Deputy Connaughton is in possession and is sharing his time with Deputies Doyle and Crawford. They have 15 minutes between them.
National Development Plan: Statements (Resumed).
I understand that I am now sharing it equally with Deputy Doyle. The west is entitled to receive a larger portion of the new Structural and Cohesion Funds than on the previous occasion. It is a source of great worry that the west is losing its population base. The census of population figures show a pronounced drop in Connacht while the population of Leinster continues to increase. If the existing trend is to be reversed to stabilise the population base in the west, many imaginative schemes will have to be implemented.
Because of the limited time at my disposal I would like to refer to some of the observations and proposals contained in this ESRI report. I view with alarm the observation that headage payments "may have slowed down the rate of structural adjustment within the sector thereby inhibiting the pace of land mobility and thus retarding management turnover so vital to competitiveness". The report also questions the impact of headage payments on population maintenance and states that the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy renders headage payments ineffective as an incentive to increase output. The report comes to the conclusion that headage payments should not form part of the CSF funding but should be included in a sub-programme for farm-related rural development, possibly under the guarantee fund.
I wish to make it clear to all concerned that headage payments are an income supplement to boost diminishing incomes of small farmers. They are direct, easily policed or controlled to the degree that there are upper livestock unit limits whereby the first 30 livestock units on each farm within disadvantaged areas qualify. There should be no clawback whatsoever from this payment and the Government must not start messing around with off-farm income limits.
Rural development is the subject of much comment in the report, which is welcome, but any proposals to divert "the cheque in the post" through any local development agency or group would be a non-runner. Integrated rural development programmes, such as the Leader programme, are vital but small farmers need headage payments and other premia to provide a cash flow to rear and educate their families and any attempt to launder direct payments will accelerate the flight from the land.
I welcome the fact that the report recommends that farmyard pollution grants should be controlled but there are thousands of small farmers who cannot afford to make this investment despite the fact that a grant of up to 50 per cent of the cost is available. However, they still need facilities such as slatted houses for cattle and sheep and silage slabs. A new scheme to help small farmers specifically should now be introduced under which a higher rate of grant would be provided with no off-farm income ceiling.
Many small farmers have a small milk quota. As a consequence, many farm families have been badly affected by the current EC policy on milk production. Full-time farmers on small holdings cannot purchase a milk quota, even if one was available, at current values. A combined effort must be made by the Government, the milk processors and the European Community to provide an imaginative package to allow existing milk producers, who cannot pay the going rate for a milk quota but who could provide a decent living for their family if increased quotas were provided, to avail of larger quotas.
I am dumbfounded by the proposals concerning beef cow numbers. I fail to understand the reason small farmers with small holdings cannot be offered a minimum quota of 20 cows to be reached over a two-year period. If they fail to reach this figure it could be redistributed.
The new plan must address the need for investment in national, secondary and county roads. The creation of a local economic development programme receives much attention in the report and a local infrastructural measure is mentioned which will cover investment in non-national roads. It has been mentioned time and again today that this is vital.
The new Structural and Cohesion Funds will provide us with an opportunity to improve our economic and social position. There may not be another European Community finance scheme given that, the membership of the Community is set to increase with other countries who are worse off financially than ourselves wishing to join. In addition, the effects of unification of Germany, in financial terms, are likely to be felt for some time to come. This is the reason it is so important that we make the best use of what we receive.
The final point I wish to make is that I hope the regions will be given a say. At a function in Dublin late last year a senior official in the Department of Finance said: "We do not have the governmental and administrative structure capable of effectively delivering programmes at sub-regional level". That is a source of worry. Nothing has changed since and it will not change under this plan. In conclusion, local organisations, such as chambers of commerce, town development associations, development companies, local authorities and various other organisations will have to live off the crumbs if they are not given a say. If the system is not changed there could be a revolt in rural Ireland.
I intend to confine myself to those matters that come within my brief as environment spokesperson. Community support frameworks are binding contracts between the European Commission and member states. Therefore, a close integration of the environment into Sructural Fund operations requires Community support frameworks to have a clear environmental dimension. In February of last year 70 environmental groups launched a package of proposals for the reform of the Structural Fund regulations to ensure that the funds' activities are geared to the goal of sustainable development as embraced by the European Community leaders in June 1990 in what is now known as the Dublin Declaration.
