Vol. 348 No. 9
By agreement I understand that the time this evening is being allocated as follows: 7 p.m. to 7.10 p.m., Deputy Wilson; 7.10 to 7.40, Minister of State at the Department of Finance; 7.40 p.m. to 7.50 p.m., Deputy J. Leonard; 7.50 p.m. to 8 p.m., Deputy O'Malley; 8 p.m. to 8.10 p.m., Deputy Noel Treacy; 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. Deputy Kenny; 8.15 p.m. to 8.20 p.m. Deputy Morley; 8.20 to 8.30 p.m., Deputy O'Kennedy. Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Yesterday a reference was made to the ESRI and their warning about the proper assessment of a cost-benefit analysis of all arterial drainage. I emphasise, as I was doing yesterday when the debate was adjourned, that it is important also to take cognisance of what the most recent ESRI report on employment says. It says that the £500 million spent on unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and redundancy is equalled by £500 million more through loss of income tax, social insurance revenue and indirect taxation. Therefore, it is shortsighted policy to cut down on productive schemes of arterial drainage and to lay people off, because the State is losing on several fronts.
The Minister for Finance pointed out yesterday that the expenditure provision for arterial drainage in 1984 was £11.650 million. The outturn for 1983 was £11.817 million, so that we have a reduction there already of £167,000. These figures are in the summary of the Public Capital Programme 1984 which was issued by the Minister. Taking inflation into account there is a further £1.1 million reduction based on a 10 per cent inflation rate. Therefore, there is no point in coming in here and saying that everything is rosy with regard to arterial drainage and that we are maintaining our expenditure levels. We are not maintaining our expenditure levels.
Mention was made also of the Boyne scheme and that it was within 10 per cent of completion. I want to call attention to one river in the Boyne catchment area. I think the figure given to Deputy Conaghan in answer to a parliamentary question during the week was that only 10 per cent of the Boyne drainage scheme remained to be completed. I refer to the Killinkere river which has been the subject of debate between the local people and their public representatives, the local authority and the OPW for many years. I appeal now to the Minister of State — I have mentioned this to him privately already on one occasion — to include that Killinkere river in that scheme before he pulls up stumps and moves away from the Boyne-Killinkere area. It is probably inexpensive to finish. The cost-benefit analysis, due to the industry of the people in the area, could not but show that the State would gain from finishing that scheme. It is the area from Lough Ramor to about 400 yards downstream to a bridge called Lundy's bridge, although I do not want to emphasise the man's name. In June 1978 the OPW wrote to Cavan County Council saying that the river would certainly be drained. Deputy McEllistrim confirmed this when he was in charge of the OPW. Therefore, I make that strong appeal to fit it in before the Board of Works move out of the general Boyne area.
I am pleased that the Ulster Blackwater in a joint effort between South and North is to be drained. I gather that the southern section for purposes of outfall must be done first. I understand that the scheme is prepared, and I am pleased about this, not merely for its economic consequences but for its social consequences also. I will have more to say about that when I come to the Erne catchment area in which also I have a strong interest.
The Minister for Finance outlined the criteria that were worked out in connection with the Maigue scheme when he was speaking here last night. He gave four headings in his speech and of them the Erne catchment area would come out on top. The first question is whether the scheme will achieve its objectives. I will not give the answers because they are obvious. Will the achievement of the objectives represent an economic return on the investment? Could the objectives of the scheme be achieved more economically by alternative means? There are no alternative means for draining the Erne catchment area. What principles of use for assessing future schemes might be observed from the analysis? That is a matter of putting the philosophy together.
We are now fast developing paranoia. We are wondering whether anybody cares a tinker's curse about the Border or Border areas. We have appealed time and time again across the floor of this House from every political party for special consideration for the Border area. We have not got it and it seems we will not get it in the near future. Every single Department that was affected from Finance up or down, depending on your rating of Finance, we have made appeals to. For that reason there is a special obligation on the Government to consider the Erne drainage scheme.
I will go quickly through some of the points I want to make because I have only a short time to do so. The area covers 4,375 square kilometers, that is 5.2 per cent of the area of all Ireland. It is the fourth largest river catchment area in Ireland. More than 130,000 people are living in the area. The population density is low. Emigration has been hitting this area, mainly because they have no work on the land, which is flooded for a large portion of the year. Of all the farms in the Republic, 19 per cent are there and also 34 per cent of all the farms in the North. The size of the farms is 20 hectares or less with 78 per cent of them in the Southern part and the rest in the Northern part. As I have said in this House, there is potential for tourism in the area. Upper and Lower Lough Erne, Lough Oughter, rivers or canals connecting the Erne scheme with the Shannon scheme would have tremendous potential for that if the basic drainage was done. In the 1950 Act certain regulatory levels were settled for Upper and Lower Lough Erne in connection with the generation of electricity. With goodwill and commitment this can be undertaken and achieved. The Social and Economic Committee of the EEC might even succeed in getting a 75 per cent funding from the EEC for that project. That is another reason for my appealing to the Minister and his Minister of State to have a strong look at this whole scene. FEOGA gave 50 per cent for drainage in the west and the Regional Development Fund gave 30 per cent as far as the Maigue was concerned. There is a possibility that we may get 75 per cent for the Erne scheme in our area. The Blackwater scheme points the way.
I said that there were economic reasons and that the cost-benefit analysis will stand up. Above all, there are social and political reasons why this project should be undertaken. The obscene murders, hatred and destruction going on the Six Counties at the moment could, in a sense, have a counterweight in this large cooperative scheme which we are urging on the Government. As I said, the Blackwater is an indication of what can be done. It is a sop in ionad na scuaibe. The Erne is the huge scheme which, from a farming point of view, from the point of view of the economy, both North and South, from the point of view of tourism and of political and social development must command——
We have a very strict time table, Deputy, please.
——the attention of the Department in question. I appeal very strongly to them to give it their full attention.
The Minister of State at the Department of Finance has 30 minutes.
The Minister for Finance last evening made it quite clear that we, on this side of the House, are not seeking to evade the issues raised by the Opposition motion. We have not sought to introduce our own amendment but are tackling the motion head on, confident that the facts will establish that, despite the present stringent financial circumstances, provision has been made to maintain an adequate arterial drainage programme in 1984.
