Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Jun 1993

Vol. 432 No. 5

National Development Plan: Statements.

With the permission of the Chair I wish to share my time with the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity of opening the discussion today on the preparation of the National Development Plan for the next round of EC Structural and Cohesion Funds. The debate will provide the Dáil with an opportunity to make an input into the planning process at this stage of the preparation of the plan before the Government has made final decisions on its content.

To provide a framework for our discussions today I would like to outline the developments at EC level which form the background for the preparation of the plan, the macroeconomic context within which the plan will be prepared, the work carried out to date at national level in preparing the plan and some indications of issues being considered by Government in preparing the plan. The Minister of State at my Department with particular responsibility for the preparation of the plan will then elaborate on some of these issues.

The central objective set by Government in drawing up the plan is the creation of sustainable employment and growth. The EC Structural Funds are designed to increase the productive capacity of the less developed economies of the European Community with a view to allowing us to narrow the gap with our European neighbours. At a time when unemployment is such a major problem in our society, with an unemployment rate on the international definition of employment of 16.9 per cent and on the live register figures of 21.5 per cent, it is clear that the strategies developed in the plan must be targeted at maximising the creation of sustainable employment.

The European Council meeting, held in Edinburgh in December 1992 made several key decisions on Community finances. It was agreed that the Community's next financial perspective would cover the period 1993-99. It was agreed also that the resources available to the Structural Funds, including the provision for the new Cohesion Fund, would grow significantly faster than the total Community budget and that priority would be given to the regions covered by Objective I, that is the less developed regions of the Community.

The decisions reached at Edinburgh provided for a concentration of resources on the four least prosperous member states, that is Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain, through the new Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds. Total funding of about 85 billion ECU was agreed for those countries for the period 1993-99. In the course of discussions at Edinburgh, Ireland sought and obtained assurances at the highest level, that the wording of the conclusions would safeguard Ireland's share of the Structural Funds, in addition to the share of 7 to 10 per cent agreed for Ireland from the Cohesion Fund. Indeed, the wording of the draft conclusions was amended to include references to unemployment and rural development in order to underpin assurances concerning our share. The Government's expectation of receipts of £8 billion over the 1993-99 period is based broadly on maintaining Ireland's share of the Structural Funds available to the Objective I regions of the four Cohesion countries. Ireland's allocation of Structural Funds is, of course, of the utmost importance and the Government is maintaining close contact with the Commission in the matter.

The Edinburgh conclusions indicate that full account will be taken, as now, of national prosperity, regional prosperity, population and the relative severity of structural problems, including the level of unemployment and the needs of rural development. Similar indicators were used in the decision making process in 1989-93. In particular, factors such as unemployment, including the level of long term unemployment, labour force growth and peripherality show up the particular needs of Ireland.

It has been suggested that Ireland may have difficulty maintaining its existing per capita share. I should point out that population is by no means the only factor to be taken into account in allocating the Structural Funds, so the per capita share does not give the full picture. Other relevant factors include the prosperity of the country as a whole — Spain, for example, has richer regions which can support the poor regions covered by Objective I. Unemployment, particularly long term unemployment, and peripherality are also important factors. Taking all the relevant factors into account, Ireland can fully justify its present share.

No final allocation of the Structural Funds has yet been made formally by the Commission. This has to await agreement on the new Structural Fund regulations, which will determine issues such as whether the list of Objective I regions should be altered and how Objective 2 and 5b regions are to be selected. However, these outstanding issues do not affect the amount available to the four cohesion countries. I am confident, on the basis of discussions at Edinburgh and contacts between the Government and the Commission since then, that a figure of £8 billion will be achieved.

While decisions on the Community finances were reached last December, work on the preparation of the plan commenced well before that date. In April 1992 Government Departments were asked to draw up proposals for the sectors with which they deal. They were advised to draw on the evaluations of the current Structural Funds operational programmes and other assessments of policy effectiveness to ensure that their proposals were designed to achieve maximum employment and growth. These proposals have been discussed in detail and revised in the light of developments in the intervening period and inputs from different groups.

As the plan will be pivotal to economic strategy for the next six years we considered it to be of the utmost importance that there be widespread consultation on the priorities which should form part of the plan. In May 1992 I invited the seven sub-regional review committees to make submissions setting out their views on the content and strategy of the next plan, the community support framework and operational programmes in so far as they would affect each sub-region. Funding, partly financed by the Structural Funds, was provided to the committees to employ consultants to help them in their work and to hold seminars to which interested groups in the sub-region were invited. The committees invited submissions from different groups in their sub-regions and their submissions to me reflect the views of a wide range of interests at local level.

In May 1992 I also invited the social partner organisations represented on the Central Review Committee, that is IBEC, ICTU, CIF, IFA, ICMSA, ICOS and Macra na Feirme as well as the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland and the Council for the Status of Women to make submissions on the content and strategy of the next plan, Community support framework and operational programmes. A large number of other groups and individuals has made submissions to me, to the various Ministers with sectoral responsibilities relating to the plan, to the Department of Finance or to other relevant Departments. The different views outlined in these submissions and in the various seminars and conferences held on the topic are an important input into the whole planning process.

It was considered desirable to obtain an independent external view on the plan. This was in keeping both with the general practice of evaluating Structural Fund programme and measures and with the Government's desire to have as many inputs as could usefully be made into the planning process. Accordingly, a group of external consultants was engaged. Its terms of reference was to evaluate the current Community support framework in terms of its effectiveness in contributing to Ireland's economic development. In the light of this evaluation the consultants were asked to make recommendations for the elements and the balance of these elements that should comprise the Community support framework for the post-1993 period and which would make the greatest contribution to Ireland's growth and employment objectives. A summary of this report was published this week and circulated to all Deputies and I am sure they will find much that is interesting in the summary.

While the plan will represent the Government's proposals for the use of Structural and Cohesion Funds, it will then have to be negotiated with the EC Commission, so it would not be desirable to prepare the plan in a total vacuum isolated from the Commission's views. There has been dialogue with the Commission, through its role on the various operational programme monitoring committees and in meetings between different Ministers and officials and Commission representatives about the strategic priorities as perceived by the Commission. There have been discussions also about a range of technical issues such as the development of common statistical indicators across members states to improve the measurement and comparison of the impact of the funds.

This time last year, at Deputy Bruton's instigation, we had a very useful debate in this House on the potential for co-operation with Northern Ireland within Structural Fund programmes. We have agreed with the Northern Ireland authorities that a joint co-operative approach should be incorporated in our respective plans. There have been a number of meetings between officials of my Department and the Department of Finance and personnel in Northern Ireland and between other relevant Departments North and South to progress this objective.

While the EC Commission has not yet announced what Community initiatives it will be bringing forward in the next round it is virtually certain that there will be a successor programme to the INTERREG programme. This will enable us to build on the cross-Border co-operative effort commenced under the current programme.

As well as co-ordinating the preparation of the plan my Department is preparing the macroeconomic framework for the plan. The benefits which the Irish economy has gained from the efficient disposal of the first phase of the enhanced EC Structural Funds in the context of an overall development strategy are evident in our economic performance since 1989. On average we have out-performed all comparable small OECD economies.

During the early phase of the first Community Support Framework, growth in output and employment in Ireland was undoubtedly aided by a broadly favourable international economy. The economies of the industrialised world grew steadily and labour markets in the UK and the US absorbed significant numbers of our emigrants. However, the pace of economic growth in Ireland has slowed since the onset of the international downturn in 1991. Nevertheless, while many of our trading partners have seen substantial declines in output the Irish economy has continued to grow, albeit slowly. Furthermore, non-agricultural private sector employment has been well maintained compared with other OECD countries.

Latest estimates suggest that real GDP in Ireland grew by 2.75 per cent in 1992. By contrast GDP growth in the OECD was only 1.5 per cent and was merely 1 per cent in the EC as a whole. In fact output growth was even stronger than had been expected at budget time last year when the Government's forecasts were criticised as being overly optimistic. Manufacturing output was up by 10 per cent and both personal consumption and growth in exports performed better than any year since 1989. Incomes in agriculture recovered well rising by more than 16 per cent. The trade surplus reached a new record level at well over £3 billion. Inflation remained low at about 3 per cent. It is important that the factors underlying our improved performance are understood. In this way we can build on these foundations to generate accelerating growth and job creation in our economy in the future. This is the essence of our thinking with respect to the macroeconomic framework for the plan.

We can be justifiably encouraged by the way the Irish economy has continued to record satisfactory rates of growth when the international economy is so sluggish. It is worrying, nevertheless, that growth has been sufficient only to maintain the level of non-agricultural employment. It is essential that the employment content of economic growth be raised significantly over the medium term. We must achieve considerably more jobs for every point of growth in output than we have seen in the past. The proceeds of growth must be distributed more in favour of jobs than has previously been the case: in short, labour must become more competitive.

Looking to the medium term, the prospects for the Irish economy are fairly positive, particularly since the exchange rate problems have been put decisively behind us. Signs of a sustainable recovery are already evident. The downturn in the final quarter of last year has been short-lived. Sharp reductions in domestic interest rates over recent weeks provide the basis for a significant boost to personal consumption and investment in the economy.

There are mixed indicators in relation to the international economic environment. In the US, a recovery seems to be established, notwithstanding less positive indicators in the last few weeks. Evidence from the UK suggests that there has been an upward trend there for several months. Some commentators believe that the UK recession has ended at last and the outlook is better than for quite some time.

Unfortunately, in continental Europe market conditions are likely to remain sluggish as the German economy remains in recession. France and Italy still seem to be performing well below trend. While it is still too early to say that the international recession is over, Ireland will stand to benefit from the improvement over the medium term, particularly in the UK. In any event, the aim of the plan is to ensure that whatever international scenario unfolds over the medium term, we maximise our share of growth in output, investment and international trade.

Central to the Government's overall strategy is the reduction of unemployment. Sustainable growth in output and employment is the only long-run solution to the unemployment problem. The Government can best promote the long term resolution of the problem of unemployment by supporting enterprise in the economy. At the very crux of the plan are measures to improve the longer-term growth potential of the economy and job creation.

Similarly the European dimension is central to the plan strategy. The focus on positioning the Irish economy to progress towards European Monetary Union is a common theme co-ordinating various aspects of policy to be set out in the plan. Changes provided for in the Treaty on European Union set a developmental aganda for the period of the plan. The Community will not be standing still. The dynamic driving the integration process forward is being revived and our contribution to it is being framed in the plan. A key dimension of macroeconomic policy will be to ensure that the Irish economy can compete successfully in a Community, both closely integrated and potentially enlarged. The plan will set out priorities for the most efficient use of the EC Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund aid in terms of adding Ireland's contribution to shared European objectives.

It is the Government's task to pull together all the inputs made and to select the investment priorities for the plan which best meet our objectives. We are working towards finalising a plan as early as possible and no later than end July.

Deputies will appreciate that this is no easy task. The demands from Government Departments alone come to more than double the allocation we are likely to receive, let alone the proposals from other sources. The Government has very difficult choices to make. Although no decisions have yet been taken by Government, it might be useful if I were to give some indication of trends emerging from our discussions to date. I have to emphasise that these indications are tentative and intended to give the Dáil a flavour of the types of priorities under consideration in order to facilitate today's debate.

The establishment of the new Cohesion Fund dedicated to investment in transport infrastructure, more specifically transeuropean networks, and to environmental investments required to meet EC obligations, means that there will necessarily be an increased emphasis on these areas in the plan. In the transport area, roads investment will continue to be a priority but I would envisage an increased role for public transport, and in particular a new urban transport element, reflecting the proposals under the Dublin Transportation Initiative. While continuing to invest substantially in major road improvement schemes, the Government is aware of the need to increase the investment effort in relation to non-national roads where these roads have a significant contribution to make to local economic development.

Investment in water quality and sanitary services, while less visible than major transport projects, is important from the point of view of both contributing to the development of industry and tourism and protecting and enhancing our quality of life. It will continue to be an important area for investment.

Industrial development measures will continue to have a crucial role to play in generating employment and will be a priority in the plan. The strategies in this area will take full account of the recommendations of the Culliton and Moriarty reports.

The development of our natural resources in agriculture, forestry and marine is vital if we are to narrow the development gap with the European average. The food sector, which has been the subject of a major review by the expert group on the food industry, will be one of the areas to be targeted under the plan. To ensure a stable primary sector and to maintain rural population it will be necessary to continue to assist on-farm structural measures, both in improving the competitiveness of traditional production and in encouraging product diversification.

In this context I would like to clarify a point that has arisen in relation to discussions on the consultants' report published this week. The consultants put forward the view that headage payments were more appropriate to the guarantee section of the EAGGF — or FEOGA as it is more commonly called — rather than to the guidance section which forms part of the Structural Funds. They put forward this view on the grounds that headage payments do not lead to sustainable improvements in farm incomes but are more in the nature of current subsidies.

The EC Structural Funds have the general objective of improving the productive capacity of the less developed regions. However, there are traditionally other objectives which are met by the Funds. An example in the case of the European Social Funds is ensuring access for groups such as the long term unemployed and handicapped to training measures which will improve their employability. Another example is agricultural structural measures such as maintaining a reasonable level of income for farmers operating in areas with natural physical handicaps through headage payments in the case of the guidance section of the EAGGF. The EC regulations would not allow for the type of transfer envisaged by the consultants. Structural agricultural measures such as headage payments will continue, as heretofore, to fall within the objectives of the Structural Funds. The Government recognises the importance of headage payments for the agricultural sector and for the economy of rural areas.

The whole area of human resources, that is education and training measures, will continue to absorb a significant part of the expenditure under the plan. In drawing up the plan the Government is anxious to ensure that the measures implemented will facilitate the integration of the long term unemployed into the labour market. Of particular interest in this context are the social employment scheme and the community enterprise development programme which provide work experience for the long term unemployed. Under the current Structural Fund rules these schemes are not eligible for cofinancing but we are hopeful that the revised EC regulations will allow this type of work experience measure to be included.

The tourism sector has proved an important source of employment creation under the current Community Support Framework and I would expect a continued role for aid towards this sector with an increased emphasis on marketing aspects in the case of private sector investment. Public infrastructure, including investments contributing to culture and heritage tourism, will continue as a significant element of investment strategy in the tourism sector.

The areas of energy and telecommunications infrastructure were not aided under the main Community Support Framework in the current round, though aid was provided under a number of the Community Initiative Programmes, with substantial assistance towards the gas interconnector. In drawing up the plan the Government must consider the extent to which Structural Funds aid should be provided to these sectors. As much of the investment is likely to be undertaken in any event, the crucial question is the extent to which the provision of EC aid allows for an acceleration of investment or for a reduction in industrial and business costs.

There was relatively little emphasis on local development in the early stages of the current Community Support Framework but it has increased in importance over the last couple of years. We would envisage a greater emphasis on this area in the plan, both on a generalised basis through the county enterprise partnership boards and by means of specific measures targeted at certain deprived areas. Urban renewal measures, though not part of the current Community Support Framework, are also under consideration for inclusion in the plan.

I would like to turn now to the important issue of evaluation of Structural Fund-assisted investments. The conclusions of the European Council held in Edinburgh last December stated that "greater emphasis will be given to ex ante appraisal, monitoring and ex post evaluation. Assistance will be allocated where appraisal shows medium term economic and social benefits commensurate with the resources deployed. Operations should be adjusted to accord with the results of monitoring and evaluation”.

The Government fully endorses this emphasis on evaluation. It is vitally important that we get the best return from the EC resources becoming available to us in terms of securing permanent sustainable improvements in growth and employment and of value for money under all our programmes. This stress on effective monitoring and evaluation is nothing new, at least in so far as Ireland is concerned. Considerable work has gone into monitoring and evaluation during the present Community Support Framework.

The structure for monitoring the implementation of Structural Fund-assisted programmes involves a national monitoring committee for the Community Support Framework, comprising representatives of Government Departments and the EC Commission; a monitoring committee for each operational programme, comprising representatives of the implementing Departments and agencies, the EC Commission and the relevant social partners, and the sub-regional review committees, comprising representatives of the local authorities, the social partners, local authority managers and Government Departments, to monitor implementation at sub-regional level.

Detailed reporting system have been developed to ensure the flow of appropriate management information to these committees. Day-to-day monitoring is a matter for the implementing Departments and agencies.

Considerable resources have also been devoted to evaluation. The evaluation of the present Community support framework and recommendations for strategy and priorities for the next Community support framework, carried out by the ESRI, DKM economic consultants and others, and published earlier this week, is one example of the work that has been done.

Two of the most important programmes under the present CSF are the peripherality programme and the industry and services programme. For each of these, independent evaluators were appointed. These evaluations operated on a continuous basis throughout the life of the programmes and involved systematic assessment of each measure in the programme.

