Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992

Vol. 423 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Midland Counties Development: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Dukes on Tuesday, 13 October 1992:

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 waterways infrastructures.

Debate resumed on 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."

—(Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food)

Mr. Ferris:

Before the debate was adjourned last night, I was referring, in the presence of my colleagues from Couny Kildare and the midlands, to the fact that direct action taken by the Government, particularly in regard to Bord na Móna and privatisation projects, had given rise to many job losses. These job losses have lead to an increased burden on social welfare, health, education and local authority resources. I also said that the cuts being introduced in the social welfare area by the Minister for Social Welfare are a direct result of the new Social Welfare Act.

The implications of the changes in the social welfare code will become obvious to anyone who tries for the first time to gain entitlement to the contributions they have paid during their working lives. My colleague, Deputy Bell, referred to many of the areas where changes have been introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare. Today SIPTU published a detailed list of some of the changes which have been introduced in the social welfare code. I am sure that many people in the midlands and elsewhere will soon find themselves in a position where they will not be able to avail of unemployment and sickness benefits, to which they contributed during their working lives, as a result of the changes introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare, a person from the midlands. One of the Minister's answers to the present problems was to send us a copy of a very colourful and expensive booklet which was published today by the Social Welfare Appeals Office. This booklet, entitled Leaving Ireland and Returning to Ireland, tells people their rights.

The major problems in the social welfare area need to be addressed as soon as possible. At Question Time today the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach confirmed that more than 300,000 people are now unemployed, if we take into account those in pre-employment schemes, people who are no longer signing on the register, who are not retired but have no work. The present unemployment level is now the highest in the history of the State. The Government cannot afford to continue their complacent attitude towards job creation and unemployment. The Government, and in particular local communities in the midlands, cannot afford the loss of 100 jobs in the Bord na Móna plant in County Kildare. Rather than accepting the Government's stark decision in relation to their livelihood, the people of Lullymore have set up the Lullymore, Ballydermot, Timahoe, Allenwood Action Group. They are to be commended for doing this. This action group are making representations in regard to the proposed 120 megawatt power station to be built by Bord na Móna somewhere along the Kildare-Offaly border. The siting of a new power station in this area will make use of the vast stocks of peat which remain in the local bogs and will help in some way to offset the huge job losses in the area over the past six years.

The Culliton report threatens the continuation of the strong relationship which has evolved between Bord na Móna and the ESB. It specifically recommends that steps should be taken to eliminate the cost imposition involved in peat generation by the ESB either by reducing peat costs to the ESB, if this is viable, or by closing down on a phased basis the most uneconomic elements of peat fired capacity. The Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, who is responsible for these two areas is not answerable on the floor of the House for any action taken on Bord na Móna or the ESB. The Minister is more than aware of the specific focus of the Culliton report. It would be impossible to implement the recommendations without some very strategic thinking and assessment of the relationship between the ESB and Bord na Móna. This could not be done without taking into account the huge overhanging debt problems which have been faced by Bord na Móna and which were referred to last night by Deputy Enright. I share his concern. Anyone who has met the management and workers of Bord na Móna will know a similar message is coming through from them about restructuring and the way in which that magnificent organisation, which has used our natural resources to tremendous effect, has been financed.

The Government still have to give a guarantee in regard to the future viability of Bord na Móna and their operations in the midlands area. I hope the Minister will be able to give that guarantee tonight. The workers and the people dependent on their wages, their families and people in the service industries, will want to hear assurances from the Minister and not just the pious platitudes outlined in the Government amendment to the Fine Gael motion.

In the context of the specific problems in the midlands area, the establishment of the new enterprise partnership boards was disappointing in that there was no prior consultation with the councils of the regional tourism organisations. This was confirmed today at Question Time when the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Noel Treacy, answered questions put down by Members of this House in regard to the consultation which took place to abolish the various regional tourism organisations and their incorporation into the new enterprise partnership boards. The key role tourism will play in job creation in the enterprise partnership boards does not appear to have been discussed with any of the local tourism organisations or elected representatives who will be affected by the change announced by the Government which is supposed to take effect within the next month. As I said today at Question Time, it was at my insistence that my council put this document on their agenda for discussion. Apparently it is sufficient to talk to the county manager and then throw a sop to the chairman of the council telling him he will also be involved. I hope this involvement is not the same as the involvement of regional chairmen in the preparation for the next tranche of EC funding, or Structural Funding, particularly as it related to the Delors II package. There was relatively little, if any, consultation in this respect and relatively poor acknowledgment of the local input. In fact, when the final plan was published it was difficult to see where the Government had included any of the regional submissions. Obviously, this money was redirected back through the Department of Finance.

The midlands do not need competition between the various enterprise boards for investment in the region. Irrespective of the structure which might finally be decided by the Government, that region has something to offer in its own right to the tourism industry — the tremendous facility of the canal which flows through most of the region. An issue which needs to be addressed is the putting in place of an effective mechanism to monitor the performance of these partnership boards. Central Government Departments must also have an involvement in this area. There is a danger that direct access to EC funding will simply result in a proliferation of projects to attract available finance, with a high failure rate and potentially disastrous effects on the morale of the localities in the midlands region and other regions also. If tourism is to be effective at local level there is need for a co-ordinated mechanism to avoid wasteful duplication, which objective can best be achieved by operating through the existing regional tourism board's framework.

It needs to be pointed out that regional tourism organisations with a permanent staff of 102 and seasonal staff of over 300 have played a major, central role in tourism at local and regional level at a net cost to the Exchequer of £400,000. These organisations have in excess of 7,500 members representing all sections of the tourism trade and they contribute £450,000 per annum to tourism at local level. We are all directly involved with them in a voluntary way. These organisations also operate a network of 76 tourist information offices servicing 2.5 million visitors annually. Therefore, it will clearly be seen that regional tourism organisations engage in a very intensive marketing and development programme. We should ensure that the councils of those regional tourism organisations represent tourist interests at all levels of the industry and, in addition to their chairment and county manager, include public representatives.

The concept of these new partnership enterprise boards places a question mark over the future role of county development officers because, in addition to tourism and industrial development, their positions will be defunct.

I rest my case on the basis that it is important for all of us that the midlands and all other rural regions receive a fair share of the cake when divided. It has been our experience in the past that these areas have been neglected by Government.

Mr. Nolan:

I have pleasure in speaking on the Government amendment No. 1 outlining the efforts made by this administration to develop and secure the economic well-being of all rural areas, not merely the midlands as appears to have been suggested in the motion tabled by the main Opposition party.

