asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of each of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 (a) the total amount allocated out of the Road Fund to local authorities; and (b) the total amount allocated to each local authority.

31.

(Cavan) asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of each local authority the amount of road grants allocated for the year 1966-67 and for the year 1967-68.

32.

asked the Minister for Local Government the amounts allocated to each local authority from the Road Fund for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 respectively; and the amount of the decrease in each case.

33.

asked the Minister for Local Government if it is estimated that receipts in 1967-68 from motor vehicles duties, will exceed the amount of £10,426,000 collected in 1966-67 by £1,074,000; if so, why the total grants being allocated to local authorities in 1967-68 are being reduced; and by how much they are being so reduced.

34.

(South Tipperary) asked the Minister for Local Government the total allocation for roads and bridges determined for local authorities for 1967-68.

35.

asked the Minister for Local Government (a) the total amount allocated to County Westmeath out of the Road Fund for the year 1966-67; (b) the amount allocated this year; and (c) the reasons for the reduction.

36.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of each of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to Kilkenny County Council from the Road Fund for (a) county roads, (b) main roads and (c) arterial roads.

37.

andMr. O'Hara asked the Minister for Local Government the total amount of money allocated to County Mayo for road works in each of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 for (a) main roads, (b) tourist roads and (c) county roads.

38.

(Cavan) asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state the amount of the road grant allocated to County Cavan in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68.

39.

asked the Minister for Local Government the amount allocated out of the Road Fund for County Wicklow for the year 1966-67, and the amount allocated for the year 1967-68.

40.

andMr. O. J. Flanagan asked the Minister for Local Government (a) the amount allocated to Offaly out of the Road Fund for 1966-67, and (b) the amount allocated this year.

41.

andMr. O. J. Flanagan asked the Minister for Local Government (a) the amount allocated to Laois out of the Road Fund for 1966-67, and (b) the amount allocated this year.

42.

asked the Minister for Local Government the total amount allocated to County Kilkenny from the Road Fund in each of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68.

43.

asked the Minister for Local Government the total amount allocated to County Monaghan out of the Road Fund for the year (a) 1966-67 and (b) 1967-68.

44.

asked the Minister for Local Government the amount allocated to County Wexford from the Road Fund (a) for 1966-67 and (b) for 1967-68.

45.

andMrs. Hogan O'Higgins asked the Minister for Local Government the total road grants allocated for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 for County Galway.

46.

andMr. Reynolds asked the Minister for Local Government the amount allocated to Roscommon County Council from the Road Fund for the year 1966-67, and the total amount allocated this year.

47.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Sligo from the Road Fund.

48.

andMr. T. O'Donnell asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Limerick from the Road Fund.

49.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Longford from the Road Fund.

50.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Kildare from the Road Fund.

51.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to North Tipperary from the Road Fund.

52.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Meath from the Road Fund.

53.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Waterford from the Road Fund.

54.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Carlow from the Road Fund.

55.

andMr. S. Collins asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Cork from the Road Fund.

56.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Kerry from the Road Fund.

57.

andMr. Clinton asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Dublin from the Road Fund.

58.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in respect of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the amount allocated to County Clare from the Road Fund.

59.

andMr. Gilhawley asked the Minister for Local Government the amount allocated out of the Road Fund for County Leitrim (a) in 1966-67, and (b) in 1967-68.

60.

(South Tipperary) asked the Minister for Local Government the allocation from the Road Fund to Tipperary South Riding County Council for each of the years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68.

61.

(South Tipperary) asked the Minister for Local Government the amount allocated to Tipperary South Riding for road purposes for each of the years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68.

62.

asked the Minister for Local Government the allocation from the Road Fund to Donegal County Council for each of the years ended 31st March, 1966, 31st March, 1967 and 31st March, 1968.

63.

asked the Minister for Local Government the amount of road grant allocations notified to Louth County Council for 1967-68; and the comparative figures for each of the four preceding years.

64.

asked the Minister for Local Government the total amount allocated to Cork County Borough out of the Road Fund (a) for the year 1965-66 and (b) for the year 1966-67; and if in making the 1966-67 allocation he took into consideration the increased mileage to be catered for in that year because of the extension of the Borough.

I propose with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to reply to Questions Nos. 30-64 together and to circulate with the Official Report a tabular statement setting out details of Road Fund grant allocations made to each road authority in respect of the financial year 1966-67 and in so far as they are available at present, similar details in respect of the current financial year and such additional information not included in the foregoing as has been requested by a number of Deputies.