Another notable feature was the establishment, in partnership with the EC Commission, of two full-time programme evaluation units. One is concerned with examining the effectivness of training and other human resource activities supported under the CSF. The other is concerned with assisting the Industry and Services Monitoring Committee by carrying out in-depth analysis of particular measures. A range of other evaluations of other programmes and of particular measures and issues have been carried out.

In addition, each of the seven sub-regional review committees have had evaluations of the impact of the CSF and operational programmes in their sub-regions carried out on their behalf. Funding was provided to the committees for this. The cost of these evaluations has been part funded by the European Community.

I would like to emphasise that our approach to evaluation is that it should be a fully integrated part of the decision-making process and that it should interact with and inform all phases of the planning, implementation, monitoring and review cycle. It is intended to develop and improve further the arrangements for evaluation in the next CSF and Departments will be discussing in detail with the Commission how best this can be achieved. Ultimately, the final policy decisions must be taken by Government bearing in mind all the relevant inputs both quantifiable and non-quantifiable.

I would now like to hand over to the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald.

I would like to expand on a number of issues raised by the Minister for Finance, in particular the position in relation to the regulations governing the plan, the process of consultation and the issues which have been raised, and the critical need to ensure effective intervention into the cycle of disadvantage affecting communities and individuals and the potential offered by local development measures.

Lasting job creation must be the central feature of the plan, achieved through a balanced mix of investment in direct job projects, in our infrastructure and in our human resources and human capital. It is essential in drawing up the plan that we maximise the permanent structural benefits to our social and economic fabric. Any transfer of funds into this country will produce short term benefits from additional expenditure. The real challenge is to ensure the expenditure produces long term supply side effects that translate into permanent jobs and growth, left behind when the last ECU has been spent. We must try to maximise the boost to long term economic potential by availing of potential synergies between different investment programmes, seeking out those areas where one and one can make three.

There are inherent complexities in comparing the returns from investments with very different characteristics but each area of spending must be critically examined to focus on the best long term return. The Structural Funds represent a substantial investment in Ireland's long term economic potential. Demands for spending far exceed what we are likely to get, with spending proposals I have received already coming to £28 billion. Some of those include demands for spending for areas that will not be eligible under the regulations, however worthwhile the projects may be. This is the last time we are likely to see an EC spending boost on this scale and it is essential that the funds are used wisely. Every project and proposal which is in must be evaluated to ensure we get value for money. There is no room for costly over-design or de luxe projects if the same result can be achieved by more modest proposals which leave additional funds available for a wider range of investments.

In some areas there are greater short term returns from making the easier investments but our long term potential can be enhanced by investing in areas with a slower pay-off. For example, investment in training those who already have a good education has shown good economic returns and job placement rates in the past. In the short term, work with people who left school early or who have been unemployed for a long period may be slower to give immediate returns, but this is vital for the long term economic and social benefit of our society.

At EC level, negotiations are taking place on the regulations which will govern the operation of the Structural Funds. The European Council agreed on the financing of the Community up to 1999 at its meeting in Edinburgh in December 1992. With the aim of enhancing the effectiveness of structural action in accordance with the agreement reached at Edinburgh, the Commission has proposed a number of amendments to the regulations governing the Structural Funds. These regulations will set out the legislative framework for the operation of the Structural Funds from 1994 up to the end of 1999.

These proposals build on the far-reaching reform of the funds that took place in 1988. Successive European Councils have concluded that the main principles of that reform were well-founded. The changes proposed are designed to respond to new policy priorities and the guidelines for economic and social cohesion contained in the Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty. The Commission is proposing a limited number of amendments, with a view in particular to maintaining a degree of continuity in the system.

Progress on the National Development plan is proceeding in parallel with the negotiations at Community level on the revision of the Structural Fund regulations. In these negotiations the Government's objective is to ensure that Ireland's particular needs, for example in the area of employment, are fully reflected in the regulations so that resources will be available to support the priorities identified in the plan. I would like to refer in particular to the Commission's proposals to reorient Objective 3. The revised Objective 3 would, the Commission propose, cover action to combat long term unemployment and to facilitate the vocational integration into the labour market of young people — that is the former Objectives 3 and 4. It would cover actions to promote the integration into the labour market of people who face virtual exclusion from it. It is vital that the regulations are framed in a way which facilitates the development of comprehensive measures to combat unemployment. In this context, the proposed widening of eligibility for investment in the education area is to be welcomed.

Ireland supports the reorientation of Objective 4 which is intended to allow the ESF to fulfil the new functions assigned to it under the Maastricht Treaty: "faciliating the adaption of workers to industrial change and changes in production systems". Objective 5a retains its original purpose of speeding up the adaptation of agricultural structures within the framework of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, but will also include assistance for the modernisation and restructuring of fisheries.

In the negotiations on the regulations, Ireland is seeking to ensure that the procedures governing the management of the funds are streamlined and simplified. The Commission proposals are designed to substantilly speed up the decision-making process. However, their implementation depends on the sys-tematisation of plans and programmes submitted by member states, a reduction in the number of operational programmes in certain cases and some increase in the powers of the monitoring committees set up under the 1988 regulations.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission is proposing an enhanced role for the monitoring committees. Under the regulations, assessment is primarily the responsibility of the member states. Development plans and applications for assistance made by member states must detail specific objectives, quantified where possible, and give an ex-ante assessment of the measures proposed. I would like to point out that in Ireland we are devoting substantial resources to the appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of expenditure aided by the Structural Funds. We are working in close harmony with the Commission in ensuring that the funds are efficiently and effectively managed. However, it is important to strike the right balance between strengthening the monitoring and financial control of the funds and providing for a degree of flexibility to facilitate simplification of procedures and to enable the funds to address the development needs identified in the plan.

Negotiations on the revised regulations are now reaching an advanced stage. A special meeting of the General Affairs Council has been scheduled for early July to discuss Structural Fund issues.

Another issue at EC level that will impact on the Government's work in preparing the plan is that of Community initiatives. At the Edinburgh European Council meeting last December it was agreed that between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the total funding would be used for Community initiatives to be proposed by the EC Commission. These are programmes where the general framework and objectives are laid down by the Commission and member states draw up programmes within these guidelines. Examples under the current round are, the rural development Leader initiative, NOW and HORIZON in the human resources area, STRIDE covering natural resources research and development and the INTERREG — Border areas — programme.

It is not yet clear how much of total funding will be devoted to these types of programmes. This is to be agreed in the context of the regulations. We are preparing the development plan to cover our mainstream programmes. The Commission has not yet made definitive proposals for the Community initiatives. It is virtually certain that there will be a follow on INTERREG programme for Border areas. It seems likely that there will also be initiatives in the areas of rural development, human resources and research and development among others. When the initiatives are announced the Government will prepare programmes within the parameters laid down and these will eventually be integrated into the Community support framework.

The Minister outlined the consultation process involved in preparing the plan. Since being given particular responsibility for the preparation of the plan I have met all the sub-regional review committees, the social partner organisations and a range of other groups to discuss their submissions, as well as speaking at a number of conferences and seminars on the subject. I found these discussions interesting and very useful to my work. I am impressed by the widespread interest in the funds and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the various organisations in preparing the submissions made. It would not be possible today to discuss the full range of issues raised in these submissions or in the discussions with the various groups but I would like to comment on a number of matters that may be of interest to Deputies.

The share of the various sub-regions and whether this should be increased was a recurring theme in a number of discussions. It is understandable but in my view not very constructive that the debate tends to focus in a divisive way on the per capita share of each sub-region. Those sub-regions where the expenditure per capita is less than the average national expenditure per capita feel hard done by; those sub-regions with higher than average per capita expenditure consider that looking at the per capita distribution is inappropriate and that expenditure in these areas is not sufficient to compensate for their perceived development gap with other sub-regions. The Government's objective is to ensure that the plan leads to sustainable employment and growth not just for the country as a whole but in a way that provides for balanced regional development.

Concern was also expressed about the extent to which there is control at the sub-regional level over the expenditure in each sub-region. Suggestions were made in relation to the structure of programmes that there should be multi-sectoral sub-regional programmes rather than national sectoral programmes. The Government considers that national sectoral programmes best suit our administrative structure and it is envisaged that we would continue with these types of programmes as under the current Community support framework. However, there will be a strong emphasis on local economic development initiatives in the new programme and that is an important development. We are fully aware of the need to take the views of the sub-regional review committees on board in drawing up these programmes in order to ensure that these programmes are tailored in a way that best meets the varying sub-regional needs.

The Minister for the Environment recently announced that the Government has decided to establish new regional authorities. The general function of these authorities will be to promote co-ordination in the provision of public services at regional level. The new regional authorities will also have the function of monitoring and advising on the implementation, at regional level, of the various Structural Fund operational programmes and making such recommendations as they consider appropriate to the programme monitoring committees.

Each regional authority is to be advised and assisted by a broadly-based executive committee. This committee will include a member of the regional authority from each constituent authority and representatives of other public authorities in the region, including each city or county manager and a representative of each county enterprise partnership board. Relevant Government Departments will also be represented. In assisting the authorities in discharging their Structural Fund functions, the executive committees will be augmented to take account of a broad range of interests such as the unions, employers and farmers. These outside interests have played an important part in the sub-regional review structure and I acknowledge the contribution they have made.

Thus the present functions of the sub-regional review committees will be transferred to the new regional authorities. However, the wider participation of social partners, local authority managers and departmental officials alongside elected representatives, will be maintained through their participation in the executive committees. This is important because one of the strengths of the review committees is their tripartite nature, bringing together elected representatives, social partners and departmental officials in a way which is beneficial to all through facilitating exchange of information and views.

The Government will be looking at ways in which it can improve the operation of the regional monitoring function in the next round. The adoption of common boundaries for the Structural Funds and co-ordination of a wider range of activities should in itself contribute to this. I have had discussions with the group of chairmen of the review committees on how the sub-regional review process can be enhanced. We will be looking further at this and it is an issue that will be discussed with the EC Commission during the negotiations on the community support framework.

In this context, a number of the voluntary organisations have expressed concern about the lack of representation of these bodies in the Structural Funds review and monitoring structure. We are conscious of the need to involve all relevant groups in the policy making process — indeed, this concern is the basis for the establishment of the national economic and social forum — and this is a question we will look at as part of our consideration of the sub-regional review process.

There was representation from one review committee in the south-east which was valuable and it is something we should build on. It is not just the participation of regional groups or the voluntary sector that has given rise to concerns. I was struck by the low participation of women both in the sub-regional review process and as beneficiaries of the Structural Funds programmes. This has been brought to my attention and I have had discussions with the Council for the Status of Women in that regard. While this is in part a reflection of inequality in our society generally, I would hope this issue can be addressed in the plan and the detailed programmes that will follow. This is a question that must be addressed across all sectors and programmes. In addition, the local development measures offer potential for encouraging the participation of women in the various economic development activities to be covered. The involvement of women in local economic development and in disadvantaged communities has been one of the more exciting developments we have seen in recent years.

Under the current round of Structural Funds the NOW Community initiative promotes equal opportunities for women in the field of employment and vocational training. This is an innovatory measure and provides assistance to community groups voluntary organisations and statutory training bodies. Although the coverage of the Community initiatives for the post-1993 period is not clear I would hope that this type of measure specifically targeted at women could be continued.

In my meetings around the country I was struck by the concern expressed in all areas about investment in local infrastructure and, in particular, local roads. As the Minister indicated, the Government is very much aware of the need to invest in non-national roads. It must be emphasised that this investment will have to be targeted in a way that ensures that funds are used for roads whose improvement has the greatest potential to contribute to local economic development whether because of a link to tourism, industry, fisheries, forestry, agri-processing or a mixture of these. With the limitation on resources and the extent of the local road network it is important to ensure that we maximise the return from the investments made. We must make sure there are jobs at the end of the road. It is not just about filling one's favourite pothole.

Some groups have also asked me about the environmental aspects of the Structural Funds. An Taisce made a very valuable submission on this. Substantial investments have been made under the current Community support framework in programmes and measures with a positive environmental effect. Since the last Community support framework was drawn up there have been significant developments at Community and national levels in the environmental area. At national level the adoption of the framework of an environment action programme in 1990 and the legislative provision for the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency reflects an increasing awareness and concern in relation to the environment. It is not just a question of improving or maintaining the environment for environmental reasons alone. There are sound economic reasons why we should do so. Key sectors for our economic development, for example the tourism sector and the food industry, are dependent on a high quality environment.

One of the objectives of the Cohesion Fund is to aid investments required by EC environmental obligations. Accordingly this will be an important area in the plan. The Cohesion Fund has to be spent in a balanced way programme, on environmental objectives and transport objectives, so we are likely to see a minimum of 40 per cent of the Cohesion Fund devoted to environmental areas such as the improvement of water and sanitary services and waste disposal. As well as specific investment for environmental reasons we will examine how the environmental impact of all investments can be fully taken into account in drawing up detailed programmes in order to ensure the integration of environmental concerns into economic objectives.

Many of the groups I met supported the inclusion of local development initiatives in the plan. We intend that there should be a much greater emphasis on local development in urban and rural areas as part of the plan. A local development programme offers the opportunity to tap into local enthusiasm, knowledge and finance in order to generate activities that might not take place under major sectoral programmes.

Many of the groups I met supported the inclusion of local development initiatives in the plan. We intend that there would be a much greater emphasis on local development in urban and rural areas as part of the plan. A local development programme offers the opportunity to tap into local enthusiasm, knowledge and finance in order to generate activities that might not take place under major sectoral programmes.

In giving a strong emphasis to local economic development it is necessary to ensure value for public money and a return to the community as a whole. That means resources must not be dissipated in what are commonly called displacement or dead weight expenditures. First of all, it is important that local communities do not use their resources simply to move economic activity from town A to town B. The national welfare is not increased if there is net increase in employment and jobs simply move from one location to another. Secondly, it is important that scarce resources are not used to fund developments which would have taken place in any event. Mechanisms must be in place in any local development effort to minimise the risk of displacement and dead weight expenditures and to ensure the maximum national return.

If £1 million is provided to a business person to invest in a project, he or she may be in a position to invest that £1 million abroad. By providing funding, resources may be simply transferred from Brussels to Ireland and on to somewhere like the Isle of Man. If investment is made in such deadweight expenditure there is no national economic return. It is important to calibrate the type of investment to ensure the maximum possible return and that the maximum investment is levered from the private sector.

As the House is aware, under the Programme for Government it was agreed that arrangements would proceed for the establishment of county enterprise boards which will be empowered to seek funding to assist local development, the start-up of small enterprises and the promotion of tourism projects. The Government has given the Minister for Enterprise and Employment responsibility for this task and his Department has consulted widely regarding the best approach to adopt in establishing the boards and determining the organisation and the conduct of their development work.

It is intended that a locally based, flexible and non-bureaucratic structure be put in place which would be capable of harnessing the resources and expertise of the public and private sector. By proceeding with the establishment of enterprise boards on a county basis a balance is being struck between the need for scale on the one hand and the need to retain a local element.

The county enterprise boards will have enterprise and job creation objectives and will assume responsibility for business areas not already covered by the State industrial development agencies. The enterprise boards will prepare action plans for their own areas. While those plans can be expected to encompass a variety of measures, their essential focus will be on pro-active strategies to tap employment opportunities in their localities. This will be done through identifying and commercially developing local resources; promoting the creation and development of enterprises from within the local economy, particularly through support for local enterprise groups; and creating and strengthening networks between the local community and State agencies in the interest of mobilising and co-ordinating their energies and knowledge.

The emphasis on local development in the plan is likely to reflect the general structure being put in place to provide for local development measures on a country-wide basis. Local development measures have also the potential to be a central element in tackling the particular problems of certain disadvantaged communities.

The Minister for Finance and I have emphasised the central objective of creating employment and ensuring that the funds provided under the plan make a difference and produce permanent lasting effects in our economy. It is crucial that this difference is not just at a national overall level but that there is a significant impact on those communities where long term unemployment is a chronic problem. There is a real risk that some communities and individuals will get left behind and that pockets of economic disadvantage throughout the country will remain untouched by any economic upturn. As these funds are a once off opportunity to provide for development in this counry, it is essential that they are allocated to communities which are being hit hardest by economic disadvantage and marked by chronic unemployment.

Almost 45 per cent of our unemployed have been on the live register for more than 12 months. This is something that needs to be tackled under the range of programmes in the plan to ensure that a fair share of the employment being created from the injection of funds into the Irish economy is available to and taken up by the long term unemployed and those at high risk of becoming so. It is important in designing training and education programmes to be funded under the plan that the programmes provide the education and skills that will allow such groups to compete in the labour market.

