Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1962

Vol. 197 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion :—

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy Donegan.)

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. O'Malley)

I was referring last night to the various points raised by Deputies, when progress was reported. Deputies Donegan, Corish, Davern and, indeed, a big number of Deputies referred to the reduction in the amount of money available for urban schemes. As I explained in my opening statement, there is a substantial reduction— almost 10 per cent.—in the number of unemployment assistance recipients in urban areas. There was a reduction of £27,000 in the provision this year compared with last year, a reduction of almost 10 per cent. As will be seen the reduction in the funds made available is, for all practical purposes, proportionate to the reduction in the number of unemployment assistance recipients.

Deputy Corish admitted in his statement that it would cost millions to provide employment for every unemployed person in urban areas. With the call on the public purse, an approach of that kind, admittedly, is just not realistic. Take Dublin as an example. These are astonishing figures and possibly may cause an amount of comment. In my opinion, the system of unemployment relief, as envisaged in latter years, will require to be radically organised and much serious thinking will have to take place. In Dublin, it costs between £35 and £40 per week to give one unemployment assistance recipient one week's employment.

Mr. Cosgrave

Does that include the wages?

Mr. O'Malley

Yes. I am picking out Dublin. Perhaps in Cork, Limerick and other places, there would be a very close relationship.

Mr. A. Barry

This is because of the system of check and countercheck, and so on?

Mr. O'Malley

It is mainly the fact that machinery plays such a big part now, mainly in the allocation. The works now available in Dublin provide approximately only 25 per cent. in unskilled labour costs. When you multiply that figure 50 times—a round figure—a figure of over £2,000 a year is reached to give one man employment for one year.

Mr. A. Barry

There is labour content for only one man?

Mr. O'Malley

That is right. I shall repeat the figures because it is quite obvious——

Mr. A. Barry

They are frightening.

Mr. O'Malley

They are very frightening. We shall have to consider the matter very closely and see what can be done. There was a time when, as we know, the labour content on these employment schemes was very high.

Mr. A. Barry

Sixty or 70 per cent.

Mr. O'Malley

Now, the tendency is that these proportions have become very apparent.

Mr. Cosgrave

In recent years, how many, on an average, would you employ on that?

Mr. O'Malley

Every unemployment assistance recipient, say, in Dublin, with three or four children and upwards, gets 12 weeks' work and that goes on the whole year around. Now, when I gave Deputy A. Barry that figure of £2,000 as the cost of employing one man for one year, it will be understood that one man does not get a year's work.

Mr. Cosgrave

But a man is employed the whole year?

Mr. O'Malley

Yes.

Mr. A. Barry

They are frightening figures.

Mr. O'Malley

It is as well that these matters should be disclosed here. I invite any Deputy who might have constructive suggestions to submit them to me. He will have my very grateful thanks and appreciation. I can assure him that they will be thoroughly investigated.

Various inter-departmental committes were set up by different Governments in the past. I think the last was in 1945-46, a committee on State-aided schemes. It took me several nights to read the report of that committee. I do not want to cast any aspersions on my predecessor, Deputy Smith, now Minister for Agriculture, and the other people who were the nucleus of that committee. They went to a reasonable amount of trouble and spent considerable time on it and the report was interesting and enlightening, but the net result was that they did not come up with any solution to the problem or with any concrete recommendation. However, as Deputy Cosgrave has said, times have changed.

Mr. Cosgrave

These would be employable men?

Mr. O'Malley

If there were 2,500 unemployment recipients in January, it means an expenditure of £5,000,000, as a shot estimate, and that will give Deputies an idea of what is involved. These people who get 12 weeks' work in one year are in receipt of unemployment assistance for the remainder of the year. Of course, that does not happen in the other areas. It does not happen in Cork or Limerick. It is a godsend for an unemployment assistant recipient to get that twelve weeks' work, particularly around Christmas time.

I do not know what the solution of the problem would be. I know that the Minister for Local Government is aware of the position and he has invited me to have informal discussions with him to see what changes we can work out. I had in mind a scheme but it might cause a certain amount of disturbance or anxiety in trade union circles. However, if it is to cost £2,000 to put an unemployed man to work for one year, instead of having him working with the pick on what is not, at times, very productive work, I would prefer, with the co-operation of the trade unions, to see some of these very adaptable young men trained at some trade of a skilled or semi-skilled nature which might be of good use to them at some time. That suggestion has not been examined. At the moment it is a very vague proposition.

