I have not the figures, but I can say that it would be negligible. In some cases there are only two families concerned and in other cases five or six families so, as a matter of fact, there would not be any such thing as annual maintenance on these roads for a considerable number of years. If they were looked after every three, four or five years it would be quite sufficient to keep them in proper order.
The motion which I moved in 1946, and which was seconded by Deputy Cogan, got a very mixed reception in this House. I am glad to see that this Bill which was introduced by Deputy McQuillan and which is supported by Deputy Finan, by myself and by some other Deputies, is getting a different reception.
What was the reason for the change of heart that took place? It was an extraordinary thing that in 1946 the motion got a rather bad reception, but in 1952 things have changed very much. I am not going to say how that change has come about, but, to be honest about it, I realise, and I am sure the Government and the Minister realise, that Fianna Fáil is not the powerful instrument it was in 1946 and that the axe is hanging over their heads. They have got to accept this Bill; they dare not refuse to accept it. If they refused to accept it and put it to a vote of the House, the Government would be defeated. They are, therefore, adopting the line of least resistance in saying that they are ready to accept the Bill. That is a bit of a surrender from the days of 1946 when they would not hear a proposal of this kind at all.
Can the Minister tell me if there is anything wrong—I should be delighted to hear if there is—in the local authority providing the contribution which is necessary in the case of a rural improvements scheme and taking it out of a private individual's hands? Is there anything wrong in that? That has been the case in Roscommon County Council, on a few occasions, when a rural improvements scheme was suggested for repair of the roads which might have cost £50, £60 or £100. Perhaps the local applicant and his friends might be responsible for a 75 per cent. contribution in that case. If that was taken out of the individual's hands and passed over to the county council, allowing the county council to make the 75 per cent. contribution, is there anything wrong in it? For the life of me, I cannot see that there is. Speaking on behalf of the members of the county council, I can say that we are prepared, in cases such as that, where a rural improvements scheme is to be adopted to meet the needs of the people, to contribute, say, one-fourth or up to 90 or 95 per cent. of the cost, so as to have the work carried out for the benefit of the individuals who make the application.
To show the sincerity of my Party and of myself in this matter, ex-Deputy Commons and myself introduced a motion on 23rd November, 1949, suggesting that the Minister should increase the grants under rural improvements schemes. I am grateful and happy to say that the grants were considerably increased by the then Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Donnellan.