Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Oct 1992

Vol. 423 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Midland Counties Development: Motion.

Mr. Dukes

I move:

That Dáil Éireann deplores the neglect by the Government of the Midlands, as evidenced by the serious population decline in rural areas, the loss of employment in natural resource-based activities, the total lack of a structure for planning for the future use of cutaway bogs and the fact that no concrete action is likely to result from the review of the disadvantaged areas before mid-1994 at the earliest;

Calls on the Government immediately to put forward proposals whereby local communities will get access to State funds to develop plans for their areas which would

—exploit the potential of cutaway bogs, including conserved environmentally sensitive wetland areas;

—develop industrial, tourism and service growth centres and

—develop the necessary road, rail and inland waterway infrastructures.

I propose to share my time with Deputies Enright, Flanagan, Belton and Lowry.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Dukes

I have pleasure in proposing this motion in my name and that of nine of my colleagues from the midland counties. The reason we put down this motion, which is not concerned only with rural development but in a much wider way with the development of the midland counties, is that in debates about regional development the midlands tend to be overlooked. There may be reasons for that which we all understand but they are not reasons we should let pass in the interests of the people who live in the midland counties and who face a series of problems that are almost unique to their situation.

The future of the Irish midlands is bleak unless the Government adopt the kind of strategic planning approach called for in this motion. Our demand for an integrated approach to the planning and development of the midlands is entirely consistent with Fine Gael's approach to regional development, an approach we set out in detail in January 1989, which concerns the kinds of structures needed in all the regions of the country to promote and inspire the process of development. We set out an overall approach at that time which would devolve to regional authorities functions and responsibilities in relation to planning and development. It is very clear that that approach is urgently needed today.

The wealth and the wellbeing of the midlands were traditionally based on their natural resources, peatlands and agriculture, and the industrial and commercial life of the majority of midland towns and intimately linked with agriculture and peat extraction. Industries and services connected with those natural resources provided the basis of almost all economic activity and the source of almost all employment in the midlands. For much of our history, the products of the midlands have been food, beer, spirits, leather goods and energy products. The supply of raw materials, machinery and other inputs for these activities was accordingly an important part of the economic life of the area.

This continued to be the position in the midlands for much of the period during which we attempted to accelerate — and in many cases succeeded in doing so — industrialisation in other parts of the country. For that reason less attention was paid to modern industrial development in the midlands than in other parts of the country. That might have been understandable at the time but the results could now prove to be very damaging for the midlands and for the people who live and work there. Today the two principal activities of the midlands are in serious decline. If present policies continue, agriculture in the midlands faces increasing difficulties. Prices of tillage products are coming under very severe pressure as the European Community moves towards what are popularly and wrongly called world market prices for these products. Farmers in the midlands will have very little choice but to become involved in the set aside programmes provided for under reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, driven largely by American interests, which have not been sufficiently or successfully resisted by Commissioner MacSharry and the European Commission. Even one of the palliative measures proposed by the present Government — the review of the disadvantaged areas scheme — which has led to all kinds of expectations throughout the midlands, is not likely to make a contribution of any kind to the income or structure of agriculture in midland counties before the middle of 1994 at the earliest, and that is a very optimistic expectation as to when we will see results from that scheme.

The effects of these restrictions on agriculture, which will become more severe on the life of midland towns, are already to be seen. Towns which once had a thriving industrial and commerical life based on their rural hinterlands are now literally crumbling at the edges. In any midland town one can see factories, mills, stores and houses deserted and decayed. Peat production and its related activities, once the mainstay of rural employment in huge areas of the midlands, are in decline and employ fewer and fewer people in a very different structure from that which we knew up to a few years ago. Electricity generation based on peat from our bogs is being restricted, with further restrictions in employment. All over the midlands there are unemployed men who will be the last generation to have worked on our bogs. All over the midlands there are townlands when entire households are unemployed or where all the young generation are gone and are employed elsewhere in Ireland or, in too many cases, overseas. We are seeing in a very real sense the disappearance of one of the main pillars of the economic infrastructure of the midland counties.

Many people fail to realise the depth of the problem or the significance of the decline. The average traveller between Dublin and the major centres of the south, the mid-west, the west and the north-west will probably be aware only of the increased ease of travel over roads across the midlands which are being upgraded with the assistance of Structural Funds from the European Community and of the ease of getting around previously congested towns by means of the new by-passes. However, what the average traveller does not realise is that, once you leave the main routes, access to many parts of the midlands is extremely difficult because the roads are so bad, and economic life is gradually coming to a halt. I intend no criticism by this but the average traveller who enjoys the upgrading of, for example, the Naas by-pass is totally unaware that a mile off the Naas by-pass in either direction the roads remind you of nothing more than a stormy night on the Irish Sea. I know the Minister knows perfectly well the road for example, from Edenderry to Rathangan, a road that would take all the teeth out of your head if you did not have a firm grip on your seat or steering wheel and did not keep your speed to less than 40 miles an hour.

In spite of all that, there is great potential in the midlands. Around the bogs there are rich mineral soils that could continue to produce a very good living for the population if the Government could persuade their European Community partners to adopt an agricultural policy for the Community that is properly articulated to the needs of the regions and that takes proper account of the different levels of dependency of different regions of the Community on agriculture and the products associated with it. In a world where non-renewable energy resources are being irrationally used and even exploited, a properly integrated national energy policy in this country would attach an importance to our peatlands much higher than that accorded to it by our current haphazard, piecemeal national energy policy.

We have barely started to think coherently about uses for our cutaway bogs, yet an immense amount of work on potential uses for those bogs has been done. An excellent and thought-provoking report was produced at the beginning of last year for the Department of Energy by a committee set up in February 1990 by the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy. Although this report deals with a great many issues and outlines a great many areas where decisions will have to be made, I have seen no statement of policy of any kind from the Government nor any indication of conclusions drawn from this report. Yet that report makes a number of points very clear. If we have the political will we can now determine how much cutaway bog will become available and at what rate over the next 20 years. That is a decision that is entirely within our choosing. We can decide how much of it becomes available, where it becomes available and when.