This morning the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, stated that negotiations on revised Structural Fund regulations are at an advanced stage. If the Commission proposals to ensure greater integration of the environment into the Structural Fund operations are included in the final regulations national plans will have to incorporate environmental information and assessment of a kind that was not compulsory in the last fund round. Ireland and other member states are drawing up their plans at present. Presumably, these plans are being drawn up under the existing regulations. Therefore, these plans will not incorporate the necessary environmental information and assessment. This, as is obvious, will defeat the new provisions in the Commission's proposals for the reform of the Structural Fund regulations. I call on the Commission, through the Government, to insist that the new environmental requirements are met before the broad frameworks of Ireland and other member states are agreed.
The Commission has proposed that the CSFs refer to the arrangements for involving environmental authorities in the implementation of Community support frameworks. The Community support frameworks should also include both objectives for areas where environmental improvement is necessary, such as reducing water pollution to comply with EC standards, and the steps which will be taken to ensure that environmental assets, for example, important wildlife sites, are protected from damaging developments. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, day-to-day decisions on individual projects are made by monitoring committees. I understand from this morning's contributions that these decisions will continue to be made by the monitoring committees. These committees need to be given explicit responsibility for ensuring that any individual project which received aid from the Structural Funds complies with Community environmental policy and legislation. Monitoring committees must ensure that environmental objectives and commitments incorporated into the Community support framework are met and incorporated into the assessment process.
I feel very strongly that the new regulations should make it clear that failure to comply with Community legislation and policy on the environment will constitute grounds for the suspension and, if necessary, cancellation of Structural Fund assistance. The public must have access to information on Structural Fund activities at every stage of the process — the decision-making, implementation and assessment stages. The Commission is proposing that plans be made public only before they are submitted to it. In view of the number of environmentally damaging projects investigated and documented over the period of the 1989-93 Structural Fund payments, the public must have access to information at all the different stages.
Does the Minister support the proposal of the Universities' Research Group on the Environment on the establishment of a sustainability fund of £50 million with Structural Fund support over the period 1994-99 to stimulate an environmentally orientated corporate culture and a deeper appreciation of the commercial advantages of environmentally innovative projects and production processes? I am borrowing the words of URGE, the Universities' Research Group on the Environment, in expanding this point. I feel very strongly that this application for a sustainability fund should be accepted by the Government and the Minister for the Environment and should be part of our national plan for the draw down of Structural Funds.
Ireland is virtually ignoring one of its most competitive advantages, its environmental quality and image. There is no substantive policy or initiatives to help us capture a share of Europe's biggest and most dynamically expanding industrial sector, the environmental products and services sector. The purpose of a sustainability fund, as promoted by URGE — this body comprises hundreds of researchers from 12 third level colleges, both north and south of the Border — is to promote research and development and innovations related to the environment in areas which will enhance the competitive position of industry and create jobs. Specifically, the fund aims to create a more pro-active approach by Irish firms towards the competitive advantages of environmental innovation. The fund will aim to stimulate an environmentally orientated corporate culture. I urge the Minister in his reply to confirm that this fund will receive Government support. The operating mechanisms of the fund will be based on the establishment of partnerships between firms and researchers and between research institutions. There are plans to set up a steering committee, representing industry and the research community, under the aegis of the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee the fund and its management.
To date, approximately 120,000 jobs have been created in the food and tourism sectors, two sectors which are highly sensitive to environmental quality. All of these jobs depend on Ireland at least maintaining its present international reputation as a high quality environmental location and on companies' willingness to use environmentally acceptable production processes, clean technology. Public investment in environmental facilities between now and the year 2000 will be approximately £1 billion. More than 40 per cent of the investment in manufacturing companies, which are expected to invest up to £5 million in the same period, will be by process industry and will cover environmental facilities and pollution control. The cost effectiveness of this investment will depend on the quality of technical research and information which is available.
