When this Bill was under discussion last week we ran into a sort of cul-de-sac. The Minister had not at that time definitely decided whether he would accept the Bill and I think we were rather marking time waiting for him to——
Private Deputies' Business. - Local Government Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).
Perhaps the Minister could tell the House now what his attitude is.
That is just what I was going to say. However, lest the Minister should not have made up his mind, there are just a few points which I should like to submit for his consideration.
It must be remembered that the people affected by this Bill are, perhaps, the most deserving people in the community and, viewed from the national standpoint, deserving of immediate consideration. It is the universal complaint that people in remote areas, people living on back roads and particularly people living along the long lanes and boreens that branch off from the back roads, are leaving the country because life for them there has become intolerable. Surely it is unfair to expect, for example, that a young girl with her life before her should decide to marry a small farmer and live at the end of a long lane a mile or two miles from the road. This Bill seeks the aid of local authorities with a view to solving the problem of such roads. There is already in operation a scheme under which residents along a laneway can put that laneway into repair and secure a grant for so doing provided they contribute a portion of the cost. If their valuation is over a certain figure, the portion of the cost of the repair of the laneway which they are called upon to contribute is fairly substantial, particularly if a costly job is involved and if the laneway is fairly long. People so affected are often faced with the following difficulty. The contribution they must make is fairly substantial. When the lane is repaired it must be kept in good condition or else it will deteriorate rapidly and then those people who subscribed towards its repair will find that after two, three or four years the road is as badly in need of repair as ever it was.
If we could even get a decision on this Bill that would allow the county council to come in and maintain such accommodation roads after they have been repaired under a rural improvements scheme, it would be something. I do not think that that would altogether satisfy the proposer of the Bill but I think it would go a long way towards satisfying quite a number of Deputies. We feel that if a group of people subscribe a substantial amount towards the repair of a laneway leading to their houses, they should have an assurance that the laneway will be kept in a proper state of repair. It would be a step forward if the county councils were empowered to take over such laneways after they have been repaired under a rural improvements scheme.
Another suggestion made last week was that the county councils should, in certain cases, have the legal right to co-operate in a rural improvements scheme by subscribing a portion of the cost. We must bear in mind that the circumstances of each particular application for a grant vary greatly. You may have a comparatively small number of people on a comparatively long stretch of laneway. I use the word "comparatively" because the comparison is as between valuation— the valuations of the applicants and the cost of the work. If the valuations of the respective applicants are comparatively low and the work is costly, then the contribution they would be called upon to make would be fairly substantial. If a local authority were permitted in certain cases of hardship to make a special contribution, I think it might ease the situation. We all realise that county councils, being, in the main, representatives of the ratepayers and responsible to the rate-paying community for their administration, are not very anxious to take on additional obligations. If this Bill were enacted, I think it would be utilised only to a limited extent in many counties, but it might be utilised to relieve cases of extreme hardship, and that, I think, would be its main justification.
Deputy McQuillan referred to a legal problem. A number of cul-de-sac roads are being maintained at present, because they were being maintained prior to the enactment of the Local Government Act. That, in itself, constitutes a certain inequality as between one set of ratepayers and another, and it seems to establish a case for a reconsideration of the whole position.
I think that if the Minister looks into this Bill he will find that there is a good deal to be said for its general principle. I have not the Bill before me at the moment and I am not sure whether its wording meets entirely the case which it is intended to meet. There is a reference in the Bill to a "road of general public utility." There might be a difference of opinion on the interpretation of that expression. There might be some argument as to whether a road leading only to the residences of certain ratepayers is a road of general public utility. It is a debatable point. I should be inclined to think that such a road is of general public utility since anybody wishing to call on the residents along that roadway would use it and even a parliamentary candidate might, at election time, have occasion to use it. Therefore, I think that it would come within the definition of "general public utility." I am sure that the Minister will approach this Bill sympathetically, whatever he may decide to do in regard to it.
I was hoping that the Minister might make a statement in connection with this measure.
I should be very glad to do so, if the Deputy would permit me. It might shorten the debate.
Very well.
I undertook on the last occasion on which this Bill was being debated, to have this whole question examined and to come back and give the House some idea of what our decision, as a Government, was upon this proposal. I must confess that, while I have a fair knowledge of the problem of accommodation roads and cul-de-sac roads in a great part of the country, I find some difficulty in understanding what exactly the problem is with which Deputy McQuillan, the mover of this Bill, had to deal.