We could plan its use in agriculture, in forestry and in recreation if only the Government had the will to do that, but there is no sign of that yet. The enormous intrinsic riches of our natural wetlands as habitats for a variety of flora and fauna are very well known and documented. Yet, there is no indication of any coherent planning for the conservation of our unique environmental assets or for their use either for scientific or amenity purposes.

As far as I am aware, and I keep in touch with these matters, the only coherent planning activity for the conservation of any of our wetland habitats is being undertaken either by voluntary or local groups that are being supported by FÁS. That is not what FÁS are there for although I am delighted resources are being made available in that way. However, there is no coherent strategy for the identification and the conservation of any of these wetland habitats.

I was astonished and appalled to read the other day that there is now a serious threat to the survival of the curlew in parts of this country. I am not suggesting that curlews were ever widespread in the midlands, but this threat is indicative of the type of problems we are meeting. Almost unknown to us that species is in serious danger of becoming extinct without our having made any decision about it and without our saying what steps should be taken to conserve those habitats.

Given the decline in agriculture and in peat extraction as economic activities, we can now predict the course of rural depopulation and we can predict the course of industrial and commercial decline if no new action is taken along the lines we have set out in this motion. We should be setting out to designate centres of industrial and commercial growth in the midlands and to adopt the infrastructural and development policies that are needed to make them again thriving centres of economic activity. It may be that if we go into that process of planning and development we may have to come to the conclusion that not every major town in the midland areas can be a pole of growth, but if that is what we have to decide, then so be it. Let us at least make a conscious decision which towns we will designate so that we do not allow all of them to continue to slide into the state of slow and genteel decay into which most of our midland towns have now lapsed. We need a consciously directed policy to make any of those towns the centres of thriving industrial and commercial activity which they were in the past.

In proposing this motion my colleagues and I have two objectives. The first is to draw attention to the economic, social and environmental dangers which we clearly foresee for the midlands and to stimulate a response that will avert them. If the Minister of State reflects on this, and he and Deputy Power will know what I say when I, and my colleagues, contend that what we are facing is nothing less than the economic devastation of huge areas of the midlands unless action of the kind we propose is taken.

Our second objective is to underline once again the need for an enlightened approach to the process of regional development and the need to give the regions themselves real and clear functions in shaping their own futures. That is very much a part of what all parties in this House promoted during the recent debate on the Maastricht Treaty as the principle of subsidiarity. I would like to see the principle of subsidiarity being applied to our midland regions so that the people who live and work there, and who want to raise their families there, have a role in deciding what their future is going to be and can have a real expectation that there is an end to the involuntary, unplanned and unwanted decline to which they have been subject for far too many years.

Before I give way to my colleagues I make a final plea to the Government to withdraw the amendment that has been put down in the name of the Minister of State because the amendment says nothing about any policy or direction that the Government would take. It refers to "all of our rural areas including those in the midlands" as if there were nothing to distinguish the rural areas of the midlands from any other part of this country. I am saying they are different, and there is a lesson in that for regional development in every part of this country. All of our regions are different. There are specific problems in the midlands, just as there are in the mid-west, the west and the north-west. They need to be addressed specifically and that is why we put down this motion.

Mr. Enright

I support this motion. I agree with Deputy Dukes that the Government should withdraw their amendment and accept our motion. It is not a contentious motion and the Government should recognise that we put down this motion in the interests of the people of the midlands.

I wish to mention briefly, some of the major problems we are facing in the midlands. First I will deal with housing, a matter I addressed very recently. There are serious problems facing some of the counties in the midlands. In Offaly there are arrears of £700,000 owed to Offaly County Council by people residing in small dwellings. In Laois, more than 700 families are in arrears with their loan repayments, which represents approximately £380,000. Recently, the Offaly county manager instructed the council's solicitor to write to 46 families, seeking legal redress for non-payment of their housing loans. I will give examples of some cases that have come before a number of the courts in the midlands. At Nenagh Circuit Court, recently, there were 16 case in which applications were made seeking respossession of houses; at Portlaois Circuit Court there were 15 applications and at Tullamore there were 13 applications.

The point I am making is that these are ordinary people and one of the greatest assets of any family is a roof over their heads. It is a sign of how serious the economic situation is when a family is unable to meet its housing loan repayments. We have seen and read about many home repossessions in Britain and it is with sadness I say that many houses are being repossessed in Ireland. I represent the midlands and it is my duty to highlight that fact but I do so with sadness because I realise the trauma suffered by those families when they are threatened with losing their homes. These examples are proof of how serious the economic situation is.

Deputy Hyland, Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food is probably aware that between 1971 and 1990 there has been a decrease in the numbers of people employed in agriculture from 276,800 to 168,500. The midlands are very heavily involved in agriculture.

I thank the Minister for Agriculture and Food for the courtesy of his letter, but its contents were disappointing. He wrote in connection with the inclusion of counties in the midlands in the seriously disadvantaged areas. It is time the Department of Agriculture and Food sought to have our whole country declared severely disadvantaged, which is part of Fine Gael policy. It is with sadness that I have to say we have not been fighting our case in Brussels as hard as we might have done. The French Minister for Agriculture and the French Government seem to be putting up a far better fight on behalf of the farmers they represent compared to our Government. They have not been strong enough in that regard and the Minister and the Commissioner are a disappointment. If the whole country was declared severely disadvantaged, it would help to stem the flow of people from agriculture and would maintain existing jobs.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food should give an incentive to anybody taking on an employee in the agricultural sector. He should ask the Minister for Finance to ensure that PRSI will not be paid by anyone taken on to work in farming; indeed, any incentive to farmers to take on workers would be of benefit in getting people involved in agriculture. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that.

