I seconded this motion last week, not because I approved of its contents, but because I was anxious to keep it before the House and not allow it to expire. Deputy Flanagan is named as the mover of this motion, but he apparently had abandoned it and left it cold and shivering on the threshold of the House. Deputy O'Higgins and myself, acting in unity and harmony together, managed to keep the poor thing alive until the honourable Deputy Flanagan arrived. I would like to acknowledge in anticipation the gratitude which I know Deputy Flanagan will express to Deputy O'Higgins and myself for keeping the motion alive.
Private Deputies' Business. - Road Maintenance—Motion.
Debate resumed on the following motion: —
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that all main and trunk roads should be maintained from State funds, as local authorities find it impossible to maintain them with present State aid; and that, as turf producing counties have increased road traffic, and should have increased road grants for county roads, the Government should formulate a scheme for the provision of special road grants to all county councils who are engaged in turf production.
I was not waiting for the Deputy to second it or to move it either.
I do not know what would have happened if I had not stepped into the breach with Deputy O'Higgins.
I hope that it will be as profitable a breach as other breaches were to the Deputy.
Deputy Flanagan has on certain occasions made references to my character, with the assertion or innuendo that I secured certain profits with regard to the Government of this country. I want to repudiate that statement. I think it is worthy of Deputy Flanagan, worthy of the tarnished artist he is. I hope that Deputy Flanagan will have the decency to apologise for that false and malicious statement deliberately made.
Deputy Cogan on the motion.
To what statement is the Deputy referring?
I referred to this motion as a poor thing. I think that that phrase is very applicable.
And you are supporting it.
You seconded it.
I understood that the Deputy was seconding the motion.
I understood the same thing.
I seconded the motion to put it in order.
He has read it since he seconded it.
The trouble about Deputy Flanagan is that he did not read the motion. The motion seems to be derived from an undeveloped, immature, irresponsible and somewhat slovenly mind. It sets out, apparently, to relieve the ratepayers of a certain liability, but in actual effect, if it were accepted by this House and imposed on the Minister, it would result in a heavier burden being placed on the ratepayers than they are at present bearing. Deputy Flanagan once claimed to be an expert on finance when he was chairman or leader of the Monetary Reform Party——
The Deputy tried to get into that party.
——before he tried to get into the Fine Gael Party.
We might have fewer personalities and more of the motion.
There is, as we know, a fund at the disposal of the Government known as the Road Fund. Last year, as far as I can ascertain, it amounted to £3,270,000. This year the Minister hopes to add to that fund £800,000, making a total of over £4,000,000. That is a substantial sum if it is applied to the reconstruction and improvement of roads generally, county and main roads, but if Deputy Flanagan's motion is put into effect it will, in all probability, be devoted entirely to the maintenance and improvement of our main roads, with the result that the unfortunate rural ratepayers about whom Deputy Flanagan apparently does not care will be left to bear the entire and enormous cost of maintaining the county roads. There is provision, of course, in the motion for a special grant for turf roads, but those grants might amount only to a few thousand pounds, whereas there is a possibility and a great likelihood that, if the motion were carried, the entire Road Fund would be swallowed up in the maintenance and improvement of main roads. I think it would be far more sensible to ensure that the entire amount of the Road Fund increasing year by year is devoted to all the public roads, main and county.
It is important to remember, as far as future road improvement and maintenance is concerned, that county roads were a bigger liability than main roads, inasmuch as there is a huge mileage of county roads that has never been touched by modern reconstruction. At the present time we are spending about £5,400,000 on road reconstruction and maintenance — that is, on main and county roads combined. That is a very formidable sum of money. Of that, about £2,300,000 is spent on main roads and about £3,100,000 on county roads. Those are the figures for the present year. It is clear, therefore, that the county roads are the more expensive proposition. It is clear, also, that it is the side of road making that will become more expensive and that should become more expensive, because while some people, particularly people here in the city with high-powered cars, would like to see the main and trunk roads brought into first-class condition, I think that the ordinary people who have to live and work in the country would rather see the main expenditure directed towards the county roads.
Because of that I think we should view this motion with concern and ask that it be withdrawn. I would be inclined to ask the Minister not to accept it but instead to provide that the entire Road Fund be devoted to road making generally and to provide that the greater portion of it is spent on county roads. I make that appeal as a rural ratepayer, as a farmer living in a rural area.
I think it would be a disastrous thing if we were to implement this motion, that is to say that the State should take over complete responsibility for the main roads and leave the county roads to the ratepayers. The net result of that would be that the State, having put up 100 per cent. of the cost of the main roads would in all probability set up a central authority to direct operations on the main roads to control the administration of their construction and maintenance. In that way we would eventually reach the stage in which a central authority with over £4,000,000 of road money at its disposal would set out to create magnificent main roads and spend the entire amount of the Road Fund for that purpose leaving the unfortunate rural ratepayer to bear the entire cost of maintaining the county roads less a few thousand pounds special grants that Deputy Flanagan asks for in respect of turf roads. This is an absurd proposition and one which I am glad the House has an opportunity of debating in spite of Deputy Flanagan's absence——
Deputy Flanagan is present. Surely the Deputy has not gone blind.