Since the return of a Fianna Fáil administration in 1987 there have been major advances in the development and improvement of the quality of life and well-being in rural areas. An overriding concern of all of us is the question of employment creation and the problem of unemployment. The jobs issue was recognised by the Taoiseach recently when he called a special meeting of the Central Review Committee. It was clear then that the commitment on the part of all the social partners was to ascertain in what way they could address this issue in the short term by measures that would underpin the long term economic strategy of preparing ourselves for economic and monetary union in the new, single market.

It was recognised that by maintaining budgetary discipline and a low level of borrowing, consistent with a low inflation economy, we would allow for continued economic growth and greater employment. Indeed the Taoiseach and his Cabinet colleagues have been at pains to emphasise that they will not be deflected in the short term by introducing measures which would have long term, harmful effects in our economy.

In the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress— from which all participants have benefited — we have a framework which should be maintained if we are to implement a long-term strategy against unemployment. For example, we must retain the competitive advantage we have built up over the past four to five years. All economic indicators, with the exception of employment, are extremely positive.

Before the recent international recession hit us we had achieved rapid economic growth and a net increase in employment of 40,000. Obviously, a small, open trading economy like ours will be affected by the international recession in the countries to which we sell our goods and services. We lost out to a certain extent because of the problems they are experiencing. To that extent we lose some control over our well-being and must depend, to some extent, on the health of our international trading partners. We must continue to seek an increase in our market share even in these very difficult international trading conditions in order to secure existing jobs at home and provide a prospect of an increase in employment to be funded by that export growth.

The international recession has meant that a number of our industries have felt a chill wind and, regrettably, have had to cut back to their workforce. That has been reflected, on the one hand, by the increased numbers on the live register along with the double effect of emigrants returning home because of the problems being experienced by our international counterparts. This latest international recession has had an effect on both urban and rural communities.

However, we must ensure that past mistakes are not repeated. For example, by attempting to spend our way out of the problems of the seventies, we were left a legacy of debt and growing interest payments. This year alone we will pay something in excess of £2 billion in interest payments in servicing our national debt. What happened in the seventies was sinful and must not be repeated.

It is important to highlight some of the measures taken by the Government to develop and secure the economic well-being of rural areas since that is what this motion is about. The first of these with which I should like to deal is in the agricultural sector, the decision to extend the disadvantaged areas scheme and its effect on our rural communities. This scheme was designed specifically to encourage farmers to remain in farming by compensating them for some of the natural handicaps associated with living in rural areas. The provisions of the scheme recognise that permanent, natural handicaps, such as poor quality of soil, the degree of slope of land and so on — placing such farmers at a competitive disadvantage — must be compensated for in some manner.

The income from various headage grants payable under the scheme constitutes a significant proportion of the income of sheep and cattle farmers in disadvantaged areas. For example, last year some 82,000 farmers received payments under the cattle headage payments scheme, in excess of 15,000 farmers received payments under the beef cow scheme and an additional 34,000 farmers received assistance under the sheep headage scheme. The extension negotiated and approved in 1991, covering an additional 1.9 million acres, has been of great benefit to rural Ireland. The Ministers involved in the negotiation of that extension are to be complimented since it was the largest extension we secured since our accession to the European Community, bringing the total amount of our land now classified as disadvantaged to 72 per cent of our total acreage.

Rural development is another matter worthy of mention. I congratulate the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food with special responsibility for rural development, Deputy Hyland, who is present this evening. Indeed, the foresight of Commissioner MacSharry should not go without mention on this occasion.

It must be remembered that a healthy rural economy and environment constitute an important part of the quality of Irish life. In that context the success of the recent Leader programme, as an instrument in promoting a better economy and environment, has been important. The European Commission put this Community incentive in place under which funds are allocated to local development groups throughout the European Community who have designated integrated rural development plans for their areas. In Carlow-Kilkenny Avonmore have played a pivotal role in the promotion of this initiative. It is hoped that the result of this initiative will be witnessed over the next two years.

The forestry operational programme 1989 to 1993 is the third development to which I should like to refer, which programme is funded jointly by the EC, the State and private sector. Over the life of this programme it is expected that the rate of tree planting will double from approximately 15,000 hectares per annum to more than 30,000 hectares per annum. This increased production and planting is expected to create approximately 1,800 extra jobs. The principal measures included in this programme are afforestation, improvement of woodlands, the reconstruction of woodlands and improvement of forestry roads. Grants of up to 85 per cent of approved costs are available under those headings. Coillte Teoranta are to be complimented on their work in this area. For example, they opened recently a new state-of-the-art nursery in County Carlow which must be the envy of many forestry boards throughout the Community.

The operational programme for tourism, 1989 to 1993, is a major component of the Government's five year strategy for the expansion and development of tourism. Tourism has been identified as one of the growth areas of our economy and it is hoped that it will prove to be a major contributor to our economy and to our job opportunity prospects. Specific interests such as angling, sailing, golf and equestrian sports have been identified as activities which, if given the proper support, can and will lead to improved facilities and employment prospects. The Government have also identified specific interests areas such as genealogy and English language training as areas of interests to tourists.

The recently announced Government decision to establish county enterprise boards, or development boards, as they are sometimes known, is a major step in the development of rural Ireland. I compliment the Government on this initiative. The development boards will play a major role in job creation at local level. Every sector of local communities will have an opportunity to participate in the decisions affecting their lives, decisions which up to now have been made at regional level or at national level.

The funding of the boards has been agreed. In addition to the drawing together of funding from the IDA and other State agencies, an extra £100 million has been committed by the Irish financial institutions, who are to be complimented on coming in so readily. Public funds of £50 million will be provided by the Government and there will also be additional EC funding.

It is important to point out the positive advantages to rural Ireland of the urban renewal scheme. This scheme has been a major success in large towns in rural Ireland. Under this scheme a generous package of tax incentives and rates relief is available to promote new construction and refurbishment works undertaken in specific designated areas.

Mr. Dukes:

Not in Monasterevan, not in Newbridge, not in Athy.

Mr. Nolan:

The Government since 1987 have twice extended the scheme and I can testify to the positive aspects of this scheme as a result of the extension to Carlow, Kilkenny and Portlaoise.

Mr. Dukes:

Not Monasterevan, not Newbridge, not Athy.

Mr. Nolan:

The result of this investment is not only the renewing of the physical fabric of the town; it also helps to breathe new life into parts of urban areas which up to now have been neglected. It has the effect of creating both once-off construction jobs and permanent jobs, mainly in the service sector.

Local authorities have played their part in making this scheme a success. Carlow Urban District Council are to be commended on the work they are currently carrying out on the Presentation Convent site in Carlow town, where the first phase of a major development is currently under way. This scheme will enhance the status of the town by improving its appearance and increasing the potential to attract further investment.