The economic well-being of the midlands is very heavily dependent on Bord na Móna. I read, with interest, the report of the independent expert committee on the future uses of Bord na Móna in dealing with cutaway bogs. However, the committee failed to say where the necessary funding will come from to provide for their development. However, I agree with the general tenor and approach of that committee. It is important for the Government to recognise that Bord na Móna will not survive unless their financial structure is sorted out. They cannot trade out of their present difficulties and that matter will have to be seriously examined. In 1987 Bord na Móna employed 4,200 people but that figure has now been reduced to about 1,600 people. Their problems stem from debt; their sales last year amounted to £123 million and yet their debts are £180 million. Unless they are restructured, Bord na Móna will be crippled in the years to come.

Deputy Dukes outlined how important Bord na Móna have been to the midlands, they are interwined with the ESB and the economic well-being of both is essential. The Government should look at a number of areas apart from agriculture and Bord na Móna. Moneys need to be spent on our canal system and the Shannon to develop them and there should also be an examination of the whole question of rail services. The train services coming from the west passing through Tullamore and Portarlington have problems which need to be addressed.

I fully support this motion and I ask the Minister to withdraw his amendment. This is not a political motion, it has been put forward by the Fine Gael Party on behalf of the people of the midlands, I hope the Minister will recognise that and will not make it a political matter by tabling an amendment. He should be generous and fair in accepting our motion.

Mr. Belton

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important motion. I come from the heart of the midlands and I am aware of and concerned about the matters raised in this motion.

I wish to refer to the need to develop our infrastructure. The Dublin-Sligo line is in an intolerable and scandalous state. This line is a very important spur into the midlands and further west. Through no fault of Iarnrod Éireann the service has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that passengers cannot be sure of what day they will get to their destination, never mind what time they will reach it. Despite repeated calls from my colleagues in Fine Gael in areas from Sligo to Mullingar, very little Government investment has been committed to this line. It is essential that this railway line is given priority treatment to benefit Counties Westmeath, Longford, Roscommon, Sligo and Donegal. It was interesting to note, when the Donegal team were returning home with the Sam Maguire cup, they travelled on the Dublin-Sligo line, which indicates its importance to that area, right up to Donegal.

This line has been completely and utterly run down but there is now an awareness among public representatives — and indeed the public — of the danger of losing it. I hope the Minister responsible will act urgently to have this line updated and that he will commit Structural Funds in future for its maintenance. This is where we slipped up in the past because all the emphasis was on roads structure, not on the railways. One of my colleagues told me today that in the former East Germany there is a huge investment in railroads; the same applies to Poland. It is very important that this infrastructure to the midlands and further west is seen as a priority and is not allowed to be run down.

Agriculture has always been an important part of industry and income in the midlands. Last Sunday evening I was watching the news on RTE and I heard the announcer say there had been a 10 per cent increase in the agricultural sector incomes. I tested the controls because I thought I was tuned into another country—

Mr. Ferris

Sky.

Mr. Belton

Or even higher. The Minister's remark regarding the 10 per cent increase in income was a good headline but it was not true. That night I happened to be in the local public house and three farmers asked me what was wrong with the Minister for Agriculture and Food. They wanted to know what he was suffering from because they said their incomes were down. One of them is a sheep farmer and nobody could say that his income had gone up this year. I do not want to be uncharitable but it is clear this Minister is not in touch with reality. The farmers are extremely annoyed about his remarks.

Another issue in my area is Abbeyshrule Airport. Unfortunately, in the past few years the Government have not recognised the importance of Abbeyshrule as a regional airport for the development of the midlands. Abbeyshrule is situated convenient to Mullingar, Athlone, Longford, Roscommon and Tullamore — all populated areas. A map of Ireland will show that around our coast are regional airports and that there is no regional airport in the midlands. The midlands have been neglected. I was a member of the Midland Regional Development Organisation, one of the regional development organisations abolished by the Fianna Fáil Government — who do not seem to consider regional development as being too important. During that time the organisation spent 12 months asking RTE to appoint a midlands correspondent. The first response to our request was almost, "where are the midlands?" It was if they had never heard of the midlands. They had heard of Dublin, of the west and of the south but not of the midlands. Athlone, eventually, got an RTE midlands correspondent, and that was welcome. The midlands have been fortunate that the correspondents appointed there so far have done an excellent job in promoting the area and the motion before the House tonight is another attempt to put emphasis on the midlands.

Unfortunately, time does not permit me to say all I would wish. This motion is the first step in bringing to the floor of the House an awareness of the midlands and how the midlands have suffered due to the decrease in Bord na Móna employment, the agricultural decline and other issues. Plans must be made for the future of the midlands.

Mr. Flanagan

The motion in the names of several Fine Gael Deputies deals not only with the vitally important issues of jobs, hospitals, housing and agricultural incomes but also with the very future of towns in my constituency. I speak of towns such as Edenderry, Portarlington, Mountmellick, Rathdowney, Daingean, Mountrath, Ferbane and Kilcormack. The very fabric of those towns has been torn apart for the want of planning on the part of the Government. Within a few miles of each of the towns I mentioned, Garda stations, primary schools, post offices and public transport services are all under the threat of withdrawal or closure, thus imposing hardship and suffering on already hard-pressed communities.

Unemployment throughout counties Offaly and Laois is at an extraordinarily high level, with little alternative activity for those living there. Figures from the CSO for the year May 1991 to May 1992 show a higher increase in the level of unemployment in County Laois than in any other part of the country. What has happened in recent times in counties Offaly and Laois has had the same effect on those areas as the closure of an active coalmining pit in the Welsh valleys. We require from the Government special intervention and special status. There is no Government action plan for the area and there are no job or employment opportunity targets. The area is completely ignored. The midlands are hanging on on a daily basis, putting off the evil day when further massive redundancies can be expected in the ESB, Bord na Móna and the agricultural industry. Local authorities in the midlands do not have sufficient resources to deal with the infrastructural problems and they have no direction to use the scarce resources at their disposal.