Before dealing directly with arterial drainage, I would like to say a few words in relation to the general economic situation. Deputies from all sides of the House are well aware of the present state of the country's finances and of the need for rigid control in order to set the economy on the road to recovery. The Government have made substantial progress on this front and the future economic outlook is far more encouraging now than when this Government first came into office. I make this point purely to set this motion in context. I do not propose to hide behind these facts when dealing with this subject, but neither do I intend to conveniently forget the overall economic situation which obviously has a bearing and which the Opposition have ignored.
When one considers the arterial drainage programme in the context of the overall economic situation, a different scenario emerges. It would be unrealistic to expect that a massive injection of funds to arterial drainage could be made available this year. The reality is, that despite the constraints imposed by our economic situation, the Government have made a significant allocation to arterial drainage in 1984. In terms of the historical treatment of arterial drainage in regard to financial allocations, this year compares favourably with the trend in recent years.
I would like to highlight some aspects of the funding of arterial drainage by successive Governments which the Opposition have conveniently chosen to ignore. Firstly, there has been a consistent history of underfunding by successive Governments. This is reflected in the length of time which many of the schemes are taking to be completed. The Boyne drainage scheme was commenced in 1969 and was originally due for completion in 1979. The Maigue scheme commenced in 1973 and was originally due for completion in 1981. The principal explanation for these situations is that insufficient funds were supplied by successive Governments to the Commissioners of Public Works over a long period to have these schemes completed on target, both timewise and costwise. In the light of these facts, I find it rather hard to take some of what the Opposition have said on this subject. It would seem that the previous record of what has been spent on arterial drainage has been forgotten for the purposes of this debate and that this Government are being blamed for what is really a long-term problem which has been fuelled by the policies of successive Governments.
The laying off of men is not a beneficial way of doing it.
I did not interrupt the Deputy and listened to a lot of rubbish from him last night. The Minister for Finance has dealt comprehensively with the question of the overall funding of the entire arterial drainage service since 1978. The Opposition have chosen to concentrate their criticism on the employment aspect of the current drainage programme. I freely accept that the employment issue is extremely important and I propose, therefore, to give the House the facts relating to that particular aspect. Deputies will recognise that not all of the money allocated to the arterial drainage services relates directly to the creation and maintenance of employment. Substantial sums are necessarily allocated to and expended on related ancillary services such as the purchase of machinery, collection of data about river flows and studies of special problems that arise in the course of preparing a drainage scheme. Effectively, employment is created only when the actual construction works are put in hands. This activity is funded from subhead G2 of the Vote for Public Works and Buildings of the Office of Public Works. Let me, therefore, put on the record the amounts made available for this subhead down through the years from 1978 to 1983 and these will be very interesting. I would point out that these figures have been brought to present day values. I want to stress that point. They are as follows: 1978 — £9,043,000, 1979 — £8,771,000, 1980 — £9,874,000, 1981 — £11,148,000, 1982 — £11,030,000, 1983 — £11,200,000. I must again emphasise that these figures are in constant 1983 terms. Turning now to the 1984 provision of £10.95 million, this represents a decrease of only 2¼ per cent on last year's provision of £11.2 million, which in fact was the highest ever provision for drainage construction works in the history of this State. I anticipate that the Opposition may seek to belittle the G2 1984 provision but, here again, thanks to the policies of the present Government, which have succeeded in effecting a dramatic cut in inflation rates, I must point out that the provision, in real terms is, as the Minister for Finance pointed out yesterday, a generous one.
Let me now draw the attention of the House to the amounts provided for this service from 1978 to 1980 when the Opposition were in Government and let me repeat again that we are speaking in 1983 values. The amounts provided in each of those years was less than £10 million. This was the supposed era of plentiful cash when money was freely available and more freely spent on all sorts of projects, few of which could claim to be as soundly based in economic terms as arterial drainage. Indeed, the current allocation, as I have indicated, compares very favourably with the amounts made available by the Opposition when in Government.
We are providing almost £11 million this year while, as recently as 1980, the Opposition — then in Government — provided less than £10 million again, let me emphasise in 1983 terms.
We did not lay off any men.
How then can the Opposition sustain a charge that the Government are not providing finance to maintain an adequate arterial drainage programme? If there is criticism to be made, it is that successive Governments over many years have not provided the funds necessary to ensure that the various schemes were operated at the optimum rate to get full value for the investment. However, when all is said and done, I think I have demonstrated from the figures I have quoted that in these difficult times the Government have treated and are treating arterial drainage more generously than did the Opposition when they were in power.
I must come back again to the fact that the present is a time of financial stringency. Yet, in the late seventies and early eighties Fianna Fáil were prepared to make money available left, right and centre for projects, many of which were of dubious merit. Despite this fact, the level of expenditure on arterial drainage during those years, in 1983 terms again, was below the £11.20 million allocated by the Coalition Government last year and compares favourably with the allocation for this year. It would seem to me that if the Fianna Fáil Party were genuinely committed to arterial drainage in times when money was abundantly available there would have been a greater allocation for arterial drainage in those years. In addition, I think that their attitude at present of ignoring the economic realities and the vastly different situation in relaation to the availability of money leaves them open to charges of political opportunism at the very least.
Despite what I have said already and which I have put on the record in the interests of a more balanced presentation than that being given by the Opposition, I would not like to give the impression that I am entirely happy with the situation in relation to arterial drainage. It is of particular concern to me as a Labour Minister to find myself in a situation where men are being laid off. The reality of such a situation is only too well known to me. However, there are some points in relation to the present redundancies which must be stressed. Arterial drainage, by its very nature, provides temporary employment only for the bulk of those working on the schemes. Schemes start initially at a very low level of employment, then gradually build up to a peak which then tapers down as the schemes draw to a close. There is some element of tapering down in the redundancies which are proposed and no amount of additional finance could have prevented this.
Furthermore it appears to me, from what has been said, that the Opposition see something sinister and unusual in laying off men on schemes which are in progress. The plain fact of the matter is that men have always been laid off when works move from their own areas. For example, the Boyne scheme stretches from above Edenderry in Offaly, where the works were carried out some time ago up to Deputy Wilson's constituency in County Cavan where work is in progress at the present time.
