two of them. The first is that at present any Power on the Council can stop action of the League by its vote. One Power can do it. Brazil, in this instance, did. It is curious that this should happen at the time when the question of the admission of Poland is being discussed, because it was held that the old Polish Constitution was the worst in the world, because the veto of one deputy or one lord in their Parliament could stop anything being done. That same power or veto exists at present on the Council of the League, and the question arises whether we should support its maintenance or abolition. There are disadvantages in either course. If you abolish the right of one Power to veto, or if you require the consent of two or more Powers to make the veto effective, then I think you will have an enormous amount of secret negotiating and bargaining and agreements to support the policy of one power, in return for the support given by that power to your own policy. It may mean the revival of the system of alliances, the institution of which is utterly contrary to the spirit of the League. On the other hand, there is the other disadvantage of a reactionary, unenlightened Power obtaining admission to the Council and preventing any action by the League. I want the Minister to state where we stand on that point.
My last question deals with the fact that there has recently been a lot of discussion in regard to the allocation of temporary seats, the temporary seats to which persons are elected by the Assembly to sit on the Council. These temporary seats are at present voted for by the Assembly as a whole. It was suggested recently that the Powers should be grouped, that you should have the Northern European Powers— Scandinavia, Holland and other Powers —in one group, the Powers composing the Little Entente in another group and the States of South America, with, possibly, Spain, in another, and that one or two representatives should be selected by these groups, in accordance with size and population, and that year by year, in rotation, they should elect one member of the group to membership of the Council. The idea is that that would give a fair representation. I am not enamoured of the idea myself, but I should like to know the attitude of the Government. I presume the Government here would be grouped with the other members of the Commonwealth. I should like to see our representative occupying a seat on the Council even though it may be only for a year or two years, but it would be a long time before our turn came, because, obviously, the most populous States of the group, such as India, would be entitled to first representation. I want to know the attitude of the Government on these questions. These are the points I wish to bring up, and I hope that in the course of the debate I may get enlightenment from the Government benches, and also from other benches.
As soon as possible, I shall, of course, as has been agreed by the Dáil, lay on the Table of the House a report of the recent meeting of the Assembly. On the points that Deputy Cooper raised, it is rather necessary for me to give from memory some little outline of what happened. Because of the situation that has arisen, out of the Pact of Locarno, it was decided that it was necessary for the fulfilment of that Pact that Germany should become a member of the League of Nations. That could be managed simply by Germany putting in her application at a meeting of the Assembly, having it accepted and joining. Quite naturally Germany demanded also that in joining the League, she should know beforehand whether she was to receive a permanent seat on the Council. When the League was formed it was decided that there should be a Council, and that on that Council there should be five permanent members and four non-permanent members. The five permanent members were chosen as the Great Powers, having world-wide interests who were pretty certain to be involved in any struggle or any war that occurred in the world. Only four of these five Powers took their seats, the United States not joining the League. There were then four permanent seats, those occupied by Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, and the four non-permanent seats of State representatives elected by the Assembly. That number was increased to six, so that when Germany was joining the League there were already four permanent members, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, the four Great Powers who had been allied in the war against Germany.
I think we, as well as the enlightened feeling of the world generally, were agreed that Germany was thoroughly justified in making that claim. In order to have an additional permanent seat on the Council it was necessary, however, to change the constitution of the Council creating another permanent seat. Such a change has, in the first place, to be recommended unanimously by the Council. Germany had communicated with all members of the Council what their action would be. I may say that in going to Geneva I thought every member of the Council had made a promise to Germany that they would support its claim. It would appear that they all had except Brazil. Brazil had given what I might call an evasive reply. Brazil had certainly not committed herself to vote for Germany getting a permanent seat. In the normal way the Assembly met and did certain business. It then formed two Commissions, one Commission to consider the German application. That Commission appointed a sub-commission, of which the representative of the Irish Free State was a member, to consider Germany's application, and it was agreed that Germany's application was quite in order, that the fulfilment of her Treaty obligations and of her armament responsibilities, was quite satisfactory and justified her application for membership of the League. Meantime, Poland and various other countries had also put in applications for a permanent seat in the League. As the President indicated here in my absence, I went to Geneva opposed to that. I was opposed to any permanent seat other than that of Germany. I may say in theory I am opposed to all permanent seats, but one recognises that when most of the decisions are come to in the first place by the Council, these decisions must carry weight and that they necessarily carry more weight when they are come to by what are to-day called the Great Powers in the world. Therefore, in principle wrong but in practice justifiable, I was prepared for the continuation of permanent seats and, there being permanent seats, I consider Germany should have a permanent seat.
The Pact of Locarno has been, I think, the greatest step towards the creation of a proper peace spirit in Europe and proper friendly relations between nations since the great European War. The parties to that Pact included Poland, France, Germany, Great Britain, and so on. There were negotiations first of all amongst the Locarno Powers, and I think I may pay a tribute to the British Foreign Minister and say that he was certainly very anxious, and quite rightly anxious, that Germany's entry into the League should not be the cause of grievance and should not spoil what is properly called the spirit of Locarno; that Germany's entrance should not re-create a hostile feeling in Poland, for instance. Therefore, it was necessary, in the first place, that there should be negotiations amongst the Locarno Powers.
The Council had to agree unanimously to recommend Germany by name for a permanent seat. The negotiations went on—they were not public negotiations—and finally reached the point referred to by Deputy Cooper. I shall give this in more detail in my report. I should mention that the non-permanent members of the Council are Sweden, Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia, Uruquay, Brazil and Spain. Spain also had a claim for a permanent seat; Brazil had a claim for a permanent seat, and one heard at a later stage that China, Belgium and Portugal were also claiming permanent seats. In fact, it was suggested that the best thing would be to call the Assembly "Council," and the Council "Assembly," and everybody would be satisfied. The private negotiations finally reached the stage that M. Unden, representative of Sweden, stated he was willing to resign from the Council, with the assent of his Government, in order to create a position whereby the Assembly could vote and could, if desired, give Poland that non-permanent seat.
I think that the Germans, for instance, were not entirely satisfied with that. It was a clear victimisation of Sweden who had stood very strongly for the admission of Germany and the admission of Germany alone. Then the representative of Czecho-Slovakia agreed to resign also, leaving two seats vacant amongst the non-permanent members, to any one of which Poland might or might not be elected. That was generally agreed on. I believe there was a suggestion by the representative of Czecho-Slovakia that the group system referred to by Deputy Cooper existed to some extent, and that the other Powers of the Little Entente felt they should take their turn and that this seat should go to Roumania. I do not think that made very much trouble.
At the end, it transpired that Brazil, who has had a non-permanent seat since the foundation of the League, was going to exercise her veto, because, unless the Council recommended unanimously that Germany get a permanent seat it could not go before the Assembly. Brazil refused to do that, and therefore the question of the permanent seat for Germany on the Council could not come before the Assembly. Now Germany, in making her application, had made it on the clear understanding that in joining the League she also became a permanent member of the Council. The Commission had recommended that Germany's application be accepted and, obviously, it would have been a breach of faith to Germany to get her into the League when she could not go on the Council. Therefore, all things considered, it was decided to postpone the matter until September.
I may say quite frankly that at the moment I saw no alternative to it. But there was a speech made, which I have not seen reported in any of the newspapers, in which it does seem that there might have been an alternative. The non-permanent members of the Council are elected by the Assembly. This was brought forward by the representative of Albania just at the last minute when apparently there was no time, as the Assembly was dispersing, to ascertain whether it was constitutionally right or not. I was trying to find out myself but the Assembly adjourned meantime. He pointed out that the elected members of the Council are elected by the Assembly and are, therefore, in the Council representing the Assembly; that, therefore, they should take their orders from the Assembly and that, for instance, Brazil's representative, instead of taking his orders as to his action on the Council from Rio de Janeiro, should take them from the Assembly. Also, the elected members, as far as I could ascertain, are elected for no specific time. Therefore, it might have been possible, but it was not apparently noticed at the time, for the Assembly to have called upon the elected members of the Council to act in a certain way, and, on their refusing to do so, immediately to have re-elected non-permanent members of the Council. so as to get rid of that veto. I think that point—if I am constitutionally correct—would rather answer Deputy Cooper's question about the veto on the Council. That was roughly what happened.
