asked the Minister for Finance the number of employees who have been laid off under the arterial drainage scheme.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Arterial Drainage Scheme Redundancies.
11.
Twenty-two employees were made redundant on arterial drainage construction schemes in November 1983. A further 25 were made redundant in January 1984.
I am very disappointed at the reduction in the number of people employed in arterial drainage and I am asking the Minister to take steps to have reinstated in their jobs those people who have been laid off. Arterial drainage is very important in terms of agriculture and we are losing EEC funds by not having people employed in this area at this stage. The work is funded by the EEC to the extent of 50 per cent so it is a disgrace to reduce the number of employees.
I would point out that the layoffs did not occur because of any cutback. People have been laid off in the normal way in the running down of a scheme that is nearing completion.
Would the Minister not agree that agencies such as the Board of Works who are in a position to create employment should be doing so at a time of recession? Would the Minister agree also that plans have been drawn up for a large scheme in the Border area and would he take steps to have work on that scheme commenced now so as to provide employment in that region?
It is my belief that drainage should be carried out on an economic basis. If there arises a situation in which a drainage scheme is run down, I would not consider it proper to continue to employ people on the scheme just for the sake of keeping them at work. To act in that way would be to make a case against drainage because one would then be spending on drainage money that was surplus to the requirements.
The money will have to be given to those laid off anyway by way of social welfare payments.
That is another argument but I am speaking about undertaking drainage work in a proper manner. The question of schemes of work is a different one but drainage should be undertaken on the most economic basis possible and should not be considered in terms of a grant-in-aid for the creation of employment as such.
The people are looking for jobs.
We will never succeed in drying out Ireland any way.
Regarding the second part of Deputy Leonard's question, it is not the fault of anyone on this side of the Border that the Blackwater drainage scheme has not been started. We have gone as far as we can go in that respect. We provided in the Estimates the moneys that we were required to pay to the northern authorities who must drain the river on their side of the Border so as to allow us to drain the Blackwater on our side. The money has been spent elsewhere but in this year's Estimate we are providing £1.6 million for payment to the Northern authorities. I understand that they are commencing work in March.
In view of the large number of drainage schemes on the priority list would it not be advisable to re-employ on other schemes those workers who have been laid off?
As I have explained, we had intended starting the Blackwater scheme but it has not been possible to do so. That scheme would provide more employment. Regarding the other schemes, 90 per cent of the Boyne scheme has been completed while in regard to the Boyle and the Bonet, we will be taking on extra hands. I am sure that at that stage those people who have been laid off will be considered if they find it suitable to work in that area.
As it is now past the time at which Question Time normally concludes, I should like to know what the position is in this regard.
If the Deputy had been present earlier he would realise that there was a minor arrangement to allow Question Time to continue to 3.37 p.m.
I thank you for the information but not for the sarcasm.
12.
asked the Minister for Finance the effect of lay-offs on the arterial drainage schemes.
The lay-off of workers on arterial drainage schemes will have the effect of reducing the works programme for 1984 through the postponement of works which might otherwise have been done this year.
In view of the need for arterial drainage works so as to allow field drainage to be undertaken, will the Minister not consider it important that more money be spent on arterial drainage and more employment provided in that way? The Minister must realise the importance of field drainage to agriculture which is our major industry.
As I have said, the Boyne scheme for instance is completed to the extent of 90 per cent. In such circumstances it is not posible to keep gainfully employed as many men as had been working on the scheme. The Maigue scheme is completed to the extent of 80 per cent while the Corrib-Mask-Robe scheme is completed also to the extent of 80 per cent. Obviously, in respect of these free schemes there is a normal run down in the employment content. There is reduction in the Estimates in the total area but that will have the effect of prolonging employment for those still in employment. It will cut down output on the drainage but for the bulk of those employed on the schemes, employment will be prolonged by possibly another year.
The remaining questions will appear in tomorrow's Order Paper.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the crisis situation about to take place in the provision of emergency ambulance services in the Western Health Board region.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
I tabled a private notice question to the Taoiseach and I should like to know what has happened in regard to it.