Mr. A. Barry

In the long run, it would be much more productive.

Mr. Tully

It would not take care of the hard core of unemployables.

Mr. O'Malley

What Deputy Tully says is quite true but we have come across instances of people who have been offered this type of work, a very fine type of individual, adaptable, and good workers. I agree that, notwithstanding that, we will always have the unfortunate type of individual who cannot fit into any of these categories and the Government of the day will always have to make provision for them.

Mr. Tully

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary should not have to deal with the type of people he speaks of. Relief schemes are not the answer to the problem of those people.

Mr. O'Malley

I am posing a query to the House. I may agree with the Deputy's observation but I am informing the House of the unfortunate position which obtains at the present time and which will have to be faced. It will not be decided by us here tonight but it will have to be decided by you and me and others in co-operation. We will have to see how we can solve this problem so as to ensure that this vast amount of money will be spent in a more beneficial way, on more people and on more productive work.

Mr. A. Barry

That is the sensible way to look at it.

Mr. Tully

You are quite right.

Mr. O'Malley

I wanted to say something more about the method being employed in Dublin so as to have it on the record but I do not appear to have it here. Deputy Donegan mentioned the limited amount of employment given on Road Fund work as compared with previous years, having regard to the increased cost of machinery. I am not dealing with the Local Government Road Fund; I am dealing with the comparatively small amount devoted to the Employment Schemes Office. Deputy Donegan may be right in saying that less employment is now available but I would draw the attention of Deputies to the increase in Dublin from £80,000 to £400,000. Similar increases have taken place in a number of other centres.

Deputy Donegan referred to the position in Drogheda regarding Road Fund employment. In 1960-61, including main road improvements and upkeep, the amount allocated to Drogheda was £5,184. This year, Drogheda got £25,000 for the reconstruction of West Street on the main Dublin to Belfast road and the total amount which Drogheda got is £30,627.

Mr. Tully

The labour content of that would be very small.

Mr. O'Malley

In 1960-61, the contribution from the Road Fund was £700 and the local contribution was £800. In 1961-62, the contribution was £4,750 and the local contribution was £800. Whatever about any other place having a "crib", Drogheda did not do too badly.

Deputy Corish referred to the date on which the census of employment is taken whereby these figures are based on three weeks in January. He questioned that position. In our experience, the incidence of unemployment is greatest in that period. Apparently there are special circumstances in Wexford where during a particular period in the summer, when work evidently is slack, the number of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance is higher than in January. That is a statistical phenomenon. I do not exactly know what the explanation is.

In fact, the Special Employment Schemes Office do not provide employment in respect of unemployed persons in urban areas. It is only persons in receipt of unemployment assistance who are catered for and the monthly statistics available do not give separate figures for all the different areas which qualify for these grants. Therefore, a special census would have to be taken, the preparation of which, and its tabulation, would take a considerable time. A census taken later than January would delay the allocation of the grants.

In the matter of rural improvements schemes, reference was made by several Deputies to delays in submitting such schemes. Deputy Tully complained about such delays, which hold up the apportionment of the money available. I can tell the Deputy now that the amount of money available is notified to the local authorities in the last week of July or the first week of August usually, and that gives local authorities a number of months in which to prepare the necessary schemes. These schemes are administered through the Department of Local Government and I shall certainly see whether it is possible to have the allocations notified to local authorities at an earlier date. I shall bring Deputy Tully's complaint to the notice of the Minister for Local Government. I would say that some of the delays could be overcome if members of local authorities urged county and city managers and their officials to prepare these schemes on time. After all, it is not such a hard job. Local authorities do not get all that much money to spend on these schemes and surely it is not too much to ask that such schemes, involving such small amounts of money, be prepared on time.

Mr. Tully

They could not care less. If the will were there, they would do it.

Mr. O'Malley

That may be in certain instances, but we have no evidence of that.

Mr. Tully

There is plenty of evidence.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy P. J. Burke and others spoke about the time of year in which this work is carried out in urban areas. Deputy Burke seemed to think it would be desirable to have these works carried out in a period other than winter so that better value could be got for the money spent. I would point out to him that we must bear in mind the purpose of these schemes and be realistic about it. We must appreciate that it is in winter the greatest hardship falls on the unemployed. These moneys are primarily intended for relief of these unfortunate unemployed people and I feel sure that, accepting such a position, Deputies will agree that the winter period is the most desirable time in which to provide such work. We are all agreed that if we were catering for productive work, the summer time would be the best time in which to do it. We shall, however, keep these matters under continuous investigation and bring about any variations and improvements we think necessary.