What part did the Assembly take? In the first place, they formed a Commission to consider Germany's application and agreed that Germany's application should be received, but could not deal with the question of Germany's permanent seat on the Council because the Council could not recommend it unanimously.
The Deputy asked what attitude we are going to take in September. Are we going to vote for Poland? In the negotiations there, if the Locarno Powers, including Germany, in the interest not only of peace, but of cordial good feelings amongst nations who have up to the present been enemies, had decided that on the resignation of M. Unden and M. Benes it was desirable that Poland should be elected to a non-permanent seat, one would have been faced with the position that Germany agreed to Poland getting a non-permanent seat, that the Locarno signatories recommended that, and that it was generally considered that it was in the interest of European peace. Then I should have had to communicate with Dublin to find whether I would be empowered to vote for Poland.
I may say that my observations in Geneva were that the position was made much more difficult by the fact that there were Press campaigns in the various countries, a strong public opinion, and that representatives had come there with their cut-and-dried instructions. It seemed to me, as an observer merely, that the attitude of Brazil was dictated by a strong public opinion behind and, possibly, by Ministers and public men having made statements which they found it very difficult to go back upon. I am very chary of making any statements here which in September, in view of different circumstances, I might want to go back upon. I, however, may say that I am against the making of any other permanent seats other than that for Germany; that, in principle, I am against the existence of permanent seats, although if the permanent seats were done away with, I would think it was a desirable thing that those countries who now have permanent seats should be elected from year to year, I may say to keep them quiet, because it would certainly be much easier to have a decision backed by the great Powers carried out than a decision which was made by small Powers and considered obligatory on the great Powers.
Is not the Minister going further than he intended? What he has said would lead one to believe that he would oppose the admission of the United States to a permanent seat if they joined the League.
I am talking about September. I do not think the United States or Russia will apply for admission by September. Should they apply for admission I think they would be equally entitled with the present holders to permanent seats. As to the power of one Power on the Council to veto, I think that must continue to exist. The Polish Constitution is not the same. Here you have a number of nations naturally jealous of their sovereignty, and the unanimity of the Council is really maintained to prevent what might be considered an infringement of that sovereignty. As far as I can judge I think the Albanian suggestion would overcome the difficulty that has now been produced by the fact that as far as non-permanent members are concerned we can re-elect them. I do not think it is possible as far as the permanent members are concerned that we should do away with the unanimity which is required. I think that unanimity makes it much easier for us to fall in with the general policy of the League, as one feels one is adequately protected when you know that nothing can be done unless you yourself agree to it.
As to the question of the representation of groups on the Council—subject always to the fact that I might change my mind, or that the Executive Council might change its mind—I would recommend the Executive Council not to approve of the group system. I think where you have a meeting of 54 nations that one should trust to the general intelligence of those nations to vote in such a way as will give fair representation to the various interests, and, so far it has worked out that way.
With regard to Spain's application for a permanent seat, one could not help feeling a certain amount of sympathy with it, because Spain had been at one time the greatest nation in the world. She is still a great nation and has produced a great culture, but at the same time I think that the permanent seats should only be given when we feel that we have to give them, when a nation is incontestably a world-wide Power, calculated to be in any great struggle in the world. I think, therefore, one would stand out against Spain.
I have noticed since I came back that there has been a great deal of disappointment with the League, and the feeling that this March meeting was particularly unsuccessful. I am not personally very interested in lip-service to ideals, and one can go to the League in September and can get as much lip-service to ideals and find everything going smoothly, as long as any difficult problem is avoided. On this occasion I was pleased, although there was brought out a certain weakness in the Constitution of the League, and although I think the secretariat of the League failed rather badly at one or two points, at the same time we belong to the League because we stand for certain ideals.
In this Assembly what did we see? We saw the Foreign Minister for Great Britain, as far as my observation was concerned, caring for nothing but what is meant literally by the spirit of Locarno; prepared to sacrifice his personal popularity at home, in order to make real peace and real cordiality between hitherto warring States, to avoid further friction between Germany and Poland, and do everything so that they would come together rather than be alienated. We saw that which, from our point of view, was rather surprising—we saw M. Briand, the Prime Minister of France, speaking not in an unfriendly way of Germany, but proclaiming Germany as a great State, with her rights, and making, to use the popular cliché, a generous, noble and friendly gesture towards Germany. We saw two States, Sweden and Czecho-Slovakia, in the interests of harmony and—to use the popular cliché—of the spirit of Locarno, offering to give up their seats on the Council—which are being sought for by nations for national prestige and in the interests of national vanity—in order to make peace. We saw what is, perhaps, the least important nation in Europe—Albania—coming along at the end, and making in many ways the most intelligent suggestion that was made. When you saw the Foreign Minister of England, the Prime Minister of France, and the representatives of Sweden and Czecho-Slovakia doing everything, taking risks in the interests of peace and harmony in Europe, I find that more cheering from the point of view of the ideals of the League of Nations than if things had been managed quite smoothly and the machinery had worked much better.
I think on the whole the Assembly was not entirely unsuccessful. It failed in its primary object—that was to admit Germany. The admission of Germany has been postponed until September. Certainly once the nations were brought up against reality, instead of, as one has seen so often, a struggle for little honours and little national prestige, you saw there Sweden and Czecho-Slovakia offering to go out of the Council in order to make way and promote good feeling. I think that meant a good deal more. I think Sweden actually got more prestige by that generous action, and did more for European peace, than might have been done if, according to the newspapers, things had been much more successful.
I think I have given not possibly very adequate answers to Deputy Cooper. On the group system, I am at the moment against it, but reserve the right to change my mind in future. As to the maintenance of the veto, whether we like it or not, I think it must be maintained amongst the permanent members of the Council, but I think as far as I can read the Constitution, it can be overcome, as far as the non-permanent members of the Council are concerned. As to whether or not we are going to vote for Poland in September, personally I do not see any need for Poland to be on the Council, but, if it did transpire, and is made clear that it was in the interests of European peace that Poland should be elected to a temporary seat on the Council, then I would not like at this early stage to tie my hands and make it impossible for me to vote for Poland.
I do not intend to follow the discussion that has been initiated except to say that I would like to know more of the meaning of the Albanian proposition before I could think it one worthy of commendation. I had never thought of the members of the Council as being delegates from the Assembly. I think, also, to appreciate the position that has been created by the failure of this Assembly, one would have to extend one's information as to the events that took place at Locarno. If the impression that was created at the time of the proceedings there was a sound one, then we had a right to be disappointed and depressed at the proceedings in Geneva, but it is possible that we did not get the whole truth about Locarno. Had we such we might not have been disappointed at Geneva.
The question I should like to raise on the Bill at this stage is a matter that was discussed in the Seanad yesterday, the policy of the Ministry regarding the main roads of the country. We had a statement a few weeks ago here from the Minister for Local Government, to the effect that the proposals his Department had made were submitted to the Department of Finance and a decision was being awaited. We had not any decision announced in the Dáil. We do not know officially, from the Minister for Finance, whether he has accepted, rejected or modified the proposals of the Minister for Local Government. There was a statement made in the Seanad yesterday by the Minister for Local Government which would allow us to draw the conclusion that the proposals he made, several months ago, have been refused by the Minister for Finance. We are now entitled to get some information from the Ministry as to their intention regarding the reconstruction and maintenance of the main roads, and the financing of that work. I hope the invitation I am now giving to the Minister for Finance will be accepted, that he will tell us where he stands upon this matter, and whether the views expressed in the Seanad yesterday are to be taken as the views of the Department of Finance, because we have had, on two or three occasions, the views of the Minister for Local Government, and they are not quite in accord.
