Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1949

Vol. 118 No. 11

In Committee on Finance. - Private Deputies' Business—Rural Improvement Schemes—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

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. —(Deputy Commons and Deputy Beirne).

Mr. Corry

When dealing with this matter last week I gave to the House a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. The statement was that he told his constituents down in Galway that between £15,000 and £20,000 was going to be taken off the backs of the ratepayers because he was going to do all the boreens in the country that connected any two roads through the Board of Works under a 100 per cent. grant. The Parliamentary Secretary demanded that I should give him the quotation. Unfortunately, I did not have it with me then, but I told him I would have it before I finished on this motion. I now want to carry out my promise. I am quoting from the Irish Press of Tuesday, April 20th, 1948:—

"Mr. Donnellan stated that between £15,000 and £20,000 would be saved to the ratepayers in each county this year for work in making new roads and connecting public roads. The cost of making such roads would be paid from the Board of Works, provided the county councils undertook their maintenance."

That statement was given by me in the Dáil on July 2, 1948. Therefore, if it was not correct the Parliamentary Secretary had a pretty long period in which to correct it. Acting on that statement, £78,000 worth of work on those roads was prepared by the engineers to the Cork County Council. The list of works was sent up to the Board of Works. Last week, when I asked the engineers how many of those roads had been done, they told me not one.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Donnellan)

They were telling you lies.

Mr. Corry

Neither did we get the 100 per cent. grant guaranteed by the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that he has not one road on the list before him that was sent up to him by the county surveyors.

Mr. Donnellan

That is not correct.

Mr. Corry

I am not concerned with the particular roads that were done through political pull.

Mr. McQuillan

That is finished with.

Mr. Corry

I am concerned with the roads that were passed by the Cork County Council and sent up to the Parliamentary Secretary for execution. I am also concerned with this guarantee of the Parliamentary Secretary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am concerned with the motion, and I am not clear that the Deputy is keeping to the terms of it.

Mr. Corry

It is clear now that those roads will have to be done under the rural improvement schemes. That is all the more reason why I and other rural Deputies should support this motion when we find that the Parliamentary Secretary's guarantee on this is not to be relied on. If we can get the contribution increased from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. under the motion, even if we have to pay 10 per cent. extra in the case of these roads, we will be saving 15 per cent. on them. There will be that difference of 10 per cent. between the 90 per cent. and the 100 per cent. spoken of by the Parliamentary Secretary. That is why I am in favour of the motion.

When I was speaking here last week I did not know then that the Parliamentary Secretary had completely ratted from, or had completely forgotten, the speech he made to his constituents in Galway. Therefore, I said last week that those roads, on account of the Parliamentary Secretary's guarantee, would not come under these rural improvement schemes. Now I find I was mistaken because when I consulted the county surveyor I discovered what had happened. Therefore, I have to come back and say that when we are not getting the 100 per cent. grant, that is all the more reason why we should support this motion for a 90 per cent. grant. When speaking here last week I gave instances of the position of people living on cul-de-sac roads.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion is clearly a demand to the Government to increase the contribution towards rural improvement schemes. The motion, however, does not suggest that the scope of those schemes should be extended to embrace other roads of a certain type.

Mr. Corry

I do not want to go into the matter too closely. In view of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's statement I will have to see that the people in my native county are getting the advantage from these rural improvement schemes which embrace all cul-de-sac roads. When Deputy Smith was introducing a Bill in this House one of the principal reasons he gave for the necessity of it was these cul-de-sac roads.

However, I dealt with all that exhaustively last week. I certainly consider that the people living on those cul-de-sac roads are the most deserving section of our community. They pay for the maintenance and upkeep of roads for other people and get nothing for themselves. I know that there is only a certain time allowed for the consideration of this motion, and hence I do not want to delay the House longer. I got up mainly for the purpose of giving the quotation which was asked for. In conclusion, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give way to the very fair and modest demand which the motion makes.

Mr. Murphy

I rise to support this motion. However, I do not think a very good case could be made for increasing the grant to 90 per cent. in every case, as in many instances the applicant should be in a position to contribute 25 per cent. under the existing scheme. There are, to my knowledge, many small farmers in West Cork who are not in a position to contribute the 25 per cent., and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the scheme be amended so as to give the Office of Public Works authority to step up the Government contribution in any case where they are satisfied that the applicant is not in a financial position to meet the present contribution.

Mr. Childers

I was glad when this motion was put down to consider the question of the contribution towards rural improvement schemes, because I have great sympathy with anyone occupying the position of the Parliamentary Secretary in developing a scheme and in making it a success.

