I understand that the following arrangement has been agreed between the Whips: from 7 p.m. to 7.20 p.m., Deputy Michael Noonan, the mover of the motion; from 7.20 p.m. to 7.40 p.m. Deputy McEllistrim; from 7.40 p.m. to 8 p.m. the Minister for Finance; 8 p.m. to 8.10 p.m. Deputy McCartin; 8.10 p.m. to 8.25 p.m. Deputy Kitt and 8.25 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Deputy Wilson.
Private Members' Business. - Arterial Drainage: Motion.
(Limerick West): It is my pleasure to propose the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to provide the finance necessary to maintain an adequate arterial drainage programme in view of the employment it provides and the important contribution it makes to agricultural development.
If the country is to rise swiftly and steadily out of the recession it is vital that we optimise every resource we have, human and natural. Despite rumours of an oil find, and talk of the growth in importance of natural gas, our farmland remains our greatest natural resource. For decades the prosperity and the difficulties of agriculture have been a barometer as to how our economy has been faring. Successive Governments have tried to guide the industry through various schemes in an attempt to help it reach its true potential. When we joined the EEC we got an enormous boost and a lot of pressure was taken off our own financial resources. During those early years of our membership the Government had to ensure that our agricultural industry moved in the right direction. To this end at different times a comprehensive list of national aids was introduced. Farming, and agricultural development, is more important to us than to any other EEC country because one in four of our workforce is employed in farming. Indeed, agricultural exports account for about one quarter of our total exports. In fact, because of their low import content that figure under estimates the net value and benefit to our economy of such exports.
I cannot understand when I look at those figures the attitude adopted by the Government in regard to that industry. Above all I cannot understand the Government's attitude to arterial drainage schemes. The Government do not appreciate the vital role an expanding farm sector can play in leading us out of the recession. We could help solve our terrible unemployment problem if we kept more on the land and we could provide thousands of new jobs in agriculture based industries. That would in turn improve our balance of payments deficit. We should gear ourselves towards increased productivity and getting the maximum yield for the input of farmers, the Government and European agencies. To ensure a reasonable income for our farmers, particularly our rural community, the drainage of land is fundamental and must be a basic pursuit by the State. It is imperative that arterial drainage schemes are continued and that the design work recommences. I understand that the design work for future schemes has been suspended. That work should recommence so as to ensure that when the work on existing schemes is completed plans will be available to carry on with other projects. If that is done more land will be available for development. Apart from providing additional employment such an expansion would be of tremendous benefit to the country.
The effect on the balance of payments if such work is carried out would be dramatic. Unlike many other industries the technology to ensure such expansion in agriculture is readily available. It must be recognised that farmers need to plan well ahead before they expand their enterprise. Therefore, every effort must be made to ensure that they get the best use of every acre they have. The five schemes in progress at present were started by Fianna Fáil when in Government. The financial commitment to the three major schemes, the Boyne, the Maigue and the Corrib-Mask, is about £7½ million for this year or a figure equivalent to the 1979-80 figure. If one takes into consideration that the consumer price index in that period went up by 250 per cent one gets an indication of the Government's commitment, one of scaling down the whole concept of arterial drainage.
The schemes I mentioned are about 80 per cent completed and yet the Government have deferred any new surveys or design work for future schemes. The EEC allocation of £400,000 for a survey of the Shannon, which corresponds to about 40 per cent of the cost of the scheme, has been abandoned representing a great loss of funds from that source to Ireland. In the 1983 budget that survey was deferred and the money let go by default. The Government were prepared to let 230 workers involved in arterial drainage work go but that figure has been reduced by about 90 as a result of trade union pressure, representations by farming and rural organisations and, in particular, as a result of Fianna Fáil tabling the motion under discussion.
I should like to commend the Office of Public Works on the marvellous work they are doing under the Arterial Drainage Act. The land that has been improved under that Act is being utilised fully for farming purposes and many people, particularly in rural areas, gain employment under the schemes.
This Government are prepared now to pull the plug on all the fine, excellent work which can be done in future. The cost-benefit analysis of the schemes which has been carried out, despite statements to the contrary, has proved them to have been economic. This year sees a token gesture of the drainage of the Boyle and the Bonet, but employment there is for only about 80 as distinct from the normal major schemes I have mentioned which would provide employment for well in excess of 200 people. Surely it is far more favourable to have people employed on these schemes with consequential benefit rather than to have them thrown on the dole queue with the social consequences and, of course, the cost to the Exchequer of social welfare benefits. There is also loss of revenue to the State of EEC funds as many of these schemes are funded to up to 50 per cent of the total cost.
Every day we hear Government Ministers bringing forward various schemes, some of them hare-brained, for the purpose of creating employment. Surely we have ready-made employment in this area. Surely it is commonsense for any Government to continue with these schemes, particularly with regard to their design, so that when major schemes which are now in progress are being wound down the others will come on stream. The creation of employment must be a priority with any Government when there is so much unemployment. I repeat that in this area worthwhile employment can be forthcoming and the consequences of the work can be seen in better farmland and subsequently better utilisation of that land.
