On behalf of Democratic Left I welcome the Bill and we will support its passage through the Dáil.
The decision to establish a Western Development Commission was taken by the last Government. The commission was established on a non-statutory basis by that Government pending the introduction of legislation. We are pleased that legislation is now before the Dáil. We should also acknowledge the role of the Council for the West established through the initiative of the western Catholic bishops which lobbied strongly for the establishment of a statutory development agency for the west.
I represent an urban constituency in this House but as somebody who was born, brought up and educated in the west I am well aware and indeed have personal experience of the unique problems faced by the west arising from its relative isolation, inadequate infrastructure and poor access to many public services.
It would be wrong, however, to paint a picture of a region in terminal decline. The west has much to be proud of — outstanding natural and scenic beauty, its heritage, clean environment and extensive coastline, its attractiveness as a place to live and its existing industrial base, all of which offer considerable potential for development. Not all of the land in the west is of poor quality; there is much good agricultural land in the region.
There is much success in the west and a great deal of physical evidence of achievement and wealth, but it is clearly not being shared out equally. That is one of the issues the commission will have to examine. Even the population drain has been halted. Of the seven counties covered by the remit of the commission, six experienced population increases between 1991 and 1996 —— Clare increased by 3.4 per cent, Galway by 4.7 per cent and only Leitrim showed a loss of population in that period. That does not make up for the substantial decline experienced in earlier decades, a loss which continues to have a negative impact on the region and which has distorted the demography of many areas of the west.
Rural poverty tends to be less visible than its urban counterpart. While poverty in the cities tends to be concentrated in highly visible urban blackspots, poverty in rural Ireland is often hidden away down boreens or on the sides of mountains, often represented by elderly people living on their own. The poverty is exacerbated by isolation and remoteness from services.
We should not make the mistake of equating rural poverty solely with farming. Notwithstanding the very real difficulties currently facing agriculture, virtually all studies show that the percentage of farmers identified as being at risk from poverty has declined steadily. For instance, the National Anti-Poverty Strategy produced by the last Government shows that when income is combined with the basic deprivation indicator, farmers make up only 3 per cent of those at risk from poverty in 1994 in comparison with 6 per cent in 1987.
Agriculture is and will remain a key element in the economic life of the west, but farming on its own will not be able to give the region the lift it needs. That requires a wide range of social, economic and infrastructural initiatives, and this is recognised in the wide range of functions for the commission set out in section 8. Although I acknowledge the Minister of State's role in bringing the Bill to the House, is it appropriate that the sponsoring Government Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food?
I am concerned by how duplication is to be avoided between the commission and other agencies with a similar remit. For instance, Clare is within the commission's area of responsibility, yet SFADCo already has responsibility for industry, tourism and rural development in Clare. The same case could be made for Údarás na Gaeltachta and the Gaeltacht areas. How is duplication of work with national agencies which have similar objectives to the commission to be avoided? These issues should be teased out.
What financial resources are to be made available to the commission? Section 21 states that the Minister for Agriculture and Food may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, advance to the commission, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, such sums as the Minister may determine. I know that approximately £25 million has already been promised to the Western Development Fund, but only £2.5 million has been allocated in the current year. However, no indication is given in the Bill or its memorandum as to the likely level of ongoing finance that will be available to the commission. It will clearly need substantial long-term funding if it is to make the desired impact in the west.
The commission has worked away pending the introduction of this legislation and has produced an impressive programme of action. I wish the commission well and hope this legislation marks the beginning of a new and exciting phase in the development of the west. However, we must be cautious that while addressing the genuine disadvantage of one region we do not discriminate against other regions or communities with equal if not greater needs for attention.
The reported intention of the Government to seek Objective One status only for the 13 midland and western counties in the next round of EU Structural Funds is most unfortunate. This approach will discriminate against communities living in deprivation and poverty in cities like Dublin, Limerick and Cork as well as rural areas outside the stated Objective One counties. The annual report of the Combat Poverty Agency, published last month, was the latest in a series of reports and studies which have identified disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods as a key source of poverty. However, the Government is pursuing a strategy of seeking Objective One status for just 13 counties, placing other areas at a disadvantage when it comes to securing vital EU funding. The Combat Poverty Agency noted that poverty and social exclusion are found throughout every county and that Structural Fund expenditure to tackle those problems is required in all regions.
If we want to tackle poverty and disadvantage, it is essential that reductions in Structural Funds be kept to a minimum and that the process is managed effectively. Seeking Objective One status for particular counties means all people in those counties stand to benefit regardless of their income. I see no case for funding large conference centres, golf courses and other trappings of the corporate sector in those 13 counties designated for Objective One status while serious urban poverty and schemes to tackle that poverty are neglected in urban areas. It makes far more sense to categorise the entire country in the same way, thus allowing the targeting of funds to tackle the problems of poverty and unemployment which are found in both urban and rural areas, rather than putting all the funding into particular geographical areas.