I do not think the question of whether the grant should be increased from 75 to 90 per cent. can be separated from the general problem of dealing with cul-de-sac roads. I think a lot of people are not aware that the total length of non-public roads is some 20,000 to 30,000 miles, compared with 50,000 of public roads. Their condition, taken as a whole, is very bad indeed, except in areas where there is such a volume of special employment schemes grants that all these non-public roads get repaired. When you have a problem involving thousands of miles of roads, it seems to me the time has come to re-examine the whole question of the administration of road repair and consider whether these roads could not be brought into a general system of road repair. During the period of the last Government, a Deputy put down a resolution calling on the Government to amend legislation so that local authorities would be responsible for all these roads.

I happened to take part in the debate as Parliamentary Secretary and I pointed out the enormous financial responsibility. I pointed out also that at that time it was urgently necessary to restore the main and county roads to their pre-war condition and that money could not be found so easily to deal with the non-public roads. I did at the time say we could not postpone that question for ever; that we could not postpone the question whether we were to deal with the repair of these cul-de-sac roads by a series of piecemeal methods, none of them satisfactory and none of them securing continuous repair and improvement. These are roads which, as Deputy Corry says, are of great importance to the small farmers.

In actual fact, as anyone knows who hears about the prices at which farms are sold, the value of land and the buildings associated with them decreases very much the further down a holding is from a properly repaired county road. As every Deputy knows, it is often hard to get any price at all for a farm which has thoroughly bad and defective communications.

So far as the link roads are concerned, I would like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary describe the present position and to give the House some idea of the conditions under which the Board of Works gives a 100 per cent. grant. I think a lot of county councils are not aware that, under certain conditions, if they take over a link road after it has been repaired by the Board of Works on the basis of a 100 per cent. grant, that that grant will be forthcoming. I think quite a lot of work could be done under that head if the facts were made known on a wider basis.

So far as cul-de-sac roads are concerned, there are three methods of repairing them. It is possible to get a bog development grant for repairing a road mostly concerned with the removal of turf; but there are roads where there is a marginal case for a bog development grant and a very good case for a grant under another head. Because of the existence of this triple method of getting grants, roads very often fail to get a grant and perhaps cannot get it because there is not sufficient unemployment in the area.

Then we have the special employment schemes grant based upon the degree of unemployment in an electoral division. Leaving politics aside for the moment, there is no question that emigration has taken place on such a scale that in many areas where there are small farms and where the people could use these grants, there are not enough unemployed in the electoral division to qualify for the grants. If the Parliamentary Secretary chooses to deny that for political reasons, let us keep the question on another basis and say that the people in the area do not register and, as a result, the work does not get done. There are areas where there were considerable numbers of unemployed and for which very large grants were forthcoming, but the number registered in January each year has gone down to such a point that there is now no money to repair such roads.

Mr. Blowick

That has nothing to do with rural improvements.

Mr. Childers

The people will not go in for rural improvements schemes in that area because they are not accustomed or because they are too poor and they may expect to get a grant from the special employment schemes office. One of the difficulties of getting roads repaired is that there are any number of marginal areas where, because there are special employment schemes grants, people will not go in for rural improvements schemes as they always hope they will get a grant. Equally, there are areas where there are not enough unemployed, where the farms are small and where they will not get a special employment schemes grant.

There is the well-known difficulty of the failure to get people to contribute to a rural improvements scheme and there is the difficulty of getting small farmers to give their contributions even though if they work on the scheme they will earn more than the contributions. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would advertise in some way what people could earn if they took part in the work. If a man gives 25 per cent. of the cost of a scheme, he gets 35 per cent.

In the ordinary case in the repair of a road he gets back the contribution and something more as well, and if he has a horse and cart he gets even more still. A lot of people do not know that and do not take part in these schemes. There are three types of grant for dealing with the cul-de-sac roads, none of which is entirely satisfactory and these roads become worse and worse in relation to the condition of the public roads.

The present Government stresses the importance of repairing the county roads. They are also giving some grants towards the repair and restoration of main roads. Generally speaking, since about 1930 the condition of the public roads has greatly improved in comparison with the condition of these boreens and culs-de-sac. I do not know whether the adoption of this motion would solve the problem. If the Government contributes 90 per cent. of the cost it might as well contribute the whole cost and it might as well save all the administrative difficulty of increasing the rural improvements schemes grant by basing it on the comparative need of each area and arranging to give so much money in accordance with that need. The Government might as well give the 100 per cent. and save itself all the administrative work and the drawing-up of estimates. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he considers that the administrative complications involved in estimation and contribution would be offset by such a method. I would like to hear from him what the saving would be to the State as between 90 per cent. and 100 per cent. It seems to me that the 10 per cent. would not be worth it.

