asked the Minister for the Environment the amount of supplementary allocation under the local improvement scheme; and the counties which benefited.

My Department have notified Kerry, Monaghan and Sligo County Councils of supplementary allocations for additional works under the 1984 local improvements scheme, as follows:

These increases are being met from local improvements scheme savings in other county council areas.

Would the Minister of State agree that it is time that the Department examined this matter prior to making allocations? It seems that some counties for some reason cannot pick up their initial allocation while a number of those counties which the Minister of State mentioned in his reply have large backlogs and could do with that allocation earlier in the year?

We can look at that, but I hope the Deputy is not complaining of getting the supplementary allocation.

No, I am asking about the distribution initially.

I know Monaghan are very diligent and capable of spending what we give them.

Overspending.

We allocate in a reasonable way and if some counties underspend we make it available to other counties, and the Deputy's county is one of those.

What criteria do the Department apply when making a decision determining the allocation under this scheme to each local authority?

They were made on the basis of what applied when the scheme was brought into being a number of years ago. The allocation was based on the block grants a county got in the previous year.

Is the Minister of State aware that the local improvements scheme has been in operation since 1967 or 1968?

I have not got that information.

Some years ago we were told that the system had been changed to one of allocations related to the backlog of applications in each county but it appears that is not so now. Will the Minister agree to examine the allocations, needs and backlog of each county? If he does so he will not get a criterion related to the needs. It appears that the Department have their own system but it is in need of re-examination.

An increase was granted by way of supplementary allocation and I do not think the Deputy should be complaining too much about that.

Is the Minister aware that some counties have a huge backlog of applications while others do not? In counties with a big backlog applicants may have to wait four or five years — in some cases ten years — before the road is repaired while in other counties where the list is very short it appears that overgenerous allocations are granted? The time lag between the lodging of the application and the date when the repairs are carried out is a year or two. In my experience in some counties some roads are left for up to six years. Does the Minister know anything about the scheme? He should not be depending on replies prepared by civil servants.

The question on the Order Paper is a statistical one and does not provide a proper forum for a general discussion on the local improvements scheme.

Surley the House is entitled to know what criteria the Department will apply when dividing out supplementary allocations?

The Question on the Order Paper is a statistical one.

My supplementary question is relevant.

The Chair does not think so.

With all due respect to the Chair, it is. The Chair used to have a great interest in this scheme when he was trying to have county roads repaired. It is hard to have such repairs done now with this crowd.