It is important, I think, that the views of the Executive Council or the Minister for Finance in this matter should be related to the Dáil inasmuch as we cannot get directly from the Minister for Local Government, who is responsible to the Dáil, any useful information. The question of the maintenance and reconstruction of the roads, and the financing of that operation has quite a variety of implications, one of which is the important one which has been discussed on frequent occasions, that it is the best way of relieving the unemployment that is very prevalent in a manner which is eventually going to be reproductive and immediately beneficial. In fact, it employs the largest proportion of manual labour of almost any operation. I think the policy of the Government regarding this should be stated more fully than it has been. I urge that the time is now when this scheme for re-making and improving the main roads of the country should be extended and should be made a national charge, and the work proceeded with with the utmost possible expedition. Shall I put it this way: If a scheme which would take a number of years to carry through were planned—the plans are in the archives of the Department concerned and, as I understand, have been, in general, accepted as engineering plans—and if as many men as possible were put upon the work for the coming months and the work continued until the state of employment in the country revives, there may be modifications in the expenditure in that regard in respect of less important roads, and the work might be modified, somewhat, to meet the condition of the unemployed market. From every point of view it is important to know where the Ministry stand in regard to this problem as purely a road problem and in regard to the problem as accessory to, or affected by, the railway position. I invite the Ministers responsible, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance—and I think the Minister for Finance is probably the chief culprit—to avail of this opportunity to indicate to the House what the policy of the Ministry is regarding this road problem.
I think also that the Ministry should state their policy with regard to the road scheme which the Minister for Local Government told us, last July, had been prepared. At that time, if the Minister did not state it very definitely, certainly the workers in the country took it that the Ministry had made up their minds to go ahead with a road scheme involving an expenditure of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000. Many of the unemployed were hoping that they would find work through the means of that scheme. It is well known to any person going through the country that the roads are not at all in the state of repair in which they should be. It is known that with the limited resources of the different bodies, county councils and others, it is more than they can do to maintain the roads in their present bad condition, and so far as I can see, and it is the opinion of most people in the country, it will be impossible for the county councils to reconstruct the roads. If they were to reconstruct them the initial outlay would be so great that it could not be raised by local taxation. Most people with experience in this matter, or who have given it any thought, are convinced that the only way to have good roads in this country is to allow the Government to take control and arrange a proper national scheme for the reconstruction and maintenance of the roads. I think if the Minister for Local Government and his Department have prepared a scheme in which they have belief, and which they think is proper, and if the Minister cannot get the sanction of the Minister for Finance on the matter, he ought to bring it here before the Dáil and give Deputies an opportunity of expressing their opinion on it. I do not think the Minister for Local Government, who is an extern Minister, should try to get out of the matter by saying: "My scheme was turned down by the Minister for Finance." That is what it amounts to. If the Minister has belief in his scheme, and I dare say he has, I say it is his duty to put that scheme before the House and allow members to decide whether or not it is a scheme which should be put into operation.
It is also known that the traffic on the roads at present is being subsidised to the detriment of the railways. We have lorries of three, four, five and six tons going out here from town, down the country 150, or in some cases 200 miles, tearing up all the main roads. The ratepayers in all those counties have to pay for all the damage to the roads. I do not consider that is fair, and I consider if the Government of this country are sincere in their desire to have good roads, and in their desire to give useful work to the unemployed they certainly should adopt this scheme which is being prepared by the Minister for Local Government. If the Minister for Finance cannot approve of this scheme, as it was presented to him, he ought to modify it in some way but, in any case, we ought to be told now whether the Government are going to do anything for the roads in the coming summer, or whether the position is to be allowed to remain as it has been for the last three or four years.
The magic word of the moment with regard to traffic is "co-ordination." It is very hard to fix what exactly the people mean who so solemnly shout that as the panacea for everything as regards the transport problem. Recently it has been given a turn, I think a turn for the worse. It now means that the one essential of co-ordination is that the moneys expended on the building and on the upkeep of roads is to be found, not from the rates but from taxation, and we have the phrase used in that connection: "The ratepayers cannot bear the burden, and the taxpayer must bear it." It is the most obvious juggling, possibly to the satisfaction of the people who simply admire their own skill in juggling. It is a very serious problem, and this does not bring us any further at all. There is a misconception as widely prevalent as this co-ordination phrase, and Deputy Morrissey alluded to it.
I do not think I used the word "co-ordination."
No, but I say there is the co-ordination phrase being used. There is a misconception as common as the co-ordination phrase, and Deputy Morrissey has fallen a victim to that misconception. It is that road traffic has been subsidised to the detriment of its competitor, the railways. I wonder could the Deputy give any indication of what he bases his statement on that road traffic is being subsidised. If it merely comes to this, that at a period when traffic to be borne by any form of transport has been found to be very limited, and where you have already built up at great expense a permanent way on which the railways now run, it is uneconomic to begin anew the building up at great expense of a second permanent way which will be in competition with the first for the very limited amount of traffic that there is in this country, there is a certain amount to be said for it, but the word "subsidy" has the implication of moneys being paid definitely to aid a form of transport which, in fact, is in competition with the other. What moneys are being paid? The charges for road construction and maintenance are undoubtedly up beyond what they were in 1914. By what are they up?
A hundred per cent.
By 121 per cent. What is the difference between—(1) the lost of labour in 1914 and now, and (2) the cost of material then and now? That is to say, on examination of the costings you get the proof that there is no more work being done on the roads and no more material being put into the roads now than there was in 1914. That is the figure, as far as I have been able to ascertain it. If that is the truth——
It is not. Figures can be made to prove anything.
We can get this discussed, with the figures put out in proper form and with the whole costings shown so far as we have been able to get them. But I simply state that this is the best information that a certain committee has been able to get on the subject, that the expenditure on the roads from the rates at the moment has increased. It has increased in exact proportion to the increase in the cost of labour and the increase in the cost of material.
Does that include the 6d. rate?
Properly speaking the actual sums are these: In 1914 there was spent on the roads £675,000, of which £25,000 came from the Road Fund. In 1924-5 the figures were £1,234,000 from the rates, and from the Road Fund approximately £55,000.
When you say from the rates do you include the 6d. rate?
No.
That is from the rates and it amounts to £300,000.
It is from the rates, but it only means a quarter of a million.
Will the Minister make allowance for the more up-to-date equipment for road repairing now in use as compared with 1914?
Most of the money from the 6d. rate has been spent on bridge reconstruction, and so far as that is an element in connection with the roads we will have to take it separately. If Deputy Morrissey means by better equipment that it should therefore lead to cheapening, and to the extent to which it is not taken into calculation here, there may be just that amount of extra work being done on the roads. But the main contention— we can have this again in detail—will be found to be this, that there is really no more work done on the roads to-day than in 1914, that the increased motor traffic has not been responsible for any better work on the roads. The work on the roads that is done to-day and the cost of it compared with 1914 simply shows the difference in the two items I have mentioned. If that be the case the contention as to a subsidy falls to the ground.
