We will clarify them in a written submission.
If we go down the road of a competitive food industry, will it solve the problems in the agriculture sector? It is our analysis, using evidence on the ground and the AgriVision 2015 and Foresight reports, that a competitive food economy will not necessarily sustain smallholders. It is in the country's interests to have a competitive food industry but it is not necessarily in the interest of smallholders. A competitive food industry in the global economy means food produced at the lowest possible price. Ireland would have to compete with South America and the US.
On Senator Moylan's comments, the reality is regarding the job. At a conference we held recently, a woman from the west was very vociferous about her husband's quality of life. He was farming, trying to keep his piece in the building industry and raising a family. His wife made the point that holding down a second job is not conducive to the long-term prospects for her family.
I accept Senator Moylan's good advice that a farmer must have a second trade. In the long term, a young farmer will opt for the trade instead of wasting time on keeping the land going, unless it is a source of pride. This is the dilemma that the younger generation of farmers is experiencing. Wives and mothers of young farmers feel strongly about the second job. The problem with that is farming is being carried out at the lowest level. We believe this is the challenge of this programme which can be met. We do not see it as a conflict with agriculture. Ireland is and will remain an agricultural country. There are thousands of young people who are not taking the option of staying in farming. From Teagasc figures, thousands of smallholders will leave the land. This is obvious too from the figures for farm sales.
Deputy Naughten raised the question of enterprise. We held a conference in Carrick-on-Shannon two years ago. Many Leitrim-based businessmen attending it pointed out that between them they had created 350 jobs. Not one penny from State supports or subsidies were given to their enterprises. We want a debate on the role of the county enterprise boards and Enterprise Ireland. It is clear that neither is reaching small scale rural businesses, particularly service related businesses. The county enterprise boards and Enterprise Ireland are not doing enough to keep people employed in small scale businesses in rural areas.
The issues on planning are constantly brought to our attention and must be addressed. The term "rural" refers to anywhere outside the main cities. In other words, it is what is designated as a city, although Athlone could be close to that definition as well. Some 40% of the country's population is regarded as living in dispersed settlement patterns. Some areas are more rural than others. However, if one takes Athenry, Tullamore or Cavan, for example, these are rural towns. They might have an urban population as such, but they are rural towns. They depend on what is happening in the outer rural community, so for us, the definition as regards outside the city is relevant. We have put a proposal to Government for a rural development planning commission to be established. The majority of planners are urban-trained. They think urban and use their planning expertise from that perspective. We have come across planners in England and other parts of Britain that have a different approach to planning. There are even models in Sweden, which we will talk about at a conference later this year.
There are other ways of doing rural planning, but we are not availing of them. We have asked the Government to look at the establishment of a rural planning commission to find the best way forward in planning in a rural perspective. A number of people came to us during the ploughing championships who had tried to set up businesses on their farms. This worked well by allowing them to do the farming and manage the business. Some were asked, however, by the county council to move the business into the industrial park in the town, and stay farming, but that completely defeats the purpose of giving people jobs within the rural area. For those members of the committee who want to take it up, that proposal is very much alive. We will continue to put it forward until the Government or someone else decides to take it up.
We believe this plan probably will not achieve the diversification necessary to keep smallholders in rural areas. We do not see it happening. I know that Deputy Crawford has reservations as regards the 90%, but we are using the Department of Agriculture and Food figures for a start, as well as family farm income statistics as compiled by Teagasc. That is where we are getting the data. They are not our figures. However, I accept the argument about mushroom production and obviously there are parts of the family farm sector that are not subsidised. Alternative farm activity, such as mushroom cultivation, does not get the same type of support as mainstream farming. The Deputy is correct in saying they are not subsidised.
I do not know whether I am covering half the issues. On Senator Moylan's point as regards whether we make submissions, as an organisation our resources are restricted so we do not make submissions to any great extent. Our member groups, however, put forward submissions in their own names within different counties and we assist them in that. We hope to address this area. It is an issue within our strategic plan, which was launched just recently by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. We hope to do some of that in the future. At the moment, however, because of restricted resources we simply cannot.
Deputy Upton talked about rural and Gaeltacht affairs and agriculture. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has a fair track record. It has, for instance, been instrumental in ensuring that the 34 special initiatives on transport were mainstreamed, despite this being the bailiwick of the Department of Transport. We compliment the Department for this and for its work under CLÁR etc. We would argue that putting it back under the Department of Agriculture and Food might not be for the best, but ultimately that is a decision for Government. At the moment, however, we compliment the work of that Department under the present Minister. The Minister has been wrongly criticised for his proposed solutions to the problems of evening transport etc. At least he is putting forward solutions, as we are. The availability of transport is one of the most acute issues facing rural populations. We need to solve the evening transport problem, not as regards pubs or the drink link, as someone called it. This area has to be developed and the Minister is running some pilot projects in this regard and should be supported. We will not learn unless we try.
Senator Scanlon is right in his comments about post offices. We had a piece in The Irish Times of last Friday, where Irish Rural Link argued for the future of post offices, as we have done all along, but we as a community must use them. We cannot complain about losing a post office or a business if they are not used. The key question, however, as regards whether the future of a post office is sustainable because of its non-profitability hinges on whether it is delivering a public service. Therefore, how is a public service to be defined? If we agree that the individual post office is delivering a public service, then we have got to look at it. An EU Commissioner, when talking about supporting rural communities, asked at a recent conference: who supports the hairdresser in rural Ireland and who supports the last shop and the post office? In other words, if we believe that farming should be subsidised, certain businesses under certain criteria, including post offices, must be subsidised as well. We should not apologise for saying that.