Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 1998

Vol. 495 No. 5

Western Development Commission Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. McCormack

If we are serious about western development, the Government should apply for Objective One status for the western region because that is the best way to promote western development. Since the previous debate on the Bill the Taoiseach has moved some way in that direction. He indicated the Government might be prepared to apply for Objective One status for the region, but it has not yet done that. What is the cause of the delay? I was heartened by the Taoiseach's reply to a number of questions on 14 October. He stressed that if a part of the country were to qualify for Objective One status as a result of the proposed reclassification, this would not mean that the rest of the country would be treated any less favourably in EU transfer terms than it would have been under the transition regime currently proposed for Ireland as a single region. He went on to say that the Government will insist that the non-Objective One part of the country would qualify fully for the transition regime. He said that if one region in Ireland qualifies for full Objective One assistance, the other region benefiting from the transition regime will be no worse off and that any extra benefits for a region qualifying for full Objective One status cannot and would not be at the expense of the region in transition under Objective One. That was the very point I made in the earlier debate and some media commentators and Deputies who do not come from the west or an Objective One qualifying area found it hard to accept that. I am delighted the Taoiseach made that point. He also said that regionalisation should help to mitigate to a degree the imbalance in spending, but that will not be at the expense of the region in transition. The Taoiseach could not have spelt out the position more clearly. Other regions need not fear if the west, Border and midland counties qualify for Objective One status, and they are entitled to qualify because they meet the qualifying criteria.

I am disappointed with the Government because the Government parties stated in the run up to the last general election that it was part of its policy to apply for Objective One status. An Action Programme for the Millennium states that "Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in Government will introduce a comprehensive programme of rural development by providing State services at local level by decentralisation, by ensuring, as far as practical, equality of infrastructure throughout the regions,." It also states that a key priority will be that "Objective I status will be sought for the West of Ireland, the Border regions and all other rural areas that are suffering from population decline for the post-1999 period."

Census population figures confirm that the region is suffering from population decline. Population trends in the 12 western, Border and midland counties which qualify for Objective One status reveal that the region suffered from population decline. Census figures reveal that the population fell from 977,221 in 1986 to 944,865 in 1991, a decrease of 32,356. While the l996 census reveals a slight increase in population when it increased to 965,190, it is still less than it was in 1986. In the other 13 eastern and southern region counties there was an increase in population from 2.563 million in 1986 to 2.57854 million in 1991, an increase of 15,432. The 1996 census reveals that the population of the eastern and southern region increased to 2,660,895. The population increase in the eastern counties is accelerating, increasing by 15,432 from 1986 to 1991 and 97,473 or 3.2 per cent between the 1986 and 1996 censuses, which are the latest figures available. This contrasts with a decrease in the west, Border and midland counties of 12,000 people or 1.25 per cent during the same period. Of course, the most relevant figure for Objective One status in this region is that it has an average of 68 per cent of European GDP compared to a national average of 92 per cent, with Dublin and the mid-east stand at 111 per cent.

Many schemes in the west await major funding which if Objective One status were attained it would be easier to obtain because the extra money allocated to that area would have to be spent there, which has not happened in the past. There has been a bias against the west. During the current phase of Structural Funds £3.6 billion has been spent in the 13 eastern and southern counties while £1.6 billion has been spent in the west, Border and midland counties. More than twice the amount was spent in the eastern and southern counties and I want that imbalance redressed.

Many projects await the go-ahead. For example, in 1995 Galway County Council submitted a proposal for the Connemara environmental scheme to the Department of the Environment. The proposal was then sent to Brussels and the scheme was estimated to cost more than £72 million. Connemara is unique, not alone in Ireland but also in Europe. It is an ideal case to present for European funding, yet sanction has only been received for two schemes since 1995 — SpiddalRossaveal and the Aran Islands. It is essential that Connemara receives sanction as it contains the largest unpolluted free fishing lake in Europe — the Corrib. It provides the water supply to a vast area of east Galway from Headford to Tuam to Clarinbridge, Maree, Oranmore, Annaghdown and Galway city and on the west to Moycullen and Oughterard. It will eventually supply all of Connemara, according to the Connemara environmental scheme proposal. The terrain is unsuitable for septic tanks and there are plans for town sewerage schemes in Ballyconneely, Carna, Carraroe, Claddaghduff, Cleggan, Clifden, Clonbur, Cornamona, Costelloe, Leenane, Letterfrack, Rossaveal, Roundstone, Tully, Tullycross and Kilronan. It is essential that those schemes get off the mark but that cannot happen until funding is received.

Water supply schemes are planned for the Clifden area, Letterfrack, Carna and Kilkieran, including the Cashel; the Rosmuc area; Costelloe, including Carraroe and Rossaveal; Lettermore; the Gorumna area; Ballyconneely, Roundstone and Spiddal. If Objective One status is obtained for the west, I am sure those schemes can be sanctioned as part of the overall proposal. There is no doubt if we continue developing Connemara as we are, these towns and villages along the Corrib will eventually pollute it and the jewel in the crown worldwide will have been destroyed. The waters of the Corrib must be protected as we cannot afford to pollute them. We must get Objective One status so that at least the scheme will get off the ground for the benefit not alone of Connemara and Ireland but also of Europe because it is a unique area that must be preserved for posterity.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

In supporting this Bill, I welcome it and urge that its underlying principle be applied more widely in the development of all the disadvantaged regions of this island, North and South. The current debate on Objective One status has shone a light on the continuing disparities between the regions in Ireland. Unfortunately, a false debate is being conducted in some quarters. An effort is being made to discount inequalities between regions as if to recognise and address them is somehow to ignore the existence of wealth and poverty within regions. This is a short-sighted and politically opportunistic approach and is, ultimately, a disservice to disadvantaged communities in all the regions.

The facts and statistics speak for themselves. The Northern Ireland Economic Council, NIEC, and the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, met in November 1996 to discuss common interest with regard to the future of Structural Funds after 1999. NESC produced a comprehensive demographic and economic regional analysis of the 26 counties in December 1997, which identified rural disadvantage concentrated across the west and Border region and particularly focused on the constituencies of Donegal, Sligo-Leitrim and Cavan-Monaghan. Using 1991 census data in regard to the North, deprivation and disadvantage is found to be concentrated to the west of the Bann, south Armagh and north Antrim.

