Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Dec 1976

Vol. 295 No. 3

Vote 42: Industry and Commerce.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1976, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain subsidies, grants and sundry grants-in-aid.

This Supplementary Estimate is needed in order to provide additional funds for some of the services operated by my Department or organisations for which I have responsibility and arising from commitments and circumstances which could not have been foreseen when the Estimates were prepared originally. The details are as follows:

Consultancy Services—The sum of £25,000 provided for under this subhead is required to meet the additional cost arising from the employment of consultants in connection with the negotiations in regard to the purchase of shares in the Bula mine.

Travelling and Subsistence—The additional £40,000 sought under this heading arises principally from an increase in travelling by the Department's inspectors, mainly on price control duties. It also reflects the additional costs which arose from increased air fares and subsistence and mileage allowances.

Institute for Industrial Research and Standards—The additional grant of £40,000 which I am proposing in this case is for administration and general expenses. This sum is required to enable the institute to meet the cost of their pay commitments arising from the implementation of the interim national wage agreement.

Subscription to International Organisations—In addition to the sum of £50,000 already provided for subscriptions to international organisations, a further £86,000 is required. This additional provision is intended to cover the cost in 1976 of Ireland's subscription to the European Space Agency under an interim agreement which covers the period up to the coming into full operation of the Convention relating to the agency; the convention would become fully operational following ratification by member countries. The subscription entitles Ireland to participate in the agency's educational documentation and future projects and technical research activities.

Benefits are expected to be derived in the form of industrial contracts to industry, universities and research institutions as well as providing access for Irish scientists to a broad range of the agency's scientific and technical information and services. As the House is aware, I dealt with this matter in detail yesterday when seeking approval for Ireland's signing of the interim agreement with this body.

Córas Tráchtála—This year's Estimate provided £3.350 million towards the Grant-in-Aid for Córas Tráchtála, who now require an additional £225,000. Following a very difficult period in which Ireland felt the full effect of the worst economic recession Western Europe has known since the Second World War, there are encouraging signs of a return to growth in our economy. Exports in the first ten months of 1976 amounted to £1,491 million and on the assumption that this trend will continue they will, by the end of 1976, have reached an estimated £1,790 million, an increase of 24 per cent over 1975 and representing an almost threefold increase in value since our accession to the EEC. This would be equivalent to a growth rate of about 4 per cent in volume of real terms.

Overall growth in export earnings in 1975 derived mainly from the agricultural sector while exports of manufactured goods decreased somewhat in volume terms. In 1976 the main impetus of increasing exports is once more coming from industrial exports, which in the first nine months of this year are estimated to have accounted for about two-thirds of total exports.

This encouraging position is a reflection of the determination and initiative of Irish industrial exporters, but it has not been effected without extreme pressure on the financial resources of Córas Tráchtála, who, conscious of the limitation on the availability of public funds in present economic circumstances, have curtailed their assistance programme in order to keep their supplementary requirements to a minimum. Nevertheless, the £225,000 now sought represents the minimum needed to enable Córas Tráchtála to meet the cost of providing an effective service to exporters throughout 1976. Of the £225,000 now sought, £120,000 is needed to offset the effects on CTT operations of the devaluation of sterling and a further £80,000 is to ensure the maintenance of the existing level of export activities planned for 1976. The balance of £25,000 is to pay the cost of implementing the 1976 Interim National Pay Agreement.

I am confident that Deputies will agree that there should be no diminution of the assistance and encouragement to be afforded to our exporters.

Kilkenny Design Workshops—The estimates for the current financial year provided £300,000 towards the Grant-in-Aid for the Kilkenny Design Workshops Ltd., who now require an additional £9,000. This additional sum is needed to cover the cost of implementing the interim national wage agreement.

Industrial Development Authority— The original allocation to the authority for administration and general expenses was £4,500,000. An additional £300,000 is required to meet salary increases as a result of the interim national pay agreement——£50,000—as well as the increased cost of advertising, promotion and marketing, provision of new offices in Europe and promotional literature, incurred mainly overseas as a result of inflation and adverse movements in exchange rates—£250,000.

Industrial Housing—I propose to include a new provision for £600,000 for industrial housing. This is a provision necessitated by a decision of the Government to transfer to the Industrial Development Authority the responsibility formerly carried by the National Building Agency for the provision and financing of industrial housing for new industry.