——when this motion was introduced. Deputy Flanagan was not present and he knows he was not present. He may have been here in spirit——
The Deputy will be heard in a few minutes.
This proposal if it were carried into effect would, in all probability, add perhaps 100 per cent. to the cost of road maintenance as it affects the rural ratepayers. That is the important consideration. It would divert the Road Fund, which is a very important fund at the present time, to the main roads. It would leave the cost of building the roads which are at present in need of reconstruction on the shoulders of the ratepayers. In that way it would impose a burden on the backs of the farmers and the ratepayers of this country that it would be impossible for them to bear.
I want to appeal to the Minister to discard this motion and to divert as much as possible of the Road Fund to the county roads. The Minister will be and is subjected, as every Minister is subjected, to a demand from influential people in this country for the making of speedier, more luxurious and more expensive main roads than we have at present. The Minister should resist that demand and say: "Until we get the county roads up to a reasonable standard of construction we will go easy in regard to expenditure on the main roads." That I think, is a reasonable proposition. The Minister must know what country people have to endure in the matter of travelling on roads which are classed as water-bound roads. "Waterbound" roads is a very good description. We all know that water is not a very adhesive material except when it is frozen and even then it is not very adhesive. The result is that we have thousands of miles of roads in this country which are nothing but chains of potholes which wreck the small car which the ordinary farmer has to use, which destroy and wreck the ordinary pushbike which so many in our farming community and working community have as their sole means of transport.
Instead of acting on a silly, ill-considered motion of this kind, let us direct our attention to a programme of complete reconstruction of our county roads. I would like to see the Minister impressing upon the county councils the need for the adoption of a five-year plan in regard to county road reconstruction. I would like to see him demanding that each county council should outline a programme of reconstruction designed, in the course of five or six years, to put our county roads into a reasonable state of repair. That would be far better than squandering the entire Road Fund on the main roads. Some of the main roads may require improvement but, taking them by and large, they are capable of discharging their function as arteries of traffic, for some years to come at any rate. Concentration should be upon the other type of roads which has been so sadly neglected.
I think I was rather misreported in the Official Reports last week. I said it was rather a good thing that this discussion had occurred at a time when the House had been dealing with ways and means of adding to the Road Fund by legislation which is at present being enacted. It is hoped to add £800,000 to the Road Fund and I think it is essential now that the Minister should say to the county engineers and to the local authorities generally: "I expect you to make the best possible use of this additional money." Motorists, lorry owners and others have to bear the brunt of this extra burden and it is essential that not one penny of this additional money should be wasted.
As I said recently in the House, I believe a very considerable amount of the money which is voted for road construction is wasted. I believe that is due to an antiquated system of organisation and control in most counties. I believe that the essential operations of road construction are the raising of road material, the transport of that road material to the road and the rolling of that material into the road. These are the three main operations of road making, but instead of the men available and the machinery available being used for that purpose, we have thousands of men whose time is completely devoted to doing what I consider should, under modern conditions of road making, be non-essential, that is, to trimming and dressing the grass margins and sides of the roads, and trimming them with antiquated equipment. In my constituency near Baltinglass, in the Glen of Imaal, there is a house which has been reconstructed and preserved as it was 150 years ago when it was being used as a place of lodging by Michael Dwyer. In the roof of that house there is a reaping hook. The reaping hook was in general use 150 years ago on the farms and it went out of use over 100 years ago. It is still being used on the roads for trimming and dressing the grass margins and trimming the sides of the fences. I think we ought to aim at more general mechanisation of road operations to ensure that the best value is secured for the money that is expended. Mechanisation of road making does not imply any reduction in the number of workers employed. If, for example a county council, employs 300, 400 or 500 men as road workers and if they decide to mechanise, they will continue to employ that number of workers but they will get through at least three times that amount of work.
That is what we want. I have not the figures — the Minister may have them — but I know that there is a huge mileage of county roads water-bound. They are in the condition which obtained 1,000 years ago, having the same type of road surface as was in existence at that time. The time has come to change to something better. Modern traffic demands tar-bound or cement-bound roads. In the main, the tar-bound road has been found to be most efficient and there is no reason why the mileage of tar-bound roads should not be extended.
The introduction of modern methods would mean that we would get value for the money voted for road maintenance. That value can be got by taking all the roads together as public roads and dealing first with those most urgently in need of reconstruction rather than by segregating particular roads for very special and favoured treatment, as this motion would imply.
