I would like to welcome this opportunity to discuss the National Development Plan. I regard it as a very important opportunity for making investment in the future of this country.
National Development Plan, 1989-1993: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of theNational Development Plan, 1989-1993.
—(Senator W. Ryan.)
I do not want to interrupt you at a later stage. There is an informal arrangement since yesterday, as you are probably aware, that most Senators will take half an hour or less as there are quite a number of speakers. I would rather interrupt you now than at a later stage when you are in full flight.
I will do my best to be as concise as possible and I will observe that limit happily.
The Minister yesterday presented this, by and large in a very positive light, in particular with regard to highlighting the opportunities that exist under this plan for substantial investment in the country. One area however, in which I would have some difficulty in where the Minister stated that in preparing the plan the Government carried out an unprecedental level of consultation at national, local and regional levels. I am sure this is quite true but it is very worrying. If this level of consultation is unprecedented, then it suggests that the previous existing level was very low indeed.
When the Minister goes on to explain how the consultation process was carried out, I am even more worried because it is clear that this "process of consultation" was carried out from the top down rather than being what I would regard as a genuine community consultation. This has very important consequences for the future of the plan and for the degree to which the Irish people will give their wholehearted support to it. There is a kind of moral, political, emotional and also an economic aspect to this because it does colour the Government's thinking and it is perfectly clear that there is a heavy reliance on private sector investment and finance in trying to achieve lift-off of this plan. Of course certain elements of this may well be welcome but it is dangerous to go overboard in this area as I think in certain instances the Government have done.
A clear example of this to me is the question of the emphasis placed on the roads infrastructure, particularly with regard to Dublin. There is something over £200 million spent on the redevelopment of the roads structure in the greater Dublin area. There is about £30 million spent on public transport. This seems to me to be a clearly disproportionate allocation of funds particularly in a republic where the concept of the equality of citizens should be paramount. The notion of using private capital through toll roads etc. to make massive investment on behalf of the private motorist and such a small investment on behalf of the general public through opening up the public transport system is unfortunate. This is highlighted by the ratio which is 6:1 and that ratio in a republic in favour of private motorist as against the public transport system is quite unsatisfactory.
I would also have to question the status and impact of this document, impressive as it is. I want to welcome all the positive elements and all the thought and consideration that has gone into the National Development Plan. It is a blueprint. It is an outline. It is full of pious aspirations, of general proposals, of theoretical principles and of their enunciation. There is, however, very little except in the broadest possible outline of what could be described, in a phrase I dislike but I cannot find an easy shorthand around it, as the “nitty gritty”. Where is the nitty gritty?
The nitty gritty is probably contained in something approximating to the consultancy study. Probably the first question I would want to ask the Minister is, what is the status of the consultancy study prepared for the Government which has been leaked by a number of newspapers? Those of us who are genuinely interested in this question of the application of massive European funding to the national situation would like to know the detail. I have to be parochial here and say that I am concentrating today on two elements — Dublin as the capital city and the role of cultural tourism. Those are my two principal axes in this morning's debate, and those of us interested in that would like to know the detail. We would like to know if we can take as authoritative those statements that have appeared in the press concerning the release of documentation surrounding the consultancy study.
I would like also to say continuing the lines I have opened up with regard to the process of consultation that I think it is extremely important that the Government take into consideration the views of the people. It may be regard that it is difficult to determine what those views are. That is not an argument that can be sustained in the light of the fact that there is in existence and published and made available to the Government and sent to and welcomed by the European Community at the Commission in Brussels a citizens alternative plan for Dublin. I would urge the Minister to examine very carefully what is contained in this document.
I say this not to be argumentative, not to be carping, because the Government have done considerable work and should be congratulated upon it, but because I believe that the success of a major plan such as this depends to a certain extent at least on the wholehearted support and approval of the citizens of the country.
There can be very little doubt as to what the citizens of Dublin, which is a microcosm of the country, feel with regard to this plan because it is spelled out in this citizens' alternative programme for Dublin which arose as a result of the Dublin crisis conference which was so clearly reflective of the people's views that the Taoisigh of the day, and we were in this rather ambiguous situation where Governments were changing rapidly, both Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy Haughey, attended the various meetings of the crisis conference indicating how seriously they took that expression of views.
I would like to place on the record of the House that this document which we have produced now carries the support of over 100 organisaitons throughout the greater Dublin area, ranging from the Association of Combined Residents' Associations, the National Association of Tenants Organisations, conservation groups, environmental study groups and so on. The membership reflected in the support for this document is now more than 750,000 citizens. Therefore, it is a voice that needs to be heard.
The first point in this document is a very interesting one and one I believe the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting in principle. That is that while the stated purpose of the Structural Funds is to relieve inequality in the Community as between richer and poorer member states, that that principle accepted clearly as operational between states should be operational within states as well, so that this should apply to the method whereby funds are dispersed in Dublin. In other words European money should be used specifically and deliberately to relieve inequality in our social and economic structures here at home.
I am not satisfied that this is the case. One of the reasons I am not satisfied is because of this massive, sometimes appropriate, but not always appropriate, reliance by the Government on private sector funding. For this reason it is important that consultation should continue, that the National Development Plan should have a certain degree of fluidity, that there should be direction of funds into deprived areas.
I am concerned by some of the statements surrounding the production of Government documentation such as the statement that has been made quite clearly and unambiguously that "development planning should be based on potential rather than need". I quite understand why the Government position should be thus because they have been excoriated and flayed and attacked in public for wasteful public projects where there was no return, where the yield on investment was not maximised. Yet, it is a dangerous principle to be so baldly enunciated. I would certainly dissociate myself from a major ground of philosophy that says that development should be based on potential only rather than need. I am not convinced in some of the Government's planning that that potential is as great as it may be felt in Government circles nor that Government assistance is always so necessary. I would like to give one example.
Again, I have to take it from the consultancy report because the consultancy report is all we have in terms of real specifics. I talk about, for example, the Grand Canal Dock/Hanover Quay scheme where it is apparently suggested that there will be a capital injection from public resources of £17 million. I certainly wish to see that area rehabilitated. If you look at it in the analagous context of similar developments in Europe and particularly in London you will see that this is a prime marketable area. I would certainly question whether this needs the allocation of £17 million of pump-priming money from this plan because I believe the private sector is well able to support this kind of development without that degree of massive aid. I would prefer to see such funding go, for example, to the deprived areas of the north inner city. I would have to welcome the fact that the consultants apparently recommended one of the major assets in terms of architectural heritage of this city, Henrietta Street, which has been allowed not just under the Republic but under the administration of the former British Empire and under the administration of various rather shabby city councils to decline into an appalling state. It is still capable of preservation. I notice they are proposing a considerable capital injection here which I have no doubt will bear some fruit although, again, I wonder to what extent consultation is taking place with the people who have been fighting on the ground there. I welcome that but I am a little concerned that there is only £1.6 million for the rehabilitation of the environment in the whole of the north inner city. A sum of £17 million is being provided for a commercial development on Grand Canal Quay but only £1.6 million for the revitalisation of the north inner city. That seems to me to be an unacceptable disparity.
With regard to the transport network, I am concerned because there seems to be a massive investment in roads to the exclusion of other development areas. I believe this is wrong-headed. I would like to ask the Minister to reconsider this emphasis on roads. I believe that rather than making this massive investment in roads structure there should be an attempt to dislodge the disproportionate weight of freight traffic currently clogging the roads back where it clearly belongs — on the rail network. That would be economically sound practice. It would free the roads. I understand why there is an approach to the transport system here because the condition of the roads is sometimes unbearable for the commuter particularly along the quays but I believe that rather than attempting to create new major road networks which will only increase the volume of traffic into the city — and this has been the experience of every major European city — there should be an attempt to transfer the burden of freight onto the rail network.
I also believe there should be a proper and a positive development of the public transport system. I am sorry to see that there is no provision for adequate transport out to the western suburbs such as Tallaght. That is deplorable. I have to say here, as a sideline, that I greatly regret the development of DART because that dislodged money that should have been used in a comprehensive scheme for the whole city, including an underground rail network. Why is it that Dublin, a capital city, cannot have an underground network and a place like Newcastle in the north of England, which is a provincial town, has an underground network? We are a capital city and we do not have such a network. It would remove some of our dependence on buses many of which are in a very bad condition and remove also a lot of the private transport and place commuter traffic where it belongs in most capital cities — underground. I do not accept the technical arguments against this proposal. I have heard them. They are quite inadequate. I will not summarise them. I am sure the Minister may come back with them to me but the engineering arguments against it are just not really acceptable.
I welcome the National Development Plan. I welcome particularly many aspects of the consultancy report and I would like just to explain how I see the consultancy report fitting in to the national plan. I would very much appreciate, if it is possible, some confirmation from the Minister of the status of the development plan because I welcome, for example, the Government's own consultants' saying they recommend that the outer loop of the inner tangent road in Dublin should be scrapped and that the rest of the inner tangent should proceed only after the conducting of proper environmental impact surveys as required for Community funding.
I am sure the Minister will be aware of the fact that in our battles over this road we have actually submitted to Lord Henry Plumb indications that prior to the proceeding with this road no such environmental impact survey was initially conducted and we asked that the funding for the sections for this road should be halted. Now the consultants for the Government say that this should be done. They say there should be adequate transportation studies and also, very importantly, that there should be redevelopment of buildings on the margins of the roads. It is unacceptable to people living in that dereliction caused by inner city planning blight and it is important under this plan that people should be encouraged to come back into the inner city and, at the same time, not to have a kind of devastation and blight extending without any attempt to put human scale buildings back.
I would like to ask also — it is a very detailed point but I think it is one in which the citizens of Dublin and the citizens of the country, because Dublin is the capital city, are interested — what is the fate of Parnell Street to be? For example, let us select a contentious area. What is to be the fate of the section of Parnell Street between Gardiner Street and Marlborough Street in future under this scheme?
I see transport as a very important element. I know it is necessary for the development of industry and I have no difficulties with major road systems linking the main cities. I am concerned, however, as I believe the European Commission, in the light of the experience of Europe countries will be concerned, about the impact of unwise road developments inside the city and the concentration on private capital enterprise and the private motorist rather than on public transport schemes.
I would like to turn to the question of cultural tourism. Again, the Taoiseach, who is an incisive analyst of public affairs, has said on several occasions that tourism is a very important motor for the revitalisation of industry and of the economy. It is either the first or second income generator. Our proportion of world tourism is dropping — perhaps the Minister has recent figures but as a proportion our sector of the market is dropping. The numbers are actually going up but our proportion of the world market is dropping. One of the reasons for that is the quality of product, to put it in crude commercial terms. We do not have the kind of weather you expect in the isles of Greece. Nobody is going to come here for the sun. A few cranks might come, I suppose, if they like cloud, rain, fog or mist but the one thing we do have to offer is culture. That means basically — books and bricks — our great writers and the architecture, principally of the 18th century. The consultancy report says:
Despite the many mistakes and errors of judgment made in demolition and replacement of buildings since the 1960s, the predominant urban form is still remarkably intact as an example of 18th century style of civic design.
Hear, hear. Can I give an example of where the books and the bricks join together to form something that is potentially profitable for the whole city of Dublin and for the nation and that is in the works of writers who can be associated in some way with buildings characteristic of a particular period. I would like to welcome and seek confirmation of what I understand to be an element in this plan, and that is, substantial funding for the James Joyce Cultural Centre in North Great George's Street and I would like to know if it is the Government's intention to proceed with this.
I have to say that in 1983 I took a major development plan which we drafted for this street to the European Commission in Brussels. I was uninvited but I had a very interesting time in the Berlaymont building and the principal thing to which the Commission responded was the name James Joyce, coupled with the redevelopment of the architectural heritage of Dublin of which they were aware. I would like some confirmation of this proposed funding because apart from anything else, Dublin is going to be the European capital in cultural terms in 1991 and in 1992 Dublin will host the world's most important and possibly largest literary conference — the International James Joyce Symposium — which will return to Dublin after ten years. I would like this very influential audience to have something worthy of Ireland, worthy of Dublin and worthy of James Joyce to view at that time, to have a superb building restored completely as an exhibition piece for Irish manufacturers. I would like to see Waterford Glass chandeliers as we have in this beautiful ante-Chamber to the Seanad, Donegal carpets, the most excellent examples of Irish design and craftsmanship, a showplace, if you like, for Irish genius in terms of design. I believe this is an important element in marketing our status as a producer of first class goods worldwide.
In terms of cultural tourism, I notice that there are phrases in tribute to the importance of this area throughout the National Development Plan. I notice particularly, on page 18, of the National Development Plan, section 1.2.12 it says:
Ireland has considerable natural advantages in terms of tourism: a rich cultural heritage, a tradition for friendliness and hospitality, a relatively unspoilt environment and a folk tradition which is still reflected in a vibrant performing arts sector.
That may be true but it is vibrant because of the genius of the people. It is not necessarily vibrant because of Government support.
I would like to ask, for example — and I know it is only a small question but it shows that I am not totally rooted in Dublin — about the fate of the Irish National Ballet, which has had such an enormous critical success recently but which was met astonishingly on the afternoon that their most recent production opened in Belfast, with the announcement that all funding for ballet was being removed. I say this because I know that the Taoiseach is an imaginative man who has a sympathetic understanding of the creative arts and he personally authorised finance for the production of this company's latest work. I would like to ask, is there going to be any European funding under the heading of Cultural/Tourism for these kinds of undertakings that are taken on board by courageous individuals. It is very important indeed that there should be.
I would like also to ask, what investment there is going to be in the tourism product that is not too far away from us here. The House will perhaps recall that I had an Adjournment debate on the future of the National Gallery, which is in a deplorable condition. I do think it is rather insulting to people like George Bernard Shaw, to Sir Alfred Beit and the wonderful collection of paintings that he gave, that the National Gallery is left in such a lamentable condition. We have here resources out of all proportion to the size of this capital city. We have an Old Master collection left rotting in a dilapidated building. I hope that European Community funds can be made available to rectify this.