Since sanction has not been given to the authority to use money for this scheme out of their voted capital resources it has been found necessary to introduce a new subhead under which the authority will be given a voted repayable grant for this project.

Technical Assistance—From 1st January, 1976, the rate of grant in respect of a consultancy scheme or study visit abroad was reduced from 50 per cent to 33? per cent of the estimated cost of the consultancy scheme or study visit. Also a limit of £10,000 in respect of any one consultancy project was imposed. In the light of these alterations in the administration of the technical assistance grants scheme and having regard to the usual period of time which it was expected would elapse between the approval and payment of grants, it was estimated that a sum of £370,000 would be adequate to meet payments under the scheme in 1976.

However, over the past 11 months the time between approval and payments of grants has shortened with the result that grant payments have arisen, or are expected to arise in 1976 which had not been expected to arise until 1977 at the earliest. The net effect is that it is estimated that an additional £110,000 on the original estimate of £370,000 will be required to meet payments falling due before 31st December, 1976.

Shipping Finance Corporation Limited—This subhead provides for the payment to Shipping Finance Corporation Limited, which is a subsidiary of the Industrial Credit Company Limited, of an interest subsidy of the difference between the rate at which the corporation borrows and the rate at which they finance the construction of vessels at Verolme Cork Dockyard.

The extra provision of £40,000 is necessary to meet the increased expenditure arising principally from the increase in the Exchequer lending rate from 10 per cent to 12 per cent which led to a resultant increase in the interest subsidy on shipbuilding loans.

Bread and Flour Subsidies—Consumer subsidies on standard bread and household flour were introduced by the Government in July, 1975. The subsidisation of these products has resulted in higher consumption than was expected when the scheme was introduced. The cost of these subsidies, originally estimated at £10,750,000 for bread and £1,750,000 for flour, for the full year 1976, is now likely to amount to £14,000,000 and £2,125,000 respectively.

The House will appreciate that in the present difficult economic situation consumption of staple commodities such as bread and flour has tended to increase. Among other factors consumption of standard bread has been affected by the high price of potatoes and, probably, by a swing from fancy breads, which are unsubsidised, to subsidised standard bread.

Additional sums of £3,250,000 for bread subsidy and £375,000 for household flour subsidy are required to meet the increased cost of these subsidies during the current year.

The total amount of the increased expenditure is £5,171,000 but there is an offset of £5,170,990 in savings made up of £2,085,990 on subhead I.2—Industrial Development Authority; capital expenditure on grants to industries—£3,000,000 on subhead T —Investment in mining concerns— and a surplus of £85,000 from Appropriations in Aid. I should mention however that the saving on the IDA capital expenditure does not mean any falling off in the authority's level of activity in providing grants for industry but is merely a deferment in the payment of grants for industry because some had not reached payment stage within the year due to technical problems. The saving of £3 million on investment in mining concerns arises from the fact that the findings of the board of consultants who were employed to assess the value of the Bula mines were not available in time to involve any payments in the current year. Accordingly, the net amount required is £10.

I have explained briefly in the case of each subhead the reason for the increased expenditure but I am, of course, prepared to expand on these explanations if Deputies consider this necessary or desirable.

I recommend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.

The Minister has moved a Supplementary Estimate in respect of no fewer than 16 different subheads. The Supplementary Estimate, which runs to four pages was circulated to Deputies this morning and the House is expected to deal adequately at perhaps one-and-a-half or two hours' notice with these 16 items of enormously varying character. This is just not feasible. I fear it is another example of the farcical procedure to which we are reduced in this House. We come in here at the end of a financial year and in a matter of minutes vote vast sums of public money without any proper examination of what is involved.

To give a brief explanation of the various items involved the Minister had to make a long speech. He was extremely brief on each of the items. It is unsatisfactory that I or any other Member of this House should be handed these papers at half-past ten this morning. The Department must have known that a detailed supplementary estimate would be put forward and they should have communicated with us in advance, indicating the nature of the estimate and the topics to be covered. I want to register my protest in regard to this situation because there is no supplementary as complicated and detailed as this one. There are 16 different subheads in this Estimate. We are supposed to discuss these subheads and to satisfy ourselves that this money should be voted. It is not possible to do it and we might as well face that fact. We are only going through the motions of complying with constitutional requirements.