Recently, the Department of Finance pinpointed 12 western counties which collectively have a regional income of just 75 per cent of the EU average at a time when Dublin enjoys, on a per capita basis, a regional income of 131 per cent. Not only that but the NESC report showed western region income to have dropped from 76 per cent to 72 per cent of the EU average between 1991 and 1993. The recently released report of the constituency commission allocates 42 seats across the constituencies of Galway East and West, Mayo, Laoighis-Offaly, Westmeath, Longford-Roscommon, Cavan-Monaghan, Sligo-Leitrim and Donegal. This represents 25 per cent of Dáil seats.

In the North, just 36 of the new Assembly seats or 33 per cent of total representation comes from the constituencies west of the Bann, including Newry and Armagh. These 16 constituencies represent more than half of the land mass of the island, a portion of the country which has practically been left to its own devices where development is concerned. We are rapidly arriving at an east-west division rather than a north-south division on this island, one in which counties such as Donegal have shown unemployment rates as much as 7 per cent more than the national average. This is not a statistical fallacy. Rural areas in the west and Border counties suffer from a sense of social despondency and economic and political alienation directly comparable to urban unemployment blackspots.

The proposal to designate the west as a disadvantaged rural area is an entirely appropriate policy response. It is the most remote region in Europe. It has poorer soils, is rugged and uninhabitable in many parts, has a more severe climatic regime and the most underdeveloped infrastructure on the island. This Bill is the product of an attempt to spatially target rural disadvantage. I support that attempt but does it go far enough?

In light of co-operation between the NIEC and the NESC, the clear focus of rural disadvantage across the western and Border counties, the all-Ireland, cross-party and ecumenical nature of the Western Bishops Campaign which began the process that has resulted in this Bill, the establishment of a cross-Border development commission should be considered aimed at addressing the spread of rural disadvantage across the most remote of all major EU regions. Even though a review of the legislation is not envisaged, how the proposal might be made into a positive working aspect of the British-Irish Agreement should be considered.

There is another vital matter which is likely to be of grave concern to the newly established Western Development Commission and the people — the ownership and use of our natural resources. The British based firm, Enterprise Oil, recently announced the discovery, off the west coast, of the highest levels of gas ever recorded in Irish waters. The discovery in the Slyne Trough, off Achill Island, is many times greater than the Kinsale gasfield. What benefit will this discovery be to the development of the west, other disadvantaged regions and the economy as a whole? The State has offered the oil and gas industry the lowest corporation tax rates in the world, with all drilling, labour, research, production and goods costs deductible against tax. The oil companies do not have to pay royalties to the State. Many of the benefits of this discovery to the economy are denied because of the failure of Enterprise Oil to employ Irish labour. The skills of 900 Irish based offshore workers lie idle while Enterprise Oil employs cheaper, non-unionised labour.

It is scandalous that successive Governments have sold off our natural resources. This huge find, which can be of such benefit to disadvantaged regions and the economy as a whole, has been placed in the hands of a multinational and the people are being asked to buy back their own property. This is the road Thatcher took in Britain, squandering the huge resource of North Sea oil. We should follow the lead of countries such as Norway where Norwegian labour and Government capital have combined to reap maximum benefit for the economy. This is an issue of major national importance which we will have to revisit time and again.

The Bill recognises the special needs of western counties. There should be clear recognition by the Government of the equal and related needs of Border counties and the midlands. It follows that the Government should make a positive decision with regard to regionalisation and the retention of Objective One status. There is much disinformation and confusion surrounding this issue. It should be made clear that the proposal for regionalisation is not intended and will not have the effect of awarding one region at the expense of another. It should be made clear — as an all-Ireland party, Sinn Féin is conscious of this — that there is poverty and disadvantage in every region, north, south, east and west, in urban and rural areas. Government and EU policy should be geared to combat poverty and disadvantage and to redistribute wealth within and between regions.

The issue of regionalisation relates solely to EU Structural Funds. Those funds are based on regions and do not take account of disparities within regions. The west, the Border counties and the midlands still lag behind the rest of the State in terms of economy and infrastructure. Regionalisation for the purpose of retention of Objective One status is a vital component of a strategy to end poverty and disadvantage throughout the island.

In conjunction with his colleagues, the Minister of State should examine the elements I have addressed, including the potential to review and develop the heart of the proposition before the House and how important it could be in the context of the hopes and expectations raised by the British-Irish Agreement. The Minister of State should address the concerns I have raised in relation to the extraction, utilisation and marketing of the find, off Achill Island, by Enterprise Oil and the resultant benefits to those other than the people of the disadvantaged areas and those dependent on the success of the economy.

Mr. Dukes

I am delighted the Bill has finally made it into the House after a long gestation period about which my colleague, Deputy Carey, spoke on 1 October. Matters are more complex now than when the Bill was first mooted. There is a problem in defining how a gas or oil find off our coast or on land can be utilised to the direct benefit of the region in which the find is made. Deputy Ó Caoláin drew attention to this but in few places has an immediate answer been found. All the oil and gas finds exploited by Norway lie off its western and south-western coasts where the greatest development problems are to be found.

In the Marxist system defended by Deputy Ó Caoláin oil and gas finds in Siberia have not proved to be of enormous benefit to the people living there and they did not have a choice until recently about whether they were unionised. There has not been massive economic development in Siberia on the basis of oil or gas money. While we may regret that the capitalist system has not found a way to make a direct link, the Marxist system has signally failed to do so.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I hope we can do better.

Mr. Dukes

Now that one of those systems has failed utterly I hope we can leave it out of the equation entirely.

Deputy Ó Caoláin made a relevant point on which he is wrong. On regionalisation, he drew a distinction between EU funds and other sources of funding. It is not correct to say that the regionalisation proposal the Government is apparently considering deals only with EU funds. Even in areas where the maximum level of EU funding is made available it is necessary to provide matching funds. Where EU funding is provided at any level there is also a requirement for national funding to be made available, usually from the Exchequer, sometimes from another public agency and in many cases from the private sector. European Union funds never provide 100 per cent of the funding required for a project. It is not helpful to distinguish between regionalisation for EU funding purposes and a regional designation for any other reason.

This brings me to the difficulty I have with the Bill. It identifies seven counties but the Government is currently discussing proposals which apply to 13 counties, the seven included in the Bill and six others. How will these fit together? How will the work of the proposed Western Development Commission fit in with the work of whatever bodies are set up if the Government proceeds with its regionalisation proposals? How does this fit with other regional structures currently in place? It is difficult to envisage how they will all mesh together.