Finally, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the time is not opportune to ask all the Departments concerned to consider in conference the future of these roads. The emergency has passed. Materials are fully available. The problem arises as to whether or not the transport of the country contributes sufficient by way of taxation towards the upkeep of our roads. It would be very useful if the Parliamentary Secretary would form a committee to examine how far a rationalised system could be evolved to take over the 20,000 miles of non-public roads, a proportion which is remarkably high compared with the total mileage of the country. The problem cannot be long deferred. We, at least, had the excuse that we were repairing the damage done during the emergency. The Parliamentary Secretary no longer has that excuse. He should put his mind to the task of consulting with the other Departments involved in a effort to rationalise this problem of the repair of non-public roads.

Mr. S. Collins

I think my colleague, Deputy Murphy, has possibly hit upon what is the most sensible approach to this problem. I sympathise with the proposer of the motion, but I am not too sure that he has found the solution. The rural improvements scheme is not an ideal one. One of its peculiar defects is that the 25 per cent. contribution is levied irrespective of circumstances. We are all aware that there are certain sections of the farming community who benefit under this scheme who could quite easily pay a much bigger contribution than 25 per cent. We all know, too, that the people in the congested areas do not benefit to the same extent. While the scheme is all right in theory it defeats itself in practice. As Deputy Childers said, it is possible for a man to earn back more than he pays by way of contribution. When a man is in very needy circumstances, it is no answer to his economic problem that he can earn that back by way of wages because his budget still shows a nil return.

I think Deputy Murphy has taken the right line, but I would press the Parliamentary Secretary a little further. I think the whole scheme should be recast to enable the Parliamentary Secretary to give a full and complete grant where circumstances justify it. I suggest that most of the money and the scheme should be diverted into the congested areas. I commend to the House the spirit that actuated this motion, but I think that what looks to be a simple solution may, in fact, prove a difficult one. I think it would be better if the Parliamentary Secretary adopted the policy that in areas such as he and I represent there should be discretion to give the full grant. In that way at least we would give to the people in these areas a transitory livelihood which might induce those people we so badly need at home to remain at home.

Mr. Cogan

I think all Deputies must agree that there is a substantial case for this motion. A 75 per cent. grant may look generous on the face of it but we must remember that the people who have these unsatisfactory roads leading to their homes are amongst the poorest sections of the community. To them a contribution of 25 per cent. is a very substantial sum. I do not think Deputy Collins' solution of the problem is the best one. Subdividing the country into areas and giving certain privileges to certain districts would lead to civil war. I do not think there is any county in which there are not any poor. We are told that the poor are always with us. There are poor people in every rural area.

While you might, for example, pick out what is described as agriculturally prosperous counties and say that they should be excluded from the full benefit of this scheme, I think it would be possible for any conscientious Deputy to lead the Parliamentary Secretary or the officials of his Department to certain definite cases in those particular areas that are as much in need of assistance as any in the most impoverished areas in the country. I have come across, in County Wicklow, accommodation roadways, leading to farmers' houses in the mountain areas, which are simply terrible. One wonders how the people ever have the fortitude to live under the circumstances under which they live—roads perhaps one or two or even three miles long which are little more than rough tracks in the mountain. I have even come across one particular case in which the farmer or the two farmers living on that particular laneway have to travel more than half a mile to the road, along the bed of a stream, that is, the laneway is both a stream and a laneway at the same time. Apparently nothing can be done about it without very considerable expense, much more than the people concerned would be able to undertake.

I think there is a great deal to be said for the proposal that a certain amount of discretion should be given to the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials in regard to this matter. A 75 per cent. grant may be adequate in many cases but I think the Department should be given discretion in certain cases to raise the grant to as high as 90 per cent. As these particular roadways are bordering on the property of the people concerned, I do not think it would be altogether fair to demand a 100 per cent. grant, particularly as people have the opportunity of earning back a portion of their contribution. I think that in certain areas the proportion contributed by the State could be increased. I have often wondered— and I think the problem arises more in County Wicklow than in any other county—whether it is possible to apply this scheme to laneways occupied or used by only one ratepayer. It might be regarded as being unnecessary to give assistance in the case of laneways leading to only one house and affecting only one person but, in some portions of County Wicklow, such laneways may be of very considerable length. Owing to the rough and hilly nature of the county, holdings may be very large and yet the livelihood derived therefrom may be very small. Therefore I should like if, in certain cases, it could be found possible to apply this scheme to work of that kind.

I think this motion commends itself to the support and sympathy of every Deputy on every side of this House and that the Parliamentary Secretary should have no difficulty in accepting it.

