I just wish to corroborate previous speakers in regard to the heavy burden that must be carried by local county councils and local authorities in regard to roads, and to point out that, in addition to all the roads now being carried in the county programme, there are many counties, such as my own and along the western seaboard generally, with a very large mileage of roads which the county council do not maintain or repair and for which they have not got any funds to do anything about them. We find that, in times gone by, the only possible hope for these roads was through this fund before us here to-day.
I want to make it clear that, in looking at the financial provisions for the coming year under this Vote, we find that the overall financial position for the coming financial year shows a net increase of £6,000 odd. When you consider that net increase of £6,000 on the total sum of £700,000, it can be seen that that increase is not going to make any impression because of the higher cost of doing the work in the coming year as against last year. When we look further, we realise that this little increase of £6,000 is really not an actual increase as far as getting work done is concerned, but, in fact, is an increase in salaries, wages, incidental expenses, telephone charges and telegram charges. We then see that, in fact, during the coming financial year we will have exactly the same amount of money with which to do all the work we want to do throughout the country and that that money in the year to come will actually get less work done, due to increased costs, than the same amount did last year.
We can see for ourselves that our position in regard to these roads done under rural improvement, minor employment and bog development schemes, is that the money available for the coming 12 months will, in fact, do much less work than the amount of work we got done under this heading last year. I feel that that is a retrograde step and that it is neglecting something which is a vital link for the people of rural Ireland who have not got the services of county roads and who do not get any money from the county council to look after these roads serving their homes in the more remote districts of the country.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he has allowed himself to be pushed into in this case and to consider that he has the backing of the members on this side of the House, and quite a number on his own side of the House if, even at this late stage, he looks for further money for this office in order to do the rural improvement and minor employment schemes about which we are concerned. He has the backing of the vast majority of the members of this House in getting money for that very desirable job of work which is being carried on over the years and which we want to see carried on at a greater pace in the year to come rather than at last year's pace.
I should also like to follow up what Deputy Beegan has said in regard to rural improvement schemes. Surely something further could be done in regard to these schemes? We have at the moment many roads which serve large numbers of people. These roads are not a charge on the county council, but the council may, because of their nature, improve them; and in many cases, whether they have the money or not, they must take over the roads, do them and maintain them. If we try to get a rural improvement grant for such roads, we are up against a certain difficulty. There may possibly be 40 people living on a road and, in addition, the road may be used by the public generally for other purposes. In that case, we find it almost impossible to get the local contribution that is asked for. In some cases, even if the grant is available, we find it impossible to get an unknown number of people, perhaps, to contribute their share to the local contribution in order to qualify for the grant.
Deputy Beegan said that he felt, as I do and as many others do, that, in such cases as that, where the local authority believes that the doing of such a road would be of benefit to the public generally, and where it is difficult to get the local contribution, then, if the council so thinks fit, they should be empowered either to pay part of the local contribution, or all of it, if they think it is of outstanding importance that the road should be done. I know quite a few such jobs which fell through because of certain difficulties.
I think it is a pity that should happen, but, human nature being what it is, it is really impossible in a large number of cases to get each person concerned to put down the money in equal amounts for a job which may benefit one slightly more than another. The usual comment by one or two of the people concerned will be: "It will not do me much good. I did without it up to this and I can do without it now." Very often, one will find that the real reason for this lack of co-operation is that the person who does not want to co-operate has that idea and feels that somebody else who lives further down, and whom he does not particularly like, will benefit more than he will.
That situation should not be allowed to continue and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary as has been suggested to him before, that the regulation should be changed, so that the local authority may, if they think fit, contribute the local contribution for any of these necessary works, such as the improvement of cul-de-sac roads serving quite a few of the public. In addition to that, I suggest that these roads, having been contributed to in part by the local authority, should then be handed over to the local authority, from the point of view of their repair and maintenance in the future.
In answer to Deputy Palmer, who put up the case that in his county— and this happens in other counties, too—they have more roads than they can look after from a financial point of view, I suggest that not only should the council be empowered to take them over after they have been done under a rural improvement scheme, but there should, at the same time, be a commensurate increase in their maintenance road grants from the appropriate Department, namely, Local Government, to cover the maintenance of any such roads they may take over in any particular year.