The other side of the case is equally overstated, that the railway pays extravagantly in aid of the building up of the highways which carry goods in competition with itself. Figures have been given and an estimate can be made of the amount that is really paid for roads by the railways. It does not amount to a great deal. It is appreciable in the present conditions of railway finances, but it does not amount to a great deal. Let me come back to co-ordination. We have a demand for co-ordination, and we are told that a separate Ministry is required in order to effect this co-ordination. What co-ordination is there possible as between, say, the railway company and the thousands of hackney motor drivers that there are in the community? Is there any co-ordination there? There might be co-ordination by some sort of compulsory grouping of hackney motor drivers, or something of that kind, but I do not think that that would get us very much further. Something of that sort has been tried in England and has been found to be entirely unsuccessful.
You have three things to coordinate—the canals, the railway system, and the users of the roads for any sort of vehicular traffic that is going to run in competition. Certainly an unregulated competition for an unlimited amount of traffic is wasteful and is not good for the community. You have not settled the problem by simply saying co-ordination, and adding on to that a separate Ministry leads nowhere. Whatever form of co-ordination is necessary, and I believe it is necessary, in one form or another, is being looked into at the moment, and whatever can be done by the Departments as they are at present, will be done. The Minister for Local Government announced here that he had received a report from the Advisory Committee and asked if that was turned down. If the Minister for Finance has turned it down the Minister for Local Government should come before the Dáil and seek authority for that expenditure, and go ahead with it. But instead of that the Minister for Finance is asked here to-day what is his policy with reference to the whole question of transport.
I do not know whether the Minister is differentiating between the roads the Advisory Committee reported on and sent to the Minister for Finance and the roads of the Advisory Committee's report adopted by the Minister for Local Government. That sent out to the Minister for Finance has his imprimatur, I presume, and is the adopted scheme.
That sent to the Minister for Local Government was received by him, considered by him, and sent on for the consideration of the Minister for Finance.
Does the Minister say that the Minister for Local Government has no roads policy? Does he say it is not his policy, but merely the report of the Advisory Committee?
No; the Minister reached a certain stage, and at that stage information came to him, and seemed acceptable, and this information was passed on to the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance is asked, to-day, to go another step and that, before the final decision is reached, he should say something here, and presumably a month or so hence. If what the Minister for Finance has said to-day was not effective we will be told that there is some higher power after all that is supervising the Minister for Finance.
What we desire to know is whether the Minister for Local Government has propounded to the Minister for Finance a road policy, and whether the Minister for Finance has refused to sanction that policy. Will the Minister for Local Government announce to the Dáil, to which he is responsible, the proposal he has made to the Minister for Finance, and if it is turned down has the Minister for Finance any alternative to put before the Dáil for consideration so that we may compare his policy with that of the Minister for Local Government?
I am suggesting that the proper course to adopt is to wait until this policy is announced. If it is thought there is too much delay, the Deputy can press for a transport policy or road policy, and he can make his inquiry at what stage the Advisory Committee report was adopted, if you like, by the Minister of the Local Government Department, and the Deputy can make inquiry as to what stage that went wrong, and who is responsible, and whether it was judged to be wrong by later figures and better facts. I suggest these things should be done in stages.
How long is this report being considered? Was it not sent to the Minister for Finance in July last?
Quite so.
Will the Minister say when he will be in a position to report to the House?
I hope a certain statement may be made by Budget time. There ought to be certain things at that period which would enable a certain declaration to be made. It may be a declaration as to certain temporary measures.
Surely it will not be ready for budgeting until the scheme is considered?
The Deputy should not make any statement in advance; he should wait and see what the circumstances are. We have had papers calling for a national commission on transport. I think the farmers usually gobble up suggestions of outside bodies and adopt them.
No, we do not.
The Minister seems to be troubling about what the farmers are doing.
This is a fasting period and they have abstained for once. I hold there is no national commission required on transport. The information can be got through the Departments of Government. Some people profess to be astounded at the time we have taken since last July in considering this matter. I suggest there is necessity for a little patience in regard to this.
Fifty thousand unemployed and in nine months is not too much!
There has been a great deal done to try and overcome the unemployment problem, and as far as the roads are concerned, I do not think that anyone can complain about the amount of work provided there. There have been complaints, incidentally, about other matters, but the amount of work on the roads is shown very definitely. I do not agree with Deputy Morrissey when he suggests that the roads here are in a bad state. Anyone who has travelled the roads along the Northern Frontier will know what a really bad road is.
The springs of the Minister's car are good.
There he would find very bad roads. There are, of course, some bad roads in the South, probably some bad roads in Cork and Kerry and in Wexford.
Is it not a fact that local authorities are kicking against the expenditure necessary and are not voting the expenditure necessary to maintain these roads in efficient state, and that is making the problem acute?
That is the tendency that has been revealed. The local authorities say that they are not able to contribute the necessary money for the upkeep of the roads. That has to be taken into consideration. This problem, when reduced to its simplest terms, comes to this—removing a certain amount of local taxation and putting it on the taxpayers.
Putting it on the ratepayers.
Yes. In equity the taxpayer must pay a certain amount of money, for if there never was a motor in the country there would have to be roads. There must be apportionment of the extra cost involved in road keeping by reason of the present forms of transport. That is not a matter to be decided hastily, and it is not a matter about which one could say that a discussion of eight months has been too much. I come back to my original statement. You may get a statement from the Minister for Finance at a certain stage in the discussions, and interim decisions with regard to transport, but do not take those, as apparently the House has taken the interim report presented to the Minister for Local Government, and submitted by him, as something fixed.
Is it not true, inasmuch as the Minister for Local Government has not rejected this report and has passed it on, that he has accepted it, and that the report has been accepted by the Ministry under whose control the Roads Board is operating?
That does not end the story. That is up to the fullest limit the truth, and nothing but the truth, and Deputy Baxter knows it. Has the Minister for Local Government accepted any further advice and criticism? Has he accepted figures that have been put before him, and has he accepted any investigation into the scheme for looking after 1,400 miles of trunk roads at a cost of £3,200,000 and putting them on a proper basis? If the Minister for Local Government has done all Deputy Baxter has said and more, and the other Ministers concerned have taken what was given by the Minister for Local Government and more, the House is floundering in this position, that is has accepted a particular scheme, as put up and presented here at a certain stage, as if that were the final stage.
On a point of order, the Minister is under a misapprehension. He is assuming that this report has been presented to the House. Unfortunately that is not the case. We desire to know what scheme he is quoting from. As the Minister has quoted from it perhaps he would move that the report be presented to the House.
That would only lead to further delusion. If we were to lay the report on the Table that would seem to give a further imprimatur. It seems to be in Deputy Baxter's mind that it is a thing we cannot get away from without some sort of constitutional crisis.
You are trying to get away from letting us know where we stand.
I am telling the House it is not possible to say where we stand at present.
Will the Minister say when we will know? We have been discussing the subject of road control for nearly three years, and we do not know any more about it to-day than when we started the discussions. Surely it is time, in view of the fact I mentioned, that both the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government, on whom is thrown the responsibility of maintaining these roads——
On a point of order, is Deputy Good raising a point of order?
What point is the Minister raising?
"Point of order" are the most abused words in the vocabulary of Deputies. The Minister for Justice has pointed that out.
I thought the Minister was raising a point of order. Of course we are dealing now as regards this subject with new Ministers. This is the first time I became aware that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was dealing with roads. Now he is being supported by another Minister.
No wonder we have bad roads.
It is difficult for the House to understand the situation. Heretofore we have been discussing roads as between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government. Now we are dealing with other Ministers. We hope the new brooms will be more successful than the others have been in dealing with the matter during the last three years.
Is this really a protest against Deputy McGilligan completing his speech?
May I point out that Deputy Good always objects to interruptions.
