asked the Minister for Finance if he has received the result of the cost-benefit analysis in respect of Dunkellin River, County Galway; and if he will indicate when work is likely to commence.
Ceisteanna—Questions. - County Galway River.
32.
Mr. Kenny
A cost-benefit study of the drainage of the Dunkellin catchment area has not yet been undertaken. A number of other catchment areas have priority in this respect and the expert staff available for such studies is limited. At this stage I cannot indicate when drainage works can commence.
Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins
The Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor assured us that this cost-benefit analysis was already under way. I understood it was under way for the Dunkellin catchment area. Will each catchment area be done, individually or was the survey only in respect of the Maigue?
Mr. Kenny
The cost-benefit survey was initiated two years ago, in 1971. Since then an inter-departmental survey team must make a cost-benefit analysis of every catchment area to be done. Dunkellin is No. 10 on the list of minor catchments. Four minor catchment areas have already been finished, three have been by-passed on uneconomic grounds and before the Dunkellin we must consider a river in Sligo, the Bonnet.
Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins
Has the Parliamentary Secretary any idea how long the analysis on the Dunkellin will take?
Mr. Kenny
The experimental cost-benefit analysis on the Maigue took two years and three months to complete. From the information gleaned in that survey we can expect that any further cost-benefit surveys will be done within a period of six months.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by the farming community in that area at the slowness of the Office of Public Works in proceeding with this scheme? In view of the fact that the people affected by this scheme are dependent mainly on farming would he not consider giving priority to the Dunkellin scheme?
Mr. Kenny
The priorities were arranged by the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945. A list of priority schemes was drawn up then and this has not been changed since.
Surely that list must be out of date by now and for that reason would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider changing it? We know that the farmers in the east are just as determined as we are in the west to have drainage work carried out, but the farmers in the east have access to industrial employment while those in the west are dependent solely on their small holdings.
The Deputy is embarking on a speech.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary now consider making the Dunkellin a priority scheme?
Mr. Kenny
Deputy Hussey has made a very reasonable case for the farmers of the Dunkellin area and I will give this matter considerable thought.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the purpose of the cost-benefit survey being initiated was because arterial drainage was very low on the priorities of moneys available from the Government? The idea was to try to improve its place in the priority list for the allocation of money.
Mr. Kenny
I understand that perfectly.
Deputy Haughey rose.
This is embarking into a debate. We have already had six supplementaries.
From my point of view this is a very important question. Could the Parliamentary Secretary allay my suspicion that this whole business of a cost-benefit analysis is simply an administrative device for postponing expenditure on this very desirable project?
Mr. Kenny
It could be a device but I did not initiate this. This was initiated by the Deputy's own Department. Does the Deputy now think it is a device?
I do.
Mr. Kenny
There are many things we could consider as devices but what can we say about them?