Engineering staffs and county councils should be given greater freedom in utilising the money provided out of the Road Fund. They should be free to use the entire amount on county roads if the main roads are in fairly good condition. On the other hand, if the main roads are in bad condition, a certain proportion of the money should be allotted to them. I suggest that there should be no red-tape or green-tape in regard to the amount of grant allocated for main roads and the amount allocated for county roads. Greater freedom would ensure the introduction of a thoroughly efficient system of road-making, which is what we need.
Deputy Flanagan would be wise to withdraw this motion and to insist upon the full amount of the Road Fund being applied to whatever particular roads in each county are in most urgent need of repair. To segregate different types of roads does not make for efficiency or for the best utilisation of the money at our disposal.
If the whole problem is viewed fairly and impartially, it will be acknowledged that there is need for a vast improvement in our system of road making. I do not think that improvement will be effected by the implementation of the proposals submitted to this House recently for the merger of two or three counties for this purpose. There is no need for that. There is no mechanical unit that is suitable for road making which is too large for any county to operate and to keep in operation full-time, to maximum capacity. There is no need to merge counties. All that is required is to have a fixed policy of getting the largest possible mileage of county roads reconstructed as quickly as possible and eliminating as quickly as possible the water-bound road. By that is meant a road which is not really water-bound, but which is frequently swept away and turned up by a shower of rain.
If Deputy Flanagan is wise, he will withdraw this motion and accept the proposition which I have put before the House, that we should concentrate on the improvement of county roads instead of squandering our money on main roads. The effect of putting this motion into operation would be to double the road rate in the case of most counties and double the cost of reconstruction and maintenance of county roads, which is something to be avoided.
The increase in the Road Fund will help considerably. I hope the Minister will insist on the highest possible standard of efficiency in the reconstruction of county roads. Mechanisation may be criticised in some counties, but only by those who are too stupid to follow matters out to their logical conclusion.
The Deputy himself, for example.
I have never criticised mechanisation.
You are supporting Deputy Dillon on that, anyhow.
I have always maintained that the good worker is entitled to the most modern and efficient machinery available. With wise planning, there is no reason why mechanisation should displace one man. If there were only a limited mileage of roads to be constructed, if we were near the end of the problem of road improvement, we might begin to fear that mechanisation might have some evil effect but, as matters stand, mechanisation can result only in workers having less arduous and less onerous work to do. It will result also in at least 200 per cent. increase in output per man employed on the roads. In that way each county can continue to employ the number of men at present employed and, by the use of modern equipment, ensure that more work will be carried out. That should be the aim of everyone who has the interest of the workers and the ratepayers at heart, and who is concerned to see that we will have an efficient system of road making.
I would pay more heed to this motion if it were not for the fact that Deputy Flanagan has been responsible in this House during the past few years for taking some millions of pounds from the roads. Deputy Flanagan is one of those who supported the policy of reduction in road grants during the three and a half years that the inter-Party Government were in office.
That definite programme that was laid down and was being carried out before the inter-Party Government came in, was immediately stopped. As a matter of fact, in the year they assumed office that programme had already been sent down to the county councils, stating the amount of grants being given to them for the reconstruction of roads. It had gone too far to be called back. In common with inter-Party policy, the means by which that money was found was to borrow close on £2,500,000 on the strength of the Road Fund. The Road Fund, whether we like it or not, will have to pay each year some £250,000 to repay the money that was borrowed to fill the gap in that year. That was the first call on the Road Fund and that amount of money must come out of it each year.
We know that every successive Government for a long number of years gave grants to county councils — 40 per cent. on main and trunk roads but nothing for any other road. Therefore, this fund has resulted in main roads being pampered at the expense of the ordinary rural road. I admit that the proposition as put up here is a tempting one. We all like to throw something over on the State and let them carry it, but the manner in which it is going to be carried is another thing. Just the same as the obligation of the State to provide so many million pounds in road grants in the year that the inter-Party Government came into office was met by an immediate borrowing on the strength of the Road Fund, so in this case if this motion is pursued to its logical conclusion, the Road Fund would be completely devoted to main and trunk roads.
The roads have been neglected — the roads over which, if we are to carry out the policy which is supported by every Deputy, must be carried the millions of tons of lime that are required. They are not required by the main roads but have to go in by the ordinary rural road and county road, and those roads are not in a condition to bear the present lime-spreading machinery that is going out and relieving the farmers of a lot of burdens. These are the roads which, to my mind, will have to be the first care of the rural ratepayers and the first demand on them.
I dealt here before with that position. I remember making a statement here about a month ago in another debate, that the road users should be made pay for the deterioration. The road user pays in various ways. Had things been normal financially, I am one who would have insisted on the petrol tax, which has increased by millions during the past five or six years, being turned over entirely, or a very large portion of it, to the Road Fund. We are faced, however, with the position that in Cork County, for instance, our roads were deprived of grants while the inter-Party Government were in office to the extent of some £250,000.
What did you get out of the Works Act?