An interesting exercise in regard to this was carried out under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress area partnership programme in the inner city where training was put in place to resource the long term unemployed to avail of jobs coming on stream in projects like the New Jurys Hotel at Christchurch. The targeting of new job opportunities and putting in place advance training for such jobs is a way of ensuring that long term unemployed people get a fair share of the jobs being created under the plan.

Long-term unemployment is not evenly spread throughout our society but is concentrated in certain unemployment blackspots. Communities in urban and rural areas have experienced high and unacceptable levels of mass unemployment. Local development measures can play a vital role in empowering individuals and groups in these areas to assist the process of bringing communities back into the economic mainstream. In those communities there is already a spirit of fighting back, of trying to develop local energies and local community spirit. These must be built on and resourced to ensure that children growing up in these communities can face a future of hope.

A determined effort must be made under the new national plan to reintegrate these communities into the economic system and a local development measure targeted at this objective is an important consideration for inclusion in the plan. Some may argue that investment in human resources and in deprived communities does not carry the same immediate and visible economic payoff as investment in physical infrastructure. I do not see it as "either or" but as a balanced and integrated pattern of development that marries our human resources to physical resources to create economic development which is of benefit to the whole community.

In trying to achieve this balanced development strategy to underpin the plan the Government will have hard decisions and choices to make. Yesterday an excellent two day debate on the National Development Plan and the Structural Funds was concluded in the Seanad. I hope the contributions to be made in the House today will provide a constructive input which will assist the Government in its discussions over the next few weeks so that together we can make the best long term use for the benefit of society of this unique opportunity presented by the increase in Structural Fund allocations to this country.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Dukes and Deputy Deenihan.

Is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.

The European Commission would be amused that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fitzgerald, has stated here today that the Government is accepting that this will be the last round of EC Structural Funds in which it will participate and from which it will be likely to benefit. She said that this plan will be the last through which the EC will be able to make a substantial transfer of resources to this country thorugh the mechanisms we have had in the past.

It is regrettable that the Government has had to be forced to discuss the ESRI report. The Minister and Minister of State have not said whether or not they agree with the contents of that important report. The gobbledegook and the waffle contained in the contributions we have heard are typical of the type of consultation that has taken place around the country in order to draw up this National Plan. We are not discussing that plan today; we are merely discussing the advice the Government is receiving in respect of how that National Plan will ultimately develop and be enshrined in a document that will be submitted to Brussels. The Minister did not confirm that there would be a further debate on the details of the National Plan before it is submitted to Brussels. This is an important matter and I would like the Minister to clarify it.

I am touched by the Minister of State's contribution in respect of her commitment and support for subsidiarity, but she will see from my contribution that I do not believe that policy is being followed in practice. The Minister of State has confirmed my view that she is a bureaucrat and that the centralised system of Government in this country is alive and well. She has gently persuaded us she supports giving power to local people in that she is prepared to set up structures and hold meetings, but she has not given any power or provided finance to implement the aspirations and plans, of local people in their communities.

The Minister of State's contribution shows that the ESRI report is being taken seriously by the Government. The Minister of State is acting as a double agent in that she is adopting a strong ESRI line in regard to how finance will be spent and allocations made in the next round of Structural Funds, but at the same time she is genuflecting to the needs of communities and seeking to be seen as the person who will be giving power to local communities.

It is disgraceful that this Labour-Fianna Fáil Coalition Government, which has the largest majority in the history of the State, has to be forced by Fine Gael and public opinion to engage in this token debate on EC Structural Funds. It speaks volumes for this Government's lack of commitment to open Government, to freedom of information, to local input on information, to transparency and to democratic accountability in respect of how we spend funds on behalf of the people here. The veil of secrecy which has shrouded the publication of this ESRI summary — why is the full report not available to the House? — is a clear recognition that the message inherent in it, and in the report, is not favourable from the Government's point of view in regard to how Structural Funds were allocated in the past.

The ESRI report is the only known attempt by any agency on behalf of the State to carry out an evaluation of how investment has been made and expenditure allocated in the period 1989-93. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, dealt at length with the new procedures that the Government will adopt concerning improving the system of evaluation in the next round of Structural Funds. I would have thought that the Government, as the custodian of our financial affairs, would have had a system of evaluation in every Government Department concerning every pound spent over the past five years, regardless of its source. No credit is due to any Minister for Finance who reads three or four pages of a script and tells us exactly how he will adopt measures at national and European level to ensure we will have a proper system of evaluation.

I put it to the Minister that no other democracy would tolerate proposals by Government to spend £8 billion of EC Structural Funds over the coming years without any reference whatsoever to the national Parliament of the details of that expenditure. The Minister has not indicated whether we will have a debate on the detail of this plan before it goes to Brussels next month.

What we have witnessed in the past few weeks is a distasteful flow of leaks, denials and counter-denials by the Minister of State, particularly in The Sunday Press. I am curious that in regard to some of the proposals made by the ESRI in its report, the Minister has not expounded on whether she disagrees with them. For example, the Shannon stopover has been described in the ESRI report as a self-inflicted wound on the tourist industry. I would ask the Minister of State how the Leader of her party, Deputy Spring, can spend £12 million on a new regional airport in Farranfore when the ESRI report stated we should not spend any additional moneys on regional airports?

Why does the Deputy think he got it?

So much for planning and so much for the rhetoric that we have listened to in this House for the last 45 minutes.

One of the conclusions in the report with which I agree is the need for a radical shift to local participation through local economic development planning, which has been mentioned, while pointing out the priorities for national co-ordination which would form part of the Government's terms of reference.

In recent weeks Fine Gael has shown how we perceive the type of consultation that should have taken place in respect of drawing up the plans and harnessing the potential of local people to establish what should be contained in this National Plan. A test of how the Government is doing in respect of this huge expenditure would be to ask anybody on the street today what will the Government do with the £8 billion in the next few years, how will it make significant improvements in their living standards and whether it will have any impact on our economy. People are unaware of the Government's view on how this money will be spent and they have not been asked for their views through the various agencies, voluntary groups and community associations, or as individuals on how they perceive that expenditure should be spent.

The document we are discussing today clearly shows that a scandal of vast proportions has been occurring under our noses for the past five years. There has been lack of consultation, money has been diverted to current expenditure programmes at the expense of capital, and the figures bear this out. The EC Structural Funds, which had been earmarked for improving Ireland's infrastructure, are being siphoned off to pay for public service pay and other elements of day to day expenditure. Those funds should have given Ireland the opportunity to transform our economic infrastructure and become competitive. Instead, they have been diverted into the black hole of current expenditure. A great theft has been committed. Literally billions of supposed investment in Ireland has been hijacked and misappropriated over the past five years and there is now little to show for it. Taxpayers' money has been lost forever and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost also.

Since we joined the Community, Government current expenditure has increased by 100 per cent in real terms, while the public capital programme has risen by a mere 30 per cent. So much for the principle of additionality. In the last decade the public capital programme has reduced from £1,858 million in 1982 to £1,846 million in 1992, a drop in real terms of 35 per cent. Over the last three years the public capital programme has increased by £200 million while receipts from Europe have increased by £500 million.

If our Government had observed the letter and spirit of the Structural Fund negotiations and regulations and had allocated EC money to where it was intended to go and had provided the required additionality, the capital programme would then have been at least £4 billion instead of the present £2 billion, this year. In this year alone this additional money would have provided work for 100,000 people. Every million pounds in construction generates 30 direct and 15 indirect jobs. Instead of increasing tax in the last budget we would have been reducing it and the dole queues would have been reduced by about a third.

Ireland has established a dependence on European handouts for the day to day running of the country. Should anything interrupt that flow our whole system would collapse. That is the problem with the next round of Structural Funds. What will happen when the seven year programme has expired and what type of system will be in place to ensure that the day to day running expenses of the economy will not fall upon the taxpayers and the people who have had to shore up our economy over the last number of years? No other country in the Community has this level of dependence.

We must remember that the overall objective of Structural Funds and the Community financial assistance under the Community support framework is to promote economic development and contribute to the objective of raising per capita income in Ireland towards Community levels, thereby promoting greater economic and social cohesion throughout the Community. The Structural Funds have been strengthened by the introduction of the Cohesion Fund, which was established as part of the Maastricht Treaty. The impact of all the various funds accrued to Ireland under Structural Funds will, if properly spent, have a significant result in the next number of years. Indeed, it is estimated in the ESRI report, to which the Minister was reluctant to refer, that GNP by the year 2000 is estimated to be 2.7 per cent higher than it would otherwise have been due to the impact of the increased efficiency of the economy. However, it is difficult for people to understand how this economic performance is not being translated into higher growth and job creation. Ireland is suffering tremendous pressure due to a rising rate of unemployment and significant resources must be directed to job creation measures.

It is not sufficient to talk about work experience programmes or job training schemes, such as we had in 1992, which were deemed a disaster by the European Commission. We must have permanent lasting employment. The failure of the last round of Structural Funds must be viewed in terms of whether people are realising a higher standard of living and whether there are more job opportunities available in the economy.

Fine Gael believe that a number of principles regarding EC Structural Funds should be adhered to. Our primary objective should be to create lasting permanent employment and a key factor in any plan should be to increase the rate of growth in a small open economy such as ours and improve our international competitiveness. I agree with the statement in the ESRI report that priority should be given to improving the overall cost structure of the Irish economy by investing in areas which will not only reduce the effective cost of labour to the market sector of the economy but the cost of other inputs as well.

It is a major indictment of the Government that the vast financial support which we have received throughout the Community support framework is not capable of being analysed properly by Government Departments to determine whether the investments have been worthwhile. Proper evaluation of any project is essential if we are to maintain credibility and accountability of funds being allocated. Funds should be allocated on the basis that they will act as a catalyst for development in conjunction with the changes required in national policy, especially in labour market policy to maximise the rate of return and to maximise employment.

For example, if we were to make a significant investment of EC Structural Funds in terms of industrial policy we should not do so in isolation without examining the tax and social welfare system and the main thrust of the Culliton report. This is an example of how funds could be used to kick start the economy in certain areas of various weakness. An emphasis on the distribution of Structural Funds should be placed on human resources with a particular objective in respect of early intervention in the education system to address the problem of those who leave school early with inadequate qualifications. In addition, there should be identification of the skills deficit in the labour market with a view to targeting resources to satisfy the skill requirements. A significant increase in resources is required to tackle the enduring problem of the long term unemployed. It is not sufficient to train and retrain people for temporary jobs.

Recent indications by the Minister of State that the process of consultation has been good leaves me distraught to say the least. The lack of democratic accountability is the most troublesome feature of the Structural Funds. I find it difficult to understand how the Minister can justify travelling around the country talking to people about what should be done and at the end of the day giving them no power to implement their proposals. The process of drawing up regional and national plans is almost entirely divorced from local needs and aspirations. Effectively the Government has said that Dublin-based civil servants know what is best for countless communities desperate for investment in job creation and local infrastructure. Community groups, local authorities and individuals have been almost deliberately cut out of a process designed by the European Community to foster local initiative and enterprise. These groups are yet again reduced to pleading with central Government and to mandarins in Merrion Street for a share of Euro funds, buttressing the political needs of politicians at the expense of democracy.

I find it very disturbing that the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, acting Santa Clause at Christmas 1992, announced that we were to receive £8 billion, yet the Minister for Finance today admitted that we are not sure whether we will receive that amount. We do not want to see every Government Minister, particularly the Tánaiste, acting as Santa Clause at Christmas 1993, doling out whatever operational programmes are agreed at the end of the year without the proper process of consultation with this House.

The process has also painfully illustrated the absence of a sustainable commitment to regional development. Regional and sub-regional councils currently in place are appointed by and responsible to central Government, without any power to determine how funds should be spent locally. Despite the best efforts of the individuals involved these bodies are impotent talking shops without local control or accountability. The structure has subverted EC demands for decentralisation of decision-making. In addition, no serious attempt has been made to ensure that funds are directed to areas in greatest need, the rural periphery and inner city employment black-spots. Instead of reflecting local and regional needs the share-out of funds will yet again reveal the vanity and political muscle of national interest groups and individual Cabinet Ministers and, at least to some extent, the spoils mentality of the Government partners.

The dearth of serious medium to long term economic planning in the plans under consideration has been vividly highlighted in the ESRI critique of structural spending. This report has emphasised a number of past and present failures; the lack of evidence to suggest that investment in transport infrastructure returns significant long term benefit to the economy, the absence of any economic rationale for investment in so-called mobile assets such as aircraft and shipping, the use of investment in job training to massage unemployment statistics rather than raising labour competitiveness and productivity, the plethora of semi-State prestige projects which do not contribute to long term development and the mistaken priority given to headage payments at the expense of research and development in the agricultural sector, which my colleague, Deputy Dukes, will refer to shortly.

A new and radical approach is desperately needed to address these problems. Such an approach should focus upon increasing the awareness, accessibility, accountability and transparency of the entire Structural Fund process.

With EC membership of several poorer Central and Eastern European countries envisaged within the decade, this will put pressure on Ireland in getting the amount of funding we received in the past. It is not good enough for the Minister to throw in the towel at this stage and say we will not get a significant share of Structural Funds in the future. To admit this on behalf of the Government must be music to the ears of the Commission. This round of Structural Funds is a unique opportunity to link people with real power by ensuring the decisions on planning and spending are focused at local level through local government bodies which are democratically accountable and transparent. We must release the latent energy and enterprise of the Irish people through which we can increase the participation of people in the political process and ensure we pass on a secure economic and social foundation to our children.

The Government is further alienating the people from the political process. There was a unique opportunity in drawing up this plan to give people at local level meaningful power and resources and the structure which would make an impact on their lives. I hope in the operational programmes in the latter part of the year the Minister will take on board the need for greater local participation instead of the sham that has been characterised by the sub-regional review groups, a token means of consultation, mesquerading as a body that has nothing to contribute, just another talking shop.

It is regrettable we are only having statements on this report, and it took a long time to get the Government to agree to that. First it would not publish the report and then it did not want to have a debate. Finally it agreed to publish an extensive summary of the report and today we are having statements. I do not know to what extent these statements will influence Government thinking. If they have the kind of influence on Government thinking as have the consultations that have taken place so far, we are wasting our time. There is no resolution before the House today. The Government is not asking for a direction or a guideline but for opinions, and I am not sure whether it is going to listen.

There are a couple of interesting flavours in the debate. For example, it is interesting that for the first time in this debate the Minister for Finance is here. He seems to be trying to restate his claim to be Minister for the £8 billion, a position which his Minister of State coyly usurped from him some months ago. It is interesting that the Minister of State came in somewhat in the manner of a grande dame and assured us at the end of her speech: “I hope the contributions to be made in the House today will provide a constructive input which will assist the Government”. I do not think the Minister means that or believes the Government wants the House to say anything substantial on this matter. It has proved impossible to get from the Government information or any systematic evaluation of what has happened up to now. Therefore, it is a vain hope that, in the context of the consultations that are going on, views or proposals will be put forward that will assist in ensuring that expenditure of Structural Funds will make the maximum net contribution to the generation of wealth and the creation of employment. I find it very difficult to take the Government seriously in this regard.

We had to drag out of the Government this debate as well as a summary of the ESRI report. We find there is not much in that summary that will help us because it shows how clearly the whole process is constrained by lack of a systematic procedure of evaluation. The ESRI report on the quality and direction of public investment is hedged with qualiterise fications, and many people who comment on it should realise that. The essential job that was done in that regard started off with an ex ante shot at investment appraisal that was carried out when these programmes were put together.

The ESRI, together with the other consultants, were given access to reports on the operational programmes and projects that had been provided over the period of the current tranche of Structural Funds, which were necessarily incomplete. Therefore what we have is a series of conclusions. They were professionally arrived at and I am not making any criticisms in that regard. The reservations they attach to their analyses are not being made public. I will give one simple example. We all remember the debate we had, before the Minister of State was in the House, on the 1989 to 1993 plan which set broadly the expenditure that was envisaged to be carried out under a series of headings. I challenge anybody to give anything like a complete assessment of that. One can compare this with the public capital programme over these years and with a bit of calculation one could probably figure out how much of the public sector money projected to be spent actually was spent. We can track it through our public capital programme and EC funding, but it is impossible to find out what private sector money was spent because the Government has never published any of the information that would allow us to know. We cannot say how effective the programme has been, yet the Government is proposing to draw up a plan for spending another £8 billion when it has not the information it needs to make any reasonable guess as to how we got on with the money we spent between 1989 and 1993.