I carefully examined the Minister of State's Second Stage speech on this Bill. In the Official Report, 1 October 1998, vol. 494, col. 754 he said:

The function of the commission essentially is to promote the economic and social development of the western region by collaborating with and promoting strategic linkages between the existing agencies operating in the region. — The commission's role in working closely with the other economic and social actors in the region will facilitate the elaboration of a specific regional response to specific regional problems. In addition, the western investment fund, which will be operated by the commission, will provide financial support for social and economic projects being implemented in the region. — The commission is being established to further enhance, not undermine or dilute, the development efforts of other agencies operating in the region.

Does that mean these other agencies will continue to work as they do now? Does it mean, for example, that the county enterprise boards in the counties concerned will continue to have their current remit?

The establishment of the commission means that another level of activity will be superimposed on what already exists. However, the commission may have other functions also. The Minister of State referred to a forum of western Ministers. He said: "The co-ordinating fora will permit the elaboration of a coherent regional strategy with appropriate consultation and contact between the various State agencies. ..". What will happen under the other proposals the Government is currently considering?

I assume there will be some type of regional body or authority. I have heard suggestions that the functions or attributes of existing regional authorities in those areas will be changed to accommodate the regionalisation proposals the Government is considering with regard to the Objective One definition. They would operate in the areas covered by the Western Development Commission and in areas not covered by the commission. How will these fit together? There is a danger of having too many agencies doing the same thing but each with different concerns, thus producing a less than optimal result.

I can offer the House an example. County enterprise boards have a mandate to assist the development of small scale enterprises in their areas. There is a limit on the amount of aid or the size of project with which the boards can get involved. The proposed Western Development Commission will be able to fund projects to a maximum of £250,000. To go beyond that figure the commission must get the agreement of the Minister for Finance. However, in the counties where the Western Development Commission will operate there will be another body or source of funding, the EU Structural Funds, which have no lower or upper limits. They can operate across the spectrum.

I hope the Agenda 2000 proposals will provide for block grants to local authorities which could be used by county enterprise boards to assist development in each county and give autonomy to decision making in those counties. However, has anybody worked out how all these elements will mesh to the maximum advantage of the counties concerned? There is nothing in the Bill to provide for such co-ordination. The Minister of State said the commission will have certain co-ordinating functions but these are not made clear in the Bill. It is difficult to see who or what will be co-ordinated and what the effect of that will be.

When speaking about the functions of the commission the Minister of State seemed to touch on some of the difficulties. He spoke of the provision in section 8 for financial assistance:

Section 8 also provides that financial assistance will be in the form of the purchase of shares and the provision of loans in suitable investments. Grant aid is already being provided under various programmes operating on a national basis. Where strategic sustainable projects, of an economic or social nature, are being developed the commission will be able to provide a further complementary means of financial support by taking out equity or providing loans. This intervention will result in development projects being undertaken which otherwise might not have been launched.

That raises a series of questions. The commission will purchase shares or provide loans for suitable investments. That will be in addition to grants. Will the commission take the place of the private promoter in economic projects? I am not referring to social projects because there is a different frame of judgment for those. It appears it will, although the Bill provides that where the commission takes out shares the enterprise may not become a subsidiary of the commission. That is a sensible provision.

The Minister of State expects that this type of intervention will result in development projects being undertaken which otherwise might not have been launched. Why might they not have been launched otherwise? Is it because they would not be bankable and nobody else would provide the type of loan the commission will provide? Is it because nobody else will make the equity investment the commission will make? If that is the case, there will be a great deal of argument and the commission will be obliged to be hard headed in its judgments. This provision is an invitation — there is plenty of experience in this regard throughout this country and the world — for the Western Development Commission to bail out projects that are basically uneconomic. Otherwise, as the Minister of State said, this intervention would not result in development projects being undertaken which would otherwise not have been launched. In other words, where people cannot raise the money commercially or cannot get equity partners in the market in the normal way, the commission will step in. The commission will be in great danger of making loans and taking shares in projects of doubtful viability. That will be the source of much contention and argument and probably, as the Minister of State knows, much ill founded political slanging. Inevitably people will attribute commission decisions to influence of one kind or another, and since the conspiracy theory of life is always more interesting than the reality, these stories will gain currency very quickly. That provision will cause the commission a great deal of difficulty.

The Minister of State proposes an amendment to section 8(2) which deals with infrastructure. That is probably very wise. He proposes to limit the commission to infrastructural investment that is necessary and required by the nature of a project itself.

The Minister of State stated:

to identify business and social enterprises and projects, and infrastructural projects related to those projects that . should be accelerated . to promote foster and encourage the provision, maintenance, and if appropriate, the enlargement of, and procure the provision of assistance for such infrastructural projects, both local and regional, as it considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of economic and social development in the Western Region.

This part of the commission's job will involve being a lobby group for the counties in its remit. I see nothing wrong with that, but the commission is being invited to make proposals which it cannot bring to fruition. The commission will be very limited when it comes to infrastructure, but it is being invited to promote and foster local and regional projects as it considers necessary and expedient for the purposes of economic and social development in the region. It is being invited to promote infrastructural projects that it cannot carry out by itself. There is nothing wrong with it being a lobby group, but we should understand that will be its function.

It seems the commission will have a function in shaping Government or regional policy on major infrastructural projects. Does the Minister of State believe there is any point in doing that? Will the commission be doing something no other body is doing? That does not seem to be the case. There has been much debate on the provision of infrastructure, and there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with what we now perceive as some of the plans.

Deputy Donal Carey's contribution on 1 October mentioned one of the central problems. The National Roads Authority recently produced its executive summary — a wonderful phrase — in which map 6.3 is called, "Network of National Roads: Indicative Baskets of Future Needs". It sets out in glorious technicolour the improvement needs identified by the National Roads Authority up to 2019. One of the major infrastructural projects any self-respecting western development commission would come up with would be major road improvements at least from Donegal to Sligo, Tuam, Ennis, Limerick and on to Rosslare, the western crescent route, as some call it.

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

Through Tipperary.