I will take and analyse one of these major schemes which concerns my constituency. The Maigue drainage scheme comprises approximately 420 square miles involving up to 270,000 acres. The benefit to the farmland from this scheme has been enormous. Despite the fact that since 1979 this scheme has been eligible for grant aid from the EEC Regional Development Fund, still the Government decided to make 56 men redundant. I have seen the benefit of this scheme to land which but for the scheme would have been under water continually during the winter months and right up to the present and which is now completely free from any flooding and has been utilised for the production of early grass. The total figure of £10.9 million this year for drainage as a whole is down from last year's £11.2 million. This year's figure for the three schemes I mentioned earlier, the Maigue, the Boyne and the Corrib-Mask, is only £7 million as against £10 million last year. The Government's policy in the context of arterial drainage, while it has affected the Maigue scheme in particular, has also affected the western drainage scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture in the sense that farmers cannot apply for these grants if they have not sufficient out-fall, and thereby we have a further loss of funds from EEC sources. We are now making massive deals with countries for exports of cattle — rightly so — yet Government policy is hostile to the production of beef cattle on our land. Farming organisations and all union interests are appalled by the Government's policy, the farmers from the point of view of greater utilisation of land, the unions from the point of view of employment. I repeat what is contained in this motion, the importance of restoring the money available for these schemes to its former amount and moneys being made available for the future development and design of schemes.
I want to make a short reference to another drainage scheme in Limerick, the proposed drainage of the Mulcaire. Not alone are the present schemes cut back but much-needed schemes such as the Mulcaire, the Dunkellin and the Owenmore in Sligo have obviously been thrown out of the window by this Government. It appears that for the first time in 150 years we are coming to the end of works in the arterial drainage scheme. The Mulcaire, which is in the constituency of East Limerick-North Tipperary, will give the greatest return. Figures show that not only will the increase be £27 million per year in agricultural output, but this scheme should be ready in time for the workers on the Maigue scheme when that scheme is completed to go straight on to the Mulcaire. There is a saving there of £5.8 million of taxpayers' money over the expected seven years it will take to complete the project rather than putting 250 men on redundancy and on the dole queue. The present ban on arterial drainage planning will lead in the next two years to redundancies on the completion of the three schemes and that will mean a great cost to the Government. It means that hundreds and thousands of acres of good fertilised land cannot produce their full potential. It means continuous flooding of houses, schools, land and roads, which is all unnecessary. It will mean that more farmers will leave the land looking for jobs to support their families, thus increasing the dole queues in our cities and towns. It means less earnings for the country, fewer exports, fewer processing and service jobs, hundreds of redundancies and more on the dole of those working on drainage and also on the ancillary work. The ESRI report reviews arterial drainage done to date and states in conclusion: "The evidence available implies that the best investment opportunities in arterial drainage have already been taken and I expect that the same is true in the case of field drainage". In my opinion, that statement is untrue. Why did they not review those schemes still to be done? Why draw conclusions when they do not know what they are talking about? The schemes reviewed in that report were not done in areas of high fertility land. Each scheme must be judged on the cost-benefit analysis, and I have no doubt that the Mulcaire scheme will stand up to that scrutiny. I commend the Mulcaire drainage co-operative group who have done their own survey and are ready to organise follow-up drainage in order to maximise returns to the farmer, the region and the country Improvement in agricultural output is for everyone to see, as I have stated already, regarding the Maigue drainage scheme, although the scheme is not yet completed.
We wonder why the Government continue to put very large sums of money into creating jobs through the IDA and youth employment, yet the most productive project in the country is turned down. Is it because it is home-based? Is it because it is agricultural, or is it obvious that the Government are prepared to turn a blind eye to it? Arterial drainage must be examined under a number of headings, with regard to the present economic situation, the employment situation, the necessity of reducing public expenditure and, finally, increasing our exports to help the balance of payments. Therefore, two most important factors would seem to be to increase employment in the productive sector and so increase exports. Agricultural products for processing and exporting would realise the greatest benefit to the country, therefore it is hard to understand the present cuts in the promotion of agricultural output which so far seems to have been singled out. Therefore, investment of money in any scheme must be investigated fully and show its worth in a cost-benefit analysis. I have put it to the Minister that the arterial drainage scheme will stand up to any scrutiny and, therefore, there is no feasible argument to be advanced in this respect except the lack of political will of this Government with regard to the arterial drainage scheme to date.
I, too, support this motion. I was utterly amazed to hear that the Office of Public Works were laying off 235 workers on arterial drainage. I had a parliamentary question down recently to which the reply, given on 8 February, stated that there had been 25 workers laid off by the Office of Public Works on arterial drainage in December and 22 laid off in January. If my arithmetic is correct that comprises 282 workers having been laid off by the Office of Public Works on arterial drainage.
I had a parliamentary question down some time ago asking how many people working in national parks had been laid off and I was told the number was approximately 20. Therefore the total number of people laid off by the Office of Public Works to date is 300, proving that the present Government have no commitment whatsoever to maintaining jobs or retaining the people who are in secure jobs.
