Deputy Brennan is in possession. He has 16 minutes left.
Adjournment of Dáil: Motion.
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Dáil on its rising on 19 December, 1986, do adjourn for the Christmas recess until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 January, 1987."
—(The Tánaiste.)
The Minister for Agriculture will not be in that position again.
The Opposition Deputies have been saying that for four years. Let them not raise their hopes too high.
Let them not ask Santa for that.
Before the Adjournment, I was making it clear that the shareholders of this country, the People of Ireland Limited, should think about dismissing the management of this country appointed four years ago. I proceeded to show objectively that every single target set by the Government in that four year period has been missed — taxation, the national debt, manufacturing, unemployment, emigration, interest rates. Take any target you will, every single one has been missed and missed very widely. My basic thesis, therefore, is that if one had a management team like that one would dismiss them.
I want to talk about something touched on before the Adjournment in regard to the national debt. This country owes £23 billion. I was making it clear earlier that it took 60 years of self-government to build up a national debt of £12 billion. It took the Government four years to nearly double it. For that, we get lectures about the borrowing record of our party. That must be stitched into the record of this House today. It took 60 years to get £12 billion and the Government, the management of this country, go out and nearly double that in four short years and somehow portray the impression that they are trying to get public finances under control. That is the reality.
The other reality, which is important to put on the floor of this House again since we are heading into an election, is that I continually hear speeches from Government Ministers pointing to the mess they inherited, the difficulties they faced when they came into office, left behind by some kind of irresponsible regime. The reality is that they on the far side of the House, the Government have been in power for ten out of the past 14 years. What is important is that if this country is in the difficulties it is in today, it is very weak and shallow to blame anybody but those who held the reins of office for a whole decade out of 14 years. That point has to be stitched into the record and it will be, in the forthcoming campaign.
Another point to be stitched into that campaign is this. This country, as I say, owes £23 billion. Two-thirds of that figure was amassed by Coalition Governments. It is difficult for people on this side of the House to take a lecture in regard to public finances and the national debt in view of the three facts to which I referred. People on the other side of the House should ponder those facts before they engage in an election campaign based on the public finances and the present attitude that they are involved in trying to clear up another difficulty. They had ten years out of 14 years to do it and I demonstrated their progress before Question Time. However, that is a negative argument and I will not over-concentrate on it.
By laying out the facts and the figures, I demonstrated that on every target in Building on Reality and the Joint Programme for Government the Government failed to meet their targets. These targets were not set by the people but by the Government after two years in office when they had the benefit of the advice of the National Planning Board. Two years later, none of these targets has been achieved and it is quite clear that the national development plan should be scrapped. I made the case that the shareholders cannot be pleased with the management, who did not achieve their plan. The shareholders will now change the management.
I was very disappointed to hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce say that if you want low taxes you must increase expenditure and that it is just two sides of the one coin. He misses the fundamental point about the economy and does not understand it. You must look at the economy from two points of view. One is the bookkeeping side where you get deficit under control and keep expenditure tight. It is very important and I support it, but there is another side to managing the economy which the Government seemed to ignore completely, that the deficits are the result of activity and not the activity which the Government seem to think of. I should like to ask the Taoiseach which Cabinet Minister is responsible for creating that activity. From what I can see of the Cabinet, everybody is interested in expenditure, deficits, revenue and day-to-day mundane bookkeeping matters which are important, but where are the Seán Lemasses around the Cabinet table today who look at the development side and the creation of activity and wealth, the taking of risks, the preparation of the ground for investment, the making of the investment and the creative imaginative steps forward which this country needs?
We have a Cabinet full of bookkeepers, we have nobody of vision, guts or determination who will look beyond the books. The books will be all right if you get the people back to work and take the gutsy, courageous and imaginative decisions which are there to be taken. I am not talking about simple, old fashioned pump priming or reflation. I am proposing creative answers which do not always cost money. The Government side have a simple book keeping mentality which asks where the money will come from. Where did Seán Lemass get the money? He did not borrow to start Shannon Airport, for example, it was an idea upon which he worked. Much of the foreign industry in Shannon did not get money, they were given the environment in which to set up and they came and built on it. Do not tell me that that investment has not paid for itself. It did not cost money because they came here and they helped us to build the country. Courage and imagination do not necessarily cost money.
