Any news about job creation is good. However, it tends to get knocked on the ground that it is not good enough. The fact that the number of such jobs has been increasing has shown increased interest in Ireland. It is not true that because of our taxation structure Irish executives are going abroad. Abroad people tell us that our taxation levels here, high as they are, are not prohibitive. Because of being conditioned by a continuing barrage from Opposition spokesmen and the media, people tend to think we are worse off than we should be. Still, the pubs throughout the country are full. Either our priorities are wrong or people are drinking to try to ease the problems they think they have.
In the past two years we have seen a definite effort on the part of the Government to put some sense of reality into the economy. We have to find an enormous amount of money but we are confined to three or four sources — we can tax people who, as is accepted by everybody including the Minister, are overtaxed, or borrow more, and this has already put the country in trouble. Most of the borrowing was done by our predecessors. They did what they considered to be right, but the chickens have come home to roost and we now have to meet the bills and commitments under agreements entered into by our predecessors. People have asked me why children should pay for their parents' mistakes. There is a lot of wisdom in that sentiment. But it appears we can no longer be the controllers of our destiny. We are subjected to foreign borrowing, to the whims of international monetarists, to those of the international money markets making money available to us, always dependent on whether we tidy up our own house first. These are some of the problems we now encounter.
I am delighted that there is contained in the earlier sections of the national plan a commitment to a reasonable reduction in the overall budget deficit. We should not, simply for the sake of balancing the books, endeavour to undo all of the wrongdoings of the past within one period of Government. If we did so then the economic realities would mean that many more people would be unemployed, many more who cannot provide for themselves would be rendered destitute and many more at present on the poverty line would find themselves in those tragic circumstances. But the responsibility does rest with us to establish where we are going, how we can achieve our objectives, leaving the country in a better situation than that in which we found it. That is the duty of any Government irrespective of whether they are seeking re-election. It should be remembered that between 1973 and 1977 we placed our aims and achievements firmly on the table. Unfortunately the public, who would appear to have short memories, went for the soft options, promises that everything would now be free in this life with Fianna Fáil returned with a majority of 20 but they did nothing about the situation then obtaining. In the early eighties when Deputy Haughey was returned to power it appeared that he was going to do something about the prevailing situation because he availed of the national media to communicate to the electorate that things would have to be different. But then the position was allowed to obtain because, as always in life, things are different; nothing remains the same.
If we are not seen now by our young people to be making an effort to tidy up our own house, at debating performance levels in these Houses, our performance at local authority, health board level and so on, there will be even more disillusionment felt. There is a tremendous responsibility now on everybody, whether it be the farming leaders, those in the trade unions, the Leader of the Opposition or the Government to ensure that our young people, who look to us and are dependent on us, will see that, rather than arguing about irrelevant matters, we are endeavouring constructively to do the job better than it was done in the past.
I might mention local government reform. The Minister mentioned his allocation to the Department of the Environment. It is imperative that any local government reform include also financial reform. Local government cannot survive on the hand-outs from central authority, whether through the devolution of power or decentralisation of authority. In future local authorities must be the masters of their destinies with the exception of major areas in which the Government must maintain a guiding hand, such as that of infrastructural development with regard to national primary routes, housing and so on. Because of the financial restrictions imposed on local authorities they would be unable to tackle any of those major capital works without Government assistance. If there is proper financial reform of local authorities they could well do so themselves. I have said to both the Taoiseach and the Minister that it would be pointless holding local government elections until such reform has been completed. We should remember that they were postponed last year on the basis of such reformation. Now, merely because we promised we would have them we should not hold them prematurely without coming to grips with the real problems involved, that is the handing back to local authorities of the power to finance themselves and to decide what to do with the relevant moneys.
It was contended that the farming tax would in some way hand back power to local authorities. It would give them some power in regard to being self-financing. But if there is to be any suggestion that the grants normally payable by the Department were to be reduced by the amount of farmer taxation collected, then the whole exercise would be self-defeating. It is important that farmer tax would not be seen to be a replacement of any other form of revenue but rather that it would constitute additional revenue, there being so much work to be done at local authority level. Nobody is in a better position to carry out such work than the local authorities themselves. All of us who have had a long association with their services know this well.
The question of the health boards was dealt with on a motion in this House put down by the Opposition to which we endeavoured to make a reasonable contribution with regard to the whole of their restructuring, what were the responsibilities of health boards and their members. This morning we heard of all sorts of tragedies being predicted on the radio within the Southern Health Board area unless the Minister allocated them more money. Then we were told the Minister said he had given them an extra £10 million. In my area some health board members referred to a cutback of £5 million when we received an additional £4 million. I have endeavoured to ascertain what is meant by a cutback, whether it constitutes the figure one had sought but did not receive or whether it constitutes the allocation one received but within which it is impossible to operate. Within the allocations made available we must endeavour to deliver the services required of us, doing so as efficiently as possible, eliminating all possible waste. This constitutes a major problem especially in health board areas like mine which has an unrealistic staffing level compared with any other health board area.