A cul-de-sac road in my county would not at all be considered by the county council, unless in very exceptional cases, as a road that should be taken over for repair and maintenance by that body. We have thousands of miles of such roads. We have also thousands of miles of accommodation roads that are not cul-de-sac roads, but lead from one road to another, and the maintenance of which is not the responsibility of anybody, other than those who use them. I find that the law in regard to these two classes of roads under Section 25 of the Local Government Act of 1925 is that the local authority is entitled to take over for repair and maintenance any accommodation road connecting two county roads, which has a minimum width of 11 feet. That section was inserted by the Seanad in the 1925 Local Government Act.
Before that provision was inserted in that Act, the law so far as I can discover enabled local bodies—county councils and others—to repair any road and take over the maintenance of that road if they were satisfied that its degree of public utility warranted such a decision. The only reservation or qualification to that power was a review later by the Local Government Auditor as to whether there was, in fact, that degree of public utility that warranted the decision. It seems as if the Roscommon County Council ran into some trouble on that matter and, as Deputy McQuillan stated in moving the Bill, they were surcharged, the surcharge being removed later by the Minister, although in removing it he held that it was lawfully made.
I was looking at the figures showing the tendency of local bodies all over the country say in the last 20 years in regard to this whole question. I find that between 1931 and 1951, 3,000 additional miles have been added to the road system of the country by county councils of the country. Of these 3,000 miles, 500 were added in 20 years by the Roscommon County Council. There are some counties, in fact, where there are no additions at all, and there are a great many counties where the mileage added in 20 years was very small.
Of the 3,000 miles, Roscommon added, as I say, 500, and I think Galway added something in excess of 600. These figures do not seem to suggest that the law, as it stands, is such that there is any great need to clamour for an amendment of it. After all, if you are able to add 500 miles to the road system of Roscommon with the law as it is, having regard to the fact that this is regarded as the most heavily-roaded country in the world, it is not bad going. I have, then, considerable doubt in my mind as to the need for an amendment of the law, in view of what it was possible to achieve, under the law as it is, as demonstrated by the two councils I have mentioned.
However, there are other thoughts that occur to my mind on this subject. I have found that there is always a tendency on the part of county councils, if there is any impediment in their way or if there is any danger that they will run into trouble such as the Roscommon County Council seemed to encounter in regard to the surcharge which I have mentioned, for the members of such bodies to say, when the back-of-the-hill dwellers complain of the condition of the roads: "Oh, well, that is the decision of the Department of Local Government. We would be only too happy to do so-and-so and we, in fact, were doing so-and-so; we were determined to make provision for the repair of an additional road mileage, cul-de-sac and otherwise, if it were not for the fact that the Department of Local Government, the Minister and the agents of the Department, came down on us and prevented us."
Sometimes, I believe, these charges are levelled against us when the councillors themselves are satisfied that it is not a bad thing to have the protection and the shelter of the Department, to have, if you like, that overriding approval of the Department which enables them to take a fairly loose line on questions like this in the knowledge that they are subject to review and that if, on review, they are found not to be sensible they are rejected, and rejected without placing the onus on an individual councillor or on councillors as a body.
I can see the danger that would arise from the acceptance, not maybe of what is in the Bill which Deputy McQuillan has moved, but from what, I think are the ideas which are running through his mind. It is not my duty to defend here the course that was pursued by previous Ministers for Local Government. I would remind Deputies that, over a period of 25 years, this is an issue which has been debated not only in this House but down through the country. I think that Deputy Mulcahy was Minister for Local Government when my own council was first surcharged in this regard. I have heard different Ministers make the case, inside and outside this House —it was a fairly good case and is still a good case—that we are a heavily roaded country, and that, high and all as the rates are, and generous as Deputy McQuillan would like to be in regard to these accommodation and cul-de-sac roads, in no county are they striking a sufficient rate to maintain even in a reasonable way the roads that are already on the county councils' sheets.
I think the Minister has hit the right note now.
If that is the case, what is likely to be the position if the power which is sought here is made use of to any considerable extent? Some months ago, for some reason or other that I cannot explain now, we were slow in announcing to local bodies the allocations from the Road Fund for this year. We endeavoured to have these allocations notified before the rate was struck, but we did not succeed in all cases. It is like a dream to me that some members of this House who are members of the Roscommon County Council which, in this year, struck a fairly reasonable rate for road maintenance, were disappointed because they did not know of the increased grants from the Road Fund. I interpret that disappointment as meaning that, if they had known of the increased grants, they would not have a rate as high for road maintenance, although the roads, to which their maintenance would be directed would not earn any grants whatever.
That approach on the part of Deputies, who are members of local bodies, to the road problems of the country is scarcely consistent with the request made here to be given not only wider powers but the unquestioned right to take over any road which the council may decide and make it the responsibility of the council and of the ratepayers for the future.