I also had an Adjournment debate on the curvilinear greenhouses in Glasnevin and I would like an assurance that the £300,000 allocated for the restoration of one of these greenhouses, in preparation for which plants have already been removed, will continue and that a full restoration of this international asset will be comtemplated because there is no question or doubt that this is an important tourist asset. Turner is the great master of 19th century cast-iron. His foundry was in Dublin. Kew Gardens no longer contain original Turner work because the glasshouses were taken down and reerected in modern materials. The same is true of Belfast: so the only surviving masterpiece of Dublin's greatest craftsman of that period in Ireland is here rotting. Last weekend I went out to the Botanic Gardens and I was ashamed as a Dubliner of what I saw. I say that because it is something we could be proud of and not just for tourism: there is no fee to enter the Botanic Gardens so those people who are unemployed can enjoy this great asset.
I would like to turn briefly — so that nobody will think I am concentrating north of the Liffey exclusively to the question of the Temple Bar development. I understand this will be an element in the revitalisation of Dublin. I am glad this is the case and I am glad in particular that the consultants have taken a definite line in this area. I would like to quote from the report where it says:
It is the view of the consultants that the Temple Bar area is not an appropriate one for large-scale redevelopment (such as CIE's plans for a transportation centre).
That report I think is now gone anyway.
It contains some last remaining cobbled streets in Dublin and a mix of 18th and 19th century architectural styles not found elsewhere in the city.
The study notes that CIE have let sections of the property on a short-term basis and suggests that this has had a particular impact. They regard the conservation and restoration of the Temple Bar area as an important element for this area of the city and say that CIE should dispose of their property. So they should. I query, however, the way in which it should be disposed. According to this report, they suggested Arlington Securities should be involved in it. In my opinion — and it is one that is backed by many people in the conservation area — Arlington Securities, excellent people though they might be, have more than enough on their plate in the development of the proposed bus station and shopping centre on the other side of the Liffey.
I come back to the idea of using almost exclusively private sector investment from the top down. The experience of European capitals has been almost invariably that development is best, is most welcome by the public, is most utilised and survives longest, where it does not consist exclusively of massive injections of private venture capital but contains a healthy element of small individual investors in shops, craft centres, theatres, studios and so on. This is true and I know this because I have personal experience here, just as I have personal experience in North Great George's Street. I know about the Temple Bar area better than most of the people who pontificate about it because I was one of the first people to invest in that area through the Hirschfeld Centre. I am sometimes amused to read about the left bank atmosphere, the revitalisation and the small businesses in this area. Let me place on the record of the House that one of the principle engines for the redevelopment of that area was the fact that the Hirschfield Centre existed there and ran a series of social events and fund raisers, not only for the gay community, but for the womens' movement, for peace groups and so on. It was as a result of that — we were the first people apart from the Project Theatre into that area — people coming to the social resource that we produced, coming to fund-raising events for women, and other progressive groups who invested in craft shops and so on in this area. I know from personal experience, although it is never paid tribute to, that small individual investment will lead organically to a considerable development in this area. I hope it will not be left entirely in the hands of private sector development. Although I welcome the major promises of the National Development Plan and of the consultancy studies, the National Development Plan in particular and to some extent the consultancy studies, are both skewed in favour of new commercial development in the city as opposed to preservation, rehabilitation and conservation which are extremely important elements.
I would like also to ask the Minister to consider the logic of the Temple Bar area. I hope this is still a fluid situation because the definition of this area for the purposes of inner city tax incentives is very narrow and, to a certain extent, I would say cartographically inadequate or absurd, illogical. I believe that rather than being limited in the way it is, in the area from Wellington Quay back to Essex Street and Temple Bar, it should be extended to go all the way back to Dame Street taking in some of the most important early 18th century houses and it should also be extended further in the direction of D'Olier Street so that you take in the whole area of that section of the inner city.
I welcome the plan. I would like to encourage the Government. I have some reservations about the plan. The reservations which were placed on the record were so placed with a degree of seriousness and were not intended to be carping. There was one little element in the debate that I found irritating and irrelevant and that is all the point-scoring about who did what, and who consulted people more. The Irish people do not give — I cannot use certain words — a toffee apple as to who did not do what eight or ten years ago in terms of consulting people: what we want is action now. I am glad the Government are moving in the right direction but let us not have all the point-scoring which is an element in both parties. Let us just proceed in a united way for the redevelopment of the country using this enormous potential for development.
I hope there will be a reconsideration in the direction of the needs of ordinary people for public transport, of small craft development, small investment and not just massive investment, not just toll roads or pension funds invested in the inner city.
Everything I have said about Dublin is also capable of application to other cities and towns around Ireland. I hope the Ministers, in their usual courteous way, even if they are unable to agree with all the detail of what I have said, at least will consider it positively and if it is possible, give some indication as to the status of what I referred to as the "nitty gritty" and that is the consultancy plan, not just the theory which is in the National Development Plan but precisely where the pounds, shillings and pence are going. It is only in something like the consultancy studies we will find this out.
I respectfully look for further detailed information from the various Ministers and an indication that they will take sympathetically into consideration the citizen's alternative programme for Dublin as a blueprint, not just for Dublin but for a method of approach that applies to Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Galway and Kilkenny also.
I welcome this opportunity to make a contribution to one of the most significant pieces of economic planning in the history in the State. I welcome particularly the very many specific proposals for the development of our infrastructure in this plan. Since our accession to full membership of the European Community, the idea of a single market has been something aspired to but for which we never really prepared. Despite the sterling efforts of committed Europeans and many Governments the objective of full union was thwarted by obstructionism and shortsightedness of certain powerful opponents. However, with the passing of the Single European Act and the dedication to its provision by the high contracting parties, the dream of the EC founding fathers is set to become a reality.
This situation provides us with unprecedented opportunity for growth, expansion and national prosperity. However, it would be dangerously naive to ignore the challenges inherent in a new competitive environment. With one of two notable exceptions, all too often in this country we have left planning to the last moment. Nevertheless, on this occasion it is heartening to see that the National Development Plan has been finalised within the prescribed time. The Government are to be applauded and commended on this. Yet, unless the programmes and objectives contained within it are sufficient to redress the more pressing problems of a peripheral and disadvantaged area, an invaluable opportunity will have been squandered.
On considering the plan's provisions one is struck by the adoption of a subregional approach. This shows that we have learned a lot from past experience. Previous development strategies have treated this country as a single entity. In the past the allocation of regional aid and the operation of the CAP's guarantee section have failed to alleviate regional disparities. The division of the State into seven areas allows for a more sophisticated analysis of the problems specific to regions as well as their special needs and potentials.
The broad macroeconomic strategy is familiar to us from the Government's programme of performance over the last two years. The fight against inflation, the campaign to reform the nation's finances, the promotion of investment, job creation, the commitment to tax reform and the drive towards social equity underpin this plan.
For the purpose of this debate I propose to deal with the document's treatment of the south-east region specifically as the area with which I am most familiar. Structural problems of the region are not untypical in the national context. To remedy these drawbacks a total expenditure of £979 million is envisaged. At face value this would seem to offer great benefits. However, it is prudent to examine the manner in which this plan spends such resources.
The south-east area's efforts to attract investment has been hampered by a poor economic infrastructure. This is particularly true of our roads and harbours. Against this background, the move to improve national roads as well as regional, county and urban routes by the injection of £88 million is welcome. I am most enthusiastic about the border links and Rosslare Harbour. A major transport artery to County Wexford cannot but enhance the county's attraction as a location. The fast freight service from Rosslare to continental ports will contribute immensely to the export drive and will raise the status of the port in a national context as well as regionally. With proper use of this key asset, Wexford's economic life can only be enriched. I urge all interested parties at national and local level to capitalise on this potential development.
While road and sea links are stressed, it is important that energy, water, sewerage and waste disposal services are improved. In this regard, the £64.5 million earmarked, if spent wisely, should promote the region's attractiveness.
It is the area's good fortune to possess a beautiful and unspoilt environment. The wisdom of protecting this asset while still promoting it as a location for tourism and business is to be applauded and commended. An allocation of £33 million specifically to the region for tourism must be exploited to the full, given the fact that it is served by a major seaport and regional airport. These facilities place potential holidaymakers on our doorstep and we must capitalise on this situation.
Concentration upon primary products plays a vital role. There is a provision of £103 million for agriculture and rural development, including forestry and fishery harbours. The full capacity of agriculture, horticulture and forestry as well as the industry based upon natural resources of food processing at which we may excel must be developed.
While the importance of these areas is clear, the need for industrial development in this region is particularly important, particularly in County Wexford where unemployment is at the rate of 23 per cent, among the highest in the country. I am pleased to see that industrial programmes, education and skilled training have been assigned £539 million. I am hopeful and confident that the Government will see its way to place a major part of this spending in the south-east region, particularly in County Wexford.
The stimulation of new Irish-owned manufacturing businesses with particular emphasis on high tech small businesses, provision of enterprise centres and work space facilities and training for potential entrepreneurs is significant. At the same time the existing medium and large-sized Irish-owned companies must be expanded. The attraction of overseas investment to Ireland, with particular concentration on pharmaceuticals and health care as well as consumer products, is a welcome commitment. The proposal to develop a technological park in the sub-region is relevant to Wexford. With the improved communications and port facilities I would suggest that Wexford would be an ideal location for the placement of this technical park. With industrial development it is crucial that the region's workforce be properly trained and be possessed with the skills demanded in the labour market. Cooperation between educators and industry is a most attractive proposal and it is vital in the area of technological change.
From the above observations, I am confident that this plan provides a valuable framework within the economic and social life of this region and that this may be greatly stimulated. This national strategy, with its specific regional analysis can be a landmark. I commend this plan to the House.
This debate for the past few weeks has, to my mind, been motivated by greed, money and promises and I ask myself if there are any moral values left in the country or is it sufficient to spend 40 minutes in church on Sunday? I believe that this debate should focus on our future as a people. It is the last opportunity this country will have, for some time at least, to re-tackle our entire development possibilities. We must avail of this opportunity to get a firmer footh-hold in the Common Market, a truly integrated market in a couple of years' time of 330,000,000 or 340,000,000 consumers.
I am disappointed that our Department of Finance has not clearly identified the problems and the priorities. It is sad that we are quite complacent in this country about the emigration, whether encouraged or not, of some 30,000 mainly highly educated young people over the last few years. I do not wish to speak politically. I would like to treat this as a problem of successive Governments. It is not a new phenomenon in this country but the present Government have the responsibility now.
We must bear in mind that this is a wonderful country. Our educational system and services, especially third level, are turning out and equipping young people, whether from our universities or technical colleges, who are readily employable even in the UK where there is also an unemployment problem. They are eagerly sought after in Europe, especially when they have any degree of language facility, and indeed in America and Australia, with or without the green cards.
I believe the debate should be about those 30,000 young, educated people and I hope we can swing our efforts over the next two or three years to try to stem that flow of emigration. When I talk to people in this country their one great fear is that their young families, especially those in second and third level education, are facing into a future where the emigrant ship, irrespective of what qualifications they have, is the only option. I think that is the greatest heartache for parents in this country at the present time, parents who have made significant sacrifices to educate their children, put them through the system and provide for them.
In my view, the time has come to revitalise the political future of the people of Ireland with the genuine and pugnacious Irish spirit of those men and women who gave their lives for the political sovereignty of this wonderful country. The time has come for an evolution in Irish politics right from the centre of political power. We must realise that times change dramatically. Political freedom is no longer a question of military but of economic power play. The future of Ireland will not be in the New York Stock Exchange or the Frankfurt Exchange. In Europe in the year 2000 only quality fighters will win. Those who produce quality products, those who fight to sell quality products will succeed, I believe that we have in this country, especially in the agricultural line, the best quality pure produce that is eagerly sought after and should be sold at a premium price on the great European markets.
After 1993 the European market will not be a Disneyland but in my view will be a real battlefield. Brussels will not be a budgetary cow to be milked but a battle headquarters and the quality of life will be related only to the quality of our thinking and the quality of what we do. Ireland can only be free by having a new economic ideal and a clear motivation. I believe we should not only invest but we must contribute to achieve. We have to motivate our people to contribute before achievement and before they attain their expectations. I would like to have it said loudly and clearly that this country is not for sale. I do not think the Dáil should be looked upon as a stock exchange. Everybody talks about the money of Ireland and, unfortunately, not sufficiently about the people of Ireland.
As I have said, Europe 1992 will not just be a dormitory for us but a battlefield of truly global dimensions. We must not bomb for the freedom of our nation; we must work and we can work hard for its future. We must go to Brussels and fight for our future. We must fight with the spirit of the people who founded this State. We can only fight for our freedom with our brains and our hands if we have clear motivation. It cannot be over-stressed that everybody makes his or her own luck and indeed prosperity can sometimes be a dangerous catchword, especially if it means no more than rising prices and rising profits.
I believe the Government have made a mockery of our local democracy in the manner in which they have dealt with the National Development Plan that has been submitted to the European Community. Having set up the seven regional working parties and advisory groups it has emerged that the national plan was completed and forwarded to Brussels before incorporating those proposals. Indeed, in the seven regional structures that were set up, there was very little input from the local authorities. The municipal authorities and those representing the large towns in the main provincial areas were completely ignored. There have been many valuable submissions from individual development associations in possibly every county in all the regions. In my own county, the Rathdowney Business Association and the Mountmellick Development Association clearly identify the order of priority that they would like to see included in the plan so as to more clearly assist their particular communities in trying to be self-sufficient, in endeavouring to provide the job opportunities to maintain and sustain more of their young people at home.
The manner in which the Government dealt with the national plan in the last few weeks has confirmed that all the worries raised by the Fine Gael Party and the concern expressed in the months leading up to the publication of the plan were indeed correct. It is clear that the consultative exercise the Government engaged in has been to a great extent a cosmetic affair to try to convince the Commission that the plan genuinely contains a regional input. I will deal more fully with that later on when I compare the proposals from the various regional working parties with the final result of the national plan. From discussions I have had with many of those who have been involved in some of the regional groupings I know, there is a great feeling of frustration and annoyance at the manner in which they have been treated and their contribution at regional level disregarded.