Another area of investment is waterways. Since 1987 this Government have put in place a continuous programme of investment to restore and develop the inland waterways system and promote it as a viable tourist and amenity resource. The potential for improvement in this area is huge. Since 1987 this Government have provided mooring facilities, jetties, marinas and harbour facilities at a number of locations on our major rivers. In County Carlow the Office of Public Works have carried out some much needed reconstruction and remedial work at Graiguenamanagh-Tinnahinch. This work has been very well received by the local community and it is hoped that a continuation of this programme will be of positive benefit to the counties which straddle the River Barrow.

The Barrow navigation has been the recipient of substantial investment. Extensive dredging and lock gate renewal and the provision of new facilities, such as at Graiguenamanagh, have vastly improved the potential for waterway and tourist related employment in the area. Since assuming responsibility for the canals and the Barrow navigation in 1986, the Office of Public Works have made major strides in developing these waterways, both as amenities for the local community and as a major part of the tourism infrastructure of the country. The personnel involved in these projects are to be commended on the quality of the workmanship involved and also the fact that all developments have been undertaken in an environmentally sensitive manner.

I commend the Minister on the work he has been carrying out for the benefit of the rural community in a very difficult climate. I have no doubt that with the continuation of current Government policies we can succeed in improving the lot of our rural community.

Mr. Power:

I think Deputy Nolan meant to share his time.

An Ceann Comhairle:

When there is an intention to share time, the Chair prefers that the request be made at the commencement of a Deputy's speech.

Mr. Power:

The Deputy felt he was speaking among friends when the midland Deputies were here together.

An Ceann Comhairle:

That may be so, but the House is entitled to know these things in advance and the Chair usually puts it to the House for approval.

Mr. Dukes:

This side of the House will stretch a point for Deputy Power.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Thank you. I take it that it is agreed that the time available to Deputy Nolan should be shared with Deputy Power. Agreed.

Mr. Power:

I should like to share my time with Deputy Connolly.

An Ceann Comhairle:

This is becoming quite irregular. However, there seems to be a host of goodwill here this evening. Is it satisfactory that Deputy Connolly be included in the time? Agreed.

Mr. Power:

I listened attentively to the debate on this motion last night. While I could identify with much of what was said from the Opposition benches, regrettably none of these contributions could be regarded as balanced. It is very easy to get up in the House and criticise the existing Government for all the ills of the midlands, and I listened to Deputy after Deputy blame the Government for the number of people leaving the land. One could almost be excused for believing that this was only happening in Ireland. We must accept that the flight from the land is happening worldwide, despite the best efforts of different administrations.

There was also criticism of the Agricultural Commissioner, Ray MacSharry, and our Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh. If ever criticism was undeserved it was in this instance. The Common Agricultural Policy to a large extent had outlived its usefulness. It was crying out for reform. Successive Commissioners refused to grasp the nettle, thus creating much uncertainty throughout the industry. I accept that agriculture has been going through a very difficult period, but we must accept that this was happening before any reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

We should be grateful to Ray MacSharry for the courage and commitment he showed in reforming the Common Agricultural Policy and to the Minister for protecting our national interests in these negotiations.

A healthy agricultural industry is vital if the midlands are to prosper. Changes in the special beef premium, the suckler cow premium and the special slaughter premium will put farmers in a more secure position. This, in turn, will remove much of the uncertainty that has hung over the industry in recent years.

While I am not unaware of the problems confronting the midlands, we must always remain optimistic and realise that we have the tools at our disposal to deal with the situation. Enormous progress has been made over the last few years and this cannot and should not be ignored.

Anyone listening to the debate here last night could be forgiven for believing that the area had been totally neglected for the last number of years. The motion is a long-winded one, covering a number of areas, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to take part in the debate tonight.

I must ask the Opposition Deputies who tabled this motion one question: If the Government have neglected their constituencies to such an extent, why is it that Fianna Fáil hold a majority of the seats? Did the electorate get it wrong? I am sure that they did not.

Mr. Durkan:

That question will be answered shortly.

Mr. Power:

I am sure they will give the same answer on the next occasion. If any fair-minded person was to look around the midlands they would have to be impressed with the amount of progress that has taken place.

The urban renewal scheme was extended to include towns such as Tullamore, Portlaoise and Athlone. This scheme has brought new life into these areas and at the same time is creating much needed employment. We have witnessed enormous improvements in our major roads during the last few years, and the majority of these schemes have taken place and are taking place in the midlands.

The Newbridge by-pass is well under way and should be completed in the middle of next year. The Kilcullen link should be finished 12 months later. The estimated cost of this project is estimated at £58 million. Work is also under way for the Lucan-Kilcock by-pass, and it is expected that this project will be completed in 1993 at a cost of £60 million.

The Athlone by-pass was successfully completed last year, and progress is well under way in providing by-passes for a number of other big towns such as Portlaoise, Longford, Roscrea, Nenagh and Mullingar. When concluded, these projects will prove very beneficial. They will reduce journey times and costs. They will also reduce traffic congestion and allow towns to develop in a more civilised manner. When the Naas by-pass was first mooted there was an outcry from a number of business people in the town; they felt that business would deteriorate. The opposite happened and Naas is now a much busier and more prosperous town as a result of the by-pass.

I do not wish for one moment, to give the impression that we have a wonderful road network. Our non-national roads are in a disgraceful state and unless we can transfer some of the European money which is being spent on our national primary roads to the non-national roads we will never be able to get on top of the problem. Local authorities simply have not got sufficient funds to carry out the necessary repairs. I call on the Minister for the Environment to give this issue the attention it deserves.

Perhaps it is a case of great minds thinking alike, but the movers of this motion are saying now what we in Kildare have been repeating for years.

The future of our cutaway bogs has been analysed for many years. I know of no other area which has been the subject of such exhaustive research and experimentation but to date very little action has been taken. No thoroughbred, one might say, has been so groomed, trained and galloped like a good thing and has yet to appear on a racecourse, never mind getting into the parade ring.

Over many years early warnings were given that a day would come when Lullymore, Allenwood and all that area, which depend too much on Bord na Móna and the ESB would need alternative employment. Lullymore is closed despite the fact that it was viable and able to produce and sell briquettes; the ESB generating station was due to close too, but got the kiss of life from Minister Molloy at a very opportune time, before the local elections.

Mr. Dukes:

These Progressive Democrats are letting you down all the time.

Mr. Power:

Since then, there have been signs of a relapse, so perhaps a further bout of passionate embracing is called for. A very well thought-out programme for the use of cutaway bogs was submitted by Kildare for the Leader programme. I do not believe any other project was as well researched or presented. A week before the date for announcing the successful applicants we were sure we would be among them, but when the list was published there was no mention of the cutaway bogs — despite the project having the advantage of helping all the midlands, particularly Kildare, Offaly and Laois.