In the same context, I would point out that people who are drawing unemployment assistance are doing so only after public investigation of their circumstances. I believe it is generally accepted this is the fairest kind of check that can be kept on cases of hardship and consequently on the recruitment of employees under these schemes.

On the question of minor improvement schemes, Deputy Geoghegan referred to the method by which selection is made. He asked who picked out the schemes and how they were decided upon. The amount of grants available in respect of these schemes is determined by the number of individuals in receipt of unemployment assistance in a particular electoral division. With the sum available fixed within the limit of the £130,000 available under the appropriate subhead, the Special Employments Schemes Office examine the reports in respect of such matters as accommodation roads within each electoral division. The scheme selected is always, in the view of that Office, the most urgently required in the area, having regard both to cost and to the amount of money available.

Of course, I do not expect that all decisions on selections by the Office will meet with the approval of Deputies at all times. Perhaps a Deputy will have made representations about a certain road he thought should be done and another road is done instead. It is impossible to satisfy every Deputy and every public representative in every case, but if I am given precise particulars about suggested wrong selections, I shall certainly look into the circumstances and if I find an injustice has been done, I shall try to rectify it.

Mr. Gallagher

Could the clearing of obstructions in arterial rivers be deemed to be a minor improvement scheme?

Mr. O'Malley

I do not think it has been the policy of this Office to interfere in rivers which would eventually be the subject of arterial drainage under the Act of 1945. There are cases where obstructions occur in minor schemes and we could do that type of work.

Mr. Gallagher

There are a number of such rivers in my constituency and even small amounts of money would help to relieve heavy flooding from time to time.

Mr. O'Malley

If the Deputy will give my Office the details of these, they will be examined. Deputy Geoghegan referred to the fact that in Connemara sand and gravel are carried into districts from 20 miles away when local materials could be used. The Deputy must admit there are many areas in Connemara where suitable finishing material is just not available. Is that not right?

Mr. Geoghegan

Up to two years ago, it was all right. It was in the past two years the change took place.

Mr. O'Malley

To what does the Deputy attribute the change?

Mr. Geoghegan

I leave that to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. O'Malley

In the case of Gaeltacht schemes carried out by the Special Employment Schemes Office on behalf of the Department of the Gaeltacht and in some rural employment schemes in that area, where substantial contributions have been collected, it is desirable to do a good finishing job on these roads so that they will be put into good order and condition to enable the county council to take them over and maintain them. It is quite true that in a number of these cases, the engineers of the Special Employment Schemes Office have found it necessary to haul gravel long distances. If the Deputy will let me know where we can get as good type of gravel and sand nearer, I will be very happy to see that we draw from that pit.

The bulk of the money used in reconstructing the roads to a final finish is invariably spent in the immediate locality where materials of a suitable type are easily available. In the case of the minor employment schemes, the limited money available in many instances does not permit the Special Employment Schemes Office to do a very good job. Where the beneficiaries desire a better standard job undertaken, the rural employment scheme is available to them for a relatively small contribution.

A number of Deputies raised the question of the odd difficult farmer who refuses to sign the consent form. I referred to this problem in my remarks last night. Where this Office repair existing roads to their present width and where there is no widening or other serious interference with a man's property, this Office are prepared to go ahead, notwithstanding the fact that one difficult man refuses to give his consent to the proposal. However, where widening is involved which would cause serious interference to a man's property, we would be open to a charge of trespass if we proceeded without the consent of the owner of the property. Generally speaking, only about one per cent. of the cases dealt with under minor employment, bog development and rural improvement schemes create this kind of problem. In many cases, the local clergyman and other influential people have succeeded in getting the objections withdrawn. It is not too common a complaint. We try to effect an amicable settlement in most instances.

With regard to the taking over of schemes by county councils, nearly everyone who contributed to the debate referred to the rural improvement schemes for which, as I indicated in my opening remarks, a provision of £225,000 was made—an increase of £25,000 on last year's Estimate. Most Deputies referred to the desirability of county councils taking over these roads when completed under the rural improvement schemes.