Take the financial services industry, for example, in which there is tremendous potential remaining untapped. There is scope for substantially increased employment but the Government say that that would cost money. Would it? If you forego taxation on money you do not have is that a cost? I suggest it is not. If you say to an international banking community that they should open in Ireland to give employment, perhaps you forego income and taxation but that is not a cost. It is income and taxation foregone, which is not a cost as you did not have the money in the first place. That is the view which Seán Lemass took and with which his Cabinet were in agreement.
It is distressing to have a Cabinet of bookkeepers who lecture us on one side of running the economy, getting the books right. There is another side to running the economy by creating activity as a result of gutsy, courageous decisions. It is not just a matter of money.
At present two people from Córas Tráchtála are in China trying to open up the market. We have hundreds of educated young graduates who could help to open up that market, which would not cost much money. What about the innovation centre in Limerick? Can we point them in the direction of bringing forward new technology? What about the fact that we import £10 million worth of food every day? What is happening to attract the big food developers from all over the world to help us to develop that market which we should be able to do ourselves? They are the steps we must take. My basic thesis to the House is that we need that kind of imagination and approach in running the economy.
Let me return to the task which faces the shareholders of Ireland Limited. As shareholders in that enterprise, what have we to say about the performance of the management in meeting their own targets? We can only say that the management have failed by a wide margin to meet any of their targets. Instead of reversing the trend of unemployment they have increased it and, in the process, brought back the grim spectre of wholesale emigration which we thought had gone forever. Instead of removing the current budget deficit or even reducing it, it has been increased. Instead of moderating our debt problems, they have increased the burden of what we owe by doubling a figure that took 60 years to build up. Worse than all this is the complete lack of understanding about what makes the country tick and the kind of economy we should be running. The books will take care of themselves if the Government take care of the economy. That does not mean pumping money into it, it is having the courage to take decisions in order to get our people back to work and paying taxes which will solve the deficit problem. If you approach the economy only on the basis of slashing spending in a ruthless fashion, you will kill the goose that we need to lay the golden eggs and then there will not be wealth for anyone.
This team will be judged on their record of failing to meet any of their targets and their record of demonstrating that they do not understand how the economy works. The "shareholders of Ireland Limited" want a management team that has a sense of awareness of how the economy works and a sense of urgency about the problems facing us. It must also have a sense of direction in which we will move forward. These qualities are lacking in the present administration. If the shareholders of "Ireland Limited" look at the management team they put in office, they will see that they have missed all their targets. We now owe twice as much as we did four years ago, 31,000 people are leaving the country each year, unemployment figures continue to climb and interest rates are so high that industries are closing. This morning we got a lecture from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I read his script carefully and I did not see one imaginative, creative solution. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not talking about the creation of wealth and opportunities, then who in the Cabinet is? The Finance Minister is busy keeping the books and the other Ministers are busy trying to cut expenditure which I know has to be done.
In the final hours of this Government I want to ask the Taoiseach to give us three or four Ministers who will concentrate on growth in the economy and getting the economy moving so that when the other 12 Ministers, the bookkeepers, come to look at the books they will not be too worried about them. At present we have 15 people with this one sided view of the economy — that the books must be right. As I said, I hoped to hear from the Minister for Industry and Commerce about some leaps forward and instead I got a lecture about international recessions, international interest rates and that if the tax goes up and expenditure goes down, they are two sides of the same see-saw. They are not. Create another see-saw. Create activity not by simple inflation but by guts, courage and imagination. I want to see a Cabinet with a handful of people who think like that.
The Christmas Adjournment debate is usually an occasion for taking stock when we pause to review what has been achieved. This Government can look back with a sense of achievement whether it be over the Dáil session just ending, over the past year or over the last four years. We have put through the Oireachtas a large and varied volume of badly needed reforming legislation. We have restored the economy despite what the Opposition might say to a condition where it is poised to resume significant growth in the coming year. We have brought public expenditure under control. I am amazed, although I should not be, at Deputy Brennan's attitude that the books do not matter — let us spend. In 1977 he was one of those in the think tank who engaged in large scale vote buying — people do not have to pay tax or rates——
This is another bookkeeping lecture.
I want to point out——
Close down the country.
Deputy Brennan was not interrupted.
This bookkeeping is costing the taxpayer £2,000 million by way of repaying interest. Deputy Brennan does not appear to worry about that, or even if the figure increases to £2,500 million, because he believes the taxpayer will foot the bill. This kind of nonsense has to stop.