Mr. Dukes

If the Minister of State wishes. That route has been the subject of ill founded, unfavourable comment from those who live south of it. The south has as much to gain from that route as any other part of the country. However, there are no proposals in the National Roads Authority plans for that route. There is every possible type of classification along that route. Some parts are identified as backlog and others as phase one, two, three or four, with phase four relating to 2015 to 2019. If the Western Development Commission is to make an impact, it should accelerate the urgency attached to the development of the western crescent route and, if possible, that should also be done for the railways. If the commission does not succeed and does not have that function in relation to whoever draws up the policy on the Objective One region — if that is what we have — it will not meet our expectations.

The Bill does not specify the type of skills necessary for members of the commission. Section 9 deals with membership but does not state anything about the types of skills those members should have. Section 19 allows the commission to set up various committees and to advise them, but there is no indication of what types of people will be involved. I invite the Minister of State to consider, between now and Committee Stage, taking a leaf out of the book of previous legislation and give us some indication of the kinds of skills and contributions he is seeking from the commission's members.

Mr. McGinley

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Bille seo, An Bille um Choimisiún Forbartha an Iarthair. Ta sé thar am go ndéanfaimis rud éigin mar seo mar tuigimid uilig go bhfuil géarghá le cás speisialta a dhéanamh d'iarthar na hÉireann maidir le forbairt eacnamaíochta agus sóisialta de. Tuigeann gach duine againn anois nach bhfuil forbairt eacnamaíochta agus forbairt sóisialta iarthar na hÉireann ag dul ar aghaidh chomh gasta is atá sé i gcodanna eile den tír, anseo i mBaile Átha Cliath, mar shampla, i gcúige Laighean agus i gcúige Mumhan. Tá sé sin léirithe go maith sna staitisticí uilig atá curtha ar fáil. Ó thaobh infheistíochta, dífhostaíochta, aois agus seirbhísí eile de níl an t-iarthar chomh forbartha le h-oirthear na tíre nó indeed deisceart na tíre.

Ba mhaith liom an tAire Stáit Noel Davern a mholadh as an Bille seo a thabhairt os comhair na Dála ag an am seo. Tá ullmhúcháin go leor déanta le deich mbliana anuas. Is dócha gurb é an chéad ullmhúchán mór nó an chéad chéim a tugadh chun an Bille seo a thabhairt isteach ná ag tús na nócaidí nuair a tháinig buíon feirmeoirí ó Bhaile Locha Riach — an baile as a dtagann mo chomhleacaí Ulick Burke — le chéile mar go raibh imní iontach mór orthu faoi cad a bhí chun tarlú dóibh féin agus dá gclann ins na blianta amach romhainn. Sílim gurb é an chéad rud eile ná gur dhein siad teangbháil leis na hEaspaig san iarthar. Is cuimhin liom féin mar ionadaí poiblí gur chuamar go dtí cruinniú mór roinnt blianta ó shin i Sligeach agus bhí cruinniú mór eile i gCnoc Mhuire i gContae Mhaigheo agus ceann eile i nGaillimh.

Bhí siad seo eagraithe ag na hEaspaig. Léirigh siad cé chomh hainnis, chomh holc agus chomh dona is a bhí cúrsaí in iarthar na hÉireann agus an géar-ghá a bhí ann le rud éigin cinnte a dhéanamh chomh tapaidh agus a thiocfadh linn. Ghlac an Taoiseach a bhí ann ag an am Albert Reynolds suim ann, mar a bheadh tú ag súil leis mar ba dhuine ó iarthar na hÉireann é féin. Mar thoradh ar an suim sin ag an iar-Thaoiseach sílim gur bunaíodh Bord Forbartha Páirtnéirecht an Iarthair. Bhí sé sin ag gníomhú ar feadh tamaill agus nuair a d'imigh an Teachta Reynolds as oifig agus tháinig an Teachta Bruton isteach in oifig in a dhiaidh sin lean seisean ar aghaidh leis an obair. Ansin sa deireadh tháinig an tuairisc amach —"The Challenge — A Positive Future to Action." Ceann de na rudaí a moladh ansin ná go gcuirfí Coimisiún Forbartha an Iarthair ar bun. Cé go bhfuil cúpla bliain imithe ó tháinig an tuairisc sin amach ar a laghad tá an Bille ag dul tríd an Oireachtais anois agus sílim gur céim mhór ar aghaidh é sin. Sílim nuair a bheidh an coimisiún ar bun agus ag gníomhú go reachtúil go dtabharfaidh sé buntáistí móra don iarthar chun cur ar a gcumas teacht aníos go dtí an caighdeán atá sa chuid eile den tír. Tá go leor le déanamh ón taobh sin de. Tá bord sealadach ar an choimisiún faoi láthair.

I welcome the fact that the board, which is currently acting in a temporary capacity, has two members from Donegal. Our efficient county manager, Michael McLoone, is a pioneer in development and has done excellent work in Donegal since he took up that position some years ago. He went ahead with decentralisation throughout the county and services are now available to people living in the west, north and south of the county. I understand contracts were signed yesterday to build new offices. I have no doubt Mr. McLoone will be a tremendous asset to the board with his experience.

North of the county, Seán Tighe, the current chairman, knows the difficulties facing industries in Donegal. He has made a success of the shirt industry in Buncrana which employs several hundred people. The west is lagging behind the rest of the country in development but when the board is operational and given the necessary powers and resources, it will go a long way towards improving the economic and social development of the west and the Border counties.

The Western Development Commission is one aspect of what is required to develop the west and the other is granting Objective One status to the west, the Border counties and the midlands. Other Members have spoken on this issue before but, coming from Donegal, I must highlight the importance of this application being made by the Government and of it being granted. Donegal has twice the national average level of unemployment, at 20 per cent, as against less than 10 per cent in the rest of the country. That is a frightening statistic. One of the reasons Donegal has such high unemployment levels is that we do not have the infrastructure to underpin the necessary economic development to sustain employment in the county. Unless we qualify for Objective One status for the coming five or six years, that will be much more difficult to achieve.

I was in Brussels last Thursday week with a number of my Fine Gael colleagues. We were surprised to hear that no indication has yet been given that the Government intends to apply for Objective One status, although listening to the Taoiseach in the House yesterday and also last week it appears there may be a rethink in Government circles in that regard and that the application will be made.

There are many projects in Donegal which will not be completed unless we continue to avail of regional and Cohesion Funds. For example, the Donegal Bay sewerage project and approximately six other sewerage schemes have not gone ahead because of unavailability of funding. Unless we are granted Objective One status for the coming five years, those schemes will not be completed. I refer to major towns like Killybegs, Donegal Town, Ballyshannon, Bundoran and Glencolumbkille where nothing is happening and that will remain the position unless this funding is made available.