Mr. Gilbride

I wish to say a few words in approval of this motion although I do not believe that this motion will solve the difficulty. The rural improvements scheme was a very good scheme but it had two very serious faults (1) the people in poor areas were not able to subscribe, and (2) a crank could hold up the whole scheme.

This motion is not going to remedy that difficulty—even the 90 per cent.— if one man on one of these lands objects, because this motion is not going to compel him to let the rest of the people avail of that grant. The whole trouble with this is the 1925 Act. I never could understand the mentality of the people who stopped the county councils from repairing these roads for these poor people on the hillsides, while these people had to pay rates to keep the roads of the rest of the country. Section 25 of the Act of 1925 for the first time debarred councils from doing these, what I call, very useful works. Until that section is amended or done away with there is not much use in attacking the problem in any other way.

This motion is, in itself, an improvement. However, it is not going to solve the difficulty while you have people who will object to their neighbours getting roads made and while you debar county councils from carrying out these useful bits of work, and maintenance, particularly. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to set his mind to it, as he has been asked to do by Deputy Childers, and to go into this whole question. In the meantime, this motion is an improvement and is, therefore, worthy of support.

Mr. McQuillan

I support this motion, like the other Deputies here, not that I believe that it is going to be the solution to the problems that moved Deputy Commons to put it down but because I believe that it will bring to a head in the special employment schemes office this whole question of the repair of cul-de-sac roads and accommodation roads, and also the cleaning of drains in rural areas.

Deputy Childers, I think, made the most useful contribution that I have heard so far in this debate. I am glad that he asked other Deputies to keep this matter above Party politics. I intend to follow in his footsteps as far as that is concerned. Therefore, anything that I have to say on this particular debate will not, I hope, be taken as a crack at the previous Administration, in any circumstances. There are three ways of tackling the problems mentioned here—the repair of cul-de-sac roads and the cleaning of drains. We have, first of all, the minor employment relief scheme, which is a full grant scheme. We have the bog development scheme, which is, also, a full grant scheme. We have, too, the rural improvements scheme.

So far as I understand these three schemes the position is somewhat as follows. The minor employment relief scheme operates where there is a registered number of unemployed. The snag commences when we have to decide how many registered unemployed are necessary before a scheme takes place or is operated in the area. I get back, weekly, from the special employment schemes office a letter of regret telling me that "Owing to the fact that there is not a number of registered unemployed in the area we regret the work you recommend cannot be undertaken". Sometimes I am informed, in some periods, that it is necessary to have 12 unemployed in the particular townland. That number varies another year to 16 and it may even be less. On what system do the special employment schemes office base their figures? Is it a fact, say, that in a particular year when it is necessary to have 12 unemployed to undertake a scheme, if there are ten registered unemployed in the area a minor relief scheme cannot be undertaken?

Then there is the bog development scheme. When a Deputy fails to get a particular work done under the minor relief scheme he tries to see if it is possible to have that work undertaken as a bog development scheme, especially if turf is being taken out on that particular road. The answer he gets this time from the Department is also "I regret", and the reason for the regret is that the cost of the work in question is too much when the amount of turf produced is taken into consideration. For sheer farce I think it is hard to beat that. That is, at any rate, why that particular scheme was turned down.

There is a third and last method of doing that particular work and that is by means of a rural improvements scheme. I think a rural improvements scheme where 25 per cent. of the cost— often less, often only 15 per cent. of the cost—is asked from the local people is a useful scheme but when in one townland a full grant is given under a scheme and when in the village beside it people are asked to contribute 25 per cent., naturally word goes round that the boys in such and such a village two miles away got a full grant, and the people who have to pay 25 per cent. of the cost see no reason why they should not get a full grant also. It is alleged in that case that some local fellow was able to exercise a political pull and that he got a full grant for the scheme in the favoured village.

That is the whole thing in a nutshell. I am not making any Party capital out of it, and the reason I am supporting this motion is to clear up this trouble. I think Deputy Gilbride made a very useful suggestion in that regard. That suggestion would be of immense value if it were followed in my own constituency where, as I have already pointed out, 120 miles of cul-de-sac roads that in former years were repaired by the county council are now taken off the repair list. The point is that these roads have been repaired every three years for the past 25 years by the county council, but because an auditor comes down from Dublin and decides that the county council should not have done these roads in the past, they are now knocked off the repair list and the people must have recourse to a rural improvements scheme.