I should like to share the following quotation with the House:

The problems of poor agricultural land, often linked with the problems of cutaway bogs, Shannon flooding and other hindrances to development, are compounded by a relatively undeveloped urban structure and under representation of Government and other services, agricultural crisis, significant job losses and a failure to attract manufacturing investment.

That quotation does not come from an Opposition party election manifesto but from the recently published second draft of the Midlands East Post-1993 Structural Funds submission, and I defy the Minister of State, or any member of his party, to challenge the validity of that statement.

In the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to deal with the tourism industry in the midlands, in which there is considerable potential and which has so far been ignored by the Government. Major attractions in the midlands include the River Shannon, the Slieve Bloom Mountains, the Royal and Grand Canals, the cutaway bogs and many ancient monastic settlements of considerable consequence. A recent development strategy published in my county, entitled Tourism in County Laois, highlights the lack of tourist infrastructure by stating that road access to many tourist sites is so inadequate that their promotion as features of interest for tourists would be irresponsible. Poor road surfaces and potholes need urgent attention in several areas. Signposting in so many areas is either missing, damaged or pointing the wrong way. The tourist offices are open only two to three months of the year.

The tourism industry must be treated in the same way as other job creation sectors such as manufacturing. Industrial policy must be extended to include tourism. It is the belief of Fine Gael that the Department of Industry and Commerce should be reconstituted as a department of trade and enterprise in order to incorporate the tourism industry. More emphasis needs to be placed on stimulating private sector projects and focusing on investment in marketing than has happened to date. We have not adequately examined the Structural Funds with particular reference to tourism. It is important that funds be used to support enterprises through the regional development structure. If the Government chose to shift the tax burden away from work and enterprise to the tourism sector that sector would gain considerably because of its labour-intensive nature. Any tourism policy should set and achieve clear goals and targets. We must identify and overcome obstacles to growth and help tourism enterprises to tackle the deficiencies which restrict adequate performance. Marketing efforts must continue to attract growing European and UK business. We must explore the possibilities in Far Eastern trade in conjunction with other European Community countries.

In the recently published document, Toward the Jobs Economy, Fine Gael put forward proposals for helping investment in tourism projects. There is merit in a proposition that the business expansion scheme be reviewed to help smaller ventures survive. The Government should consider the introduction of a 10 per cent tax rate on tourist traffic undertakings competing internationally as a means of promoting investment. A new Irish trade and tourism board should be set up to encompass the role of Bord Fáilte and the Irish Trade Board in developing market capabilities in tourism and allied sectors. Not only do the current regional approaches to tourism not receive any funding, the tourist task force recently set up by the Government have not been funded.

It was outrageous on the part of the Taoiseach to abolish at the stroke of a pen, and without consultation, all the regional tourist boards, the importance of which, I understand, will be mentioned in the report of the tourist task force, due to be published shortly. The initiative must be put into the hands of the people rather than handing down blue prints from central Government. The Fine Gael approach favours the giving of responsibility to local communities to devise strategies for the development of tourism in their own regions and assisting them in that task. The midland region has its own rich tourist environment, being different from other areas historically, archaeologically, architecturally and culturally.

The midlands has not reached its full potential from developing its tourism products and the area is grossly under-exploited. The bogs, wildlife, rivers and lakes of the area are resources that a strategy-devised regional plan could harness to better effect than a centrally determined policy in Dublin. I may be wrong, but it seems that the butter is being spread so thinly on the county tourism structure as to be completely ineffective.

I support the motion and I urge the Taoiseach, as head of the Government and a midlands man, to acknowledge his failures in this region and put in place a policy that will halt the continuing devastation there.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Hyland)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—

"Dáil Éireann supports the Government in its efforts to develop and secure the vitality and economic well-being of all of our rural areas including those in the Midlands and recognises the contribution being made by State and EC Structural Funds towards the achievement of these objectives."

I share with all Deputies in this House their concern for the future development of our country and, particularly, as far as this motion is concerned, the development of the midlands region in which I have a particular interest. I do not accept the political implications of the Opposition motion which reads: "That Dáil Éireann deplores the neglect by the Government of the Midlands,..., even though Deputy Enright mentioned that it should not become a political issue. I do not accept for one moment that this Government have neglected, or will in the future neglect, any rural area in this country. I can say categorically that as far as we are concerned there will not be any neglect of the midlands region, be it in relation to rural or urban development.

Deputy Flanagan referred to the fact that the Taoiseach is from the midlands. I should like to say that both he is and we are more acutely aware than any previous Administration of the need for development, particularly rural development——

Mr. McGrath

What are you doing about it?

Mr. Hyland

——of the need to develop all our natural resources, the need to create and encourage an enterprise culture which, I am sure Deputies opposite would not question, and to assist our people in achieving their goals in getting small and medium sized employment potential projects off the ground. That in essence is what rural development should be about.

I propose in the short time available to me to deal briefly with these initiatives. Before doing so I want to put on the record that the primary and only objective of Government policy, under all headings, is to create an economic climate in which we can tackle our unacceptably high level of unemployment. This Government have been more successful than any of our EC partners in creating that economic climate.

Mr. Dukes

We have the highest rate of unemployment in the European Community, at 20 per cent.

Mr. Durkan

It is the highest in the world.

Mr. Hyland

Our success in stabilising our economic base and our determination to continue to do so has been demonstrated by our courageous response to the present currency crisis. The Government's response to what, hopefully, will be a short-lived situation for those individuals most vulnerable to the crisis has been demonstrated by the putting in place of a special fund which indicates the alertness and the sensitivity of Government to these industries and particularly to the threat to employment.