Another group of sewerage schemes, the Gaeltacht group, comprising Gweedore, Burtonport and Ardara are in the same position. These schemes have little chance of being completed over the next five to ten years unless we continue to avail of Objective One funding for the west and for Donegal.

The unemployment problem is critical in these areas. Members will be aware of the difficulties facing the county in the immediate future in that hundreds of jobs in Fruit of the Loom might be in danger. If those jobs are lost, it will exacerbate an already serious problem. The IDA produced an excellent report in 1997 in which it stated that 15,000 new jobs were created throughout the eight regions of the country, but only 279 of those jobs were created in the north west region which includes Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim. That is 279 out of 15,000 nationally — less than 1 per cent or 2 per cent — and the figure tells its own story. Overall, there was a net reduction in IDAassisted job creation in the north west.

I know of areas in my constituency where very few jobs were created by the IDA over the past ten to 15 years. In one area in particular, which comprises the Finn Valley, Ballybofey, Stranorlar, Castlefinn and Killygorden, very few jobs have been created and many people are obliged to travel to Northern Ireland to find employment. In my own area, the Gaeltacht, we are dependent on Udurás na Gaeltachta. Action is being taken and more jobs are being created than lost.

It is important that the Western Development Commission is in operation as soon as possible in conjunction with granting Objective One status for the west. I have a map which has been supplied by those who have been promoting this status for the west. It shows that in the past four or five years the regional and Cohesion Funds to 13 counties in the west, along the Border and in the midlands amounted to £1.683 billion whereas the funds for the rest of the country amounted to almost £4 billion. This is an indication that we are lagging behind the rest of the country when it comes to investment. If we get Objective One status at least moneys will be targeted in areas that qualify. When Deputy Belton and I were in Brussels our eyes opened on learning that regions in the United Kingdom, such as Devon, Cornwall, Wales, Merseyside, the Highlands and the islands of Scotland, had already submitted their applications. They have permanent offices in Brussels promoting their case. We were dejected that nothing had happened so far as the regionalisation of the west, the North and Border counties were concerned. I hope there will be a change of mind and that the Government will indicate its intention to follow this route.

I welcome the Western Development Commission Bill which is long overdue. Given the resources being made available it will go a long way. We will not catch up on years of neglect in five or ten years but at least there is a recognition that work has to be done. When the resources are provided, I have no doubt the situation will improve in the west and in the Border counties which have suffered from lack of investment in the past 30 years because of the difficulties in Northern Ireland. I hope the Western Development Commission, Objective One status and the peace process can change the economic and social climate in these areas.

Mr. U. Burke

I welcome the Bill, wish the Minister well and assure him of support for every initiative he and the commission take in the interests of the development of the west. The purpose of the Western Development Commission is to promote economic and social development in the western counties. It has its origins in a neighbouring parish where four people came together in the early 1990s, as a result of a series of setbacks mainly in the farming activities which they had carried on down through the years. Fintan Muldoon, the oldest of the group, had witnessed hardship and change over many years which resulted in apathy among the younger generation. The result was a declining population, low marriage rates, ageing agricultural population and outward migration from east Galway, all of which indicated a bleak future.

He and the other founder members, namely, John Mahony, Michael Kelly and Pat Gohery met with Bishop John Kirby — after a confirmation ceremony in the parish — and outlined the serious situation in rural parishes in the west. Bishop Kirby had witnessed this during his parish visitation programme. This led to the Developing the West Together initiative, pioneered through the western bishops. After a series of meetings in parish halls and in urban areas it produced a report entitled A Crusade for Survival in the 1990s. This was one of many reports. There had been many academic reports prior to this but unfortunately they are on the shelves gathering dust. Unlike other reports, this report identified solutions and sought a Government response. A task force was set up which recommended the establishment of a Western Development Partnership Board with a direction to produce an action plan for economic and social development. Its action plan, The Challenge: a Positive Future Through Action, was published in 1995 and forms the basis of the Bill before the House.

The journey from the four farmers' initiative to the introduction of the Bill was a long one. Sadly these four individuals have only minimal involvement in the group and its workings today. I am concerned that the function of the commission which is to promote economic and social development in the western region may be lost by collaborating with and promoting strategic links between the existing agencies. Will the Government give a positive financial commitment, much greater than the £25 million designated? How can any worthwhile response be made to specific regional problems without additional finance? If the investment fund is not increased we will end up with just another talking shop. This would be disastrous for all concerned. It is important to avoid duplication or competition with the activities of other agencies.

The great potential of this commission will be lost in further red tape if the functions outlined in section 8 are not put into practice without duplication. Inevitably there will be tensions in the regions between existing agencies. What co-ordination will be involved in allowing the IDA, the new IRDs, the county development agencies and all the existing agencies, all of which are grappling for crumbs from Government, to help or initiate work to develop the west? Unless the Western Development Commission is properly nurtured and guided it will fall flat on its face. Existing agencies have failed over the years to make an impact — I am not criticising them for their endeavours — on the real problems in many parts of the west, particularly the peripheral and marginal areas outside the major urban areas of Galway, such as Castlebar, where there has been a total lack of development. What pushed the four people involved into action was the absence of local agencies. Existing agencies were outside their reach and they could not get to those people to seek help. They were demanding help and yet nobody responded.

The Minister has a difficult task in reacting positively to the demands. It is important that the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food is to the forefront in this initiative given that we are talking about rural communities. I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that the Department of Agriculture and Food was given responsibility for this commission. I know the Minister of State will have a great input and will divert all his energies to focusing on the work of the commission to improve the lot of the rural population, the area of greatest need. The other agencies cater adequately for the needs of urban areas.

A vicious debate is developing about the granting of Objective One status to the western, Border and midland counties and unless it is quenched it will wreck our country. If it is not quenched the urban/rural and east/west divides will continue to fester. It is unfortunate that even the unions have got involved in this to the detriment of the west. We want to hear union members in the west speaking to those who have voiced very strong opposition to the west and the other regions getting Objective One status. For too long we in the west have gone without and suffered because of the honeypot attitude of various Governments to Dublin and its immediate environs.

The Government now has an opportunity to put forward a plan. As Deputy McGinley said, I was horrified to be told the Government has not made a formal or informal application. We have only one last bite at the cherry and time is running out for the Government to demand and put the case for Objective One status for the west and the other areas.