I can picture the state of mind of people in a village where a road has been repaired every three years as far back as they can remember, and now they are suddenly told that this road should not have been repaired by the county council and that in future they will have to contribute to the repair of it. There is a solution to that problem and it lies to a great extent in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that the county council —I am speaking for the county council, and I am sure other Deputies can bear me out—is quite prepared to spend money on the repair of these cul-de-sac roads. A matter that is very often criticised in this House is this question of centralisation—looking to Dublin for everything we want. We have a special employment schemes office in Dublin with quite a number of inspectors and an office staff attached to it. These inspectors have to go very often to the West of Ireland to inspect a few schemes down there. They come back to Dublin and may have to go down again. That costs money.

Mr. Donnellan

It does not happen in that way.

Mr. McQuillan

I know that in the case of rural improvements schemes an inspector comes down from Dublin, travels all over the area and looks at a certain number of schemes that have been submitted.

Mr. Donnellan

In all the areas?

Mr. McQuillan

That costs money. He may have to go again if there is dissatisfaction amongst the people. If those who first agreed to the scheme kick up a row the inspector has to go back again.

Mr. Donnellan

Is it to settle the row?

Mr. McQuillan

He is not fit to settle the row; it is the poor unfortunate local T.D. who has to do that. I want to emphasise the point made by Deputy Gilbride that these works, such as cleaning drains and the repair of cul-de-sac roads, should be one of the first duties undertaken by the county council. They are charged with local administration and, above everything else, the repair of cul-de-sac roads and byroads is their job. The main roads should be a charge on the central funds. If we have agreement amongst all members of the county council that they are prepared to look after drains and cul-de-sac roads, why employ a big staff here in Dublin to send them all over the country to inspect these works? Nobody knows better than the members of local authorities what schemes should be carried out and nobody has a better idea of the hardships that local people have to endure. The people here in Dublin are not fit judges of these matters.

Some Deputy recalled the old saying: "The poor we shall always have with us". While that may be applicable in many areas at present, I hope that we shall see conditions remedied to a great extent in the rural areas before many years have passed. The case was made that similar facilities with regard to minor relief schemes on a full grant basis should be made available in all counties but I do not think that anybody can deny that the congested districts deserve more attention than other areas. Those counties in which the congestion problem still exists deserve special attention. They are a special problem in themselves and as such special arrangements should be made to deal with them. They should get full grant schemes for works such as bog drains or roads.

I said in the beginning that this motion in itself will not solve this problem. Other Deputies have pointed out how a local crank, because he does not use as much of the road as his neighbour or because he may be too old to work on it, may hold up a scheme. It may be that it is an old maid who is concerned who does not like to see her neighbour getting the advantage of something to which she feels she is more entitled. That particular difficulty cannot be remedied under Deputy Commons' motion. Cases like that could be dealt with of course if the same powers were made available in connection with special employment schemes as were made available under the Local Authorities (Works) Act but I think great care should be exercised before such powers are given in cases like these.

There is another point that I should like to mention seeing that we have got a certain amount of scope from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on these matters. Each year there is a list published of minor relief schemes and bog development schemes in the different counties. This list is circulated so far as I know at the request of various Deputies. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what is the reason why that list is issued at all or publicised for the benefit of Deputies? Is it because it is necessary at times that political capital has to be made out of different schemes that are sanctioned on the list?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I thank the Deputy for his reference to my leniency, but this is pure administration.

Mr. McQuillan

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some information on that point when he is replying. I should like to conclude by saying that if this motion goes through, I hope there will be no shortage of money for the schemes in question. To my mind, there is always a danger when a motion like this goes through that the number of schemes sanctioned will not be increased; in other words, that there may be no increase in the particular grant each year for the special employment schemes and for the rural improvement schemes. If it is carried out properly, I know that it will mean that a certain increase will have to be given in the rural improvement scheme grant. But, when you take into consideration the benefit which these schemes are going to be in rural areas, the little extra money involved will be very small indeed and will be money well spent. As I said, this motion in itself is not a solution of the problem. It is going to bring that problem to a head. I hope it will mean that the various people concerned will put their heads together and plan out something on the line of giving authority to the different local authorities to undertake this work themselves and that a grant each year out of the Central Fund will be given to them to carry out this necessary work.

Mr. J. Flynn

I support this motion. Like other speakers, I believe that this grant should be increased. In fact, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the advisability of giving a 100 per cent. grant if necessary to certain congested areas, of which there is a number in South Kerry. I would go so far as to say that there are areas even in my county where a 75 per cent. grant would suffice. In certain areas the people are better circumstanced and could afford to make a substantial contribution and I think that would be an equitable distribution. I could make a case for areas where it should be 100 per cent. and where last year the special employment office went as far as they possibly could. I give them full credit for that. In Waterville and Cahirciveen they offered as much as 85 per cent. or 90 per cent., but unfortunately the people were not able to put up the other 10 per cent. out of their resources. In that type of district I suggest a 100 per cent. grant.