The roads have deteriorated to that extent. We did not fill the gap. I could see no reason why we should fill the gap. I am not prepared to fill any gap left in that manner by the State. In addition to that, the Road Fund was raided each year, by all Governments in turn, and some £300,000 taken each time. The ratepayers, therefore, did not even get from the State the motor taxation paid by the road users. That practice was faithfully carried out during the régime of the inter-Party Government, and that raid was made each year.
What did you get out of the Works Act?
I am not talking about that.
You did not get it, I suppose?
We did not? I was the first to advocate it and the first to use it.
Did you vote for it?
Yes, and supported it.
That Bill was passed unanimously through the House.
There were eight divisions on it. This man has lost his memory.
Deputy Corry is in possession.
I voted for it and supported it in this House from the start. As a matter of fact, letters that I had sent to the previous Minister for Local Government in connection with our difficulties in that respect were quoted in this House by the late Deputy Murphy, God rest his soul, then Minister for Local Government. If Deputy Davin, who spends some time off and on in this House, would go to the trouble of ambling to the Library and reading the speeches made on the Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Works) Act, he would find his mistake.
Yes, that is quite correct. He spoke in favour but abstained or voted against it.
That statement is not true.
It does not arise on this.
Did you vote for it?
I did, on every occasion.
Did he object to the halving of it?
The baby was not there at all and, with God's help, he will be gone the next time. To get back to this rather brainy proposal of Deputy Flanagan's, I cannot see any grounds for taking out roads that have been favoured in a very special way by the State for over 20 years, roads that have been picked out and for which grants have been sent down to the county councils with a special proviso —"grants for main and trunk roads, nothing for any other road". That grant was used like the carrot dangled before the donkey's nose — the more you put into the main roads, the more you get for them.
And the less you had for the county roads.
By that policy, the county roads were starved and got nothing. Now it is proposed to hand over the good roads to the State and let the State take with them the motor taxation grant and then let the ratepayers take the back roads and the rest of the muck and try to build them up. I suppose that when they are in good order again some other fellow will take a fancy and say he would like that piece.
If Deputies will go back they will find that there was a motion on the Order Paper, before we went out of office, to the effect that the full motor taxation, petrol tax and the tax on the import of motor vehicles and parts should be handed over for a certain period of time to enable the roads to be brought to a fair standard. That was only looking for all the money paid by the motorists in taxation each year. It was no more nor no less. From questions put and answers I received in this House I know, at any rate, that the revenue from petrol tax increased from about £1,250,000 to over £5,000,000. Deputy Davin did not bother about those things. He did not worry about the questions or the answers, but the questions and replies given at that period are there for everybody to see. If we had not to face the burden of finding the interest on all the millions that were spent by the gentlemen opposite——
The Deputy is getting away from the motion.
If we had not to find that money I would support a proposal that the income from petrol tax should now be applied to the roads. I know the money for the petrol tax is needed to pay interest on what was borrowed. We are faced with that position, and I for one could not support any proposal which would mean taking the money provided by motor taxation and using it for roads that have already been well catered for and looked after to the detriment of the roads that are used by the ratepayers. If the heavy vehicles used by the Sugar Company traversed these roads the level would immediately sink and the ground would shake for a number of yards. That is because the roads are in such a wretched condition that they are unfit to carry such traffic.
I would suggest that in so far as possible the grants for the roads that were taken from them for the three and a half years when the inter-Party Government were in office — amounting to about £1,000,000 per year — should be restored in so far as they can be restored. Unfortunately, it is very hard to chase after that money now.
You got £4,500,000 under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.
The Deputy knows where the millions under the Local Authorities (Works) Act went.
A good share went to East Cork.
I took damned good care it would. I always looked after my constituents whenever there was anything going.
The Deputy ought not to be a hypocrite.
The Deputy should come back to the motion.
I will, Sir, when the interruptions cease.
The Deputy should not mind the interruptions.
I am trying not to mind them, Sir, but I cannot help it.
You are embarrassing the Minister.
There is no question of embarrassing the Minister. The Minister knows the situation as well as I do.
Maybe better.
I give him credit this year for insisting, in spite of the financial position, that the Road Fund no longer be raided to supply revenue for other purposes. I give him credit for that. I admire him because he must have made a tough fight for it. An easier way was found previously when Deputy Keyes had to put up with the reductions which led to the present position under which this motion has been brought in. Deputy Keyes had to put up with the cut in the road grant.
I would do it again to get back the food subsidies.
The £6,000,000, which we have to pay, interest on the £94,000,000 you borrowed to run this country for three and a half years, would have paid the food subsidies for a considerable period.
Are we debating the Finance Estimate?
The Deputy might come back to the motion.