As there are many Estimates for discussion today, I propose to be brief in relation to this one. The Minister dealt with 15 subheads under which he is looking for money but he omitted to deal with subhead J.3—Shannon Free Airport Development Company housing subsidy. We are being asked to vote an additional £71,000 for housing subsidies at Shannon Free Airport. Does the Minister know the position in regard to housing at Shannon airport? There are many empty houses there for which the company cannot get occupants. They advertised these vacant houses in all the mid-Western newspapers but they have not had many takers. They have large hoardings on the main roads, advertising the advantages of living at Shannon. So far, they have not been very successful, and we are now being asked to vote £71,000 towards that situation. I do not understand why we should be asked to vote for a substantial amount of money for housing at Shannon when there are many empty houses there.

At present there are over 800 families on the housing list of Limerick Corporation, which is only 14 miles from Shannon, and many of them will not be housed within the next five years. They are living in the city in over-crowded and miserable conditions. Many people who live in good houses at Shannon have asked me about the possibility of getting houses in Limerick city, but I have to advise them that their chances of being housed in Limerick city are nil. When they are asked why they want to leave Shannon they say they would prefer to live in bad conditions in Limerick than in good conditions in Shannon. The houses at Shannon were provided for workers at the estate, but a lot of them are occupied by people who have no connection with the estate or with the airport.

This matter needs to be explained. The money for which we are being asked to vote should properly be given to a local authority with a housing problem, such as the Limerick Corporation, which is the nearest major centre to Shannon airport. As there are so many vacant houses in the area at present I do not know why extra moneys have to be voted. Perhaps it is to make up for the fact that the houses are empty and that there is no income from them. For some reason the Minister did not refer to this matter in his speech.

In regard to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, I have already raised the matter of the advice which was given by this Institute to a firm in County Cavan. It is now acknowledged that the advice was wrong. Unfortunately, the firm acted on the advice and suffered hardship as a result. I would ask the Minister to consider the consequences of the advice given to that firm by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. It seems that the firm is now on the point of closing. During the last week they have had to let a number of their employees go. I do not want to create any embarrassment for the IIRS, but the Minister should consider assisting this firm.

I noted with some interest that the Minister is seeking here a further £3¼ million in respect of bread subsidy for which the original estimate appears to have been very inadequate. It is disturbing to note what the Minister says in relation to the consumption of bread, that it is now increasing. One always was under the impression that as a country's standard of living increased the consumption of bread decreased, and this was so here over the years. It is so in every other country, and this is an eloquent indication that over the past year or so the standard of living in this country is dropping.

A Deputy

How about the population increase?

The population increase is not sufficient to warrant a 33? per cent increase in the subsidy. I do not think our population increased by 33? per cent since last January. It may have increased by perhaps 1 per cent. Most of that 1 per cent are not consuming bread yet. It is a thing that one would like to go into more fully if time was available, but it is an extraordinary situation that, after a very prolonged drop over a very long period of years in the consumption of bread, for the reasons given by the Minister we now have a reversal of that tendency and a marked increase, apparently, this year in the consumption of bread.

There is a figure of over £5 million which is not being spent in this year's Estimates. This relates to IDA capital grants, which is a bit surprising in one sense but I suppose not in another sense. Possibly the demand for the grants is not there. The £3 million which was set aside for investment in mining is not being spent at all and apparently no investment is being made. The Minister has referred to the fact that no investment has been made in this present year in Bula mines. I suppose one is entitled to discuss the Bula mine operation, but we have had little over an hour's notice of this Supplementary Estimate. I do not have available now the various facts and figures with relation to that, but I could have had them had I got reasonable notice of this Supplementary Estimate and of the fact that the question of the Bula mines was going to arise on it.

As I understand from my reading of the newspapers, the report of the consultants who were employed to advise the Government in relation to Bula has been available for some time past. It has been referred to in the newspapers over the past six weeks or two months, I think. I do not know the exact date when it became available, but one would have thought if the investment was being made it could have been made in this year. I do not know what the reason for the delay is. One is entitled to question in general terms the whole approach of the Bula mining company. The fact that the Government are buying their way into a company who spent absolutely nothing in finding the assets which they now have suggests that there is something wrong there. The moral entitlement, surely, in relation to that whole area is with those who spent the money and took the risk in finding the assets. It seems extraordinary that the taxpayer in this country now has to buy into something which was basically his own, and to buy it from somebody who has it purely by chance and who did not in fact find it and contributed nothing to finding it. Perhaps we could consider the wisdom of this method of operating. The whole Bula case has unfortunately left a bad taste in the mouths of those who might otherwise be exploring for minerals in this country. Is some future prospector who makes a find of mineral wealth going to find himself in the situation that a quarter or a third or half of whatever it is of what he finds is going to be operated by a private company who are quite independent of him? Is this not one, at least, of the major reasons why the level of exploration for minerals in this country at the moment is way below what it could and should be?