In supporting this amendment I should like to refer at the outset to a number of significant favourable economic factors because one cannot isolate regional development from what is taking place at national level. While I agree in principle with the point made by Deputy Dukes that different regions have different development requirements, nonetheless all that development has to take place within the confines and the ambit of an overall national development programme. Unless we get the national programme right and unless we create the environment in which expansion can take place there will not be development in any region. That is the reason, the Government have concentrated, over the last number of years on trying to get the basics right and in trying to create an economic climate where the maximum number of jobs can be created. Despite getting many of these economic factors right we have not, unfortunately, achieved the level of new jobs we had expected from that stabilisation of our economy. It is a matter which is being addressed seriously by the Government who are responding in a number of positive ways to create the economic climate in which jobs can be created.

In the past five years our economy has improved significantly as compared with the preceding period of income stagnation and excessive public sector debt. I do not have to remind Deputies on the opposite side that one of the major problems confronted by the Government was the question of dealing with the national debt, a debt which doubled during the period of the previous Administration.

Mr. Dukes

Not only did the Government more than double it but they did it for different reasons as well.

Mr. Hyland

I would be grateful if Deputy Dukes——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister without interruption.

Mr. Hyland

—— would do me the courtesy of listening to me. I listened to the various points, many of which were politically orientated, made from the far side of the House, without interrupting.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister could not argue with them.

Mr. Flanagan

No facts were misrepresented from this side of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Sorry, we have had four speakers in support of the motion who were heard without interruption of any kind. The same courtesy must now be extended to the Minister of State in possession.

Mr. Hyland

I should say that the present situation did not evolve in the last 18 months or two years or three years.

Mr. Dukes

It was 1977.

Mr. Hyland

I should like to pose a question to the Deputies opposite. When they had their chance and their opportunity to deal with these matters, what was their response?

Mr. Dukes

Unemployment was far lower then than today.

Mr. Hyland

I am sorry I am being interrupted. Their response was to double the national debt. As a consequence of doubling the national debt the cost of servicing that debt increased correspondingly and deprived the Government and the economy of funding which was necessary and badly needed to tackle some of the economic problems we have today.

Mr. Dukes

You were never able to do your sums.

Mr. Hyland

I did not introduce politics into this debate — in fact Deputy Enright said politics should not enter into the debate — I am not making political points, I am merely responding to political comments from the far side of the House. I was making the point that our progress to date has been the result of a successful economic management policy. The period has seen gross national product growth resumed after stagnation in the first half of the decade of the eighties, the level of inflation reduced very considerably and the current external balance of payments move into surplus. That transformation of the economy and the public finances was brought about by the consensus approach taken by the Government and the social partners representing employers, trade unions and farmers. I shall return to the general economic situation later, with particular reference to the Government's most recent initiative in job creation in which I have a particular interest.

Deputy Dukes correctly referred to the fact that agriculture is of significant importance to our economy, to our towns and villages and to the potential to create and generate employment. Therefore, what happened as a result of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was of paramount importance and will be seen as being of paramount benefit to the agricultural economy and individual farmers. Regardless of the comments from the far side of the House, it is recognised that the outcome of the Common Agricultural Policy reform as far as Ireland is concerned was one of resounding success.

In terms of agricultural production, none of us would like to see limitations or restrictions placed on farm output. The Deputies opposite must realise that the growth in the level of over-production of most agricultural products meant that some reforms had to be introduced. The best deal possible was secured for Irish farmers at extremely difficult negotiations. We are now in a position to plan the future development of Irish agriculture so as to enable farmers to maximise the benefits which can be derived from the reforms which have been introduced and maximise the profitability of the farm enterprises in which they are involved. While we have negotiated a good national deal, we now face the task of ensuring that the national quota which we negotiated is distributed as fairly as possible throughout the agricultural industry and the various sectors within that industry. I wish to assure farmers that that matter is being addressed effectively by the Minister for Agriculture and Food. I do not accept the criticisms which were levelled at him by Members on the far side of the House. It is generally recognised that the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, together with Commissioner MacSharry, delivered to Irish farmers the best deal that could be negotiated.

Mr. Dukes

He delivered Irish farmers up to George Bush's election prospects.

Mr. Hyland

I can assure Deputy Dukes and his colleagues that the Government will endeavour to the best of their ability to guarantee and safeguard what has been negotiated at the GATT talks. This will be done with the same determination with which we negotiated the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy for our farmers.

Mr. Dukes

George Bush has made that irrelevant; he has given the back of his hand to Commissioner Ray MacSharry.

Mr. Hyland

I listened to four or five Fine Gael speakers——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Gabh mo leithscéal. There are times when we can tolerate an iota of taunt or banter but, in a sense of fair play at least, irrespective of the rules of the House, we must give uninterrupted audience to whomsoever is in possession. If that does not happen it leaves the Chair in an awkward position.

Mr. Flanagan

Extreme provocation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have to contain our presumed provocation. Perhaps if the Minister of State would not be so magnanimous towards those who presume to interrupt him, in acknowledging them he might——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Hyland

It is very difficult not to respond to unfounded and unnecessary political allegations. If the Deputies opposite were sincere and honest about the motion which they have put before the House——

Mr. Dukes

He never said one word about the midlands.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please, Deputy Dukes.

Mr. Hyland

——they would allow me to deal with the various points raised. However, there is no indication that this is so. They continue to interrupt me because they do not like my response.

Mr. Dukes

I find it hard to listen to a decent man saying nothing.

Mr. Hyland

Reference was made to the disadvantaged areas scheme. I accept that the disadvantaged areas scheme is one of the most important schemes so far as rural development and securing the livelihoods of individual farmers are concerned. I wish to refer to this scheme in some detail.