Let the Minister not forget the Killinkere river.
In the ordinary way, the men employed from the Edenderry area would be laid off when their sector of the scheme is completed. In other words, there is a continuing turnover of the labour force as the points of operation move with the progress of the works. This process is accelerated as the scheme tapers to an end.
If unlimited finance had been available to the Government this year, there is no doubt that greater progress could have been made in the schemes and some of the redundancies avoided. However, I would submit that despite this fact the Government's strategy is the best one to follow. Unlimited financial inputs to drainage would have ensured that 90 per cent of the drainage workers on the Boyne, Maigue and Corrib/Mask/Robe would probably have been laid off in the next year to 18 months. Such a large number of lay-offs in a particular area at one time would have a serious impact on the local economies of the areas involved. There is merit in phasing the redundancies over a lengthier period in order to lessen their overall impact. I can appreciate, however, that such a claim is obviously one which is arguable. Another point worth bearing in mind, however, is that if these schemes had originally been sufficiently funded by Fianna Fáil we would not now have this problem of stretching scarce resources to complete them.
We did not make any men redundant.
I did not interrupt the Deputy and he said some very foolish things which I shall deal with later.
The next point I want to take up is the numbers being made redundant. Deputy McEllistrim repeatedly alleged here yesterday evening that 300 men were being made redundant because of a cut-back in the finance being made available. This is nonsense. I do not know how he could be under such a misapprehension. The figure is nearer to 100 men. As was made quite clear yesterday by the Minister for Finance, 140 men have been or are being let go this year but some of these are being let go because of the winding down of works. In fact, the figure of 140 men includes 26 men laid off in January on the Corrib/Mask scheme because of the state of works there and the labour requirement at that time. This reduces the number of workers being made redundant for financial reasons to 114 but there will be a small increase in the work force on the Boyne and Bonet schemes so that in round figures 100 redundancies only can be put down to lack of finance. So much for Deputy McEllistrim's 300.
This is a far cry from what Deputy McEllistrim repeatedly alleged here yesterday. The current arterial drainage programme is alive and well and continues to give employment to a very substantial work force of 750 men on the construction side and 300 men on the maintenance side. The allegation was made by Deputies Noonan and Wilson yesterday that the reduction achieved in the numbers which it was originally thought would have to be made redundant should be attributed to pressure from Fianna Fáil and the trade unions. This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation and the view suggested from the Opposition benches is a poorly thought out exercise in political opportunism.
The Minister for Finance refuted that allegation in his speech and I would now like to put on the record how it became possible to make that reduction in the numbers laid off. The money to save those 90 jobs was originally earmarked as part of our contribution to the cost of works in Northern Ireland which will provide an outfall into Lough Neagh for flood waters from the Monaghan Blackwater. The programme for those works is monitored at regular meetings between officials from my office and officials from the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. From those contacts it became clear a few weeks ago that the amount which we would be expected to pay for those works in Northern Ireland in 1984 would be less than had been forecast by the Northern Ireland authorities and it was possible, therefore, to divert the saving to the on-going schemes in the Republic. It was as simple as that and there is no basis for the suggestion that I or the Minister for Finance was forced to bow to pressure from any quarter.
While I am on the subject of cross-Border drainage I want to reiterate the present position as outlined by the Minister for Finance yesterday. As I have said, there has been close co-operation between my office and the Northern Ireland authorities in the planning of the entire scheme so that the two parts will dovetail exactly. This entailed our preparing a scheme for County Monaghan under the 1945 Act and the Northern Ireland authorities preparing a complementary scheme under their legislation. The two schemes have been brought along to the final stages required by the respective legislation and regulations. The Northern Ireland authorities are examining tenders which they received in mid-February on the basis that they would place a contract within 90 days. We, for our part, have considered the observations of affected land owners in County Monaghan and when the statutory period for the county councils' observations expires on 9 March, the way will be open to deal with those observations and to submit the scheme to the Minister for Finance for confirmation under the Act. Indications are that no insuperable obstacles are foreseen on either side and I expect the confirmation of the scheme to coincide with the placing of a contract for the first stage of the works in Northern Ireland. As I mentioned, there is money available to meet our commitment in 1984 and provision will be made in 1985 and in the following years as necessary.
It was Deputy Wilson, I think, who challenged what the Minister for Finance said about maintenance of completed schemes. The Deputy implied that the cost of maintenance should not come into the reckoning since the expenditure is met by the county councils. I want to put the Deputy right on this matter. The cost of maintaining completed drainage schemes is a charge in the first instance on Subhead G.3 of the Vote for Public Works and Buildings. The commissioners are required by statute to maintain the completed schemes to ensure that the capacity to give protection from flooding is not impaired by the passage of time. In fact, the commissioners will spend £4 million on this service this year and, as I said, will give employment to about 300 men. The amount spent is demanded back from the county councils but in present circumstances the councils depend heavily on Government subvention to meet those demands. It would be fair to say, from my experience of county councils — I have been a member of Kildare County Council for many years — that at the present time the cost of maintenance is, in fact, borne by the State although the repayments are channelled through the county councils.
Deputy Wilson had some disparaging remarks to make about the review of arterial drainage mentioned by the Minister for Finance yesterday. I want to take up this matter now to refute the suggestion that the review is a convenient way of putting off hard decisions. The programme of arterial drainage on the entire catchment basis with which we are all familiar has been running since the passing of the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act. The 40 years that have passed since the Act became law have seen many changes and developments. There have been developments in engineering methods, in economic techniques, in employment and trade union codes, in environmental considerations and especially in agriculture. In line with those developments the methods employed in designing, assessing and executing drainage works have evolved to meet changing needs and I think an excellent job has been done with the resources made available.
It is only right and proper, however, that every now and then those who are engaged in a complicated long-term programme like arterial drainage should stop and look closely at what they have been doing and how they have been doing it. It is a good idea to re-examine from time to time the standards which have been accepted down through the years — the standard of flood protection, the standards by which the economics of schemes should be measured, the standards against which environmental impact should be viewed. These and other aspects of drainage are at present being reviewed by the commissioners.