I am trying to do so but find it difficult because of the interruptions. I suggest that Deputy Flanagan would be wise to withdraw his motion. I do not see how the ratepayers or the roads themselves are going to gain any benefit by a proposal of this description. I cannot see them getting any. I do not believe that my county council or any party in it will be prepared to see the total Road Fund money and the total Road Fund grants completely thrown into main and trunk roads again and the ratepayers held responsible for the full upkeep and improvement of the ordinary farmers' roads in this country. I do not believe they would.
I think the proposal is foolish and I think that the little trimmings that go with the proposal are suggestions that Deputy Flanagan knows would not, and could not, be carried out. Deputy Flanagan is very well aware of his business. As a member of a local authority, he is aware of the position.
I admit it is nice to see a fine, smooth road so many feet wide, with workers taking away a dangerous corner to enable a person travelling at 50 miles an hour to go at 60 miles an hour. You will find that along all our main roads at the present time, but the moment you leave those roads you get into roads upon which an ordinary donkey could hardly travel. That is the condition of the ordinary rural road at the present day.
I, at any rate, could not for one moment support any proposal which would mean that the Road Fund would go into one specific class of road which, in my opinion, should be the last road to be catered for in this country to-day.
Is the Minister going to speak?
The Chair cannot give any information on that point.
He looks like it.
You would never know what I might do.
If the Minister is anxious to speak, he may do so.
I am very grateful for the Deputy's gesture. It is very seldom he is so obliging to me, but I do not want to avail of the offer to-night.
I am sorry Deputy Cogan is leaving the House, because, in my ten or 11 years' experience as a member of the House, I have never seen a Deputy standing up to second a motion and then opposing it. I do not know what kind of make-up there is in a man of that character. This motion was moved by Deputy O'Higgins during my absence, and Deputy Cogan, bursting with zeal and enthusiasm, rose and seconded it with great pleasure. Deputy Cogan, being the wise old hen he is, had a reason for doing so.
All his speeches in his constituency were in favour of all main roads being made a national charge, and he knew quite well that some publicity would be given in the papers the following day and that his constituents would get the impression that he seconded this motion that all main roads be made a national charge in accordance with the many speeches he has made at meetings of the county council of which he is a member. Time and again, Deputy Cogan has said at meetings of that body that he completely disagreed with the ratepayers of a particular county having to foot the bill for the mileage of main roads and trunk roads within that county. He said it was the duty of the State and the serious obligation of any Government in power to provide fully for the maintenance of main and trunk roads.
Deputy Cogan and Deputy Corry have spoken about the Road Fund and road grants, and Deputy Corry said that the Minister was to be congratulated on his present stand against the robbing of the Road Fund. He did not tell us, however, that the Minister and his Party were the first people to raid the Road Fund before the inter-Party Government ever took office.
It is not relevant to the motion.
It is quite true.
And it is not true.
It is true, and the Minister knows it is true.
It is not true.
Before the inter-Party Government took office, the Road Fund was robbed by the Government.
The statement the Deputy has made is not true.
It is quite true. The records of the House can prove it.
I am merely saying that the statement the Deputy has made is not true. I repeat that. If I say that the statement is untrue——
I say that the statement is true.
It is not.
I say it is. It is a matter of a difference of opinion between the Minister and myself.
It is a matter for the Chair.
The Chair cannot intervene. It is a matter of opinion. The Chair also says it is not relevant.
The terms of this motion are: —
"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that all main and trunk roads should be maintained from State funds...."
That is one portion of the motion. A second portion reads: —
"... and that, as turf-producing counties have increased road traffic they should have increased road grants for county roads."
Deputy Cogan and Deputy Corry never for one moment referred to the turf-producing counties. The reason which prompted me to put down this motion is the fact that I have the honour to represent the principal turf-producing constituency in this country. I know quite well that the grants which were made available in the ordinary way to the Offaly and Laois County Councils for the maintenance of roads during the emergency could not be spent and were not spent for the reason that there were not men, time or materials to do the roads. The County Councils of Laois and Offaly were too busy cutting turf so that people like Deputy Cogan and Deputy Corry would have a fire. Then we are told to-night that Deputy Cogan and Deputy Corry cannot see their way to urge that special consideration should be given to the turf-producing counties.
On more than one occasion the Taoiseach, his Ministers and members of the Fianna Fáil Party made serious appeals on the platform, on the radio and in this House to people to cut more turf and to the local authorities to cut turf in order that the large towns and cities might not be without firing. This city, together with Cork City, Galway, Sligo and the other large towns throughout the country would have had many fireless and cold homes if it were not for the fact that, in Laois, Offaly and other turf-producing counties, the call of the Government was generously responded to, and turf production maintained at its very highest.
While the emergency lasted, we had lorries ploughing up the roads of Offaly and Laois, bringing thousands of tons of turf to this and other cities. There were heavy lorries drawing thousands of tons of turf to railway stations and we had hospitals, mills and factories all depending on what came from the bog. There was this heavy traffic ploughing up the bog roads, the country roads and the county roads, as well as the main roads, and we are told now that, because we could not put men on road repair work and because we did not spend the grants we got, during the emergency — we could not do so because we were complying with the wishes and request of the Government to produce turf — no consideration should be given to the turf-producing counties.