It is futile for the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State to come in here and pretend that this process of consultation, evaluation and examination they talk about at great length will give us a more realistic basis on which to work. It is no more than a pretence. They would have been far better employed in telling us the restrictions there are on the information we have had and the basis for judgment in drawing up this new programme. In that way there would be some real consultation with the people who will carry out the investments. The Minister can meet interest groups to beat the band, but unless she is very careful she will not meet the people who will have something real to say about how to translate X millions of pounds of EC money or money borrowed by the Government into extra wealth or jobs for Irish people. The gloss the Government have been putting on this is mischievious in this regard.

Since it was raised today and my colleague, Deputy Hogan mentioned it, the Minister of State made a dreadful gaffe when she said:

This is the last time we are likely to see an EC spending boost on this scale and it is essential that the funds are used wisely.

I hope that will be ignored by the press and that it does not find its way to Brussels, because if that is to be taken seriously the EC Commission, apart from anything it might do on Structural Funds, will have another reason to oppose anything we might want to do in the future about increasing the size of the European budget. The Minister for Finance must know that all of the people who have examined the effect of regional policy in the Community have come to the conclusion that its effect is bound to be very limited for as long as the Community budget remains restricted at or around its present level. By this enormous gaffe the Minister has thrown away a good part of the case we should make on an ongoing basis for a substantial increase in the European Community budget. Only then will it make a difference between barely managing to prevent income disparities between regions in the Community widening and doing something to bring them closer together.

A few rows have been raised during this debate. The Minister of State started it by saying rather mysterious and threatening things about the headage payments scheme. It was compounded by what we believed to be in the ESRI report and by what is in the report itself. It was not until today that the Minister for Finance said the first sensible thing about the headage payments scheme I have heard from the Government in a long time. I was disappointed that he did not go on to say that if by some appalling mischance anybody in Government agreed to take money out of the headage payments scheme to try to put it to some other use, they would fail. This was designed as an income support scheme and has never been represented as anything other than that. The money allocated is for that scheme only. If you do not spend the money on that scheme you do not get it. That is a factor our experts in the ESRI seem to have forgotten. It is appalling that they should allow themselves to be drawn into so much error. Do they ever read the NESC reports — for instance, Report No. 92The Impact of Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy? Some of the people who are members of the NESC should have been involved in this process. There are three Secretaries of Departments who are members of it, including the Secretary of the Department of Finance and the General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who has been quite “tech-nicolour” about agricultural spending in recent times. What do they say about the headage payments? Paragraph 9.41 of the NESC report says:

If compensation were to be abolished or significantly reduced, the consequences for Ireland would be more severe than in other EC countries.

In paragraph 10.13, talking about GATT, they state:

The threat to the compensation terms, notably in the context of GATT negotiations, is therefore of prime significance.

Paragraph 10.17 speaks of how central compensation, including headage payments, is to the whole scheme of the Common Agricultural policy reform and paragraph 10.18 specifically mentions the importance of the disadvantaged areas scheme payments and the compensation terms in the Commission package being sufficient to support producer income. We need not have had that argument if all those people who raised that here had gone to the trouble of reading another document which Irish taxpayers pay for and which has a serious input into policy-making. The NESC generally makes a very serious input into policy-making, but it tends to be ignored by Government because it does not have the same bureaucratic desires as this nonsensical Government.

Because time is so limited in this ridiculous series of statements rather than a real debate, I will make only two other points. The parts of the ESRI report which emerged did not include what the report said about fiscal policy. In paragraph 7.4.1 of the 1992 ESRI report there is the following point about fiscal policy:

Our results highlight the importance of making continuing progress on the reform of the public finances, since such progress will be essential if the benefits of European Monetary Union are to be exploited.

That is perhaps looking a bit further than we are now, but the points remain valid.

Bradley, FitzGerald and McCoy (1991) highlight the importance of reducing the debt-GNP ratio in the year 2000 to around 75 per cent of GNP. This requires a more stringent fiscal policy stance next year than that adopted in 1990 and 1991.

As it happens the fiscal policy stance adopted for 1992 and for 1993 was not stricter. In fact it was looser. The Government, in terms of the prescription of the ESRI, is already going in the wrong direction. The adoption of a more restrictive stance would have certain advantages. The same paragraph of the ESRI report states:

As shown by the analysis of the CSF investment in certain key areas might produce a reasonably good pay-back to the State. Tax cuts could be expected to relieve labour market pressures and improve the competitiveness of the productive sector.

That is the way the ESRI advances the argument for accompanying this next phase of Structural Funds with a more enlightened fiscal policy stance.

We had a lot of pious stuff from the Minister and Minister of State this morning about economic policy. In terms of fiscal policy they are going in exactly the opposite direction from that recommended by the ESRI and preventing themselves from being in a position to get the benefits, in terms of tax cuts and competitiveness, that would render the Community Support Framework, or its new embodiment, more productive in producing more wealth and employment.

If one reads this ESRI report carefully one will find that the periods during which we had the best employment response to growth in output — the best employment response to effective use of EC funds — were those in which we had, in the private sector, profit-led growth. We are not having that at present. It behoves us to ascertain how we can improve the prospects for profit-led growth because that gives us a better response in terms of employment growth than any other kind of growth. If we are really to make any changes for the better in the manner in which we use these funds, not only do we have to look at human resources but it would also be important to adopt proper labour market policies to allow the labour market to respond by employing more people. With the Government now talking about another Programme for Economic and Social Progress I am very much afraid that they will accompany this policy, instead, with stifling labour market policies. The existing Programme for Economic and Social Progress has stifled the growth of employment we should have had from the Community Support Framework operation.

There is a disadvantage in following somebody like Deputy Dukes because he has so much to say.

It is the difficulty of an artificial debate like this that the Government does not want to extend.

As spokesperson of my party on tourism I shall confine my brief remarks to that subject. The contribution the tourism industry makes to our economy is well recognised. Within the past six years the tourism sector has made a more significant contribution to our GNP than any other sector. Employment growth within the tourism sector accounted for 37 per cent of overall employment growth in the same period and the tourism contribution to GNP increased from 3.5 per cent to 6.8 per cent.

It is vital that a package of policies which would include priority areas for funding, designed to consolidate the progress made and take advantage of potential growth and demand, be included in the National Development Plan. Otherwise opportunities will be missed. The National Development Plan for EC Structural Funds will provide an opportunity to refocus investment priorities and to review and reconsider certain aspects of tourism policy. The National Development Plan should address the major barriers to further growth, such as inadequate resources for marketing and promotion abroad, the problem of seasonality, the upgrading and expansion of our tourist product range, the inadequacy and high cost of access transport, the need for further investment in trained personnel for the industry, the provision of vital infrastructures such as roads, water supplies, sanitary facilities and so on.

It is obvious from the various submissions to Government for inclusion in the National Development Plan that the tourism industry requires financial support for marketing activities. This is as vital as investment in fixed assets or product development. Unless potential tourists are made aware of this country and its attractions, and are encouraged to come here, many of our products developed at considerable cost could become white elephants.

There is need for a continuous, long term, general advertising campaign in each market. The Irish Hotels Federation in its submission to the Department of Tourism and Trade on the operational programme for tourism development emphasised that fact. It is crucial that more funds need to be spent on source markets, on destination selling, in the form of consumer advertising. Bord Fáilte should undertake this role as the promotional agency of the state. This is seen by the Irish Tourist Industry Confederation as an essential support to the marketing and selling efforts in the sector undertaken by commercial enterprises involved in tourism. Expenditure by Bord Fáilte on consumer advertising should be matched by Structural Funds in order to intensify the industry's promotional efforts. It must be said that Ireland's expenditure on direct advertising has been gradually decreasing while that by our competitors, in particular Scotland, has been increasing recently.

There has been considerable investment in recent years in product development and upgrading. There is a need to promote the tourist product more aggressively in our market niches worldwide; otherwise such products could become non-viable or deteriorate, resulting in considerable financial loss.

It is also vital that the 75 per cent matching arrangement for public sector funding should apply to marketing activity since considerable expenditure is necessary to bring about an awareness of and interest in Ireland as a holiday destination. The marketing and selling activities of private individual enterprises involved in tourism should be funded at least to the extent of 25 per cent under the next programme.

The five years from 1989 to 1993 represented a period of major growth of investment in tourism infrastructure, plant and training, must be sustained over the forthcoming period of Structural Funding. Emphasis must be placed on continued investment in quality to improve yield, affording priority to developments which contribute to seasonal extension, profitability and high yields, as well as new products to penetrate niche markets and expand Ireland's special interests portfolio, such as outdoor activities, cultural holidays, and so on.

The development of rural tourism is important also, the extension of the agri-tourism grant scheme and the Leader programme being crucial in this respect. In the private sector the scheme for capital investment should be similar to that for marketing vis-à-vis the level of grant aid. At least 25 per cent of the investment cost for agreed, eligible products should be provided. Such could be increased to 50 per cent for projects designed to spread business into the shoulder and off-peak seasons. Projects, such as the upgrading, extension and improvement of existing holiday accommodation should be considered, the provision of car hire especially in the peak season, the provision of leisure facilities, including swimming pools and fitness centres, golf courses, equestrian centres and so on.

Regarding the administration of the tourism part of the National Development Plan, which is very important, it is my belief that one central agency should have responsibility for the processing and approval of all applications. I suggest that Bord Fáilte should be that central agency to handle all applications. In addition, I suggest that an evaluation committee, comprised of executives of Bord Fáilte, SFADCo and Údarás na Gaeltachta, in addition to representatives of the private tourism sector, should be established. This committee would screen, evaluate and appraise all applications for financial assistance, their prime objective being to ensure that any expenditure on projects would lead to increased tourist numbers and to the development of commercially viable enterprises, leading in turn to increased employment in sustainable jobs.

It is important that we have an independent monitoring committee established, representative of the tourist industry, which is not the case with the present monitoring committee. I suggest such a monitoring committee would carry out a comprehensive review of the programme annually. I must warn the Minister that the tourism industry is not satisfied with the present level of consultation. I appeal to the Minister to rectify that position.

Once again we are caught in circumstances in which we are debating a National Development Plan without having actually seen it. This is a consequence of the consistent failure of the type of Government we have here, and indeed have had over very many years. The desire for centralised control and power never appears to change or indeed require to be changed.

When I look at television pictures of parliament in the former Yugoslavia and other countries I often wonder if they would like to live in a democracy such as this where they could have a real input but when we debate an issue of importance such as this National Development Plan I know in my heart and soul that even though the Government is trying to give the impression that it will listen with great interest to what the Opposition parties will have to say during the next few hours it is not worth a hat of crabs because the input of the Opposition parties to this debate will be meaningless. In her contribution the Minister of State recognised that there is a sense of frustration in the regions; all the various interest groups realise that ultimately their views on what they would like to see included in the National Development Plan will be ignored by the Government. They are the policy makers, they have the power to do what they want and they will not allow a proper debate to take place on this topic.

I put it to the Minister of State that if the plan is published and debated in this House before being submitted to Brussels there will be disagreements, argument and discussion, but I have no doubt that at the end of that process a National Development Plan will be finalised. Is the Minister of State trying to persuade me that such a plan would have less merit than the one that will be prepared in isolation by the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil? I suggest that the contrary is the case; that it would have much more merit and, more importantly, would have the support of all our citizens. It would not be drawn up behind closed doors but rather in an open and meaningful way. The reasons certain projects had not been included would be clear if a cohesive plan was presented by the Government and debated in this House. If that were to happen the plan would have more merit, it would be a better plan and would reflect the views of everybody on the way forward and what we should try to achieve under the plan.

Like other speakers, I find the Minister of State's assertion that, in terms of funding, this is our last big chance, extraordinary. In making that assertion the Minister of State assumes that we will be able to compete on an equal footing with the major powers in Europe, the Germans, the French and the British. I suggest that that will not be the case at the end of this decade. At that stage our economy will still be developing and we will not have reached the point where we will be able to compete on an equal footing with the major powers in the European Community. If that is so, there will still be a need to ensure that a balance is struck in terms of equality. The only way in which this can be done is by continuing to provide Structural and Cohesion Funds to countries such as Ireland to ensure that they will be equal partners in an expanding European Community in the years ahead.

As I have said, in making the assertion that we should not look forward to securing the funds that will be available in the next round of Structural Funds in the future the Minister of State is assuming that we will no longer encounter the problems associated with peripherality. I suggest that this is a load of bunkum and that we will not have reached the point. Therefore, there will still be a need to ensure that we reach the objective of the European Community, as a group of nations, which is equality. The only way this can be done is by continuing to provide funding for infrastructural projects in the agricultural industry. Such funding will have to be provided into the foreseeable future if a balance is to be struck within the European Community. Whoever replies to this debate should avert to what the Minister of State said and make it clear that this is not the impression she intended to give.

The next round of Structural Funds represents a tremendous opportunity and potential for this country. It is vital that their deployment is efficient, cost-effective and transparently prioritised. In a society which is dogged by an unemployment crisis, where unemployment stands at 20 per cent, that has to be a key benchmark in assessing the priorities of the programme, not so much in the sense of devoting the money to quick-fix employment creation schemes but rather how we address the structural problems in the economy which hinder its job creation potential. It is also vital that we realise at the outset that valuable and invaluable as the projected boost of £8 billion will be to the economy this is no fairy godmother solution to our problems.

To put the projected funds in perspective, we now spend almost £1 billion each year on unemployment. The Structural Funds boost therefore will be no automatic panacea for all our social and economic problems. Ultimately, our economic salvation, in the sense of developing an efficient and internationally competitive economy capable of significantly boosting employment and selling goods and services at a price and quality which potential purchasers will want, depends on our own choices, initiatives and willingness to take hard decisions. The Structural Funds are a wonderful boost to those efforts but they cannot replace them. It is essential, therefore, that the Government demonstrates its capacity to provide inspirational leadership in the use of these funds and does not succumb to politically attractive or pet projects as the automatic beneficiaries.

Judged from that starting point the Government does not inspire confidence and the sham and charade of the consultative process which has taken place around the country reinforces that criticism. The fact that we have ended up with suggested projects that would cost three times the likely maximum allocation from the European Commission and that this sham consultation effectively ruled out the prioritising of local proposals, means that the Government wants to reserve to itself, to the extent that it will be allowed by Brussels, the right to decide, exclusively, what should be included in the national plan to be submitted to Brussels.

It is a pity that the process of local consultation has been such a sham. There is a deep sense of frustration at local community level that it was a case of going through the motions. I listened with interest to what the Minister of State had to say. She mentioned that she had travelled around the country to speak to the sub-regional review committees but the views expressed by them after they had met the Minister of State contrast with the views expressed by her in the House. It is clear from the views expressed by those who have worked very hard, including public representatives, the social partners and various other groups, that this was just an exercise on the part of the Minister of State so that she could say that it had been done. This is a matter of regret. It is unfortunate that this is the sum total of the enormous efforts made by these people.

By contrast, I have to commend the ESRI for proposing, in its study, a substantial choice of options which politicians and policy makers must address. I do not agree with all the recommendations made. The study fails to recognise the importance of maintaining essential incomes for uneconomic farmers through the headage payments. I am glad the Minister cleared up the concern in regard to this matter this morning. It was nonsensical for people to suggest that headage payments, which are used to support people in rural Ireland and poorer farmers, should be removed. I found it extraordinary that this debate should have got legs in the first instance. This happened because of the failure of the Government to explain fully what rural Ireland is all about and the needs of people living in those areas. Some people want to see an urban society created in this country, whereby Dublin would become larger. This would create an imbalance in our population structure. The way to create this society is to remove headage payments which are essential to sustain life in rural Ireland today. The removal of these payments would have been an unmitigated disaster and an abuse of the Stuctural Funds which would have had to be made available.

These payments should not be seen in a narrow, agricultural light. These payments have an enormous impact on the well-being of this country and the maintenance of the structure of our communities. People believe that the 18 per cent of the budget allocated to agriculture is used for agricultural purposes only. This allocation covers agri-tourism and farm developments, maintains the social fabric of our society and is used in an enterprising way to create and sustain jobs in rural Ireland. This money is not used solely for traditional agricultural activities.

There is a recognition among the farming community that change is occurring, they must be part of this change and they must take a lead in this change to ensure that the fabric of rural Ireland is sustained. I do not want to see the creation of larger urban areas. I want people to remain in rural Ireland. I want rural Ireland to be made more attractive so that more people will return to live there, thus creating a better balanced society. It is vitally important that people understand what is meant by using funds to support and enhance rural development in Ireland.