If we do not get that status it will be impossible for this commission to function without resources.

The initial funding of £25 million which has been outlined for it is far short of the £100 million designated by the previous Government. I know there will be two provisions in the current year and five in the following years, and that it will be reviewed in the current year, which is very welcome. However, I hope the Minister will provide substantial funding so that the commission will have a positive start. A lack of funding and initiative will cause it to fall flat on its face.

Organisations such as the National Roads Authority are strangled when they pass the pale. They do not understand the need to improve infrastructure outside Dublin and its immediate environs. We have been waiting for the best part of 15 years for Loughrea to be by-passed. How many other regional water and sewerage schemes are at the design stage and waiting for the final allocation of funding? We need these projects but they will never take place if the west does not have Objective One status.

Almost all of us stand together on this matter. We must educate the other people who are making demands and indicate to them that giving Objective One status to the west will not deny them one penny of what they are entitled to in the future. People conveniently overlook that fact and the onus is on the Government to clarify the position.

A very welcome aspect of the Bill is the commitment to partnership between Departments, the private sector and business organisations to create employment in the areas which are currently unable to generate or attract basic employment. The recently established IRDs would have received funding from a different Department from the Department of Agriculture and Food in the past. Now that they are coming within the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Food, where will they get the funding to allow them to do the positive work which they have planned, initiated and reported on? The people who supported them by private investment, through shares and so on, are wondering if it is another example of establishing a talking shop. They want to see results. The Minister should take on board an initiative to fund these organisations because they have put in place many wonderful programmes which are important to the local populations.

There is also a tourism Bill going through the Houses. Unless this Western Development Commission Bill provides for tourism in certain parts of the remoter areas in the west, we will be forgotten again by Bord Fáilte, which is more interested in projects in Connemara and Galway city than in the eastern and other areas in the county. I am sure the position is the same in every other county. Bord Fáilte focuses all its capital investment and other promotions on certain areas of counties, to the detriment of the other areas. Funding must be provided under this Bill for areas such as the Shannon basin and Lough Derg because it will not be forthcoming from Bord Fáilte.

This is not just about jobs and factories but social and economic development in the broadest sense. This whole initiative started in east County Galway. We have been reaching out over the years to Bord Fáilte, looking for recognition of our existence and for funding for east Galway. Will the Minister ensure that money is directed into that area for the development of tourism, which will provide new opportunities for people to remain in rural Ireland, particularly east Galway?

Everyone can see the frightening statistics on population decline and the withdrawal of services. The link railway line from Loughrea to the Dublin-Galway line was closed years ago. The "Green Man" in Garda stations is tangible evidence of the response to declining populations but it has not stopped the growth of crime in the area and it must be looked at again. National schools have closed and bus services have been discontinued. These matters must be addressed. This western initiative must respond quickly and positively to the needs of the people in these areas because otherwise they will leave. Migration is one of the biggest problems in the west and unless we can stabilise rural populations the ideas of the founding fathers of this movement will be lost and the initiative will be taken over by some of the existing powerful agencies. I wish the Minister every success with his initiative and hope this House will support the positive actions he will take in the future.

Mr. Deenihan

May I share my time with Deputy Belton?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Browne,

Carlow-Kilkenny): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy can share some of his tips as well.

Mr. Deenihan

I am not that lucky. I welcome this initiative. It is important from the point of view of the west and rural Ireland and is one which a number of people have advocated for some time. Because of the initiative of the people and the commitment of the last three Government which helped this along at various stages, we are speaking on this Bill. I agree that the approach being taken will lead to cohesion, co-operation and partnership about which we hear so much. It is very much in keeping with EU policy. I am confident it will improve the quality of life in the west, will lead to enterprise and will certainly give hope to those areas. That is one of the reasons I am addressing this matter today.

In 1981 there was a western development fund for 12 counties, of which County Kerry was one. Looking at the map of Ireland and the west coast, the only county which is left out is County Kerry. Counties Clare, Galway, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal are included. In light of what is happening with Objective One status and given that it would appear the country will be regionalised, it is important County Kerry is within the remit of the Western Development Commission. It is critical for Kerry and I will table an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage. I will implore my colleagues from Kerry on all sides of the House, especially Deputy Healy-Rae, to support me.

Irrespective of where one goes, County Kerry is regarded as part of the western seaboard. The fact that it is lumped in with County Cork has resulted in serious disadvantage for Kerry. We all know the economy, especially that contiguous to Cork city, which has a thriving port and airport, the most vibrant pharmaceutical industry in Europe and an advanced technology industry, is pushing up the GDP in that area. People in west and north Cork are suffering as a result. I, however, am looking at it from the viewpoint of County Kerry which is on the western seaboard. I used to teach geography and Kerry is not in the south-west but on the western seaboard.

Because of the approach taken in this Bill, the infrastructure which will be set up and the structures involved, it is critical for County Kerry to be part of this commission. I compliment the Minister and his civil servants on the way they drew up this Bill. Knowing some of the civil servants involved, I am not surprised it is a good document. I am glad to see some of the people with whom I worked in the past here today. The outcome of the task force report was very positive, culminating in this Bill of which I want Kerry to be part.

This is the type of structure which will be funded by Europe in the future. I liken the western seaboard to the Algarve in Portugal. Those who have visited Portugal will know what I mean. The Algarve is seen as one district and the west should be treated in the same way, especially from a tourism and agricultural point of view. The west should be promoted as one area from Kenmare to Donegal. There would be great advantage in promoting the area as one, with Shannon Airport and Kerry County Airport supplying visitors to it.

We in Kerry are worried that because we are lumped in with Cork, we will be left out and will not be categorised for Objective One status and the Structural Funds which will accrue from 2000-6. There are no income estimates available per county. The GDP for County Kerry is lumped in with Cork. The Minister told me in a written reply to a parliamentary question yesterday that household income estimates at county level are not available. We are getting a wrong impression of the GDP of the Kerry area. The Minister went on to say that the methodology for compiling county income estimates has been undertaken for the Central Statistics Office by the Economic and Social Research Institute and is currently being analysed. It is expected that county income estimates for a number of years will be published in mid-1999. That will be too late for County Kerry. Last week the Minister told us in the Dáil that a decision on Structural Funds, Objective One areas and regionalisation is not expected until next March. He confirmed there would be no immediate decision. Today's edition of The Irish Times states that last week the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, submitted a memo to Cabinet in support of the Department of Finance's proposal to select 13 counties for Objective One status, that Deputy Harney said there would be increases in the level of State industrial aid for western regions along with higher EU investment if they were allowed to retain Objective One EU grant status for the period 2000-6 and that according to a Government spokesperson last night, a Cabinet decision on the issue is not expected this week. It is decision time and I am afraid my colleague and friend, Deputy Healy-Rae, and those of us in Kerry will be left at the starting rails and we will become totally isolated. The recent census report clearly shows a major loss of population from several district electoral divisions in Kerry. One little village, Tarbert, has lost 120 people since the last census report.