I am not in the frame of mind to prevent Deputies entirely from interrupting. I think interruptions up to a certain point are useful and help in debate. I do not think Deputies who are against certain proposals of Ministers realise that Ministers like interruptions. I put it—wholly outside my own province —that interruptions are of very considerable assistance to some Ministers; in fact, I think all Ministers like interruptions. The Minister for Industry and Commerce might perhaps be allowed to continue without interruption, and his point might be unfolded gradually if Deputies listen to it. When he has concluded they will be given the opportunity of making their points by way of speech rather than by interruptions.
Sitting suspended at 2 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m., theCeann Comhairle in the Chair.
I have very little to add to the details that I have already given to the Dáil on this matter. I set out to show that this big problem was not going to be solved by any mere repetition of the word "co-ordination," or of the phrase "transfer the upkeep of the roads from the local authority to the Central Government." On inquiring into these two matters, there is a whole variety of problems all inter-related, and every one of these problems is being examined at the moment. As far as I can see, we will be in a position to state not the stage of a decision but a decision along which we can proceed, at the time of the Budget. I want to stress to you two things in that connection. The upkeep of the roads in the year ending March, 1925, ran to something about £1,800,000. Money collected from the Road Fund and from the rates amounted to about £1,800,000.
All roads, or main roads?
Roads. All that money represents expenditure. The big items were wages and material. The Chairman of the Great Southern Railways Company recently gave an indication as to the difference between salaries and wages, in 1913, of the companies now comprising the Great Southern Company, with the wages now paid by the Great Southern Company. The comparison was between £900,000, roughly, and £2,700,000. Take the figure for 1925, that is to say, £2,700,000, and add to it £1,800,000. It involves an expenditure, mainly by way of wages and salaries, of four and a half million pounds. Is the capitalisation of the Road Fund at the moment a thing that should be taken up? Wages and material costs—and mainly wages costs—will be very big items in any consideration when the economics of that capitalisation procedure are to be examined. But there is another item that has to be examined, and that item, at the moment, is very definitely under examination. Can you divide the costs of road-making, not as done at present, but as projected, into costs of foundation and costs of surface? Can you set any value afterwards if you have a new road system as to what will be the maintenance of (1) foundation, and (2) maintenance and repair of the surface?
There is a second very big question arising and it is not a question on which any hasty decision can be taken, and eight months is not too long to spend getting figures together on which to base a decent decision. You are told lightly that the ratepayer cannot pay for the upkeep of the roads. You are told you want better roads and you are told that you must transfer them to the Central Authority. That would be very good for some people but very bad for others. It would relieve the ratepayers at the expense of the taxpayers plus the motor user. I suggest that a very big question lies behind that question of how the incidence of taxation is to be modified so that those costs will not be put completely upon the class who should not pay entirely for it. Take the other side of it, the class who would have to pay for the roads if there never was a motor car in the country—to prevent that class being relieved of all liability for the upkeep of roads in the future. Deputy Good stresses the point that certain authorities said they would not spend the money required for the upkeep of the roads for modern transport requirements. I do not know whether there is to be any great difference in the deterioration and upkeep of roads as between now and the end of April, and that is the period I ask a further delay to be allowed for. I think it is unreasonable in this House to ask that indication should be given before the policy has been decided upon. If there is any appreciation in the Dáil that the policy requires careful consideration and that all its details have to be examined into, this House can very well agree that until the end of April is not too long to have this matter postponed.
I was very pleased to hear from the Minister that this matter is receiving serious consideration and that a decision will be arrived at within a reasonable period, because the present position of affairs is acute. Deputy Good and others have stated that the county councils are not putting up sufficient money to maintain the roads for traffic. That is not so, because they are putting up quite sufficient money to maintain the roads for normal traffic, but they could not provide, and it would be impossible for them to find, money enough to maintain the roads for the present abnormal traffic. At the present time the money spent on the roads is wasted money. It reminds me of a person smashing a pane of glass in a window, repairing it, smashing the window again, and repairing it again. I say that because no sooner has a road been repaired than eight tons of coal. cement or other goods are brought along over that road in a seven-ton vehicle, with the result that you have a weight of 15 tons on the road and the road is smashed up. Any person going through the country can see on the roads the bumps and holes that this heavy motor lorry traffic has caused. Now, the ratepayers in Westmeath are paying 2/- in the £ for the upkeep of the roads. All that in the past was money necessarily spent—the money was necessary—but at present the ratepayers there are grumbling because the money is wasted or practically thrown away. There are three methods of conveying goods at the present moment. (1) by rail, for which you have to pay a very high rate to the company; (2) by canal, and you have to pay a heavy toll to the canal company before you use the canal, and heavy charges as well, and (3) by motor lorry. Naturally it is no wonder that the traffic on the roads is increasing every day, because the roads are absolutely free. The vast quantity of material that is being brought along the roads is, in my opinion, transforming the roads into railways and leaving them practically an impossible proposition for the ratepayers. It is no wonder, when you take up the statistics that are given you, that you find that there is a depletion of the traffic of the railway companies, week by week, and that this lorry traffic along the roads is increasing daily. The position at present is becoming very acute. As a member of the Westmeath Co. Council, I can state that the decision come to there is that unless something is done soon they will not pay any more money to carry out the repairs. Then when the lorries have smashed up the roads so that they will be no longer passable, the traffic will have to go back to the canal or railway companies. I was pleased to hear that a decision will be arrived at soon in this matter, because the position is becoming acute and a deadlock will ensue.
I wish to correct one item. I gave certain figures with regard to expenditure and road maintenance. That excluded the county boroughs and the urban district councils, because the amount contributed by them included payments for other types of services. We are going on the basis that the totals are not affected appreciably thereby. I want it to be understood that they are excluded.
The Minister stated that it is unreasonable to expect an indication of Government policy between this and the end of April. If it is unreasonable to expect a declaration of policy, how can we get away from the statement the Minister for Local Government and Public Health made yesterday in the Seanad? He said that when a tax on motor spirit was in operation before there were demands for rebate made and the tax had to be dropped. He added that the inducement which it would give for smuggling was the main objection to having a spirit tax. The Minister gave a fair indication that the trouble in collecting the tax and the danger of smuggling were so great that the Government had decided against a motor fuel tax.
On a point of explanation, I do not wish it to be taken that I was indicating a definite decision on that point. The matter of a petrol tax was referred to by some Senators, and they spoke about it as though it was a very easy thing to apply. I merely pointed out the fact that there were administrative difficulties in the way. There was no definite decision in the matter at all.
Then the newspaper report is misleading, especially the report in the "Independent," which seemed to be very definite. The wording of the report in the "Independent," quoting the Minister, conveyed the impression that the Minister was definitely opposed to the introduction of a motor fuel tax. I accept the Minister's statement as correct and I take it the report in the papers is not quite accurate. I will therefore pass away from the question of the unreasonableness of expecting an indication of Government policy. I will not go into the matter of co-ordination because I think that is a very misleading word; in fact, another word carrying, perhaps, a plainer meaning could be used in the same connection. We have had a lot of agitation, especially from people interested in the business, whether as manufacturers of certain transport vehicles or as agents. They have been writing, agitating and meeting. They form a very small but a very active proportion of the community. They are active, not from the national viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of their own particular business. Nobody is more active than the man who is influenced by considerations relating to his own pocket; he generally puts in a good day's work.
We have in the Saorstát roads being maintained at a cost of £2,000 and £3,000 a mile; in some instances the cost is much more than that. All that money is expended preparing these roads for a fleet of lorries carrying—as an instance, one can mention one of the main thoroughfares within a few miles of Dublin— seven or eight lorry loads of sand or timber. Recently we have had visitors to this country who job in properties around Dublin. They cut down timber on these properties and make a regular wilderness of the country. This timber is taken in lorries to the quays in Dublin. These people are destroying the face of the country. They cut up the roads and do very great damage. The taxpayer is expected to provide a road on which an individual of that description runs his lorries and makes a few shillings profit. The same thing applies to the transport of sand. These lorries make two or three or four journeys a day, and usually there are seven or eight of them on the road. The cost of making a road runs to about £3,000 a mile and in twelve months that road is worn out and needs to be re-made. All this expense is entailed for the sake of putting a few shillings into the pockets of certain individuals. The ratepayers are asked to maintain the roads every year at a cost ranging from £1,500 to £3,000 a mile.