The plan, as published, does not contain any really new contribution by way of Government policy to the development of our economy and fails to provide a basis for tackling the major problems of unemployment and emigration with which we are confronted. In its sectoral analysis the plan acknowledges that the most significant reason for our high transport costs is the deficient state of the national roads and access roads to the principal ports and airports. The Government plan states that to bring our road network up to the European standard an investment of £3.27 billion is required. Over the five year programme period, from 1989 to 1993, the plan provides for an expenditure of only £750 million for the road network. That indicates that something less than 25 per cent of the needs will be met by the end of the Government's programme.
It is clear, therefore, that on the basis of the Government's own figures major road infrastructural improvements required to enable us to compete on equal terms within the Single European Market will not be completed this side of the year 2000. An essential prerequisite in the obtaining of Community funding is the principle of additionality. That word was coined some 12 or 14 years ago by the then Commissioner, George Thompson; indeed, it has no meaning in this country in the reign of successive Governments right from the inception of the Regional Fund.
While the plan states that one of the objectives is to stimulate the growth needed to reduce unemployment, it contains very little specific details of the Government's provision to tackle the problems of youth unemployment or long term unemployment, and no attempt is made to compare the effects on employment or the economic activity which may result from different types of investment options. I have already referred to the inadequacies of the road programme. Even if we stay within the parameters of the Government's projected financial contribution to the structural programme, it is possible by rearranging allocations to increase the potential funds that could come from Europe and which would contribute to tackling employment problems. For example, if one-third of the State money allocated in each of the years 1989-93 for the FÁS temporary employment schemes was taken out of that subhead and put into the national roads programme the resultant £80 odd million for that programme would create the potential of an additional £240 million being made available for roads from the Regional Fund. I am told that this would only result in a reduction of the European Community Social Fund contribution by some £13 million. Not only would this make a further contribution towards bringing our road infrastructure up to the necessary standard, but it would be an investment in the creation of real jobs as opposed to temporary employment schemes.
I would not like, by using that comparison, to give the impression that I am not very supportive of all those schemes that have been announced over the last number of years with the aid of the Social Fund. But, when we think of the £9 billion we are discussing in this debate, it gives us an idea of the moneys involved when we consider that in the same period the Irish taxpayer will provide something in the region of £8 billion under the heading of social welfare. We should expect more imagination from the Department of Finance. They should be able to switch some of those funds to create real jobs, long term jobs, to give people the option of working for a living and therefore to enhance and to improve their quality of life.
I have studied with considerable interest a proposal by way of submission presented by sub-region seven which caters for the greater of Leinster excluding Dublin city and county, that is, counties Laois, Longford, most of Offaly, Meath, Louth, Westmeath, Wickow and Kildare. Comparing the objectives highlighted by the working group from our region, it is obvious that the Department of Finance have not been over-impressed in so far as their proposals fall very far short of the estimates and projections in the plans mentioned in the sub-region seven report.
The Government appear to have totally missed the fact that in the midlands-east sub-region the urban areas are undergoing above average expansion, particularly on the periphery of Dublin. The national plan lays emphasis on rural development, but wisdom would suggest that this sub-region has a need, unique among the sub-regions, to take heed of both rural and urban development. The danger is that rural development may be lost sight of, having regard to the pressures of urbanisation in this region. Because of the attraction of Dublin, the midlands-east sub-region receives migrants from the rest of the country, and this does not appear to have received due attention in the national plan. Greater investment and employment opportunities than are shown in the national plan must be created if we are to make any attempt at providing for the coming generation.
It is difficult to compare the sub-region report with the national plan because of different modes of presentation. It is clear that the plan's provisions come nowhere near the aspirations of the working parties' report. Take, for example, the heading of tourism. The proposed expenditure is £238 million in the sub-region report compared with £42 million in this national plan. On ports, £28 million is envisaged as against £3.6 million in the national plan. Even allowing for the sub-regional aspirations which naturally — and I am sure the Minister will agree with me — would be expected to err on the high side, it is clear that the national plan provisions totalling £1,331 million for all sectors is almost equalled by the local government sectoral submission of £1,319,000,000 for the sub-region before account is taken of agriculture, education, telecommunications, energy, rail and indeed of ports.
It is quite clear from this plan that all the emphasis is on Dublin. For instance, the plan is providing £182 million for Dublin port; yet in the midlands-east region there are the ports of Greenore, Dundalk, Drogheda and Arklow for which there are proposals to spend £3.2 million. If we take the rest of Leinster, which is Wexford, we have the port of Rosslare and the port of New Ross which is taken in with Waterford. The port of Rosslare, we are told in the plan, accounts for some 20 per cent of the total exports of this country. It is not possible to take this entire plan seriously if the Government are not prepared to develop the port of Rosslare. It is the nearest port to Europe. If we are in the market at all, the expansion of exports must be to where the consumers are, and that is in the heart of Europe. Therefore, one would have thought that the great bulk of the Government's energy would be devoted to developing the facilities in Rosslare and, not only that, but to upgrading the road infrastructure from Rosslare right up through the midlands in order to open up the midlands.
Look at what the Government's priorities are, the main one in roads being from Dublin to Belfast. There is provision also for from Rosslare to Cork. There is the desert of the midlands, which has been devastated over the last number of years from the point of view of job opportunity, being abandoned with no hope for the future unless we can have access to the port of Rosslare, access to the central markets of Europe. This constitutes the greatest disappointment in the entire proposal.
I have survived sufficiently long in this establishment to recall all the various Government's national plans. Without exception, all of the projections and developments, right back to Deputy Sweetman in 1957, had a high percentage of success. But it is difficult to say whether any plan, from whatever source, was able to achieve 100 per cent of its targets. Therefore, I look forward to this plan having a fair element of success. Irrespective of whether it has a success rate of 50 per cent, 70 per cent, 90 per cent or even 100 per cent or less, it will bring improvements and developments throughout the country. But why the Government chooses completely to ignore development of the midlands and access routes for the midlands to the ports is beyond me.
We have suffered in the midlands over the last few years from devastating lob losses. Take Bord na Móna alone. The EC Structural Funds programme, eastmidlands sub-region No. 7, clearly identifies the difficulties with Bord na Móna. A few years ago they were the single largest employers in the midlands but now, due to inept management over the years and the fact that the Department and the Government did not provide the amending legislation to enable them to diversify, this entire industry has gone into decline.
Yesterday, with a certain amount of sadness, I heard on the radio of the difficulties being experienced by a private developer in County Mayo. To my mind, that development in Belmullet is much the same at that which is now hailed as a great innovation by Bord na Móna in what they are endeavouring to get across in the midlands. It comes as a great shock to find that this private company in Mayo, with which I sympathise, has run into significant difficulties. I hope that all possible help to that firm has been given by the public agencies.
The future of Bord na Móna's operations in the midlands must now come into question. The biggest disadvantage that the present management in Bord na Móna have is that over the years they realised their monopoly situation. A customer was treated, not altogether with disdain, I would say, but certainly not as a customer who is always right but as a customer who just had patience to take what he got, with his money down first. It is like the chickens coming home to roost on a whole industry and the unfortunate people with considerable and significant skills will suffer. They are losing their jobs.
It is not possible to talk about the midlands without, of course, having some regard to the structure of farming and farming systems. I have read with interest the proposals for farming in the National Development Plan. I hope there will be a re-think on the part of the Government of their attitude to and their policy in dealing with cutover bogs, of which there are almost 250,000 acres in the midlands. We import some £40 to £50 million worth of vegetables that could easily be produced on those cutover bogs. The Government have at their disposal 27 years of professional research carried out by An Foras Talúntais. They know exactly what the position is. In their one announcement — their decision to hand over vast areas of cutover bogs to An Bord Coillte, the new forestry board — they have chosen completely to ignore the scientific findings of the past 27 years, because for the growing of trees they would need in excess of 1.5 metres of peat remaining over the marl, whereas in the vast areas of cutover bogs the board have left only less than a half a metre. Therefore, these land masses will be useless for the purpose of growing trees unless we go through the next 40 years without any storms.
If we are to look forward to an improvement in farming systems and structures, there is a great urgency for a Government re-think on agricultural training and agricultural services. I hope that the research centres in Grange, Oakpark and Johnstown Castle will be maintained. I am talking purely about region No. 7 and the agricultural husbandry in that region. It is not possible for agricultural development to compete in the new market without the aid of the services being carried out in Grange and Oakpark, which are in regard to cattle and tillage in the main. It surely would be a retrograde step to reduce the service in Johnstown Castle, for instance. I understand that the laboratories in Johnstown Castle, which I think, was the first of the research centres, deal with the environment, the quality of our produce, monitoring standards, and any reduction in that type of service would mean that we abandon all hopes of achieving the status of being top producers. I look forward to an early announcement that the monitoring of our quality produce and the work in the laboratories in Johnstown castle of soil testing and the testing of various commodities and the environment is to be continued.
In summary, if sub-region No. 7 is to have any hope of getting a fair deal over the next five years the port of Rosslare will need to be greatly upgraded to become the major export facility for the greater European market and there will need to be a much more generous allocation than the £3.2 million for improvements for the ports of New Ross, Arklow, Drogheda and Greenore. These ports are very important because this country has to make progress and we have to survive on our exports. If we have not got the port facilities and, indeed the road infrastructure leading to those ports, then we can forget about it.
In conclusion, I would like to make a few brief points on the report in general. The plan is lacking in addressing general environmental problems. While it recognises that the protection and conservation of the physical environment is an essential ingredient for the Irish tourism product, it fails to acknowledge the essential need of a clean environment for all of us who live on the island. Whereas European Community legislation requires environmental impact assessment reports to be prepared for major development proposals, such as the building of chemical plants, the Government have still not realised that many local authorities who happen to have the experience of having a difficult chemical plant in their administrative region have absolutely no expertise to validate or adjudicate on the present situation arising from the recent legislation in regard to air pollution or dealing with clean water control.
For local communities who come together to make submissions, the preparation of the plan and its publication have been a disappointment in as much as many of these organisations did not get to have their plans accepted even at sub-regional level, not to mention the National Development Plan. It is unfortunate that we are not in a position, even at this stage, to be able to encourage local initiative to a point where we can say to them that their input is valuable and that their experience will be taken on board. However, I hope every effort will be made to accommodate, even at this late stage, the individual orders of priorities that the various sub-regions have made regarding their own particular administrative areas and, indeed, that development associations, who went to considerable expense to see exactly what they required to enhance their own particular areas, will have their proposals and suggestions considered by the Department of Finance under some heading, because it is unfair and not a good way to solve the problem if their work is just ignored completely.
Having made those few criticisms, I hope that this plan will bring about the desired effects for the greater development of this country over the next five crucial years in the development of this State. I wish the plan well, but I make a special appeal to the Government to take the views of the various interested bodies on board. It is important that people should feel that they are part of this particular movement and that they should be encouraged to work for the development and the good of the country as a whole.
I am glad to have the opportunity this morning to say a few words on the National Development Plan, which is a very important plan for us over the next five year period facing into 1992 and the single European market. Much time and effort has been devoted to the analysis of the country's needs in the context of the new competitive environment of 1992. The doubling of the EC Structural Funds offers the State a valuable opportunity to lay the foundation for the coming single European market. The problems of a small underdeveloped peripheral area, such as Ireland, on the outskirts of Europe, are acute at the best of times; however, given our economic difficulties, the urgency of appropriate preparation is all the more obvious and to me it is very relevant and obvious in this particular plan. In this context, the National Development Plan submitted by the Government to the European Commission must fulfil several distinct requirements. The plan must continue the drive towards reform of our finances, new investments for productive purposes must be stressed, the country's potential must be realised if we are to become a modern competitive economy and social equity must be a basic aim and must continue to be so.
I am pleased to see that the broad policies and priniciples pursued with considerable success over the past two years underpin this plan. It is futile to seek new funds if the process of economic regeneration were to be departed from at this critical stage. The decision to employ sub-regional planning was important; the folly of treating the State as a single unit has been exposed in the past and it is pleasing to see that that mistake was not made again.
By dividing the nation into regions the Government greatly enhanced the prospects of producing a set of proposals which are relevant to our needs. It is apparent from the plan that considerable analysis of the country's existing situation was conducted before any proposals were investigated. Such systematic thinking has reduced the likelihood of ill-conceived notions taking hold, in my opinion.
Being from County Meath, my chief concern is, of course, the midlands and east region and the manner in which the plan caters for this particular area: the eastern seaboard and particularly the peri-urban area of Dublin, the central agricultural belt, the peatlands area and the west-north-west area. The five major headings under which development is planned are designed to exploit the full potential of the midlands and east region. The capacity to promote agriculture, industry, marine, inland water resources and forestry is substantial.
Under the heading of agriculture and rural development, including fishery harbours and forestry, £122 million was allocated or has been allocated in the plan. The decision to pursue non-surplus production while seeking to alleviate viability problems recognises current market and structural conditions. In an area stricken with unemployment levels of 18 per cent, the emphasis on industry and internationally traded services is wise. The provision of £414 million is indicative of the commitment to exploit the area's capacity in industry. The emphasis will be placed on food industry, electronics, mechanical engineering, textiles, health products and furniture, thus building on the existing strengths of the region. Enhanced road links as well as access to seaports and the major international airport should enhance success prospects of the east-midland region.
The commitments to pursue knowledge-based industry and inter-industry development are welcome moves as they build on the quality of the labour force, the educational establishment and telecommunications facilities. A new concentration on college-industry links should bear fruit in training workers in hard-hit areas for jobs which are envisaged in this plan. With this in mind the amount of £278 million provided for education and training in this plan represents a major drive to remove structural impediments to the labour market clearance.
Given the marine and inland water resources of the region, I am satisfied that the employment and tourist potentials have been identified. In addition to our waterways, the capacity of natural heritage, cultural and amenity resources to contribute to growth has been stressed. In an area which has most definitely not recognised its tourism potential to date, the move to provide the facilities to increase visitor numbers of great importance.
The contribution of new public and private forestry can be significant in terms of employment directly in plantations, in downstream industries and in tourism. While this relates to the longer term, its inclusion is nonetheless positive. Of particular relevance to me is the effect of the urban sprawl from the greater Dublin area on parts of south Meath and east Meath, and it is evident indeed also in north Kildare. In 1985, Meath County Council produced a special report about this problem and the overdevelopment of south-east Meath. In many cases inadequate provision exists for essential services such as sanitation. Development has been hampered by this problem and under the sanitary heading I hope these basic services are provided.