The national debt doubled in four years. It took 60 years to reach £12 billion, and it is £23 billion today, four years later.
The Minister, without interruption.
It is amazing to have to listen to people like Deputy Brennan when one remembers that he and others in his group are mostly responsible for the situation we are in today. But the situation will improve if we are prudent.
Deputy Brennan asked which Minister was responsible for generating activity. I believe all Ministers in the economic area are responsible for generating activity, not just the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Finance. Department of the Environment legislation was put through this House in the form of the Urban Renewal Act, 1986. That Act was to generate activity particularly in our five major cities — Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Galway. We have given generous tax breaks to encourage people in these areas. This move is paying off because in Galway there is considerable activity in the designated areas, in Limerick there is considerable progress and in Dublin things are moving a little slower.
As regards the Custom House Dock site, 27 acres of land which was lying derelict for a number of years has been acquired. The Custom House Dock Development Authority have been established — a chairman and four ordinary members — to oversee this work. Developing docklands is not a new concept although we have been slow to make a move in this direction. I visited London. Boston, New York and Baltimore to see some of these developments which literally breathed new life into the run down dockland areas of those cities. I am confident the same thing will happen in Dublin. Our dock area will be rejuvenated. This Authority is a planning authority and a development authority, which I believe is the way to make things happen. Despite criticism from the Opposition that we are taking certain powers from the local authority, I believe if we want to get things done in these areas we must set up a specific authority to ensure that something happens. We have done that.
A major American development company has sent representatives over here twice to look at this site and they are coming back in January with specific proposals. I believe they will be the kind of proposals which will enhance this city and that we will get American money to develop part of Dublin. This is very important and I hope more of that type of development will be forthcoming.
I wanted to inform the House of these facts because obviously Deputy Brennan is not aware that the Minister and I are involved in schemes to revitalise the designated areas in our cities. This is particularly true of the quays in Dublin which have been allowed to run down over the years.
We have set up the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. Dublin is our capital city and it was allowed to run down. Most of us were proud of O'Connell Street in our younger days but over the years we saw the street changing with gaudy plastic signs, shabby shop fronts, bad street paying and so on. Over the next three years the picture will change dramatically and our city will have a new image. This will have the spin-off effect of attracting tourists, business and industry. Dublin is an old city and we should ensure that we look after it.
Another thorny matter which is within my responsibility is the question of dereliction and derelict sites. The Government agreed proposals to amend the existing legislation on derelict sites. It is recognised that local authorities must have sufficiently strong powers to prevent land becoming derelict. Occupiers of land must ensure that they maintain their land, prevent it from becoming derelict and from spoiling the surrounding areas. Statutory bodies and local authorities who, up to now unfortunately, have been the biggest offenders will also come under this legislation. They cannot be instructing people as to what they should do with derelict sites. They will have to clean up their own sites. These proposals will be published shortly and will have an important bearing on countering the many derelict sites in our cities.
In regard to amenity projects grant allocations totalling £5 million were made this year to local authorities. This is for recreational, community and amenity facilities, mainly in the major urban areas. This is important. For too long planners planned houses and shopping centres but there was very little activity by way of developing any sort of community structure. This money is being made available through local authorities. It will be of benefit particularly to towns such as Tallaght and Blanchardstown, areas that have grown rapidly in the last number of years and have had no real community development. There has been no response to the needs of the community in those areas.
Deputies will be aware that dwellings in a number of local authority estates such as the large flat complexes in our cities, particularly in the inner city areas, are proving difficult to let. The resulting vacancies can exacerbate the problems of vandalism and other anti-social behaviour, making the schemes more unpopular than ever. The large volume of transfers resulting from such schemes leads to a downward spiral which can result in the loss of accommodation to the authorities. There is a very urgent need to look seriously at possible ways of remedying the problems of such estates. It makes good sense financially and socially for housing authorities to bring their existing housing dwellings up to an acceptable standard. That is what we intend to do.