Arterial drainage is a subject of great interest not only to Deputies — their interest is amply demonstrated in this House frequently — but also to economists, agricultural and fishery bodies and to environmentalists. Specialists in these fields publish their views on drainage and it is important that their views should receive due consideration. The Economic and Social Research Institute published a major study on "Land Drainage Policy in Ireland" in July 1982. That study questioned some of the standards and practices employed up to now in arterial drainage and the Government decided that the time had come to review the whole basis of arterial drainage. As I said, the review which has been undertaken by the Commissioners on lines agreed with the Department of Finance is almost complete and will be available to the Government this summer. I might mention in passing that this is not the first time that drainage has been the subject of a close study. The Minister for Finance yesterday mentioned the Browne Commission which sat from 1938 to 1940 and made recommendations which form the basis of the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act. There were two previous examinations of the drainage problem since the Commissioners first became involved in 1842.
What about Brian Boru?
The Deputy has heard a lot which he does not like.
It is the law of Jenkins' ear.
The Allport Commission in 1887 and the Binnie Commission of 1905-7 looked at the problems as they then saw them. The current review is a logical further step which a prudent Government should take to ensure that policies are right and that resources are used to best advantage. I must say that, without wishing to prejudge the outcome, I am confident that the best method to continue the arterial drainage programme will emerge.
Another matter mentioned by Deputies yesterday was EEC funding. The western drainage scheme i.e. the Corrib-Mask, the Boyle and the Bonet are aided by refunds from the FEOGA (European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund) of 50 per cent of expenditure incurred and the Boyne and Maigue schemes attract refunds of 30 per cent of expenditure from the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund). While this is a very useful additional source of funding the fact remains that substantial capital amounts must first be raised and expended. There are, of course, other projects competing for ERDF funds and it does not necessarily follow that drainage should necessarily have first call on ERDF funds. This would of course be one of the considerations which the drainage review would help to clarify.
Deputy Wilson pressed the case for a drainage scheme for the Erne catchment. This is a large and complicated catchment lying on both sides of the Border. The whole question of the drainage of the Erne is a difficult and complex problem which I would not have time to deal with adequately today. I am bound to say, however, that the studies carried out are not encouraging for a scheme acceptable from an economic and environmental viewpoint.
The consultants should be sacked. They are stupid asses.
Deputy Kitt raised the question of the Dunkellin. There seems to be some misapprehension about what is being done in this catchment. This catchment has three problems associated with it which are of a special nature, namely —
1. A very extensive groundwater system which could be seriously affected by a surface water drainage scheme.
2. The existence of the well-known oyster beds at Clarinbridge at the mouth of the river and
3. The Rahasane turlough — an extensive wild life habitat in the lower reachers of the catchment.
Each of these problems is the subject of detailed investigation by specialists in their respective fields.
The first problem is being investigated by Dr. Drew, a hydrogeologist in Trinity College who was commissioned to examine the effect which a drainage scheme might have on the groundwater system. This involves monitoring underground flows over a period of a couple of years. Dr. Drew's report is expected in 1985.
The second problem is to gauge the effect which the release of flood waters into the bay would have on the salinity of the sea water at the oyster beds. This investigation is being carried out for the Commissioners by Professor McK. Bary of Galway University. This study which involves a hydrographic survey of the bay and a monitoring process over a two-year period is also expected to be completed by next year.
The effect of a drainage scheme on the Rahasane turlough is being investigated by the Forest and Wildlife Service of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. I understand that the necessary field work will be undertaken this year. When the Commissioners have received and considered these reports they will be in a position to take decisions on the feasibility of the drainage scheme. I can assure the Deputy that money is available this year to pay for the reports commissioned by my office.
The drainage of the river Nanny was also raised by Deputy Kitt. As the Deputy is well aware, this river is part of the Corrib-Clare catchment which was drained about 20 years ago. Works on the Nanny river were not proceeded with because of problems which Galway County Council expected would arise in relation to the water supply to Tuam town. The intention was that Galway County Council would provide an alternative supply which would clear the way to having the drainage works carried out. Galway County Council have not yet solved the problem to their satisfaction and are not yet prepared to agree to the drainage works being carried out. The drainage works are, of course, feasible as I informed the Deputy in 1981 but the Commissioners would be most reluctant to proceed with the works without the full agreement and co-operation of the council. I can only suggest that the Deputy who is a member of the council takes up the matter with them.
Some mention was made yesterday of the drainage of the River Shannon. I am afraid that I cannot take these comments very seriously. Fianna Fáil have been making political capital, particularly at election time, about the drainage of the Shannon for as long as I can remember, and I think at this stage that I am one of the oldest members around. I do not accept any of the Fianna Fáil charges in this respect and will not until I see some evidence of Fianna Fáil putting their money where their mouth is. At least this Government are honest enough to say that no progress is being made on this front rather than continue with a patently false pretence.
Deputy McCartin suggested that it might be better to do drainage works by contract than by direct labour. I do not know what the evidence is for this view. Each scheme carried out is subjected to a cost-benefit analysis and goes ahead only if it proves worthwhile. Each section of the works is costed as it proceeds and compared with the target figures used in the analysis.
I believe — and I am prepared to stake my reputation on it — that as far as arterial drainage is concerned the Board of Works can compete with contractors of any size. I have set out a very reasonable case here which proves that the Opposition are not sincere. I want to go back over the figures which I gave which prove that although Fianna Fáil threw money round as if it was going out of fashion, we are providing more money in 1984 than they did during those golden years when they were throwing money around left, right and centre. As a result, every taxpayer in the country is paying for it.
We never made any men redundant.
Drainage is of special significance in the Border region. Before we joined the EEC there was not much hope of drainage work being carried out. In south Monaghan the River Fane, which flows southwards to Dundalk, was flooding between 5,000 and 6,000 acres. The Blackwater, which flows into Lough Neagh, affects 5,900 acres. The Erne catchment is the fourth largest catchment after the Shannon, the Bann and the Barrow and it covers 5.2 per cent of the land of the entire island. It affects the five Border counties in that 75 per cent of County Cavan is covered by the Erne catchment, Donegal 2 per cent, Leitrim 30 per cent, Monaghan 40 per cent, Longford 15 per cent, as well as County Fermanagh. In Cavan 57 per cent of the land is rated as wet drumlin soil in need of drainage. Of 13,933 holdings in County Cavan, 9,673 have a valuation of £20 or less. Of 10,655 holdings in County Monaghan, 7,565 have valuations of £20 or less. All these rivers straddle the Border and many of them form part of the Border for long distances. In the North they carry out drainage works on a tributary basis but here we deal with the complete catchment.