Only last week the Minister for Labour said that the Government would devise new schemes for the creation of employment. I doubt his sincerity in this matter. These workers have been engaged on vital arterial drainage work. Yet the Government lay off 300 while it must be remembered that half of their wages was paid by the EEC. I contend it will cost the Government much more to render those workers redundant as they will have to be paid redundancy payments and pay-related benefit for the next 14 months and, as we are all aware, that pay-related benefit was reduced from 80 per cent in the last budget to 75 per cent. Therefore there will be no saving for the Government in laying off those men because half their wages emanated from the EEC. It is a disgrace that they be laid off and is evidence of the fact that the Government do not care what is happening, that they are not in the least sincere about the creation or maintenance of jobs.
The House will remember the closure of the Scarriff factory with a loss of 300 jobs and another 300 lost indirectly at a time when the raw material, the timber, was grown here. Now we are importing chipboard. At that time I felt it was a mistake for the Government to allow that Scarriff factory to close and I believe it is a mistake now to render 300 arterial drainage workers redundant. It is of interest to note that arterial drainage was commenced in this country during the Famine. It was initiated at that time to create employment when there was much need of it and also the drainage of waterlogged land. Times are not as bad now but when one looks at an unemployment figure of 216,000 — while the Government endeavour to add another 300 arterial drainage workers — it is nothing short of a disgrace. The rivers at present being dredged are the Maigue, the Corrib-Robe-Mask, the Boyle, the Bonet and the Boyne. The Boyne is approximately 90 per cent complete and all of the others are 50 per cent EEC-funded. Therefore it is a disgrace to reduce the work force when half the cost of their wages is paid for by the EEC. There is a cost-benefit analysis done with regard to all rivers before dredging and none is done unless proven to be profitable with many acres of land benefiting therefrom.
The Boyle and Bonet were started by Fianna Fáil, with approximately 80 men employed. There should be at least 200 men to carry out that work as quickly and effectively as was done with regard to other rivers in the past. Last year £11 million was spent on arterial drainage, with only £10 million this year which, allowing for inflation, represents a reduction of approximately £1,250,000. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Finance responsible for the Office of Public Works there were £7 million spent on the Boyne, the Maigue and the Corrib-Robe-Mask with £7 million only being spent on those same rivers this year.
I might point out also that the survey of the River Shannon has not yet commenced even though there has been a commitment from the EEC to meeting 50 per cent of its cost up to a maximum of £400,000. That commitment was obtained by Fianna Fáil when in power and, as far as I can recollect, we were recruiting staff to initiate that survey. I question why that survey has not been commenced because it would provide much needed employment. As the House is aware, the Shannon is one of the largest rivers in Europe with many thousands of acres of adjacent land flooded annually. We hear constant complaints from farmers whose lands are flooded each year. If the Shannon were dredged it would have rendered thousands of acres more fertile land. The work is very necessary and I appeal to the Minister of State, and the Minister for Finance now in the House, to provide the money to have the Shannon survey started so that sometime in our lifetime dredging operations can be begun.
Arterial drainage is very necessary for farmers who now try to work land which is waterlogged. The big problem is that farmers cannot get drainage grants from the Department of Agriculture until the arterial drainage has been done in their respective counties because they would not have any outflow for the water. The Government have discontinued the farm drainage grants. If they had any intention of creating employment, arterial drainage is one source of jobs and, of course, the wages and salaries of the men as well as the work itself would attract 50 per cent funding from the EEC. There is an excellent staff in the OPW, excellent engineers, gangers and skilled workers, who would be capable of handling many extra workers.
Therefore, it is up to the Minister of State to request the Minister for Finance to have the 300 men reinstated in arterial drainage and some extra men taken on. It would give much needed employment. The Minister for Labour might be able to help if he is sincere in his statements about providing extra jobs. The Minister of State need not be thinking of new schemes, because arterial drainage plans are already there while farmers are suffering great setbacks in their standards of living because of wet land. In the past 12 months the Government have added to their problems by withdrawing the farm modernisation and loan subsidy schemes and have changed the system of paying assistance to small farmers. Nearly 60 per cent of the small farmers in my county will be without assistance when they have been investigated. Now the Government are engaged in scaling down arterial drainage, another setback for farmers. I question this especially when most of our river drainage is being funded 50 per cent by the EEC who must be having a right laugh to see that we are not spending all the money allocated to us for arterial drainage.
The OPW should have a scheme to dredge small rivers as well. This also would make many thousands of acres fertile and more productive. We could have thousands more men employed and therefore it would be money well spent. I appeal again to the Minister of State and the Minister to have extra funds made available so that not only will the 300 workers be reinstated but many more men employed.