That is not a new departure. It is not a new suggestion. It is an accepted article of policy, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, and it was published as such by us during the last local government elections. We make a present of that item of our policy to the present Minister, the present Parliamentary Secretary and his Government. We would suggest that, despite the fact that it is a Fianna Fáil sponsored suggestion and a Fianna Fáil item of policy, that will not make it any the less useful to the people generally, should the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary think it worth their while to incorporate it in their policy. As far as we are concerned, we will give him all the support he requires to get these provisions through, in order to give the people in the more remote rural areas a service they do not now enjoy and cannot enjoy under our present system of road maintenance and repair.
In relation to minor employment and bog schemes, again all I can say is that the amount shown in the Book of Estimates is exactly similar to the amount provided last year. That being so, we shall have a lesser mileage of bog road schemes and fewer minor improvement schemes in the current 12 months since the amount of money will not go as far, because of increased costs. I know, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows, since he, too, comes from the West, that apart from there not being enough money last year, there will be much too little this year. We should get much more money now for these jobs than we have been getting in the past. We want more bog roads done and we want more minor employment schemes throughout the whole western region, right down from Donegal to Kerry. We will not have that extra work in the present financial year, since the provision is identical with that of last year.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary has a very strong case now to go back to his colleagues—I am sure many of them hold the same views as I am expressing here—and tell them that the money is not sufficient in the current financial year. Any addition that is made will not only be advantageous in the making and repairing of bog roads and carrying out minor schemes of drainage, but will, at the same time, provide in the poorer districts and in the congested areas that much-needed employment during the coming 12 months.
I come from a county in which we have a good deal of unemployment. The other afternoon I happened to be where the unemployed were signing on for unemployment assistance. In a small parish in the North of Donegal, I found no less than 300 able-bodied young men signing for unemployment assistance in the month of May, 1956. There are no schemes in operation in that parish at the moment, despite the fact that many of the people who were signing on for unemployment assistance live in the most backward and out of the way places, with no proper access to their homes.
Surely cognisance should be taken of as many as 300 able-bodied young men signing on for unemployment assistance in a small parish in rural Ireland. That position could be a good deal, if more money was provided under this Estimate. Apparently nothing is taken into consideration, so far as these people are concerned. What I saw happening represents the 300 that have remained. At least another 600 born in the same parish are to-day over in England and Scotland and Wales. Some of them may come back. Most of them will not come back, and the danger is that most of the 300 left behind signing on for unemployment assistance will go, too, if they see no hope held out to them at home.
Much could be done under this Vote and the Parliamentary Secretary could do a good deal for these people. I have only instanced that parish. The same story can be told of every other parish down the western coastline from Donegal to Kerry. The same, or relative, figures could be quoted. Yet, instead of extra provision being made to cater for that situation, we find exactly the same provision being made as was made last year.
I have already pointed out that that money will not go so far. It will not provide as much work. Indeed, it will give less work to a lesser number of people for a shorter space of time. Surely such a retrograde step is bound to have repercussions. I understand that, in order to induce people to avail of rural improvement schemes, towards which a contribution ranging from 5 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the cost is usually asked from the beneficiaries, the people contributing get preference so far as work on such schemes is concerned. I think that is a very good idea for two reasons: one is that it induces the people to put up the local contribution and co-operate with other members of the community in the district; secondly, the biggest inducement of all is that the beneficiaries and the contributors are assured of work on the job, and, apart from the amount they may earn, they are assured, when they are actually engaged on the job, that the job will be done properly.
I wonder whether or not that is the case at the moment, and whether we can take it that, in future, when we are asking people to come together and trying to encourage them to contribute to their own rural improvement scheme, they will have the satisfaction of knowing that they will be given work on that scheme and be able to work on the scheme, so that they can see that the work is done properly and that full value is being got for the money expended.
To many people, that might not seem very important, but, to my mind, it is an important matter. I have encouraged people to go in for rural employment applications rather than minor employment schemes. I find that it is an encouragement to them to know that they can get work, if they contribute to these schemes. That fact would be the greatest asset in getting their co-operation and would have a much greater effect in that way than anything else I know of. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this question and deal with the matter in that way.
I do not think that there is much more that I have to add on this matter, except to say that we on this side of the House are very anxious about the people of rural Ireland and to see that more money is allocated to ensure that necessary work can be done to lighten the hardships and make easier the lives of the people of rural Ireland, so that they will be encouraged to stay there and not emigrate, as so many of their families have done before. We will give the Parliamentary Secretary every co-operation and support in any efforts he may make to secure more money for this necessary work of rural improvement, minor development, and bog development.