Many of the ESRI recommendations are worthy of careful consideration. For example, the suggested prioritising of a major primary roads network over the rail network and further regional airport development is sensible. I have long held the view that we have a choice in this area, a choice which has not been made because of some political hang-ups in the equation. We do not have the resources, nor can we expect to get them to develop in equal measure a substantial road infrastructure and a substantial rail infrastructure. Therefore, choices have to be made. We have to decide the priorities in terms of the development of our transport system.

I am not saying that we should abandon our rail network; rather I am saying that in terms of the movement of people, we should develop our road infrastructure and use our rail infrastructure to transport goods to access points for export to other countries. The development of the rail network to bring people from one part of Ireland to the other would be too costly, would not be cost effective and is not the way forward. We need to invest our resources in the development of our road infrastructure. Funding should be allocated for the development of a high speed rail network capable of carrying goods to the main access points, for example, to Cork, Waterford, Dublin, Limerick and Galway, for export to other countries. This would ensure much better value for money from our rail network than is the case at present.

We are trying to do too much in this area. However, there are political reasons for this — the rail network is seen as part of the State's assets. I have no problem with this, but I appeal to the Minister to look at the possibilities of securing private sector investment for the development of our rail network, as is the case in other countries. Why should the taxpayer have to fund these developments? This is a nonsense. People in the priviate sector, either in this country or in some other country, who want to invest in the development of our rail network should be given the opportunity to do so. The Government should seek to encourage private sector investment in these developments so that all the resources which are available can be utilised. The Government should be open to doing this. I am not saying this for any ideological reasons; rather I am saying it from the practical point of view of the best utilisation of available funding. Utilisation of this funding to the fullest extent would take the strain off the State, the sole provider of funding for these developments at present. We would have a much better, more efficient and more enhanced rail network if there was more private sector investment in this area. This suggestion should be considered by the Government.

Our narrow focus in terms of funding makes it impossible for us to develop all of the super road networks we so desperately need and a super rail network. Decisions will have to be made as to the priorities in these areas. These priorities should be spelt out so that people in all regions, including Dublin, are aware of the way in which we intend to develop our transport systems over the next number of years. This has not been done, and it should be done.

Given the volume of goods transported by road, our island status and the fact that we export more than 70 per cent of our manufactured goods, the necessity for a top class primary road network for this country with speedy access to our major ports is self-evident. Another point which flows from this is the necessity to ensure that the money used on road building is deployed as efficiently as possible. The Progressive Democrats Party strongly believes that all major road building schemes should be handled by the private sector. We do not say this for reasons of ideology; rather we say it on the basis of reason and logic.

The Newbridge by-pass which was opened yesterday shows that private contractors can complete the job on time and within budget. In contrast, many major road schemes undertaken by local authorities on the basis of direct labour schemes have seriously overrun both in terms of cost and time. I am sure the Minister is aware of this fact. I am not criticising the local authorities which have been starved of manpower and necessary resources as a result of cutbacks over the years. They do not have enough experienced people and manpower with which to carry out these projects. They have been starved of resources due to the cutbacks over the year and now they do not have the manpower, the experienced people to lead these projects. It is far better — and we now have proof of cost savings and efficiency — to have this work handled by specialist companies. The local authorities carry out aspects of the work but they are not the main specialist contracting bodies. The specialist contractors can carry out the work on time and within the budget.

I do not disagree with the suggestion in the ESRI study that further investment in developing golf courses or making further improvements to our inland waterways are no longer priorities. Given that £200 million has been spent on golf course development programmes, this is no longer a priority sector for assistance from EC funding, although it does play a vital part in developing a successful tourism infrastructure.

The study also rightly highlights the vital importance of developing our food industry properly and, in particular, making further technological advances in food processing. The Culliton report highlighted the enormous potential of food processing in creating added value products. I have to point out that many of the problems we face are about political choices as much as about the decisions on capital investments. For instance, surely the proposed Bord Bia should be taken from the control of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry — which is the captive servant of the farmer and the primary producer. We need a food industry that gives priority to the consumer in terms of taste, health and price and a centralised agency to develop the food industry along the lines of the proposed Bord Bia which, welcome as it is, should come under the auspices of the Department of Enterprise and Employment.

I do not believe that the ESRI is correct in suggesting the abandonment of farm headage payments. In effect these are subsistence payments that help to ensure that people continue to farm in our most disadvantaged rural areas. There is little doubt that this form of farm income subsidisation has helped to keep alive these remote areas in rural Ireland and are a key regional development component in that sense. I urge the Government to take into consideration the very encouraging developments being pioneered in rural Ireland under the Leader programme and see how this can be built on in the context of funding from the Structural Funds. I was pleased to hear specific references to these sub-programmes and I urge the Minister to consider the possibility of expanding some of them. We have learned a great deal from our experience: we now know what works, how bureaucracy gets in the way and how to shape projects. We should build on this utilising the Structural Funds that become available over the next number of years. I believe that an expansion of projects under the Leader programme is one area that is complementary to targeting unemployment. They could be used to create sustainable enterprises which will provide jobs over the years.

I was glad to see that the Government recognises the Leader programme is one element of the plan and I would like to see more Leader programmes being developed throughout the country. The setback with the Tipperary enterprise company, which was set up under the Leader programme, has obscured some of the other very successful enterprises but I have no doubt that these projects are proving to be an outlet for local community initiative, self-help and enterprise. That model should be developed further in the context of the Government's development plan.

The plight of the unemployed must be taken fully into account. As I said at the outset, we should not be thinking in terms of quick fix cosmetic proposals that merely massage the live register numbers in the short term but have no effect on enhancing the employment prospects of the long term unemployed or ensuring any long term economic benefit for the country. The ESRI concludes that the social employment schemes and the absence of an adequate training component in employment schemes do not improve the chances of re-integrating the unemployed into the orthodox workforce. The Progressive Democrats Party agrees with and accepts the need for proper training schemes for the unemployed but it must also accept that the key priority in terms of providing work is to develop a vibrant cost efficient economy, in which we produce goods and services at a price and a quality that potential buyers want.

Training alone, while very worthwhile, is of limited benefit if there are no jobs at the end of the day. That brings me to the kernel of the Progressive Democrats Party approach: We cannot look at the proposed Structural Funds programme in isolation or try to divorce it from the other key determinants in our economy. These funds will be an enormous boost to us but unless we tackle our overall cost structure along the lines of the Culliton prescription — indeed, I might add the Progressive Democrats Party prescription, since the report reads like one of our party manifestoes — we will go nowhere — I thought the Minister might smile at that.

When we come to assess the impact of the £8 billion later in the decade we may be bemoaning another lost opportunity. We cannot divorce the next Structural Funds programme from the wider issues of the climate of enterprise, or lack of enterprise that is predominant in Ireland today. Nor can we divorce it from the challenges of ensuring that vital infrastructural services, like transport, energy and telecommunications are available on an internationally competitive basis. We will not boost enterprise by loading further taxes on work, as with the nefarious 1 per cent levy, a fifth tax on work in a society with an unemployment crisis. We will not make our infrastructure more efficient by trying to prevent competition in the domestic market in the provision of telephone and other telecommunication services, as this Government is doing.

I was fortunate enough to be in this House in 1987 when we were discussing Aer Lingus and I believe that if the Labour Party had taken a more sensible approach Aer Lingus would not now be in a financial crisis. At that time the opportunity existed in real terms for private sector investment in Aer Lingus. Airlines were interested in joint ventures with Aer Lingus but because of an ideological block to that type of development at that time, the airline was left largely to fend for itself in an economic climate that was changing beyond recognition.

The result of our failure to recognise what was happening in the airline business, has led to the crisis in Aer Lingus today. If we do not face the reality that investment by the private sector and joint ventures and partnerships in the development of Telecom Éireann, An Post and the ESB, there will be similar crisis in these companies down the road. They simply cannot survive on their own. Private sector companies could not survive on their own and they had to become part of larger organisations so that they would have better access to funding for research, development and investment. We must learn a very painful lesson — and tragically the workforce in Aer Lingus will have to learn that painful lesson, even though it was not its fault but the fault of the decision makers. It was the fault of Government and Opposition politicians who failed, for ideological reasons to grapple with those opportunities. If those mistakes are made again none of these companies in the semi-State sector will survive as they exist today. It is simply not on. No amount of bandying around old style clitches or saying the right things will correct those mistakes. Neither will trying to tell people one thing when you know in your heart and soul that you have to do the other, as the Labour Party did during the election campaign by promising the sun, moon and stars when they knew well they were in the middle of a crisis. Now they have to face this problem in a more realistic way. If we learn from that mistake Aer Lingus can be restored to being a substantial company, but it will have to be involved with another airline. That will be part of the way forward if the current crisis is to be overcome. I say this as a general warning about how our attitudes to the commercial semi-State sector must change.

The Structural Funds represent a wonderful opportunity, but they will constitute a missed opportunity if their deployment does not form part of a wider coherant Government strategy that boosts enterprise, rewards risk taking and forces this economy into the first international division in terms of overall costs, inputs and competitiveness. It is the Government's failure to do this and the obvious inability of the policies being pursued to meet this challenge that obliges me to concude that the Structural Funds cannot possibly be used to the optimum benefit of this country. It is a bit like bringing a star player into an otherwise badly trained team. He may lift their overall performance somewhat, but he cannot succeed on his own. That is why I have to remain pessimistic about the capacity of the Structural Funds programme to have any lasting or extensive beneficial effect on the unemployment crisis. Let us ensure there are more and better training programmes for the long-term unemployed.

The scale of the crisis and the inevitable inability of our economy to generate anything like the number of manufacturing and service jobs to make a serious dent on the dole queues demands unique and urgent responses to the unemployment crisis. That is why the Progressive Democrats are proposing a national community employment scheme to provide at least part-time employment for the long term unemployed. We are working out detailed proposals on such a scheme. This is not a "Make them work for their dole" approach. This is a positive attempt to seek to meet the genuine entitlement and right of the unemployed to participate in the economic life of this country, to feel a sense of community belonging and to enable them to use whatever skills or qualifications they have in the service of the community. For this they in return would get a community wage and would be free for the remainder of their time to supplement that income with any other self-employment initiative they could take.

I should like to refer to the position of the county enterprise boards. I am somewhat confused and at a loss to know precisely how those boards will operate. The Minister used all the right phraseology and said that the county enterprise boards will be empowered to assist local development, to start up small enterprises and to promote tourism projects. From whom are they empowered to seek funding for these projects? Are these projects to be assessed on a different basis? The way in which the Minister referred to the county enterprise boards presumes, in my view, that no activity is taking place at local level, that no community groups are operating already, that the local authorities are not involved and that the LEADER programmes are not working. All of these things are happening. Perhaps the only benefit of the county enterprise boards' project is that it will establish some type of a formal structure.

The objective outlined — all flowery phraseology — could be written and said by anybody. It is meaningless in terms of facing the hard reality of where we create and sustain jobs at local level. A sum of £100 million was supposed to come from the private sector. Where is it and what form does it take? Who will control it? At the end of the year will it be the case that the banks in their final annual accounts will suggest that £100 million went to local communities as part of their normal involvement with small projects? If that is what it means then there is nothing new, apart from the £25 million, and I doubt if that entire sum is available to the county enterprise boards.

I do not accept that the Minister has given anything new this morning by way of real meat to the county enterprise boards. There is nothing to change my opinion that it is anything other than another layer of bureaucracy. It is a plan which the Taoiseach drew up last year and announced as a press release. It has not moved on from anything other than a press release except that the Taoiseach had the foresight to lob it towards the Minister for Employment and Enterprise, Deputy Quinn. The Taoiseach wanted to get rid of it because he knew the anchor he had around his neck and the mistakes he had made. He has left the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, to struggle with it since he came into office and to try to find some meaningful way of implementing the county enterprise boards' proposal.

The Minister for Enterprise and Employment is good at foot work.

He is very good at that. What time remains for me?

The Deputy has until 12.50 p.m.

As I represent Waterford, I want to speak about the south east region. I did not realise I had allowed myself only three or four minutes to do so. I agree that the regions are making sensible proposals in the context of what should be in the National Development Plan. The Minister this morning tried to say that per capita measurements, population measurements and so on are not relevant and that there are other factors. That may be so, and I do not necessarily disagree with that. I would point out that the south east has one problem, because it includes Dublin. When Dublin gets something there is an automatic movement to the west. By any independent measurement the south east, during the last round of Structural Funds did not get the necessary injection of development moneys. That is a fact and nothing can change that.

I fully agree with the Deputy.

The south east possesses the skills, the people, the entrepreneurship, the drive, the energy and so on to develop and be a leading integral part of the economic development of this country. In spite of the lack of support from Government during the past number of years the south east has forged ahead, but key elements are missing. The Minister is well aware of these. We have the largest young population in the country without a university. It is a nonsense to suggest that a university should not be based in the south east in the capital city of Waterford. The need for a university is clear from all independent analyses. For that reason the take up of third level education is much lower in that area.

This Government and previous Governments rightly created the Euro container port in Waterford and the passenger outlet in Rosslare — two key elements in the development of this country. Recently I saw these fabulous developments, but we must be able to get people to them. People can no longer go through the streets of Waterford because of commercial and private traffic. We need a high level bridge. This is not a de luxe solution. Without such a high level bridge traffic would still have to go through the streets of the city. The only way to bypass the city is to build a high level bridge. A report on this matter has been with the Government since the late seventies.

It is about time recognition was given to this project and to the infrastructural developments at Rosslare and Belview Port in Waterford. I will accept nothing from this Government but a commitment in regard to third level education and the completion of the work on the bridge to which I referred. If the Minister gives that commitment he will have the support of many people in the south east.

I propose to share my time with Deputy Gregory.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Democratic Left is profoundly committed to the concept of a democratic people's Europe. We are committed to the process of European integration. We believe that the future of Europe lies in a federal arrangement.

During the Maastricht referendum campaign, we argued that the proposed treaty was seriously deficient and failed to address the most fundamental political, economic and social problems facing Europe's citizens. We believe that on the important issue of monetary union, the convergence criteria will inevitably worsen our current economic situation and create even higher levels of unemployment. We argued last June that Maastricht failed to address the growing gap between rich and poor in the EC, does little about the lack of democracy and accountability and commits us to deflationary Government policies for the foreseeable future. We see no reason to change our minds one year later.

The problem is that the road towards European union is paved with all sorts of contradictions. The European Community is simultaneously aiming towards economic and monetary union, the creation of a single market and social and economic cohesion. Those are contradictory objectives. There has been much rhetoric about a social Europe involving balanced economic and social development. This is why we have a Cohesion Fund in the first place, but the existence of the fund will not by itself do much to reduce the differences between the peripheral regions and the major industrial centres of Europe. The EC budget is too small to be of much help. It is to be expanded, but only from 1.2 per cent of Community GDP to approximately 1.35 per cent in 1995. In existing federations like the USA — where the federal budget is about 20 per cent of GDP — the budgetary mechanism makes for a far greater contribution to the reduction of regional disparities than the EC's structural policies are ever likely to do based on this tiny budget.

The next round of Structural Funds is intended to cover the six-year period 1994-99. They represent the most significant investment opportunity likely to be presented to this country between now and the end of the century. When matched by Irish Government funding they could amount to as much as £12 billion in investment funds during the period in question.

This level of capital investment cannot be treated as a political slush fund or another version of the national lottery. The EC has earmarked 141,471 million ECUs, or one third of all EC expenditure, for Structural Funds. They are allocated in accordance with very clear and specific criteria, are intended as investment funds to tackle the particular disadvantages of the recipient countries and will be paid out only if the EC is satisfied with our proposals for a National Development Plan. Ireland is treated as an Objective 1 region, which gives us top priority funding because our GDP is less than 75 per cent of the EC average.

That is the economic and social problem which must be addressed by the National Development Plan and not a continuation of the "black hole" syndrome, whereby billions of EC funds vanish into the unknown, produce little sustainable development and very few jobs.

Before we talk about the allocation of additional funds we must look more critically at how we misused earlier funding. Someone must answer the question of how it is that we received, on a per capita basis, the highest allocation of Structural Funding in the EC, twice the average of other Objective I regions, yet produced fewer jobs, benefited fewer people and gave the bulk of the funds to farmers and rural areas.

What must be faced up to is that about 14 per cent of the working population and a mere 5 per cent of the total population got more than 50 per cent of all EC funds during the period 1989-93. During that period thousands left the land, our food industry employment declined and the net value added per persons employed in agriculture decreased.

A very small proportion of farmers took the lion's share of the EC funds at the expense of both rural and urban communities. Of course, there were a few other notable recipients of those funds, some of whom have been prominently identified with the beef tribunal and other recent investigations into the use of Leader funds in rural Ireland. All of them had close involvement with the Fianna Fáil Party.