Where does that figure come from?
I am talking about an ordinary macadamised road without tar-spraying or anything else.
Does that figure cover the cost of re-making the road?
It is the cost of laying down a road. A better class road, one on which tar-spraying would be carried out, would cost much more; it would be a much higher figure. As we know, some of the streets in Dublin— Merrion Street, for instance—cost as much as 24/- a square yard to re-make. Stephen's Green, I understand, cost 23/6 per square yard. The Minister, I imagine, could give us details of what an ordinary country road at Clondalkin cost. I believe it worked out at from 10/- to 15/- per square yard. Some of the roads costing all this money are giving way less than 12 months after they have been done. Others of them are maintaining a fairly good surface, but the position that exists is not that hinted at by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. His figures, of course, could prove a certain thing, but I suggest he has not taken into consideration all the surrounding circumstances.
The county surveyors, in the reports they place before their county councils, state that the roads everywhere at the present time are extremely bad. If that is their position now, what will their position be in twelve months' time? One county surveyor, in his report, states that the roads at the present time cannot be maintained out of the rates. Dealing with some done out of special grants, he anticipates that in twelve months' time they will be in a very much worse position than they are in now. He states, too, that some of these roads cannot be reached for two or three or perhaps five years. If the roads are going to be worse in twelve months' time than they are now, what will their position be in five years' time, if they cannot be reached until then, or what will their position be in three years' time? Recently, I travelled over some of the roads in the County Tipperary. It would not be safe to travel over them in a motor-car at more than eight or nine miles an hour. From my experience, and from the reports furnished by county surveyors, I feel that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has not given a correct estimate of what the position really is.
The Minister for Local Government has, more or less, relieved my mind by his attitude. I was glad to learn that no decision had been taken to deal with the aspect of the question that he referred to. I desire to refer to the report sent in by the Committee of the Roads Advisory Board. An impossible position would be created if the recommendations of that Committee were carried out. The report is a sort of compromise between the present system and the system they thought to be the right one. They give us two systems, with two staffs and two costs for collection. I hope, whatever is done, that the Government has no intention of having two systems. One system is quite enough. I have heard no one support this two-system idea except officials under the present system and others who hope to get employment under the proposed new system. I think I can tell the Minister that it is the unanimous wish of everyone in the country that whatever is done there should be only one system. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that "subsidising" was not the correct word to apply to this form of traffic that is being discussed. If it is realised that you are maintaining roads at an abnormal cost to enable this particular traffic to pass along them, then I think you must regard the charges that are made as a subsidy from some quarter. Subsidising the highways for this particular traffic to go over them is much the same as buying that particular class of traffic to go on the roads. There would be no use in talking about this particular class of traffic being on the roads if you had not the roads for it to go over. There would not be much use in talking of rolling stock in connection with railways if you had not the railroads for the use of the rolling stock.
I read to-day debates that took place in another place yesterday on this question. Some of those who spoke seemed to favour the idea that motor traffic on the roads should be curtailed in order to enable other systems to maintain their exorbitant charges. That is a matter of very great concern. I maintain that it is the exorbitant charges made by the railway systems, more than anything else, that have put on the roads the fleets of motor lorries that we see on them. In my opinion it has taken the Government too long to make up its mind on this question of the roads. Three years ago I raised the question on the Estimates. I raised it again the following year and also last year. We were promised that a definite statement on the matter would be made by the Government. We have been expecting that statement for the last 12 months, but it has not come yet. I put it to the Government that the time is now ripe for them to make a definite statement. Deputy Shaw put the whole thing in a nutshell when speaking on this question. I agree with what he said, that it is a waste of public money to be putting down the ordinary macadamised and steam-rolled road and to be allowing the present heavy traffic over it. It is most unfair to put the charge for the upkeep of these roads, under the conditions that obtain, on the ratepayers of the country. You spend a lot of money on the making of one of these roads and, as Deputy Shaw said, the road is dead within 12 months. The whole thing is like breaking a pane of glass, re-breaking it, and re-breaking it again. In conclusion, I hope the Government will at once make some definite statement of policy to the Dáil on this very important matter.
May I put it this way? If a certain amount of money contributed by ratepayers went to the upkeep of roads in 1914, and if a certain amount is now contributed by the ratepayers which only shows an increase by the amount of extra cost of material and labour, one of two conclusions has to be come to—either that the standard maintained in 1914 was too good for the type of traffic that went over the roads, or that there has been no increased expenditure caused by the excessive use of the roads by heavy motors to-day.
That is still misleading. In 1914 we had roads that could bear the traffic and the difficulty was to find a bad road, whereas the difficulty to-day, outside the trunk roads, is to find a good one.
These facts are in dispute, and they will have to be argued later.
Some roads are neglected for the maintenance of the trunk roads. More material is going into the trunk roads now than formerly. Twice the material is being put into the trunk roads than was put in in 1914, while there is not quarter of the material now being put into the other roads that was put in in 1914.
The Minister's statement that nothing more is being done to the roads to-day than was done in 1914, is not correct.
Done, out of rates.
To-day the local rate in my county for the upkeep of roads is 3/4, whereas in 1914 it was 1/4. The roads in 1914 were fully capable for the traffic passing over them. To-day they are not half capable, although there is an additional 2/- on the rates for their maintenance. This is all due to the heavy lorries. I can give the House an estimate from our own county surveyor as to the difference in the upkeep of a twelve-mile road with ordinary traffic and of the same road with heavy lorry traffic. At present, such a road, if maintained for ordinary traffic, would cost for its upkeep £2,400. Last year, owing to the heavy lorry traffic, £10,000 was spent on it—a difference of £7,600. This year the same road requires an outlay of another £10,000. The question was up before the county council the other day, and the only conclusion we could arrive at was to close the road to heavy traffic, and we have asked the permission of the Minister to do so. The ratepayers could not be expected to repair the damage caused by this abnormal traffic. How could they, if a road costing £2,000 to maintain in 1914 now costs £10,000? Deputy Shaw stated the facts when he said that there is no use in looking to the ratepayers to maintain roads for heavy lorries.
In our county we have only eight heavy lorries over five tons, and they each pay only £30 a year tax. The road I am talking of is that between Enniscorthy and Wexford, and it costs £10,000 to keep it in a proper condition. Except the Minister agrees to close the road to heavy lorries the ratepayers cannot afford to maintain it. The question of the damage which these heavy lorries are doing to the roads is up before our county council every day. Representative ratepayers, and even the General Council of County Councils, have emphasised these facts and have sent a statement to the Minister asking to have this heavy traffic stopped. If these heavy lorries are not taken off the roads there will be no roads left soon.
We have listened to the Minister telling us that this matter is under the consideration of the Government, and we have also listened to Deputies from the country telling us that the rates cannot maintain the roads in the manner in which they should be maintained. Are not the two thing very much co-related? Arising out of this road controversy it seems to me a nice little plum is dangling before the county councils, and why would they not make the most of the case to be relieved of their charges?
Are the statements of the county surveyors lies, or what is the implication?
