asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will state in respect of Killala harbour development scheme, County Mayo: (1) the date the scheme was initiated; (2) the original estimated cost; (3) the present estimated cost; (4) the reasons for the fluctuation as between (2) and (3); (5) the present state of progress; and (6) the likely date of completion.

17.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if, in respect of Killala harbour development scheme, he will state the nature of any discussion he has had with Mayo County Council regarding the completion of the project.

18.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the present position in the negotiations between the Office of Public Works and Mayo County Council regarding the completion of the pier at Killala, County Mayo; and when work will start to complete and make safe the pier.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together.

In recent months a number of discussions have taken place between officials from my Department, the Office of Public Works and Mayo County Council to resolve difficulties, mainly financial, about repairs and improvements to Killala harbour. As a result, revised proposals to complete works, estimated to cost £128,000, were forwarded to Mayo County Council for consideration on 16 October 1978. In June 1973 when the need for the works was discovered the estimated cost was £40,000. The difference between the 1973 and present estimates of cost is accounted for by inflation and by the cost of making good the deterioration of the surface and face of the pier which has occurred since 1973.

I am advised that if Mayo County Council accept the proposals and the financial requirements are met the actual work would take about nine to 12 months to complete.

What is the present estimated cost of the work?

One hundred and twenty-eight pounds. I mention that in my reply.

The Minister also mentioned that there was a question of finance. Other questions have been raised in relation to expenditure of money on this project which has turned out to be unsatisfactory. Would the Minister care to comment on that and also on the fact that there is steel sheet piling at the site which has been thrown there for a number of years and not been used? Would he care to comment on what might be done with that sheet piling and the cost of the piling involved?

I cannot answer some of the details in the supplementary question but, in general, discussions are proceeding between the Office of Public Works, my Department and Mayo County Council. Officials have had a number of meetings and at present we are awaiting a reply from the Mayo county manager to the latest proposals we put to Mayo County Council on 16 October.

Did the Minister say that in 1973 this work could have been done for £40,000?

That is right.

Is the Minister aware that Mayo County Council have been in dispute with the Office of Public Works for a number of years about liability for some of the work done prior to 1973? Is he also aware that, over the past five years, a considerable number of representations have been made to the Department of Fisheries and the Office of Public Works and that these repairs should have been carried out a considerable time ago?

If it is any help to the Deputy and other Deputies in the area, I would be glad to meet a deputation to iron this out. I do not like to see correspondence going back and forth between my Department, the Office of Public Works and Mayo County Council. I would be open to meet a deputation with my officers to iron out the matters if there are matters to be ironed out.

When could the Minister meet that deputation?

At any time.

Could I elicit one piece of information from the Minister? Has it been established that the completion of this project is a worth-while operation in the light of what has gone on over the past ten or 12 years?

We are satisfied it is a worth-while operation.

The Minister sounds less uncertain. There is more in his tone than the record will show.

19.