It should be remembered that the total Estimate for Health is colossal now running at something like £1,075,600,000 a figure of over £1 billion. Naturally we would all like to think that such moneys were being spent for the benefit of patients, the people about whom we are worried and who need the health services. Examining the structures of the various health boards, how they are managed and operated, one is left with the feeling that they leave a lot to be desired. In approximately three weeks time I will be faced with endeavouring to come to grips with the budget in my health board area, when I shall be forced to ask the CEO to produce the appropriate bank statements. We work on figures presented to us, rendering it difficult for members of health boards to grapple with their problems. Of course one can advance the argument that if there were, say, two hospitals closed one's budget estimate could be met, when immediately the media will assume that those two hospitals are going to be closed or that there is no alternative available.
At the end of 1983 we finished up with no deficit in the health board areas although we were told throughout the year we would be unable to survive. To date in 1984 we have saved approximately £20 million. In my area, at least so far, there has been no diminution in the services made available. I know there are some other areas warranting examination. However, that is an indication of how one can apply oneself to the problem dealing with scarce resources which can be replenished only through borrowing or increased taxation, in regard to both of which we seem to have reached saturation point.
Agriculture was dealt with by Senator Dooge, particularly in regard to the milk super-levy debate held earlier this year. We congratulate the Minister for the settlement he achieved, especially when it is compared with settlements for other countries. They are probably 20 per cent worse off than we are. Accepting that the Minister did an excellent job, for some unknown reason there seems to have been some doubt in the minds of those that reached an agreement with us, whether the figure was an estimated one or was one based on actual production. The Minister has been explicit enough to say that he is prepared to go to court on this subject to prove that it was based on actual supplies. Milk producers have been told that they should proceed on the basis that it is on the higher figure of 4.6 per cent. Even accepting the higher figure there will have to be an improvement on that figure next year. It is likely that there will not be because, in spite of all the efforts of our Minister, he will have to contend with nine other Ministers on the basis of a shrinking budget in the European Community.
The reality for our farmers is that the only way they can stay in the business of milk production up to the levy figure — let us be honest with ourselves and admit that that is the only real enterprise there is a monetary compensation for the amount of work people put into it — is to do it more efficiently. They can only do that in a number of limited ways. They will have to improve the breeding quality of their animals so that they will produce more milk with fewer animals and more milk for less foodstuffs or inputs. If that happens without other steps being taken to replenish the beef herd there is no doubt that the cattle trade two or three years' hence will be faced with a crisis. All the trips to Libya by Mr. Haughey and all the trips abroad to get markets in the beef sector will be for naught.
We have the spectacle today of an Irish meat processing company having to purchase processing facilities in another country and employing people there because there is not sufficient beef cattle available here to fill their requirements. Yet we have somebody flying out, as if he was in Government, and coming back with a deal as if there was no market for the existing products. We should be honest and realistic with ourselves. I do not decry the efforts of anybody trying to get markets, but before one gets a market one should make sure one has a product to fill the market. If not one will create an extraordinary situation in that one will be advocating the selling of products that we are unable to produce.
There are steps in the plan — I do not think there are enough — to increase the subsidy for beef cows. We will have to look very carefully at that because unless there is an increase of something in the region of 150,000 to 200,000 beef cows we will not be able to balance the amount of cullings that probably will go on from non-economic cows in the dairy sector. The Minister is aware of this. The Government are aware of it and the farming organisations made themselves aware of it in recent days and decided the way the farming sector will go forward will be to cut down on the number of cows. Should a beef suckling scheme be available to dairy producers to try to ensure that there is a supply of calves and beef to fill our markets abroad? If that is not done the agricultural sector will be in a difficult position in the next three years.
Dr. Tom Arnold, a senior economist with ACOT, has prepared a very interesting paper on this problem. He has indicated that he is extremely concerned about the possible reduction of 150,000 cows, or about 9 per cent of the total number of cows here. It is appropriate that we should put our thoughts together on this problem for the future and ensure that there is a continuing supply of beef, beef cows and calves. If not there will be most serious repercussions from the milk super-levy. In any future negotiations in the Community for an increase in our levy figure we should look for every assistance possible to ensure that the beef sector is supported in every way. Otherwise we will have a repeat of what happened in 1972-73 when the whole bottom fell out of that sector of the economy.