This scheme is one of the main instruments available to the Government in their efforts to protect rural areas and to limit population decline in these areas. This scheme, which has been in existence for many years now, is specifically designed to encourage farmers to stay in farming in these regions by compensating them for some of the natural handicaps which are associated with living there. The scheme recognises that permanent natural handicaps such as the poor quality of the soil, the degree of slope of the land etc., place such farmers at a competitive disadvantage compared with their better situated counterparts and that, unless some form of compensation is provided, many of these farmers will be forced to abandon farming altogether.

For these reasons the Government attach considerable importance to the scheme as a significant income supplement to farmers. I think it is fair to say that income from the various headage arrangements payable under the scheme is a significant proportion of the income of sheep and cattle farmers, particularly the smaller farmers. For example, in 1991 some 82,000 farmers received payments amounting to £60 million under the cattle and equine headage scheme, some 15,000 farmers received approximately £10 million under the beef cow schemes and a further 34,000 farmers received approximately £12.5 million under the sheep and goat headage scheme.

There were, of course, substantial payments under these schemes to farmers in the eight counties represented by the Deputies who put down the motion. In County Roscommon, some 9,100 farmers received payments amounting to £5.7 million; some 3,400 farmers in County Longford received approximately £2.4 million and 2,100 farmers in each of counties Offaly and Westmeath received payments amounting to just over £1 million. Approximately 1,350 farmers in County Laois were paid £900,000 and about £2.5 million was paid to 3,600 farmers in County Tipperary. In County Meath some 933 farmers received just under £500,000 and some £152,000 was paid to 196 farmers in County Kildare. I hope that the Deputies concerned will agree that these are considerable sums of money which contribute very directly to the development of the local economy.

As the House will be aware, the disadvantaged areas scheme was extended in 1991 to cover an additional 1.9 million acres. This extension was the largest secured by Ireland since accession to the European Community and its effect was to increase the percentage of the land area classified as disadvantaged from 60 per cent to 72 per cent. The extension covered 6,000 townlands in 15 counties and some 15,000 farmers became eligible for the various headage schemes for the first time. The financial effect of this was to increase headage payments in 1991 over 1990 by approximately £16 million. I am pleased to be in a position to say that farmers in the eight counties represented by the Deputies who put down the motion also benefited significantly from this extension.

Mr. Durkan

County Kildare did not do too well.

Mr. Hyland

For example, 1,900 farmers in County Tipperary became eligible for the first time and received headage payments amounting to £1.1 million. in County Longford 520 newly eligible farmers received £0.9 million; 730 newly eligible farmers in County Roscommon received £1.2 million and in County Kildare approximately 120 newly eligible farmers received £82,000. Some 750 County Laois farmers received headage payments of £0.5 million for the first time and in County Offaly some £840,000 was paid to approximately 1,650 newly eligible applicants. Some 1,900 farmers in County Westmeath received additional payments and in County Meath 620 farmers were paids further £0.3 million.

In the 1991 review, disadvantaged areas in the midlands region, comprising Counties Roscommon, Longford, Westmeath, Laois, Offaly, Meath, Kildare and Tipperary, were extended by 1,095,000 acres. In the same review, 464,750 acres were reclassified to more severely handicapped status.

The Disadvantaged Areas Appeals Panel has received numerous appeals from areas in the midlands region which were not included in the recent extension and reclassification. The current position with regard to the extension appeals is that all data from the survey of 40,000 farms are now being validated. When that validation is completed, the panel will assess the results and make recommendations to my Department as to the new areas to be classified. When the panel's recommendations have been examined steps will be taken to submit to the EC a formal request to extend the present disadvantaged areas in Ireland. The EC Commission will, in turn, scrutinise the submission in detail and, if satisfied, prepare a proposal listing the townlands to be classified as disadvantaged for approval by the EC Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

The processing of appeals in respect of reclasification will proceed as soon as the review of the two criteria in respect of income and working population has been completed by my Department. In connection with its review, the Department are awaiting the release of relevant data from the 1991 census of agriculture and census of population which will, I understand, be available from the Central Statistics Office later this year.

I am sure that the House will agree that the 1991 extension, for which the Government worked very hard, is an indication of the importance which the Government attach to rural development, the maintenance of farm incomes and the preservation of employment in rural areas.

We regard the reclasification and further extension of disadvantaged areas as a matter of extreme importance to all farmers who, I hope, will benefit under the provisions of the reclassification scheme and its extension.

Mr. Dukes

What will be the timescale?

Mr. Hyland

The present rate of progress in relation to processing of claims is on target, very much in line with what we had projected when the appeals panel was established. I can assure Deputies opposite that every effort is being made to ensure that applications are expedited and a final decision taken in Brussels which I hope will result in a significant extension of areas here as well as the reclassification of other areas.

Mr. Dukes

When?

Mr. Hyland

Deputy Dukes asks "when"——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister of State is very foolish and not operating in accordance with the rules by giving any credence to these interruptions.

Mr. Dukes

I am seeking information.

Mr. Hyland

I like to be as helpful as I can in response to genuine questions.

Mr. Durkan

Credible interruptions.

Mr. Hyland

The Deputy asked a question, not for the purpose of eliciting information but rather for the purpose of interjecting and obstructing.

Mr. Dukes

I asked "when?"

Mr. Hyland

I am saying to Deputies opposite that preparation of the application for extension of disadvantaged areas is on target and progressing, as was planned when the appeals panel was established.

Mr. Dukes

What is the target?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dukes, please, this is not an inquisition I must treat all Deputies similarly. The Chair will not allow any interruption from any side of the House. The Minister of State should proceed without inter ruption, or seeming to invite interruption.

Mr. Dukes

It was a totally non-pro vocative question. All I want is a date.

Mr. Hyland

Arising from reform of the Common Agricultural Policy — because of restrictions on production in relation to the core industries in agriculture — it is important for us now to put in place and develop as best we can alternative farm enterprises. In doing so we must endeavour to put in place effectively a worthwhile rural development programme.