Many more rivers, such as the Dunkellin, the Blackwater in Cork, the Mulcaire and the Shannon should be proceeded with. In Kerry we had two major rivers done, the Maigue and the Feale, as well as the Brick and the Cashin. I have seen the effect of the work done on them as far as the adjoining land is concerned. It made many thousands of acres more fertile. Our young people are crying out for work which we cannot provide for them and here is a golden opportunity for the Government to provide extra employment, particularly with the prospect of a 50 per cent grant from the EEC. Much work would be provided for young and middle-aged people.
The motion calls on the Government to provide the finance necessary for arterial drainage. I do not intend to oppose it or to table an amendment. I intend to demonstrate that the Government are making adequate financial provision for arterial drainage in relation both to our needs and our resources. Though I agree with the terms of the motion I am somewhat disappointed that Deputies on the other side have not paid more attention to our resources. However, I will refer to this in detail in a moment.
Since the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945 was passed, 34 schemes have been completed and a further five are now in progress. When these schemes have been completed over 620,000 acres of land will have been influenced or improved by drainage. Over that period, since the passage of the 1945 Act, some £250 million at 1980 prices has been invested in survey and construction work by the Office of Public Works. On average, arterial drainage has absorbed 1½ per cent of the Public Capital Programme and it has constituted about 12½ per cent of State capital spending on agriculture.
The total capital provision this year for arterial drainage in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings is £11.65 million. This amount is being provided to fund the activities of the Commissioners of Public Works on five drainage schemes which are in the course of construction and to meet the State's commitment to the provision in Northern Ireland by the authorities there of an outfall for the Monaghan Blackwater cross-Border drainage scheme. The five schemes which are in progress are the Boyne, the Maigue, the Corrib-Mask, Boyle and the Bonet. This represents a considerable effort devoted to arterial drainage over a wide geographical area and must surely be seen to be an adequate arterial drainage programme. In fact, the current programme is more widespread than at any previous time since the passing of the Arterial Drainage Act in 1945 — the main legislation under which this part of the capital programme is carried out. I think it would be worthwhile spending a few minutes looking at those schemes in a little more detail in order to refute the suggestion that the on-going drainage programme is in any way to be described as inadequate.
The Maigue scheme in Counties Limerick, Tipperary and Cork will have affected 30,500 acres when it is completed in the next couple of years. It is now over 80 per cent complete, having been at the works stage for just over ten years and the total cost of that will be in the region of £29 million.
The Corrib-Mask scheme is the last of three major projects to drain the very complex Corrib catchment, the other two schemes being the Corrib-Clare and the Corrib-Headford. The Corrib-Mask has been going on since 1979 and it is now 80 per cent complete. It will have cost £21 million when it is completed in 1986 and will have benefited some 24,000 acres of damaged land in Counties Galway and Mayo. The Boyne scheme is the largest of the drainage projects undertaken so far. It takes in large tracts of Counties Meath, Westmeath, Offaly, Kildare, Louth and Cavan and is designed to improve 119,000 acres. Work on that scheme has been in progress for more than ten years and the scheme is now about 90 per cent complete. The total estimated cost of the Boyne scheme is £42 million. The Boyle and the Bonet schemes between them cover large areas of Counties Leitrim, Roscommon and Sligo and a small part of County Mayo. These two schemes started in 1982 and will have benefited 30,000 acres when they are completed in about six years' time.
The Monaghan Blackwater scheme is being undertaken in conjunction with the Northern Ireland authorities with EEC assistance and it will give relief to some 5,900 acres in the northern part of County Monaghan. I will come back later to the question of the extent of EEC aid.
In the light of these facts, it is difficult to understand how anyone could imply that the arterial drainage programme is in any way inadequate. It ranges from the borders of Kerry to the border with County Tyrone and from Drogheda to Ballinrobe. It is giving sustained employment to 750 men and it is giving an opportunity to thousands of farmers to improve their holdings by making use of the arterial outfalls to provide their own field drainage and to build up their livestock numbers.
When these current drainage schemes are taken with the 32 other schemes completed by the Commissioners of Public Works since the passing of the 1945 Act, and which are constantly maintained by the Commissioners, there is a very widespread network of arterial channels which are of great benefit to our farmers and provide immediate employment in construction and maintenance, not to mention — to coin a phrase — down-stream employment. Of course, there are very many people in all those catchment areas who are perfectly well aware of the fact that the benefits of arterial drainage schemes are not confined to the agriculture sector, but have a wider effect than that.
I mentioned the Monaghan Blackwater scheme. This is a cross-Border project being undertaken in conjunction with the Northern Ireland authorities. It is part of the process of improved cross-Border co-operation on economic matters agreed between this Government and the British Government. There has, of course, been a long history of co-operation between the drainage authorities on both sides of the Border, but this scheme is the first major undertaking involving extensive works on both sides. The planning of this scheme called for a high degree of consultation and liaison and I am happy to say that the result is a comprehensive scheme for the entire catchment agreed to by both parties and by the EEC.
The present state of the project is that a scheme in accordance with the 1945 Act has been exhibited in County Monaghan and the observations of the landowners concerned and of the county council are being considered by the Commissioners. They expect to be in a position to submit the scheme to my Department for confirmation in a month or so. For their part, the Northern Ireland authorities have tenders for the first stage of their works and they expect to be in a position to start work as soon as we confirm our scheme.