The four year plan for agriculture has a lot to commend it. Some of its sections were incorporated in the plan for the development of the whole economy. It suggests an increased production figure of about 10 per cent over four years in the agricultural sector and has outlined where those increases will come from. That was done in the knowledge that there might be a milk levy. Those who are concerned about the Government's contribution towards agriculture should first of all look at the amount of money allocated in the agricultural Vote which is commendable and rightly so because it is a very important sector of the economy. There is £254,835,000 in the Vote for Agriculture. Admittedly, quite a lot of that never gets to the farmer's gate. The farmer is the first to accept that to have a proper policy in agriculture and somebody to negotiate in the European Community for him, we need a proper structure in the Department of Agriculture. We need the ACOT structure to give advice and education to young farmers. We need county committees to formulate schemes within their counties.
If one looks at the commitment in the figures in the Appropriation Bill to agriculture, in spite of what has been said by Opposition speakers and, indeed, by farming leaders, one gets the true story. We will be donating quite a lot of money next year to an intensification of the disease eradication programme, an increase of 42 per cent in the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme and an increase of 25 per cent in the brucellosis eradication scheme. This year we were limited in the amount of round-testing we could do. We concentrated our limited resources on the areas we knew had had a history of major breakdowns or, indeed, were at risk. We devoted all our energies to that. We finished up testing about 60 per cent of the total herd.
I am concerned that next year when we get down to a full round of testing all herds, which is important but not vital in the eradication of disease, if this allocation will be sufficient. I consider it will be a fairly heavy demand on this Vote. I hope the officials who are responsible for the implementation of that scheme reach a settlement in the areas of contention, particularly our colleagues in the veterinary profession. I hope they will be able to reach agreement with the Department on the effective operation of the scheme and the spending of all money in the Vote. This has been accepted in the plan as being a vital part of the disease eradication programme.
There are other things that people should be doing in that scheme and farmers are becoming more aware of them every day. Those things do not cost anything. We should insist on hauliers of livestock in and out of premises having a properly cleaned truck. We should insist on proper standards at factories after the delivery of reactors and in the transport of animals to marts, farmhouses and farmyards. Farmers should ensure that their fences between themselves and their neighbours are good to put down the spread of the disease. Farmers are conscious of the problems involved in the spread of the disease. They might have a clean herd but everybody in the area may not, and the risk of spreading the disease exists. It is a very active bacillus. Nobody knows where it will come from next. All the money in the world will not help identify the source of the infection. People must be very aware of the situation. In the national interest we must spend a large sum of money protecting the national herd. We have spent a great deal of money in this area in the past and people are objecting to the continued spending of public money in this area. We must do all in our power to eradicate bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. We have made a great deal of progress in the eradication of brucellosis.
The farm modernisation scheme was suspended because of the financial situation in the Department. A sum of £38 million has been provided for this scheme in the coming year. There have been changes in the scheme but it is accepted by most people that grants under this scheme should be provided for the housing of livestock during the winter. Continuation of the exemption of stamp duty is welcome. More than 2,000 people have benefited from that scheme and the commitment to continue the scheme was welcomed by many people who would like to see a movement of land from older to younger people who are capable of running the farm. We should provide any incentive necessary to help these people.
No plan has everything one would want, but there are a few sections in the plan I am unhappy about, and I would like to put my comments on the record so that when I raise these matters at a future date, the Minister and the Government will have heard them earlier. I am very concerned about the abolition of the Land Commission. Everybody associated with agriculture accepted that changes were needed in the Land Commission. The figures involved were not very significant, £6 million or £7 million — £5 million for statutory contributions to the land bond fund and £1.75 million for the deficiency of income from untenanted land and so on. It could be said that £7 million or £8 million would cover Land Commission expenditure. Although the Government are committed to abolishing the Land Commission, that does not mean it was the right thing to do if we are to restructure small holdings at a later date. If we are serious about restructuring land and putting it into the hands of young people, there will have to be an agency to replace the Land Commission.
A number of papers have been written about this subject and the Labour Party, who have a vibrant and active agricultural committee, have made a submission to the Cabinet, through the Tánaiste, about the possible replacement of the Land Commission. We have suggested a new land authority and we said it could be financed in the same way as the Housing Finance Agency where moneys are made available by the lending institutions for the purchase of houses. I am sure money from a similar source could be provided in an approved Government scheme for the acquisition and distribution of land. The new land authority will have to have some of the privileges of the Land Commission, particularly the right of acquisition. In the past the Land Commission used their powers of acquisition only where there was a non-productive use of land. It is essential in the interests of the country that the Government should have the powers which were conferred on the Land Commission under the Constitution because it might be essential that land would be taken into public ownership for redistribution to people who need it and will use it to the full.