I pay tribute to the OPW for the work they carried out following our entry to the EEC when funds were made available. They carried out a land valuation study and an engineering study of the Blackwater and they are now ready to begin work with the intention of completing drainage within five years. This is the first time the OPW have operated at that pace and I hope the pace will be continued.
We also have in the area the Ballymore-Ballyconnell canal and we saw an opportunity to link the Shannon and the Erne, the finest waterways in Europe.
The Minister has talked about problems which have arisen but I do not accept this argument. I was involved in initiating drainage works in mid-Ulster from 1973. I have been a member of every committee and I know that the problems are not as the Minister says. We were told there were problems on the inter-lough channel at the sluice gates at Portora but I know they can be overcome. A former Stormont Minister told me that they had examined it and that the generating station could be by-passed. The Minister is only using it as an excuse.
When Fianna Fáil were returned to power in 1977 one of the first things the then Taoiseach did was to set up a steering committee of civil servants from both sides of the Border. We worked with elected representatives, North and South, and with officials of the local authorities. The steering committee and the monitoring group continued their work and made great progress. Land valuation and engineering surveys were carried out. On 19 December 1980 we met the then Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, but following that we ran into the problem of the Northern troubles and the H blocks and progress was retarded.
The Minister referred last night to certain savings on the cross-Border project which came to light during the past few weeks following consultations with the Northern Ireland authorities. In other words, they saved money there in order to keep men employed in some other area. The money for the Blackwater was allocated through Directive 79-197 and the EEC were to reimburse 50 per cent of the expenditure. The money is now being diverted to drainage works in the west covered by Directive 78-628. I hold that the Government cannot do this, that it is irresponsible and illegal. That money was made available for cross-Border drainage development. It is positive proof of the insincerity of the Government.
On 20 February 1974 I put down questions to the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, regarding money for arterial drainage. The Minister replied:
However, the general tendency of expenditure from the fund will be to create industrial employment or infrastructures related closely to industrial development so that expenditure on arterial drainage will remain a matter solely for national administration.
That was the attitude during the Coalition years and it is still the attitude.
In March 1975 I put down questions to the then Minister for Finance and he replied that there was no guarantee that money would be provided. It is typical of the Government that they are trying to siphon off this money. I hope the EEC are aware of it.
I have always been very concerned about drainage problems and I wrote to Antonio Giolitti, the European Commissioner responsible for the Regional Fund. He replied to me on 11 April 1983 as follows:
Thank you for your letter of 9 March 1983 concerning development of the border regions of Ireland and, in particular, the Erne Catchment Area.
I must admit to being a little perturbed at the implication that the Erne Catchment Study, which was jointly commissioned and financed by the Irish and British Governments and the Commission and which, as you point out, raised high hopes in the area, had not given rise to concrete action.
That answers it all. By the Minister's own admission he is siphoning off this money and diverting it to another area. I say this cannot be done and I do not intend that the Government should be allowed to do it.
That is not what was said.
The money will have to be used in the Border region. The Government will have an opportunity of securing further funds if they make a pound for pound contribution. They are a Coalition Government with no commitment and I hope the EEC will pursue the matter.
A speaker opposite regretted that while money was spent on land reclamation there was not a corresponding improvement in cattle numbers or improved farm development in the region. This is regrettable and the only hope for the development of the region is large scale arterial drainage. In those three or four catchments I have walked every small tributary which was cleaned and scrubbed as a small job in County Fermanagh. If the Office of Public Works ever intend to make progress with arterial drainage, they will have to remove the obstacles which are doing so much damage in many rivers.
Like many Deputies I was very taken aback when I read recently that quite a significant number of men who were engaged on arterial drainage would be laid off by the Office of Public Works and that, in real terms, significantly less money would be spent this year on this very important activity. I understand there is a study, which we have heard a great deal about, in train at the moment. Hopefully it will be completed and published shortly. We all await its conclusions with considerable interest.
The ERSI study which was conducted a couple of years ago came up with certain conclusions in regard to the value of the cost benefit of certain catchment areas which have been drained over the past ten or 20 years. They came to some fairly unfavourable conclusions. The catchment areas they chose to study are mainly in the west of Ireland, of very poor quality land and in what one would call dole areas. For much of the period in question there was not much incentive to farmers, if they were on a non-notional or actual valuation of what they were doing, to produce any more. I want to make a plea here tonight in relation to arterial drainage of the better catchment areas which have not yet been done.
Irrespective of whatever conclusions may rightly or wrongly be come to in regard to catchments in poor land, those conclusions cannot apply to catchments where the land is of high quality. In the Mulcaire in County Limerick a drainage society was formed some years ago to endeavour to bring about the drainage of that catchment. They have done a tremendous amount of research. Recent research indicates — based on some very conservative estimates — that, in that relatively small catchment area the value in 1983 terms of increased agricultural output per annum would be £27 million. That is at a stocking rate of one cow per 1.5 acres, which is not particularly ambitious as things go, and each cow yielding 750 gallons which is not particularly good either.
I quote those figures to show how conservatively the society, consisting mainly of farmers and other interests in that catchment area, have approached the scientific study they have done. Their figures are entitled to be listened to with some care by the Office of Public Works and the Department of Finance. It has to be realised that not to drain a catchment of that kind is crazy in present circumstances with the high value of the land there and the tremendous potential it has — rich land which is constantly being flooded.
The Mulcaire is in an unusual situation. The uplands behind it where its seven main tributaries rise just inside County Tipperary in the Rear Cross and Newport areas and further up, have qualified it for field drainage grants under the EEC in recent years. A great deal of field drainage has gone in there, where it never took place before. The result is that the volume of water coming down into the Mulcaire and its tributaries has increased enormously. As a result there is flooding in the main river which is quite a short river in itself. It is less than ten miles in length between where the last of the tributaries comes in and the main river enters the Shannon just above Limerick. The volume of water going in there is enormous.