The European and US environmental industries will spend $260 billion in this area by the year 2005. It is one of the fastest growing industrial markets in Europe. Even if 0.5 per cent of this expanding market was located in Ireland it would create 2,000 jobs. To date, more than 4,000 jobs have been created in the area of environmental control in Ireland. There are many growth sectors in the environmental area. The manufacturing and services sectors related to the environment are the key growth sectors for the future. For example, the European market for environmental products and services, is worth approximately £40 billion, and is growing at a rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. The markets for waste disposal technologies are expected to more than double by the year 2000. Information technology markets related to the environment are projected to grow by between 11 to 15 per cent per annum by the year 2000. The software market is projected to grow by more than 18 per cent per annum.
Entry to these rapidly expanding markets depends on aggressive innovation backed up by a broad base of high quality research and development. Hence the need to support the sustainability fund promoted by URGE. I urge the Minister to take a personal interest in this fund which is an essential way forward. I am a great believer in ensuring direct results from the economy, particularly when we are talking about convergence and cohesion, through investment in research and development.
A green, environmentally friendly image is estimated to be worth 10 per cent of the final product price. For Irish food exports this could amount to approximately £2 million per annum. Even foreign manufacturers have tried to capitalise on the Irish image. For example, the Germans market cosmetics under the name "Irish Moss". We need to get in on the act quickly and in a properly programmed way through research and development which is properly financed. All these jobs and added value will be secured only if Ireland and the political leaders show their commitment to sustainable development. Substainability is rapidly becoming a central feature of all growth-related Community policies and is expected to be an influential criterion in the assessment of proposals for Structural Fund support in the future.
These brief statements do no justice to the seriousness of the issue. The spending of these huge sums of money — I hope it is £8 billion, one-third of the national debt — must be the subject of close scrutiny by the Opposition parties for many reasons, not least because the spending of this money is subject to the political forces of the present Coalition Government. Therefore, it is our duty to closely scrutinise the spending of this money. The potential of denying the public access to information on Structural Fund activities through all stages of the process — the decision-making, implementation and assessment stages — to impact on the environment is so serious that we must scrutinise the spending of this money and ensure value for money. If we work together on this matter, we will achieve what we set out to do for this small nation.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Ó Cuív.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the preparation of the National Development Plan for the next round of European Community Structural and Cohesion Funds. I wish first to congratulate the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, and the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Andrews, for their very successful negotiation of the £8 billion at the Edinburgh Summit in December 1992. I know the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fitzgerald, has been working very diligently during the past few months in the preparation of the plan. The officials in the north-west very much appreciate the time and effort she put into their very worthy submission when she met them.
The Government's objective must be the maintenance and creation of sustainable employment. It is vitally important that every area of the country gains from the major transfer of financial resources over the next few years. The European Council at Edinburgh in December, 1992, will always be viewed as one of the key decision-making Councils and it is of particular importance to us as it provided for a concentration of resources on the four least prosperous member states. The references in the Conclusions of the Summit referring to unemployment and rural development are equally important from our point of view.
The Minister in his speech this morning stated that the Edinburgh Conclusions would take full account of a number of factors, such as the relative severity of structural problems and peripherality. That takes me directly to my concern about the need for major investment in the Border areas and the north-west region.
I am glad that consultation has taken place and will take place between our Department of Finance officials and the Department of Finance and Personnel officials in Belfast. Such consultation and co-operation is very important to those of us living in and representing Ulster counties.
It is generally accepted that the Border areas suffer considerable social and economic disadvantage. On any index of economic and social developments, such areas compare very unfavourably with most other areas, in that: unemployment is very high; the road network is disastrous; those areas have been ravaged by emigration and have a high proportion of older people. The economy of the Border area needs regeneration. I appeal to the Minister for Finance and the Government to pay particular attention to the submission of the North-West Sub-Region Review Group. Positive discrimination is needed in favour of the north-west. That positive discrimination in the disbursement of Structural and Cohesion Funds is needed because we in the Border areas and in the north-west are at the extreme periphery of the European Community.
The socio-economic trends outlined in the sub-regional reports provide some startling facts. In the north-west, we have the largest population fall in the country; the dependency ratio of 73 per cent is significantly higher than the average of 63 per cent for the rest of the country; the lowest level of average farm income; the high rate of unemployment, 18 per cent for the north-west region, as opposed to 15.6 per cent for the State; peripherality with the constrained access to this region with no railways in the three Ulster counties of Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal and a very poor and limited service on the Dublin-Sligo line.