As I mentioned £11.65 million is being provided this year to fund the arterial drainage programme. I should like to put this figure in context and to detail, if I may, the capital amounts allocated each year since 1975 for this service in constant 1983 terms.
In 1975 the value of the commitment to the arterial drainage scheme, as I have said, in constant 1983 terms, was £6,940,000; in 1976, it was £6,760,000; in 1977, £8,060,000; in 1978, £10,170,000; in 1979, £12,400,000; in 1980, £12,270,000; in 1981, £12,550,000; in 1982 £12,410,000 and in 1983 £11,950,000.
Looking at those figures it can clearly be seen that, in spite of economic constraints, expenditure on arterial drainage increased substantially in real terms from the mid-seventies until the end of the decade and was maintained in or around that level until 1983. As a proportion of the Public Capital Programme, drainage has held its own since 1980 though of course the Public Capital Programme itself has been reduced to accord with the availability of resources.
The current allocation is a slight reduction in cash terms on the allocation for 1983. Looked at in the context of the provisions made in previous years and given the reality of the current financial situation, I could contend that the amount of £11.65 million is a generous allocation for this service. As I have already indicated, this amount will guarantee the continued employment of some 750 men for this year and will bring the Boyne and the Corrib-Mask to the verge of completion.
In addition, maintenance is an indispensable part of arterial drainage. Much of the improvement in damaged land resulting from the drainage work carried out in the last century was lost over the years from lack of maintenance and expensive reconstruction works had to be carried out again by later generations. The 1945 Act requires that completed drainage schemes be maintained by the Commissioners of Public Works and this year they will spend £4 million on such works giving employment to about 300 men.
(Interruptions.)
This is a key part of the scheme and merits a little more attention than it is being given here this evening particularly in view of Deputy Noonan's stated and very real concern with the levels of productivity. I am quite sure that Deputies Noonan and MacEllistrim and other Members on the other side of the House would agree when I say that it is essential that we ensure the continued maintenance of all of those schemes. That goes right from the level of the Commissioners of Public Works down to each individual farmer on the ground. We all know with what rapidity the benefits of drainage work carried out can be lost if we do not pay adequate attention, as I have said, at all levels to the proper maintenance of channels, outfalls and the field drainage that is carried out on farms.
Drainage schemes by their very nature are finite projects which come to an end. Like most other construction projects, a drainage scheme starts off from small beginnings, reaches a peak level of activity and tapers off as completion approaches. As I mentioned, the Boyne, the Corrib-Mask and the Maigue are now approaching the final stages. It follows that workers on these schemes could expect to be laid off in the relatively near future whatever the overall level of drainage activity. Indeed for this very reason some 20 men were laid off on the Corrib-Mask scheme last November and further numbers will be laid off over the next 12 to 18 months as works wind down. While it has been expected that 230 men would have to be made redundant, certain savings on the cross-Border project which came to light in the last few weeks, following the outcome of consultations with the Northern Ireland authorities, have enabled the commissioners to reduce the number of redundancies to 140.
It is important to point out that this change came about as a result of what is happening in relation to the cross-Border scheme which I have mentioned. It did not come about, contrary to what Deputy Noonan wanted to pretend, as a result of this motion or as a result of any particular pressure that the Deputy or anybody else has been putting on. It came about because, with a constant review of the requirements on the expenditure side, we have been able to identify an area where we had some flexibility and where we could reorganise the expenditure allocated to this programme in order to produce the benefits in terms of employment which I have mentioned and to get the effects of that in terms of the rate of the work completion on the other schemes. One way or another, given the advanced stage of the works on the Boyne, Maigue and Corrib-Mask, practically all of the operatives on those schemes will unfortunately have to be let go over the next couple of years because, as I have said, arterial drainage, like any construction project, is a finite business which comes to an end at some point. I do not intend to make any particular political point in saying this. This is a factor which Deputies on the other side of the House should bear in mind when they are talking about the employment benefits of construction activity.
As announced in relation to the Public Capital Programme for 1983 the planning of further arterial drainage schemes has been halted pending a review of the arterial drainage policy. The Government decided that a thorough examination should be made of the bases and assumptions on which decisions to carry out these high schemes are made. There have from time to time been some questions raised about the way in which the efficacy and merits of proposed schemes were assessed.
Before going into the question of the review in more detail it may be helpful to put forward the historical perspective affecting drainage. In the 100 years from 1840-1940 there were three significant programmes of arterial drainage. Over that period, the State drained about 450,000 acres, equal to 4 per cent of farm land. Individual schemes were typically quite small, averaging 2,000 acres each. The peak of activity occurred in ten years spanning the Famine period, when over half of all this work was carried out. Unfortunately, much of the work done under these programmes was allowed to fall back into chronic disrepair for lack of maintenance.