I am glad to see the specific reference to the peri-urban area. This came through from the Meath County Council report to the regional report and I am glad that it is in the development plan. With economic promotion, the provision of adequate water, sewerage and waste disposal services is vital. While these services must enhance the area's capacity to attract industry it is as important that the environment be protected and improved. It is clear from the plan that sanitary projects will be in harmony with the natural environment which is so crucial for tourism, marine and inland fisheries.
Many of us, myself included, originally believed that maybe a good set-up would have been a county-by-county basis for the regional report or perhaps the existing regional health board areas. At this point I now believe that the Government's decision was correct as it compelled all of us in the seven regions to think more broadly, with a fresher perspective about what had to be achieved.
I would have to take up the point made that the plan submitted by groups to those regions were not heeded. All I can speak about is the one with which I am familiar, the Meath County Council report to the midlands and east region and the midlands and east region report. Meath County Council, of which I am a member, highlighted the need for infrastructure which was appropriate to the needs of the region. We felt strongly that Meath, which is geographically so close to major ports and airports, needed a good road system for ease of access. In the National Development Plan I am glad that the Government have allocated £288 million for the development of roads in the midlands and east region, demonstrating positive proof that Meath County Council were listened to. It is something that we have been talking about for many years, the importance of this area and the heavy traffic flowing through this whole region from the rest of the country. In Meath the traffic comes mainly from the North of Ireland but also from other areas to get to Dublin city. I am glad that the highest allocation of money in the roads section is being put into this area, the allocated figure at last gives recognition to that part of the country which is carrying the heaviest volume of traffic. The commitment to port and airport development is vital, not only to industry but also to tourism.
Meath County Council's submission also highlighted their concern to increase employment opportunities while maintaining the rural population. In the National Development Plan, the Government have drawn particular attention through this submission by spotlighting four key areas, income generated on farm activities, community and enterprise development, agri-tourism and craft industries. All of these accord with Meath County Council's submission and I can see them coming through here. It has to be remembered that this is a broad plan and we hope and we are confident that the various submissions and reports — will be taken into account. This plan covers the broad areas and I am satisfied about that. The idea was a good one. The submissions were listened to. The National Development Plan reflects those positions and the Government have done a good job.
From the observations made the National Development Plan outlines ambitious but achievable proposals for the coming single market. Having identified the needs of specific regions and sound development potential it offers the path to prosperity in the new Europe. On its implementation and success hang the hopes of the nation and I wish the Government every good future in this worthy endeavour.
Tá cuid mhaith sa phlean forbartha seo go gcaithfidh gach éinne aontú leis, mar tá consensus sa tír faoi a lán rudaí: faoin easpa forbartha i dtaobh an líon daoine atá tar éis imeacht as an tír, go speisialta le déanaí, agus go mór mhór ó iarthar na tíre, agus áiteacha iargúlta faoi leith in a measc siúd. Tá go leor le déanamh ó thaobh fhorbairt eacnamaíochta, ach níl mé ró-dhóchasach gur féidir na spriocanna atá againn go léir a shroichint tríd an phlean agus an fhealsúnacht ar a bhfuil sé bunaithe.
There are many things that one ought and could say about the plan but I am aware that this is the later stages of a long discussion, one which took place for three days in the other House and which is stretching over two days today. There are facts about our position that need to be stated and put on the record in order to put this plan in the context of 1992 and within the context of Europe. Let us remember that there is a Europe outside the European Economic Community.
I was amused, as I often am, by the newsletter of the Confederation of Irish Industry. I am referring to volume 50, No. 20, which has a long and quite interesting review of — their headline —"Ireland's Progress in the European Community". On page 2 of that newsletter they say that: unemployment in four European countries, Britain, Germany, Denmark, Portugal and Greece was below 8 per cent. Perhaps their inability to count five instead of four casts aspersions on their figures. What is even more fascinating is the abuse of the word "European" because there are actually six other European countries where unemployment is not only below 8 per cent but is below 5 per cent. Austria has an unemployment rate of 3.1 per cent, Finland has an unemployment rate of 5 per cent, Iceland has an unemployment rate of 0.8 per cent, Sweden has an unemployment rate of 1.9 per cent, Switzerland has an unemployment rate of 0.8 per cent and Norway has an unemployment rate of 2.1 per cent.
I say that to remind anybody who perhaps ever gets around to reading the record of this House of the fact that something extraordinary has happened on the Continent of Europe over the last ten years, which is, that unemployment within what is supposed to be the model for the future development of Europe has got dramatically worse. Let me give some figures. Unemployment in Denmark between 1979 and 1987 increased from 6.2 per cent to 8 per cent. I am quoting these figures from a publication of the OECD called OECD Figures and Statistics on Member Countries 1988 Edition. Unemployment in Belgium increased from 7.3 per cent to 10.9 per cent. Unemployment in the Netherlands went up from 5.6 per cent to 9.6 per cent. Unemployment in Germany went up from 3.3 per cent to 6.5 per cent. In Greece it rose from 1.9 per cent to 7.6 per cent and in Ireland from 7.1 per cent to 17.4 per cent.
At the same time as the countries within the European Economic Community were experiencing painful and dramatic increases in unemployment, the countries I mentioned earlier — all European to the best of my knowledge — had quite different economic experiences. Austrian unemployment increased from 1.7 per cent to a still remarkably low 3.1 per cent. Unemployment in Finland went down and unemployment in Iceland increased from zero in 1979 to less than 1 per cent. Unemployment in Sweden went down. Unemployment in Switzerland rose by ½ of 1 per cent and unemployment in Norway surely changed. It is time that the Irish political and economic establishment were confronted with the fact that the European Community is a hopeless failure when it comes to employment creation and to the alleviation of unemployment.
From different politcal and economic perspectives Japan, the United States and the developed countries outside the European Community have done vastly better at the most fundamental of all jobs of economic management, the creation of decent employment for their people. We are walking ourselves into a position about which there is no argument. We are walking ourselves uncritically into a position of tangling ourselves even further into an unemployment disaster area which, on the statistics of the OECD, has failed hopelessly in providing employment for its people.
Why in Heaven's name will nobody in Government, in the economic establishment, in the media or anywhere else give us a sensible rational explanation as to why we should believe that the already semi-integrated economics of the European Community, if they are to be integrated totally into a single market, are somehow miraculously going to turn around and provide better employment for their people than the economies of western Europe that are outside the European Community and facing the inhibitions of less than free trade and all the other regulations that 1992 is supposed to eliminate? It is about time the Irish people got an answer to that question.
It is quite clear that the European Community as it stands, not Europe — let us be very careful, is not in a position to deal with the problem of unemployment. Some of the best developed social democracies in Europe are not in the European Community and have managed to outperform the European Community consistently over the past 15 years. We have had quite enough of a particular intellectual consensus in this country which has hidden itself from the facts of life. The facts of life are that the peripheral — small in terms of numbers, but large in terms of productivity — economies of the Continent of Europe which stayed outside the European Community have done far better in terms of employment than those within the European Community. It is time we got an answer from somebody about this.
I asked a very eminent economist who had given a hyped-up lecture to an audience, of which I was a member, about the benefits of 1992 if he could explain to me why it was that all the countries who had not even got the benefit of limited free trade or the limited free market within the European Community had done better. He said he did not know. This is somebody who had a major input to this plan about where we are going. I want to be careful now because I do not want to identify the man as it would not be proper. After all the study and all the writing and all the concern about the future of this country this eminent member of the economic establishment could not explain to why two, four, six countries, all of them industrialised, all of them outside the European Community, had done a far better job protecting the employment and, therefore, the living standards of their people than the European Community.
I do not believe in that sort of pseudoscience because there is, in most areas of science, a sense where you do not allow people to fiddle the figures. If you are conducting an experiment you report all your answers, not just that part of the answer which agrees with your assumptions. You do not leave out the results that actually disprove your theory. You put them all in and attempt to build a model which describes all your results. What we have actually got over the last five or six years is selective economics based on an ideological position and which selectively uses certain information to endeavour to put forward not scientific economics, but highly ideological economics.
I said that at the outset because in terms of the aspirations within this plan the first thing that needs to be said about them is that they are based on some assumption that the European Community or continental Europe is a success. The part of continental Europe within the economic Community is an unemployment disaster. You cannot have these real levels of full employment redefined at the convenience of economists because they do not believe you can get below 6 per cent any more. Real levels of full employment mean somewhere around zero to 2 per cent. At that stage the level of unemployment reflects people in transition from one form of employment to another, people in training and people in the process of restructuring industry. That sort of full employment has been achieved in a considerable number of European countries, all outside the European Community.
If we talk about the development of our country we should talk about the truth and not about a selective version of the truth based on irreversible political decisions. There is no reason that what has been achieved by the successful economies of Europe cannot be achieved by the failed economies of Europe. By those I mean the economies of the European Community. Economies which do not provide decent employment for all the people of those economies are failures, irrespective of growth in gross national product, irrespective of growth in whatever index you like. As far as the people of a country are concerned, if an economy does not produce decent jobs for all its people it is a failure. It may not be a failure in the eyes of economists or business or anybody else but in the eyes of ordinary people the index of a country is its capacity to give decent, well paid jobs to all its people. We have the most extreme example of this European disaster area, a country where 20 per cent of the workforce who have stayed at home are unemployed and where another number equivalent to that 20 per cent have emigrated. We have the remarkable achievement of failing to produce work for about 30 per cent of our potential workforce. We are the biggest disaster within a disaster area. To produce a plan for a period up to 1992 and hype it up as if we were now going to join some extraordinarily successful club when, in fact, all we are doing is running fast to try to make our disaster as small as the disaster of the rest of Europe is quite dishonest and a deliberate misleading of the Irish people.
A number of other things about this plan need to be said. We are at this stage probably the most centralised country in Europe. I suspect that even the Soviet Union is more decentralised than we are. I am quite certain that Hungary, which is within the Warsaw Pact bloc is more decentralised. The classic example, which I like to quote to indicate just how centralised we are, is that in the city I live in, Cork, if the corporation decide to make a particular street a no-parking zone they need the permission of the Minister for the Environment. There has been not a titter of an indication that the central bureaucracy in Dublin is prepared to release, even marginally, its grip on the throat of the nation. I am using the phraseology which is similar to that used by the former director of the Institute of Public Administration, T.J. Barrington who has described in similar language the gross initiative and enterprise-stifling centralisation of this country.
This plan is a classic example of that. Something that happened after this plan was launched is an even more graphic example. When the Minister for Finance came with high level people from the European Commission to visit Cork, he flew in, showed them what he wanted to of Cork, they never met anybody who was representative of the Government or the local authority in Cork and then they flew out. In other words, this centralised Government and bureaucracy believe they know what is good for the rest of us. I have personal experience of the anger, frustration and shock of local communities who participated in putting together the integrated rural development plan only to discover that there was no significant element of input from them to this plan. That is their view, not mine.
I do not understand how we can hope to develop a country if we deliberately do not tell our people the truth about this unemployment disaster area into which we are now inextricably tied, if we refuse to listen to their views and above all, refuse to allow them to be the judge of what is good for themselves. Let me give an example — this just happens to be one in which I have a certain personal interest — among the proposals is one for a human resources centre in Cork. This is a joint proposal involving UCC, the RTC, FÁS and the IDA. The plan on page 102 says:
Extensive arrays of proposals for technology support measures have been formulated by University College Cork and the Regional Technical College. These will be technically assessed and the most promising will be considered for inclusion in the National Programme for Science and Technology.
Who are these technical assessors who will do a technical assessment better than the technical experts who produced these proposals? They are not any better qualified. There is no reason they should be. Two eminent centres of third level education produce technical proposals and some other echelon of technically qualified persons do a technical assessment on the technical proposals of technically qualified persons. It is bureaucracy gone mad. Why should I believe that some sort of centralised technical assessment will know more about the technical proposals made by technically skilled people in the south-west region than they would know themselves? We have this belief that everything has to be drawn into the centre, controlled from the centre, regulated from the centre and determined from the centre.
Another proposal from the south-west regional plan — and I only use the south-west region because I know a little bit about it — has to do with infrastructural development. It says, in connection with Cork city that, the national roads programme will be developed, keeping in mind the Cork land use and transportation study. In other words, the plan for the Cork region developed by the people who live in Cork, who are responsible for running Cork, would be considered as part of the national programme. Again there is this idea that some sort of centralised body might be in a position to know better what is good for us. It does not matter whether it is Dublin, Cork or Galway; it is the idea that some sort of centralised bureaucracy will make a better assessment of what is good for us than ordinary people working in their own areas who know the needs of their own areas.
We are almost in an irretrievable position of suppression of all kinds of democracy. Let us remember that a country of the same size as ourselves — Denmark — within the last five years instituted an administrative revolution by taking 70 per cent of what used to be the functions of central Government and handing them back to local and regional government. It is important to remember that. It was an administrative revolution on an enormous scale. We have in this country the lowest level of local authority in Europe. We have smaller numbers, per thousand of population, of elected representatives of the people at local level than any other country in Europe. Those that are elected have less power than in any other country in Europe. Those that are elected have, therefore, less responsibility and they can playact and play games. Nobody could blame them for doing so because they have no responsibility for anything. Everything can be shoved off and the ultimate response to everything is a delegation to the Minister. The Minister likes it because it gives him the impression of being all powerful. The bureaucracy like it because they are not accountable to anybody for a lot of their meddling in local affairs. Everybody is happy but the country does not work.
A country cannot work if it is run centrally. This dehumanised, centralised bureaucracy, which is the biggest dead hand on development in this country, shows itself in a kind of contempt for people in the way the plan developed. The classic example of that is the emphasis on private transport in terms of development, one that has been well adverted to by many concerned community groups in the city of Dublin. It is a daft idea to think that you can deal with urban mass transport through private transport, the daftest of all ideas which we are walking straight into, with minuscule provision for an expansion to public transport and vast sums devoted to building yet more and larger environmentally offensive roads all over the city. To achieve what? To allow one person to occupy a large volume of space, to use a large amount of energy inefficiently, to create a large amount of pollution, to make our already dirty air even dirtier, when other countries, vastly more developed than ourselves, have recognised that the only efficient way to deal with transport of people to and from work to and from leisure in large urban areas is through efficient public transport. Some sort of ideological hijacking of intelligent humanity in this country is taking place so that we are now convinced we must have a vastly increasing number of cars in this city swamping humanity in the interests of I do not know what. What this city needs more than anything, is a reduction in the incidence of private transport and its replacement by efficient public transport. Anybody who has travelled on the continent of Europe in particular will know that it is perfectly feasible to run an efficient, integrated public transport system.