Deputies opposite referred to the failure of Government to do anything to put in place a programme which would help in resolving the many problems confronting rural Ireland. I might remind them of at least four very positive actions taken by Government relating to the Leader programme which, Deputies opposite will be aware, is operational in 16 areas nationwide. For example, there is the small community enterprise scheme which is effective throughout the country. Then there is the latest Government initiative in the establishment of county partnership enterprise boards. Therefore, for the first time in the history of this State, a positive step has been taken by Government to afford local communities the opportunity of identifying their potential for development and allowing individuals in local communities to identify the potential for the development of local projects. More importantly, funding is being made available by Government to assist in getting these worthwhile enterprises off the ground.

The last Government initiative taken, that of establishing community enterprise boards, surely deserves recognition by the other side of the House and should receive the support it deserves in terms of allowing local authorities and local development committees to get worth-while development programmes off the ground at county level.

Mr. Dukes

When?

Mr. Hyland

I can never understand why there is such a continuous, negative response from the Opposition, with nothing positive being offered.

As Minister with responsibility for rural enterprise I attach particular importance to programmes aimed at wider rural development. Here, as in the rest of Europe, the challenges confronting rural areas are characterised by the following general trends; first, a continuing decline in the importance of agriculture in the rural economy and in the numbers employed in agriculture; second, a population decline in many rural areas; third, the fragmentation of the rural economy and, fourth, on the one hand, threats to the environment from the abandonment of the land and, on the other, from intensive farming. These trends are a cause of serious and urgent concern not just for those people who find they cannot maintain a livelihood in rural areas but also for all those who live in increasingly congested urban areas. We must remember that a healthy rural economy and environment is an important part of the quality of Irish life.

In the European Community context, in the past rural development policy was virtually synonymous with agricultural policy. A thriving expanding agricultural sector could be expected to maintain the rural economy. However, the year 1985 marked the beginning of a new era in the Community. For the first time, steps were taken to bring structures policy into line with market policy and increasing emphasis was given to measures to bring production into line with the requirements of the market.

The publication by the EC of the discussion document The Future of Rural Society in 1988 also marked a watershed in current thinking. That document contained an analysis of current developments and trends in the rural areas of the Community, identified common problems facing the Community in launching development initiatives and listed broad areas in which the Commission saw potential for worthwhile initiatives.

One of the most important elements in The Future of Rural Society was the recognition that a fundamental requirement for rural development is to ensure that all action be fully integrated — development strategies must be dovetailed into a coherent overall policy. This thinking is certainly evident in the approach of member states and the Commission to the reform of the EC Structural Funds, one of the major policy developments of recent years.

Rural development features prominently in the new Structural Funds regime — to which I adverted earlier — introduced in the Community in 1989. Two of the five objectives for action have the development of rural areas as their aim. Objective No. 1 — promoting the development and structural adjustment of the regions whose development is lagging behind — includes rural measures among a comprehensive range of initiatives whereas Objective 5 (b) — promoting the development of rural areas — specifically covers rural areas not in Objective 1 regions which require special attention.

We are currently implementing an operational programme for rural development which complements the other elements of the Structural Funds package. This programme provides for the diversification of agricultural production through alternative farm enterprises, including agri-tourism and small community enterprises, for infra-structural measures such as rural roads and fishery harbours and for assistance for training and education services for agriculture and fisheries. Some £100 million will be spent in the period 1991-1993, with the EC contributing about £60 million. To date, £700,000 has been paid in grants in the midlands under the agri-tourism and other farm diversification measures.

The EC has also placed particular emphasis on local initiatives for integrated rural development. The prosperity and success of rural areas depend, above all, on the initiative and commitment of local people themselves. The Commission has put in place a Community initiative to which I referred earlier, the Leader programme, under which funds are allocated to local development groups, through the European Community, who have themselves designed integrated rural development plans for their local areas. I am pleased to say that 16 Irish groups from areas such as Offaly and Roscommon have been approved for funding of £35 million, of which the EC will contribute £21 million.

Reference was made earlier to the importance of forestry development and the potential of the peat areas of the midlands. I agree with the views expressed in terms of their potential and I will be working towards the implementation of a programme which will assist in that overall work.

Mr. Ferris

I hope tomorrow evening that I will be able to share the balance of my time with one of my colleagues.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Ferris

I am speaking on this matter because of my responsibility in the Labour Party for the area of agriculture and food. Basically the amendment claims that there is another dimension to Ireland outside the Pale. It starts at Newlands Cross and stretches into the midlands and beyond. The midlands is the heart of the country. It is not totally independent but depends on other areas for its survival. It is dependent on the port of Dublin and on rural parts of Munster. Farmers from the midlands are good customers of the dairy producing sector in the Golden Vale and north Tipperary in particular. There is an interdependence among the areas which lie beyond Newlands Cross.

The motion identifies areas of neglect which are peculiar and specific to the midlands. The midlands are rich in many natural resources — peat, minerals and good agricultural land. They also have disadvantaged areas. The Labour Party do not have any problem with this motion in principle. We already have a stated public policy on the treatment of cutaway bog and its future importance for horticultural production. This has been espoused by us over a number of years, not just in recent times.

The Government amendment disappoints me in that it asks all of us to support their efforts to develop and secure the vitality and economic wellbeing of all rural areas, including the midlands. With the exception of the Minister's specific responsibilities, particularly in relation to the Leader programme, on which I have publicly commended him, I have seen nothing in Government policy to indicate a commitment of any hue to the development of rural Ireland. We have seen over the years a diminution in the importance of rural Ireland. We have seen a flight from the land. The Minister recently admitted in reply to a question from me that 120,000 people have left agricultural employment since we joined the EC some 20 years ago. It affects all of us. It affects all electoral areas, all businesses and people working in tourism and service industries and so on. If councils and development authorities are to succeed we must have a vibrant policy for the development of rural Ireland.