I further suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should take over the carrying out of these schemes and have his own engineers in charge of that type of work. In my opinion, it would be much better to have them worked on the same system as the minor relief schemes. These rural improvement schemes are being carried out partly by the special employment schemes office and partly by the county councils. I understand that the county councils supervise them through their engineers and appoint people for carrying them through. I maintain that the Parliamentary Secretary should have complete control and have his own engineers, as in the case of the minor relief schemes, rather than have the work divided in this way.

A point was made about the cul-de-sac roads. That is a new departure on the part of the Local Government Department. I think that that matter should be examined both by the special employment schemes office and the Department of Local Government. It is of vital importance to rural districts that these roads should be developed and repaired. At present the Kerry County Council are debarred from expending any money on these roads. The result will be that they will deteriorate and great hardship will be caused to the people living on them.

I have experience of this type of work and I appreciate the efforts of the special employment schemes office. Last year a number of farmers refused to contribute to the repair of one of these roads because the road was a cul-de-sac and they would not benefit as much as the others who were adjacent to the public road. The special employment scheme office, however, facilitated the two farmers who were prepared to contribute and did that section of the road. That, of course, was unsatisfactory, but I am quoting it to show that the officials in charge went as far as they possibly could to meet us.

There are various anomalies in the whole system and I think that it is only by consultation between the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department of Local Government that we can make a success of this. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider having his own engineer in County Kerry. I understand that the case put up by the Department of Finance was that it was cheaper to get the county engineer and the deputy surveyors to supervise minor relief schemes, turf development schemes and that sort of work. Nevertheless, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider having his own engineers in charge of that type of work and directly responsible to him, rather than have it piecemeal as it is at present. The Board of Works carry out certain types of inspection work and the county council engineer comes along to do the other portion. That is not satisfactory. I ask him to adopt that system and to make it possible for one central authority to deal with the whole matter—to have his engineer with his staff under his direct control operating in Kerry, independent of the other engineers or anybody else. We are all happy to support the motion, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can see his way to accept it.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I should like to offer my congratulations to Deputy Commons for the very excellent case he made for the motion. It may seem strange that I, as a city representative, should intervene in this debate at all, but as it so happens I have a particular knowledge of the types of questions with which the motion deals. I have also a close association with what may be described as the comparable work that is done here in the city. It is true that, any time a public representative in the city or country intervenes to improve the living conditions of the people, his work is highly appreciated. I have found that to be so in the City of Dublin, that when a public representative intervenes to try and improve roadways, laneways, lighting and so on, his work is highly appreciated, and that by thousands of people who do not care one tittle what the colour of his politics are. The position in rural Ireland is just the same.

When this scheme was introduced it was a very desirable and commendable one. It has now been in operation for a number of years and, as many of the speakers have suggested, the time would appear to have arrived for a recasting of it. Deputy Gilbride made the point which interested me very much, that a scheme can be torpedoed if there is one individual living on a right of way who will not sign the form of assent. That unfortunately is too true. There is also, of course, a very invidious obligation placed on one individual living on that right of way. He has to prepare the necessary memorial and subsequently to gather the funds that are needed to meet the cost of the scheme. As Deputy Commons has said, it is quite possible that it may be suggested that he had a personal interest in doing so. As I say, there is room for a recasting of the scheme. I think a good example is to be found in the Local Authorities (Works) Act passed last year. Under it, if there is an unwilling person of the kind referred to, and the scheme proposed is considered to be a desirable one in the interests of the whole community, then it is the community interest that is going to prevail.

On the question of the contribution I rather gathered from Deputy Commons that he had certain misgivings as to what percentage he should put down. It appears to me that a solution might be found if you had a fixed percentage grant which could be made available for works of this kind, and above that a sliding scale, up to 100 per cent. in cases where the works proposed to be undertaken were held to merit a full-cost grant. I simply rose to make these few suggestions in so far as they may help the mover of the motion who, as I have said, made an excellent case for it.

Captain Cowan

I just want to say a few words in support of the motion. I understand that the expenditure under these schemes is roughly about £100,000 a year. What the motion proposes is the expenditure of approximately an additional £15,000. Now, after what we did here this evening when we voted away £4,091,000 without blinking an eye, I think that the amount asked for in the motion is very small. If the mover of it had to go the length of asking 100 per cent. contribution I certainly would support him, because, again, the amount involved would not exceed £25,000 which was the amount that we made available recently under the News Agency Bill.