For some time now I have been particularly anxious that the major local authorities should undertake a rehabilitation programme of their existing rented housing stock, with particular emphasis on those estates in which they have difficulty in relating vacant accommodation. In mid-November I received from Dublin Corporation proposals for specific works to a small number of inner city estates. Some of these proposals can be used as an initial input into the overall strategy for the rehabilitation of all the run-down and problem estates in various local authority areas. I intend that a committee representative of my Department and the corporation will bring forward a coherent and comprehensive programme to deal with this problem rather than tackle a small number of projects on an ad hoc basis. With the progress we have made in meeting the demand for local authority housing and in reducing the waiting lists I envisage that increasingly, over the next few years, additional resources can be and will be directed to bringing in good rehabilitation schemes to improve our housing stocks. For the first time, as far as I can remember, we have not got a housing problem in this country.
That is because the people have emigrated.
I will come to the figures and they have nothing to do with emigration. They have something to do with good Government about which the Deputy would not have a bull's notion.
The Minister is not part of a good Government.
We have eliminated waiting lists throughout the country by giving people an opportunity to buy their own homes, something which most of us believe in. The HFA loan meant that for the first time people on low incomes could borrow money and make repayments at 20 per cent of their incomes. That brought forward a big surge in new home ownership. We also introduced a scheme which I believe was a good scheme. There has been some criticisms of it — some are valid but not all of them — whereby people with three or more years tenancy with a local authority can get a grant of £5,000 to enable them to purchase their own homes. That has had a significant impact in reducing the waiting lists for local authority housing because local authorities have been getting much greater handbacks from people buying their own homes. Consequently, there is a much greater number of dwellings to let.
In the national plan, Building on Reality is was envisaged that there would be 9,000 local authority dwellings available for letting every year. That has been exceeded in the three years since that document was published. That is a clear indication that the side-swipe by the Deputy about emigration has nothing to do with it. There are more units of accommodation available now for letting than ever before and that is very important.
I will refer briefly to the other major achievements of the Department of the Environment. As I indicated, the target of 9,000 tenancy lettings has been exceeded. We completely restructured the public funded house purchase loan schemes. That gives an opportunity to people to borrow at lower interest rates. House purchase loans and income limits have been substantially increased, again bringing more people into that bracket. The new grant of £2,250 was introduced for all new houses built by registered contractors. With home improvements and new houses being built we have set about eliminating the black economy, something that has bedevilled the building industry for far too long. I am glad that has been well received.
First-time buyers of houses now receive up to £4,250 by way of new house grants. Those who are not buying for the first time, who already had a house and are buying a new house, will receive £2,250. Nobody can dispute that the house improvement grant scheme continues to be very successful. It has increased employment in the building industry, made a big difference to the supply side of the industry and it was of tremendous benefit particularly to the older type dwellings which in some areas have been deteriorating. Because of the high costs people could not undertake house improvements. In older housing estates improvements such as new roofing and so on are being done. We want to ensure that the existing housing stock will be maintained.
Our ambitious road plan has been successfully implemented. By-passes have been built and there have been major road improvements throughout the country. That was introduced in the national plan and it is working very successfully. Environmental policies have been significantly improved. The time available will only allow me to elaborate on some of these developments.
However, I must refer to the very creditable performance by the Government in the area of local authority housing. The most significant feature of the programme since the present Government took up office has been the success in reducing the numbers on approved local authority housing waiting lists. The number of approved applicants at the end of 1985 had fallen to 22,329, representing a drop of 25 per cent on the 1982 level of 29,944. Local authorities housed almost 12,000 households in 1985 compared to 8,000 in 1982, a significant improvement. A further 11,000 or more have been housed in 1986. Therefore, the Government's target as set out in the national economic plan of housing 9,000 households annually will again be exceeded.
Several factors have contributed to this success and local authorities will have completed over 19,000 new houses in the three years up to the end of 1986, or an average of over 6,300 houses annually. I should also point out that this level of output has been achieved against a background of significant reductions in expenditure on the programme and without an adverse effect on construction standards. In other words, people got better value for money.
A further factor in enabling the Government to exceed their target over the past three years has been the impact of the £5,000 surrender grant scheme. It has dramatically increased the number of local authority houses becoming available for re-letting and it also provided a boost to the new house building industry. About 6,000 houses have been made available for re-letting as a direct result of the scheme and more than 8,000 applications for the grant have been received since its introduction. That is a clear indication of how the Government are dealing with the housing problem. A total of 1,950 grants were paid in 1985 and I expect 3,350 grants to be paid in 1986.
