asked the Minister for Finance the number of employees who have been laid off under the arterial drainage scheme.

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.