I agree with what has been said about the unwilling person who might torpedo a scheme. I have mentioned examples of that sort in the House on a number of occasions previously. I strongly recommend to the Department that powers ought to be taken to deal with an objector who is unreasonable in his objection, and is thereby holding up a work that would be of benefit to a whole area. I have met deputations on many occasions in regard to these works, and have found that the limitation on the grant that is available is preventing quite a number of useful schemes from being carried out. It is because of my personal experience of the demands made by people in many parts of the country that I am contributing these few words in support of this motion which has the general support of the community throughout the country.

Mr. Donnellan

It is very nice to be in the Dáil and to hear all that has been said by Deputies from rural areas, and to see so many more of them trying to get in to speak on it. I regret some of them will not be able to do so. I can hardly congratulate Deputy Martin O'Sullivan for saying that, as a city Deputy, he had not a terrible lot of interest in rural schemes, because I know, from what I have seen in my office, that he takes a very great interest in one rural constituency. In the special employment schemes office we deal with three classes of schemes: There is first the minor employment schemes, in respect of which we give a full cost grant where there is a sufficient number of registered unemployed. Secondly, in the case of bog development schemes we also give a full cost grant where the case can be made that, by doing work either on a bog road or on a drain into a bog, the work will increase the production of turf or will be a big advantage to people who get their turf from that bog. The third class is the rural improvement schemes that we are dealing with now. Owing to the fact that many Deputies talked of the other two schemes, I am sure the Chair will bear with me while I state the position. These schemes relate to roads, bog drains or drainage work of any description. As I have said, in the case of minor employment schemes, they are undertaken only where there is a sufficient number of registered unemployed. We can give a full cost grant on bog development schemes. In the case of rural improvement schemes 75 per cent. is the minimum grant given. We can give up to 100 per cent. and have done so in cases.

Deputy Corry made the statement, when speaking here last week, that since this Government got into power not one full cost grant was given. I assured him that there had been. He said "no", and that he knew in his own area that full cost grants had been given by the previous Government, but that none had been given since the present Government got into power.

He asked, in column 1338, Volume 9, of the 23rd November, 1949, if, when replying, I would produce one case in which a 100 per cent. grant was given. I looked over the list of rural improvement schemes since they were started in the year 1943 and I find that from 1943 to the day I took over the Board of Works and the special employment schemes office, on the 24th February, 1948, that two full cost grants were given in County Cork, amounting to £620. I also find that since 24th February, 1948, not two years since the present Government came into power, we gave four full cost grants, amounting to £2,743, to the county. Surely democracy is a great thing, but when democracy inflicts on us, or at least a quota of the electorate in Cork, a Deputy to challenge us in this House and to make false statements of that description, thanks be to God we can live with democracy—I hope we ever will—but I hope to God that class of democracy will soon change in Cork.

Of course, it is a grand thing to try to make out that I made certain statements I did not live up to. Deputy Childers and some other Deputies asked what is the position, and suggested that some county councils did not exactly know the position. They wanted to know the position so that full cost grants might be given. Deputy Beegan, an intelligent Deputy, put a question down to me some time ago in regard to that matter. I will quote the reply I gave him, in column 2256. I said that under the existing procedure for the rural improvement schemes a grant can be made for the repair of any road which connects two county roads without requiring a contribution from the adjoining landholders, provided (1) that the link is sufficiently important as a public road; (2) the cost is not excessive in relation to its utility; (3) the work is not one which the county council would otherwise have done out of its own funds; (4) the county council, with the approval of the Minister for Local Government, undertake to maintain the road on completion. I gave that reply to Deputy Beegan in the Dáil and any statements I made through the country in connection with it are definitely statements on that line.

Now, a rural improvement scheme possesses many advantages that Deputies here do not seem to realise. First and foremost, we give preference of the work on that road to the people who contribute. They will get the first preference if they are willing to work on that road. They can earn their 25 per cent. contribution plus the 75 per cent. given to them by the State, making a road into their own village. Not alone that, but we give them permission to appoint a ganger, one of their own, provided he is a suitable man. That looks all very well, but there are objections. I am quite sure you all remember when, on my Estimate last year or the year before, I said I was not too well pleased with the scheme. Deputy Smith, I think it was, wanted to know what I would do and what changes I would make and would I let the House know. Ever since I worried over things that could be done. Very often when you have a scheme you will find some loophole and you may have to scrap the whole thing. I pressed our people on different occasions to take advantage of this scheme and, even though I did so, I felt it was not a good scheme; I felt it was a rich man's scheme because the position was that you found two people in an area, probably people with £200 or £300 valuation, living a mile off the public road. According to the Act the State was bound to contribute 75 per cent. of the cost of making the road for those two people. In other areas you found ten or 12 householders huddled together, people who did not qualify for a full cost grant and they were asked to contribute the same amount of money. I thought that was very unfair.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to reduce the amount of the grant?