The Minister of State referred recently in the Seanad to the inappropriate method of comparing the level of Structural Funds investment in one region with another based on per capita distribution. A totally misleading picture can be presented with such an inaccurate yardstick and such a method is particularly unhelpful to areas of low population. The submission from the north-west review group indicated very clearly the greatest problem facing that area is the extremely poor condition of regional and county roads.
I am glad to note from the Minister for Finance's speech this morning that the Government is aware of the need to increase the level of investment in non-national roads. A substantial increase in spending on regional and county roads is of the highest priority for the Border counties. We have a higher road density than most of the other sub-regions, and the drumlin and upland terrain give rise to serious drainage problems. I would like to mention, in particular, the severe difficulties that exist in County Cavan due to the unacceptable road conditions. Among the factors which have contributed to this disintegration of the road network are: weak saturated drumlin soils throughout 77 per cent of the county; poor drainage conditions; increased allowable axle loadings under EC legislation on sensitive weak subgrades; intensive agricultural activity, with some 15 million tonnes of material transported along the county and regional road network annually; large volumes of cross-Border heavy commercial traffic; and a reduction in the number of Border crossings from 14 to 4, thus leading to intensification of traffic on these routes. As I mentioned earlier, we have no railway service and it is estimated that the lack of railways leads to a 10-17 per cent increase in heavy axle loadings on Cavan roadways. I understand that the county council in Cavan and in some other counties has carried out major studies on the need for investment in regional and county roads and information on the cost benefits to industry, agriculture, tourism and the general road users is available.
Because of the closing of the rail network in County Cavan almost 30 years ago, movement of all goods and all traffic has to be by road. The removal of this rail network added greatly to the already significant infrastructural deficiencies in the county compared with most other parts of the country. We have had a hard uphill fight to attract industry to the region and to develop its enormous natural tourist potential which has thankfully gained recognition in recent years.
Were it not for the initiative, diligence and hard work of the local people, the industrial activity in County Cavan would be practically nil. Our county is dependent to a very large extent on the agriindustry and the major co-ops are sited on regional and county roads. The intense agricultural activity by its very nature is spread over a wide area and access to the farmyard is as important as access to the place where the farm produce is processed.
Approximately 16 per cent of the population in County Cavan live within the boundaries of the towns and the remaining 84 per cent reside in rural areas. This leads to a greater usage and widening of the county road network. With regard to the development of tourism, the very roads with which tourists become most familiar with are those minor roads and laneways giving access to the waterways of the county. Those involved in tourism in the Cavan-Monaghan area know that the lack of access roads and the totally unacceptable condition of the few existing access roads is the principal complaint of many tourists and this causing very serious damage to local tourism. I appeal to the Minister, the Minister of State and the Government to ensure that substantial funding is made available. The Minister for the Environment paid particular attention to the roads in the Border counties when visiting the area and he is well aware of the need for investment from the social, agricultural and tourism points of view.
I urge also that substantial investment be made in our inland fisheries. I understand that direct funding has not been available at any time for investment in and conservation of our inland fisheries. I make a special appeal that substantial funding be made available to the regional fisheries boards and Central Fisheries Board to carry out the necessary work of preservation and conservation. There is huge potential for job creation in this area and of its very nature it has a regional dimension.
I will now give way to Deputy Ó Cuív, as I agreed to share my time with him.
Ba mhaith liom dhá noiméad de mo chuid ama a thabhairt don Teachta Noel Ahern.
A great deal has been said, with much use of clichés, about devising a national plan. We need to address a few fundamentals when we consider the purpose of any plan. We need to be clear whether we are running the economy or whether the people are there to benefit the economy. A divide is being created between urban and rural communities. There are huge problems in the city of Dublin.
It is true that most of us are aghast at the problems of social poverty in all our major cities. It is also true that in rural areas there are population decreases of 15 per cent every ten years. That means that over 60 years there will be a 90 per cent loss of population at present rates. Those problems are different sides of the same coin. Rural depopulation, and the movement of people into the cities, willy nilly, has created a large number of the social problems we face today. I come from the city, despite what people believe. It is as much in the interest of the city as in the interest of rural areas that we get a balanced development of this country.