It must be borne in mind that, during the years of the emergency, when counties like Laois and Offaly could not put men on the roads, in addition to the heavy turf traffic, there were Army lorries running from the Curragh to the South and from Athlone through Offaly to the South, and to Dublin. That volume of Army lorry and other traffic during the emergency helped in no small way to plough up the roads of Laois and Offaly. I say without fear of contradiction that the roads, both main and county, are far worse in Laois and Offaly and in parts of Kildare than in any other county in Ireland, because every other county during the emergency could keep their full-time staffs engaged on road work, road widening and road repairs.
That could not be done in Laois and Offaly. All we had was a skeleton staff on the repair of roads during the emergency years. It is only right that the Government, in recognition of the services generously rendered by the county councils of Laois and Offaly, should give special consideration to increasing the road grants in the case of these counties and only in the case of these counties which participated in a very big way in turf production.
If the Minister has at his disposal information on the counties which contributed generously to the fuel pool during the emergency he will find that counties Mayo, Leix-Offaly, part of Kildare, parts of Galway, and parts of North Tipperary were the principal county councils engaged in turf production. Surely some consideration should be given to these. Surely they should be put in the position of bringing the roads at least up to the standard of those in other counties where the county councils were fortunate enough to be able to carry out road repair and maintenance during the emergency.
I believe the case I am making deserves the sympathetic consideration of the Minister. Deputy Corry and Deputy Cogan criticised bitterly the inter-Party Government. Deputy Corry referred to the cutting of the road grant. He told us that road grants were reduced by £2,000,000, but he failed to tell us that £4,500,000 was spent simultaneously under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I think that Act is one of the most valuable that has ever passed through this House.
It is scarcely relevant to this motion.
The passage of that Act was deliberately delayed. Every obstacle that could be put in the way of the Minister at the time was put in his way by the present Government.
That is not relevant either.
I think it is only reasonable that the Minister should give special consideration now to the turf-producing counties. If the prophecy made by the Minister for Finance in North-West Dublin is borne out by fact we will be engaged in another world war at a very early date. In that eventuality turf production will again be of paramount importance, but I can assure the Minister that if some further assistance is not forthcoming to the counties for which I have made a special claim, they will not again engage in turf production as generously and as enthusiastically as they did in the past.
This motion must be divided into two parts. First of all we have to consider the county roads in those counties in which turf production is in operation. Secondly, we have to consider the main roads. The whole problem has to be considered in all its aspects. We are anxious that our roads should be put into proper repair. We are also anxious to get as much assistance as possible from central funds in order to carry out the essential work. If the Central Fund is asked to contribute more there is danger of local authorities losing a little of the meagre authority they have at the present time. There is also the danger that members of local authorities may clamour continuously for extra money from the State, including that member who, like the flight of the eagle, left the House very quickly to-night after making his contribution. That particular member of the Cork County Council has continuously adopted the attitude——
Surely it should be the "Skibbereen Eagle".
——that local authorities should not be asked to contribute such a large sum either for main or county roads. It would be well if some of the erroneous statements made here by Deputy Corry had never been made. Every local authority is continuously faced with the problem of what will happen in relation to the maintenance, improvement and repair of our roads. I agree with Deputy Corry that the roads are at present in very bad condition. I do not agree with his co-partner, Deputy Cogan, who stated that everything in the garden would be lovely provided we adopted a better system and more up-to-date methods. He left me under the impression that we were getting enough money at the present time if we utilised it properly.
It would undoubtedly be advantageous if more modern equipment were at our disposal and if more modern methods were in operation. It would probably be to the advantage of the ratepayers who ultimately pay the piper. I take strong exception to the view that we are not spending the money at the present time in a proper manner. Possibly, we are not all ultramodern in our ideas. Some of us appreciate the enormous sum of money involved in procuring machinery. Some of us know the high bill that had to be met in the past from that point of view. Deputy Cogan's attitude is not one that will help us in finding a solution to our present problem. Irrespective of whatever Minister is in office, he is always faced with the problem of the money to be provided. We need the money. The problem is whether it can be provided in a sensible manner and in a way in which we will hope it will be provided. That is the point that I should like to try and express. If money is given from central funds to a much larger degree than at present — and we would be anxious for it — where, in the first place, will it come from? If the local authorities have to provide a certain amount of money at present, that money comes through the collection of rates. If the money is to come in a much larger degree from central funds, it will not come from rates, but it will come from direct or indirect taxation. On the other hand, coming from the rates, we are asking people to pay according to their valuations at the present time. It may be, as it is in many instances, a large burden to be placed on people. Yet, I consider that that method is somewhat more justifiable — to a certain degree, at any rate — than to place the burden on the backs of the people through indirect and direct taxation which, ultimately, means that the working people of this country will have to pay more through indirect taxation.