The availability of an adequate supply of mortgage finance is of vital importance to all those who aspire to home ownership, as most people do. In the early part of this year a major review was undertaken of the role and functions of the Housing Finance Agency. Following this review, and with effect from 1 July this year, local authorities took over direct responsibility for the operation of the income related loans scheme which they had previously administered on behalf of the Housing Finance Agency. In addition, a new mortgage repayment option, offering income related repayments for the first five years and converting to an annuity system thereafter was also introduced. There are now three repayment options available for local authority house purchase loans — a conventional annuity system, an income related repayment option similar to the former HFA scheme and the new convertible loan option.
That is an indication of the Government's intention to keep the building industry moving at a high level. It is better that we encourage people to purchase their own houses because they would have a greater pride in their homes. We may not be the wealthiest country in the world but our rate of home ownership is the highest in the world, something we can all be proud of.
I except that the private new house market will benefit next year from the new grant of £2,250 now available for all new houses built by registered contractors. The grant has been introduced to encourage more development in the building industry. I am glad the building industry see this move as a progressive step.
I should like to draw the attention of Deputies to a recent extension of the closing date for the receipt of applications for the mortgage subsidy. The new closing date is 31 December 1986. The original closing date was 1 October last but those who applied before 31 December can choose between the mortgage subsidy and the £2,250 new grant.
While grants were previously available to assist the adaptation of an existing house to meet the needs of a disabled person prior to the introduction of the £2,250 grant, no grant was available where an existing owner occupier had to provide a new house in these circumstances. The £2,000 first time purchasers grant will now be available to existing owner occupiers who provide a new house designed to meet the needs of a disabled person.
The current house improvements grant scheme has been a great success. To date a massive 127,000 applications have been received, an indication of the interest in the scheme. The Government's response to this enormous demand has been both positive and immediate to ensure that applications are processed quickly and effectively. At the end of November, 93,000 approvals, or 75 per cent of all applications, had been approved and more than 20,000 cases have been paid to date. I have heard Opposition Members claim that we were dragging our feet on this issue. It is estimated that the scheme will have generated building output of £125 million by the end of the year and will generate £200 million of output in 1987.
I should like to refer to the Government's achievement in regard to road improvements. This past year saw unprecedented activity countrywide on the programme of works to improve and extend our major road network. During the year nine major schemes were opened to traffic and 28 schemes are in progress. Three further motorway schemes have been approved and compulsory purchase orders have been confirmed for five further schemes.
The 1985 road plan set out a detailed programme of works for the period 1985-87 and a tentative programme for the period from 1988 up to the mid-nineties. We are now at the end of the second year of the 1985-87 programme and to date we have fulfilled the funding commitment of the plan. We can be justly proud of our record when measured against the achievement of the Opposition who only managed to provide 66 per cent of the funds promised in the first year of their 1979 road plan. Deputy Brennan suggested to us that we should mind the books and not spend money on job creation and development projects but Fianna Fáil could only manage to provide 66 per cent of the funds promised in the first year of their plan. It is obvious that Deputy Brennan does not know what is going on in the different Departments and has forgotten the major role the Department of the Environment have to play.
I should like to say something about road safety, because we tend to take accidents for granted. That is regrettable. As European Road Safety Year draws to a close it is particularly opportune to reflect on how we in Ireland have fared in the task of reduciong the rate of road accidents. The number of road deaths in Ireland fell from 628 to 410 between 1978 and 1985, a reduction of 35 per cent. However, we should not be complacent. We must put greater emphasis on making our roads safe.
I thank Deputies for the co-operation they have given in getting the business through. I particularly thank Members behind me, especially in the past few days, who stood manfully by to ensure that the Government survived. I want to ask them over there when are they going to get it right. We were going to fall on that occasion, then it was October, then November. It happened this week, and now there is a motion that we should not come back. It is all wishful thinking on their part. We will be here until next November. We will do the job we were charged to do. The next job is to bring a budget before the House and get it passed to ensure that the country will have the finances to get through the following year. Over there, they will still be talking about a better way, or some other way. We know their way is to borrow and to borrow, to let us become enmeshed by the international bankers. They are prepared to pledge the country to them. We are not prepared to do that. We will ensure that the Irish people will continue to control the sovereignty of Ireland.
This will be an historical Adjournment debate because it is the last such debate of this Dáil, whatever the Minister of State has said. I was surprised at the comments he made in his final remarks. Yesterday we broke a precedent here: we had five tied divisions. If the Ceann Comhairle and the Government had any honour they would have called a general election last night, because Dáil Éireann has lost confidence in the Government who have lost their majority. I am well aware that the Dáil will not return — I have no doubt in my mind. On the Order Paper today we had 28 January as the date of return. They are trying to put off the evil day.