Mr. Dukes:

I would be annoyed about that, if I were the Deputy.

Mr. Power:

Recently a Council of Europe delegation came to this country to discuss how rural areas can be helped and not one of the successful Leader programme applicants spoke at the conference. We could talk for a week on the potential of the midlands to regenerate growth and employment, give back hope and a future to villages and small towns that will be left to wither away and die.

An Ceann Comhairle:

I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Power, but in case he is under a misapprehension in respect of the time I said was available to him, that was up to 18 minutes to eight. I was not aware then of the intervention of our colleague, Deputy Connolly. I hope the Deputy realises that the token amount of time available to the three Deputies expires at 18 minutes to eight.

Mr. Power:

I will allow Deputy Connolly to make his contribution now.

Mr. Connolly:

I am glad of this opportunity to speak. It is strange that the Opposition have put down this motion because when they were in office and Deputy Dukes was in the Government, they deserted the midlands. Neither Deputy Dukes nor his Government wanted to know about the midlands. It was only when we returned to Government in 1987 that action was taken to rectify a deteriorating situation.

Mr. Dukes:

You abolished the committees of agriculture, the county development teams and now the tourism organisations. With friends like that who needs enemies?

Mr. Connolly:

Deputies mentioned earlier that urban renewal did not come to Kildare. It was because some of the urban councils——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Connolly:

Take your medicine. These are the facts. They said they did not require urban renewal.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Connolly:

Deputies must remember that the urban councils in Kildare are controlled by their own party, so they should not come along and blame us now.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Let us hear Deputy Connolly without interruption.

Mr. Connolly:

I did not interrupt anyone. The urban council in County Kildare said that they were not interested in urban renewal. What more could we do? The Deputies should not blame the Government of the time or me, although I had responsibility for urban renewal.

With regard to land annuities, I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Hyland and the Government on the measures adopted to tackle the problems of many farmers in the midlands and elsewhere. Land annuities were an enormous burden on many farmers. I am very pleased with the package which has been brought in. The writing off of small annuities will benefit approximately 19,000 farmers. The buy-out discount is a very attractive option for many other farmers. Nobody can deny that help in this area is welcomed by many farmers who were heavily burdened with annuities.

The urban renewal programme, the farm improvement programme and the roads programme created 14,000 jobs in the building industry and many more jobs in the retail business on the completion of many of the projects. That is the reality. It is very much appreciated in the towns and corporations that took advantage of the very attractive incentives. I compliment the corporations and the local authorities who became involved in urban renewal on the manner in which they carried out their duties and got many projects up and running, giving permanent employment.

My time is up, but I would like to say more on many of the issues involved. During the terms of office of the Government the Department of the Environment have done everything possible within the financial resources available to them, but the Opposition have not stated what programme they would implement, from where they would obtain the necessary finance and how they would carry out the work. I would like this spelt out.

Mr. Dukes:

We would rather have Deputy Connolly than the Minister of State, Deputy Harney.

Mr. Connolly:

I have listened to Deputy Dukes for a long time.

Mr. Dukes:

I have listened to the Deputy and I wish him many more years of listening to me.

Mr. Connolly:

I welcome the Deputy back to the Front Bench. Unfortunately, the Deputy sometimes suffers from a fairytale imagination. When people like him return after being away for a long time the figures two and two often do not add up. When the Deputy was a member of a former Administration and in charge of the Department of Finance his projections never materialised. I always doubted them and it turned out that I was correct. That was the reason he was removed from the Finance portfolio and given another. That is why I would be interested to hear the Deputy spell out his and his party's programme. He should tell us how the programme will be implemented and where the finance will come from. I am waiting and listening very carefully.

Mr. Dukes:

The Deputy's party are in Government now.

Mr. Connolly:

At least we have a programme——

Mr. Dukes:

Where is the programme?

Mr. Connolly:

——but I have not heard any programme from the Opposition parties, especially the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Dukes:

Where is the Government's programme? The Minister told us last night what the target was.

Mr. Connolly:

Fine Gael made a tactical error, not for the first time, in not joining the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment and putting forward their views. I have no doubt they would have had many worthwhile proposals to put forward.

Mr. Dukes:

Were we not right? The three Ministers would not even meet the joint committee. They turned their back, would not talk to you.

Mr. Connolly:

As usual Fine Gael were wrong-footed and chickened out. The party would not join the joint committee and put forward their views.

Mr. Dukes:

We should bring back Deputy Connolly; the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, has not got the same class.

Mr. Connolly:

That is one of the reasons Fianna Fáil in the midlands hold the majority of the seats and no doubt the same will be the case in Laois-Offaly.

Mr. Lowry:

I would like to share my time with Deputies Connaughton, Durkan, Connor and T. Ahearn.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Connor:

The Deputies will provide a variety of views.

Mr. Lowry:

I am sure Deputy Connolly is looking forward to the day when he will make a return to the Fianna Fáil Front Bench.

Mr. Connor:

We need entertainers like Deputy Connolly.

Mr. Connolly:

I had a great innings.

Mr. Lowry:

The motion we are discussing is an important one in terms of its implications for the region mentioned which includes north Tipperary. That region in effect is as large and as demographically important as any of the provinces and yet it has no recognisable identity of its own. In the region many of the ills of modern Irish life are allowed full rein. It contains, for example, a number of key environmentally important areas. Its huge segment of agricultural acreage is trapped in a no man's land in relation to the disadvantaged areas scheme and it has a great potential resource in the form of many thousands of acres of cutaway bog which, for want of a positive development plan, are little more than a reminder of the past and of what might have been. In this, as in so many other areas, an overall strategy must be developed to allow for the utilisation of this great natural resource on a phased and structured basis instead of the piecemeal present approach.

The thrust of this motion is towards the preparation of a comprehensive plan which would cater for the varied geographic needs of a very diverse region of the country, not simply by making funds available, but by laying down definite and properly constructed guidelines which would allow the development of the many individual components as part of the overall fabric of the region.

As an example of the concern which has prompted us to bring this motion before the House, let me cite the example of tourism which forms a significant element of the life of the region we are discussing. It is apparent to most people by now that the Government simply do not take the tourism industry seriously and the fragmented approach to our tourism policy is causing serious concern among those directly involved. Tourism is a major element in Irish economic life and yet, as seen through the clouded vision of Government, it was not considered worthy of conclusion in the Culliton report.