Deputy Donegan referred to a figure of £210,000 for County Louth which was the amount of money required to bring all the accommodation roads in Louth up to a standard which would enable the county council to maintain them subsequently. The Local Government Act of 1953 enables county councils to take over for maintenance any road of public utility. It was never envisaged under that Act that the State would provide the funds necessary to bring these roads up to county council standards. Deputies who were then in the House will recall the clear case made in respect of that Bill that all the county councils wanted was the power to take over the roads and they would provide the money, not all the money. The sum of £210,000 was the estimated full cost of bringing the roads in a small county like Louth to a proper standard. Meath County Council has gone a long way towards providing the necessary funds. Meath, as we know, is one of the richest counties in the country.

Mr. T. Lynch

It would not be as rich as Louth, acre for acre.

Mr. O'Malley

It is one of the richest counties. They have gone a long distance towards providing the necessary funds and they deserve every credit but there are many other areas in the country where the cost to the rates of doing this would be prohibitive. Even a comparatively small annual programme could mount up the county rates appreciably over a period of years. Even a ten-year programme could become quite substantial.

I should like to make it clear that the rural improvement scheme was not designed to relieve county councils of the burden of improving such roads at all. Its purpose was and is to assist farmers to carry out their responsibilities for the upkeep of farm and accommodation roads which are used by them daily. It is therefore a fundamental condition of the rural improvement schemes that the farmers themselves must pay the appropriate relatively small contribution. This contribution is scaled in accordance with the average rateable valuation of the land served and, as will be seen from the statement circulated by me with my Estimate speech, the grant goes as high as 90 per cent. of the cost and is available to farmers whose land valuation does not exceed £7, and so on pro rata. Between £25 and £50, for instance, farmers are asked to pay one-quarter and the State provides the other three-quarters.

I should like to commend to the attention of Deputies the approach of Deputy W. Murphy from Clare on this problem. I think he said there should be more appreciation by the farmers of the generous grants made available under rural improvement schemes. He advised that everybody should not look for full cost grants for everything. That is a recommendation I particularly endorse.

Some Deputies suggested the county councils should be enabled to contribute towards rural improvement scheme grants. From what I already said, Deputies will understand that county councils cannot be permitted to make the contribution which farmers are required to make under the conditions of the scheme. The beneficiaries must make the contribution themselves but where county council property is concerned, such as council cottages or cemeteries, if they are at the end of a byroad or a link road, or half way up it, we are prepared to accept a contribution from the county council.

Mr. Corry

To get the dead fellows out on polling day.

Mr. O'Malley

The hearse cannot be going over bumps and potholes. We accept in those instances. In the case of cottages, we accept contributions from the councils. I presume these will be non-vested cottages. We permit them to pay a reasonable share of the contribution.

This is an important point about which several Deputies have written to me or asked for information. What are the rules and regulations about county councils taking over roads on which we carry out work under the scheme? Generally, most councils are now prepared to take over for maintenance accommodation roads which are put in good repair under a rural improvement scheme, assuming that the farmer beneficiaries have put up the necessary contribution. We welcome that development. This is particularly the case in the counties of which I have a note here, Galway, Roscommon, Cork, Tipperary, Kildare and Kilkenny. In Counties Galway and Cork, we have a standing arrangement with the councils to notify them when we are doing a rural improvement scheme there, and they before it can fall into disrepair, take it over. We have that type of liaison.

Mr. Corry

We are grateful for that.

Mr. O'Malley

We are grateful for it also because, as it happens, the standard of work in all instances carried out by this Office was not and is not so "hot". There is no point in my opinion, in throwing loads of sand or gravel into potholes and having a contractor coming along to do it when it is gone in a week's time. As far as I can see, this Office brings the roads up to quite a good standard when they have the co-operation of the county council. That is as it should be. What amazes me about this Office is that I see in the file, in answering Dáil Questions, that contributions were made to the same road twice or three or four times, in certain instances. I think the economics of that would be that if a proper job were done in the first place, it would be far more beneficial and if a leaf were taken from these county councils I mentioned by other county councils—I do not see Limerick mentioned——

Mr. J.J. Collins

It should be there and should be very high up on the list. We blazed a trail in that respect.

Mr. O'Malley

There is a standing arrangement between Galway and Cork but there is no arrangement whereby schemes done by this Office are automatically taken over by Limerick County Council.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Yes, with a different pattern. We did not get the same co-operation from the Department as the Parliamentary Secretary gave to Cork and Galway.