We must never lose sight of the fact that we cannot measure lifestyles simply by a per capita income. We can only measure lifestyles by what the people determine to be important. Therefore, in deciding our priorities we must ensure the needs of the people, as opposed to what some economists say the people want, are addressed.
I am also wary of the consultative process. The whole concept of the Dáil is that we have representatives from all parts of the country and if any group of people should be consulted it is the Dáil Members. I am wary of a process that consults with everybody on a continuous basis until the plan is prepared and leaves the final document to be presented to the Dáil and then debated. At the end of the day the idea of a democracy with area representation is to ensure a balanced input into policy-making. For that reason I welcome the debate today.
If people in the west are asked what type of programmes they want they first ask themselves — this is true of any community — what kind of programmes are they likely to get and how will they maximise their chances of getting anything? If they think they have no hope of getting what they want they will ask what they are more likely to get. I am always worried that programmes developed in that way are not carried out because of the real wishes of the people but on what people perceive they are likely to get.
Something which has to be avoided in the whole ambit of organisation is the prestige project costing in the order of £50 million or £100 million to the detriment of the small project, at only a fraction of the cost, but which would have a huge bearing on the quality of life in an area. For the past 20 years I have tried to develop industry, agriculture and forestry in a small rural area. In that time I found that we cannot say, "I have the economy here and the people there and that they are divorced in any way". They are all part and parcel of the same thing. One's work life is not really that different from one's social life. Although we speak continually about developing roads for the economy, most of the cars on the roads are there for purposes other than economic ones, social purposes and so on. There are many reasons people travel and we should not forget that dimension in providing services. We do not need an economic justification to provide water for rural houses or sewerage systems, we simply need to improve the standard of living.
When the final plan is drawn up and we come to divide the money and make decisions in regard to infrastructural projects, such as roads and sewerage systems, a percentage of the funds, say, 20 per cent should be set aside for projects costing, say, less than £1 million. There has been a tendency up to now to carry out the £40 million or £12 million projects whereas a project costing in the order of £500,000 or £1 million was not considered for Structural Funds because it was too small. I would like that decision reversed because a considerable number of projects in small communities could be carried out for very modest sums of money if a fair pecentage of the money went towards that type of project.
The ESRI report refers to the Leader initiative. As one who is involved in rural development for the past 20 years I am not that sanguine about it as a role model. That in itself is not a solution to our problems. A Leader project is in operation in my constituency and I question whether that project, or the other work which was outside the scope of Structural Funds, had the greater economic impact. The real world projects, those in the mainframe, made the greatest impact and created a proper competitive environment.
Obviously, some of the projects cost huge sums of money, much of which came from local people because we showed them how they could develop, but those were the projects which provided the real development. Unless one is prepared to give huge sums of money to Leader type programmes there will be no significant development because of the lack of basic infrastructure in the west. Unless we examine our fiscal and social welfare policies, and the cost of basic services such as telephones and so on and examine how they are unfair on a regional basis, improving the infrastructure will not redress the balance of the economy so that we will have balanced population structures.
Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an díos-póireacht seo ann. Is trua ar bhealach nach raibh sé ann tamall ó shin nuair a bhíomar níos luaithe sa phróiseas seo.
As a Dublin Deputy naturally I want Dublin to get a fair share. This time I hope funding will be made available for a port access route. The people who were opposed to it in the past have died.
On a national level very little has been said today on the railways. The Programme for a Partnership Government states that:
The railways are an essential element of the economic and social fabric of our country. Improvements in strategic rail links will be effected as soon as possible.
Everything contained in that paragraph is perfect. The ESRI report appears to be out of tune with Government policy as laid down in that document. The Minister's speech this morning was lacking in its promotion of the railways.
Is the Deputy referring to his brother's speech?
I would emphasise that the railways need a commitment from Government to show it is interested in the future of railways. They need money for track renewal, for locomotives, for signalling equipment and so on. I hope railways are not being forgotten because they are an essential requisite. The paragraph in the Programme for a Partnership Government states everything I want to say.