It has taken on the new dimension that it is no longer simply an agricultural problem of constant flooding of agricultural land throughout the winter and flash flooding in the summer which takes away hay and things of that kind which has happened from year to year. It is also a very serious problem in terms of the damage being done to the dwellinghouses of farmers and of non-farmers, and damage done in particular to the village of Cappamore, half of which on two occasions in each of the past two winters has been under several feet of water and, but for the mercy of God, a number of people would have been drowned in and close to the village because of the extent of the flooding and the suddenness of it because of the new factors which exist.
The Office of Public Works will have to look at this Mulcaire problem not just as an agricultural drainage problem in comparison with other catchment areas. They will have to realise that enormous damage is being done to property, much of it non-agricultural property, and that some person or persons will be drowned one of these winters. The problem is getting worse each year. That cannot be tolerated. The Office of Public Works will have to look at it in that light and take emergency measures to ensure that this is rectified very quickly.
There is a bridge which I pass over many times a week, the bridge on the Mulcaire at Annacotty. When you look up to your left you see the weir above that bridge absolutely clogged because of the recent floods with more and more tree trunks and other obstructions along the lower part of the river which could be quite easily moved. This would make a major difference.
In engineering terms the Mulcaire is difficult enough because of the various levels involved in it. It is also a relatively easy river to drain because of its unusual shortness and because it has a large number of small tributaries each of which in itself is relatively easy to deal with. I suggest to the Government and the the Department of Finance who, presumably, will make the decisions on these matters that arterial drainage cannot be looked on as something to which the same criteria apply in all parts of the country. The underlying value of the catchment area as an agricultural producer will have to be looked at. The new elements in this particular catchment area of constant danger to life and damage to property, agricultural and non-agricultural, every winter will also have to be taken into account. The present situation cannot continue.
I hope to God that it never arises that I, or some other Deputy from East Limerick or North Tipperary, will have to come into this House some day and raise on a Private Notice Question or on the Adjourment the drowning of one, two or three people somewhere in that catchment area as a result of the Mulcaire and its tributaries overflowing and flooding one of these villages to a depth of three, four or five feet which we have seen in recent times. Then everyone will wring their hands and say that something should have been done about it. I am making it clear now that that will happen, and I am also saying that on very conservative estimates the Government are chosing, if they decide not to go on with the Mulcair, to cast aside £27 million of additional agricultural production that can be done in a short number of years. I do not think it is reasonable that these things should be ignored in the fashion they have. That will have to be faced up to now and a very serious look taken at it by the Office of Public Works.
I am delighted to have the opportunity of supporting this motion. At a time when our economy needs a major boost it is folly for the Government to be cutting back on the arterial drainage programme. I understand that almost 270 workers are to be made redundant ——
The Deputy was not listening to me when I announced the figures.
I understand that an appeasement has been given to 70 workers, but that still leaves a figure of 200.
Ninety.
Twenty more must have been added since the commitment was given to Minister Donnellan ten days ago. We must consider the contribution made by those workers to the arterial drainage programme over the years. On the Minister's own admission last night in 1979 a total of £12½ million was voted for arterial drainage work but that was reduced in 1983 to £11.9 million and reduced further for 1984 to £11.65 million.
EEC money is included in that also.
At a time when only 25 per cent of our farmers are at full production it is wrong to cut back on such work. We must realise that the reason why 75 per cent of our farmers are not at full production is because of the quality of the land, the topography of the soil in the area in which they live, and the need for proper main arterial drainways so that land drainage can commence. That work should be carried out so that land that is flooded periodically can be brought into full production. At a time when we are fighting a super-levy in Europe it is crazy financial policy to be cutting back on a scheme that will bring such land into production. The Government should reconsider this matter.
Since the Act was introduced in 1945, 620,000 acres of land have been drained, but more than 600,000 acres remain to be drained in the 12 western counties. That is an indication of the amount of work that remains to be done after almost 40 years work under that scheme. My constituency has been bedevilled with problems due to the flooding of the Shannon and its tributaries, the Suck and the Bunowen, the Dunkellin, the Corrib and further afield in Mayo the Moy, and the Bonet in Sligo. Great work has been done under the Corrib drainage scheme. In particular great work has been done on the Corrib-Headford and that scheme has now moved on to the Corrib-Mask in the Mayo area. I understand that 80 per cent of that scheme has been completed. The scheme has been of great benefit to mid and northern Galway and the southern part of Mayo. I am aware that quite an amount of land has been drained under the western drainage programme. Were it not for the fact that the arterial waterway of the Corrib, and its tributary, the Clare, was carried out prior to that scheme it would not have been possible to retrieve the land in north Galway and south Mayo.
It is vital that the Government ensures that the programme is not alone improved but escalated in the years ahead. The sooner we get our farmers to the European productivity level the better for our economy. We will then find it easier to compete with other European countries. Until we reach that stage it is not right that our European partners should penalise us for something that has not been created by our production levels but has been artificially created by our competitors in the EEC.
The water levels of the Shannon seem to be abnormally high even at times when there is little or no rain. The ESB play a major part in this. I do not know what system they operate to ensure that we have sufficient power through the use of the sluice gates and the waterways, but farmers in Galway, Offaly and Tipperary suffer. The Minister of State should ensure, as far as possible, that the Shannon water levels do not damage farm land adjoining that river.
I should now like to refer to a river in my county which has been the subject of a lot of discussion in recent years, the Dunkellin river in south Galway. That river has a total catchment area of 91,000 acres of which 15,000 are severely flooded. The average farm size there is only 25 to 30 acres, and that river directly affects almost 3,000 farmers and indirectly affects a further 6,000. Arterial drainage work has not been carried out in that vast catchment area, which has one of the lowest stocking rates in the country. In fact the stocking rate is about one livestock unit per ten acres. There is a need, because of that, to proceed with the major scheme for the Dunkellin catchment area. If the drainage work was carried out the stocking rate there could be increased to six livestock units per acre, a 500 per cent improvement in production. That would be a great contribution to the economy of the west.