Mr. T. Lynch

What does the county council have to do to cooperate?

Mr. MacCarthy

Take over the road and tar it.

Mr. O'Malley

We have done tarring in some instances ourselves. The whole purpose of the co-operation I am urging is that the county council may come in immediately and take over the road and not wait for a year or two when it could fall back into disrepair.

Mr. T. Lynch

How is the liaison between your Office and the county council brought about?

Mr. O'Malley

By co-operation between the county managers and their staffs.

Mr. T. Lynch

And the Office?

Mr. O'Malley

Yes.

Mr. T. Lynch

The councils must make overtures to your Office, or do you notify them that you are doing a certain road?

Mr. O'Malley

We notify immediately Galway and Cork County Councils.

Mr. T. Lynch

No—I mean the other councils.

Mr. O'Malley

Only the councils I mentioned. The other county councils have not been too anxious to cooperate. In certain instances, it is hard to blame them because some of these roads would be quite costly on the rates.

Mr. T. Lynch

Have they been told about your Office doing roads?

Mr. O'Malley

Yes, they are quite well aware of it because we work on these roads in close co-operation with the local engineer's staff in many instances. Deputy MacCarthy referred to a case of hardship with regard to a road which would serve only one family.

Mr. MacCarthy

If the Minister will excuse me—it is a link-road. The cost would be £800. They would have to pay £400 and when the road is done, it will be a public utility because it is a link road. The person concerned will be paying £400 to make that road a public utility. He cannot do it.

Mr. O'Malley

He can do it.

Mr. MacCarthy

He could not pay £400.

Mr. O'Malley

He can do it, but not through my Office. There is this alternative. I think Deputy Reynolds mentioned it also. The alternative is the farm building scheme—I think that is the title—administered by the Department of Agriculture and under it, the farmer does the job himself and gets a refund from the Department of Agriculture of half the labour cost. Did the Deputy know that?

Mr. MacCarthy

No.

Mr. O'Malley

Well, that is a fact.

Mr. Gilbride

Only for what goes through his own land.

Mr. Corry

Will he get your 50 per cent. in addition?

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy Gilbride interjected to say the grant applies only to that part of the road that goes through his land. The type of road Deputy MacCarthy has in mind is a road possibly linking two other roads——

Mr. MacCarthy

Exactly.

Mr. O'Malley

That road could be passing through the whole of the land of the man in question.

A Deputy

Or through ten people's land.

Mr. O'Malley

That does not arise in this case. If it goes through the land of ten people, they can fall back on the rural improvements scheme and contribute, but this is the isolated case of one person.

Mr. MacCarthy

That is right.

Mr. O'Malley

There was quite a lot of comment about giving employment to the beneficiaries. People said: "All right; if a group of farmers come together to make the local contribution to the cost, they should be employed, if they are in need of employment." I think it was Deputy Reynolds who suggested that the preference at present being given to people in receipt of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit is unfair to the contributors who made the scheme possible. This is a problem that has arisen repeatedly over the years. It is generally accepted that as it is the State which provides the greater portion of the money—in some instances up to 90 per cent. of the cost—it is not unreasonable for the State to insist that people who are unemployed and whose hardship is such that it is necessary to pay State money for their upkeep should get preference in employment on these schemes.

After all, the farmers benefit in the form of improved access to their holdings from the relatively small contributions which they are asked to make, and to suggest that, in addition, they should be employed on the work, to the exclusion of their worse-off immediate neighbours is not a proposition which will commend itself to the House generally. I think we should leave the method of employing people on these schemes as it is.

Deputy Corry and other Deputies referred to link roads and the difficulty of getting farmers to make the necessary contributions. I should like to point out that in the case of link roads with substantial outside usage, this Office is prepared to give increased grants. Indeed, there were one or two cases in the past two months in circumstances exactly similar to those cited by Deputy Corry where we did give increased grants and we are prepared to do so again.

Mr. Corry

Fair enough.

Mr. O'Malley

I think it is only just and reasonable.

Mr. Corry

We will be over to you next week.