It is important at this time of the year that we would look back on the previous year's performance by the Government. It is an opportunity to stocktake, which is what most business people do. On this occasion, however, we should have a look over the past four years. It is unbelievable what has happened to our economy in that time. The country is demoralised. The economy stagnates. Farming is in disarray. There are fewer people at work than ever previously recorded. There are more people unemployed than ever before — 55 per cent more than in 1982. The cost of servicing the Government's debt is £800 million, or 60 per cent more than in 1982. That is what four years of Coalition Government has achieved.
The Taoiseach has been heard to say that the economics of the country's most important sector, its agriculture, are a mystery to him. That is entirely believable but those in this House who are familiar with and understand farming know that never in living memory has the industry been as depressed and despondent as it is now.
The Minister for Agriculture says that he has done well in Brussels. The Taoiseach says the Minister has done well. I do not share that view. Everyone accepts that balance must be restored between the supply and demand for dairy produce in the EC, but that balance could have been secured without inflicting the grave damage that has been done to the country's most basic industry, its dairy industry. A firm commitment to Ireland's right to secure special treatment, because dairying accounts for more than 7 per cent of our GNP but less than 1 per cent for the EC as a whole could, I feel sure, have induced our partners in Brussels to accept some variation of the 40,000 gallons quota system such as has been suggested here by the ICMSA. A 40,000 gallon milk quota system that recognised our exceptional dependence on dairying and that was weighted in favour of small producers would have permitted the necessary overall EC adjustment in milk production with little effect on this country and with no effect on the vast majority of Irish producers, who are small-scale producers.
The agreement that the Minister accepted in Brussels this week will compel small and medium sized producers, no less than large scale producers, to cut back milk production. This will lead to heavy job losses in the dairy industry. It may well precipitate the insolvency of one or more of the country's major cooperatives, with all the potentially catastrophic knock-on effects that would have.
The restriction that the Minister has agreed to on milk production and the reduction that he has accepted in the intervention price for beef will cause agricultural output to continue to decline, as it has done throughout most of the time this Government have been in office. Farmers' nominal incomes are now less than they were three years ago. During that time, consumer prices have risen by 20 per cent, so farmers' real incomes have declined by over a fifth during this Government's term.
A new and distressing scene has appeared on the farming scene. As farmers' incomes drop, the weight of farmers' debt has become crushing. Farmers' total indebtedness is now £1,500 million. It is 40 per cent more than farmers' total annual income. Interest on that debt now absorbs £200 million a year, or a fifth of all farm income. This is as high a proportion of farmers' low and declining incomes as was taken by rapacious landlords in the last century, that landlord rapaciousness which steeped the country in a vicious land war 100 years ago.
If the farm debt position is allowed to continue to deteriorate — as it has done during this Government's term of office — this country risks being embroiled not in a land war but in a bank war. I know the serious situation obtaining, being firmly rooted in rural Ireland, where many farm families are facing a catastrophe because of bank debts and borrowings, not of their making but because of a buoyant period in agriculture when many of them were misled. Instead of accepting a lucky bag type of system from the Brussels bureacrats it would have been preferable had the Minister borrowed the Euro loan I mentioned over a five year period at an interest rate of 5 or 6 per cent, using the moneys being made available to him to pay the premium which he claims to be £23 million, on which I contend he has misled the people. In fact £10 million only will be made available to us because 900 male animals would yield £13.5 million. The Minister claims he is getting £23 million. The Minister's figures are well out of line. He must have been misinformed. Of course that is nothing new vis-à-vis this Minister. One only has to remember when the bungled the whole milk levy quota in 1984. We are well aware of the consequences our country had to face because of the 1.6 per cent mistake he made on that occasion. I believe that is the only way the indebtedness of Irish farming will be resolved — by borrowing £1,000 million, secured by the State, handed out in whatever way possible through the various co-operatives, the exchange risk being underwritten over a period of five years. That would substantially reduce farm borrowing and stabilise our agricultural industry.
How much does the Deputy want to borrow?
One thousand million pounds.
We will add that to the list.
The Minister may not be aware that the saving to the EC is £2.4 billion because of the recent cutbacks where no account has been taken of our special position within the EC. That is a figure that cannot go unchallenged. If there is a saving, as a less-favoured nation we should be entitled to share in that.