The failure to carry out this drainage work has meant that there is a low quality herbage, which leads to poor livestock performance because livestock are restricted to grazing only. We have low fertility in that area and endemic diseases rampant there such as fluke and red water. The land can be used for six months of the year only. In 1982 I was delighted when the Taoiseach of the day, Deputy Haughey, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry, gave a commitment to provide the finance to carry out studies on the Dunkellin river. Studies were to be carried out on the ground water position, the oyster beds on Clarinbridge and the Rahasane turlough, the well known bird sanctuary. The Leader of the Opposition of the time, Deputy FitzGerald, in the course of the by-election of July 1982, gave a commitment that if he was returned to power he would ensure that the drainage work was carried out on the river. However, the first thing he did when he was elected Taoiseach was to terminate the studies in the cutbacks in the 1983 budget.
That is not true and the Deputy knows it.
One person worked there in 1983 and he is the only person who is working on the studies. The Dunkellin drainage scheme, in addition to giving the 6,000 to 8,000 people living in the catchment area an opportunity to earn a good livelihood, will also create the motivation when applied throughout the country to solve our chronic jobs problem. The Government should ensure that a comprehensive arterial drainage programme is prepared and submitted to Brussels immediately. In our ten years of EEC membership we have not taken up the financial aids that are available for our disadvantaged areas. I hope the Government will submit a programme to Brussels to ensure that arterial drainage work is expanded in the coming years.
One of the beauties of being in Opposition is that one can promise everything but deliver nothing and, in fairness, the Opposition speakers have been consistent in their attitude and their approach towards this matter. Since the independence of this State they have held power for approximately 51 of the 60 years. They have always drained the Shannon before each election, they have promised a biscuit factory in Ballina and many other things. Their three main aims are: the restoration of the Irish language, the reunification of the country and aid to small farmers. The fact that the Government have not tabled an amendment to the motion indicates their concern and their understanding of the problem. They have given a detailed and constructive analysis of the exact position in relation to arterial drainage. We understand the harsh realities imposed by the current economic difficulties and in their interpretation and presentation of the problem the Government have been realistic.
It has been demonstrated that sufficient finance is available to maintain an adequate drainage scheme during 1984 and, within that, cognisance has been taken of the employment position and the contribution to agricultural development by the maintenance of an adequate programme. Some 750 men are employed by the Office of Public Works and a further 200 are employed on maintenance work, and the agricultural development of the areas being drained has been assisted.
A sum of £11.65 million is available this year, which compares more than favourably with the amounts granted in other years. It is true that there should be a complete review by the Office of Public Works because, as the Minister of State has indicated, all may not be well in some areas with regard to this matter. In the light of our present economic situation, the Opposition speakers should indicate the sources of revenue available as alternatives when they propose vast drainage schemes throughout the country.
The EEC.
It is not good enough for the Opposition to say we should run to the EEC. Deputy McEllistrim, who was a former Minister of State dealing with the Office of Public Works, knows well the problems associated with arterial drainage. His interpretation that 300 people will be made redundant should be withdrawn or substantiated. The Minister has proved his figures tonight but there has not been any withdrawal of that false allegation.
Coming from my constituency I know full well the value of the work of the Office of Public Works in relation to the Corrib-Mask drainage scheme. On completion of the scheme in 1986 some 24,000 acres will have been drained. If any of the Opposition speakers wish to know the feelings of the farmers who use that land they should go down to the area and speak to the people concerned. The Office of Public Works have done a most worthwhile job in draining the land. There are always cases where there are claims for further extensions, for bridges to be built, for better slipways and approaches to land, for fencing and compensation. There are always such claims, but generally the overall work of the Office of Public Works has been first-class. I ask the Minister to keep up the good work in dealing with claims from farmers in respect of extra extensions.
The advantageous effects in economic terms should be monitored. The work carried out by the Office of Public Works must be proved in terms of a cost benefit analysis. The effects of drainage work should be monitored by the Office of Public Works or by a special commission to ensure that the various agricultural agencies will provide the necessary incentives, motivation and encouragement for farmers to avail of grants and incentives to increase the agricultural production of the drained land. There is no point in carrying out major drainage work if it is not followed up by intensive agricultural development. The Government have indicated the true position in relation to finance this year, and that is why there has been no amendment to this motion.
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution, however short, to the debate. I have personal experience of arterial drainage because my constituency has benefited by two schemes that have been carried out. The Moy drainage scheme was completed about 12 years ago and at the other end of my constituency there is the Corrib-Mask-Robe scheme which is 80 per cent completed. The Office of Public Works have done an excellent job on both schemes, and that is recognised by the local community. The farmers in the catchment areas have made full use of the drained land, and on this matter I agree with my colleague across the floor of the House. The majority of farmers have availed of grants under the Farm Modernisation Scheme and under the Western Development Scheme to carry out the drainage work, and they have brought their holdings into higher productivity.
I was amazed to hear Deputy McCartin last evening say that borrowing money for drainage in the west of Ireland was a waste of money and time. He said it had not led to increased productivity, or at least that is the implication I took from what he said. I wonder where were his eyes when he was campaigning in 1979 in the Connacht-Ulster constituency?
He will get a black eye the next time.
At that time he must have travelled near the Moy drainage catchment area. I hope he will open his eyes when he travels through the Robe catchment area on this occasion. If he does this he will see the excellent work that has been carried out and the use the farmers are making of the drained land.
There is an increasing demand for improvement work on channels, but the Office of Public Works have not the money to reconstruct the channels which would allow many farmers to participate in drainage schemes. They have not the required outfall to qualify them for grants under the Farm Modernisation Scheme or the western package.
I know it is impossible to include every extension or every scheme, but I wish to refer to one request. This is a request by 50 or 60 farmers to have the Hollymount River included in the Robe drainage scheme. This is an area of 600 acres to 700 acres of fertile land, and I ask the Minister to give the matter sympathetic consideration. The farmers are affected by the flooding which takes place every winter and which subsides during the summer. A report on the matter is due to be presented shortly, and I hope it will be favourable, but even if it is not favourable some drainage work should be carried out. There is a surplus of water in this area during the winter when there is an abundance of water everywhere, but there is no water there in the summer when there may be a scarcity of water also in surrounding areas.