In spite of the fears to which I have given expression, I am inclined to take the view that it might perhaps be best to do as Deputy McQuillan has suggested, because I agree with him when he says that the county councils are composed of sensible bodies of men, and that it is scarcely likely they will run, amok if the impediment is removed. I have explained, as briefly as I could, all that they could do in this regard even with the law as it is. Weighing one thing against another, I have decided to accept the proposition that has been made by Deputy McQuillan: that to whatever extent this local government auditor review affects the carrying out by a council of work of the type which Deputy McQuillan has in mind, and which I am sure other Deputies have experience of, I am prepared to accept the principle that that impediment should be removed.
This problem, apparently, is not the same in every county. Deputy McQuillan has endeavoured to provide an instrument that will meet it as he knows it in Roscommon. I am not even sure whether this instrument, which is now before us, would be adequate for that limited purpose. I am almost certain that it would not be adequate if applied to the whole country because, as I say, the problem is not the same everywhere.
There is a Local Government Bill to be introduced shortly. I do not think it will be introduced this session, but it certainly will next session. Between now and then I will have this question further examined. From what I have seen of it, it is more involved than some would appear to think, but as I say, I will have it further examined by our own people, at the same time giving the assurance that, when this Miscellaneous Bill is introduced it will contain a provision which will apply not only to the type of case which Deputy McQuillan has in mind in regard to Roscommon, but which will provide an instrument giving to local bodies all over the country power to deal with this problem as they see it in their own areas.
Some of my own advisers have urged upon me that I should endeavour to retain some control. I am prepared to say now that I have resisted that advice, though I see the danger that can arise. I see the problems that will arise for local authorities because of the change we are proposing to effect. It has been submitted that members of local authorities are responsible men. I believe they are responsible men, and if they undertake this work they must undertake it in the full knowledge that they will have to face their own ratepayers and strike a rate sufficient to enable them to carry out this work. I am prepared to take a chance and to remove this impediment, leaving local authorities not only in relation to accommodation roads, but also in relation to those they themselves consider should be taken over, repaired and maintained as a county charge to shoulder the responsibility fairly and squarely without reference to me and without any excuse for saying, as they say now when the auditors visit them: "Oh, yes. We would do so and so and such and such if only the Department and the Minister would allow us." That is my approach to this matter. I think it is undesirable that we should have a short little Bill like this converted into an Act of Parliament. I think the whole matter should be more thoroughly examined. I assure the Deputy that my aim will be to give to local authorities the freedom he and others think they should have.
The Minister referred to the additional road mileage in the different counties. He said he did not think there was any need for this Bill. The Minister is aware that this additional mileage is made up of those roads that the local bodies agreed to take over. He is also aware that the roads in question are roads connecting two public roads, for otherwise they could not be done. I do not think these are the roads Deputy McQuillan has in mind. The Minister may be generous in accepting the Bill as it stands. I know Deputy McQuillan is sincere and honest. I know he means well. I congratulate him on this Bill.
For three and a half years it was my duty to deal with roads and with officials. Knowing their opinions as to what roads should be done and what roads should not be done I believe that this Bill, without any disrespect to Deputy McQuillan, is not worth the paper it is written on. The Minister can accept the Bill because it will not do one bit more than what has been done up to this because the Bill has in it the qualification "if such road authority is satisfied that the road is of general public utility".
There was such a clause in relation to the old rural improvements scheme and the full cost of the grant could be given for a road that was of general public utility. If I had had a sledgehammer during the years in which I was in control of the Office of Public Works I could not drive into the heads of the officials what general public utility means. Their idea was that it meant nothing. As far as this Bill is concerned it will mean the same thing, nothing.
I do not know if Deputy McQuillan is deceived by the Minister's acceptance of the Bill. Is the Minister innocently pretending to accept it, knowing well that it means nothing? Will Deputy McQuillan withdraw the Bill in view of the Minister's statement? Will he postpone it until such time as he sees what the Minister intends to do? The Minister has said that this has been an issue for the last 25 years. More shame to this House that it has been an issue for that period. It will be left an issue for all time if this phrase "general public utility" is left in it.
Deputy McQuillan stated last Friday that everybody in this House mouths pious platitudes; something must be done for the people in the rural areas. The Minister was very sympathetic to-night. He knows the people in his own County Cavan who live on these culs-de-sac and boreens. His sympathy went out to them. Not so long ago, when I brought in a motion whereby smaller contributions would be asked from people with very low valuations, the Minister was one of those who voted against it. His sympathy was not sincere then. It is just as sincere now.