I do not doubt the Minister's commitment to this philosophy, coming as he does from the midlands. I commend the Leader programme. Some bureaucracy was beginning to creep into the administration and it took the Minister's inervention to deal with the dead hand of bureaucracy. After 18 months of pontificating, some programmes are going forward with local involvement, local community support and local funding. If this filters down as an example of what should happen in rural areas, then the Leader programme will be of sufficient importance to attract further EC funding to assist rural areas.

The Minister of State also touched upon the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy reform negotiated by his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food. I have advocated that people should adjust to the fundamental changes which are about to be made. It will take quite a while before people accept the change from product support to income support. People in rural Ireland are happy when they are doing something, not when they are idle. If we support their income while they remain idle, they will not be happy.

It is an extraordinary indictment of all our policies that in a period of widespread hunger and misery in places like Somalia and Ethiopia we have a policy of disincentive to produce food which would save millions of lives if we could allow market forces to come into play, allowing production in its natural form in Ireland to be used to feed people in Somalia. People do not understand why we are stopped from helping hungry people in Africa. If people in receipt of income support in rural Ireland still want to be involved in production at some level, some assistance should be given to make sure that their product will get to places where it is most needed, not into the intervention ships sailing around our coasts, or factory storage which makes millionaires out of beef barons.

We must move away from the concept of floor level guarantees and give food to people who need it. This would give producers some semblance of sanity and satisfaction. By all means let us make sure that their income support is protected. We can go down that road with a certain amount of understanding and support for each other's principles without too much debate on political ideology. This is a question of feeding poor people who are unable to feed themselves. We are precluded from growing food in the best parts of Ireland, whether in the midlands or the south-east. One would question why there was a need for an appeals system because some of those areas should have been included without appeal or political intervention. In some areas people find it difficult to survive and in extreme weather conditions it is almost impossible to survive, but they are happy to live there if they can just get the sustenance they require. I hope their claims for inclusion in the disadvantaged areas scheme will be successful.

Loss of employment, particularly in the midlands, can be traced directly to savage Government cutbacks in local authorities, in health boards, in Bord na Móna and in the disbandment of regional development organisations. The Labour Party do not call for favouritism for a particular location with regard to public service employment, but we support the concept of decentralisation of Government offices as far as is practical. We need to take offices from Dublin, which is bulging at the seams, and locate them in areas of high unemployment. The relocation of a CAO office in the Minister of State's constituency is a gesture but it is not enough. The people of the midlands want a pro-employment policy pursued by the Government to try to reverse the wholescale reduction in jobs.

It is stated Government policy to prepare for privatisation of the ESB. Telecom Éireann, Bord na Móna and An Post. The taxpayer has put hundreds of millions of pounds into Telecom Éireann to make it technologically advanced. Now that it is ripe for the picking and is making money for the State it is proposed to privatise it. That is contrary to Labour Party policy, to job creation and to the responsibility of the Government to ensure that successful semi-State organisations should be allowed to generate money for a return on the taxpayers' investment. Such companies should not be sold off to enable certain members of staff to go outside the restrictions on the public service embargo on salaries. That is what happens. The idea of privatisation first comes from those with a vested interest in the privatisation process.

The privatisation policy would turn the midlands into an economic and social wasteland. Rationalisation of functions and the introduction of the commercial principle that only financially profitable branches of companies will survive, will mean the loss of thousands of jobs in the midlands and other parts of rural Ireland. It would be a cruel joke if the new enterprise boards heralded by the Taoiseach and the Government under the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Treacy, are expected to generate increased employment and investment while operating under the threat of privatisation for semi-State companies.

These enterprise boards will undermine some of the existing structures at local authority level. How will they be operated to ensure that vested interests in the farming organisations, the trade union movement or the business sector are accommodated? The Taoiseach said today that there might be two enterprise boards in some counties to make sure that everyone is satisfied. I want to make sure that these boards will work.

UK experience suggests that privatisation results in the death of rural communities. Bord na Móna are to the midlands what the coalfields are to the north of England. The British Government have decided to close the majority of the coalfields in England at the cost of some 90,000 jobs. This is being done by a Conservative government who are bankrupt of ideas when privatisation has failed. If our Government are committed to an employment policy they should publicly repudiate privatisation of major State enterprises and utilities which are successful as a result of taxpayers' money. Otherwise, these enterprise boards will effectively become dole offices in the midlands and in other regions.

Bord na Móna are facing a potential crisis. I share Deputy Enright's concern about it. Bord na Móna have a dynamic management and have ensured that many changes have been accepted by the workforce but unless the financial structuring of the company is changed they will not be able to continue. That would be a tragedy for this effective, efficient industry which is using natural materials and adding value to them. The profits of this company should not be gobbled up in trying to pay debts incurred under their present regime, a regime which it is almost impossible to overcome. Bord na Móna shed over 2,000 jobs mainly in the midlands without improving their financial situation. There is no guarantee that further job losses would improve their position. They might become viable if they shed more jobs but they may not and then they may have to shed even more and the industry would be lost. Previous Governments, including one in which Deputy Dukes was a member, ensured that this natural industry was supported and protected in all the regions.

Earlier this year we highlighted the imminent threat to 100 jobs in the Lullymore briquette factory in County Kildare. These jobs have now been lost to the community in Kildare and the State has to sustain the families of the workers who lost their jobs. In 1991-92 109 permanent jobs in Lullymore generated £1.6 million in spending power and contributed £0.6 million to the Exchequer. What is the logic in taking that kind of money out of the Exchequer and out of the area? The loss of these jobs has increased the burden on social welfare, and the Minister for Social Welfare, who lives in the midlands, announces further cutbacks every week to try to come to grips with the escalating numbers of people unemployed, some of whom are unemployed as a direct result of Government action as in Bord na Móna, forestry and the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Debate adjourned.