We all know that if we are to get money from central funds through taxation, the commodities that we have any hope of getting money from in the way of taxation are foodstuffs and commodities which are used by the working people of this country. I think, therefore, it would be well for us to approach the matter in the realisation of the immense problem which it can be for the people and for the country.
I understand the difficulties that had to be met in the counties where turf production was in operation during the emergency years. I know that turf production meant the haulage of turf by very heavy lorries, mainly over county roads and bad county roads, which meant that when the emergency was over and when turf had ceased to be produced to the great extent that it was produced during the early years of the emergency, the roads were in an even worse condition than before. There is one aspect of this problem that we cannot forget. I am trying to discuss this problem with a view to finding the best solution possible. We cannot forget that by the production of turf and by the increased sales of turf — I am speaking, at any rate, of parts of County Cork and adjacent counties — a very large income went into the homes of the people in those turf-producing areas which, undoubtedly, was a benefit to a certain section of the community at that particular time. I should be most anxious to hear the Minister's views on this important problem: is there the danger that we are asking the State, not just to increase the amount for the main roads but also, as the motion states, to maintain them? We cannot lose sight of the fact that people have prospered, thanks be to God, to an immense degree from the sale of turf in particular areas. If these grants are forthcoming, we want to see the burden divided equally, and divided, particularly, in such a way that those who can bear that burden will be those who will be expected to bear it.
That is why I consider that it would be very important not to come to a hasty conclusion over a matter such as this, without weighing the full consequences attached to it. I fully agree that many of our county roads, through turf production, have deteriorated to a great degree. Not for one moment could I agree, however, with the statements made by Deputy Corry in this House. I do not like to have to refer to any Deputy's speech when he is not present in the House to hear what I have to say but, with Deputy Corry, it continually happens that, having made his contribution to the debate, he disappears from the House and is not seen here again until he comes in to make another speech. If I attack his speech now it is not for the purpose of speaking behind his back but just because he has not stood his ground. I wish to contradict the statements made here by him this evening. He has drawn particular attention to the reduction in the road grants. He mentioned County Cork. I consider that it would be well for us if, in discussing this motion, we realised that there are 26 counties under the jurisdiction of this Parliament, and that we should not confine our remarks to one particular county or one part of one particular county. Deputy Corry was not ashamed to go so far as to say that each year the inter-Party Government raided the Road Fund up to the tune of — he said at one stage — £2,000,000. Surely, in all fairness, Deputy Corry must know that that statement was not correct.
Deputy Corry was informed that that was not relevant to the motion.
It is requested quite-clearly in this motion that the road grants be increased, on the one hand, for county roads. In the first part of the motion the State is being asked to maintain entirely the main roads. Surely, therefore, we are entitled to draw attention to the measure of assistance that has been and is being given as a contribution towards these county funds.
The Deputy would be widening the scope of the motion very much.
I have no intention of doing so. In fairness to every Deputy, however, surely we are entitled to refer to the statements made clearly by a Deputy of this House.
The Chair allowed the Deputy to refer to the statement made by Deputy Corry. Deputy Corry was informed that what he said was irrelevant.
He repeated his statement twice.
And he was told that it was irrelevant.
It will be seen from the Official Report that Deputy Corry gave figures which, I maintain, are not correct. Surely, in view of those figures, I am entitled to give the correct figures in reply to them. He has given his figures and he made it quite clear to this House that he was giving them.
The Chair considers that the Deputy has made his point sufficiently.
Deputy Corry wants to make statements in this House. If I am not entitled to answer them, then all I can do is to leave the House.
The Deputy has made a reflection on the Chair. The Chair has already pointed out to the Deputy that he allowed him to make the statement in reference to what Deputy Corry said. The Deputy will withdraw any reflection on the Chair.
What is the reflection?
That it was partial — that Deputy Corry was allowed to make the statement and that Deputy Desmond was not allowed to refer to it.
On a point of order, and with great respect. Deputy Desmond did not use those words. It is a fact — as those who listened to Deputy Corry know — that, after being warned, Deputy Corry repeated the statement and repeated the assertion.
And Deputy Corry was again informed that what he was saying was irrelevant. Deputy Desmond now wishes to refer to statements that were ruled out as irrelevant.
It will be seen from the Official Report that Deputy Corry gave us facts and figures and, even if the Chair rebuked him, he still gave them. Surely, as he has given them, another Deputy would be entitled to give figures to refute the false statements made by Deputy Corry.
The Chair asserts that the Deputy was allowed sufficient time to reply to Deputy Corry's irrelevancies.
I shall leave the House rather than agree to something that is not correct.
