asked the Minister for Finance the reason the provision for arterial terial drainage is £5.73 million for 1980 compared with £7.46 million for 1979 when £8.57 million is required to maintain last year's level of activity and if he will outline the changes he proposes to make in the programme in the light of this reduced provision.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Arterial Drainage.
5.
The level of activity on arterial drainage in 1980 is at present being considered in the light of the reduced budgetary provision made. I am not in a position to give any details yet.
Would the Minister consider that a reduction in the level of activity in the area of arterial drainage would be a direct breach of faith with the EEC, which made money available to us on the grounds that we would engage in an accelerated programme of arterial drainage particularly in the West?
I do not agree with the Deputy's assertion. We will match our EEC grant this year pound for pound and will maintain the level of arterial drainage.
Would the Minister not agree that it is entirely against both the spirit and letter of arrangements of this nature with the EEC that they should be used as an excuse—as is the case now apparently—for a reduction in the national and average commitment to something such as arterial drainage which we all accept as being very necessary?
The estimate for last year was £6.86 million. The estimate for this year is £5.73 million, but there was £2.6 million spent on machinery last year.
Can the Minister give us any indication of the number of men who will lose their employment? Would the Minister not agree that it is a retrograde step to reduce provision for arterial drainage which gives much needed employment and helps bring more land into production, both so vital at present? Is the Minister reneging on the job creation policy of his party's manifesto?
That is a question of argument. I am calling the next question.
No smokescreens, please.
It is purely a question of argument.
Every question is a question of argument.
No, it is not.
What is the reason for the reduction of £3 million in this Department at present?
There is no reduction of £3 million in this Department. I gave the House the figure of £6.86 million for last year. The estimate for this year is £5.73 million. I told the Deputy that £2.6 million was spent on machinery last year.
(Interruptions.)
I asked the Minister a definite question and I want an answer. Has he any indication of the number of people who will lose their jobs due to this retrograde step of the Government.
None.
No men will be laid off.
Do we take it that the promise given by the Minister for Agriculture to the farmers last week in the Golden Grill in Letterkenny will not be fulfilled? Will the drainage be carried out?
The Minister cannot hear.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I know the Minister has bad hearing but can he not hear me?
6.
asked the Minister for Finance the amount of the £14 million allocated to arterial drainage for the western drainage scheme spent up to 31 December 1979 and if he will outline details of the locations where this allocation was spent.
Expenditure in 1979 under the programme for arterial drainage in the western region which is being funded in part by the EEC amounted to £1,466,000. The expenditure was on the Corrib-Mask-Robe scheme in Counties Mayo and Galway.
Is the Minister aware of the long delay prior to assessment under the western drainage scheme? Can he give the reasons why and what he proposes to do about it?
The Deputy should have put down a question about that.
Is the Minister aware that many applicants for assistance under the scheme have a genuine feeling that the Department have let them down because of the inordinate delays prior to assessment?
Are they deliberate delays to save money?
About £1.6 million has been spent from EEC funds. How much was spent by the Government from local funds?
Half of that amount.
Would the Minister have an approximate figure of the number of applicants for assistance?
Was £3.2 million the total spent on the Corrib-Mask?
Yes.