There is a fear that drainage works would interfere with local water supplies, but I maintain that that argument does not stand up. Certainly some drainage work should be carried out. Reducing the winter level of the water in that channel to its summer level obviously would not affect surrounding water supply schemes or anything else. I regret the redundancies that 50 out of 250 men are being laid off a project funded 50 per cent by the EEC. Putting those men on unemployment assistance and pay-related benefit is standing economics on its head.
When the Fianna Fáil front bench and Parliamentary Party decided to put this motion down in Private Members' Time it was on the basis of national priorities, that we would at least focus on this issue as being a national priority.
The number of Deputies who have offered to speak, the number of those who could not, the number of Government Deputies who for one reason or another have endeavoured to turn figures on their head — as Deputy Kenny has just done — contending that when one provides less this year than last year one is looking after arterial drainage as effectively as ever, all demonstrate that any Deputy in this House knows its significance. Why do we? It is because the farmers and those of us who represent rural constituencies — where the agri-food industry is so dependent on agricultural productivity — all realise the problem with which we are faced but perhaps, more importantly, the immense potential in this area. It is a question of choice, of developing our natural resources, amongst the most important of which is agriculture, ensuring that present unproductive land — and I will mention just one or two examples — will be released for the benefit of the nation.
Our spokesmen on agriculture last evening advanced cogent arguments in terms of the input to the balance of payments. I cannot repeat them in the limited time available except to adopt them as spokesman on Finance — the downstream industries in the agri-food area, all of that vitally important. In this connection I want to stress three or four points. What is at present lacking is a national comprehensive development plan. We have been waiting for it. Therefore it is not surprising, in the absence of any such national development plan that there is no plan for arterial drainage. Clearly there is no indication of a consistent programme, not just for next year or for the following year but, in the nature of arterial drainage, for ten or 15 years to maximise the benefit of present unproductive land. For instance, when we hear of a cutback of 1 per cent in money terms over last year — and there is no disagreement on that — an effective cutback of 12 per cent in real terms from last year, is that not clear evidence of lack of any plan or, if there was a plan — and there was — an absolute rejection of such plans as existed?
Of course there is not any comprehensive national agricultural development plan. There was one such plan one and a half years ago when this Government came into office. But one and a half years later they are still wondering and waiting what they will do about discussions with various groups and social partners, asking others to do the job they asked the people to put them here to do. There is no plan for agriculture, no plan for the economy and certainly no plan for arterial drainage.
Within the capital programme for agriculture, which is related to this also, we find a cutback of the equivalent of 50 per cent of this year's allocation in farm modernisation over the last two years. The reduction since 1982 is 50 per cent of the total capital allocation for farm modernisation this year. It must then be asked: where are we going? The reality is that even with 50 per cent support available from the EEC the FEOGA funds, even in good years by comparison with this year much less next year, have not been fully taken up. FEOGA funds, through which these grants for arterial drainage percolate, have never been fully taken up here. Next year they will be very much below the quota.
With a 50 per cent support from Europe can we really say that this Government have any notion of the development of priorities for this nation? We on this side of the House, particularly in recent times, have endeavoured to stress in a positive way the development of our natural resources, whether that be our children in education or above all else here, land, agriculture. What we are getting is a series of platitudes from the Government. I might tell the Minister of State present in the House that it does not really matter. I would prefer to rely on Deputy McEllistrim's figures because they will form the basis for reply by the Minister. Does it really matter whether the figure is 260, 270, 280 or 140 less? It is going to be less anyway for people engaged in arterial drainage than it was last year. Are we going to boast about that? With so much to be achieved, with so much support from the EEC, this Government have no plan and are actually reducing in money terms — never mind real terms — the development potential.
Some time ago we debated the issue of a factory that had floated away from my home town because of river flooding. Whatever about losing a factory, that photograph fairly graphically demonstrates the problem in——
It is not permissible to produce photographs in the House.
Nonetheless it is one way of demonstrating the kind of situation obtaining on some of the most productive land of Ireland——
The important thing is the record and the Deputy cannot get a photograph on the record as of now.
Can it be said for the record that this photograph shows eight cattle from the plains of Limerick/ Tipperary; in fact they are not cattle, they are milch cows being rescued from the flooded plains of Limerick/ Tipperary——
Good Friesian cows too.
Good ones as well, as Deputy Wilson from Cavan correctly recognises. This has been the pattern all this year in that area. I believe the House has heard about the River Mulcaire this evening. They will hear more about it now but merely as an example, where the potential is so enormous, perhaps the most fertile agricultural land in the country. We are allowing that kind of scandal to continue. What is more, under this Government's programmes, we are telling the people of regions like that: "We are now suspending any plans; the plans that were on the way are being suspended. The hope you might have had is gone." The people who have been available from other schemes, when completed, are now being let go. That is the reality we are facing at this stage.
Can anything justify that kind of situation? Scenes like that — and I will not be too graphic about it — aggravate the bovine TB problem. Is it any wonder that in that region bovine TB is probably at a level higher than anywhere else in the country? With flooding of that kind is it surprising? Is it any wonder that nobody will fertilise lands which, in bad conditions, can be flooded like that, but unfortunately where the potential is so enormous? Is it any wonder that farmers are losing heart, leaving the land, telling their sons that there is no place for them on the land of Limerick/Tipperary because this flooding continues year after year? And for the sake of what? Deputy Kenny asked me to put up alternatives — for the sake of an extra couple of millions of pounds this year. I would prefer to see £2 million being spent on arterial drainage than to see that amount of money being provided by this Government this year for public relations exercises.
If one studies the Estimates one will find in every single Department extra consultants for every Minister to put across an impression while they ignore this reality. I will tell the Government where they can cut back — on all their consultancies. They have recruited more consultants to advise them, a Government incapable of making a decision. Which is the priority — our natural resources or public relations? This debate has demonstrated that we believe it to be our natural resources. This Government believe it to be public relations. That is the difference.
Might I ask a question? Will the Minister of State name the consultants who are skulking somewhere behind his Department and who reported wrongly on the Erne scheme, or will he sack them, get rid of them?