The question has been disallowed and I understand that my office have informed the Deputy of the reasons for that. The question does not qualify to be taken as a special private notice question. If it had been raised earlier, yesterday or during the weekend, it would have appeared on the Order Paper for this week.
What I am referring to happened at the weekend. The Dáil did not sit either on Sunday or on Monday so I tabled the question yesterday. I assure you that the matter is no less urgent today than it was earlier in the week. I wish to read the question that I put to the Taoiseach.
The Deputy must resume his seat.
I intend to read out my question because the fishermen are fearful for their lives.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat or to leave the House. He is being disorderly.
I intend to read out the question on behalf of fishermen——
The Deputy is being disorderly. If he does not sit down I must ask him to leave the House.
I asked the Taoiseach if he was aware of the incident——
I will have the Deputy named if he is not prepared to sit down.
The question was to ask the Taoiseach if he was aware of an incident that occurred 22 miles off the Wexford coast when a French trawler——
Unless the Deputy sits down he will have to leave the House.
But for the quick thinking——
(Interruptions.)
I am ordering the Deputy to leave the House. He is being utterly disorderly.
That is a very bad decision. The fishermen of Ireland will be aware of what happened today.
I am telling the Deputy to leave the House.
Deputy H. Byrne withdrew from the Chamber.
On a point of order, a Deputy here who is familiar with the Order of the House, which today as on other days, ordered that Questions should terminate at 3.30 p.m., rose as was his right, to inquire why Questions were proceeding when it was five minutes past 3.30 p.m. I suggest that the Chair was disrespectful towards him and the House. In deference to whatever arrangement was made, the Chair might have advised the House at 3.30 p.m. of the new arrangement and not reprimand somebody who had the right to inquire why Questions had proceeded beyond the ordered time.
I did not see any need to inform the House at that stage as I had done so beforehand.
The Chair addressed a Deputy and said that if he had been present for some minor arrangement that had been made with regard to the Order of Business he would have known about the situation. It is not obligatory on every Member to be present while changes are made which differ from the Order of Business. It would have been more appropriate for the Chair and more courteous to the House if he had advised Members at 3.30 p.m. and this difficulty would not have arisen.
If Deputy Brady feels offended, I withdraw the remark.
I accept the Chair's apology.
With the agreement of the Chair, I wish to raise on the Adjournment the system of allocation of funds to local authorities for local improvements schemes.
The Chair will comminicate with the Deputy.
I wish to ask why a question I tabled last Thursday to the Taoiseach asking him to intervene personally with President Marcos of the Philippines with regard to the safety and security of Father O'Brien has been transferred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
If the Deputy comes to my room I will explain the position to him.
The position is——
The Deputy is out of order. I offered to see him and that offer is still open.
Will the Chair say why the Taoiseach transferred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question I tabled to him asking him to include Killarney in President Reagan's forthcoming visit to this country.
That is a matter between the Taoiseach and the Minister concerned. It is not a matter for the Chair to decide. I had no say in that decision.
This Question is No. 208 on the Order Paper and it will not be reached for two months.
That is not a matter for the Chair. I was not involved in transferring the question from the Taoiseach to the Minister.
I have a special interest in the matter which Deputy H. Byrne has endeavoured to raise for two days and for which he has been removed from the House. For my information, will the Chair say how this matter can be raised as quickly as possible?
On the Adjournment. I will consider when it can be discussed and will communicate with Deputy Byrne and Deputy Power. Does the Deputy wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment?
I will discuss the matter with Deputy Byrne. There is a precedent for this in 1980 and I considered that because of that the matter would have been allowed to be discussed before now. I think the House is getting a little meaningless when a Deputy stands up twice, when he endeavours to raise a matter that is important to him and is met with the attitude Deputy Byrne encountered on both days.
If the Deputy wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment he should request this before 4 p.m. The Deputy might discuss the matter with Deputy Byrne and decide what to do before 4 p.m.
, Dún Laoghaire): The Leader of the Opposition this morning requested that statements be made on the position in Lebanon. The Government have considered the request and, by agreement, business will be interrupted at 6 p.m. to allow statements to be made on the position in Lebanon.