I particularly welcome the recent proposals on new regulations by the European Commission which are now under active consideration by the European Parliament and the EC Council. Those proposals do not change the development priorities of Ireland accepted previously by the EC.

We must accept that many additional regions with huge population density have been added to the Objective 1 list. These include the whole of the former East Germany and East Berlin, the Scottish Highlands, Merseyside in England, Cantabria in Spain and Hainault in Belgium. All of these areas want their share of the funds as do the other underdeveloped countries of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Northern Ireland.

Economic growth in the EC is at an all time low. Yesterday in Brussels, Commissioner Henning Christophersen confirmed the extent of the recession affecting the Community. The EC will register negative growth for the first time since 1975 at 0.5 per cent in 1993. Commissioner Pádraig Flynn has predicted that EC jobless figures will reach 18 million this year and will reach 20 million in 1994. Unfortunately, Ireland and Spain are at the top of the EC jobless league with almost twice the EC average. Poverty in the Community is constantly rising and is now estimated to be affecting as many as 50 million people.

No one can now challenge the view that unemployment, poverty, homelessness and the social exclusion that goes with them are the central issues needing urgent attention in the community. It is in that context that we must focus on our own domestic problems and identify the criteria we must use when making decisions about the spending of Structural Funds.

The EC requires that we continue to concentrate resources on the areas of greatest need. We must ensure a proper partnership between Government, trade unions, employers and the voluntary community sector, all of whom have a vital role to play — not to mention the Dáil itself. We must achieve genuine additionality with these funds and ensure proper programming and monitoring to achieve maximum advantage from our investment.

We must also concentrate on the proposed new criteria of enhanced `partnership' involving all competent authorities, before and after projects are started, special emphasis on environmental impact and total transparency before and after the submission of plans. A specific targeting of `social exclusion' is also a requirement.

All of those proposals create new opportunities for a genuine advance in this country if we can overcome the mentality of the horse trader, the political gimmickry which sometimes passes for politics and the national disease of pandering to the powerful lobby of farmers and speculators, the tax evaders and gombeens. We must recognise that people live in towns and cities as well as in rural Ireland and begin to recognise that the people of Ballymun and Finglas are as peripheral to the EC as anyone in the west of Ireland.

On a point of order——

The Deputy will have an opportunity to speak.

I wish to raise a point of order.

Acting Chairman

Sorry, Deputy De Rossa, Deputy Doyle wishes to make a point of order.

On a point of order I must object——

That is not a point of order.

The Deputy has not heard yet what I want to say.

Acting Chairman

Let us hear the point of order.

On a point of order, I object to farmers being mentioned in the same breath and sentence and with the same innuendo as tax evaders and speculators. We must respect all elements of the law abiding community here.

The people of Ballymun and Finglas are every bit as peripheral to the European Community as anyone in the west of Ireland or in Wexford.

I accept that, but that is not what the Deputy said. It is offensive to the farming community and it is a disgrace to drive a wedge between urban and rural Ireland.

They have seen more loss and less gain from EC membership than any rural population and are increasingly alienated from the whole process of European integration.

It is a disgrace to drive a wedge between urban and rural Ireland. We all have our problems.

The Deputy will get her chance to say what she wants. She should try to give representatives of those who have less from the European Community a chance to have their say in this House because from Fine Gael today we will hear nothing but praise and support for the large farmers to this country and that is a disgrace.

The Deputy should stick to the facts and not divide Ireland.

The big farmers here hate to see their position exposed for what it is, a grab for the biggest share of the EC Stuctural Funds.

I object to that.

That is who the Deputy is representing here today.

I represent small and big farmers and the PAYE sector. I do not divide the people of Ireland.

The most impressive response in Ireland to the EC Structural Funds is increasingly coming from democratic peoples' organistions in the voluntary sector. This new third sector of our economy is often rooted in the most deprived communities and is crying out for a genuine partnership in society in which they can play a constructive part.

The Programme for Economic and Social Progress partnerships were a beginning but now we need much more targeted supports, integrated development schemes and a proper structure to enable people to help themselves. We need intervention by Government agencies, local authorities, trade unions and employers in both public and private sectors in a national development effort.

The urban communities of the working class are particularly beleaguered because of social and economic neglect, ghettoisation, poor public transport, high unemployment and poor educational and training opportunities. All of these must be tackled as national priorities because all of them impact on the health and well-being of our society. Decades of neglect and disadvantage now need urgent attention and any sleight of hand by Government on this occasion cannot be tolerated.

In my view, financial allocations for communities in distress, for communities who are organised to make good use of Structural Funds, should be credited directly to the communities rather than through the myriad of bureaucratic agencies involved in welfare or social provision. We must now adopt a bottom-up approach by making financial provision for total communities on a credit basis and then make them the paymaster of the agencies which provide necessary services.

In that way the people themselves identify their local priorities, in the true meaning of subsidiarity, and others are paid to respond to those priorities. We need multi-annual budgeting and ongoing support and monitoring of proposals.

In general we need a radical departure from the previous experience of Government and other agencies filtering off limited resources while rarely hitting the real areas which should be targeted for assistance.

The ESRI document provides a welcome focus for this debate. There are many proposals which are quite sensible and uncontentious and should automatically be adopted. The ESRI rightly insist that a major requirement for the next CSF is that the additional resources made available from the EC should be used to produce a permanent increase in the productive capacity of the Irish economy. There would be no lasting benefit to the economy if the funds were used as straight income transfers to temporarily raise income per head. The gap in income per head between Ireland and the rest of the EC would narrow for a time, but there would still be a gap in output per head. The Irish economy would still be dependent on transfers and would be very vulnerable to any change in the structure of the EC in the future. This is an important point because many additional regions with large populations have been added to the Objective 1 list.

We should not presume that we will always have access to Structural Funds of the same order as at present. The inevitable enlargement of the Community will probably shift the focus more to the east. We will have to get it right this time. We have to make decisions now that will ensure that this country's economy will be viable and dynamic in the future.

The ESRI rightly identify unemployment or, as they euphemistically refer to it, the imbalance in the labour market as the major strategic problem facing the Irish economy for the rest of the decade. They argue that, "when considering measures to improve competitiveness, precedence should be given first to those which will impact on the competitiveness of labour."

It has been estimated that the Structural Funds under the Community support framework boosted annual economic growth by between 0.25 per cent and 0.5 per cent, and this resulted in somewhat higher employment than otherwise would have occurred. However, the level of employment was less than could normally have been expected. It is now well established that economic growth per se will not solve the unemployment problem. What determines the level of employment is the employment intensity of growth. This is defined as the ratio of employment growth to output growth which describes the amount of employment which has, on average, been associated with every 1 per cent change in output. It is clear that the extent to which economic growth impacts on employment is determined as much by the structure and composition of that growth as by the absolute rate of growth. It is, in this context that Democratic Left argues for an explicit labour intensive developmental strategy and a concomitant downgrading of capital intensive projects.

For instance, far too little of CSF have been spent on public transport which is an environmentally superior alternative to road building. It is clear that there has been over-investment in certain road developments. In general my major criticism of the ESRI approach to such matters is that it focuses almost exclusively on the supply side. They argue that growth in Ireland should be viewed mainly as competitiveness policy in the sense that it should be focussed on improving Ireland's position within the division of labour. It is right to emphasise the vulnerability of Ireland's position as a small open economy to what happens globally but the ESRI view is too passive and reactive. The impression is that all we can do is improve the attractiveness of Ireland as a location for mobile investment. Structural Funds exist to overcome structural constraints and are not there to be used as a means for furthering squalid political ends. The funds must not be tainted by horse trading.

One thing that is not mentioned in Government or official circles, although it is mentioned in the ESRI report, is inequality and social exclusion. Certain social groups will still be excluded from the planning process whether it is local, regional or central, unless there is a specific commitment to their inclusion. The standing Community definition and conception of cohesion as "inter-regional differences in average income per head" is totally inadequate. The problems of inequality are social rather than regional. One can be every bit as peripheral and marginalised in a large urban area as in a rural area. Inequality in Ireland is systematic and it is firmly embedded in State policies as they stand.

Irish Ministers may go off to Brussels from time to time and successfully hold out the begging bowl but any funds that are brought back are systematically used in highly selective and unequal ways. The common-sense view nowadays is that we should back winners and this leads to giving resources to those who are already on the inside track. The excluded will continue to be excluded. Equality and the promotion of equal access are central principles to establish if social exclusion is to be seriously combatted, and tackling social exclusion should be integral to a model of development and to these plans and not treated as a separate issue.

In conclusion I wish to refer to the issue which is probably most on everybody's lips, the question of Aer Lingus. The issue of Aer Lingus cannot be left aside when we are talking about the National Development Plan. The survival and growth of Aer Lingus must be part of a National Development Plan and must include fighting hard at European level for the development and operation of a European aviation policy which preserves diversity and ensures that peripheral regions retain viable airlines which are so vital to their economic development and to the Community objective of economic and social cohesion. The enlarged Cohesion Fund must be used to decentralise aviation activity by reducing the cost of operating from national airports on the periphery and by providing a direct subsidy to airlines in proportion to their operation of designated routes or from designated regions. This could be in the form of support for mobile assets or through any other mechanism with a similar effect.

The crucial factors in the saving of Aer Lingus will be a new national aviation policy based on a European aviation policy which I outlined earlier and it will also have to be based on increased equity investment in the company. The quality of aviation policy and the quantity of equity are important factors. That is a fundamental reality. If the equity is inadequate Aer Lingus will sink. This House stood by and allowed our national shipping carrier to go under in the eighties. It would be an utter disgrace if we allowed a similar fate to befall our national airline.

Last week I tabled a question to the Minister for Finance asking the steps, if any, he is taking to ensure that areas of social exclusion will receive substantial aid and investment from the European Structural Funds and if he will give details of any guidance his Department can provide to community groups from such areas who are drawing up area plans in anticipation of financial assistance. The question was disallowed because it anticipated statements on the National Development Plan today. I have referred to that question because I do not consider it has been clarified to a satisfactory degree by the statements made by the Minister and Minister of State this morning.

I wish to refer specifically to the north inner city of Dublin, an area which is a byword for social and economic deprivation. I am sure the Minister of State is aware that numerous reports, studies and research papers in recent decades have drawn attention to the social problems in that area. I will refer to some of those problems. Unemployment is endemic in the north inner city or, to use the words in the Minister of State's speech this morning, it is an area of chronic unemployment and a blackspot. It has a higher proportion of people who are long term unemployed than anywhere else in the State. In excess of 44 per cent of school children leave school before they reach 15 years of age as against 27 per cent in the greater Dublin area. A mere 1 per cent of school children from the north inner city go on to third level education as opposed to 15 per cent on average in Dublin city. The rate of admission of children into care is at least four times higher than average in the Eastern Health Board region or the national average. There is a higher mortality rate in that area than the Dublin average and fewer general practitioners serve that area. The attendance at the national drug treatment centre is more than three times the Dublin average. The crime rate is four times the Dublin metropolitan area average. I mention those details to set in context the problems experienced by people living in the north inner city. Clearly this is an area of social exclusion. It is perhaps the most excluded area in the State.

This area is next to the commercial and tourist centre of our capital city. If the capital's centre is to thrive economically and the tourism industry is to expand and not retract, then what happens in the north inner city of Dublin is of vital importance. The Structural Funds and the National Development Plan are seen by everyone working and living in this area as a great opportunity to reverse the neglect of decades. It is anticipated that the National Development Plan will give hope to this area. All the agencies, statutory bodies, local authorities, voluntary, community and commercial groups with an interest in the centre of Dublin are of one view in this regard.

Various plans and proposals seeking inclusion in the National Development Plan for Structural Funds have already been submitted. Dublin Corporation has submitted a plan to revitalise the physical environment referred to in their submission as "The Rutland Street Project." The inner city organisations network of voluntary and statutory groups which represent all groups working in the north inner city has presented an integrated urban re-development proposal. The inner city partnership area under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which covers a wider area of the inner city but includes the north inner city has also made a detailed submission. The City Centre Business Association has submitted detailed proposals principally for the commercial core of this area but directly relevant to the socio-economic problems to which I have referred.

Does the Minister support those initiatives to the extent that they will be included in some form in the National Development Plan? Will the regeneration of Dublin's north inner city, which is so vital to the future of Dublin, be included in the Government's submission to Europe? Will the Minister press the case being made by all the groups to which I have referred who form an unprecedented united front with support ranging from MEPs to local councillors representing the area? All those representatives are of the view that something must be done and that the opportunity is available now to do something. If the Minister and the Government support those initiatives, will they assist the local groups concerned by making provisions for this area? Those groups have made a specific request to Government Departments to make provision for the funding of a detailed area study to progress the development of an integrated re-development plan. That would involve an input from all State agencies, local authority and voluntary groups already working in the area. The local groups have played their part and they need Government support to take the next step.

If this great opportunity presented by the National Development Plan and Structural Funds is not availed of, then the future of the centre of our capital city will be put in jeopardy. If an initiative to reverse the socio-economic neglect of this disadvantaged community does not form part of the Government's proposals then the long term reputation of Dublin city, particularly as a centre for the tourism industry, will be severely damaged and diminished. We hardly need any reminder that is already happening and the position could not be otherwise. If this opportunity is missed there is unlikely to be a similar opportunity to provide for this area in the future.

The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald stated that it is crucial that there is "a significant impact on those communities where long term unemployment is a chronic problem". The Minister went on to say that "some communities and individuals will get left behind and that pockets of disadvantage throughout the country will remain untouched by any economic upturn".

It is vitally important that Dublin's north inner city, for the reasons I have already outlined, should not be forgotten. The area has been neglected far too frequently in the past. The Minister went on to state:

... long term unemployment is concentrated in certain unemployment black spots. Local development measures can play a vital role in empowering individuals and groups in these areas to assist the process of bringing communities back into the economic mainstream.

There is already a spirit of fighting back in these communities, of trying to develop local energies and community spirit. This must be encouraged and resourced to ensure that children growing up in these communities face a future of hope. The Minister continued:

A determined effort must be made under the new national plan to reintegrate these communities into the economic system and a local development measure targeted at this objective is being considered for inclusion in the plan.

I welcome that statement in so far as it goes. I agree fully with the approach adopted by the Minister. However, I wish to reiterate that I have mentioned a specific way in which one such community can be resourced, as a first step. The Government must provide the necessary funding now to enable them progress their area study. This is vital if the local community is to benefit from Structural Fund investment. I re-emphasise that proposal because it is one which is being pressed by the various groups who have done everything within their ability but who feel that this must be the next step if they are to progress any further.

Resources are simply not available to the local groups to take this essential step. They have already played their part, given the limitations of the resources available to them. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate her response to this specific request.

Before concluding I wish to reiterate my support for Aer Lingus in the difficult times it is facing. Equity was promised by the previous Government at meetings in Dublin Airport before the last election. I attended some of those meetings, not before the election but after it. One political party received special invitations before the election but everyone attended after the election. That party was very willing at the time to make promises in exchange for political support. This is an important point because the Minister of State is preparing an ethics in Government Bill. I have made the point several times that if people in Government make promises in order to obtain votes during an election and subsequently ignore those promises when they receive that political support, an ethics in Government Bill is meaningless. That basic moral position must be upheld if politics is to have a good name here. There is no doubt that politicians have been under attack, with good reason, for quite a considerable time, but it would be a final blow to political integrity and morality if commitments made before elections were not honoured after those elections. I hope that the European funds will form a source of direct equity investment into our national airline to ensure its long term future.

I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Séamus Hughes.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The central objective of the allocation of Structural Funds, as outlined by the Minister this morning, is the creation of sustainable employment and growth. The Structural Funds have been put in place to narrow the gap that exists between the poorer countries in the Community and those that are better off. It is important in that context that Ireland receive its share of funds because as an island on the periphery of Europe we must close the gap between ourselves and our partners in Europe.

The Minister pointed out this morning that the draft conclusions of the Edinburgh Summit were amended to include unemployment and rural development. This is important, particularly in the context of this debate, and I realise that everyone has their priorities in terms of how this money might be spent. I have strong views on how this money should be allocated in the new Structural Funding arrangements.

We must close the gap between ourselves and Europe. We must also close some of the gaps at home between the various sub-regions. The national interest would be best served by a policy of decentralisation to ensure that more people can live on the land and engage in rural development. While I accept the problems as outlined here this morning in regard to Dublin city, if we continue to develop Dublin city to the exclusion of the rest of Ireland we will aggravate those problems.

I do not envy the Government its task in drawing up priorities in regard to Structural Funds. It will be difficult and the Minister of State indicated this morning that the demand for spending has now reached £28 billion, while the sum of money available is only £12 billion. There is a problem in determining priorities.