I thank the Deputies who contributed to this debate which in the main was instructive and informative. On occasion we would like to hear bright ideas from the Opposition which would help us to improve our performance generally but that was sadly lacking.
We did not get any bright ideas from the Government side.
The task facing Ireland and the European Community in making real and lasting progress towards greater economic and social cohesion is an onerous one. In reviewing the present Community support framework which has been in place since 1989 we can see that substantial achievements have been recorded — with the assistance of the Community Structural Funds — in creating jobs in industry, tourism and other services, in visible improvements to our roads and other infrastructure, in diversification of the rural economy, in raising the skill levels of our population in other areas. I refute suggestions that spending in the period 1989-93 was wasted and that evaluations were not carried out.
The ESRI report concluded that the current round of the Community support framework has been broadly successful. Deputy Hogan stated that the Minister for Finance described evaluation systems which would be put in place in the next round. The Minister described in detail the evaluation systems operating under the current 1989-93 programme. As the Minister explained, such evaluations have been carried out not just at the level of the overall Community support framework, but across a range of programmes, including the peripherality programme for which my Department has a lead role. Of course, any system can be improved and we will be seeking to do that under the next plan.
Despite that investment the gap that remains to be narrowed with the more prosperous areas of the Community is still large and the problems facing our economy daunting. Most seriously, the level of unemployment remains critically high. Our population structure results in a high dependency ratio and in continuing rapid growth in the labour force. GDP per head remains below 70 per cent of the Community average. Despite the improvements made, our infrastructural base is still inadequate and continues to require major investment. Our isolation on the periphery of the Community accentuates our disadvantages.
The additional Community resources available to us over the next six years, through the new Cohesion Fund and the expanded Structural Funds, provide us with a unique opportunity to make a dramatic move forward towards the goal of greater cohesion that will enable us to participate in the Single Market. This may be the last such increase in Community aid to Ireland and it is, therefore, all the more important that we use it wisely.
Some speakers queried whether the Government was assuming there would be no further EC Structural Funds after 1999. Of course, it is not. What we are saying is that we cannot assume the level of increase which was granted on this occasion to continue in the post-1999 period. Obviously, with greater integration in the Community, the question of further enlargement will arise and we must ensure that we make the best possible use of the level of funding available between now and the end of this decade.
Although the Community resources available to us up to 1999 will be substantial, it is clear, as my colleague the Minister for Finance said earlier, that the demands for resources are even greater. This point has been emphasised in today's debate with cases being made, from all sides of the House, for greater priority to be given to investment in a wide range of measures across all eligible activities.
I know from my experience in visiting local authorities that investment in various programmes is urgently needed not just in a macro-economic sense, but by the local communities which stand to benefit. The submissions made by the sub-regional committees concur with this view. I refute the case made against the sub-regional groups by Deputy Cullen who more or less disregarded them. As a Government, we acknowledge the efforts of the sub-regional groups. While they may have submitted schemes far in excess of the resources available, nonetheless that is their democratic right and a number of those submissions will make a valuable contribution to the overall success of the programme.
Community funding has enabled an investment of £590 million in the national primary road network in the period 1989-93. While this is an enormous sum of money in an Irish context, it still represents only about one-fifth of identified investment needs in this sector. It will take years to fulfil these needs in their entirety. Substantial progress has, however, been made under the present round of Community funding. Major projects such as the Cahir, Athlone, Shankill-Bray, Bunratty, Rathkeale, Castlebar and Blanchardstown bypasses, and the Newbridge by-pass which I opened yesterday, are highly visible examples of what has been achieved. Over 120 kilometres of motorway, dual carriageway and single carriageway had been completed up to the end of 1992 and a further 153 kilometres is under construction.
While impacts at project level are important, we must also look to the overall economic impact. The analysis of the existing Community support framework undertaken by a team of consultants lead by the ESRI has recently been published. While this clearly states that road investment achieves significant economic impacts and should be a priority for the next round of Community funding, this is only the most recent in a long line of analyses and reviews which have reached a similar conclusion. Such views have been expressed by the task force on employment, IBEC, and in both the Culliton and Moriarty reports.