I was in Frankfurt last June and nobody there need bring a car into the city nearer than the outer suburbs because of the extraordinarily efficient, integrated, bus, trolley and underground services that exist in that city. It is a small city, it has fewer than one million people. It is not a huge urban area, but you do not need a car because you have an efficient, properly organised, and incidentally of necessity, heavily subsidised public transport system. We are prepared to devote vast resources of either public or private money to building vast new roads that will devastate communities and pollute the nation and we believe apparently that we are going in the direction of something called progress. We have all the signs of a replication of a primitive cargo cult where we think the worst excesses of development are somehow signs that we are making progress. We do not need more roads in urban areas. We need public transport. It is one of the most disastrous, dehumanised, parts of this plan that there is no scheme to develop public transport in large urban areas.
One thing that fascinates me is that in a plan to develop the nation, which proposes and hopes to give large numbers of people the opportunity to stay at work in this country where otherwise there would be no work, to get work for those who currently have no work and perhaps even to entice some of those who have been forced to leave, to come home, that is talking about all of those people whom we hope will come here and live, to have families and bring up children, the word "housing" is not mentioned once. Where will all these people we will employ in tourism, industry and other areas live? I do not know. I know we have given up building public housing and that at the rate the building societies are rushing into some sort of daft escalation of house prices, 90 per cent of the population will not be able to afford private housing in another 12 months. If the present escalation of prices takes off, 90 per cent of people of marriageable age will not be able to afford a house because the prices are so daft. Yet, we intend to develop a nation, a community of people, and we have not even thought about where they will live. I find the omission of any reference to housing from this entire plan quite astonishing. I am intrigued by it, I really am. How in Heaven's name will we do it? I think I know why — because the European Community's policy, even though it believes in the free movement of labour and it is one of the basic planks of policy of the European Community, does not have and refuses to contemplate a housing policy. It wants workers to be able to move all over Europe freely, willingly and without too much attachment to their native spot, but it will do nothing about the provision of housing. It has resolutely refused to discuss the issue of housing. As far as I know, the Ministers responsible for housing in the European Community have never met to discuss housing policy. Yet, this is a Community dedicated to the free movement of labour.
There are other levels of dishonesty this country has to face, the first being the myth of the expansion of the Structural Funds. I confidently predict that by 1992 we will have received extra funds from the Structural Funds — I would never wish the country bad — but the increase in structural funding will be more than compensated by the gradual decline in Common Agricultural Policy payments and the net benefit to this country of the increase in structural funding will be considerably less. It needs to be said that to suggest that extra inputs of cash, amounting to a tiny percentage of our gross national product, will help get our industry and financial services to compete is like suggesting that if I were to go down to a health studio and take a three month crash course I would be ready to get into the ring with Mike Tyson. One cannot suddenly place people, who are unequal, in a position where they would be equal competitors.
We will be giving up a lot of things in 1992, and shortly afterwards including the right to devalue our currency — that will go very quickly after 1992 — and the right to make policy in a whole lot of areas which could enable us to protect fledging industries. Let us not forget that the European Community is talking about the elimination of national origin marks from the products of member countries to be replaced with a mark stating it is a product of the European Economic Community. The reality in 1992 will be far more unpleasant than people imagine. The fact that the European Community is the greatest unemployment disaster area of the developed world — I gave the figures earlier — has been avoided entirely in the discussion on our future. The plan is so dehumanised and so centralised as only to confirm the worst fears of those of us who believe that the dynamism, imagination and enterprise of ordinary people and their vision of their development and future, evident in many of the integrated rural development plans, has been slapped in the teeth by the way it has been formulated and put together. The enterprise of our people has been suppressed in the interest of bureaucratic centralism.
I am very pleased the pessimism of Senator Ryan is not widespread. I welcome the plan. It sets out the development measures which Ireland proposes to implement over the next five years with the assistance of increased Structural Funds. These development measures are necessary to modernise the economic and social structures of this country, expand its productive capacity and improve its economic efficiency and competitiveness. Implementation of the plan over the next five years will result in significant economic growth, increased employment, improved living standards and greater social equity. Every region of the country and every sector of the economy will benefit from the massive investment for which the plan provides. Already the foundations for improving the competitiveness of the economy have been laid by the success over the past two years of the Programme for National Recovery.
This plan will build on what has already been achieved with the result that Ireland will be able to compete successfully in the single internal market. Chapter 1 of the plan provides both an overall and sectoral analysis of the main features of the economy. The problems and difficulties are clearly identified. Ireland has low income and output levels. Our population structure is such that there is a rapid growth in labour supply and a high dependency ratio. The dependency ratio is defined in paragraph 1.1.7 of the plan as the combined numbers aged under 15 and over 65 expressed as a percentage of the rest of the population. The dependency ratio as calculated on that basis is about 66 per cent. The lower age threshold at 15 is very low and a more realistic threshold for dependency would probably be the ages of 16 or 17. If that were to be the age threshold then the dependency ratio would be much higher than 66 per cent, as compared with a Community dependency ratio of 50 per cent.
There is a persistently weak labour demand leading to unemployment and emigration. Problems have also arisen from the constraints imposed by budgetary imbalances and public sector indebtedness. The country's peripheral location gives rise to high access costs. We have a poorly developed infrastructure which hinders development and adds to costs. There is a heavy dependence on agriculture, both for employment and output, and the industrial structure is weak. We have low investment levels compared with the rest of the Community. We depend to a great extent on capital imports. These are some of the obstacles which must be overcome if we are to share fully in the benefits of the completion of the internal market.
Some of these features stem from our position on the periphery of Europe, something we cannot change. However, the success of the Programme for National Recovery has significantly improved the position in relation to some of the other problems and difficulties. Inflation in 1988 at 2.1 per cent was below the Community average for the first time in 20 years. Pay increases agreed throughout the economy at 2.5 per cent annually for the period 1988-90 underpin cost competitiveness and provide a stable environment for planning by firms. There has also been a marked improvement in industrial relations.
Domestic interest rates have fallen from 14 per cent in early 1987 to 8 per cent and are less sensitive to upward movements abroad. This too has provided a great boost to investors. After stagnation or decline in recent years, the economy has begun to grow again. Over 1987 and 1988 an average growth in GNP of 3 per cent was achieved despite the strong action taken by the Government to redress the public finances. A balance of payments surplus was attained in 1987 and increased in 1988 to 3 per cent of GNP. Manufacturing output grew by 11.5 per cent by volume and exports by about 10 per cent in 1988. Therefore, as a result of the success of the Government's Programme for National Recovery, in cooperation with the social partners, growth has returned to the economy. The plan projects a continued annual growth rate in excess of 3 per cent over the next five years. A growth rate of this order would result in the creation of an annual average of at least 35,000 new jobs, as compared with the estimated 29,000 new jobs created in 1988. The plan identifies in detail the development measures required to improve Ireland's competitiveness and efficiency, having regard to the problems posed by our peripheral and island location, our inadequate infrastructure and low population density.
First of all, we need a comprehensive, efficient national road network to reduce transport costs within Ireland. We need adequate port and airport facilities and good access to them. Such facilities and such a transport network, will help in reducing transport costs to markets abroad, in reducing tourist traffic costs and transport costs in the importation of materials and components. We need comprehensive, up-to-date, and competitive telecommunications and postal and energy networks to be integrated with Community networks. We need sanistary services and waste disposal facilities to meet economic and social development needs as well as environmental requirements. We need to protect and enhance both the urban and rural environment.
Also identified in the plan are the measures needed to improve the productive capacity of the economy. Direct financial assistance is required for industrial projects. Both direct and indirect support is needed to strengthen the technological and marketing capacity of the industrial sector. We need to develop our service industry, in particular, international services. We need to develop our tourism industry, providing tourist amenities and facilities for which there is international demand. We also need to improve our tourism marketing. There is scope for considerable further development in the fishing, aquaculture and forestry industries and we must seek to achieve this. We need improved agricultural efficiency and structures for a more developed agriculture-based industry.
Rural development measures are required to stimulate fuller exploitation of the capacity for wealth and employment creation in rural areas. We also need improved educational and training resources and programmes in the area of technology and business so as to ensure a supply of adequately trained manpower. We need particular measures aimed at the creation of job opportunities for young people so as to combat the evil of long-term unemployment. The detailed measures required in each of these areas are outlined very clearly and comprehensively in the plan. The implementation of these measures will, I have no doubt, as the Taoiseach said at the launch, change the economic and social face of Ireland.
During the course of the preparation of the national plan, there was a considerable degree of consultation at both national and regional level. At national level, the Central Review Committee of the Programme for National Recovery were consulted, as were a wide range of business, financial and vocational interests. At regional level, the advisory and working groups in the seven sub-regions were consulted. All the main development interests in the sub-regions were represented on these bodies.
As Chairman of Roscommon County Council, I had the honour to be a member of the advisory group in sub-region 5, the sub-region comprising counties Galway, Mayo and Roscommon. Of course, as Members are aware, this sub-region is the most underdeveloped of all the sub-regions in the country. The population density in the sub-region is 25 persons per square kilometre as compared with the national average of 51 persons per square kilometre and the European Community average of 143 persons per square kilometre. The population density of the sub-region is only half the national average and approximately one sixth of the European Community average.
Emigration from this sub-region is higher than from any of the other sub-regions. Per capita income is well below the national average and is only a fraction of the European Community average. Indeed some groups, such as farmers, have a per capita income which is particularly low. Sub-region 5 is the most peripheral and isolated of all the sub-regions and the furthest removed from markets in the Community. Admittedly, the position has improved somewhat in recent years. Some national road improvements have been carried out and new air services to the regions have been provided. Improvements have also been made in the telecommunications system, but much more needs to be done. The sub-region is the least industrialised of all the sub-regions. The percentage of the workforce engaged in industry is substantially lower than the national average, whereas the percentage of the workforce engaged in agriculture is the highest in the State, 28 per cent as compared with 15 per cent for the State as a whole.
The majority of farms are very small, with under 20 hectares in size. There are vast areas of marginal land and, of course, the sub-region has a higher rainfall level than other parts of the country. Some of the farmers in the region are engaged in part time employment but many have to depend on social welfare payments in order to survive. Outside of Galway city and a few of the larger towns there is very little manufacturing industry with very little service employment, but there is potential for development and expansion. For instance, the fishing, mariculture and aquaculture industries have considerable potential for expansion, as indeed has the forestry sector, for which the Minister of State has responsibility. I understand that growth rates in forestry in the west are higher than those in any other part of the country and up to three times higher than those in the main tree-growing areas of the European Community.
The tourism industry has also considerable potential for expansion. The west has a very beautiful landscape, many scenic areas, fine rivers and lakes with abundant stocks of coarse and game fish. Therefore, this is a sector which has scope for considerable development. Unfortunately, our road network is still seriously deficient. Many stretches of national primary and national secondary road are still sub-standard and our regional and county roads have deteriorated very badly. Thankfully, this year the Minister for the Environment made additional finance available to improve them. Inadequate sanitary services in the region continue to inhibit the development of industry and tourism.
The region has many weaknesses but it also has its strengths. A lot of structural adjustment is required if we are to achieve a maximum development. A lot of investment will also be needed over the next few years. I am delighted, therefore, that the plan makes provision for the expenditure of £1.125 billion on structural works in the west sub-region and I welcome the proposals outlined in the plan for that sub-region.
As I said at the outset, I join in the general welcome given to the plan. I believe it has the support of the vast majority of the people. I look forward to its implementation between now and 1993.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"condemns the failure of the Government to consult Seanad Éireann on the National Development Plan prior to its submission to the European Commission on 31st March; and instructs the Government to establish, on a formal and legal basis, the seven sub-regional working groups and their advisory bodies, so as to provide for an open democratic forum which would actively engage the energies of local and regional community groups, throughout the country.”
The Government are asking Seanad Éireann to take note of the National Development Plan 1989-1993. The Labour Senators have put down an amendment to this motion and our first reason for doing so is that we strongly hold the view that there was a total absence of democratic consultation in the drawing up of the plan. In essence, working groups and advisory groups were set up in each of the seven sub-regions. In each case these groups were chaired by civil servants from the Department of Finance. We could contend that the Department of Finance, who have always controlled the way in which the Structural Funds have been disbursed have jealously protected that power.
This plan, in the way it has been presented, seems to be little more than a public relations exercise designed with the forthcoming Euro elections in mind. It also leads one to the impression that many and varied goodies are to be delivered. Obviously, this impression will be deliberately promoted in the European election campaign. In fact, a lot of misleading and false situations will develop out of the way it has been drawn up. The losers in the long run will be the people living in the regions who are being offered this instead of real and imaginative planning. As a Member of this House I deeply resent and regret the fact that we were not afforded the opportunity to discuss the plan before it was submitted to the European Commission on 31 March.
I must reiterate that the working and advisory groups in the seven sub-regions did not reach down far enough into the communities when the plan was being compiled. What should now happen is that they be put on a statutory footing to enable them to monitor the implementation of the plan. We believe they must be established in such a way that they provide a forum in which the various community and regional groups, who have a useful contribution to make, can participate. As far as we are concerned, there is a need for the Houses of the Oireachtas, the local authorities, the social partners, agricultural interests, educational authorities and community regional groups to be kept informed of what transpires.
The major problem of unemployment does not seem to have been given sufficient consideration in the preparation of this plan which does little to allay the fears of those ready to come on to the job market. The major problems of emigration and unemployment, which is blighting this country, its young people and parents and tearing their morale apart, have not been tackled. This plan offers them very little hope for the future. We have lost the golden opportunity to absorb them into consultation process and to tap into their ideas and energies. We believe such an approach would have raised morale.