Deputies will find in the table I am circulating the information they have sought in respect of the counties in which they are particularly interested and information as to the total allocations this year and last. Deputies who are members of county or county borough councils will appreciate that I cannot at this stage give details of the actual amounts of the main road upkeep grant for this year as such amounts are contingent on provisions made by the road authorities for main road maintenance and the particulars of such provisions have not yet been supplied to my Department by the road authorities concerned.

In view of the special interest being displayed by Opposition Deputies I think it is desirable that I should make a general statement on this question of the allocation of grants from the Road Fund to road authorities. In order that the present vastly increased activity on road improvement and maintenance and its financing can be properly understood it is necessary to indicate the principal steps that have been taken since the Road Fund was taken over by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1957 in an insolvent condition. It was first of all necessary as a matter of extreme urgency to arrange for supplementing Road Fund income in 1957-58 by borrowing £900,000 from the Exchequer. In this way the Road Fund was able to discharge pressing commitments to road authorities which had been left unpaid. Deputies will remember that the serious condition of the Road Fund at that time was largely due to the abstraction from it in 1956-57 of a sum of half a million pounds for ordinary Exchequer purposes.

(Cavan): £1,211,000 was extracted last year.

Wait for it, Deputy.

Since then the present high level of road improvement and maintenance has been reached by the introduction of new schemes of grants and the expansion of existing schemes. These measures included—(a) the introduction of a scheme of grants for the improvement of urban roads in 1960-61, (b) an increase in the rate of the main road upkeep grant from 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the approved provisions made by road authorities for maintenance of main roads as from 1962-63, (c) the introduction of a scheme of grants for the improvement of arterial routes in 1962-63, (d) the introduction of a scheme of grants for improvement of county borough roads in 1964-65, (e) the introduction of special arrangements in 1965-66 for financing the undertaking of traffic surveys in urban areas where traffic congestion has been posing serious problems, (f) the introduction of a scheme of grants in 1959-60 to finance the installation of public lighting schemes and (g) the assignment of special functions to An Foras Forbartha in the field of road research.

This is clear evidence of the consistent determination of the Government to pursue a progressive roads policy and this policy has been successfully carried through in spite of equally determined opposition. I hope that the interest displayed on this subject today by Opposition Deputies is an indication of their conversion even at this late stage to the need for such a policy in face of the demands of increasing road traffic.

Is it in order——

We are not allowed to make a statement.

On a point of order, is it in order for Ministers in dealing with Parliamentary Questions to deal with them in the manner in which the Minister is dealing with these? It has never been done before——

Except by this Minister.

——that imputations should be made in relation to Deputies who ask Parliamentary Questions. Surely that is not in order?

I assume this is a reply to the questions which the Minister has got.

Thirty-five questions.

It is without precedent.

Surely it is entirely without precedent that in replying to Parliamentary Questions a Minister should make comments on the motives or attitudes of other Deputies in relation to the questions they have asked.

It seems to the Chair that these questions have reference to the Road Fund grants and such matters as would arise relevantly from that. I assume the Minister is giving the reply to those questions.

That is right.

He is not.

Will I continue, Sir, or start again?

On a further point of order, if a Deputy asking a supplementary question is not allowed to make a speech, how is the Minister allowed to make a speech in answering Questions? This is a political speech for the local elections.

There are 35 Questions.

The Minister in giving his reply necessarily makes a more detailed statement than the Deputy who asks the question.

Is it in order to comment on those questions in his reply?

I did not notice the Minister commenting.

He did, a moment ago.

Indeed he did.

The questions on the Order Paper seek statistical information, no more and no less. It is our respectful submission that the remarks made by the Minister are such that if they were made in a supplementary question, you would properly rule that they did not properly arise out of the question. We submit on a point of order that the same ruling should apply to both sides of the House.

The same rule applies as to the relevancy of such matters. The Chair is assuming that the Minister is dealing with matters that arise relevantly from questions put down by the Deputies.

The Minister is making an election speech.

I was afraid Deputies might not understand.

(Cavan): Is it in order for the Minister, instead of answering the questions on the Order Paper, to try to create a smokescreen or an umbrella under which he can escape.

The Deputy will not expect me to accept every statement of that kind that is made.

Will I continue?

On a point of order, all the questions refer to the years 1965 to date—1965 is the earliest year— and the Minister is purporting to go back over a decade and more.

I want to make sure Deputies understand the tabular statement.

Our respectful submission is that in answering questions the Minister must be guided by the same rules of relevancy as are applicable to other Members. Otherwise the procedure of this Assembly becomes farcical.

I was afraid Deputies would not understand.

There is one set of rules for one side and another for the other side.

The Deputy is an expert in disorder.

We know whose jersey the ref is wearing—not for the first time. Democracy, how are you!