No man could have fought that case better than the present Minister and the Deputy knows it.
Of course the Minister is correct in saying that cattle numbers are less now than when this Government took office. Cow numbers are also declining and will continue to do so. The number of in-calf heifers — which determine future cow numbers and therefore future total cattle numbers — is now more than 20 per cent less than when this Government took office.
Sheep numbers have increased by a quarter since 1982. It is estimated that they will have increased this year alone by nine per cent. This rapid increase in sheep numbers reflects, in part, the decline in dairying and beef as well as a 10 per cent drop in tillage since 1982. Even more ominously, the rapid growth in the number of sheep — which might be described as the poor man's cattle, because their cycle is shorter — reflects agriculture's seriously worsening capital shortage. This excessively rapid and unsoundly based expansion in sheep production has the makings of the next major crisis in Irish farming. An over-supply of sheep meat, causing a serious collapse in prices, is now almost inevitable, if not next year, then in 1988.
One might look back over the period of our membership of the EC and compare our position in 1980 versus this year. Butter and skim milk powder were the two basic products for intervention. While we have been cutting back our production in Europe all other countries have been expanding, including New Zealand, the USA and Canada. I understand our share of the world market has fallen from 60 per cent to 45 per cent while the overall world market grew this year. In the first six months of this year butter exports alone fell by 50 per cent. Had we maintained our level of exports we would have had 5 per cent more milk sold. The fall in exports is the reason for the imbalance within the EC. One might ask: what is the cause of the problem within the Community? For example, 48.2 million tonnes of cereal substitutes will have been imported into the EC this year. More recently China, a third country, was granted a further extension of quota from the Commission for the importation of manioc and sweet potatoes to the tune of 600,000 tonnes. That amounts to one-third of the total cereal production of this country — because it was in excess of 1.82 million tonnes — to the disadvantage of Irish cereal growers and grain growers right across the Community. The problem of substitutes is being totally ignored. It is something we cannot ignore. At every opportunity we must continue to highlight and fight importations of cereal substitutes from third countries in Brussels.
We should be seeking a limit on output per hectare or per acre which is more relevant to us. This would best suit our needs. We may look at the position obtaining in Switzerland, not an EC but a friendly country, where a quota system was introduced approximately nine years ago based on forage production which is a natural resource. That is one of the best examples one can give when talking about a quota system.
Now we have seen that the Commission will have power — which has been allowed to take place amidst all of the Minister's bluff during his three days and sleepless nights — to suspend intervention. That would not have been permissible heretofore. Again we are the country who will suffer most. Even though the Commission have acknowledged our special position they have not spelled out in detail how they propose dealing with that matter.
The cornerstone of the Common Agricultural Policy always has been intervention, which has now been totally undermined. The last time we were told in this House that we had won another special position was on 4 April 1984 when the Minister said that our milk quota would not be reduced in the future. That is proof that any commitment is not worth the paper it is written on and places a severe question mark over the latest decision taken in Brussels. Intervention always operated automatically. For instance, in beef the EC market average — under the new situation which will prevail — would have to fall below 91 per cent of the intervention price before the new mechanism would come into operation. In addition the Irish price would have to fall below 87 per cent of the intervention price. The reality of that is that the Irish price will have fallen well below 87 per cent before the new mechanism comes into action. Because of our seasonality, the type of country we have, we will be the sufferers.
In the Irish Farmers' Journal for the week ending 20 December 1986 under the heading “The Brussels Package” it is said:
The biggest weakness is the complete absence of support for winter fattening. More thought must be given to this.
That is because we rely so much on it at that time of the year. The new measures to be introduced will create major problems for the Community because an extra 600,000 to 800,000 tonnes of cow beef will now become available as a result of the cutbacks being effected in milk output and no plan has been put forward to dispose of the extra beef. In 1984 when the first quota was introduced we had full intervention and higher export refunds for third country exports to take account of the increased beef over that short period. Now no measures of any kind are being introduced and that will create another serious problem in the beef industry.
A spokesman for ACOT said recently that the consequences of the decision in Brussels are that we will need an extra 50,000 suckler cows per annum to replace the fall in stock because of the envisaged drop in our dairy herd numbers. Our beef industry has been the backbone of our economy and the dairy herd has been the base of that industry. An extra £8 suckler cow premium is of little value and will not encourage farmers into beef suckler cow production. We will have a massive drop in the numbers of beef cattle produced in Ireland in the next three years. Meat factories will suffer, jobs will be lost and much of the investment made in new meat factories and processing will be down the drain.