I hope there will be a land authority to replace the Land Commission because legislation will have to be passed to abolish the Land Commission. If there is not a replacement agency it will take a long time to get this legislation through the House. I will be very worried if the Government continue to do away with the fundamental principle for acquiring and distributing land. I admit there were many areas in the Land Commission which needed to be revitalised, but that could have been done without completely abolishing the Commission. However, the Government have made that decision and I am looking forward to their suggestions about a replacement authority.
As I said, a number of documents have been produced by many groups, including a co-ordinated group of agricultural organisations representing all the farming organisations — the ICMSA, IFA, the Land League, the general council of agricultural committees and so on. They proposed a land authority to replace the Land Commission which would advise the Minister on land policy and supervise the implementation of that policy. I will not bore the Chair by going into details about these very wide-ranging and worthy proposals, but they suggest a national board with 50 per cent farmer representation which will ensure that when this authority replace the Land Commission they will have, and will be seen to have, certain powers and that they will have the support of the Government and the people in restructuring fragmented holdings and getting land into the hands of young people who wish to stay on the land. I hope the Government will have regard to that philosophy.
There are many other areas I would like to deal with, but in fairness to other Members I will not delay the House too long. It must be said that the last two years in Government have been extremely difficult. It would have been a luxury to be in Opposition, to condemn those who are tidying up the kitchen after those who had been there previously had left not alone the kitchen but the fridge and the pot empty. Now the Opposition are looking for full and plenty from the new cook who had very little to work with but who had to do his best with what he had. I realise that some of the measures we had to take were unpopular but if the people analyse what has been done over the last two years, and if they saw these figures in black and white, they would see we had made an effort to come to grips with the problem.
As the Minister said, we have reduced Government borrowing substantially and the current budget deficit, cut the rate of inflation, transformed our balance of payments position, significantly improved our competitive position, stabilised employment and ensure that the new scheme will be successful. We will continue to improve the present position as long as we are in Government.
At the end of the day I hope the public will realise that we were honest with them. We told them what we found, we told them what we were trying to do and we told them how they would be at the end of our period in Government, whether they would be worse off financially, mentally or physically. It is important that we be constructive and say positive things about this Bill and the additional expenditure being provided for roadworks, capital programme in hospital replacement and all the other areas which will have an implication for employment and which will be seen by the people to be a genuine contribution to the economy of the State.
In addition, the Government will be able to look back after their full period in office having taken unpopular decisions which everybody realises must be taken although they are condemned for doing so. Because of the in activity of our predecessors in not taking any decisions in this area nobody was prepared to pay the piper. The IMF wondered whether we were going to make an effort to tidy up our affairs or whether they were going to do it for us. At least the record is straight now and we are masters of our own destiny; we have taken action that will give us control over our finances.
There is a commitment to the public sector and there should be no doubt in the minds of the trade union movement that as far as we are concerned it is imperative that there is a strong public sector service. There are institutions to decide the level of payment for them and there must be a balance between the highly paid and the low paid. There is a realisation that there is £20 million in the funds for the public sector pay in the coming year. If an arbitration authority decides that that is not enough then the Government will have to face the reality and the public will have either to accept a supplementary budget estimate to cover whatever additional costs are incurred and to see it clearly and identifiably for what it is — an increase in taxation to pay increased demands in the public sector or make do with the £20 million that have been included.
We have set up a whole structure of arbitration, conciliation, Labour Court agreements and the trade union movement who are well able to look after themselves and indeed that is their responsibility. There should be no gloom and doom. We will just have to face reality and decide whether we can afford it. If we can afford it let us pay it and let the public see how they are paying for it. Whenever the public look for a service they will have to see what source of income is being used to fund that service. Many people need a service but are unable to provide it out of their own means and there is a responsibility on any Government to look after that section of the community. Even over the past two tough years the record in the area of social welfare assistance has been second to none. They recognise and accept that. Nobody is ever satisfied with what they get but, generally speaking, people have been cushioned to some extent in being able to survive in a period in which everything is so expensive.
It is a tragedy that because of the differential between prices here and the North there seems to be a total disregard of the implications of shopping across the Border. Because of those implications and the downstream implications for employment in this country, their children would be much better off if the people shopped at home. We live in a free society and all we can do is point out the anomalies and ask the Minister to have regard for the differential in the taxation that causes this change in values between ourselves and across the Border. Let us hope that if we continue to address these problems we might be able to come to grips with them. In the overall context we might have done something constructive in the area of the economy over the next couple of years.