I deny the charge that has been made by the Deputy.
Does the Deputy understand that the Minister denies what the Deputy has said. I take it the Deputy is withdrawing.
It was opposed by his Party.
The Minister denies the Deputy's statement.
If the Minister says he was one of the Fianna Fáil Party who did not vote against it I accept that. I know it was opposed by his Party. I know his Party voted against it, with one or two exceptions. Deputy Beegan opposed it. If it was so wrong then, is it not just as wrong to-day?
Their sympathy then was not for the people in the boreens and the cul-de-sac roads, and the Minister's sympathy is just the same to-night He can accept this because his officials have told him: "It does not matter. It does not make one bit of difference. You can accept it. It will cost us nothing." The Minister laughs, but he knows well that I am telling the truth. He knows it to be a fact.
I heard Deputy Moran saying the other night that it would not be a bad thing, and Deputy Cogan certainly said it would not be a bad thing if the roads done under the minor improvements scheme were kept in repair. The people who contributed to get these done are contributing to all the public roads. People who have lived on cul-de-sac roads for years and years have contributed their share to the public highways of this country. Why should they be asked to contribute now for the roads into their own homes? Why should not a bigger grant be given to them? Why should not the Department of Local Government give a greater contribution to the local authority for those people who have been left suffering for many years while living on these by-roads, even though they have been contributing towards the public highways?
Of course, Deputy Moran was just as sympathetic as the Minister. He was one of those who marched into the Lobby not long ago and said the people on the cul-de-sac roads must pay their share under the minor employment scheme, that they should pay a larger contribution. Deputy Cogan said that there were no cul-de-sac roads in Wicklow. That is very strange. I have not come across any county in Ireland where there are none. The Minister's own county has quite a share of them, and so has Galway, as Deputy Killilea can tell you, and so has County Mayo. Every county has its share of these roads.
I know quite well that the chief objection to this will be the extra mileage of roads. There is not a county engineer but will be objecting and saying it is increasing the mileage of roads. They are the people who do not want this. The officials of the Department of Local Government have advised the Minister to accept it. I hope that at a later stage of this Bill when the matter of "general public utility" comes up some Deputy or Deputies will put down an amendment, or that Deputy McQuillan himself will put down an amendment, to make it very plain what they require. Deputy McQuillan the other night referred to five or six or eight cottages on one of these roads. My idea is that if there is a road leading into a village or to a house that is used by the people that road should qualify. If it does not, this Bill will be absolutely of no use.
Deputy Cogan had some misgivings although he seconded this. I suppose he was doubtful as to what the Minister would do in regard to it. I suppose he felt that if the Minister did not accept it he would have to vote against it. That was his trouble. I would ask Deputy McQuillan to make sure that the Minister and his officials will not succeed in leading him astray with regard to what his intention is. I know the type of roads that he intends should be put under contract and repaired under this Bill. I know that this affects every Deputy representing a rural constituency in this portion of our country.
Taking the Minister's assurance that he is acepting this Bill is not going to get Deputy McQuillan one bit further. I hope when this Bill comes up again some Deputy or Deputies will put down an amendment with regard to the words "general public utility," because if they are left in the Bill it will be a question of civil servants deciding what "general public utility" means. So far as they are concerned their position will be what it always was—that nothing is a general public utility, no matter what road you bring before them, as happened when I was in office for three and a half years.
Very often Deputies made representations to me to have the full cost of a road given under the rural improvements scheme because it was of general public utility. When I put it before the officials that such a road was a general public utility the answer was that it was not, that we could not give the full cost. The same thing will apply to this Bill as it stands. These same gentlemen will say that a road is not a general public utility. Except this Bill is amended it will not assist in any way in having one of the roads of the type Deputy McQuillan has in mind kept in repair.
I was not one bit surprised at the Minister's technique a moment ago. Like myself, the Minister is an old county councillor and he knows all the answers with regard to public utility, cul-de-sac and accommodation roads. I wonder if I am correct in stating that a cul-de-sac road must be 16 feet wide instead of 11 feet under some classification? The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. His gesture, little and all as it is, will show up the insincerity of a lot of our county councils who undoubtedly slash their road engineer's estimates year after year. They cut them down to the very minimum. Under the managerial system, the manager cuts the engineer's estimate and the council cuts the manager's estimate. How is the Department going to differentiate between the mean councils and the others? All of them are out for retrenchment at times and some of them come along asking the Department or some other body to do something that is absolutely within their own province. Deputy McQuillan's case is a good one. The Minister's statement is very good also. If he is going to incorporate in this Bill a provision giving full authority to the county councils—even if it came down in a circular it will be very encouraging for some of us who have from time to time tried to gain acceptance by the county council of the estimates presented by our technical experts.