I do not believe that there will ever be full employment but at least the tapping of the ideas and energies of young people and other enlightened people in the community could have led to a raising of morale and give them some hope for the future. Unfortunately, what appears to have happened is that a plan was drawn up without there being any prior consultation with the main organs of society, in particular the Houses of the Oireachtas, the local authorities, agricultural and educational interests and so on. It seems that the plan was drawn up behind closed doors and then presented to the people.
The Labour Party were the first party in the State to call for a national debate on the development plan but this did not take place. We claimed at that time that such a debate must involve public representatives and local groups, not as a captive audience to be told that all decisions had been made and their views were not of the slightest importance to this autocratic Government. The plan was presented in the Burlington Hotel. Following this we published a detailed critique outlining the fundamental flaws in the Government's approach, in the hope that even at that late stage sanity might prevail and the Government might be persuaded to go back to the drawing board. Even at this stage we are appealing for this to be done so that people can get involved and exercise some control in the implementation of the plan into which they had no input. At least, they would be able to have some sort of checks and balances on it. I would ask the Government not to shut their eyes to this particular problem.
There are other reasons we are concerned about in this plan. It works on the basis of huge amounts of private sector investment. It is an assumption written into the plan. Under the heading of roads, for instance, it is assumed that £50 million to £100 million will be invested by the private sector over the period of the plan. The guarantees, tax breaks and other incentives necessary to attract this level of investment in roads is not really spelled out anywhere. On that we can reasonably claim that the plan is based on a lot of assumptions that have not been properly checked out. We do not think it is going to work the way the Government suggest largely on the basis that the consultation with the right people and the proper dialogue and debate did not take place beforehand.
Under one of the main headings of the plan they are talking about, for example, in industry a total investment of £1.8 billion by the private sector. This is another assumption and, again, none of that investment is capable of attracting matching funds. I think it is dishonest to use that figure to paid out the plan. Under the heading of education, for example, we have another assumption. Again, the Government are assuming they will have EC receipts under this heading of the order of £225 million per annum for the period of the plan but the Book of Estimates in 1989 shows that the EC contribution for educational activities at second and third level is less than £50 million.
The European Social Fund, through FÁS, is expected to be approximately £64 million. Here we see a situation where there was no prior consultation, no dialogue in the right areas and the plan itself is based on a substantial number of assumptions. The Programme for National Recovery makes it necessary now and again to release information about job creation, etc. In fact, we had in January the statement that 20,000 jobs had been created in manufacturing industry or that they would be created annually. The Minister did, I think, claim that 20,500 jobs were created last year: he was talking about manufacturing industry. Now let us be clear about this. These jobs are not, in fact, all in manufacturing industry. There are at least 2,000 of them in the national services and that is clear from the reports of the Central Review Committee on the programme. On top of that 1,000 jobs are temporary and overall, if you want to check it properly, we are talking about a figure of about 18,000 full-time jobs in manufacturing industry. As against that, redundancies notified to the Department of Labour for the first nine months of last year, totalled 18,048, so you can see where we are heading even with the national plan. Here we are moving into another one where very detailed consideration has not been given to the problems that are facing us and we are working on assumptions.
It seems to me that it is overall a very cynical exercise. As far as we are concerned in presenting figures, you are doing nothing but saying: "This is what we have created". When you match that with redundancies etc. you see the real problem we are facing in the future. Without the commitment to the Single European Act we had major problems and ones which we were not likely to be able to solve because the private people who were given all the opportunities, grants, etc. did not deliver the goods and they have not done that down through the years. It is not new, it is not an ideological issue on my part or on anyone else's, it just happens to be factual. They just do not do it. Therefore, when you have the State or semi-State industries employing something in the region of 80,000 people, is it any wonder that we in the Labour Party are very angry and upset when we hear cries for privatisation. Usually it is, of course, the privatisation of the profitable parts — certainly not the loss-making parts.
I do not want to introduce a bad note into the debate here, but facts are facts. It never was, or it never will be, likely that a party of bankers, ranchers, large industrialists or highly paid professional people were, or will be, sufficiently disturbed by the fact that unemployment is the greatest single problem facing us as a nation. We see it because we live with it. We see the people I have mentioned there not caring; on the contrary, they are complacent, and I think in a lot of cases, case hardened. All we have to do to get the evidence of this is to look back to the second oil crisis in 1979 when we had 88,000 on the live register. Now we are exceeding 250,000. It would be possible, of course, to go back further and state that some people have always gone to bed hungry and some people went through a whole lifetime and to their graves without ever gaining a full-time job.
Also, might I add that statistics — no matter whether I use them or anyone else — do not tell the whole story. They do not show any hint of the demoralisation and humiliation that many of the unemployed suffer. They do not show the degradation of people in their middle years who were never out of work before, nor do they show the fear that they will be out of work for the remainder of their lives. All of this breeds a sense of hopelessness and we aggravate that situation by drawing up a plan behind closed doors. People who could have been given some sort of hope or some sense of purpose are denied an opportunity of participating; hence our amendment.
Again, it is the whole question of statistics — it does not matter who uses them. They do not show the increasing desperation and hopelessness of the people who are unemployed and need assistance nor do they show the effect on the future generation, the wives, husbands, brothers, sisters and children of the unemployed. In essence, everything we in the Labour Party value is threatened by unemployment and that is why on a regular basis we attack high unemployment.
As far as I am concerned statistics do not show the careworn and weary people who are living very quietly and without hope. They do not show the problems when sickness comes, nor the suffering caused by poverty. The statistics do not show that sickness probably increases tenfold and, also, that even when the unemployed are well, there is a weariness that amounts to pain within them. We can all talk about statistics, we can all tell people that they will have a rosy future but we never look to this side, we never look to the conditions which surround extreme poverty and which tend to deaden the faculties of people.
We are very good at quoting from statistics. We are very good at saying what private enterprise can do and what the system will do if we all toe the line and pay attention to the advice that is being given to us, advice we have not had any say in or people representing the unemployed have not had any say in. As long as people are oppressed, none of us can be free. That does not mean just the Labour Party, none of us can be free. Unless democracy can give people full stomachs, clothing, decent housing, educational opportunities, security in their old age, proper health services for themselves and their families, and much more, then democracy has failed in so far as the under-privileged in society are concerned. We can listen to the arguments of the bankers, economists and industrialists for the rest of our lives telling us that inflation is low but is inflation not always low when there is a lot of unemployment? Is that not the fact of it? That is why we resent the way in which proposals were put forward to us.
I understand that while there was no official time limit put on speakers there was some sort of agreement that speakers would not speak for too long.
There was an informal agreement yesterday that because of the extraordinaly long list of speakers each Senator might take a half an hour.
I appreciate that and I will not abuse that decision of the House. As a trade unionist, my first priority would be the job crisis. If we cannot solve the job crisis then we have solved nothing. We must have real economic and detailed plans, not assumptions taken off the top of our heads and possibly a quick change made when it was noticed they might not be passed by the Commission. That is not the way to deal with the job crisis, that is not the way to confront it, and that is not the way we are going to introduce a wider democracy in matters of this nature.
In conclusion I will quote from the Sunday Tribune of 26 February 1989. It might be argued that, perhaps, this is not part of the plan but it is a frightening aspect of the attitued of people who are on the side of market values. Under the heading of “Think Tank” it says:
1992.
There is little doubt that the free market advocates in the UK will feverishly attempt to forge links with like minds on continental Europe to ensure that the market and not a Brussels-based consensus determines the shape of the European economy and society. A team led by one of Mrs. Thatcher's advisers, Professor Alan Minford, will shortly establish a European think tank on the lines of the UK's Central Review Unit.
Mr. Minford froze the blood in some trade union veins when on a visit to Dublin in 1987 he opined that in order to secure the benefits from deregulation and privatisation without having higher unemployment, "union power must be broken".
That supports a lot of what I have said. I do not take his argument that by breaking union power there will be more employment or that the trade unions are responsible for the state of unemployment. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions on many occasions have submitted very detailed and well studied plans to Government on confronting the job crisis. I am sure we are all aware of the famous document "Confronting the Job Crisis". It is worrying when one considers a statement such as that but at least so far in this country the trade union movement seems to be healthy. It is getting its act together and it will not have to worry about people like Professor Minford.
I welcome the plan. It represents a new and promising partnership between Ireland and the European Community in which Irish and European resources can be combined to produce a comprehensive, integrated national plan covering every region in this country. It appears to be creating some aggravation among our colleagues in Opposition but it is a unique departure in relation to its regional content. It would have been much easier for the Government to go along with what has been the norm in the Irish context since we joined the EC and continue to regard Ireland as one regional unit but this Government are conscious of their regional roots and were conscious of the need to have a rapport with people all over the country in every facet of life.
I have great difficulty in rationalising the great preoccupation our Opposition colleagues have with the deprivation that appears to be in this plan, that is the deprivation in relation to dialogue. We debated this subject at some length some months ago on another motion. One must consider the content of the advisory groups, with the involvement of local authorities and State agencies, such as the IDA, FÁS, regional tourism organisations, Údarás, Teagasc, many Government Departments and, of course, representatives of industry and the farming community, the trade unions and chambers of commerce. How much more diverse a group can one put together than such a broad ranging group as that? It is the first time that regional consultation of this nature has ever been undertaken by any Government in the formulation of an overall economic plan.
There is no doubt that the views and the plans put forward by the sub-regional groups have greatly influenced the overall thrust of the national plan and will ultimately influence the allocation of the resources. It is for this reason that the plan has been warmly praised and welcomed by a very wide range of people in the social sphere, the economic sphere and the business community. It is extremely difficult to achieve the level of acceptance the plan appears to have achieved to date. It is reasonable, of course, to accept the fact that the Opposition feel obliged to oppose the content of the plan — that is the nature of Opposition and, indeed, our own Government, when in Opposition, were not too bad at it either. We have to accept that it is the right of the Opposition to oppose the plan, but I do not think it is entirely fair to become preoccupied with the business of lack of consultation because, as I said, having regard to all the subscribing groups it is difficult to think of anybody else who could be added to it. Is it being suggested that we should have asked all 27 county councils individually to have made submissions? How could one create a region then? Should we have asked all these other disparate groups who have been contributing in part to the plan? If they put in individual plans, I would suggest, with respect, that it is a major transport vehicle we would want to take the plan to Europe rather than the comprehensive document we have seen. It is unrealistic and the direction the Government went in this case in having seven regions and adequate consultation with them has produced a plan that accurately reflect the demands of the various regions.
There are, of course, facets of it that are not perfect. I believe that is the nature of any plan. Senator Harte was making the point that it was speculative in content. That is the nature of any plan. There has to be a degree of speculation. There have been great efforts made to hone down this plan so that it is firmly based and the projections are substantially achievable in every sector. This is very important and it has been recognised by the social and economic commentators that the warts and everything else have been exposed in this plan and the difficulties in the economy have been daringly exposed. This, in itself, heralds a new era of honesty and an anxiety to confront problems by this Government which, of course, has been the hallmark of the Administration from day one. The facts speak for themselves in that regard.
In deference to the Cathaoirleach who said she is anxious that people should not speak at length, covering ground that has been covered again and again — having listened to the debate yesterday I accept there was a degree of repetition which is difficult to avoid in a debate like this — I will confine my contribution primarily to my own area, that is tourism.
One of the main cornerstones of the entire plan has been the fact that the Government from the inception of this Administration, have recognised that tourism is going to be one of the main priming pumps they have at their disposal to create jobs and to reduce this huge problem of unemployment. In the context of tourism, the plan provides for major capital investment in the Irish tourism product concentrating on things like all-weather facilities and other amenities which maximise the tourism potential offered by the country's unique natural environment and cultural heritage. This investment will be backed by specially designed marketing schemes to capitalise on the new amenities provided as a result of the investment. This is particularly important because it is in keeping with the investigation carried out by the industry itself. Even in the past few days we have seen a new plan emerging which has been commissioned by ITEC, a group representing the entire spectrum of the tourism industry in this country. Almost line by line it copperfastens what the plan has been endeavouring to achieve by way of the proper appropriation of the various funds that will be forthcoming.
The levels of expenditure under this proposed tourism programme is said to exceed £300 million of which the Regional Fund is expected to contribute £160 million, the balance of £10 million being made up by the Exchequer and private sector funding of another £130 million.
Comments have been made in relation to the capacity of the private sector to generate these kinds of funds, but already it is abundantly clear in the tourism sector that there is probably already in excess of £130 million on offer from the private sector in this area by people who see the prospects for the tourism industry in this country, for investment and of having a serious return for their investment in the industry into the next decade. That is what industry itself has been saying for the past ten or 15 years.
The National Development Plan has identified the three major problem areas which led to this country losing its international market share for the past decate up to 1987. These difficult problem areas were a complete lack of competitiveness up to until recently, stemming primarily from the access and transport costs. Then we had the low level and ineffective use of our own marketing resources, both nationally and sub-regionally, the problem of deficiencies in Irish tourism policy itself in terms of its range or lack of it and the standards and facilities compared with our other European competitors particularly and, indeed, our other international competitors outside of the European Community.
Access problems have been reduced fairly substantially in the past couple of years and plans to resolve remaining access difficulties which continue to exist are being tackled quite significantly in the plan. I will refer briefly to those in a moment under the heading of transport. The marketing of Irish tourism has been improved in line with the recommendations of international consultants. Bord Fáilte and the hotels' federation and others have conducted a number of intensive market research examinations in the past couple of years and each of them has come up with the same conclusion, that is, we have a serious market deficiency. It has been in evidence for about ten years but tragically it has been ignored.
I believe the advent of the Minister and a serious concentration on the need to develop the tourism product by this Administration has encouraged others in the industry to effectively come out of the shadows. This combined group have now very positively identified the difficult areas and that was certainly one of them: this whole concept of going abroad year after year and marketing Ireland Limited, as it were, this kind of green, misty island out in the ocean and hoping that people would accept that as being some kind of an acceptable marketing device. Of course, that has been completely rejected now by all commentators and the plan recognises this as well.