The region under discussion, which includes my constituency of North Tipperary, has an abundance of inland waterways, scenic routes, historic sites, an excellent network of accommodation and many ancillary services in place. It is crying out for a development plan which would see an integration of the facilities and services and it would benefit enormously from having a properly structured approach to solving its needs and preparing it for the future. It must surely be evident that there is enormous potential there waiting to be developed. There is little point expending enormous resources in terms of finance and human resources in attracting tourists if we are not presenting all of our physical attractions which are many and varied and must have enormous international appeal. Lough Derg and the River Shannon are God given resources which benefit all the midland counties in one way or another and yet only the tiniest hint of their potential as a tourist attraction has been achieved because of Government inaction.

Our region has suffered from a serious decline in population which is allied to the loss of employment in resource based activity, particularly in agriculture. Unemployment levels are above the national average. In Tipperary we have 10,000 people out of work representing 13 per cent of the workforce in the county. While this level is unacceptably high it would be horrendous if the figures for emigration or urban dispersal were taken into account. This is happening while the great natural resources of the region are being allowed to decay through lack of Government policy. Our cutaway bogs have enormous potential not just for job creation but for the contribution they can make to the environmental well-being of the country.

After a recent visit to a tract of bogland in north Tipperary the overall impression left was one of desolation. The bog like many of its kind in the midlands, has yielded up practically all its peat and is now a spent force. Sporadic planting of trees has been undertaken in the past with little apparent thought put into it or any later husbandry which might have helped those trees realise their full potential. Instead a lack of proper follow-up procedures with regard to culling and thinning has resulted in hundreds and probably thousands, of trees which will have a market value of only a fraction of their real worth. There are still huge tracts of cutaway which is devoid of growth of any kind and, as a consequence, is almost barren of wildlife of any description. It is, and will be for the foreseeable future, an environmental desert which will haunt us in years to come. It is a travesty that this is the legacy we will leave to the next generation and all for want of a cohesive Government policy.

Combined with this is the total indifference to the many environmentally important wetland areas. There is no indifference on the part of dedicated individuals and voluntary organisations. In my town of Thurles, we had a recent example of this when a section of wetland at Cabra, a valuable wildlife resource, would have suffered irreparable damage were it not for the actions of a concerned group of private individuals who have done marvellous work in wildlife preservation. It should not be left to individuals to do this on their own and it is a mark of shame for the Government that this and so many other resources are being neglected.

The key to success is to have an overall policy. It is Government by default simply to say that funds can and may be made available while nothing is done to lay down the framework on which future progress can be built.

Mr. Connaughton:

I support my colleagues from the midlands. I am sure the occasion will arise when we will wish them to support a west of Ireland issue. I wish to speak this evening about a matter involving the midlands and the west, namely Bord na Móna. As I have but five minutes I will deal specifically with this matter although there are many other issues I would like to mention.

Bord na Móna are now but a shadow of the force they once were for development and job creation in the midlands and the west. Worse still is the manner by which they got themselves caught offside by changing times; and an ever-increasing burden of debt could yet leave totally devastated many areas currently dependent on their activities.

The uneasy relationship Bord na Móna have with their main customer, the ESB, has left many questions unanswered. No other company have had all the basic requirements to be successful. They had low cost native raw materials, which replaced or at least could replace expensive oil imports, coupled with a workforce that combined a mix of skilled, unskilled and managerial jobs available in great quantity in this country. However, for a variety of reasons Bord na Móna are now a debt ridden company, owing £179 million. The recent currency upheaval resulting in the 3 per cent increase in interest rates is a nightmare for Bord na Móna. Whatever the reasons for this accumulation of debt — be it either faulty company management or inconsistent, short sighted Government policies over many years — the company are now prevented from positioning themselves to take a meaningful role in the development of rural Ireland. A Bord na Móna without the £179 million debt would be an extremely different kettle of fish to the Bord na Móna of the present day.

I understand that the ESB are unhappy with the price being charged for milled peat. This Bord na Móna price has to reflect the cost of servicing this borrowing requirement. Despite Bord na Móna's disengagement from the production of sod peat and withdrawal from the Galway-Roscommon area, the debt is now almost out of control.

Some experts suggest that there is now Finnish technology available which can equip peat fired power stations to compete with any other source of energy. How galling it is for thousands of families and local communities to see Bord na Móna activities being restricted to the extent that jobs are being lost all over the place.

Can Bord na Móna, on their own or in partnership with private concerns, do anything to help in the drive to beat unemployment and to reduce costly fuel imports? Take the tragic case of Ballyforan. The inability of many past Governments to harness the 18,000 acres of bogs is inexcusable. The final curtain is coming down on 1 December this year on a project that was designed to employ 400 people. The board are disengaging from Derryfadda for the last time. The 30 employees, who supplied milled peat to Ferbane by road for the past number of years, are being made redundant or relocated.

The great dream of the late seventies and eighties, when full employment in the proposed new power station and subsequently in the briquette factory seemed to be a reality, is now a nightmare. All that is left now is an 18,000 acre prairie of bog which was acquired from local farmers, under- and overground bridges a half-developed railway track system, miles of fencing and about £6 million of a factory foundation and infrastructure. Total cost to Bord na Móna is in the region of £20 million — a monument to bad planning, bad management and hopeless research strategies.

Bord na Móna say that they will maintain the parts of the bog that are currently being worked and that the remainder will be sold to the Wildlife Service for conservation purposes. The curlew and the snipe will be back in business; but 20 years on, with £20 million squandered, there is not a single job to show for it.

It is ironic, when the new enterprise board in Galway-Roscommon is coming on 1 December, that the curtain will fall on what was to have been one of the finest projects on the Galway/ Roscommon border. There is something terribly wrong that we were not able to translate development of the bogs of Galway and Roscommon into jobs. It is nothing short of a disgrace.

Mr. Durkan:

I was deeply conscious of the confidence and capability that seemed to exude from the speeches of Members of the Government benches. It would almost appear that they emanated from the same author, if not from the same typewriter. All the speakers seem to have forgotten that the demise of the midlands in terms of employment did not start last week or the week before. It has been growing steadily for a while and they have been doing absolutely nothing about it. There have been many changes in the midlands. Industries have become obsolete as a result of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and now there are large tracts of land set aside, growing nothing but weeds. People will get grants for doing that, provided they set the land aside and the following year set some other land aside. This is going on while half the world is starving. It could only happen in Ireland. It has all the marks of bureaucrats.

The bogs have been steadily cut away for several years and everybody knew there would come a time when they would have to be replaced with industries, but what do we get from that side of the House? We get committees, and we all know that a camel is a horse drawn by a committee. The time for committees and talk is long since past. When is all this inspiration going to reach fruition? When are the people on the other side of the House with all these ideas going to come forward and put them into action? We heard about the Leader programme and about the rural development programmes, but we never saw them. All we have heard about are programmes, committees and schemes, which give hope to people, but nothing more. That is the saddest part of all.