An Act passed in 1945 gave arterial drainage new impetus. This Act removed several obstacles which were impeding the drainage programme. The notable change was the shift from tackling drainage problems in a piecemeal fashion to draining entire catchments at a time. It became clear in the thirties that problems continued and needed a fresh examination. To this end the Browne Commission was set up in 1938 and sat for two years. They reviewed arrangements and recommended fundamental changes in the whole approach to arterial drainage. The most significant change recommended by them was that all future drainage construction works should be planned to deal with the whole drainage problems in individual catchment areas and that the commissioners should be responsible for all drainage works, both construction and maintenance. The 1945 Act gave effect to the recommendations of the Browne Commission and the first scheme carried out under that Act was the Brosna scheme started by the first Coalition Government in 1948.
Drainage like all other capital programmes had to compete for scarce resources and an orderly basis for allocating those resources to best advantage had to be devised. It was decided to establish a cost-benefit format within which drainage proposals could be tested. Deputy Noonan referred to the fact that the Maigue scheme was chosen for analysis because it was the next catchment in which a large drainage scheme was likely to be started by the Commissioners of Public Works. An in-depth study was carried out under the direction of a steering group drawn from the public sector.
The analysis was carried out under the aegis of the Office of Public Works and within the context of the development of analytical studies in the Civil Service as an aid to policy formulation and review. While the analysis was confined to the Maigue scheme it was recognised that the methodology developed could be repeated in assessing further projects — and this has been done.
In analysing the Maigue scheme the steering group sought to answer the following four main questions in relation to that scheme and, by implication, in relation to the whole arterial drainage programme
(1) will the scheme achieve its objectives?
(2) would the achievement of the objectives represent an economic return on the investment?
This is an important one which very frequently is overlooked in public debate on the issue.
(3) could the objectives of the scheme be achieved more economically by alternative means?
(4) what principles of use for assessing future schemes might be observed from the analysis?
A full report on the analysis was later published; it showed that the scheme could achieve its objectives provided the necessary follow up work was undertaken by the beneficiaries. Studies using the methodologies derived from the Maigue report have been undertaken on all schemes subsequently proposed.
I could go on about the question of the analysis of expenditure on these schemes and its ranking in terms of priority but that is something which, unfortunately, I do not have time to go into that this evening because my colleague, Deputy McCartin, is anxious to participate in the debate. I am sure the Minister of State will take up the analysis from that point tomorrow evening. As will have been clear from my remarks, I agree with the terms of the motion. I agree that we need an adequate drainage programme. Everyone involved, those responsible for carrying out the work, those who will benefit from the work and those who have to provide the funds — the taxpayers—need to know that a proper analysis of the programme was carried out, related not only to our needs but also to our resources. In the present framework, I submit that our programme meets the requirements identified in this motion.
I thought the Minister would have elaborated on cross-Border projects.
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving me time to speak on this subject in which I have a great interest. It was a good motion to put down for debate but the subject was treated in a very facile and superficial way by Members of the Opposition who have spoken on it so far. I regret we could not come into the House and speak seriously about a subject which merits considerable attention and deeper thought than has been given to it.
What we are talking about is raising money from taxpayers and spending it so that we can get the best possible return for our economy. We are talking about spending it on arterial drainage tonight. Two main arguments have been made by the Opposition. They are that if we carry on a strengthened programme of arterial drainage we will help to solve the unemployment problem by creating jobs and that we will benefit the economy because we will increase agricultural production automatically. The first argument follows but if it was possible to solve the unemployment problem by employing people to carry out public works, the Minister would have no problem. There are many public works to be carried out. I am sure the former Taoiseach, Mr. Cosgrave, would have solved the problem of 70,000 people unemployed in that way and when it reached 100,000 under former Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch and when it was 200,000 under Deputy Haughey as Taoiseach, I am sure they would have done the same. We must ask ourselves whether in taking money from some area and spending it on carrying out public work, we will get a return which would justify spending the money. There are some areas where we could spend it which would benefit the economy in the long term, taking into consideration the employment and economic benefits that would result. However, it does not automatically follow that agricultural production would be increased by spending money on arterial drainage.
I have been engaged on land improvement works over the years. Look at the amount of money which was spent in the west under the western drainage package on field and arterial drainage. Livestock units did not increase nor was there a higher rate of crop production. I am not making a case that time will undo the work which was carried out. In some cases it will, but in others it will not. When one makes an investment today, with our high interest and inflation rates, one needs to get a return fairly quickly. So far it cannot be shown that we got such a return. I am not saying it is not possible to do so.
What we are talking about from the point of view of a farmer is taking money from taxpayers and transferring it as a direct benefit to him because his assets in the form of land will be improved. It does not follow the farmer will make good use of the investment. It is popular to make arguments in favour of arterial drainage because we offer a number of people direct financial improvement. The taxpayer from whom the money is collected does not see that the money is going from him to these people. That is why it is easy to make this point.
