I move the following motion which stands in my name and in that of Deputy John Beirne:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the present Government contribution of 75 per cent. under the rural improvement schemes is inadequate and should be increased to 90 per cent.
When I put this motion on the Order Paper some 18 months ago I thought it would come before the House for discussion within a fortnight or three weeks and that we would get a definite decision as to whether the Government would agree to increase its contribution to help out these rural improvement schemes, or that we would get a direct refusal. We have moved very slowly during the past 18 months with regard to the clearing up of the motions which appear on the Order Papers in Private Deputies' time. I was beginning to wonder whether the present Dáil would have ceased to exist before this motion would come forward for debate because sufficient time was not provided for the taking of these very important motions.
The motion is now before the House. Deputies representing rural constituencies must be well aware of how important this motion is. I expect that, no matter what side of the House they sit on, they will have no hesitation in giving it their full support. These rural improvement schemes do an immense amount of good both to the local community and to the country as a whole. Some years ago they were introduced as a sort of go-between measure—that is, as between the bigger schemes sponsored by the Government and the minor employment schemes. They are confined generally to areas where there are no registered unemployed. In order to get a minor employment scheme there has to be a certain number of registered unemployed in an electoral area or electoral division. Money is made available for work such as road repairs, drainage and bog development, according to the sums of money voted to the Department in charge of them. In areas, however, where there are no registered unemployed and where people, through no fault of their own, fail to register at the local labour exchange, the Government decided that some system would have to be introduced: (1) to provide the employment which they knew was needed in those areas, and (2) to do the useful, essential and necessary work which required to be done in many areas throughout the country. Along the western seaboard, there is always a large number of registered unemployed to avail of any work given under minor employment schemes.
The rural improvement schemes were introduced to benefit any part of the country, irrespective of whether you had registered unemployed in an area or not. If two or more individuals made a contribution of 25 per cent. to the actual cost of the work involved under a rural improvement scheme, they became entitled to a 75 per cent. free grant from the State to do work which would be of benefit to themselves and their neighbours. These grants have been availed of very much. This system of rural improvement schemes has proved to be a very satisfactory one. A good deal of useful and high-class work has been carried out under them. I think that the Department concerned must admit that. Whether it was drainage work or road work, I think it was of a much better quality than similar work carried out under a minor employment scheme. I think the reason for that is that, in the case of minor employment schemes, the money is given to provide work for people in a locality, but in the case of a rural improvement scheme definite consideration is given to the type of work which must be carried out in order to quality for the grant, and in order to satisfy the Department engineers or the county council engineers who, in nearly all cases, have charge of the work.
There is also the further consideration that the people concerned in these rural improvement schemes have to put up 25 per cent. of the actual cost of the work done. The Government give a 75 per cent. grant. That makes the people who are contributing take a far greater interest in the work than would otherwise be the case. They will be anxious to see the work completed and well done because a share of their own money is being used to help to relieve whatever unemployment there is in the area. The fact that a certain amount of their own hard-earned money is involved makes them anxious to see that the type of work done will be of a high standard and will be of lasting value to the locality.
Most of the work done under these rural improvement schemes is concerned with road repairs and drainage. These are the two main problems which concern the people who live in these areas. They will see to it that the execution of such works will steadily improve the standard of living in their locality. For example, you may have three, four or five or even ten or 12 people living on a cul-de-sac or a stop-end road which may be a quarter of a mile or sometimes a mile in length. Those people can never benefit by any county council scheme. The road can never be brought to their houses or up to the standard required by the county council. An area such as that may never qualify for a minor employment grant. Therefore, the only way in which that road can be brought up to a proper standard, and into a condition whereby it can be safely used, is by availing of a grant to carry out a rural improvement scheme. If, as a result, an avenue is not provided for those people under the scheme, at least there is a passage way made which definitely marks good progress.
The same applies to drainage work. As I have said, minor employment schemes are confined to areas where there are registered unemployed. The rural improvement scheme provides a means of getting drainage work done in an area where there are no registered unemployed, and very often it can confer even more benefit on an area than road work. Therefore, these rural improvement schemes are being very much availed of. I remember stating on one occasion in this House that if the Government would decide to increase the contributions for these rural improvement schemes to something like 90 per cent. of the total cost it would be, if not a wise policy, at all events a policy that would be deserving of a certain amount of consideration. It would make people realise that, even if they were getting a Government grant, they would also have to put up a certain amount of their own money. It would encourage them to see that the money made available was not wasted or squandered, that the output of work per man on the job should be much more than it was under a minor employment scheme, and that on the whole the work, when completed, would be of a very high standard. But, like all good schemes, the rural improvement schemes up to the present time have had certain disadvantages and drawbacks.
It is very hard, in many instances, to get from the people concerned the 25 per cent. contribution. It may appear easy to Deputies and the Board of Works engineers who estimate a few hundred pounds as the amount necessary to carry out an undertaking in a certain locality. They may say that it is very easy to find £25 when the people concerned are getting £75. But people who live in the country and who understand, with the thorough understanding that the average countryman has, the type of people we Irish are, fully realise how hard it is in some instances to get the contribution of 25 per cent. You will have, perhaps in one area, 15 people who will benefit by a scheme—let us say a drainage scheme. Some four or five or six of these people may benefit more by the cleaning or the deepening or the carrying out of repairs to the river or drain than the remainder of that community. The people who would benefit so much would be of the opinion that all concerned should pay an equal contribution, but, on the other hand, the people who do not benefit to the same extent feel that they would not be justified in contributing equally and their contributions should be somewhat lower. That sounds a genuine argument when it is looked at from the point of view of those who do not benefit so much. It is only human nature for a man to say: "If I do not benefit as much as my neighbour under this scheme, why should I make as big a contribution as he makes? He gets more benefit out of the scheme and he should pay more." That is really the cause of so many of those schemes falling through after so much preliminary work has been undertaken and after so much expense has been incurred.