In the context of the Government's pursuance of this difficulty and as far as resources permit, marketing is now much more concentrated on individual market segments identified as having real potential for increased tourism traffic to Ireland and linked specifically with product availability. This is the way the industry will have to go in the future, where you identify specific sectors particularly in Europe where our main market is, apart from North America, where you have groups of people who are specifically interested in golfing, horse riding, angling, be it sea or river angling, or whatever the case may be, people interested in historic and cultural matters and so on, rather than the concept of the jaunting car. That concept is dead and gone and, thankfully, it is buried in this plan. We are now concentrating specifically on people who will produce a product which can be and is worthy of being marketed on the Continent. The plan focuses on this in a very positive way and for me, as a person in the industry, it is very gratifying that this is the direction in which we are going.
In relation to focusing specifically on the south-west's contribution to the total plan, we recognise, and it was recognised by our own group who had an input into the plan, that the south-west is the country's premier tourism region and the revenue generated by tourism is vitally important to the economy of the entire region, particularly the Cork-Kerry area. In fact, at this moment tourism revenue is the main source of non-agricultural income in many parts of the region. It is particularly labour-intensive, of course, which is significant, in the ambitions of the plan. It is an extremely important source of much needed employment, indeed it sustains 7 per cent of the entire employment of the region.
Ambitious growth targets for tourism were set by the Government in our Programme for National Recovery and these are, indeed, exceeded in target in most cases. The objectives for tourism in the south-west region are set out in the National Development Plan. It is hoped that overseas tourism numbers will be increased to 800,000 in 1989 and it is hoped to achieve a figure of 1.6 million by 1993. It is hoped to double revenue generated from overseas visitors from an estimated £115 million last year and the provision by the industry of at least 1,000 additional jobs per year up to and including 1993. These are indeed very ambitious targets but, as I said at the outset, it is one of the main planks of the plan and we will see a serious concentration on the development of the tourism plan over the few years for this very reason.
The south-west region, of course, is ideally suited for the development of tourism with its diverse physical, environmental and other facets which are in themselves spectacular, and extremely scenic areas of the country. To date, these national physical resources have remained substantially unpolluted. The reason is a strong heritage and cultural tradition including very strong traditional backgrounds of story-telling, music, song and dance, etc. These are all areas that are still substantially underdeveloped but, hopefully, will be developed with the assistance of the funds into the next decade. The region is ideally suited for the development of outdoor and specialist activities to meet the needs of the fastest growing elements of the international tourism market. These activities include angling, golf, a multiplicity of watersports, hill climbing, cycling, to mention but a few, which are all natural products of the region and have been identified as areas for potential development.
In addition, the provision of all-weather facilities which will extend the traditional short season are vitally important. It should be noted that these developments already in the region have been significantly successful. One has to look only to the success, for example, of the suburban development in the east Cork area — an area that has not got a traditional tourism base in the Cork region — a facility that was set up by a Dutch pension fund, not resourced in any way in this country. That, in itself, is a tragic commentary, that it was not something that was done up to now from national resources. It does not alter the fact that that type of facility has now been very clearly proven to be something that should be developed in the future.
The whole area of indoor facilities is highlighted consistently through the plan and this is more than welcome. For too long we have been apologising in Ireland for our poor weather as we see it. Of course, the Europeans do not see it in that context at all in that most people on the European Continent can get sunshine for eight or nine months of the year. It is not an attraction to them anymore. Indeed, if anything, German tourists particularly have got away totally now from the concept of visiting the sunspots three or four times a year. They are looking to places like Ireland that are unpolluted, clean, friendly, with low levels of population, quiet roads, totally at variance with everything they encounter on a day-to-day basis in their own country. They do not want to go the Canaries or to Cannes in the South of France where there are throngs of people on the beaches. It is completely at variance with what they want and at long last we seem to have identified that fact. It is important that we make provision particularly for the school children element of family touring holidays where we did not have an adequate indoor facilities when the weather was inclement. It does not cause a problem for the Europeans but it does for ourselves.
In that context, I am pleased with the tourism content of the plan. It is extremely comprehensive. It is ambitious, of course, as well. The fact that a large element of the private sector has already responded by way of projects is an indication that the Government's confidence in the plan and certainly in the tourism sphere it is quite definitely supported by the private sector. That is to be welcomed and I would like to put on record my welcome to the overall concentration on the tourism part of the plan.
I will just touch briefly on the transport aspect. Of course, that is equally important. In fact, it would have to come in tandem with tourism development or indeed in some cases in advance. The Government have been developing the means to address the transport problems already. It is in advance of the plan. We have had some successes in relation to improving the access transport cost generally, creating competition, increasing the number of carriers that are coming into the country especially from the European side. We need to look at the North American situation but that is another day's debate. It does not concern the European plan in any event. Major success has already been achieved in that area by the Government. It relates particularly to the expenditure on airports, the peripheral areas, the development of regional airports like Farranfore and those in the west of Ireland and indeed the ongoing development of the airport in Cork itself. That was in great need of resuscitation because the plant was running down, the size of the airstrip itself was inadequate, the lighting was inadequate, etc. Many of these items have already been done but those remaining are included in the plan and I have no doubt they will be among those to be considered in the early contributions by virtue of the nature of the preamble to tourism, the need to have airports and ferryports, etc. in position.
The plan has already identified the difficulty the total island has as a peripheral region and, of course, the ongoing, knock-on effects of transport costs by virtue of being so peripheral. These problems have been recognised and have been focused upon in the plan in a very substantial way. We suffer from major transport disadvantages and structural weaknesses by comparison with any of our European partners. These are due primarily to the generally poor quality of our internal transport network and our peripheral island location with a consequent heavy reliance on access transport services by both air and sea. These are identified very clearly in the plan and the focus is very definitely on them.
The transport programme envisages a total expenditure of £440 million over the next five years and the following matters are included: the development of air and sea corridors services, £200 million; investment in State and regional airports £120 million; the development of certain commercial seaports and the renewal of the strategic fleet, £77 million; the additional investment of £45 million in bus and rail infrastructures. These items in themselves are indications of the Government having identified them and they are very clearly enshrined in the plan on a phased basis of contribution to eliminate the internal difficulties initially. There is no doubt about it, the need to improve the whole fabric of our internal roads, national, primary, secondary, county and regional is so self-obvious that it hardly needs to be stated by me here again.
With the setting up of the National Roads Authority we have a critical focus on the national routes. Again, we could have gone down the route of asking each of the 27 county councils and the various corporations and urban councils to make individual submissions as to their road needs. Of course, as I said at the beginning, the plan certainly would not be the rather slim document it is if it had to go down that route. With the establishment of the National Roads Authority there is a critical professional focus on the need for the development of road transportation into the next century. That, coupled with the content of the National Development Plan in relation to road development, augurs well for the future. It appears as if the plan has recognised in a very significant way the need to correct the transport imbalance. I certainly would like to think that that is encompassed in a very substantial way in this plan.
Overall, referring specifically to those two areas of interest, tourism and transport, and equally to the entire plan, I would like to say that I found the plan very invigorating. It made good, positive and confident reading, which is important. We are looking with confidence to the future and it is nice to think that there has been such a measure of support for it. There are aspects of it that people are not happy with. I would have liked a greater focus on the need, for example, for an oil-energy policy in the plan and the events of the past two weeks have highlighted that deficiency in the plan, if one could describe it as such. It is something that probably requires greater focus but that does not alter the fact that the Government have addressed the problem in any event. There is probably a need for greater focus on a national energy plan than appears to be there.
This is an extremely good document in total, well researched, comprehensive in what it attempts to embody. What is important from now on is that we would have total support for the contents of the plan and that when it is being digested by the Community and the Commission we will get the kind of response this plan needs. I have full confidence in the plan.
First, I want to take the opportunity to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, to the House. This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome my constituency colleague to the Seanad. I wish him every success in his post and particularly in the important one, over the next few years, in forestry.
In relation to the National Development Plan, I shall not attempt to go over much of the ground that has been adequately covered by various speakers in the House to date. In relation to the lack of consultation and the secrecy that surrounded the various drawing up of the regional plans in particular, I find it difficult to understand how you could formulate a proposal that has far-reaching implications for the next five years in a matter of two months, with little support or attention being given to the various organisations and particularly local authorities in relation to individual projects that have been submitted over the years to various Governments and have not received the required funding because of cutbacks or because of lack of finance or for one reason or another.
I am certainly disappointed with the vagueness of the plan in so far as we do not get for our debate here today the detail and the fine print in relation to all aspects of departmental expenditure over the next few years. In the roads area in particular we have no indication of whether the Minister is going to implement the blueprint for roads which he has lying on his desk in the Department of the Environment and which has not been published, or if this publication entitled "Blueprint for Roads" is to formulate the basic proposal for the expenditure of finance from the EC Structural Funds on our national primary and national secondary and regional roads from now until 1993.
The European Community would not accept this as a plan of individual projects for any individual region. Nevertheless, it is a co-ordinated and integrated approach to gaining from the doubling of the Structural Funds as much as possible from the European Community over the next five years. It is not a substitute for moneys that are at present being provided under the public capital programme or under various other headings in each Government Department. It is an additional source of finance available to the country and will be available only if we provide the necessary matching finance to gain recognition for those projects and approval thereof by the Commission.
The need for imaginative plans is certainly a prerequisite instead of a mishmash of old submissions over the years which have little or no co-ordination. The Dublin region engaged a consultant. They drew up a consultancy report in relation to how they would perceive the regional development of their area over the next five years. I regret that this finance of £300,000 which was made available for consultancy to the Dublin region was not made available to other regions because we have seen a very centralist and Department of Finance approach to this regional development particularly in the south-east region. Most of the members of the working group for the south-eastern regional plan were civil servants. They had no brief in relation to imaginative proposals, how proposals that might never have been debated or aired at local authority or organisational level in the south-east up to now could have been drawn up for discussion if there were the opportunity to do so. I regret that that has not happened. The south-east region will be the poorer as a result.
I was shocked by a recent plan developed by SERTEC, the Regional Technological Committee, in a report issued in July 1988. They made no mention of any substance in relation to my own area, Kilkenny. It would seem that Kilkenny did not form a very important and integral part of the south-east region. I regret that reading through the south-east regional input into the National Development Plan most of the language and most of the information and documentation provided by that plan is of similar tone and generally similar to that already made through SERTEC. This is a regrettable decision from the point of view of my own area of Kilkenny. I hope the Government will look more sympathetically on the proposals that are being embraced as part of this National Development Plan in the context of the south-eastern region and the development that can take place in the area of Kilkenny, particularly in regard to tourism and accessibility for tourists. Kilkenny is the gateway to Europe as part of the south-east region.
I welcome the fact that mention was made under article 6 of the European Regional Development Fund regulations for local development initiatives and funding to be provided for the establishment of business innovation centres throughout the country. I hope that Kilkenny will receive part of the funding that will become available from the ERDF for the establishment of a business and innovation centre for the south-east region. It is notable that Galway, Cork and Dublin have already established these centres. The south-east region has failed to do so to date. I would ask the Government and the Department of Finance in particular to look favourably upon making a submission for this funding which is available from the European Regional Development Fund for Kilkenny.
We are told that employment will be tremendously important in the context of 1992 and the opening up of the Single Market of 320 million people. We will do well in post-1992 Europe only if we know exactly what we want. We will need to set priorities which means giving less emphasis to other things. Not everything, I realise, can be a priority. We probably could have done better out of the finance we have received from the European Community to date since our entry in 1973. We assumed at that time that high agricultural prices would automatically flow through in sustainable development in the rest of the economy. This did not happen. The number working in Ireland now is no higher than it was when we joined the European Community in 1973. The higher agricultural prices and the method of their application through the Common Agricultural Policy actually distorted our food industry, pushing the growth into commodities like butter and sides of beef. In terms of value-added products, the cheese and food processing industries actually went backward in the seventies. The emphasis was on immediate increases in producer prices. These higher producer prices fuelled an expansion of farm debt which is now still crippling many farmers.
On the industrial side, where there were so many fears, we actually did better than expected. The aspirations inherent in the National Development Plan, which were part of the development plan on our accession to the Community in 1973, can only be aspirational in so far as none of us can predict the future with accuracy. If we fail to take this unique opportunity of benefiting as a peripheral region from the improvement in Structural Funds we will certainly miss the last opportunity to get our access to the marketplace right in terms of better roads, transport, telecommunications, travel arrangements and competition in the workplace in order to make ourselves more efficient, more cost effective and more competitive as a result in the new market of 1992.
The fact that accessibility has featured highly on the agenda in the European Community over the last five years has signalled forward thinking in the Community especially on this facet of our national problem. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment Mr. Peter Sutherland, the former EC Commissioner, who succeeded as Commissioner for Competition in the European Commission in opening up a new accessibility to the marketplace for many of our products by reducing air fares, in particular. He certainly brought a new sense of dynamism to the tourist area here because it is cheaper to get to Ireland now than it was heretofore.
This new competition, which was initiated by Commissioner Sutherland, is a process of reducing air fares to and from Ireland. This has commenced and should be continued. Progress has been made at European level but it has to be said that the recent airline liberalisation package as outlined in the report of the EC Commission on "Economics of 1992" is grossly inadequate. The right of an airline of one country to carry passengers between airports of the other member states is still seriously limited, being allowed on only 44 of the 400 air routes in the European Community. So we are still, as a community, inaccessible to an enormous number of destinations from the point of view of improving our tourist intake into this part of the world and to Ireland.
The result of these artificial and unjust restrictions is that Europe has too many airlines, employing too many people, is costing passengers too much and penalising the economic development of peripheral regions like Ireland. The air services in Europe are 60 per cent more costly than in America. Aircraft maintenance costs are 119 per cent higher. Airline administration costs are 365 per cent higher and ground and passenger service costs are 315 per cent higher than in other countries in Europe. The parts of Europe which suffer particularly from this problem are the peripheral countries like Ireland. We must make reduced airline and communication costs the number one priority if we are to compete in the marketplace after 1992. The plan can only make aspirational noises in that direction and we hope that the £9 billion which has been expressed in global terms as a total injection of finance between now and 1993 will be realised. I think that this figure is ambitious in so far as it assumes a degree of private investment and additionality of expenditure which will be very hard to see realised.