The money we spend on arterial drainage, some £12 million, should not be spent on the basis of decisions made 30 or 40 years ago. We must update the system and look at the benefits which accrue to the community and the economy. We must ask ourselves in light of the economic facts known to us today: "Does it pay to invest £x to drain a river?" In the cost-benefit analysis which have been carried out, it has been found that a return will be got for the money in all cases. I do not accept that. Take a farmer with 20 acres affected by a river and 80 acres which are not affected. If the 80 acres are not yielding the maximum production that could be obtained from them, why should we expect the 20 acres to yield the maximum production if we open the river?
We must look at the system and involve the Agricultural Institute who have a lot of expertise which could be applied. They could help us come up with sensible solutions. The priority list is 30 years old and should not be sacred today. We should let out the work for tender. Planning work to be carried out in a large catchment area over seven or eight years is not a good idea. We should break the scheme up. In regard to the Boyne, we are complaining because men were laid off. It was projected that the river would be finished in 1979. When we decided to drain the river, if we had set up the contract and provided money it would have been done by now at the cost at which it was originally estimated plus inflation.
I would prefer to see individuals, co-operatives and groups involved in draining the minor catchments in these areas. Grants could be given to assist them and the work would be done more cheaply. Remedial work could be carried out on some rivers. When the Department of Fisheries and Forestry plough a mountain for planting, it can result in the silting of some channels and remedial works should be considered in such cases. Trees fall into channels and flooding is worse, although our climate has not changed, than it was 60 years ago. That does not mean we must undertake a large scale arterial drainage programme. We could benefit by doing remedial work on some rivers.
As regards the EEC, we are leaving money after us under the farm modernisation scheme, FEOGA grants and in other areas. It does not necessarily follow that we should proceed with arterial drainage. If we decide on alternative investment we will get EEC money for it. Arterial drainage should continue but it must be in the context of an overall development plan for agriculture so that we will know the back-up work will be done and that farmers are efficient and capable of increasing production. That is the only way to get a return for the money. I hope the Opposition will apply themselves to these questions rather than the superficial and politically acceptable arguments they have made so far.
I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute on this motion. I am glad the Minister has agreed in principle with our motion. However, I could not agree with him when he said the Government made provision for an adequate drainage programme. I and other Deputies on this side put down questions to the Minister in recent weeks concerning the lay-off of workers carrying out arterial drainage works.
On 8 February the Minister of State informed me in the House that the lay-off of workers on arterial drainage schemes will have the effect of reducing the works programme for 1984 through the postponement of works which might otherwise have been done this year. Schemes which we hoped would be proceeded with will obviously be postponed.
I am very interested in the Corrib-Mask-Robe which the Minister said was 80 per cent completed. When a scheme is almost complete why should workers be laid off? This scheme was started in 1979 and has benefited 24,000 acres of land in Galway and Mayo. I am sorry that employment is not being maintained in that and other schemes.
The Minister did not refer to the fact that there is something like a 3 per cent reduction in construction work on arterial drainage for 1984. On the figures he has given tonight there is a reduction in money terms — I am not allowing for inflation — of about £750,000. It should also be noted that there is a 31 per cent reduction in the money to be spent on surveys. What plans have the Government to continue arterial drainage when studies and surveys that should be prepared for ultimate schemes have been cut back by that amount? This year £11.65 million has been provided for arterial drainage. In the western drainage scheme £10.3 million was provided in 1983 enabling 5,000 farmers to drain 25,000 hectares of land. There is a sum of only £9 million provided in 1984 for the western drainage scheme which, it is hoped, will enable a further 22,000 hectares to be drained. There is a very close relationship between the western drainage scheme and arterial drainage because, as other speakers have pointed out, we need to speed up the arterial drainage programme so that we have outfalls for the western drainage scheme. The money allocated to that important scheme has been reduced and applications have not been processed for the last two years. This is a very serious matter and the Minister should look very closely at it.
I was amazed that the Minister for Finance did not refer to the Dunkellin river in Galway. It is a very important river and has been the subject of deputations to various Ministers over the years. It has also been the subject of Dáil questions and Deputy Sylvester Barrett told me at one stage that there would be studies carried out in 1982 on the Dunkellin river. He also set out why these studies were needed and he said that the first study which would be carried out would be done on water flows on that river. The second study was to be carried out on the oysterbeds at Clarenbridge and the third study was to be on a wildlife habitat near Craughwell.
The Office of Public Works spent £157,000 on those studies in 1983 but I was very disappointed that the Forestry and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry did not engage in joint studies on the oyster-beds and the wildlife habitat. The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry informed me quite bluntly in a reply to a Dáil question on 6 December that no expenditure had been incurred by his Department this year to date on surveys and studies of this river. He also said that the question of departmental involvement in 1984 had still to be decided. I welcome the fact that £157,000 was spent on those studies but in view of the fact that there was a 31 per cent reduction in the revised Estimates for Public Services, will money be provided in 1984 to continue these studies? Unfortunately, that is where I see the Department of Finance reneging on their promise to provide studies and surveys. Studies on the oyster-beds and the wildlife habitat were to be carried out jointly but it now appears that, whatever about the goodwill of the Office of Public Works, they are not getting the co-operation they should be getting from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
The Minister said tonight that the number of people being made redundant on arterial drainage will be reduced now from 230 to 140. He went on to say:
One way or another, given the advanced stage of the works on the Boyne, Maigue and Corrib-Mask practically all of the operatives on those schemes will unfortunately have to be let go over the next couple of years.