I realise time is limited in this debate and for that reason I will confine my comments to transport infrastructure as it is an issue on which I receive constant representations. The sub-region review committee in the north west identified roads as a major problem. A letter which it sent to the Minister of State stated: "There was an overwhelming case made in the circumstances to our committee. and from our constituent members, that roads are the greatest problem".

In the allocation of the new Structural Funds it is imperative that money be available for regional and county roads. The major national primary roads, like spokes in a wheel, radiate from Dublin. This leaves large areas of the country without national primary roads and with totally unacceptable county roads. I am referring mainly to the north east, the north midlands and the north west. For example, there is no national primary road north of the Dublin-Galway road. The road from Dundalk to Sligo should be upgraded, which would benefit the social and economic development of the whole area north of Dublin. I would like to see the road to Greenore and Carlingford Lough developed, which would ease the pressure on Dublin city.

It is essential that sufficient moneys are made available from the Structural Funds for the improvement of the county roads. The case has been made frequently in this Chamber about the deplorable condition of many of our county roads. There has been a substantial increase in the amount of money provided since 1987 — £67 million was provided last year——

The Deputy started in Cavan.

——as against £23 million in the last year Fine Gael were in Government.

If the Deputy was in office for six more months there would not be a pothole left in Cavan.

We must ensure that the Minister for the Environment has sufficient funding for roads. The Commission should accept the importance of allowing some of the money we receive to be spent on county roads. The north-west sub-region has stated in their submission that roads are a national priority. I accept the points made by the Minister and Minister of State in regard to a range of areas such as water supplies and sewerage, which are not considered to the same extent as roads but are vitally important for industry and tourism and for the benefit of the people and their quality of life.

As regards education and training, I would like to see the emphasis placed on educating people for jobs where opportunities exist. I am always concerned at the number of representations I receive from young people trained as secretaries who cannot find jobs, but we all know that, with the advent of computers and information technology, the number of jobs in this area is very limited. I would like to see a continuation of European Social Fund moneys that have been available and used beneficially for the training of people with a disability.

I was pleased to hear the Minister clear up an issue that caused much concern among the farming community, that is the question of headage payments. Deputies from rural Ireland recognise that support is given by way of guidance funds rather than Structural Funds, as suggested in the ESRI report. We recognise the value of those funds and the need to maintain them to support farming so that as many families as possible remain on the land.

Numerous benefits have accrued from the Structural Funds spent to date and it is essential that this trend continues. Urban renewal was referred to by the Minister. The spending of money in this area has been very beneficial. The NorthWestern Sub-Regional Review Committee referred to a number of areas but I do not have time to deal with them in detail. I agree with them in regard to the problem of peripherality, support for railways — a deputation recently met the Minister responsible for this area — regional airports, forestry, fisheries, the Gaeltacht and islands. Programmes such as the Leader, NOW, Horizon, STRIDE and INTERREG Programmes have been very beneficial. The Leader Programme which has made an important contribution to rural development should be continued, although the structures through which it is administered may need to be considered. The INTERREG Programme is very important. I am glad that ongoing talks are taking place between officials north and south of the Border in co-ordinating the plan for further money. I would like to see this area developed and also the possibility of cross-Border industrial zones with tax incentives and support to ensure there is an opportunity in those areas to create further jobs.

It is important that the Government makes the decisions in regard to the plan. The Minister, Deputy Ahern, clarified that point this morning. I have been concerned that the National Development Plan has not been presented as the collective responsibility of Government. An attempt has been made to portray the National Development Plan as the responsibility of the Minister of State.

Is it Labour Members who are saying that?

It is claimed that she is the main arbiter as to the spending of this vital funding, but of course that is not so. The plan is very important for the future. I take the point made by the Minister of State this morning that this may be the last substantial tranche of money we will receive. This money is too important to be used for the political glory of anybody. It should not be a political plaything because it is very important in terms of national development.

I appreciate that difficulties exist. We must draw up our priorities at home, and I have no doubt the Government will do so. I am sure the Minister for Finance, with the support of his colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be in the front line in fighting our case in Europe. I hope those negotiations are very successful and that worthwhile development will result from this plan.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the National Development Plan as its importance cannot be over emphasised. It is the new framework by which this country will move into the next century and it must be an effective engine of economic growth Huge responsibility rests on the Government in this regard. As this may be the last time we will receive a significant level of Structural Funds it is imperative they are used in a positive manner. This is a plan that must not be designed with any political ideology in mind as it is much too important to be utilised to promote any political slant.

The bottom line for the National Development Plan is the generation of long term sustainable jobs for our people. Vital funding should not be frittered away on pointless programmes or spurious schemes. Above all, the plan must be practical in orientation, with enterprise and employment at its heart. Apart from ensuring that our economic fundamentals are right, a sustained effort must be made to reap the reward of mass infrastructural investment so that unemployment levels will begin a sustained downward spiral.

Under the last operational programme the benefits of EC membership became evident on the ground, with the implementation of road, water and sewerage schemes, the coming on-stream of various tourism projects and the setting up of training and retraining programmes and many other programmes too numerous to mention. The present operational programme carries a price tag of £9 million of EC funds together with £3 million of Irish funds, amounting to 13.5 per cent of the total package. We receive over 50 per cent more per capita than countries such as Greece and Portugal. The poorer countries in Europe will argue for their fair share of the Structural Fund cake and I wish the Taoiseach well in putting forward Ireland's case. Despite our perceived disadvantaged status there are countries such as Spain with a higher unemployment rate than ours. All of Europe is in a depressed state with high unemployment levels and a lack of industrial confidence. The German economy, which is clearly the strongest in Europe, has its own difficulties in absorbing the cost of re-unification.

As a rural Deputy from the west I acknowledge the progress that has been made in the past several years in reducing to some degree our peripheral status in the western region in that east-west road links have been substantially improved. Much progress remains to be made in this regard. This is a wonderful opportunity to bring our country into the 21st century, to stimulate economic development and to open up new investment opportunities which will extend inwards to the benefit of the Community as a whole.

It is evident that under the last round of Structural Funds massive investment has taken place, and rightly so, in our capital city and major towns. During the period of the present plan migration from rural to urban centres continued unabated. Careful consideration underpinned by well thought out strategies will have to be part of the next round of Structural Funds in order to reverse this trend in the west. Migration from the west is only causing problems on the east coast which is trying to absorb these people. The imbalance in population has serious consequences for us. While the plan must take into account the infrastructural requirements of growth centres of population, it must reverse the trend for instance in places like Achill where from 1985 to 1991 the population dropped by 30 per cent.

Only 9.7 per cent of the population lives in the west sub-region of Galway, Mayo and Roscommon which comprises 20 per cent of the land mass. Population density here is the lowest of the seven sub-regions and 30 per cent of the region's employment is in the agricultural sector. That is twice the national average. There is a high percentage of poor soil, rainfall and drainage which leads to poor agricultural production. There is an extensive range of natural resources which, properly exploited could make a significant contribution to the economy. We have a scenic coastline and landscape and we have abundant unpolluted sea and fresh water resources with high tourism potential. We have a naturally clean environment and there are extensive areas suitable for agriculture and forestry. The principal obstacles to the development of this area include higher production and overhead costs especially in transport and there is low per capita income which leads to reduced spending power. We also have substandard roads, and water and sanitary facilities are underdeveloped. Our main concern is to maintain our population. This can only be done with sustainable economic development which will provide employment opportunities and contribute to the overall economic development of the country.

The effect of the fall in population on the economic development of the area is reflected in the lack of take up of finance available under the last round of Structural Funds. This represents a lost opportunity for the region. While everybody agrees that the west has significant natural resources from which to develop tourism, the lack of sufficient private capital to match EC funds is all too apparent in the last round of funds. The converse of this was reflected in the number of quality tourism projects such as golf courses, leisure facilities and other projects which commenced in other areas.

Tourism is a seasonal industry and there must be a population base to justify any reasonable investment criteria. To overcome this difficulty changes must be made in the level of grant-aid and eligibility criteria and, if possible, loan capital should be provided from special funds. There should be a degree of flexibility in the European Regional Development Fund funds when applied to under populated areas such as the west sub-region so that people will not have to match EC funds.

Rural development is of critical importance to the west. Agricultural and rural development must be given the highest priority in the next round of Structural Funds. The rural development programme must be continued and new measures must be introduced to support a wide range of alternative enterprises. It is important that alternative enterprises are promoted as traditional type farming is very much tied to quota.

Mushroom production units have been very successful. Teagasc must be given the necessary resources to promote new farm enterprises. I look forward to the introduction of the farm retirement package. A number of farmers do not have direct descendants to inherit their holdings as many farmers did not marry. The transfer of land to young people to whom diversification is more attractive will be accelerated by the implementation of the farm retirement scheme which will give an assurance to the retiring farmer that he will have a decent income. It is extremely difficult for young people to commence farming due to their ineligibility for quotas. Schemes such as the programme for control of farmyard pollution and the operational programme for forestry can be built upon and made more attractive. I welcome the clarification in relation to headage payments which are of critical importance. They are an income support and should not be described as anything else. If these payments were not continued the west of Ireland would be decimated.

There is much I would like to say about roads, water and sewerage schemes and islands. I regret that time is so limited that I cannot go into more detail.

I intend to share my time with Deputies Lowry and Kenny. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. We spend too little time debating major national issues. It is a pity that this is not a debate rather than the reading of statements and that the time is so short.

The summary of the ESRI report is a welcome contribution to the general debate in regard to how we might spend Structural Funds. I have with me a copy of the 1989 National Development Plan, a very good document. The Government was unusually honest in the way it approached our problems and our presentation for the first set of Structural Funds from 1989 to 1993.

The analysis of this report is quite good although I would not agree with many parts of it. It is a great pity that the way we performed, on the basis of the aspirations in the 1989 plan, was not set out in an indepth way. It is possible that the full report carries an analysis of how we under-performed in those years. The 1989 report stated that in Ireland income per capita was about 58 per cent of the Community average. The aim of the Structural Funds was to close that gap. We did not close the gap by one percentage point. I do not have the figures, but I would not be surprised to discover that the gap has widened. We admitted in 1989 that if we took a 25 year horizon, per capita output here would have to grow by 1.8 per cent in excess of the Community average for us to catch up. We did not advance our growth rates by anything like that. In fact, our percentage growth rates by comparison with the Community average has lessened. That points to the fact that we have dropped further and further behind. On this critical criteria, the Government has failed utterly to make any impact on the economy as we would have expected and as the outcome of the first National Plan and the first expenditure of £3 billion of Structural Funds has shown.

Many speakers have been regional in what they have said; indeed many of them have been very parochial. Certainly one regrets the kind of language used by Deputy De Rossa, the leader of a party in this House, singling out a certain category within the Community and trying to attribute to them a special level of greed and so on. I do not wish to go down that road with him. That is not what this debate should be about.

Nevertheless, it is important that we adhere to the principles that govern these Structural Funds. There are all kinds of pious words used, such as "solidarity". What is "solidarity"? It means that the people would have a sense of solidarity within the Community. I live in a region where, in 1989, it was admitted that the average income was 43 per cent of the Community income and only 80 per cent or less of the national income. When I tell my constituents that I want to improve their sense of solidarity within the Community I am telling them to vote for the Single European Act. This is what I said to them in 1986. I told them: "We will get Structural Funds, which will enable the income gap between you and the rest of the country to be closed, never mind the rest of the Community". But I go back to those constituents five or six years later and find that that promise has not been honoured. That is what this term of "solidarity" has meant to them.

There has been much talk about disparities. It was to follow from our acceptance of the Single European Act, our acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty, of which I am an enthusiastic supporter, that these disparities would be wiped out. That also was linked to solidarity within the Community itself, that people would have a sense of cohesion, a sense of belonging within the Community.

The very direct opposite has happened. I do not blame the European Community for this; I blame our own Government. Since these funds were first initiated in 1989 there have been Fianna Fáil Governments here or a combination of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats and now a combination of Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party. These are the people who put the policies into effect which have maintained these disparities throughout the country and which have kept alive this sense of alienation felt by many of my constituents.

We will do better this time round.

I am not at all convinced, I can assure Deputy Broughan, that they are even attempting to do better next time round. Had I sufficient time available to me I should like to advise the Minister that fundamental principles have been totally overlooked — and I use the word "principles" advisedly — in the way policies have been devised and applied domestically in this country I would insist that there be an examination of those regions of the country that suffer severe disadvantage, that are truly peripheral, that are peripheries beyond the peripheries, to ensure that they get a fair share, not an inequitable share or one above other sectors.

It has been evident for some time past that there is enormous need for a radical new approach to the use of Structural Funds, to the manner in which the initiative and enterprise of individuals and communities can be stimulated and encouraged so that we can once more, generate a measure of confidence among our people in the abilities of Government to govern. We must get away from the concept that all decisions affecting the daily lives of ordinary citizens are taken at national level. We must hand back real power and authority to local communities if we are to revitalise the spirit and dynamism which have been stifled for far too long.

However, we must do that without creating another layer of bureaucracy, without imposing further structures on local involvement. The approach formulated by the Fine Gael Party is soundly based, people-orientated and gives a new meaning to the whole concept of people being involved in the planning of their destiny. If there is one overriding emotion among our people today it is their feeling of helplessness in the face of Government control. The vast majority of ordinary citizens are quite convinced that every decision affecting their daily lives emanates from Dublin, that all power has been removed from the hands of local authorities and, by implication, from the people themselves. In turn, this has led to a siege mentality, with people unwilling to accept any decision without question, with the motives of the Government and Government leaders being viewed with suspicion.

The Fine Gael approach to the distribution of Structural Funds constitutes a major step forward in attempting to overcome the current national suspicion of and antipathy to the political process. We are deluding ourselves if we fail to recognise and admit publicly that this antipathy exists. We are deeply conscious of it and are actively prepared to put an end to it in the most positive manner possible by involving people more and more in their destiny and placing real power in the hands of the people most directly affected by it. The Fine Gael proposals to devolve the balance of power in favour of local government and local communities is merely an acknowledgment of the problem and of the means by which it can be solved. The proper use of Structural Funds is the perfect vehicle for this to be done, providing the impetus for individual and collective enthusiasm and commitment at local level and for restoring a huge measure of confidence in the ability of elected representatives to legislate and govern.

If there is any doubt about what can be achieved by a planned approach to the use of Structural Funds and the immense pool of energy awaiting stimulation into action, let me illustrate it by citing an example from my constituency in Tipperary. It has been no secret that we have been campaigning for many years now for a third-level institute in Thurles. Under a Fine Gael-led administration that campaign made substantial progress to the point at which site approval had been given and funds made available for its purchase. Sadly, a change of Government intervened at that point. A Fianna Fáil Cabinet saw fit to bring the project to a halt on the basis that funding was not available. That was six years ago. Nothing has happened since. But that is not the end of the story. In fact it may well be only the beginning, because there is involved here a perfect example of the type of thinking and action prevalent everywhere in our communities and merely awaiting stimulus at national level to be brought to fruition. The failure of national Government to progress the third-level institute project in Tipperary normally would have meant a halt to progress at local level, but that is not what happened. Undeterred, the local community went ahead. The project has been reshaped and restructured into what I believe to be one of the most original and innovative programmes ever produced on the Irish educational front. The Tipperary rural and business development programme is a far-reaching one. It ensures the availability of adult and continuing education to every single member of the community. It ensures that education is a two-way process, as it should be, in that the educators also become the educated by responding to the needs of local communities and of individuals and groups within those same communities. In many ways it is an amazing idea, but is a perfect illustration of the type of innovative thinking abounding in this country today merely awaiting national Government approval to be put into action.

Our case for a third level institute has been well proven and documented. It is a unique concept, identifying a niche in the educational sector not already serviced. Indeed, that proposal meets all the criteria for the call-down of Structural Funds. Over many years promoting this institute we have endured setbacks, disappointments, frustration and a whole series of broken promises. If this institute is to become a reality it must be included for funding under the Structural Aid Programme. It is a case of now or never.

When the Government comes to make final decisions they should be mindful that the present Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, Labour Deputies John Ryan and Ferris and, indeed, Senator Michael O'Kennedy all gave preelection firm commitments and guarantees that this project would be sanctioned by the Government and included in the programme for Structural Aid. Therefore, I am confident and optimistic that the validity of our case will be accepted and the promise of funds honoured.

I am glad to have an opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate on the National Development Plan. I am sorry to see the £8 billion Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, leave the House, though recognising that she too must have the odd break.