I thought there was a Commission appointed in connection with the roads, and I thought it had reported. I am not, however, going to get into a controversy as regards that, as that will come up for discussion when the plans of the Minister are ripe and when he will put forward his policy. I am merely saying that the agitation, about which we hear so much from the county councils, must be discounted, because of the natural inclination of such bodies, when they see an opportunity of getting relieved of a burden, to make the most of it. Deputy Doyle, in speaking on behalf of his county did not, of course, take the county of Wexford as a whole, but referred to the roads between the port of Wexford and Enniscorthy. He indicated that that road should either be closed against heavy traffic or that the Government should take it over. I know that road well and I would say that it is rotten from start to finish, and that even for horse traffic it has been antediluvian for many a long day. In recent years it has not been capable of dealing with the traffic passing between Wexford and Enniscorthy, even if no heavy lorries went over it. I think that the controversy as to who is to maintain the roads must be largely discounted, as the arguments put forward on behalf of the county council and the ratepayers indicate a chance of getting something back. I do not, however, controvert the idea, or dispute the right to have a full consideration of the question of the main roads coming under a separate organisation. I would rather like to consider the plans when they are more matured than at present. The impression that the roads are only for light traffic seems to be fostered by the idea that if the roads were shut against heavy motor traffic, or traffic of reasonable dimensions, it would help the railway companies. My view is that the day has, to a large extent, gone by when the railways will be used for what you might call light traffic for certain areas. Outside those areas the railways for heavy traffic cannot be injuriously affected by motor lorries.
Deputy Gorey would seem to put the blame on the heavy motor lorries and rather suggested that these lorries were on the road solely because of the desire of the owners to make something out of them. I can assure him from my own knowledge that the desire of the motor lorry owners to increase their business is very much encouraged by the demand on the part of the people in his area and in other areas to get delivery of stuff by motor lorry. The public in this matter are not to be ignored. The public, including the ratepayers of the different counties, want certain services and if you say that the roads are not going to be made use of for the convenience of the people, I say that you are taking up a mediaeval attitude. You can order the motor lorries to be cleared off the roads. But if that be done, I venture to suggest that the people who will suffer most will not be the owners of the lorries but the people who are facilitated by the lorry service. As regards the state of the roads, Deputy Shaw, Deputy Gorey and others have greatly exaggerated the situation. I have heard, over and over again, in recent times, the opinion expressed by various people that the roads are in a much better condition—a far better condition—than they were twelve months ago, notwithstanding the heavy motor traffic that we hear so much about.
Quite true.
The money spent on the roads during the past twelve months or two years may have been useless in cases where a reasonable amount of brainwork was not put into the making of the roads, but I say, without fear of contradiction, that the bulk of the money spent on the roads, over and above the ordinary upkeep, has resulted in a state of affairs which is appreciably better than that of twelve months ago. That being so, has it involved any considerable increase of contribution on behalf of the ratepayers? I say it has not. I say that the figures will show that the ratepayers in the different counties have not contributed more than their reasonable share on the basis of the traffic on the roads before the motor lorries came along. After all, if we go back to the origin of the roads, they were made for the development of the districts. They have succeeded. They have carried out their purpose. The railways want to disown liability to contribute to the upkeep of the roads. That is a controversial matter, which I am not going into at present. But take away the roads from the country and what use would the railways be? You could not carry on your railways if you had not your roads. Deputies may smile, but let them consider how they would get their goods from the station to a place a few miles away.
If they had not a lorry?
Leave out the question of lorries.
I want to emphasise that excellent advice. What Deputy Johnson wanted to raise was the question of the Government road policy. If we could leave out the lorries altogether, it would be simply delightful.
In response to your suggestion, I shall forget that there is such a thing as a motor lorry in existence. It seemed to me that it was necessary to supply some sort of counter-argument to what we have been hearing every day. That is my excuse. The roads, as I said, were made originally for the purpose of developing, firstly, the particular districts, and, secondly, the country as a whole. I assume that ten years ago the roads were better in quality than the roads fifty years before that. Whatever authority is established over the roads, we should not readily agree to the suggestion mentioned by Deputies Shaw and Gorey that the roads should be allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair that no traffic could go over them—and to do that simply because the county councils wish to press the idea on the Government that it is their duty to take over and maintain the roads.
I do not think I ever witnessed a greater attempt to confuse an issue than that made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce this evening. Deputy Johnson asked a fair and reasonable question as to what was the road policy of the Government and we had a series of definitions from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, without any attempt whatever to answer the question. We got, in the end, the policy of a few years ago: "Wait and see." That is the policy of the Government with regard to the maintenance of the roads. It may be very clever as a debating society point. It may be a very clever way to avoid a clear-cut issue, but it is certainly not an attitude that responsible Ministers ought to adopt towards a necessary service and matters arising from the maintenance of that necessary service, such as the absorption of the unemployed. If the Minister is taking cognisance of what is happening throughout the country to-day, he will see that nearly every county council is cutting its road expenditure by fifty per cent. That shows that the ratepayers cannot afford to expend more on the maintenance of the roads than is being estimated, and that amount invariably falls short by about fifty per cent. of the figure the county surveyor puts forward. The county surveyors state that the roads cannot be maintained at the estimated figures of the county councils. If that be so, we have either to let the roads go into disrepair or meet the expenditure in some other fashion.
We must adopt an equitable policy in deciding where the money for the maintenance of the roads ought to come from. Deputy Hewat told us that there was a demand for delivery by motor, and he hinted that there was an increased output and an increased business because of that motor delivery. Surely it is reasonable to expect that the expenditure should come from those people who are doing an increased business and making increased profits because of their use of the roads. The Ceann Comhairle has hinted that we had better not discuss motor-lorries. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss the maintenance of the roads without discussing motor-lorries. The motor-lorry uses the roads and the owner does not pay equitably for that use. You find heavy lorries, with big loads, smashing the roads like egg-shells, and there is no contribution to the local rates. I make this point because the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that we would be only taking the money from the rates and putting it on to taxes. That may be true, but does he suggest that the man or the firm who uses the roads throughout the country in this way should not pay a greater amount of the tax than the person who does not so use the roads?
I did not say that.
Mr. HOGAN
The point I am trying to make is this: that you did not take into account, in fixing the local rates, the value of his business throughout the country to the trader who is using motor-lorries, and, therefore, he is not paying any local rates at all in proportion to the amount of value he gets out of the roads. I hope that is perfectly clear to the Minister, that it is not a question of taking it from the rates and putting it on the taxes. It is an attempt to make the people who are getting the greatest advantage out of the roads pay for the upkeep of the roads. The local ratepayers do not get anything at all like the same advantage from the roads. They do not get a profit from the business or advantage from the use of the roads in the same proportion that the users of these motor-lorries do when they travel through the country. Coming to the attempt to extract from the Minister a statement of policy, we know that there are something like 46,000 miles of road in the country. There are about 8,000 miles of trunk and main roads. There are about 4,500 miles of trunk roads, and of these there are 1,800 miles still unrolled. Does the Minister suggest that that is the proper way to maintain the roads of the country?
Does the Deputy suggest that all the main roads should be rolled every year?
Mr. HOGAN
I said the trunk roads.
Does the Deputy suggest they should be rolled every year?
Mr. HOGAN
I maintain that you should finish the rolling of the trunk roads so that you would have some kind of uniformity in the maintenance of the roads.
For what period?
Mr. HOGAN
If the Minister suggests that the 1,800 miles should be left untouched, when does he suggest that they should be rolled or maintained? Does he suggest that there should be no absorption of the unemployed in the maintenance and repairing of these 1,800 miles of trunk roads? This is surely an attempt to evade a statement of policy. It is clearly an attempt to say that the workers should wait until the Government have made up their minds. It may take the Government twelve months, eighteen months or two years to make up their minds. It took them three years before to make up their minds. Possibly we will have to wait another three years, while the roads deteriorate and the amount of money that will have to be expended after they are allowed to deteriorate will be a great deal more and there will be a good deal more hardship caused to the ratepayers and the unemployed.