I worry about the schemes that are emanating from that side of the House now. I have a sneaking suspicion that somewhere in the back of the minds of the people putting forward these proposals is the notion that a general election may not be too far off and that it might be a good thing to sow some seeds of hope in the minds of the people of a country that has the highest unemployment rate not only in Europe but in the world. It must be a strange accolade for this nation that it has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world. Then the Government come forward and invite people on this side of the House to join committees. To do the same again — to produce nothing, to go over the same ground they went over before, to repeat the mistakes they made before. Some of them had the audacity last night to mention the doubling of the National Debt between 1981 and 1986. Nobody on that side of the House mentioned what happened to the National Debt between 1977 and 1981, but that is where the answer lies. The people on that side of the House would do well to visit some of those sins on their own and not try to hive off the responsibility for those disastrous times onto somebody else.

I hope that the Government parties will get their heads together and, instead of trying to outwit each other as we have seen here tonight, combine their resources, such as they are, and try to do something positive. They did not do this when the Lullymore briquette plant in my own constituency closed, despite manifestations of attention and activity on the part of various Government backbenchers and Members of the other House. That plant folded despite their best efforts. If those were their best efforts, I would hate to see their worst efforts.

Time does not permit me to go into all the options that are available to the Government. Suffice it to say that the Fine Gael resolution is sufficient to set the Government parties, both of them, on the proper course. I hope the Government parties will not embark, as they have done over the last couple of weeks, on a diet of positive economic forecasts. Hardly a day goes by without some promising forecast emanating from some quarter stating how positive it is to be in Ireland at present, but they should tell this to the 300,000 people who are unemployed.

Mr. Connor:

This motion deals with the issue of industrial decline and the attendant social decline in the midlands. I would like to speak about two of the counties in the region addressed by the motion, Roscommon, the county in which I live, and Longford, which is the home county of the Taoiseach. It is proper and germane that we should discuss the problems of that county in this House. It is regrettable, however, that the Taoiseach is not present to listen to some of the comments that we would like to make about it.

If one carries out a social and economic analysis of counties such as Roscommon and Longford one will see the reason that major remedial measures need to be applied to cure the economic and social ills which are deeply rooted and which indeed are getting worse. We were promised that EC Structural Funds would be provided for areas in decline.

In County Roscommon, for instance, 35 per cent of the total workforce are engaged in agriculture whereas the national average is about 18 per cent. Most of the farms in County Roscommon and indeed in County Longford are well under 20 hectares and by any definition nowadays they are uneconomic holdings. Over 60 per cent of the total population of Counties Roscommon and Longford live in rural areas, whereas the national average is just over 30 per cent. It is against that background that the economic problems of the region must be viewed.

According to the national plan which was drawn up by the Government and submitted to the EC Commission in 1989 in connection with our application for Structural Funding, average income in the two counties to which I have referred is about 43 per cent of the EC average and about 75 per cent of the national average; yet, little or none of the £3 billion transferred to this country by way of grant aid and other investments — and this regime will come to an end at the end of 1993 — has been allocated to either of these counties or indeed to the midlands. Certainly no attempt has been made to improve the economic lot of the region. This cannot be contradicted. These funds have been allocated in a hamfisted and unsympathetic way to counties such as Longford and Roscommon within this region.

While one may say that a certain amount of money from the Regional Fund has been spent on road development within these counties, when we compare these figure with expenditure on roads in the years 1986 and 1987, before the Structural Funds regime had an effect or influence on the amount of money that we spent on roads, we will see that hardly an extra penny has been spent. The only thing that has happened is that Exchequer funds have been displaced by Structural Funds and no additional funds have been made available to address the problems. This amounts to a great betrayal having regard to the fact that the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, travelled all over the country, including my own county, to outline the economic impact this transfer of funds would have during the period of this regime.

If there is anything we want to highlight in this motion it is the fact that there is a unique and peculiar, deep-seated economic and social malaise in this region. We also want to remind the Taoiseach that his own county, where he seeks the major proportion of his votes, is at the very centre of the region where the statistics show this malaise exists. For example, there are more people aged 65 and over in this region than in any other region in the country, the reason being emigration and the lack of job opportunities.

Earlier today the Minister of State, who is present in the House, listened to me as I outlined the age profile of the farmers in the region. I highlighted the fact that 65 per cent of farmers in the area are aged 65 years and over, while a large proportion are over 70 years of age. The reason for this is that there is no land mobility policy, yet, the land is supposed to be the major natural resource in that area. The peatlands in Counties Roscommon and Longford which are harvested by Bord na Móna are also considered to be a major natural resource; yet there has been a population decline and a decline in output from that source of about 50 per cent during the past four years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I would remind the Deputy that he must now cut the last sod as his time is up.

Mr. Connor:

I wish I had more time as there is much one could say on this issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I am concerned about the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Ahearn.

Mrs. T. Ahearn:

I thank you for your thoughtfulness, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It is with pleasure that I join with my colleagues from the midlands in supporting the motion before the House tonight which calls on Dáil Éireann to deplore the present neglect of the midlands and on the Government to put forward proposals for the development and viability of the central plain of Ireland. Like many of my colleagues, I am absolutely astounded that the Government have found it necessary to table an amendment to this motion, but then they are doing nothing other than keeping in tune with their general attitude towards any proposals, regardless of their merits, made by the main Opposition party: they reject, object to them and oppose them at all costs.

I would like to remind Members on the opposite side of the House, especially those from the midlands, that in voting against our motion tonight they are voting against a motion which calls for the exploitation of the potential of cutaway bogs, the development of industry, tourism and service growth centres and the necessary road, rail and inland waterway infrastructures in the region. The amendment merely recognises the work that is supposed to have been done to date and calls for no improvement or extra resources in the future. Clearly, that is what Members from the midlands on the opposite side of the House are going to do tonight. This is a disservice to the people who have elected them to represent their area.

In the brief time at my disposal, I intend to dwell on the potential of cutaway bogs because to date sufficient concentration has not been focused on them nor has adequate regard been had to the prospect of employment in this area. One of the most exciting and important land use changes that can be made in the midlands is the development of cutaway bogs over the next few decades. Since the forties the economy of the midland counties has been sustained and enriched by the harvesting of our major energy resource, our peatlands. Two generations of people have worked on these bogs.

However the first of the bogs to be exploited will soon be exhausted of peat and alternative uses must be found. In the rush to conserve raised bogs intact few people have considered the potential of cutaway bogs for other uses. Throughout the eighties research has been conducted into alternative uses. Agriculture and horticultural crops have been tested and experimental forestry trials have been established. Unfortunately, the results of many of these projects have been disappointing to date. The complexity of the problems encountered, the many factors influencing the best afteruse, is daunting. However 79,000 hectares is a lot of land and it must not be allowed to revert back to a wilderness.