The subregional review committees on this subject were asked to deal with strategy rather than with particular projects. The type of discussion I have heard take place over the past month or so reminds me of the story of Bluebeard, the pirate who, on successfully accosting and robbing people on the Spanish Main, proceeded to divide all the acquired gold bullion among his friends and cohorts. It appears that the Taoiseach is putting out the message that these decisions are going to be made by the Cabinet only and that he is going to take the role of Bluebeard and decide who will get what from the bullion acquired in Edinburgh. There may well be a rebellion in the ranks when this news leaks out and his fellow pirates in arms may not be pleased when they discover just how bad the news is.

The western sub-regional review committee submitted a report based on agriculture, tourism and renewed competitiveness for the attraction of foreign industry, local development and the maintenance of the basic fabric of society in that region. The sub-regional review committees did not cost the projects that they submitted to the Department. Yet, I note that the Minister of State costed them at £28 billion. If they were not costed at local level what is the reason they were costed by the Department and how was this figure arrived at? Has the figure been deliberately exaggerated to give the impression that far too many projects have been submitted with the result that people will say they have no chance to get money?

When the Minister of State met the sub-regional review comittees she told them that they would not obtain both road and rail projects, that they would not get two bones for the one dog. Yet, the Government has provided £3 million to upgrade the Dublin-Belfast railway line and now propose to construct a major Euro-route between Belfast and Rosslare. That amounts to a contradiction.

When one travels between Cork and Dublin one can use a sophisticated train system and arrive in Dublin early in the morning, whereas when one travels from the west one will not arrive before 11.30 a.m. As a consequence, a business person is placed at a disadvantage if he or she wants to come to Dublin for a half day's work. While I am aware that the Dublin-Belfast railway line could continue to be sabotaged by the Provisional IRA — if they wish to continue their illegal activities and make their point — if we want to do things properly we should develop the railway system for the transport of heavy goods and the roadways for light traffic.

The problem is that there is no regional policy: a foreign industrialist will receive the same grants irrespective of where the plant is located. Clare Island off County Mayo is treated in the same way as the rest of the country. Why would an industrialist set up on Clare Island, or in the rest of the country which lies off the mainland of Europe? We need to provide basic infrastructural facilities, be competitive and ensure that quality goods are manufactured and delivered on time.

Recently, a fine interpretative centre was opened at the Ceide Fields, Bally-castle, at a cost of £2.5 million without any objections being raised. This is a fine development and I hope thousands of tourists will be attracted there on a weekly basis. While infrastructural facilities such as roads, sewage treatment plants, water supplies and an interpretative centre have been provided no accommodation grants are available to encourage people to stay in the region. The intention seems to be to bus people from long distances to this area. Reconstruction grants were abolished in 1987 by Fianna Fáil and have never been replaced. If one does not provide local people with the wherewithal to avail of infrastructural facilities one defeats the purpose.

In County Mayo, during the 30 year period between 1961 and 1991 — including the boom years of the seventies— 22,000 jobs were lost in agriculture while 3,000 jobs were gained in manufacturing and 4,000 jobs in the services sector, giving a net loss of 15,000 jobs. This was despite the fact that ten major multinational companies had been attracted to the region in addition to some local industries. This means that small towns and villages which were alive, vibrant and thriving and retaining families, which is fundamental in maintaining the fabric of society, are now dying.

This region has been written off by economists and, apparently, by the Government. I do not accept that this should be the case. We do not want a line to be drawn from Derry to Cork with the area west of this line being set aside for wandering tourists to savour the delights of Ireland. The Ceide Fields project interprets life 5,000 years ago. We should allow local people to avail of Structural Funds or Bluebeard's money to build on what they have to provide an income and livelihood for themselves and succeeding generations. This will be fundamental in the development of this country during the next three decades. I hope when Bluebeard comes to make decisions he will forget about his immediate friends and look after those on the periphery.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Kavanagh, Broughan and Brian Fitzgerald.

A significant element of the next round of Structural Funds must be targeted at unemployment blackspots and disadvantaged areas both urban and rural. Local communities in partnership with agencies, such as local authorities, health boards and FÁS, have the capacity, with Structural Fund support, to regenerate many of the areas which have been left behind in terms of economic development and which are devastated by unemployment rates as high as 60 per cent and 80 per cent.

The ESRI report on the last round of Structural Funds proves only one thing— that is, that it is impossible to accurately assess the economic impact of the spending. We could spend hours arguing the economic merits of roads versus railways, of headage payments versus job creation schemes. There are no certain answers. We cannot be definite about which were the better investments. What we can be certain about, however, is that there are some areas and some groups which have been entirely untouched by Structural Funding. These areas and these groups have been further marginalised because the disparity between them and other areas and groups has been widened. This is not to suggest that the Structural Funds have been badly used but simply that they have not been used to benefit all our citizens.

Economic analysis is very far from being an exact science. The traditional view of economic growth has been shown to be inaccurate even though our traditional economists may not accept this. We need investment in infrastructure, we need enterprise, we need these things very badly but we need more than that. We need to make sure that the fruits of economic growth are spread to all our communities. This will not happen automatically — it has not happened in the past and is just as unlikely to happen in the future. To make sure it does happen, there has to be specific intervention, in an integrated way, by all the State agencies, helped, where available, by the private sector. This is why it is so vitally important that a significant part of the Structural Funds be targeted at disadvantaged communities and disadvantaged groups. Even if you do not accept the equity argument or the economic argument, you must be convinced by the argument on social and economic costs.

The costs of maintaining communities in deprivation are large — social welfare, living costs, health costs and the costs of extra policing. A sustained attack on deprivation by means of an area based approach, financed by the Structural Funds, would result, in the long run, in savings in many of these costs. More importantly, it would result in revitalised communities, a better environment and an empowered people. I am not suggesting that we will have thousands of jobs at the end of this process. I am suggesting that we will have more jobs than we have now and we will have people with a greater capacity to create jobs to have confidence in themselves and in the future of their children.

Since taking up office, I have visited many such communities. There is a huge demand in local communities for local innovations. People are prepared to help themselves, to work for the improvement of their communities. They need the sort of assistance that the Structural Funds can provide. The people have the energy and the will, all they need are the resources. I have visited many local communities, from Inishboffin to Wexford, Cork and Dublin, and the energy and enthusiasm for community development is obvious in all of them. The energy of women in those communities is particularly marked. The old solutions which have been tried — and which failed — by economists up to now have ignored these resources. I do not consider that there is a conflict between rural and urban development. The sort of area based development which I want to see applies to both urban and rural areas. It will be easier to establish area based development in rural areas where there is already an economic and enterprise base and people with a wide range of skills and training.

Headage payments do not constitute rural development. Whether these payments should be continued should be decided in the context of the total income maintenance arrangements for farmers. There are alternative ways of arranging income maintenance for farmers. Rural development policy is much wider than income maintenance. Rural development should be about community development, the empowerment of local people, local direction and control. This requires a much more integrated approach in the same way that community development in urban areas needs an integrated approach.

I have made the case on numerous occasions for using Structural Funds to tackle deprivation. I am confident that, with the Labour Party in Government, funds will be made available for this. Deprived communities will not be bypassed this time. Instead they will be given an opportunity to develop and thrive and ultimately, to make a contribution to economic well-being.

If he had an opportunity to contribute to the debate I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would agree with the points I wish to make — I know of his interest in building-up our infrastructural facilities. Over the years we were told that funds provided by the EC could only be used to develop our road network. I never accepted that this was the case and my beliefs were confirmed a number of years ago when, together with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I visited the EC Committee on Regional Funds in Brussels. It seems that the problems in regard to the disbursement of these funds lay nearer home.

My plea today is for Structural Funds to be used in the main to build up our infrastructure, thus ensuring that they will be of economic benefit to the country. In this regard, I ask the Minister to ensure that the county roads, which are being demolished by bad weather and a lack of attention by local authorities which do not have adequate funding, are given a high priority in the disbursement of these funds. My constituency of Wicklow-East Kildare is very large and the county roads are in a very poor state of repair — the national primary and national secondary roads are located on opposite sides of County Wicklow. I am sure my points in regard to the condition of the county roads in my constituency apply equally to constituencies all over Ireland. This issue needs to be given a great deal of attention if some of our county roads are not to disappear altogether. It should also be remembered that it will cost much more money to reconstruct these roads at a future date.

Structural Funds for the development of ports should not be confined to larger ports. I do not mind money being spent on the development of ports in Cork, Dublin, Rosslare or Waterford, but it should be remembered that there are 12 other ports referred to under the Harbours Act, all of which are important to their areas. It is rumoured that moneys for ports under the Structural Funds will be diverted towards the larger ports. The vast majority of tourists who visit this country come through our ports. In addition, the vast bulk of our commercial trade takes place through our ports. Ports such as Arklow, Wicklow, Mornington in Drogheda, Foynes, etc., are vitally important to their areas. Funding should be allocated to these ports. I think the programme to relieve the bottleneck in Arklow is going ahead. There should be no delays in completing this programme which will improve access for tourists to counties Wexford, Waterford and Wicklow.

Finally, I wish to refer to access from Bray to Greystones, the fastest growing regions in the country. The DART system which was built in the seventies could not be extended to Greystones due to difficulties with Bray Head — the cost of widening the tunnel would have cost approximately £4 million during the seventies; it would cost approximately £16 million today. In view of the number of people from those areas who work in Dublin, consideration should be given to including such a proposal under the Structural Funds. As I wish to give the remaining time to my two colleagues, I will conclude on that point which I know is also close to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's heart.

I congratulate the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, on their contributions to this debate. The points they made will do much to redress the mistakes which were made in applications for funding under previous tranches of the Structural Funds. During the period 1989-93 I think only 12 per cent of available funding was spent in tackling the problem of long term and youth unemployment, the greatest problem facing the EC today. The Minister for Finance indicated that funding would be targeted towards solving the worst effects of unemployment.

It is unseemly to have one region competing with another region for the available funding. One of the reasons the applications were not examined line by line is that two areas, for example, Mayo and Dublin, could be competing against each other for funding. It has to be said that there are some terrible unemployment blackspots in the Dublin area. As the leader of the Civic Alliance of Dublin City Council, I know that the unemployment level in some areas of Dublin is as high as 85 to 90 per cent. I welcome the progress which has been made in the empowerment of local people, often with very little resources, over the past ten years. In this context, the North Side Partnership in my area, the North Side Centre for the unemployed and the Inner City Partnership, spring to mind. These organisations do not see their role as merely one of training the long term unemployed. Both the ERSI and the DKM reports prove conclusively that there is a relationship between one's level of education and one's chances of securing employment. The number of unemployed third level graduates is relatively small compared to the number of unemployed people who did not get their junior certificate. This clearly indicates that we should be putting more money into training the unemployed and ensuring job placement. There are huge numbers of unemployed people living in industrial regions such as those in my constituency in the north side of Dublin. There has to be a connection between the training provided for these people and the requirements of locally based industries.

I am disappointed at the predicted job losses in Aer Lingus. I hope the actual number of job losses will be much lower when the negotiations are concluded. There is a need for more local economic development. The Minister who have contributed to the debate are moving in the right direction in this regard. The infrastructure being put in place at present in Dublin city with the assistance of the Government will, I hope, improve the economic well-being of the city. In this connection I wish to refer to the Dublin city enterprise board which will shortly be established by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. This board will place emphasis on supporting and developing small and medium scale enterprises. This type of initiative should be funded under the Structural Funds.

I am a member of the Dublin Transportation Initiative. The internal transport network, particularly the public transport network in Dublin, has been disgracefully neglected for the past 30 years. I hope it is the Government's intention to provide funding from the resources that become available for a decent transport network particularly in the west and north of Dublin. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fitzgerald, indicated this morning that the new Dublin regional authority will be the monitoring authority for overseeing spending and I would like to see it carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the expenditure over the next six years. That is to be greatly welcomed as it gives the new regional authorities an important role. The Government is heading in the right direction.

Both the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, referred to the fact that funding for women's development was badly neglected under previous structural funding but the NOW programme goes some way to address this.

Dublin is a Border region, a fact that has always been ignored. Dublin has the biggest port and airport in the country, and I hope that continues. We never benefited in the past from programmes to assist Border areas but I hope some moves will be made by the local authorities to link up with Wales and beyond under the INTERREG programme. The National Economic and Social Forum gives a statutory role for the first time to the unemployed and voluntary groups and I welcome this.

Finally, I hope that substantial resources will be invested in the Dublin region.

This country is getting a final opportunity from the EC to spend a substantial amount of money. For that reason it is very important that the money is spent in the long term interest of the Irish people. Every constituency has its problems. I represent a constituency that is both urban and rural. We must decide that the Department of the Environment instructs the local authorities when allocating money to them to employ people to ensure that the maximum number of jobs become available. Like most Deputies from rural areas I have witnessed local communities dying and if that continues we may forget about rural Ireland.

I welcome the suggestion that extra money should be spent on county and regional roads. We all know that these roads have been starved of funding, particularly since rates on land were removed. It is recommended that roads should be surface-dressed once every seven years but in counties like my own they are working on a ratio of 1:27 — that spells out the magnitude of the problem. A substantial amount of money is required to upgrade and increase the capacity of our water and sewerage systems. If we do not do this, particularly in the counties on the periphery of Dublin, we will lose out in the long term. Industrialists will not invest in this country unless the basic facilities are available. We have failed to do so and I hope money is directed to this area. I appreciate that the effects may not be immediately apparent but if it is not done jobs will not be created.

My colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, referred to our ports. I wish to appeal, on behalf of the people of Drogheda who are proposing to develop the port at Mornington. If the State does not invest in this project — there will be private investment — the port will die over the next five to six years.

It is unfortunate that the time available to debate this issue is short but we may get another opportunity later. Forestry has tremendous potential for creating jobs but if we do not provide the resources we will lose our forests and there will no longer be employment for the people. The emphasis has to be on jobs and this has never been stated more strongly than in the past few weeks. We need to do our utmost to create jobs from the expenditure of the Structural and Cohesion Funds. Whatever money is spent the long term and short term job opportunities should be borne in mind. I again appeal to the Minister to ensure that the local authorities are instructed to employ people directly so that the work goes directly to the local communities. If that is not done we may forget about the Structural Funds programme.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Doyle and Crawford.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is doubtful if we have discussed a more important topic than the methods by which we propose to spend the £8 billion funding from the EC Structural and Cohesion Funds over the next four to five years. Our debate today impinges directly on the lives of every man, woman and child in this country.

It is vital that we assess our position before any attempt is made to spend the moneys that become available. After spending a fairly large tranche of money in the years 1989-93 we have reached the following point: 300,000 people are out of work; more people are leaving the land than before; our national primary and secondary roads and all our county roads are in need of repair; there are thousands of rural homes without piped water and many urban areas have very poor quality water supplies. Many small towns and villages do not have proper sewage treatment plants and there are blackspots in rural and urban areas where not one job has been created in the past five years. We have a bad railway network to the provinces and there have been major negative changes in policy trends in the provision of telecommunications and postal services to rural Ireland. Our education system does not identify weak pupils who need special attention during their formative years at primary level and, as a consequence of the failure to help, such children suffer a profound lack of opportunity in later life. Our system of Government is so centralised that any worthwhile local initiative is crushed by an overhang of the dead hand of bureaucracy, for which we are famous. Our tax and social welfare systems stifle initiative and generally cramp the style of people who want to work for a living. We are now the only country that is not connected by an overland connection to our partners in Europe.

Let us put the allocation of £8 billion from the Structural and Cohesion Funds in context. We will receive very valuable investment of roughly £1 billion per year over the next seven years but this week our national debt stands at £26 billion and rising and the interest repayments are well over £2 billion each year. It is no harm to remind ourselves why the EC is allocating this money to us. In order to try to spread the financial resources generated by rich countries at the hub of Europe the EC has financed higher levels of Structural and Cohesion Funds to the poorer countries like Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal. The gap between the rich and poor countries in the EC is not closing and neither is the gap between the rich and poor regions in the countries. Ireland sold its case on the low living standards, huge unemployment figures and, above all, our peripherality. Areas like the west and north-west contributed significantly to our case for Structural and Cohesion Funds. Without the very serious demographic and social problems in the west our case for higher funding would have been more difficult to make. Serious problems exists in cities like Dublin as well as in rural areas of the west.

I fully subscribe to the view that there is no need for a major confrontation between urban and rural Ireland so long as a few ground rules are recognised and abided by. If rural Ireland continues to haemorrhage its population, particularly in the province of Connacht, the demand for infrastructural developments in Dublin and other urban centres will continue to outpace any capacity to provide such facilities. Put at its basic level, if a family in County Galway is driven out of its local area because its small farm cannot support them or if the local off-farm job collapses, then we will have the well-known phenomenon of the flight from the land to the nearest urban centre or Dublin or, worse still, to a destination outside the country.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share