I was amazed at the seconder of the motion a moment ago. He presided at a meeting in the Mansion House two years ago which set up an association called the Ratepayers Protection Association. I am sure every member here, irrespective of whether he is a member of the county council or not, will appreciate that any work that will be done in this line must come within the province of the Cork County Council, the Roscommon County Council, the Carlow County Council or whatever other county councils do the work and I am afraid that unless Deputy McQuillan is able to prevail on the Minister to do something under his Bill in the line of allowing grants for these particular roads when they are completed——
Deputy McQuillan assured me when moving this Bill that he wanted no such assistance.
I am quite entitled to suggest something to Deputy McQuillan. I do not know whether Deputy McQuillan is a member of the Roscommon County Council. He should realise all those things you have given him so generously to-night, with one exception, and that is the taking over of the roads when they are satisfactorily done. Under Section 25 of the Local Government Act if the road is done to the satisfaction of the deputy-county engineer or the county engineer, the county council may take that road over.
Of course they can.
Then what is the difference?
Do not ask me.
I know I should not ask you. There is one thing I must say——
It seems, Deputy, when you get what you want you do not want it.
I beg your pardon, I have got nothing except what we have at the moment, and if you want gratitude for giving me nothing I do not know how I am going to give it to you. I do not know whether other councils have operated the members' proposal scheme. In Cork they did, and it was related to the improvement of roads such as Deputy McQuillan sets out in this Bill. The double-barrelled expression "public utility" is very hard to interpret, particularly when you are dealing with officials and more so when you are dealing with officials from the Board of Works. The county council engineers will as a rule respond to the general opinion of the council. I have seen the term "public utility" applied to a boreen where only two people were living and, I think, three was the minimum at one time. However, to say "general public utility" is making a three-barred gate. I would be inclined to omit the word "general" if I were Deputy McQuillan, and leave it "public utility". After all, under the term "public utility" even one could come under the category if he could not get relief from any other source, but when the word "general" is added the Deputy is opening a laneway that will be a cul-de-sac. I was wondering if the Minister had an open mind on this question.
An open book.
I think he stated that he knew Deputy McQuillan's mind. I may not be as good a psychologist as the Minister, and that may be a left-handed compliment I am paying. Any man who can give away nothing with a good decent gesture must be a good psychologist. I say the onus is on the local authority pure and simple. All that needs to be done is to tell them to carry on with any work that is of public utility.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister will always be in the generous mood he has been in to-night. There is no doubt about it, whether he has only recently developed it or not, the Minister's display of psychology to-night was the best I ever witnessed. However, we will be delighted if the Minister will say something to engender a sense of responsibility in the retrenchment men, members of the Minister's own Party in the county council to which I belong. I hope he will encourage them to do their duty to the people they are representing and to the unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, are contributing, as Deputy Donnellan said, to road maintenance all their lifetime, and that this will give them an impetus to carry out their responsibilities instead of slashing grants as has been done in the Cork County Council for the past few years. We are doing nothing except maintenance on roads. Let us hope that the Minister, in his wisdom, will say a few words to the members of his own Party who are also members of the Cork County Council.
I wish to support the principle of this Bill, although, like other Deputies, I think it might be improved by redrafting. Certainly, at some other stage, it should be somewhat amended. It is rather difficult for anybody to address himself properly to this subject now, because the Minister has indicated that he is contemplating legislation which might include something of what Deputy McQuillan has in mind.
It will include; there is no "might" about it.
With all due respect, it would be rather difficult for the Minister to give that assurance now——
I am taking the risk.
——because it would be impossible to estimate precisely what is the intention or at least what is the intention of some members of the House. It may be well to quote what Deputy McQuillan has suggested and see if it would meet with the approval of other members here. He said:
"Without going into that point——" that is, the question of public utility
"——in any detail, I think ‘public utility' should mean that if eight or ten families live in a village and that that village is served by a cul-de-sac road or a stop-end road, that that road can be described as a public utility."
I, and I am sure other Deputies, would not agree with that point of view.
May I point out at this stage to Deputy Finan that the words "eight or ten" in that quotation could just as easily be "three or four"? It is a matter of degree. I have no intention of asking any Deputy to tie himself to that figure. I do not even say for a moment that eight is a figure that I would accept.
That is my point, precisely, and that will be the Minister's difficulty, to decide what number of people, living on a cul-de-sac road, should be served.
I will not decide that at all. I will give the councils what Deputy McQuillan is asking for—power to decide that issue for themselves.