I expect that the next roads investment programme — which will form part of the new national plan — will build on the achievements of the current programme. Obviously, the priority sections targeted in that programme will continue to attract special attention. However, as so much work has been carried out on these sections, there will be a more even distribution of investment between the regions than has been the case since 1989. In addition, special attention will be given to those national secondary routes which are of the greatest importance in providing key linkages across the country between the primary routes. Sections of the non-national roads also have major significance for economic development. I am fully committed to meeting the reasonable demands for priority investment on these roads and due regard will be taken of their needs in the new national plan.
The operational programme for water, sanitary and other local services which was prepared in 1989 was designed to meet the needs of economic sectors and activities, particularly agriculture and food, rural development, industry, tourism, fisheries and aquaculture. It was also influenced by service weaknesses and environmental and quality considerations which affect economic development.
This programme has performed consistently well and is ahead of schedule. Expenditure of £207 million was incurred up to March 1993 and total expenditure for the programme period is forecast at £226 million. I expect that at least 58 sewerage schemes and 32 water supply schemes will be completed by the end of the programme, but much remains to be done. We are only at the beginning of our intensive programme to treat waste water discharged to the marine environment, and we must continue to focus on inland servicing and environmental quality requirements to meet Community and national legal obligations. The Government is committed to speeding up implementation of the environment action programme, which set out our ten year investment objectives with assistance from Community funds.
Water and sanitary services, being less visible than other infrastructural projects, are too often and too easily taken for granted. However, it only takes a pollution incident, a period of scarcity of water supplies, a lack of serviced land for new and badly needed industry, or a flooding incident, to underline the crucial importance of these services.
While compliance with Community requirements involves extensive investment over the decade, it is important to look beyond the letter of the law to appreciate the significance of this investment for our economic and social well being. Environmental services build up the infrastructural capacity of the economy for the long term and help to ensure that economic activity is environmentally sound and sustainable. More fundamentally, a clean, attractive environment is itself a basis — indeed, a precondition — for growth in several sectors, notably tourism and natural resource based industry. Our clean image can create a competitive advantage in the promotion of food or other branded Irish products, as the Culliton report emphasised. However, we cannot take that image for granted. If it is to have substance and reality the right balance must be maintained between environmental protection and economic development.
The principles upon which our environment action programme is founded — sustainable development, precautionary action and integration of environmental considerations in all policy areas — anticipated the shift in Community environment policy from a largely regulatory approach to a much broader strategic focus on the interaction between human activity and the environment. In line with the objectives of the Treaty on European Union, it is now proposed that the Structural Funds will place a special emphasis on requirements for the protection and conservation of the environment and I welcome this development.
We have to recognise the concerns expressed at different levels, that the development impetus of Community funded programmes may have environmentally negative consequences in the short or long term. We also have to face the reality that increased development brings with it a greater risk of potentially adverse impacts on the environment, through, for example, increased exploitation of finite natural resources and increased waste generation. The National Development Plan will review the state of the environment and will outline the measures to be taken to ensure its protection and enhancement. It will also identify means of integrating environmental and economic considerations so that the expected growth can be managed in an environmentally sustainable manner.
It is clear, in terms of scale and diversity, that the new Structural Funds offer scope for expenditure measures not highlighted in the existing round of funds. One such measure could be an expanded or modified urban renewal programme which would cover investment designed to improve the general urban environment and to conserve the urban heritage. It has already been demonstrated that such investment can have a real economic dimension, as well as the other obvious benefits, and I hope that it can be assisted through the national plan.
In opening the debate, my colleagues, the Minister for Finance and his Minister of State, described in detail the process of consultation and debate that has taken place in preparing the National Development Plan. This process has involved the social partners, the sub-regional groups and many other groups. It is right that Members should have the opportunity to put forward their views at this stage at the culmination of the process. The discussion today has been, on the whole, a positive and constructive one and extremely useful for the Government as it prepares to conclude its work on the plan.
It now remains for the Government to draw together all the inputs that have been made and to finalise the National Development Plan. Hard decisions will have to be made in allocating resources between a range of competing priorities. In taking these decisions the Government's objective will be to make those choices which will give this country the best long term returns in terms of increasing employment and growth, improving our competitiveness and raising living standards so that the impact of the plan will be felt not only in the period up to 1999 but into the next century as well.