The only figures that I am aware of and that I have talked about in relation to Bula have been those that appeared in the papers which were, as far as I know, the official figures. I do not think that the Minister has made any official statement in regard to what is proposed or what moneys are going to be paid. He should avail of this opportunity now to do this and put the House and us fully in the picture so far as the State's proposed investment in this company is concerned.

He should also tell the House whether it is proposed, for example, as part of the arrangement with Bula to insist that they would take steps in conjunction with the various other interests concerned towards the establishment at the present time in this country of a smelter. It seems that the Navan mine is going to go into production early in 1977. Even if it were decided early in 1977 to build a smelter, it seems that it would be four to five years before that smelter would be ready. The loss to the country in the meantime is enormous. It also seems that the size of the smelter that is being talked about would take only a comparatively small proportion of the output from the two mines in Navan as it apparently is going to be, one of them being Tara and the other Bula.

I would be glad if the Minister could deal with these questions. I know, unfortunately, it is in appropriate to deal with them now because there is a whole string of other Estimates waiting to come on which are just as important as this. If he could briefly indicate the position in regard to these matters, it would be appreciated. There is too little official information and too much speculation and leaking, and so on. One might be foolish to try to base any assessment on that of the future of these mines.

I have dealt with two or three or perhaps four of the 16 subheads dealt with here. I cannot deal with any more because it would take too long. I got an hour's notice of this huge and complex Supplementary Estimate, which I think is wrong from the point of view of this House, and from the point of view of the voting of public money. This system will have to be changed in some way. I know this Supplementary Estimate is for £10 only but because of the non-expenditure of a very large amount, the actual money being looked for is around £5,000,000. It has to be dealt with in a way which is slipshod and unsatisfactory.

The same applies to the other Estimates, except that they are not as complicated. In the main they deal with one or two subheads and this has 16. There are about 12 other items I should like to deal with, such as Coras Tráchtála which should be debated in this House, and industrial development policy generally which I would welcome an opportunity to debate. I would very much like to debate the Kilkenny Design Centre and a whole long series of other things. I cannot deal with them because of the circumstances and in fairness to the House and my colleagues. I will conclude by saying I should like the Minister, however briefly, to deal with the various points I have raised.

Although it may not be totally in order, a Cheann Comhairle—and you will guide me on this— I should like at least to respond to what Deputy O'Malley has said about the method in which we do our business here in regard to these Estimates. First, I can tell the Deputy from my side that it is no particular source of joy or pride for me to be debating these things in this brief way. Secondly we have an agreement between the Whips. That is what I understand. I may be wrong about it. I responded at very short notice to a wish to debate this today. We have done bundles of Estimates near to the legal limit. We did them in the last week of the Dáil previously, and this is a week ahead. I am sorry. I think genuinely it is not fair to Deputies on any side of the House. I have not had more warning and I was trying to facilitate people also.

I would say this in reply to Deputy O'Malley. In the fairly recent past in this House, I have heard things which seemed to me repetitive and timewasting. We are seeing a continuing and inescapably increasing burden of Dáil work. We have tried to get some of it off into committees. It needs the goodwill of all sides of the House to see the work is done expeditiously and to see that time is not lost on things which might be moved quite quickly and which are not of enormous importance. When the Deputy says this is unsatisfactory and that we should not go on in this way, I can only say I agree. That is a perfectly correct observation. I feel the same way about it. The responsibility is not entirely on one side of the House.

I will take up some of the points made by the Deputy in the order in which I made notes. First on the matter of SFADCo houses. I do not want to indicate that any major mistake has been made. I am not making that criticism. There was a difficulty because many of these houses existed for some considerable time and, indeed, before I had any Ministerial responsibility for them. There were projections about the growth of Shannon which were optimistic because people did not foresee—and there was no reason why they should—the downturn coming in the world economy and in overseas investment.