What about the cost-benefit analysis that should be carried out on schemes like Dunkellin and others which were mentioned tonight so that we will have definite plans for the future and that the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works will have a definite arterial drainage plan from now on?
I should also like to refer to the river Nanny drainage scheme. This river was part of the old Corrib-Clare drainage scheme and it was held up because of the need to provide a water supply to Tuam. The Minister of State was the first person to tell me in 1981 that it was now feasible to do this. He said that if the river was drained it would not interfere with the water supply for Tuam. I put it to the Minister that nothing has been done since 1981 to carry out the action required. He stated that it was feasible to do the drainage works without interfering with the water supply. Perhaps he would say, when replying, what has been done to provide an alternative water supply for Tuam and when he will provide the £250,000 required to complete the drainage of that river.
Mention has been made of the money provided in 1983 by the EEC to carry out a multi-purpose survey of the Shannon. This feasibility study was to be funded as to 40 per cent by the EEC and 60 per cent by the Government. A total of £1 million was to be provided. I am informed that the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Deputy Connaughton, said at a function some months ago that this study could not be done. We are entitled to know whether he was speaking as a Minister and enunciating Government policy. Will money be provided this year to carry out that multi-purpose feasibility study?
Maintenance is an important part of arterial drainage. The 1945 Act requires that a completed drainage scheme should be maintained by the Commissioners of Public Works. The money is to be obtained by making a statutory demand on the local authorities. Statutory demands have been increasing dramatically during the past few years. Local authorities got an increase of 5 per cent in 1983 in lieu of domestic and agricultural rates and the allocation this year is less than 1 per cent above that for last year. The OPW make increasing demands each year for arterial drainage maintenance.
The Minister talks about the £4 million which is to be spent in 1984 giving employment to 300 people, but this money will be recouped from the local authorities. He should get extra money from the Government to put these 140 people back to work.
I do not like to hear the Minister talk about schemes reaching 80 or 90 per cent completion. He should be pushing to have them completed and telling us about plans to carry out studies, surveys and cost-benefit analyses for future schemes. I am glad the Minister has accepted our motion in principle but I cannot agree that he is providing enough money for an adequate arterial drainage programme.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to this motion. In the time remaining tonight I will speak in general terms about arterial drainage and tomorrow I will speak about the specific area in which I have the greatest interest, the Erne catchment area covering parts of County Cavan, County Fermanagh in the Six Counties and parts of County Leitrim. It is particularly appropriate that I should speak on this topic because it was my predecessor in County Cavan, the late Deputy Paddy Smith, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance in charge of the Office of Public Works, who put on the Statute Book the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act upon which all schemes since and for the foreseeable future rely.
I endorse the remarks made by our spokesman about the importance of employment in general. These drainage schemes provide opportunities for employment in areas which are at present badly hit. When the OPW and the Minister did their sums it was discovered that it would not be necessary to lay off 230 people but only 140. There was a little saving and this could only have happened because they got their sums wrong the first time, threw in a few extra pounds from the EEC and saved 90 jobs. This is the typical cavalier way of looking at job creation adopted by this Government and the Minister for Finance. It shows his general attitude to people and their lack of importance in his eyes in our community.
Our spokesman emphasised the importance of land development and the damage that is being done by the Government in halting arterial drainage schemes. I will be speaking tomorrow about the Erne catchment area. Studies in productivity conducted in recent years show that the area came second only to south west Cork in agricultural productivity, despite all its disadvantages. If we can do that without having had any advantage from arterial drainage, the Minister for Finance can be quite confident that on a cost-benefit analysis any investment in that area will pay off.
We are sick, sore and tired hearing about reviews. There are no plans for drainage schemes, but there will be a big review. When you are in trouble and do not want to do anything, call out the review. The Minister also referred to the great Famine. That is one of the oldest tricks in the game. When you want to cover up, to pad out a speech, do the little bit of history. That is what we got from the Minister. A decision has been taken not to provide money for arterial drainage, therefore we will have to pad out the speech giving the history of arterial drainage starting at the Famine, in this way hoping to pull the wool over the eyes of Members.
I am also informed — and I would ask for confirmation or denial — that the maintenance work is funded by the county councils and not directly by the OPW. If this is so I cannot see why the Minister should have spent so much time explaining the importance of maintenance works after completion of drainage. I fully accept his thesis that arterial drainage without assiduous maintenance can be a waste of time and money. I should like to know whether he is pulling the long bow in claiming some kind of credit for paying out money for maintenance when it is actually done by the county councils.
Decisions have been made in the OPW to carry out major catchment area drainage schemes rather than to do them bittily, that one large catchment area will be chosen, studied and the actual drainage carried out. The Erne drainage scheme is eminently suited for that purpose.
Debate adjourned.