Mr. Donnellan

No, I do not say that at all. I thought it unfair because these poor people, in my opinion, were not able to contribute the 25 per cent. I am asked now if it is my idea that the grant should be reduced. No, it is not. My idea is—and I think it was Deputy Seán Collins put it up— to recast the whole scheme and where there are areas where we find people who do not qualify for a full cost grant under the other schemes, we will get in some sliding scale so that in those cases we can give not alone 90 per cent. but 95 per cent or 100 per cent. where there is a necessity for it. Deputy Lehane need not worry that there is going to be such a thing, so far as I am concerned at any rate, as a reduction of the 75 per cent. contribution. That is the minimum and I want to make that plain.

I do not agree with the motion tabled by Deputy Commons. I do not agree that 90 per cent. should be paid throughout the country because I am sure the section of our people who are fairly well off are fully satisfied with the 75 per cent. they are getting. If you go over the schemes for the past three years, as the directors and some of the officials have gone over them with me during the past few days, you will find that 80 per cent. of the cases that were not carried out were cases where you had the poorer sections of our people and where they were not able to do anything. I have got Government consent in doing this. Do not expect it will be done immediately, but I hope in the coming Estimates to deal with it. I think it was Deputy McQuillan who raised a point about the money. The Government have given me a guarantee that they will provide it in the direction to which I have referred. Reference was made to the crank on the road. I know that such people exist. Very often there is a spleen between neighbours and one man will object to the work being done, even though it would be to his own ultimate advantage. We hear a good deal about the rights of the individual here and elsewhere. I think I can safely say that my particular little office will not be the first to interfere with those rights. It may surprise Deputies to learn that only approximately 3 per cent. of the schemes fall through because the "crank" refuses to give way. I think it would be a mistake to bring in any scheme with any element of compulsion behind it because we might only succeed in making bad blood worse.

Deputy Commons made a good case, but I would ask him not to press me in this matter until such time as I have had an opportunity of recasting the present scheme. I think the new scheme will be more in keeping with what he wants. Deputy Childers referred to the link roads. In that respect, I would refer him to the reply I gave to Deputy Beegan on that matter some time ago. I think it was Deputy McQuillan who said that officials wasted time travelling around the country. I can assure the Deputy that we do not send our officials down to County Roscommon, for instance, to do a particular road, then bring them back to Dublin and send them down again the week after to do some other road. The schemes are put forward and the area covered by the schemes is inspected by our officials. They then report to headquarters. They estimate the cost of the work. As a general rule, when that estimate is made out, it is found that the people are not able to pay. In that way I believe time is wasted, but under the new arrangements I do not think that loss will occur in the future.

Deputy McQuillan also asked why the lists are issued. The lists are issued because Deputies ask for them and they are entitled to get them. If they make political capital out of them, that is their own look out. He also said that the people in Dublin are not fit judges as to what work should be carried out. Actually all our men come from the rural areas or live in them. May I add that I know personally the engineers send in very fair reports. I have had an opportunity of looking up some of the schemes I lodged when I was a Deputy. Where the schemes submitted were not carried out, I found there was a very sound reason for that. I have no hesitation in saying that the officials give honest reports on all these schemes.

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of explanation, the Parliamentary Secretary has more or less implied that I made a personal attack on the staff of his Department. This is the second or third occasion upon which the Parliamentary Secretary has made that statement. At no time have I made any personal attack on the officials of his Department. What I did say was that men resident here in Dublin are not the proper judges as to what work should be done in rural areas under the rural improvements, minor relief and bog development schemes. The people actually working and living in the locality are better equipped to judge in that respect than are those living in urban areas. I am not attacking any official now, but I stand over that statement.

Mr. Donnellan

All our officials are from the rural areas.

Mr. McQuillan

Every one was from rural Ireland at one time or another.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Flynn said that we should carry out the work ourselves. Actually that is our intention. We have taken over some counties already and it is our intention to take over the remaining counties as quickly as possible and, in time, our men will carry out these works all over the country.

I appeal to Deputy Commons to withdraw his suggestion with regard to the 90 per cent. We might as well pay the full cost for the sake of the extra 10 per cent. It would be more satisfactory. If the people in any area are too poor to do these works or contribute towards the cost of them, it is our intention to bear the full 100 per cent. cost. In areas where they can contribute, the contribution will be on a pro rata basis. I think it would be unfair if those who can contribute, say, 25 per cent. of the cost, were to get a grant of 90 per cent.

Progress reported.