I rise to support both sections of the motion. Regardless of what other Deputies may think, I am particularly attracted by the first section of the motion in connection with the maintenance of main and trunk roads. I have yet to hear any logical argument against that proposal. Like other Deputies, I should like to get the Minister's view on this matter before expressing my own. However, over a long period of years I have advocated this system of maintenance. I know that it has been suggested by some members of local authorities, as it was suggested by Deputy Desmond here this evening, that this would mean a lessening of the authority of local bodies but I think the correct way to approach that would be to elicit the views of the ratepayers who elect these local authorities. I have no hesitation in saying that if the ratepayers were asked what their wishes were on the question whether main or trunk roads should be maintained entirely from central funds rather than by local funds, there would be a very clear verdict in favour of maintaining these roads from central funds.
When you consider the type of traffic which travels over main and trunk roads and the fact that the ordinary ratepayers make comparatively little use of these roads, I think it is a great injustice to ask these ordinary ratepayers, few of whom have motor-cars or lorries which are the vehicles that do most damage to these roads, to pay for the maintenance of such roads. They very rarely use them except when going to markets or fairs and to ask them to bear the burden of the maintenance of trunk and main roads is a great injustice.
They are not asked to bear it.
They are asked to bear a very heavy part of it.
That is another way of putting it.
They are bearing a burden which they ought not to be asked to bear in justice and equity. When we consider that our whole transport system has been nationalised and that there is a trend in the minds of transport directors with regard to more road traffic rather than rail traffic——
And in the minds of others, I am afraid, too.
Possibly. That is my point that the roads are not being used for the purposes for which they were originally intended and it is not reasonable to ask that the ratepayers should maintain them in the condition in which they should be, if they are to bear the class of traffic that now travels over them. Córas Iompair Éireann, Bord na Móna and the sugar company, three State bodies, are the heaviest users of the roads to-day and are responsible for much of the damage done to them. When you compare the use made of the roads by these bodies with the use made of them by the ordinary people, I think you will see the injustice of having them maintained by the rates. It does not make sense to me and I do not think there is any point whatsoever in suggesting that it would be a lessening of the authority of local bodies if the liability were transferred from the rates. At any rate whether it would or not, the burden is becoming so intolerable to the ratepayers that they will not be able to maintain the roads in the condition in which it is necessary to maintain them.
This is a matter which should be discussed without reference to any particular Government or Party. It is not a question of Party politics at all; it is a question of national importance. There have been different Governments in this country and none of them has nationalised the roads in the way suggested. There is no reason why any Government should think it is being singled out for attack in this matter. All Governments have been equally culpable. Is it not time now in view of the fact that we have nationalised transport, and that we have State companies as the heaviest users of the road, to shift the burden to where it properly belongs? Deputy Desmond complains that it would be unfair and inequitable to finance this burden by direct taxation. That is a question that could be argued, but there is a far greater argument against putting the burden on the shoulders of those who now bear it. If it is suggested that the income derived from turf production benefited the people of a particular county, as admittedly it did in Laois and Offaly, and in Roscommon, too, it must be remembered that turf production was a scheme carried out in the national interest. It was embarked upon because it was in the national interest rather than with any object of enriching the people of those areas. I feel that the nation as a whole owes a debt of gratitude to the people in these counties, who produced fuel when it was not obtainable from outside sources, and it would be a very unfair approach to this problem to suggest that the people in these areas should now be made responsible for the maintenance of roads damaged by turf lorries.
The county roads have deteriorated to an alarming degree as a result of the heavy traffic imposed on them by Bord na Móna. In my own county some roads have been made impassable as a result of this traffic, and brought to a condition in which the local authority is inclined to disregard them for the future. I know that we asked Bord na Móna to make an ex gratia payment in order to put the county roads into condition in which they could be used with safety by all the users of these roads. I think it is a horrible thing that State bodies leave roads in such condition that people cannot go to Mass, and that the local authority should be called upon to restore the roads to their former condition.
There is an important question of justice and equity involved and I would impress on the Minister to give the most serious consideration to this motion and not to think that I speak upon this matter for myself alone. At any rate, I am not speaking from any political or Party motive. I have advocated this principle for many years and I think it is something the Government will have to recognise ultimately in justice to the people.
I take the risk of repeating — although there is really no risk in it — what Deputy Flanagan has said because I think I can speak with a longer experience of this House than Deputy Flanagan. I have never before in my experience in this House listened to a Deputy seconding a motion and then using his position as seconder to say everything he possibly could against the motion and against the person who put down the motion.
He stole your speech.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. That is one of the privileges of this House but seldom in my time here have we had an exhibition of that kind.
There was nobody else to second it at the time.
I refrained from intervening because I was anxious to hear what the Minister had to say. There are two important sections in the motion dealing with different principles. It is a good many years ago, nearly 30 years ago, since I supported the principle contained in the first portion of the motion, and in quite different circumstances. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Thursday, 27th November, at 10.30 a.m.