I will expand on my argument that Kerry should be included within the remit of this Western Development Commission and that the case for Objective One status will have to be made more strongly by Government representatives. On Committee Stage I will push the matter to a vote. The Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, is no doubt very familiar with Kerry as he has been there on a number of occasions.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

I am going again shortly to visit the county council.

Mr. Deenihan

The Minister of State is always welcome and I am sure he will see the devastation in rural areas. I know he went to west Limerick where he was welcomed. The Minister of State passed through very rapidly and I made the excuse that he had a very busy schedule and that he could not go to the pub to discuss matters. However, the people have not seen many results since that visit. I know that is not the Minister of State's fault.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

I also visited Tarbert.

Mr. Deenihan

I have made my points and I intend to expand on my arguments on Committee Stage.

Mr. Belton

I welcome the Bill which is long overdue. Members have been lobbied on many occasions in recent months by the Council for the West and various bishops who were anxious that the Bill be introduced. I am glad it has finally come before the House.

I agree with my colleagues that there is an undoubted decline in the population of rural Ireland and in village life. I was born in a village. The lifestyle has changed and people have left such areas. The Minister has visited parts of the country since he took office and is aware of the position. There are townlands on electoral registers where nobody lives, although up to 20 years ago houses there were occupied. In other areas there may be only one person remaining in a house. In another ten years, many of those people will be gone and the houses will be closed up.

This problem also affects County Longford. I am disappointed that it has not been included in the measures because it has also suffered depopulation. We are anxious to ensure that some industry is brought to the county in the near future. I am tired calling on the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to ensure that an industry locates in Longford. She appears to announce jobs for the east coast every Sunday evening and I presume an announcement will be made for Cork shortly. It is very frustrating and disappointing for me as a public representative from Longford that there have been no announcements on the job front for the constituency of Longford-Roscommon. Local representatives are being castigated by the local media, and rightly so. People want to know why Longford and Roscommon are left out of the jobs equation.

County Longford has not been included in the plans for the Western Development Commission and I ask the Minister to reconsider that position. The constituency of Longford-Roscommon has the same problems as western counties. Undoubtedly, setting up the commission is a step in the right direction. It is a recognition of the decline in the west. The previous Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, and his predecessor, Deputy Albert Reynolds, recognised that problem. I commend Deputy John Bruton for starting the work on the commission when he was Taoiseach. Before that there had been nothing but talk, but it took the then Taoiseach to make proposals and suggestions for the way forward and, at last, the Bill is before the House.

I am a member of an enterprise board in County Longford. If people are given an incentive, they will respond. There must be a recognition that certain areas must get specific treatment. It is vital that the commission is effective, and is seen to be so. It must get results. For example, the railway network to the west is a scandal. The Minister has promised that work will be done on the Mullingar to Longford and Carrick-on-Shannon section of the line. It is about time this work was done. Every weekend, as my colleague, Deputy Naughten is aware, the trains are packed. There is not even standing room. Other areas have a good service and good rolling stock, including the line to the Minister of State's county, and that is fine. However, again, Longford and Roscommon are on the hind tit in that regard.

The Government does not know whether it is coming or going with regard to Objective One status. Conflicting statements have been made by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment as to when a decision will be reached. The Government should make up its mind. We were in Brussels and were told that no word had been received from the Government. A game plan is involved and the Taoiseach is making it up as he goes along. He is biding his time and will waffle at the last moment. That is not the way to do business.

Thirteen counties meet the criteria for qualification so I urge the Minister to ensure that a decision is made at the Cabinet table and passed on to Europe. This is the only way to deal with the matter. There is no point waffling or fudging the issue or stating that certain things will be secured and everybody will be happy. That is not the way the Europeans do business. I call on the Taoiseach and the Government to make a decision, pass it on to Europe immediately and ensure that Objective One status is secured for those 13 counties.

Mr. Naughten

I wish to share my time with Deputy Boylan.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Naughten

I congratulate the bishops on the tremendous work they and the Council for the West did in promoting the Western Development Commission in Government circles. A commitment was given by this and the previous Government to establish the commission and I welcome the introduction of the Bill. It is long overdue.

The commission was established in January 1997, yet it has taken until now to introduce the Bill. Much valuable time has been lost in terms of the promotion and development of the western counties. Why did it take so long to publish the legislation given that the heads of the Bill had been approved prior to the previous general election? Much finance and resources could have been invested in the west over the period of the delay.

I received a letter from a developer who has three foreign investors lined up for a nursery project, subject to the approval of the Western Development Commission which has been provisionally promised. However, because of the delay in setting up the commission's fund, 25 jobs have not yet been advertised or filled. Such priorities exist. The delay in the introduction of the Bill has suppressed development in the region. If the fund had been established when the heads of the Bill were approved, it is possible that it would not have been necessary to argue for Objective One status at this stage because the west would have had a viable economy.

I hope the membership of the commission will be expanded to include a representative of the farming community and a representative from County Roscommon. The commission is based in the county, yet it does not have a representative from the area. Unless it includes representatives from all the communities in the western region, we cannot claim the commission is representative.

I support Deputy Belton's point that County Longford should be included. It has the same statistics as County Roscommon and elsewhere in the west. The constituency of Longford-Roscommon has been under resourced in the past and I urge the Minister to include County Longford in the commission. Deputy Belton and I intend to table an amendment on Committee Stage to secure the inclusion of County Longford.

Without Objective One status, the Bill and this debate is futile. I will not deal with the details of Objective One; I am sure the Minister is aware of them. However, the Taoiseach made it clear in the House yesterday in reply to a parliamentary question that without Objective One status, there is a restriction on the amount of funds which can be given to parts of the country, particularly the west. It is crucial that Objective One status is secured. We will be on a hiding to nothing with the Bill if it is not secured.