Deputy Sweetman in Question No. 33 asks me to confirm the estimate of total receipts from motor vehicle duties for 1967-68 and the figure for actual receipts for 1966-67. This I do but I must point out to the Deputy that last year in order to finance the improved services, which the Government decided to provide, it was necessary to increase revenue. For this purpose the rates of duty on private cars and cycles were increased in the Finance Act, 1966. These increases were imposed for general Exchequer purposes and consequently the proceeds do not accrue and never have accrued to the Road Fund. Obviously then the income of the Road Fund was not affected in any way by this decision which while enabling the roads programme to proceed at a reasonable pace in relation to our circumstances also ensured that much needed extra revenue would be available for other urgent social purposes. The estimated income of the Road Fund for 1967-68 is, of course, greater than the actual income for 1966-67 but Road Fund allocations for 1967-68 have to take account of all the factors, including the growth in commitments consequent on a short fall in revenue in 1966-67 and the fact that a substantial amount of work remains to be done, and paid for, under grants allocated prior to 1967-68.

In making comparisons between the allocations made available this year and those made available last year this must be borne in mind. Due to delays associated with land acquisition and the preparation of plans and specifications and in certain cases the placing of contracts, it is inevitable that the full amounts of grants allocated will not be spent in the financial year. This is especially relevant to improvement works in the cities and to the bigger schemes on the arterial routes. It is also relevant to major bridge projects such as Valentia Bridge for which a special increased grant of £205,000 was made available last year and on which work will not commence until this year. Work on this project will commence at the earliest practicable date. I am in constant touch through my officials with the officials of the county council and I am satisfied that everything possible is being done to have the necessary preliminaries to the formal signing of the contract expedited. There was also exceptional and substantial expenditure last year on New Ross bridge.

Because of the factors I have mentioned the allocations notified in a particular year are not an exact measure of the likely expenditure on roads in that year but it is my responsibility to preserve a reasonable balance between the total volume of authorised grant-aided road works and the amounts available for grants payments on foot of such works. In fact the actual amount available for payments on foot of grants this year is estimated at £8.9 million against £8.4 million last year.

In view of this it is ridiculous for Opposition Deputies to pretend that the allocations notified this year indicate that their objectives of decreasing expenditure on roads have been accepted by the Government.

The whole question of financing works on the roads is a complicated matter and it is dishonest for Opposition Deputies to endeavour to equate exactly the work to be done in any one year with the allocations notified for that year. And, of course, if allocations were to be made without any reference to the extent of existing commitments, the Road Fund would again quickly become insolvent as it did under the Coalition Government.

Hear, hear.

On a point of order——

Chair.

Will the Minister listen to somebody?

I thought it was the usual noise.

I did not hear the last few remarks of the Minister but it is clear now that the Minister has been making comments on those who have tabled these questions. All of them were put down by ordinary Deputies and he has attributed certain motives to them. I suggest this form of reply is clearly out of order.

And was so ruled out of order by Mr. Fahy when he was Ceann Comhairle.

And the reply was to a question being answered by the then Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Seán MacBride.

Replies on these line have been allowed on questions.

Let it go: it will not do him any good.

In view of the unusual interest in the roads programme on the part of the Opposition Deputies this year I am sure they will be glad to hear that a number of important forward looking studies affecting the entire field of road administration, organisation and financing are being conducted by An Foras Forbartha and by my Department and are well advanced. These studies will I am confident prove to be extremely valuable to the task of providing a modern efficient road network.

Following is the statement:

TOTAL Road Fund Grant allocations, 1966-67=£9,700,000. Total Road Fund Grant allocations, 1967-68=£8,942,000*

*Includes an estimated figure for Main Road Upkeep Grant.

†These allocations include special grants for bridges, traffic surveys, etc.

‡Does not include Main Road Upkeep Grant—see note below.

NOTE:

1. The figures for 1967-68 do not include the amounts of the individual allocations in respect of Main Road Upkeep Grant. This grant is based on the provision made by the road authorities concerned for works of maintenance on main roads in the current financial year. Pending receipt and examination in the Department of details of such provision the amounts of the allocations to the individual road authorities cannot be determined and, accordingly, the difference between the amounts of the allocations in each case for the two years cannot be stated.

2. In addition to the allocations shown for 1967/68, provision has been made for the allocation of a sum of £500,000 to the Dublin road authorities (Dublin County Council, Dublin Corporation and Dún Laoghaire Corporation) for the continuation of improvement works on the arterial routes in the Dublin area. This provision is a continuation of the policy initiated in 1947 and repeated in 1964.

DONEGAL COUNTY COUNCIL:—

Road Fund Grant allocations for the year 1965-66, £571,532.

KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL:—

LOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL:—

Road Fund grant allocations:—

MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL:—

TIPPERARY SR COUNTY COUNCIL:—

Road Fund Grant allocations for the year 1965-66: £288,654.

Amount allocated for road purposes:—

CORK CORPORATION:—

Road Fund Grant allocation for the year 1965-66:—£78,126. Road mileage is not the determining factor for Road Fund Grant allocations to County Boroughs.

This is treating Deputies with contempt.

You can listen to him; I shall not.

This is the cackle of the Fianna Fáil election speech. Is it not a fact, as the Minister should have given in his reply to Question No. 50, that the allocation to County Kildare this year is down by £100,000? Is it not also a fact that if the Minister for Finance did not draw out of the Road Fund the amount that is in there and which is being taken to the Exchequer, this decrease in the allocation would not have arisen? Is it not a fact known to the Minister for Local Government and to anybody else that whether he calls the rose by any other name it stinks just as badly when one and a quarter millions is taken out of the Road Fund?

There is no extraction from the Road Fund.

What about motor vehicle duty?

Increases in taxation which were imposed in last year's Budget were for the specific purpose of paying the benefits provided for in that Budget.

Which the old age pensioners did not get.

It had nothing whatever to do with the Road Fund. That taxation was never intended to accrue to the Road Fund. When Deputy Sweetman talks about money being taken out of the Road Fund, he is thinking back ten or 11 years when he took out £500,000 which was due to the Road Fund. We had to borrow £900,000 the following year from the Exchequer to pay the commitments the Coalition Government were unable to pay largely because of the fact that Deputy Sweetman raided the Road Fund for £500,000.

(Cavan): Is it not a fact that the road grant to Cavan has been cut this year, as compared with last year, by 24 per cent or by £46,000 in round figures?

There is about £100,000 cut in the allocation for Kildare.

To get a picture of the volume of work to be done on the road, one must take the outstanding commitments as well as the grants.

Gobbledegook— that is what it is.

The financing of the road programme is a complicated matter and is not as simple as Deputies would like on this occasion to pretend it is. It is not a simple matter of comparing the total amount of allocation one year with another.

One and a half million pounds in motor vehicle duty has been taken out.

It is necessary to look at a longer period——

(Cavan): Is the Minister aware that the county engineer for Monaghan has been reported as saying that the cut in the grant for that county will lead to wholesale unemployment because he will not be able to get on with the road programme for the year?

Arising out of the Minister's smokescreen, is it not true that road grants have been cut by 25 per cent, that in County Westmeath there has been a cut of £65,000? Is it not also true that county councils throughout Ireland this year will have to let off about quarter of their men, that they will be able to keep their men for eight months only and then have to send them home on the dole? Has the Minister any regard for the thousands of workmen who will suffer due to the cutting of 25 per cent of road allocations?

The allocation is approximately 50 per cent more than it was in 1956-57.

What is the comparable cost of making roads?

Less, in many cases.

It is like the rents and the rates—they went up, and so did the cost of living.

What about emigration?

Emigration is well up.

(Cavan): Is there £46,000 less coming to County Cavan this year by way of road grant? I want to ask if it is in order for the Minister for Agriculture to be making a puppet on a string, a Charley McCarthy, out of his colleague?

Is it not true that the road grant to County Westmeath, as notified to us last week by the county manager and the county secretary, has been cut by £64,700?

The Deputy will read all about it in the Official Report.

Still £100,000 more than the Deputy gave in his period.

We cannot give the figures for main road upkeep yet.

The money is cut by £65,000 this year.

(Cavan): Might I ask the Minister, if this is the best he can do on the eve of the elections, what the real state of the country is and if we will have another Budget after the election is over?

Of course we will. It is last year all over.

This Government goes for financial recitude, whether there is an election forthcoming or not.

Do what you did last year.

We keep the Road Fund completely solvent; you made the Road Fund bankrupt.

Order. Question No. 65.

(Cavan): The Minister has not given the information even in reply to supplementaries.

Road Fund robbers.

We never touched the Road Fund. The Deputy is thinking back to 1956-57.

Sack the road workers.

We never touched the Road Fund.

May I ask one more question?

Chair.

I will allow one more question on this series of questions.

May I inquire from the Minister whether, if a person abstracts money from an envelope addressed to his employer, it is not just as much embezzlement as if he took it after the money had been received? That is what the Minister is doing.

The Minister for Finance came here openly last year and asked the Dáil to increase taxes in order to increase certain specified benefits and to provide new ones; and this House agreed to do it—not the people on the opposite side but the House by a majority authorised these increases in taxes for certain purposes. The money was spent for those purposes last year and it will be spent in that way this year—to provide increased benefits given in the Budget. The money has nothing whatever to do with the Road Fund.