That point being settled, do I understand that the Minister will leave the discretion with the local authority to repair whatever roads they like?
Complete power to make up their own minds, to determine the issue.
There is another point of which I should like clarification. Suppose a council decides to take over a number of roads which they had not repaired heretofore, are we to understand that such roads, when taken over, will qualify for the appropriate grants from the Department?
The only roads at present, and for as many years as I can think of, are county roads and main roads.
By virtue of the fact that they have been taken over by the local authority, will they be regarded by the Department as county roads?
All roads that are county roads could not be regarded as anything else.
There is no necessity whatsoever for the Minister to become heated. I want to be very clear.
I am very far from being heated.
I do not wish to rub the Minister the wrong way. This is a very important matter, which is of particular concern to people in County Roscommon, as has been pointed out by Deputy McQuillan. I want the House to realise that this is a particularly thorny question in County Roscommon by reason of the action of the Land Commission. They acquired and distributed a considerable acreage of land in Roscommon and built houses and created a completely new townland, into which they made closed, dead-end, roads. That is why, perhaps, Roscommon comes into the picture more than any other county. If the Land Commission had not acted in that way we would not have half the problems that we have. I referred to that particular matter when dealing with the Estimate for Lands. There is a considerable mileage of dead-end roads of this type.
I raised the question of county roads in order that the Minister might enlighten me because the problem of the repair of such roads as were mentioned by Deputy McQuillan differs in various counties. Deputy McQuillan mentioned that at one stage Roscommon County Council requested permission from the Department to repair those roads entirely out of our own rates and that request was turned down by the Department of Local Government. I am amazed to learn from Cork Deputies that they have been carrying on that system in Cork for a number of years. Deputy Keane has referred to "councillors' proposals." Each councillor was allocated roughly £300 or £350 to repair roads that would not qualify under any of the definitions of "approved road." Nevertheless, members of Cork County Council could provide money out of the local rates for the repair of those roads and yet, when Roscommon County Council requested permission from the Department of Local Government to do that very thing, permission was refused.
The county engineer had to decide whether the road could be properly taken over or not.
There could not be any question of that in the case to which I refer because, as Deputy McQuillan has pointed out, over a long period of years we had been repairing a number of roads. Then, in 1947 a surcharge was levied to the extent of £2,800 and those roads which had been repaired by the local authority over a long period could no longer be so repaired. It is rather peculiar that there should be one local government law for the people in Cork and a different law for the people in Roscommon. There seems to be something wrong somewhere. An explanation is due to the members of Roscommon County Council as to why there should be withheld from them that authority which was given to the members of another local authority.
It shows the need there is for the Bill which the Minister has promised to introduce.
I suppose it does. At least, we would like equality under the law. I am delighted to hear that the Minister is prepared to allow local authorities to carry out this work. I am more than delighted that there is that difference between his proposal and Deputy McQuillan's proposal because, as Deputy Donnellan has said, those people who have been living on these neglected roads for years and have been paying their contribution to the main roads and the county roads for other people and, as a last resort, when no other remedy seemed to be available, would be obliged to put their hands in their pockets to pay for their own roads. The Minister has indicated that there will be Government legislation covering this matter and he has enlightened me on the point that they will be regarded as county roads. That is going some of the way to give these people justice although I would suggest that, if justice were to be done, substantial grants should be made available to put these roads into a proper condition before they are taken over by the local authorities. This matter has been pending since 1898. Naturally, the roads are in a very bad state now and it would require a considerable amount of money to put them into repair. If the finances of the State would permit, justice demands that these roads should receive priority and that a substantial amount of money should be allocated for the purpose of putting them into repair.
With other Deputies, I hope that when the legislation is introduced we will bury the phrase "general public utility" which nobody in any Department of State or official capacity is capable of interpreting. In my opinion, it was a legal ruse and was purposely inserted in the 1925 Act. If Section 2 of Deputy McQuillan's Bill were to be embodied in the Minister's Bill, it would be a grave mistake not to stop at the third last line and omit "if such road authority is satisfied that the road is of general public utility". Otherwise, it will start the whole argument over again.
