I move:—
Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that, as a practical step to stimulate increased production through the improvement of the fertility of our land by badly needed drainage schemes and at the same time help to relieve unemployment in rural areas the necessary moneys to put the Local Authorities (Works) Act into operation should be provided immediately.
I had not expected that the debate on the very interesting motion put down by Deputy Murphy would have concluded so early tonight. I feel that the Minister for Local Government possibly thought likewise; otherwise, I feel that he would be present for my opening remarks on what is undoubtedly a very important subject, particularly for rural Ireland.
I think the majority of Deputies agree that excellent work in drainage and liming was carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and that the majority of Deputies, including those on the Government benches if free to do so, would enthusiastically support the resumption of work under that Act. I cannot personally understand why it was decided to suspend operations under the Act. Various reasons have been given by responsible Ministers. One of the strongest allegations made in the House or outside it by the opponents of the Act was that money was wasted on schemes carried out, that consequently the Government decided that, on balance, more money was wasted than was used in an economic way and as a result the decision was taken to suspend the operation of the Act.
I do not think that argument is true or that it can be backed up and proved. The fact is that the majority of county councils today do not subscribe to that point of view and the General Council of County Councils have repeatedly sought on behalf of every local authority in Ireland to have the moneys restored so that further useful and beneficial schemes can be carried out. There is no denial, I think, on the part of the Minister that the General Council of County Councils have urged a resumption of work under the Act. Apart altogether from that, individual local authorities have separately and repeatedly requested funds to carry out more schemes under this Act.
We know that when the Act came in as a Bill originally a number of people in the Fianna Fáil Opposition at that time expressed themselves strongly against the measure. Deputies need only consult the records of the House to find that several divisions were challenged in connection with amendments put forward by the then Fianna Fáil Opposition. However, the Act was passed; moneys were made available and the schemes were put into operation in various counties. After twelve months when the local authorities saw how successfully the schemes were operated and the benefits conferred on the farmers, the majority of those who had professed fears in regard to the usefulness of the Act naturally changed their minds with the result that there was an almost unanimous opinion in all Parties and in the various local authorities that the Act was an excellent one and should be continued.
It would appear to me now that a few individuals in the Fianna Fáil Party were in a position to carry forward their objections even when this Act was passed. Later on, they were in the position when they became the Government to thwart the operations of the local authorities in this regard. I think it is a case of men with small minds in the Party being allowed to dictate policy inside the Fianna Fáil Party itself on this very important matter of drainage. These people objected to the Bill when it came to the House; they persisted in their objections afterwards and they have successfully halted the excellent work being carried out under it. If they were backed up on logical grounds, one could appreciate their objections but it appears their objections are mainly based on the fact that originally they took a dislike to the scheme and decided to make sure that when they got into office they would prevent it operating.
I know there is a limited number in Fianna Fáil who strongly object to the resumption of the scheme and I also know that those concerned are so powerful that quite a substantial number of backbenchers in the Party are not able to assert themselves and force these people to see the light of day in regard to this Act.
I read recently—and I was glad to read—that at the Fianna Fáil ÁrdFheis some supporters of the Party from my own constituency brought forward a motion urging and requesting the Government to resume operations, and that motion by Roscommon delegates so far as I can find out was passed unanimously by the organisation and, as such, was a direction to the Cabinet to continue the good work. That was a motion from a rural area, from people who understand drainage problems and the problems of farmers all over Ireland. They did not put down that motion at the Árd-Fheis for fun. The Fianna Fáil Party have always maintained that they are a democratic body, that they believe in anything directed towards the benefit of rural Ireland. If that is true, I hope that before next February the moneys will be made available to carry on schemes some of which are already prepared and are just awaiting the necessary financial accommodation to be carried out.
Let us deal for a moment with the argument that money was wasted under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. If every State scheme over the years is examined occasionally it can be asserted in connection with each one of them that there was a certain amount of money lavishly expended or wasted. That argument can be used by people who are opposed to certain schemes. It is always possible to find fault with something that one does not like or for which one's opponent was responsible but, when we ask for concrete evidence in the House as to where and in which county money was wasted under the Act, no evidence is adduced.
I have listened to allegedly responsible Ministers stating in this House and outside it that money was wasted under the Act. I have sought information as to where and in what counties it was wasted. There was no answer. There is the extraordinary situation that county councillors and Deputies of the Government Party have stated in their respective counties: "We believe that the Local Authorities (Works) Act has functioned excellently in our county. No money was wasted in our county. It was in some other county it was wasted." That allegation has been made at every county council. In Roscommon I have heard spokesmen of the Government Party saying that, to their knowledge, no money was ever wasted in County Roscommon and that the Act should be resumed so far as Roscommon is concerned, that if there was wastage it must have taken place in the South of Ireland. In the following week one can read in the provincial papers that Cork County Council or some other southern county council had requested the resumption of operations under the Act on the basis that excellent work had been done in that county and that if there was wastage it took place in some other county.
The major objection to resumption of the Act is the alleged waste of money in the past. If the Government stand over that objection, I challenge them here and now to make available to the House evidence of waste of money, where it took place and the amount involved. That is a fair challenge.
It may be that the Government have had second thoughts about resuming work under the Act. It may be that the request made in the House, the request made by local authorities and the reasonable request made to their party at the Árd-Fheis have fallen on sympathetic ears and that the present Minister for Local Government, whom I know to be in favour of drainage, will make the necessary money available with the greatest possible speed so that work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act may continue.
Not very long ago, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Local Government rightly urged local authorities to submit to the Government proposals, the implementation of which would help to expand production from the land. Every county council received a communication from the Minister for Local Government requesting, at the earliest opportunity, a list of proposals which could be implemented that would increase production and improve the economy generally. From what source can we achieve greater expansion of the national wealth than we can from the land? All Parties in the House have decided, after years of experience, that if the country is to make any progress economically and if we are to maintain the limited political freedom which we have, agriculture must be expanded, that there must be the most diverse forms of agriculture and the most intensive cultivation of the land. Can such expansion be achieved from land that is waterlogged? Is there anything more nonsensical than to appeal to decent farmers, big and small, all over Ireland, to produce more, to grow more grass, to carry more cattle on their land, if there are lakes surrounding their farmhouses? Where is the opportunity in such circumstances to increase production?
I emphasise that point to the Minister because the slogan of the Government for some time has been, "Export or perish". I suppose that refers to exports of agricultural produce and that the implication is that, if we do not adopt a dynamic approach to the development of exports, we cannot hope for an alternative expansion from industries which are not based on the land and which draw their raw materials from abroad.
There is nothing more disheartening to the farming community than exhortations in this House, on the radio and at various public functions, from the Taoiseach and Cabinet Ministers, to increase production when the farmers are in misery, their land and fields being flooded. The commonsense approach is to provide money for drainage of land which can then be fertilised and put in a condition to enable the necessary economic expansion to be achieved. There is no sense whatever in asking farmers to increase production if we fail to put the land into proper condition. It is exasperating and annoying to farmers to be told that money has been wasted under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and that it is not considered wise to spend more money under the Act.