Let us examine how one of these schemes is started. When a suggestion is made for a rural improvements scheme, that necessitates the appointment of a spokesman. He will visit his neighbours, going from house to house with the scheme in his hand, getting names, addresses and valuations and finally he forwards that scheme to the Special Employment Schemes Office. Next, there is an examination by the engineer. He estimates the probable cost. The engineer has to visit the area and examine in detail the proposed scheme, whether it is for road or drainage work. That involves travelling expenses, because he may have to travel 20, 30 or 40 miles in order to satisfy himself on the many points connected with the scheme. He has to submit details to the Department in St. Stephen's Green, give his observations as to the necessity for the proposed scheme, set out so much per perch for drainage work or, in the case of a road, for the laying of its foundation and the work of finishing. When everything essential for the undertaking is completed in the Central Office in Dublin, a form is returned to the spokesman in the area concerned and then it is very discouraging to find that some of the people will not come across with their contributions.
First, we have to consider the time and effort on the part of the local spokesman; secondly, we must consider the time and the expense of the engineer who has to report on the scheme; thirdly, we must consider the work of the officials in the Department in Dublin and fourthly, we must consider again the local spokesman who makes an honest effort to put the scheme into operation and to see that the essential contributions are forthcoming, following the receipt of the completed forms from the Department.
When I say it is hard to get a contribution I do not mean to suggest that in all cases the 25 per cent. is refused. I do say that in contrast with the schemes carried out there is an equal number turned down in the last stage because the contributions do not come forward. The people are of the opinion that the amount given by the Government—that is, 75 per cent.—is not sufficient. They claim it should be increased to 90 per cent.
I have a thorough knowledge of rural conditions. I have a knowledge of the very good work which has been done under rural improvements schemes. I suggest that the proposed increase in the Government contribution is quite a reasonable thing to request. It may be pointed out to me that so much more money will be involved and that the State will have to provide many thousands of pounds more towards rural improvement schemes. I maintain that it would be a wise thing to grant the increase, when one considers all the trouble and hard work that will be put in by the parties concerned. Seeing that a scheme may be on the point of being put into operation, I suggest that for the sake of the comparatively small amount involved the Government should agree to this proposal so that the work can be satisfactorily concluded. We all know that country people in a small area would not propose a rural improvements scheme, whether it be for drainage or road work, unless there is an urgent necessity for it.
It is unfortunate that after this period of native Government there are still many roads and drainage schemes which have not been improved in any way for the past 50 or 60 years. The position with regard to culs-de-sac is particularly bad. The people who live in these can get no benefits. They certainly can get no benefits under mechanised farming since it is impossible to bring modern farm machinery into these areas. I have met many people who complain that they cannot send their children to school in the winter months because of the conditions of the roads in their areas. I take it that we are all honest in our endeavour to improve rural life. I think that in asking the Government to give a 90 per cent. contribution to rural improvement schemes in the future, Deputy Beirne and I are asking only for that to which the people are entitled.
It must be remembered that these schemes have twofold benefits. Any work carried out which helps to improve the life of the people in the rural areas is good work. These people are all ratepayers and they should benefit under the schemes put into operation by the Government. They should benefit to the extent of the maximum that the Government can afford to pay in financing those schemes. They should benefit by being given an opportunity of employment during the winter months. I have said already that there are areas where the people will not register at the unemployment exchanges. That is to their credit. They are willing to work if work is provided for them. They will not even waste a day in order to sign on at the labour exchange. I do not think the Government should hesitate to provide the necessary money so that the young people in these areas may find employment in carrying out such schemes of road improvement work and drainage as I have mentioned already. It may be argued that it would be unfair to class the larger land owners and those who live under better conditions with the small farmers living along the western seaboard, for instance. I say that money spent on these schemes, no matter what arguments may be advanced against it, is money well spent since its purpose is to benefit those living in the rural areas and to improve the standard of living generally. We hear a good deal about the flight from the land because of the unattractiveness of rural life. No one can blame the young people because they fly from the land when, after 25 years of native Government, the roads are still in the same condition in which they were 100 years ago.
I come to deal with drainage. We have been pretty fortunate in the last year because of the introduction of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That Act will certainly make life easier for those of us who time and time again had to approach the Departments concerned in an effort to have work done under either the minor employment or the rural improvement schemes. Good as the Act is, it will not enable the Departments concerned to carry out all the works that are necessary. There are areas in which this Act cannot be implemented since the necessary conditions are not fulfilled. The people in these areas have, therefore, to rely upon the rural improvement schemes. They are entitled to benefit in proportion to their contribution to the upkeep of the country as a whole. They are entitled to have their lands put into such a condition that increased production must inevitably follow therefrom. I know that difficulty arises when the contribution is asked for; like many other Deputies, I have had the experience of failing to collect the 25 per cent. contribution. I have got the people together in an effort to discover what they would be prepared to pay. I have tried to encourage them in every way to pay their contribution, but I must admit that in many cases I have failed completely.
That being so, I think that if the Government will give us a grant of 90 per cent. towards those schemes there will be less money to be collected and less work for the poor spokesman who, as often as not, takes upon himself a thankless job. Many times he works hard going around looking for signatures, and so on, and very often the talk behind his back is to the effect that only that he was getting something out of it he would not be doing so—which is always entirely wrong. The only benefit he may get is that occasionally, if he wishes to become a ganger, or overseer on the work in question, I am told he gets a preference.