The two most feasible options for cutaway bogs have proven to be commercial forestry and agricultural grassland, but they can only be a major source of income if Bord na Móna are allowed to obtain the full market value of these lands as they become available during the next 40 years. The Minister agrees with this principle and is also anxious to make arrangements to ensure that a proportion of the cutaway bog considered suitable for conversion to grassland will be specifically designated for disposal in small lots in order to ensure that every opportunity is given to farmers to acquire land close to their farms. This is essential to ensure the survival of the communities in areas like the midlands where there has been an alarming decline in the population during the past few years.

Coillte Teoranta should be encouraged, too, to continue to acquire significant areas for their forestry programme, thus increasing the employment potential in the areas concerned. The report of the independent expert committee on the future uses of Bord na Móna cutaway bogs pointed out that ensuring that this unique land resource is used to its best advantage is an affordable and complex challenge. However the report clearly indicated that if these bogs are utilised for alternative uses in a cohesive, planned and balanced way they can become a valuable resource capable of generating considerable benefits locally and nationally. The future of the midlands depends to a large degree on the Minister's response to this report. It must not be left to gather dust on the shelves of his Department as the future livelihoods of many people depend on his action or inaction on the proposals put forward in the report. No action means no jobs and no jobs mean no people. The vicious circle will sadly turn our midlands into a desert.

Mr. Ellis:

I have heard so much about bogs since I came into the House 20 minutes ago that I will try to avoid the muddy waters and the muddy ground.

Mr. Dukes:

The Deputy should not get side-tracked in the boreens either.

Mr. Ellis:

Whoever put down this motion must not have looked to see what Government action has taken place in a number of areas concerned. We are all in favour of exploiting cutaway bogs and conserving environmentally sensitive wetland areas.

Mrs. T. Ahearn:

The Deputy should vote for the motion then.

Mr. Ellis:

Deputy Ahearn, who, like myself, lives on the fringe of the area, will find that other areas have been more than adequately dealt with by Government policy in the last few years. Money has been provided for tourism by way of schemes and incentives introduced by various Ministers for Finance in the last couple of years and have been of enormous benefit. We could all point to a large number of businesses that exist in the midlands which would not exist had it not been for the BES and other schemes. Development which is taking place in my own area at present will be of enormous benefit to the midlands. I am referring to the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal works which will add an extra incentive to the Shannon boating facilities and will create a new venue for people to explore from 1994 onwards. These are major incentives. I was glad to be informed by the Minister for Agriculture and Food that Teagasc are committed to developing their centre at Ballinamore for research into grassland management and afforestation. That centre could be used to examine the possibilities of further forestry development in the midlands. If we look back at the action taken in the midlands, we find that the resources available were not used to the maximum to ensure that benefits accrued to the communities. That is something that everyone in the House will accept. In the development of the boglands in the midlands down the years peat was extracted without making preparations for the long term effects of supplies running out. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. This is no more the responsibility of this side of the House than it is of that side. If we look back we will find that over the past 20 years Coalition Governments were in power for as long a period as were Fianna Fáil.

The initiative taken by the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, regarding the Leader programme benefits many areas. I was surprised Deputy Connor did not point out that part of his constituency is included in the Leader programme. I believe that somebody is trying to embarrass Government Deputies in regard to particular areas. People may say that the midlands have been neglected but they should also realise that improvements have taken place in these areas. Improvements have been made by building bypasses such as that in Mullingar. A by-pass is also proposed in Deputy Dukes' constituency, a by-pass of a road that has given us all headaches, namely, the Kilcock-Leixlip road.

Progress has been made in these areas and therefore people should not come into this House and say that the Government are doing nothing. They are doing what they can within existing financial constraints. I think that no-one would accept that quicker than Deputy Dukes. In 1987, when he was leader of the party on the opposite side of the House he realised that there should be a commonsense policy, and there was consensus in this House on the development of the country.

Finally, the changes in regard to disadvantaged areas have benefited the midlands enormously in the past few years. Progress has been made, although it may not be fast enough for Opposition Deputies. It should be remembered that just as Rome was not built in a day, Ireland cannot be developed in the lifetime of any one Government.

Mr. Dukes:

I would be delighted if I found that a result of this motion before the House was, as Deputy Ellis suggested, that it embarrassed a number of Deputies on the other side. I believe that embarrassed Deputies on the Government side would be the best guarantee that the Government are waking up to the problems before them. If the Deputy is embarrassed——

Mr. Ellis:

I am not in the least embarrassed.

Mr. Dukes:

——he should tell the Minister of State, the Taoiseach and the other Ministers. He should make life hell for them and make them wake up to what needs to be done to revitalise the midland areas. If this debate has shown any one thing clearly it is that the Government have no focused interest whatsoever on any of the problems in the midland counties or on any of the solutions that need to be found to those problems.

The amendment put forward by the Government refers, for example, to rural areas, including those in the midlands. The Minister of State spoke last night about general areas of Government policy. Even Deputy Power, Deputy Nolan and Deputy Connolly, all midland Deputies, spoke in generalities about Government policies and vague Government ambitions. There was not one word about any policy in the midland areas, except from Deputy Connolly, whom I congratulate for being successful in his most recent incarnation in the Department of the Environment, making sure that a couple of towns in his constituency received special urban development status. Those towns now have the tax advantages that go with that, which other towns do not have. A great many towns in the midlands which could make a case for having that kind of advantage do not have it. They look with envy at their neighbours in the east, the south, the south-east and the west who enjoy this advantage while they are left to fend for themselves without any assistance.

It is amazing that the Government should be so lacking in focus on the midlands because, after all, the Taoiseach is from the midlands, as are three members of his Cabinet — The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevy, the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen and the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith. All these people are from the areas covered in this motion. There are four Ministers of State from these areas — the Minister who is in the House at present, Deputy Aylward, Deputy Dempsey, who is Government Chief Whip, and, possibly the jewel of them all, Deputy O'Rourke. In spite of the fact that all these Deputies are from the midlands there is no focused interest by the Government on the problems in these areas and no particular attention to what is going on there.

The other party in Government seem to show no interest in this area either. As far as I can remember the only involvement of the Progressive Democrats in any of the concerns we on this side of the House have been talking about was when an activist, an office holder of that party tried to con the people of north-west Kildare into the belief that the Lullymore peat briquette factory would be kept open. However, that has gone up in smoke. My great fear is that the same fate awaits the Allenwood power station. That will be the test. If the Minister for Energy does as badly in relation to the Allenwood power station as he has done in relation to the Lullymore briquette factory we will know that the Progressive Democrats cannot be relied upon to deliver anything worth a tráithnín to the people of the midland areas.