The consequences of the recent proposals for the national economy and the community generally are catastrophic. It is right to say that 100 million gallons of milk will be lost to the dairy industry and that could mean approximately in the next two to three years a movement of another 2,500 dairy farmers from the land. That is very relevant to my area, the Minister area, where 67 per cent of Irish milk is produced. It means that fewer jobs will be available because of loss of production. Those job losses will be more than equivalent in the Munster region to the loss in Fords of Cork, the Verolme Cork Dockyard and Dunlops. This Government are allowing our agricultural industry to take the same direction as our footwear and textiles industries have gone and they have all been washed out. That illustrates the seriousness of the present package that has been agreed in Brussels and brought back home here by the Minister and his Government who continue to try to convince the people that they have done something worth while to save the day.
I have no doubt that one of the six large co-operatives will have to cut back in the next three years because of the cutback in milk. The 9 to 10 per cent cut is the equivalent of 100 million gallons, the output of one of those co-operatives. That is the equivalent of the output of Waterford Co-operative which is based in Dungarvan in the constituency of the Minister for Agriculture: it is alarming in many ways because it proves how much out of touch he is with reality, with agriculture and the dairy industry. Thousands of jobs will be lost in the feed compounding industry and the service industry. The ESB will suffer as will fertilizer manufacturers. I must agree with all the press statements I have read, that something between 2,500 and 3,000 jobs will be lost. Farmers' purchasing power will have another effect in our rural towns and villages. There will be an enormous drop in that which will result in decreased business and less activity at farm level.
I have referred to the £23 million the Minister spoke about and the direct premium in respect of the first 50 animals. Possibly he was misled in that whole area by bad advice because we cannot have £23 million for 900,000 male animals, which is all we have and it was paid on the first 50. That is further proof of the point I am making.
I stated early in my speech that £2,400 million would be saved because of cutbacks in the CAP, but I am very disturbed, as a farmer representing an agricultural community and agricultural processing industry generally, that no moneys have been provided from the savings for this country. There is no doubt that there will be a future for farm type forestry or the introduction of many systems of farming new to us, for example, deer farming. We should have got money for product development out of the saving. Moneys should be provided for our dairy industry and for further diversification which is badly needed because of our over-reliance on butter and skim.
I have dealt with the Brussels scene and agriculture generally and I turn now to the Cork region. I am aware of the problems of that area and I must mention Cork Airport up front. I understand that Ryanair six months ago applied to the Minister for Communications, Deputy Mitchell, for a licence to fly Luton-Cork, Cork-Luton and that to date they have not been granted permission to do so. We are aware of the success of that organisation and I believe they will make a significant contribution to the wellbeing of the southern region to which we all admit Cork is the gateway. I am asking in this House this evening that that licence be granted within the next few days because if it is not granted our tourist industry in that region will suffer. It has already suffered a setback in tourism because of the loss of a ferry. We see the success of Ryanair. They stated publicly that they could provide an extra 72,000 seats this year to bring travellers to this country. When the general election is called in January — that is when it will be called — the Coalition members in Cork city and surrounding areas will be politicising and making the famous announcement that Ryanair have been granted that permission. It is something more important than that to the region and it must be done now. We have seen enough Mickey Mousing with Cork Airport. It has not a proper runway or proper lighting and practically no worthwhile service is available there. I cannot understand why our airport cannot be up-dated to category 2 status to which it is entitled and which we in the southern area enjoy. Ryanair could bring to it the advantage of bringing in American tourism which has gone to other areas of the country.
In 1981 total unemployment in Cork city and county was about 4,500 people. Today Cork city and county have an unemployment figure of approximately 25,000. In this year alone, up to the present, about 6,000 people are estimated to have emigrated from Cork city and county. That is an alarming and frightening figure for a county which comprises about one-sixth of the population of the total country and from which a great deal of wealth is generated. That is the scene, under four years of a national Coalition Government.
It is 5 o'clock. Will the Deputy adjourn the debate, please?
The Minister took a lot of my time.
It is 5 o'clock, will the Deputy adjourn the debate and resume his seat?
Debate adjourned.