Infrastructure in the western region must be developed.

Our tourism industry is completely underdeveloped, especially in County Roscommon, which is not even included on Bord Fáilte maps. We do not have a county town or a road going through the county. That is how bad tourism promotion is in the county and I hope the Western Development Commission will examine such issues.

Roads infrastructure has been mentioned by previous speakers. The Dublin-Westport road is probably the most atrocious national primary route in the country. It is hugely under-resourced and the National Roads Authority has no plans to develop it in the medium to long term. There is no point in establishing a commission unless we are willing to commit funds to infrastructure.

The planning process in the west is a disgrace. It is virtually impossible to get planning permission in County Roscommon and other counties and this problem must be addressed. The rail network, including the Westport and Sligo lines, is hugely under-resourced. If we are to get cars off the roads and transport goods to ports in Dublin and Rosslare, we need an adequate, safe rail network, not the dangerous network which currently exists. The establishment of this commission will be futile without Government support and commitment to infrastructure.

We must ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach between the relevant bodies. We have county enterprise boards, partnership boards, county councils, UDCs and borough councils, Leader boards, semi-State bodies, Bord Fáilte, Forbairt, IDA, Teagasc, Bord Glas — I could go on. The Bill does not include a commitment to co-ordinate these agencies. I hope the Minister of State can clarify the position on Committee Stage and tell us what type of co-ordinating role will be played by the Western Development Commission. Our efforts will be futile unless there is such co-ordination All of these organisations have their own application forms. People are running around like headless chickens trying to fill out these forms. The Minister of State should examine the possibility of a common application form for many of these grants.

There is much concern about rural housing. Ireland is in the midst of a housing construction boom, yet the number of derelict houses in rural areas is fast increasing. The first time buyer's grant of £3,000, available to purchasers of newly built houses, has biased the market in favour of building rather than renovating. This helps to accelerate the flight from rural Ireland to towns and cities. We need to consider the reintroduction of some form of the reconstruction grant. To qualify for that grant, recipients would have to show that the house would be their primary dwelling and would undertake to be resident in the house for a guaranteed period after the completion of the work. If we are to maintain rural communities, initiatives must be introduced to encourage residents to live in rural townlands rather than towns. The commission must examine this issue.

We must also look at how to create jobs in rural Ireland. The IDA and other State agencies try to influence companies to locate in rural areas, and promote the decentralisation of industry. However, the IDA has admitted that investors, not the IDA, decide where to locate the company. We must provide incentives for people and companies to invest in rural areas. The best way of doing so is through changes in the tax code. We have seen the impact of urban renewal schemes. We need a similar scheme aimed at attracting investors to rural areas. I hope the Minister of State is pushing the case for the Shannon corridor and for urban renewal in towns throughout the country. The EU is seeking to halt these initiatives and I urge the Minister of State to press his colleagues to ensure that both schemes are approved. They are crucial to the development of rural communities.

We also need to examine grant aid for farmers involved in alternative enterprises. The Leader programme is unable to accomplish this because of restrictions. We need to examine what alternative enterprises should be funded. We have serious problems in agriculture.

We also need to look at the telecommunications infrastructure. The Minister of State should ask the Western Development Commission to establish a skills register for every town in the west. Many people in urban centres, particularly Dublin, would be willing to live in the west where there is cheap accommodation and where they would be returning to their communities, if jobs were available. If we are to attract industry we must show that we have qualified people available. A company which initially located in Castlerea, County Roscommon, moved to Galway because it could not get people with the requisite technical skills. If we are to encourage technical industries to set up in the west, we must ensure that we have people who are willing to leave Dublin and take up these jobs in their home communities. I urge the Minister of State to examine these issues.

Mr. Boylan

I have an open mind on this Bill. It will add to the confusion about commissions and agencies of which we have an abundance. People are confused about whom to apply to and where to go if they wish to get something done. Many people in rural areas are anxious to get up and going. Opportunities exist but they have not filtered down to the Border region and the west.

I am concerned about these proposals as there is no co-ordinated approach. This proposal will lead to further fragmentation. The western region includes Sligo and Leitrim. However, these counties are also included in the Border region. Sligo and Leitrim have a choice of two regions. However, if they are taken out of the Border region we will have Donegal on the north, Cavan and Monaghan in the centre and Louth to the extreme east. County Louth can benefit from the major developments taking place in the east and south east as a result of the peace process. This leaves Cavan-Monaghan in no man's land and without representation. Where do we belong? We do not belong to the west. The Border region will be fragmented.

There is an opportunity for the Government to put all these apples into the one barrel so that people will know where they stand and what is available to them. This will be achieved by obtaining Objective One status for the 13 counties of the Border, west and midlands regions. Objective One status will create a co-ordinated region and provide funding so that these counties can develop in the same way as the rest of the country. The position is totally imbalanced. I am delighted to see the Minister of State nodding in agreement. However, not all of his colleagues agree. There seems to be a major split in the Government. The Tánaiste has stated that an application has been made, yet the Taoiseach told the House that no application has been made. On this occasion the Taoiseach is telling the truth — an application has not been made.

I recently visited Brussels with Fine Gael colleagues as we were concerned about what was happening. I was amazed and annoyed when told by Commissioner Wulf-Mathies that no formal or informal application had been made on Objective One status for the Border or western regions. The EU has had no contact from the Government, yet Objective One status is available. We qualify for that status as we are at 68 per cent of GNP — the cut off point is 75 per cent. We do not welcome this statistic but it is the reality. What is the Government doing about this issue which is vital if the rest of the country is to catch up on the developments in Dublin? One can see the gridlock in Dublin caused by the imbalance of development over many years. There is ample space and opportunity in the west, the midlands and the Border regions.

Objective One status is vital. As Minister of State with responsibility for rural development, Deputy Davern should indicate where he stands on this issue. The Minister of State's brief also includes the issue of milk quotas. This could involve a peace initiative for farmers in the Border region who were handicapped by the difficulties which I do not have time to mention. These are two vital issues along with infrastructural development.

If funding is made available there are no better people to grasp the opportunities. However, without the opportunities we are going nowhere. This is not acceptable. It is time that those who have been left behind are given the opportunity to catch up. We are not taking bread from anyone's plate when it comes to Objective One status. No one will be penalised. The rest of the country can continue its development if the Government goes for Objective One status. I hope the Minister of State will give a positive answer to these issues at a later stage.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.