When you are building something new, as distinct from an existing town with hundreds of years of history of development, it is possible, when you have major changes in economic circumstances, that the provision of houses and the provision of jobs do not match up and they have got out of line. This £71,000 extra is accounted for in a number of ways. It is not creating anything new. These are subsidies on houses which exist. There is a certain minimum subsidy which is, in fact, the difference between the economic rent, as calculated on the basis of the total cost of the provision of the house, and the rent payable. In addition, there is a hardship subsidy which can arise in cases of loss of employment or bereavement. There is a graded rent subsidy, and there is also a vacancy subsidy. This arises in the context where houses are built and not filled.

The position was estimated in October before ten-month figures were available. Even then the company thought £290,000 for the full year would be the amount. The amount is now based on ten-month actual figures and two-month estimates, and that is the £321,209 which I mentioned. Apart from the range of subsidies I talked about, there are £10,000 worth of bad debts for 1976. This is a matter for concern. Perhaps it is easy with hindsight to see that errors of judgment were made, but perhaps it was hard for people having to make decisions about the rate of the provision of houses in balance with the rate of the provision of jobs. That got out of line. Perhaps it is easier to criticise that with hindsight than to have been able to intervene to prevent it at the time. While I regret an increase in the amount of subsidy required, we have no option in the existing circumstances but to do this.

With regard to the IIRS, Deputy O'Malley referred to a particular firm. He has asked me at least one Parliamentary Question about that in the past, and Question No. 16 on today's Order Paper relates to it and we will be dealing with it at Question Time. We will have a serious discussion on it then. I can only say I do not agree with the formulations he used in connection with it. I want to put that on the record. We will talk about it at Question Time.

In regard to the bread subsidy, again if an estimate is wrong by that magnitude, if you estimate for 12 odd and you need another three that, of course, is a serious estimating error. There are two things Deputy O'Malley did not mention which are very relevant in this context. Of course there is an element in what he said. Of course there is an element of hardship for people in a recession if real wages do not grow. That is certainly part of the reason why bread consumption was higher than expected.

There is another major reason which I think, on reflection, he will see is a serious one. Due to drought and due to some speculation on a European scale, there has been a very large rise in the price of potatoes. In calory intake we are the biggest eaters in the world. We have always had a good deal of starch. Traditionally we have eaten potatoes. This year they were relatively much dearer than in the past, and relatively dearer in relation to bread and, in some circumstances, actually scarce. That caused a switch to bread which is reflected here. In fairness to the people who made the estimate, that was not foreseeable at the time they did it. The other point is that the subsidy is for the standard loaf, not for fancy bread. There is a switch in bread consumption away from fancy bread into standard bread which exaggerates the increase. If one were to think that the increase in the Estimate was a reflection in strictly proportional terms of the increase in bread consumption——

What is fancy bread?

Fancy bread is consumed to a lesser extent now because it is not subsidised whereas the standard loaf is subsidised.

The IDA are managing tens of millions of pounds each year and their efficiency is generally testified to. Firms want to be paid quickly on completion but it is not possible to dole it out beforehand. There is always the question of matching completions. Firms are paid along the road as the jobs are done. There is one particular case—just one site—which amounts to £2 million out of the £5 million where they will not be ready in 1976 for technical reasons and they will have it in 1977. There is a very welcome increase in the demand for IDA money, and the pipeline is filling up again in a very welcome way. There were technical reasons why the companies were not able legally and validly to claim the money in 1976 and it is carried over into 1977.

With regard to the £3 million for mining, the same circumstances apply. This had to be available this year if necessary. We have received the report to which Deputy O'Malley refers. This is a large expenditure and it is receiving careful and thorough scrutiny but the question of payment will not arise during this financial year.

Deputy O'Malley referred to Tara and Bula. I inherited a scene of great confusion and chaos which I think fundamentally existed for the legal reason that some of the minerals in Ireland are clearly in the hands of the State and some are in private hands. I did not wish for, design or manoeuvre the break-up of a single ore body. I am sorry it happened that way. I faced a situation that was extremely complex from the legal point of view, where the highest court in the land decided that this portion of the total ore body was in private ownership. I have had people working very hard on a very complex situation. I would regard it as unthinkable that this House would give us power retrospectively to take something away from people if when they bought it it was bona fide in private ownership. It is unthinkable that retrospectively we should expropriate them when they bought them, very cleverly but nonetheless with the understanding that these were private minerals, and where the courts subsequently validated them.