Where even one solitary family happens to live on a dead-end road and are taxpayers, they are bearing their share of the State charges, and is there anybody who would suggest that because they reside at the end of one of these culs-de-sac they should be debarred from the ordinary amenities enjoyed by other citizens? In my own area there is one complete village or townland of 21 houses where from 1902 to 1947 the road was repaired triennially by the local authority, but when this surcharge came along nothing further could be done on it. I believe that if it had not been for the existence of county managers the county councils would have taken the risk of surcharge and would have repaired such roads; but county managers are supposed to be the enlightened people in county administration, they are supposed to put the council right on all matters, and they are not going to take the risk of surcharge. In that particular case I saw a grave injustice being done. I had legal advice obtained on it through the county council, and when I differed with their junior law authority I referred it to senior counsel, and he concurred with the solicitor and agreed that the road could not be described as a road of public utility. That road was the only means of ingress and egress in that particular townland; without it the people could not go to Mass, fair or meeting, nor could they be attended by priest or doctor. I want to be fair to the officials of the Department, and admit that that is not the view of certain officials in the Custom House. Notwithstanding that, I am assured by our auditor that even if the Department should agree he would still regard it as a case for surcharge, or recommend it as such. For that reason, whatever form of legislation is used, I think we should omit from it completely the term "of general public utility".
I think it was Deputy Moran who mentioned here last week, quite rightly, that local authorities were more interested in urban dwellers than in rural dwellers. It has often been a cause of extreme concern to me, as a member of a local authority, that councillors will not hesitate to provide thousands of pounds for an urban scheme, but if a question arises of paying a few thousand pounds to remove grievances like this they become immediately very parsimonious and careful about the expenditure of public money. I would like to see this question, which has been so long neglected in the past, get priority from local authorities in the future. Whatever money is necessary to put such roads into a proper state of repair should be expended on them and the amenities of urban dwellers should take secondary place.
The Minister has accepted the Bill in principle. It is open to any Deputy to put down an amendment on the Committee Stage, as I am sure all stages will not be taken to-night. Deputy McQuillan is to be congratulated upon the success his Bill has achieved. Again, I want to congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has met the Bill. In these circumstances, I think that further debate is not of very great advantage. Deputies who think the Bill should be amended can put down amendments for the Committee Stage.
As it stands, the Bill gives the county councils full authority to do what they think fit. The Minister says he agrees with that, and proposes to give them that sanction. The Civil Service do not come into the matter at all. It is then for county councils to do as they think fit themselves.
This Bill introduced by Deputy McQuillan will have an amount of sympathy from all Deputies representing rural areas. In a statement made by the Minister to-night, he pointed out all the difficulties, and I thoroughly agree with him that, when county councils get this power, it will not be such plain sailing as some people may think. Deputies who are members of local authorities know quite well that the local authorities are very reluctant to provide even a fair contribution for the repair of the minor roads. I wonder if Deputy McQuillan is 100 per cent. wise in his approach to this problem.
If he had put it to the Minister for Local Government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance who is in charge of the Board of Works, to provide that local authorities would have power to contribute towards the making up of those cul-de-sac roads where a grant was given from the Board of Works, I think that would be more desirable. In my humble opinion, much more money will be provided under the rural improvements scheme than by local authorities for these roads. Many of them would cost £500 or £1,000 to widen and make suitable for public transport. This is a problem Deputies should think out well. Local authorities, though they have the power at present, have not taken over roads that join two public roads. I am sure they could take over several hundred extra miles of roads if they were so minded to provide money to maintain them. That is so in every county in Ireland. There are many roads which they would be legally entitled to take over, but they are not prepared to do so as they are not prepared to put up money to maintain them.
Deputy Donnellan to-night accused, first of all, the Minister for Local Government of having voted against a motion of his to increase the grants under the rural improvements scheme. The Minister denied that and Deputy Donnellan withdrew the charge. He made a further charge that the Minister might not have voted against it but all the other members of Fianna Fáil voted against it. I want to deny that. I say it is untrue and I would ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to request Deputy Donnellan to withdraw that statement.
I think it was 45 of them.
You are hedging on it.
No, I am not.
Such a thing never happened in the history of this House.
Hear, hear!
They voted against a change in the rural improvements scheme.
They did not.
Yes, they did.
I deny that and I will prove it now. I hope Deputy Donnellan will have the manliness to withdraw the statement.
They voted against any change in the rural improvements scheme.
On the 23rd November, 1949, a motion was moved in this House. It was in the names of Deputies Commons and Beirne. I am quoting the Official Dáil Debates of that date, column 1321, Volume 118. The motion was as follows:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the present Government contribution of 75 per cent. under the rural improvements scheme is inadequate and should be increased to 90 per cent.
That was the motion in the names of two Deputies of the then Coalition Government. That motion was discussed, but Deputy Commons, as he then was, ran away from the motion and asked leave of the House to withdraw it.
On the guarantee I had given. Is that not right?
Deputy Beegan said that he objected to the withdrawal of the motion. The motion had asked for 90 per cent. for all rural improvement schemes and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance promised to give a 90 per cent. grant to all under £6 valuation, and leave the grants as they were for any valuation over £18. At column 2168, Volume 118 of the Official Dáil Debates for the 7th December, 1949, Deputy Beegan said:—
"I object to the withdrawal of this motion. Deputy Beirne's name is also put down to the motion and it asks for 90 per cent. Deputy Commons and the Parliamentary Secretary are making class distinction so far as that is concerned; their point is that 75 per cent. should go to the wealthier classes and 90 per cent. to the others."
There was a division on that. Deputies Commons and Beirne ran away from their own motion.
Are you not very innocent? Poor fellow!
You are caught out. I would ask you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to request Deputy Donnellan to withdraw the charge that Deputy Beegan or the members of this Party voted against a motion to increase rural improvement grants in this House.
The Chair cannot ask Deputy Donnellan to withdraw the remark because the remark Deputy Donnellan made was not a personal one. It was a remark against a Party.
The remark I made was very true.
The Deputy singled out Deputy Beegan as one member of this Party who had voted in the manner described. I think that the Chair is entitled to ask Deputy Donnellan to withdraw the charge in regard to that Deputy.
All who were available that night—the present Minister for Local Government was not available—voted against my motion to have the rural improvements scheme changed so that low valuations would get a 95 per cent. grant and others get a 90 per cent. grant. That was what they voted against.
They did not.
The Deputy does not understand what it is all about.
What the Fianna Fáil Party voted against was the request of Deputies Commons and Beirne to run away from their own motion.
Do not be foolish.
There was only one vote.
Thank God my intelligence is not as low as Deputy Donnellan's. It just shows the depths to which the Opposition have sunk to try to make a case against the Bill introduced by Deputy McQuillan.
Against the Bill that has been introduced! God help us! There is intelligence for you!
Deputy Donnellan is jealous of the fact that an Independent Deputy of this House introduced a Bill that will be supported.
Jealous? I never was jealous in my life.
The Deputy is jealous because an Independent Deputy introduced a Bill that will permit local authorities, if so minded, to provide for the taking over of the cul-de-sac roads. I hope Deputy Donnellan will not in future get up and brazenly misrepresent—
What I said was true. You are trying to misrepresent it.
Deputy Allen might be allowed to speak without interruption.
Let him speak the truth.
Sometimes the truth is very painful for other people to bear——
For you.
——when they are found out and shown incapable of speaking the truth as Deputy Donnellan was here to-night.
That is not so.
This Bill is one with which a certain number of rural Deputies will have sympathy. I am sure that the Minister will provide an adequate safeguard both for the local authorities and for all other interests concerned when he brings in his Bill in the near future.
First of all, I wish to congratulate my colleague, Deputy McQuillan, for giving us an opportunity of ventilating some of our grievances in regard to by-roads and cul-de-sac roads. So far as I and my Party are concerned, I think we took a very deep interest in this matter on at least two occasions one of which was that mentioned by Deputy Allen. The other was an occasion many years before that, very soon after I came to this House.
On the 8th February, 1946, a motion was put down in the names of Deputy Cogan and myself asking for the repeal of this objectionable and obnoxious section of the 1925 Act enacted here by a man of foreign nationality, as we would now call him. I emphasised at that time that we were just holding out that section to perpetuate the memory of this Bill. I thought it was wrong for a National Government to cherish the memory of those people who in their day indulged in obstructionist tactics and created, particularly in rural areas, a state of discomfort.
When I read this Bill, like others who spoke here, I had a certain objection to it. I saw a loophole in it. I know Deputy McQuillan is as sincere as myself and I have heard him not only in this House but also in the Roscommon County Council, of which I have the honour to be a member, advocating the repeal of this section of the Act. He has made a strong case for it on more than one occasion at Roscommon County Council. I am glad he had the courage and the patriotism to do so. It is a patriotic thing to do something for the people in rural Ireland in particular. I am charmed and delighted to have as a colleague one who is taking a practical interest in the people of rural Ireland. I honestly say it is a sincere interest.
When I read this Bill, I saw the loophole in it. I saw the phrase "general public utility". I met a few of my colleagues in my own room and said to one in particular—the Deputy on my right: "I will bet a fiver that the Minister will accept that Bill as it stands." He said: "I do not think so." I said: "I will give you two to one he will accept it." I am not a gambler. I do not gamble but, having seen the little flaw in the Bill, I knew the Minister would be quite safe in accepting it. The Minister was quite safe in doing that. The three words I have referred to weaken the effect of the Bill, in my eyes.
Debate adjourned.