Mr. O'Malley

Very good. Deputy Crinion complained that the money available in some cases did not serve every turf producer. The bog development scheme was never intended to drain every individual turf bank in the country. The drains which are done under the bog development scheme are in the main outlet drains in the bog and these runner drains, as they are called, that lead from this outlet to the individual banks, and it is accepted generally that those runner drains are the responsibility of the farmers cutting on those banks. Deputy MacCarthy referred to the unsuitable time of inspection of some of the small rivers going into the sea by officers of the Special Employment Schemes Office. If it happened that an officer did look at an area in flood conditions, he would go back, and he has gone back, when the flood has subsided before submitting his report and recommendations. Deputy MacCarthy complained that the Cork inspections are done from Tralee——

Mr. MacCarthy

As far as I know, it must go to Tralee first.

Mr. O'Malley

I checked up on that since last night and I see that the senior engineer in charge of Cork and Kerry is located in Tralee. But the Special Employment Schemes Office have an engineer in Bantry and he does most of the Cork area. The bulk of the work under the minor employment schemes, the bog development schemes and the rural improvement schemes, is done in the Kerry and West Cork areas.

Deputy Gilhawley referred to the small allocation for Sligo. Sligo gets its proportionate share in relation to the number of unemployment assistance recipients from the urban employment schemes allocation. It got two small grants for Ballymote and Tubbercurry and also it got its share under the minor employment subhead, totalling over £7,000. Sligo did not do so well under the rural improvements scheme, due to the fact that the farmers have not taken advantage of the terms of the scheme.

In regard to delays in inspecting rural improvement schemes, I explained at the outset of my introductory speech that there have been delays, owing to the fact that we have not got sufficient engineering inspectors. That is the whole trouble. A competition was held by the Civil Service Commissioners to fill the vacancies which exist at present and I hope to have them filled in the near future, when it will be possible to overtake the arrears.

I should like to give my personal opinion on this question of engineers and recruitment. Until such time as there is uniformity of salaries among the Office of Public Works, the Electricity Supply Board and other State bodies, as well as the Department of Local Government and local authorities, as well as uniformity of increments, pensions and conditions generally, it is inevitable that there will be upsets. It is heartbreaking for an office like the Office of Public Works to train a brilliant young engineer who stays with us for perhaps five or six years, who shows promise and gets tremendous experience, who is drawing £X from us and who perhaps becomes engaged to be married or gets married. As he is human, if he sees an advertisement for a position in Tipperary North Riding which offers £230 more than he has, he will apply for it and it is very hard to blame him.

Mr. A. Barry

That is the cause of all the trouble.

Mr. O'Malley

I am glad the Deputy agrees with me because that point struck me. As I say, you cannot blame him for taking this job at £200 or £300 extra, but it does mean upset. If you had this uniformity, an engineer, an architect, an accountant, or any professional man in our Office or any other State office, could continue to make his career in that office or Department instead of running from us down to Tipperary, or from Tipperary back to the crack organisation that pays the crack salaries, the ESB. It is all wrong.

Mr. A. Barry

It would not be the least valuable thing the Parliamentary Secretary could do if he could achieve that.

Mr. O'Malley

I should like to pay a tribute to the small existing engineering staff we have inspecting rural improvement schemes. A considerable effort has been made by this staff to reduce the arrears. The figure was approximately 1,200 on 1st April and it has been brought down to 686 on 1st November.

A number of Deputies, including Deputy McLaughlin, referred to delays in inspecting. Notwithstanding the inevitable delays, I should mention for Deputy McLaughlin's information that 114 schemes, costing nearly £19,000, were sanctioned for Leitrim in 1961-62, representing approximately one-eleventh of the total money for the whole country. In the current year, 62 schemes, costing £15,000, have been approved for Leitrim, so that county has not done badly this year either.

Deputy MacCarthy referred to the Clonakilty pier. If this is a small pier which could be put right for £3,000 or £4,000, we would be prepared to consider an application for its improvement. We will put up 75 per cent. of the cost if the Cork County Council put up the remaining 25 per cent. and maintain it thereafter.

I have endeavoured to deal with the points raised by Deputies but inevitably I have omitted some. Any representation on these various matters which any Deputy might like to make to me will have my personal attention. When the printed report of the debate is available, I shall go through it in detail and send each Deputy concerned a note about any of the points I have missed. In addition, I shall write in more detail to the Deputies concerned in connection with anything I have referred to here to-night.

In conclusion, I should like to thank Deputies on both sides for their kind co-operation.

Question: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration" put and declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.