Reference was made here last night and tonight to another proposal that looks very much to me like a rabbit out of the hat. I think it was Deputy Ferris who first mentioned it. Bord na Móna are now proposing that another power station be built on the Kildare-Offaly border. I would be delighted to see a new enterprise opening up there, but what local standing have Bord na Móna to enable them to propose the construction of a new power station? I suspect that somebody in Bord na Móna is looking for a way of taking some of the heat, so to speak, off his board and generating interference by suggesting that a power station should be built by someone else. That is not the kind of playacting I should like to see and I do not believe it will make any constructive contribution to the solution of the problem.

I do not like having a go at a decent man like the Minister of State, but his speech last night consisted of a series of platitudes. For example, he told us that each region must develop within the ambit of a national development plan. With the greatest good feeling and respect, it must be said that that is hardly a blinding flash of insight, especially since the Minister was not able to tell us what kind of development programme would be appropriate for the region, either inside or outside the ambit of any national development plan.

The Minister said almost nothing about the specific interests and problems of the region. Because he was faced with an Opposition motion he had to pretend that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. We heard the old story that is repeated these days from the Government side of the House. They do not like political discussions in the House; they want consensus. If you look at this and other issues where the Government claim to be looking for consensus, we find the same thing: every time the Government say they want to develop consensus it means they have met a difficult problem which will be complicated to deal with and they want somebody else to get them off the hook. That is the Government's definition of consensus. On this side of the House consensus means agreement, not just on whatever it is possible to agree on — the highest common factor — but some agreement on a purposeful movement towards a given objective.

That is not what the Minister said last night. He spent some time indulging in the old Fianna Fáil cant, if I may use the expression, which rewrites the economic history of the period from 1982-87. Of course, he did not tell us that during those years inflation was reduced from the 20 per cent at which their erstwhile Taoiseach had it to 3 per cent. During that period employment finally expanded and our balance of trade moved into surplus. It was the creation of what Fianna Fáil now call the fundamentals of our economy. That happened because we beat, kicked and forced Fianna Fáil to agree with it. They did not want to know about it when it was being done but they are enjoying the fruits of it now, although they frittered the gains away in the last couple of years.

The Minister did not offer any solution to our economic and social problems in the midlands. For example, we were told that two out of 16 of the Leader programmes are in the midlands area. I know of proposals for the Leader programme in my county and other parts of the midlands which have been waiting for a decision for well over a year. I know that the people promoting these programmes will be old and grey — I may well be old and grey myself — by the time a decision is made. That is not any great contribution to development in the midlands.

The Minister of State also waxed eloquently about the review of the disadvantaged areas scheme, the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the country. The Minister knows as well as I do that the level of applications for that will exceed by a factor of about ten or 20 the amount of leeway which the Government have. The Government do not have a notion about how they will make the selection. As far as we understand it, 90 per cent of the applications, will be rejected. Then they will solemnly go through the next stage, an appeals procedure, which will need another appeals board to sit and examine them. The Government will then assess the recommendations of the appeals board, the whole lot will then be put together, a submission made to the Commission in Brussels and decided by the Council of Ministers. I had thought we might have seen some results from that by the middle of 1994, but when I heard the Minister talking about it last night I came to the conclusion that I was being impossibly optimistic because it would take a lot longer than that. Those applications mean that many farming communities in the midlands are saying quite plainly to the Government that they feel and are every bit as disadvantaged as their counterparts in the north-west, the west and the south-west. They do not see any other route to salvation. They do not see any other way that the midlands will come out of the agricultural recession without that kind of assistance. The Minister told us last night that they will have to wait for quite a long time. He kept saying that the whole project was on target but he was not able to tell us what the target is. He does not have a date or any idea of a timescale. He got quite vexed last night because I kept interrupting him to ask for a date.

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

I listened attentively to the Deputy, but he certainly did not listen to me last night. He has some cheek——

Mr. Dukes:

The Minister must not know much about shooting; but I can tell him that if he is playing any game which requires an objective and does not even know where the target is, he has no chance whatsoever of scoring.

Mr. Hyland:

The Deputy has some neck. When his party had the opportunity of doing something about disadvantaged areas they did nothing.

Mr. Dukes:

Am I wrong in thinking that it will not be until after the middle of 1994——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy Dukes, I am surprised that you and the Minister of State would engage in practices which bring down the standard of the House.

Mr. Dukes:

I was quiet and composed. The fact that the Minister of State is now so vexed and excited indicates that I was right in thinking that none of these——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy Dukes was not too calm.

Mrs. T. Ahearn:

He was excited.

Mr. Dukes:

This is another case of live horse and you will get grass.

Mr. Hyland:

The farmers will not be impressed by empty rhetoric. The Deputy had a chance to do something when he was in office but he did absolutely nothing.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Hyland:

The Deputy has a cynical smile on his face. We will be judged on our performance. I will certainly be judged on my performance and I will be happy to be judged on it.

Mr. Dukes:

There are three decent roads in the midlands taking people from Dublin to Limerick, Cork and Galway. However, if you get off those roads things are very different. If you want to travel from Nobber to Newport or from Athlone to Athy you need a jeep and in the winter you will need an amphibious vehicle. There is no decent north-south road link anywhere in the midlands. Look at the waterways. It is not so long since a whole section of canal bank crumbled just beside Edenderry, taking a big section of the canal with it.

What about the rail service? On All-Ireland Final day the All-Ireland special train was 45 minutes late arriving at Portarlington. It arrived into Heuston Station at about half time in the minor game. Yesterday morning the 8 o'clock train from Kildare to Dublin disappeared — it might as well have gone into the Bermuda Triangle. That means that there are no communications worth a damn in our midland areas. That is because the Government recognise the midlands only as a place to be got across on one's way from the east to the west or from the east to the south. For so long as the Minister keeps taking the view of the midlands that he is taking of the area now, the midlands will continue to suffer. The present Government have no notion of what the economic interests and what the peculiar requirements of that region are. If the Minister wants to save some shred of reputation he should withdraw his amendment and vote for the perfectly sensible motion, a motion which, I know, all Government midlands Deputies want to vote for.

Mr. Lowry:

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hyland:

Give him a clap.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dukes:

The Government have a set of historians over there. Government Deputies should be worried about the future.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputies, this match is now over and I am putting the question.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl 57.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Connor, John.
• Cotter, Bill.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick East).
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Kenny and Boylan.

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 56.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cotter, Bill.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Kenny and Boylan.

Question declared carried.