Therefore, we are not buying into something that was our own. It could not have been made our own by any kind of legal process that either side of this House would endorse.

Would the Minister not agree that this is an example of the most unacceptable face of capitalism?

It is certainly something I do not feel pleased about. I am sorry it happened in that way but I had to unravel something that was in a desperate mess. Of the private minerals, the Bula minerals, we received onequarter for nothing and it is well to make that point. The purchase which is contemplated is for a further portion. It was not something that was our own, unlike the publicly owned minerals of the Tara mines. That is the essential difference, and it is well to remember it. It does leave a bad taste, and there was a piece of very considerable financial manipulation and cleverness involved, but one must make the distinction between minerals in public and in private hands. We must recognise that we could not take it away retrospectively once the courts had held as they had done. It was necessary to get production going. All of us want to see the show on the road and production coming out.

Could not the Minister have made an alternative order? It was the order that was found at fault by the court.

This is not an area where I purport to have expertise. In this situation I depend on the best legal advice available. I was in the situation that I could not undertake a course of action which might protract litigation, uncertainties and delays which had gone on for too long. That was the consideration.

The Minister made a present to Bula.

Deputy O'Malley asked that this be debated more fully, and I would be very happy to do so. It was a complex situation but I think we are coming out of it in a way that will see production. It is not a perfect way because it was a very messy situation but in my view it was the best possible solution and I would be very happy to have it scrutinised by the House and to defend in detail every step we took.

We will not have any opportunity to do so. That was the point I made at the beginning. Estimates are being pushed through in minutes.

This is a Supplementary Estimate. It arises because no action was taken in the current year and there has not been any expenditure. All the normal mechanisms are available to the House for debating any of these matters. The Deputy knows that during the period of office of this Government the opportunity has been given to the Opposition to debate matters at much greater length than was ever available to me when I was on that side of the House. It is widely utilised and that is as it should be. We have a freer discussion of matters at greater length with much more opportunity for the Opposition to raise them and to have them answered than existed when the Opposition were on these benches.

With regard to the smelter, exactly the same observations apply as I made about Bula. Some 12 months of detailed work is necessary in matters of such complexity, but I have indicated to the House that this period will end towards the beginning of the new year and I will be in a position to make some statements. The lead time on projects like this is enormous and the expenditure in terms of jobs created is absolutely horrendous. One can spend 20 times as much on a smelter job as on a new industrial project. If one does not match up the subsequent use of the smelter product with the smelter metal one could put a huge amount of money into something where the return on jobs is quite small. I would beg people not to believe that a smelter per se without the downstream development is a bonanza. It is not. It can gobble up money and energy for a quite small return. It is part of a complex development.

To suggest that we should have undertaken hard financial commitments before we were clear about the legal position as to when mining would start would be to commit money wrongly. To suggest that we can produce this instantly when long lead times are known to be the norm is to suggest something impossible. Further, to suggest that there are heavy losses because we do not smelt and because we export the concentrate is not an accurate reflection of the economics of our production. When I am in a position to make firm decisions I will inform the House and I will be happy if the House avails itself of the normal procedures for discussion, more generous now than heretofore. I will answer all questions as fully and as carefully as I can.

Will the Minister tell the House how much the consultants advised him to pay for the 24 per cent interest in Bula?

I said this matter is under very careful scrutiny. Although I deplore the leakages that have taken place, I am not prepared to comment until we have the detailed scrutiny I consider necessary.

Are the figures in the papers right?

I am not prepared to comment on that.

With the permission of the Chair——

Perhaps the Deputy would allow the Chair to comment. Normally the Minister's reply would have concluded the debate on the Supplementary Estimate but if the Deputy has one or two questions to put I will hear him. He may not make a speech at this stage.

It is not a question but a matter of information to the House. Within the last few weeks Limerick Corporation applied to SFADCo for some of the vacant houses in Limerick. We received ten of those houses which Deputy O'Malley should know. They were advertised and we were inundated with applicants for those ten houses. I am sure the remainder which are left over will also be taken up by Limerick Corporation in due course so there is no worry about vacancies.

I was talking about Shannon Airport, not Limerick.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn