Now, 15 days after the budget was brought into the House, we can say it was the most forgettable budget ever brought in. People did not come into the House on that occasion, we saw empty seats over there and that was a reflection that any really important decision had been telegraphed to the general public days beforehand. Nevertheless, the 15 minutes we get gives us an opportunity to pick out the various areas we feel should be mentioned and which need attention.
This morning in his contribution Deputy Garret FitzGerald dealt in a very able speech with the economic basis of this whole budget and the macro-economics involved in it. Let me say in that regard that the macro figures of the budget depend on two projections. There is a projection of 2.25 per cent growth over the next year and an EBR of about £400 million. One will depend on the other. If growth does not come about I think the predictions made by Deputy FitzGerald of an increasing number of unemployed, a very severe crisis in the farming area and the building industry, unemployment and emigration expanding over the next year and difficulties in the tourism area are highly unlikely to be realised. If that does not come about this year — I believe it will not, but I hope I am wrong — the Government will have to borrow over and above the amount included in the budget.
There is another way the Government can achieve the figures without this borrowing; and I think they have included, without mentioning it in any speech, what they will probably do and what they intend doing. That, of course, is falling back on the possibility of privatisation and the selling off of the Sugar Company and of Irish Life to achieve the balancing of the budget. Therefore, that is being pressed ahead vigorously in order that that safeguard, that lifeboat, will be there when the figures go wrong over the next year. It is suggested that £150 million can be achieved by the privatisation of the companies I have mentioned. That will be the method. That was the method used in Britain to restore their economy to some degree of balance in recent years and as a means of offsetting any shortfall that might occur. As we have seen in Britain, that was a short term method used to balance budgets, but in some cases the flotation of public companies was a total disaster. If this Government go ahead with their policy of selling off the Sugar Company, whatever may be the relevant flotation, I hope it will be successful. While I am against that policy, I do wish them success. I want to remind the House, as I did last week before the debate took place on the Sugar Bill, that that possibility was completely rejected by the present Taoiseach four years ago, when in a letter to Mr. Peter Cassells, then assistant secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, he said:
I can assure you that Fianna Fáil has no intention of privatising established State bodies such as Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna, CIE or any other commercial semi-State body.
Those were the comments of the then Taoiseach just about to face a general election. That pledge was given not merely to workers in those various semi-State bodies but to the country in the face of a general election. It amazes me that a Government that received the level of support they did on that occasion can come into this House now and blithely put forward a policy of privatisation of such semi-State bodies. It is my belief that, should the Government fail to achieve the required balance through their budgetary figures, privatisation policy will help them out.
In the time available, I could not, as spokesperson on Agriculture for my party, do justice to that most important aspect of our economy or be sufficiently critical of the meagre help being offered farmers at this time of crisis for them. I would suggest, and I will be suggesting to our party Whip that we should have a full debate on agriculture here as a matter of urgency in order to allay the fears of the farming community and those industries closely related thereto. We must remember that daily they hear rumours, whether by way of statements or leaked documents from the Commission in Brussels, details of the problems encountered in the GATT negotiations or anything else, casting doom and gloom over the whole of our agricultural community. I would seriously suggest to the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, present, that it would be enormously beneficial to that industry if we had a debate on the issue in this House, including Government policy in this area, whether it be with regard to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy or their position vis-á-vis the GATT negotiations. I would suggest that a whole day should be devoted to debating the issue. It would do the country as a whole a great deal of good to know what is Government thinking on this area. We shall also be tabling questions on agriculture in an effort to elicit such Government thinking. But a 15 minute discussion is not sufficient for any in-depth analysis of that most important industry.
We have observed the Construction Industry Federations' criticism of our roads programme. As Minister for the Environment, in 1965 I introduced a roads programme on which we had made a good start. That programme was delayed time and again and reproduced by the present Minister with projected implementation dates into the future. Since then, under the operational programme for peripherality, the Government have obtained a great deal of money to help with the roads programme in the light of changes in the structural funds of the EC. It would be my hope that we would see an accelerated roads programme implemented as a result of the moneys forthcoming from that programme.
I might add that the proposals envisaged under that programme have caused us in Region 7, in which my constituency is located, considerable anxiety in its reference to the build-up of ports and the moneys which should be expended in their upkeep, maintenance and expansion. There are something like 27 ports covered under the Harbours Act, 1947. While it must be recognised that most of our commercial activity is conducted through our ports, it amazes me that the ports of Arklow and Wicklow — of which I am a commissioner — do not feature at all in the programme accepted by this Government on behalf of the region to which my constituency belongs. Wicklow port has expanded its activity in recent years. A great deal of structural work has been undertaken there, almost totally at the expense of the commissioners themselves through raising funds from banks and operational activities. Therefore, it is very disappointing to discover that a port through which over 200,000 tonnes of goods are shipped will be excluded from this programme over the next four years. I hope it may not be too late for this Government to include the ports of Wicklow and Arklow, which suffered enormously from the huge storms of last year. In the case of Wicklow port it is hoped that as a result of new business obtained, and despite the total lack of interest in that port on the part of the Government, that its tonnage will double in ensuing years. As the deepest port on the east coast south of Dún Laoghaire right around to Waterford, I contend it deserved Government support in expanding, thereby ensuring improved access to other EC countries since it is ideally placed for traffic to Britain and to the Continent itself.
There has been much mention in this debate of the business expansion scheme and the revision of its provisions. As the provisions relate to my constituency, I must express the complete horror felt in Wicklow at the changes proposed. Four major hotels in Wicklow were in course of expanding, had received Bord Fáilte approval therefor and had expected that the benefits of the business expansion scheme would be forthcoming in order to promote Wicklow as a tourist county, thereby providing the proper facilities so badly needed. We must remember that unless tourists can be attracted into a county and remain there overnight the county will not benefit. The County of Wicklow, being geographically located so close to the city of Dublin with its one million people, has had the name of being a tourist county but has not received corresponding benefits because of lack of facilities for hotels and their attendant requisite infrastructure. For example, there were many good small hotels that had plans to expand, such as the Grand Hotel in Wicklow, Tinahely House, the Glenview Hotel in the Glen of the Downs, the La Touche in Greystones. All had submitted their plans and, I understand, had been approved by Bord Fáilte for business expansion scheme support. We are told now that all of these plans have been set aside. Before this debate will have concluded the Government should re-examine that proposal. Before the introduction of the Finance Bill there will have to be changes, taking into account the expenses firms and hotels have incurred to ensure that their plans to secure a fair share of the relevant finances are not lost to the tourist industry in one of our most beautiful counties.
A sum in the region of £17 million was being put forward for a large plan in relation to the Powerscourt estate. Part of the financing came through a BES scheme. I hope we will not close schemes like that in my constituency. I support all the Deputies from Wicklow who have spoken in this debate on that basis. I am sure Deputies from all sides of the House have had similar problems in their constituencies. It can be accepted that there was some wastage under the scheme and that some proposals as far away from tourism as one could get, benefited. The Minister was right to make a correction here but in doing that he has put genuine tourist proposals in jeopardy. I would ask him to look at the situation again.
I am glad to see a change in Government policy in relation to local authority housing and the reintroduction of grants for reconstruction and to allow local authority tenants to buy their own homes. It is a great pity that the Government only go into action in this area when an election is on the way. That has spurred them into doing something, although they ignored the problem for the past four years. In the four years between 1984 and 1987 Wicklow County Council built 600 houses and in two of the last four years not one house was built. Certainly, cottages were built, but not one house. Something like 12 houses were built this year. I hope that as a result of pressure from county councillors from their own parties, the Government have seen the error of their ways in relation to local authority housing. I look forward to seeing the change of policy here.
Members on the other side of the House referred to the state of public finances in 1986. We know that finances were corrected because they stopped doing everything. The Taoiseach said that in 1986 the Irish pound was worth 2.67 DM and that it is still worth 2.67 DM four years later. I would have thought there would have had to be reinflation of the DM and that the Germans would have to change because of the economic miracle that had taken place. It is amazing that the exchange rate has been maintained over the four years. If we had had this economic miracle, surely we would have had to get out of the EMS and have a special arrangement made for us to bring the DM up to our level. It did not happen because we know that the economic policies of this Government were pursued on the basis of 160,000 people emigrating, rising unemployment and doing no work in the public sector area. That is how Fianna Fáil have brought us to the position we are in today. I am glad to see they are beginning to reverse that trend and I look forward to progress in the next year.