I emphasise that I do not object to the midland and western counties getting their fair share of EU Structural Funds. I object to the fact that some of the poorest areas in the country are being deprived of an opportunity to get a crucial share of this EU funding because of their geographical location. There is no guarantee that dividing the country in two will result in any more funding. It will create a new border that will cut the country in half physically and cut the majority of poor people off from this vital funding.
I also challenge the basis on which this case is being made. A valuable study was recently published by two Trinity College economists, Dr. P. J. Drudy and Dr. Michael Punch entitled "The Regional Problem: Regional Incomes and Urban Deprivation." Dr. Drudy in particular has been a very strong advocate of regional policy over the years. He was arguing for regional development and emphasising the west of Ireland when it was much less popular than it is now.
The study is highly significant. It establishes that the basis for GDP and income on which this case has been made — Deputy Cooper-Flynn quoted these figures earlier — is totally distorted. For example, the calculation of GDP and income in Dublin includes every penny paid out in wages by organisations' headquarters in Dublin to people who are not necessarily living or working in Dublin. I accept that every western Deputy arguing for Objective One status for his area is making a genuine argument, but his income shows up as income in Dublin because he is paid by the Oireachtas and the Department of Finance. It is the same for every engineer in the Office of Public Works paid from St. Stephen's Green and every teacher paid from Marlborough Street. If workers are paid from Dublin, though they may be living and working in Clare or Sligo or elsewhere, their income shows up as Dublin income. The calculation on which this case is based is a total distortion and needs to be looked at.
Dr. Drudy notes in his study that when one looks more closely at income, Dublin falls behind the midlands and southeast in the lowest income group, which is income under £136 per week. Dublin also falls behind in the categories of £136 to £269 and £269 to £472 per week. Dublin is ahead of other areas only in the category of more than £472 per week. Again, that distorts the overall calculation of income in Dublin. The study also shows that one cannot look solely at income. The cost of living must also be examined, and the study shows that the cost of living in Dublin is high, which results in a purchasing disadvantage. For example, the average Dublin household income is £51 per week higher than the midlands, but the cost of living in Dublin is £95 higher per week, which results in a purchasing disadvantage in Dublin of £44 per week. When the figures are computed to decide which regions retain Objective One status, the cost of living and the much higher cost of housing in Dublin and the eastern area are not factored into the equation.
Another aspect which does not appear to have been taken into account is unemployment. Dublin has performed significantly worse than other regions in the area of industrial employment, losing 26 per cent over the 1971-96 period. It may be argued that much of this has been compensated for by an increase in service employment. However, much of it is low paid and part-time. Overall employment in the Dublin region has increased by 31 per cent over the past two decades, which is great news. However, the labour force has increased by 43 per cent over the same period. This means job provision in the Dublin area has fallen a long way behind the growth in the labour force.
The problem is particularly acute in the area of long-term unemployment. Much has been said about its concentration and the consequential concentration of social, economic and income problems in what are called "blackspots". No poverty in this country is as bad as that in the concentrations of urban poverty in the blackspots of Dublin, Limerick, Cork and other cities. It would be astonishing if the Government were to produce a formula for Objective One status which identified for the European Union the areas in greatest need of attention from European funding and excluded the very areas which have the highest levels of unemployment, social problems and poverty.
It is not a question of geographically dividing the country, although I understand the pressures on Members of the House to make a case for their county and region. All of us are very good at stating the case for our own constituency. However, regarding Structural Funds, which will shape the way the country will develop over the next decade, there must be fairness, equity and consistency in their allocation. No one can fail to appreciate that the economy is marvellous and is going well. We all want that to continue. However, there is a huge problem with distribution and the gap between those benefiting from the economic success and those who are not is widening dramatically. It is most obvious in the areas of urban poverty where there are high levels of unemployment and poverty and a very high degree of social alienation. This manifests itself in many ways, in the drugs problem, in anti-social behaviour and in people dropping out from school. There is a whole range of problems associated with concentrated poverty and unemployment. It is necessary, not just in the interest of the areas concerned but also in the interest of social cohesion throughout the country, that those areas are dealt with. It would be wrong if the country were divided into areas with Objective One status and other areas on what is a spurious economic basis. The figures do not stand up when closely examined.
There is now a case, having regard to what is happening in terms of development and transport, to move away from splitting the country into regions for European funding. The country has traditionally been regarded as one region for European funding. There may well be an argument that it should not have been from the beginning, but it was and it does not make much sense to change that now. Let us take the example of the commuter belt around Dublin. An arc can be drawn from Dundalk through Athlone down to Wexford within which people live and commute to Dublin. How can it be argued that they are in different regions? Athlone is only 15 or 16 miles from Ballinasloe. Deputy Connaughton would know better as he travels the road more often.