The Minister said that he hopes to be in a position next month to make a statement of policy with regard to road construction. For that reason I do not intend to deal with the question of the roads, the cost of maintenance, the amount of traffic, and so on. I intend to leave these matters over until the Minister has presented his statement of policy. In the preparation of that statement of policy I would ask the Minister to bear two things in mind. In the first place, the amount of money apportioned to each county out of the Road Fund is based on the population and valuation of that county. Some of the county councils have been maintaining for a number of years that other factors should be taken into consideration as well in determining this. It has been maintained by some county councils that the volume of motor traffic passing over the roads of the different counties should be a factor also. Recently, I understand, a census was taken by the Gárdaí in various counties of the volume of heavy traffic passing over their roads. It was found that the county I represent—County Sligo— ranks fifth in the whole of Ireland as regards the volume of heavy traffic passing over its roads. I consider that it is time that the Minister made some change in the method of apportioning this money, that it should be based in addition to population and valuation on the amount of the heavy traffic passing over the roads in each county.
Heavy traffic?
The second point is the proposal that emanated some time ago from the Motorists' Union, that the present Motor Fund should be capitalised and the money raised utilised for the purpose of making a new system of roads. Now, under that proposal, Sligo and a number of other counties were left out. I consider that any proposal to capitalise the existing fund should be strongly resented and opposed, as it would really mean the locking up of the funds for a number of years, during which the whole burden of maintenance and improvement would fall on the rates.
I wish to add a few remarks to what Deputy Shaw has already said. I would like to have it definitely stated that a full exposition of the Government's road policy will be given on the Budget. I do not know whether that statement has been definitely made, and if we are to understand that fully and completely. I do suggest that a crisis has been reached in every county on this matter. What Deputy Shaw says of his county may be said of a good many other county councils that I know at present. All the county councils like Wexford are putting up the demand that the Local Government Department should hold inquiries in the different counties as to whether or not certain roads in these counties shall be closed to heavy traffic. I would be prepared to state that two-thirds of our county councils, unless some definite indication is given of Government policy, will be demanding such inquiries as this within three months. There is no doubt whatever that there is going to be a dislocation of traffic, as we know it at present, if some more satisfactory regulations with regard to traffic are not made and made early.
Passing along one of the roads in my county, over which I heard a motor lorry passing the other day, I noticed the road broken down. There were either two or three gullets broken on the road that will cost about £35 to repair. In all other counties it is the same story. There are thousands of miles of road at present over which heavy traffic should not be permitted to travel. When that traffic injures these roads the responsibility is on the ratepayers to put them into condition again. The ratepayers are up against that. Deputy Hewat may think what he likes about this matter but let him make no mistake about it, the county councils everywhere at present are faced with the proposition of demanding from the ratepayers a sum of money for the maintenance of roads that the ratepayers are not able to provide.
In connection with their statement of policy, the Government will have to consider whether this lorry traffic is an essential service or a service that the country can pay for. That must inevitably be the important factor in forming a decision. If the position is to continue as at present, and the ratepayers are called upon to pay an undue proportion for the maintenance of main and trunk roads, there is no doubt but that demands will be made by the county councils for the closing down of hundreds of miles of roads against this heavy traffic. If some people regard this service as essential, the ratepayers in the majority of counties do not, and are not prepared to pay for the maintenance of the roads for this purpose. I have no hesitation in saying that not alone will county councils say that the present state of affairs should not continue, but that the majority of Deputies will have to make a declaration of policy on it, regardless of what Party they belong to, and I believe the majority of Deputies will be in agreement with the county councils.
Is the 6d. chargeable for the maintenance of bridges being expended on the roads, or what way is it being expended?
I gave certain figures. The position is that there is a Road Fund which is built up by the proceeds of motor taxation and the sixpenny rate. There are disbursements from that Road Fund. I spoke of the amount contributed by the Road Fund, in the years I was speaking of, to the upkeep of roads, but all the payments made into the Road Fund——
What way is the sixpenny rate distributed amongst the county councils?
I am not in a position to answer that. I was merely dealing with the point of what payments went to the upkeep of roads in 1913-1914 and the three years before 1925. I got certain totals—the total contributed by rates, the total contributed from the Road Fund. The Road Fund is built up in different ways. The other is a matter as to which I could not go into detail.
The policy of the Government in connection with the upkeep of the roads was the subject of a vote in the Dáil about 18 months ago, and at that time there was a majority of only two in favour of the maintenance of main roads by the local authorities. I wish to point out to the Government in connection with the formulation of their policy that the time has arrived when the present system will break down if some change is not brought about. The majority of our boards will refuse to vote the money for the county surveyors' estimates, and the Government will have no power to force them to vote the money. That is where the present system will break down.
Who is going to suffer most?
I am pointing out where the policy will have to be changed. The question of who suffers is another thing. I am not in agreement with those who advocate that motor lorries should not be allowed on the roads. You might as well try to stop the flood as to prohibit motor lorries using the roads. They have come to stay. What we have to see is that the money required for the upkeep of the roads shall be fairly distributed over the community. Trying to close the roads to heavy motor traffic is not a proper policy. These lorries are serving the people and are desired by the people. We maintain that the main roads, at all events, ought to be a national charge, and that to that extent the policy of the Government ought to be changed. If the Minister promises that that will be done in the Budget we are quite satisfied.
Mr. O'CONNELL
There is a question I wish to raise. I am sorry the Minister for Finance is not here now, but perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce could answer it. There is a sum of £50,000 on this Vote for relief schemes, and some doubt has arisen as to whether that sum is to be devoted entirely to schemes already sanctioned or whether, assuming that £10,000 or £20,000 would complete these schemes, any new schemes which were shown to be urgent can be financed out of this money. There will naturally be applications for new schemes, some of which were turned down on the last occasion, and I should like if the Minister would make clear what the position is. It is not entirely for my own information, but for the information of those who may be looking for grants from that £50,000.
With regard to the £50,000, I do not pretend to speak with absolute accuracy, but I should say that the greater portion of it is ear-marked for schemes which are either already started or of which notice has been given and money requested. I am informed, also, that a very small proportion of that particular £50,000 has been ear-marked for road-making or anything in connection with roads. Schemes such as water-works and things like that make up a very appreciable part of it. One could say that the most of the money is definitely ear-marked for schemes either already completed, initiated, or definitely announced.
Mr. O'CONNELL
That does not make the point quite clear. Perhaps the Minister for Finance who is now present could clear it up. A certain doubt has arisen with regard to this £50,000 on the estimates for relief schemes, whether that is entirely to be devoted to the completion of schemes already sanctioned or whether, supposing it is found that £10,000 or £20,000 of this amount will be sufficient to complete schemes already sanctioned, it will be possible to devote the balance to new schemes, regarding which applications have already been made to the Government, but which have not been sanctioned because the money was not available before.
I would like to be advised about this, but I think it will be possible, if there is a balance, to allow work to be executed similar to the work sanctioned. It would even be possible, if we thought there was going to be any money available, to sanction schemes before 31st March. The intention certainly is to spend the whole sum. We set down that £50,000 as a figure, as the best calculation we could make of what would be required to complete the sanctioned schemes which would not be completed on the 31st March. Recently we refused additional sanctions for fear we might not have enough in the £50,000 to complete the works that would be in progress at the end of the year. If, on the latest figures we can get, it is felt £50,000 would be more than is required to complete the schemes sanctioned, it would still be possible, as we have a certain number of applications before us, to sanction some of them.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Would it be possible, for instance, to give provisional sanction to a scheme now, conditional on some of this money being available to meet it?
I would not like to do it so provisionally as that. With the best information available at this stage, if we find that the schemes sanctioned already would not absorb the £50,000, I will be prepared to give sanction now for such schemes as would lead to this amount being absorbed.
Question put and declared carried.