We are required to spend £3 billion on our road network to bring us up to European standards. That is the figure the Government gave. It is essential to bring the road network to the standard at which we can compete effectively in the marketplace of Europe. But we are only getting £750 million in the context of the National Development Plan, only 23 per cent of the amount of money necessary to bring us into line with our European partners. In effect, what I am saying is that it will be at least the year 2000 or later before we get our road network into any satisfactory condition so that we can be on equal footing in terms of transport and accessibility to our ports with our competitors. This is essential if we are to compete.
I would like to support Senator O'Callaghan's remarks on the tourist industry. I have always believed that the domestic holiday market is far from fulfilling its full potential. We have a great dependence on fine weather for many of our tourist activities and the experience of the past few years in particular would certainly create great difficulties for a boom in the tourist industry if we were totally dependent on weather. The necessity to establish domestic indoor holiday facilities like Trabolgan in Cork — which Senator O'Callaghan rightly mentioned — is something that should be thought about in a co-ordinated way for every region in Ireland. The south-east region has high standards of tourist attraction in terms of hotel and catering accommodation, but has again, like the south-western part of the country, suffered from the fact that it is unable to cater for the domestic indoor holiday activity which is now featuring as an essential part of the tourist business in this country.
I hope the Government would look favourably on initiating, with the help of private investment, a co-ordinated plan of Trabolgan-type developments in each region so that we can make greater strides forward and greater efforts to attract and cater for the domestic holiday consumer. After all, there are very few people going abroad for their holidays, and very few who can afford to do so. They are looking for opportunities to spend their time with their families and enjoy a holiday in Ireland but they cannot do so because of our over-dependence on good weather at present. It would only be possible with a proper and co-ordinated development plan for Trabolgan-type developments in areas like Kilkenny and other parts of the country.
The agricultural situation is briefly mentioned in the plan and I regret how brief this mention has been. The finance that can come through agricultural structures to the farming community from FEOGA and guidance assistance is not spelt out by the Minister for Agriculture and Food or as part of this national development plan. The Minister has had two years now to draw up a comprehensive submission to enable us to benefit by further aid from the disadvantaged areas structural guarantees which are available from Europe. He failed to do so until he decided some months ago to establish another survey and set up another group to carry out this survey throughout the entire country. The haphazard approach by which this particular survey has been carried out, I regret to say, is nothing short of a waste of a considerable amount of money. The Minister had sufficient information, accumulated by statutory bodies that were operated by his own Department at the time through former bodies such as ACOT and AFT, particularly ACOT and now Teagasc, to help him make a submission to the European Community for urgent finance to be made available to keep people on the land and to help prevent further depopulation of the agricultural community.
I hope that the announcement in relation to this survey is not a delaying tactic on the part of the Minister in order to ensure that nothing will happen in 1989 and perhaps nothing will happen in 1990 either. The disadvantaged areas saga has gone on for so long now in Ireland that I feel a golden opportunity was missed by the Minister to make the whole country of Ireland part of an application for EC aid under the Structural Funds. He could have sought a 75 per cent funding recoupment from the European Community and that would make financial sense in so far as it would be attracting more money into the country at a time when we had an opportunity of getting it under this plan.
The need for stabilisation of the population in the agricultural community was never so important and the trend in Europe is to become much more expansive and much more intensive in terms of agricultural development. With margins tightening, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the smaller farmers to compete on that level and structural aid to some extent is essential if they are to maintain their farming incomes and stay on the land. All proposals prepared by the regional development authorities and proposals made by regional development organisations over the years and approved by Government for EC assistance have to comply with certain criteria which will be looked at very strictly by the Commissioner in charge of structural aid, Mr. Millan. He has indicated this fact in recent times. I hope the plans that are being put forward by the Government, in a very haphazard and unprofessional way, will yield the desired results. It is a very ambitious plan, but I find it difficult to believe it will be implemented in view of the over-reliance on private investment that is not going to be there to the extent the Government think it will.
It is important for each region to have some group established to ensure that the implementation of proposals submitted by each local authority will come to pass in the lifetime of this plan. The Government missed an opportunity to give real decision-making possibilities and an input to members of local authorities to draw up a plan of their own in order to submit it to the European Community for funding.
The Government promised before the last general election that local authorities would have direct access to European funding as part of the financial programme. This is one of the 75 broken promises that have recently been aired by Fine Gael. I hope the Government will have a change of heart and give some role and responsibility to local authorities within each region to conduct an annual review of the progress of the implementation of these plans in the context of their area. A local authority is in a position to invite representatives of regional development authorities to appear before it and formally report on the implementation of these plans. Two or more local authorities could conduct a joint review of the regional plan applicable to their own local area. It was inherent in the Hume Report that the strengthening of the role of existing local authorities, based on rational allocations of functions between Government and local authorities, formed part of the guidelines and regulations to bring about the implementation of the Structural Funds now becoming available from the European Community.
I wish the plan every success. Despite its ambitious nature, I hope that most of it will be implemented and that attention to my area of Kilkenny, which has been lacking in mention in the context of the south-eastern region, will be reinforced by the fact that we have here today the Minister of State from my own constituency, Deputy Aylward.
I would like to say that I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking on the National Development Plan in the presence of the Minister, whom I, too, would like to welcome to the House and to wish him all success in his new responsibilities.
I am sure, like all other Senators, I have read and also tried to dissect this plan in some detail. It is a very comprehensive document and contains a great deal of factual information as well as what one might call certain theoretical proposals for development. It covers most of the facets which affect economic development and other developments within the country. As the plan says, it sets out "structural measures which Ireland proposes to implement over the next five years in conjunction with the European Community Structural Funds with a view to achieving the national and Community aims of greater economic cohesion". It is along those lines that we must try to interpret the report and to review it. It is not by any means the impression that one gets sometimes, that this is a review of the situation. On the contrary, it is a proposal which is being submitted to the European Commission.
The plan is a carefully thought out one. I have not found any exaggerated or unrealistic demands in it. It is, as Senator Hogan has said, quite comprehensive. Nevertheless, it is set out in what one might call a reasonably modest way and, as a result, it should have success. It is a very determined document. It indicates a determined approach and it certainly deserves success.
In the context of the plan we should consider that all of Europe, and even beyond, is undergoing change at present. Here in Ireland we are experiencing a new self-awareness, and the success of the plan for national recovery has contributed to this. In fact, this plan for national recovery has already established a framework that has accommodated local dynamics, thereby achieving structural and economic growth. It is disappointing, as the plan pointed out to us, that despite an increase in industrial output, despite the success of the various companies — a number of them foreignbased — in this country and despite the fairly substantial profit which they are making, it appears that these foreignowned industries in the country are and I quote from the report "characterised by lower than average links with the remainder of the Irish economy". One should expect greater investment from these foreign-based companies and I would hope that, in conjunction with the overall thrust of the National Development Plan, that might emerge.
On the wider front it is useful to consider the fact that Europe consists of complex societies currently in the process not only of economic but also of social change. Economic and social relations are rarely equal and symmetrical in such diverse societies. Therefore, it is important, as the plan has done, to explore the details of these asymmetrical relations and the different mechanisms which can be employed to eliminate the economic inequalities which undoubtedly exist between Ireland and certain other parts of Europe.
That brings me to one point which I would like to comment on. I do not want to get involved in any way in minor details. However, the word "periphery" does occur frequently throughout the plan. It crops up on many pages. I realise that it is very important to emphasise Ireland's geographic location, because Ireland's geographical location means that it is somewhat distant from the main market areas of the Common Market. As we know, this market started and remains very much a Rhineland phenomenon. That is its core, but the location of Ireland does not still mean, or in any way necessarily mean, it must be treated as an isolated outpost. The existence of periphery and core areas is a form of inherent asymmetry not only in economic relations but in human relations as well. Certainly, the periphery is a different kind of entity, but it has to interact with the centre. However, the nature of centre-periphery relationships need not be static but can be dynamic and multi-directional in terms of the flow of goods and people from the periphery to the centre and vice versa.
As the nature of peripheries is variable and their composition can also vary, so too will the patterns of trade and influence between the component parts and any dominating external centre. The difficulty is that if we over emphasise peripheries it may give the impression that we are and that we intend to remain backward. That need not be the case. One reason is that the centre and periphery can change and they do not remain immovable.
Indeed, on this point it is interesting if we recall some of the remarks of Mr. Liam Connellan at the annual conference of the CII earlier this year. He pointed out that there are 130 million people living within 700 miles of Ireland or, in other words, of a two-day delivery period by surface transport from our east coast ports. Furthermore, more than 70 per cent of our industrial output is sold within that radius. That region also contains some of the most densely populated and most wealthy parts of Europe.
What we may tend to forget, despite our apparent peripheral status, is that, at least mileagewise, Ireland is closer to this region than parts of the Iberian peninsula, of Italy or of Greece. Furthermore, Ireland's location as the western gateway to Europe is surely an advantage and something that could be exploited further still. It may very well be that this apparent peripheral location of Ireland might contribute in a major way to export and other connections across the Atlantic to North America; and nobody knows how developments are going to emerge in what is one of the most potentially rich areas of the world, that is, South America. On that score, too, the fact is that other important and indeed economically advanced areas such as Japan are themselves peripheral. Not only is Japan exceedingly peripheral to Europe, but it is peripheral to Asia; yet it has built up an enormously important industrial base with a very high standard of living — in other words, a major economic giant.
However, we have to be realistic in all of these matters. That brings me on to a point which is very clearly dealt with in the report in more than one section, that is, the importance of a good transport network. This is something which is of crucial importance. We must, as the plan envisages, develop our ports and also develop the internal communications network, especially road building and also the utilisation of our railways. Indeed, I often wonder if our railways are used sufficiently well. I think it might be possible to make better use of that facility that is available to us. It is certainly there; what is needed in many cases is better maintenance and indeed a better attitude to moving goods by rail rather than by road. However, having said that, anybody who tries to drive around Dublin — if one may just take an instance — realises the amount of time and therefore the amount of money that can be lost. Therefore, I do find that the section in the plan which deals with the development of a much more comprehensive road network is something that is vital to the wider economic development of the country.
In talking about this wider development of the road network we can also link this with another point taken up in the plan, that is, the development of the traditional sector of industry, This is something that may have been neglected to some extent as we were thinking more in larger economic units and so on but the small traditional sector is of great importance and this has not fared exceedingly well since joining the EC. I am, therefore, pleased that this is something that is again being taken up and looked into as part of this plan. As we know, there are various small industries around the country. They may employ only a dozen people or so, but they are likewise important, especially in view of their distribution. Some of these small industries may be furniture manufacturing and so on which also introduces the need for good craft workers in the more rural parts of the country or in the small towns or even villages.
This dispersed attitude to economic development is, of course, vital to the overall development. Already many tourists have spoken about something which is of tremendous importance in this. I am delighted also to see that it has been given a very key role in these future plans. That, of course, is tourism. The Government have rightly identified tourism as a growth area. It was interesting, from my point of view, to learn from the plan that tourism is responsible for maintaining 67,000 people in full time employment, which is 6 per cent of the labour force. It is also one of the most labour-intensive of all our industries. In addition, there are many people who benefit indirectly from it. Like some of our smaller craft industries, it has the great advantage of being dispersed throughout the country. It is not something that is just confined. It should not be confined to the areas of nice beaches and so on, and neither should it be confined to the urban areas. Every rural area should be able to benefit from tourism, not only financially, but indeed tourism can also add to the quality of life.
To introduce major capital investment in tourism is something of fundamental importance. The Government's aim is to maximise the tourism potential. The report states that "we must consider tourism in a much more businesslike way than we have been doing in the past." One factor that we have in dealing with tourism — and this is stated in the report — is that so far we have a unique natural environment and a cultural heritage. This aspect of the market has already been exploited, but it can be opened up much more. Again, the natural environment and the cultural heritage is widely distributed and dispersed throughout the country. It is recognsied that protection and conservation are vital; otherwise, we will diminish what is going to be a vital aspect of the whole development of tourism.
The environmental and cultural aspect is a vital resource and there is an urgent need for a comprehensive programme of protection of this aspect so that it can be wisely and properly utilised. In this regard we should not confine ourselves to a restricted number of what we might call spectacular sites, not the great scenery of the West, which is indeed most wonderful, but there may be some smaller features which are of great interest and which can attract people to parts of the country to which they are not being attracted at the moment. For instance, a small lake can be of scenic importance and it can also be important from a fishing point of view. Likewise, what may apper to be a small ring fort could be of importance — one need not think of the great spectacular ancient monuments.
Therefore, I hope that this plan will give rise to a greater comprehension of these cultural and natural resources and that this can be followed up, as the plan envisages, by a co-ordinated effort by the State. By so doing we can open up new tourist attractions.
Furthermore, a great deal of this material is vital to other aspects of development. Some of these other aspects can be quite new. Agri-tourism is an obvious example. It is something that has only just been developed; and in some cases now, with the adjustments in farming and so on, the farmer can switch over, at least in some areas, to the development of agri-tourism. So, if one thing changes, it can be rectified by further developments.
The cultural and environmental aspects as set out in the plan form an integrated package therefore with other aspects; the agri-tourism which I mentioned, but also features which are of great economic importance, especially bogs and forestry. These resources must be developed comprehensively and in a big way. They must be developed primarily, of course, from the point of view of what we may call the more traditional economic developments. There is no doubt about that, but I believe we can also have a balance between both and, as a result, we can utilise our bogs and our forestry in a wider way. To consider bogs solely as the producer of fuel is much too narrow. Indeed, they are the habitat of various forms of wild life, flora and so on. Furthermore, their scarcity in Europe, if I may say so — and this may seem an odd thing to say — virtually makes the Irish bogs in their own right a tourist attraction.
An enormous amount has already been achieved on the forestry front, and I am very pleased to see that the Minister here is the Minister with responsibility for Forestry. I am not simply saying that because the Minister is here; I am saying it because I am somebody who has enjoyed walking through forests in different parts of the country. Even some small forests have now been developed in a very sensitive way and this in no way detracts from the important role they must play in the development of wood industry as such. We can enjoy them in different ways. Certainly, if we take our forestry and bogs and so on into this wider framework of tourist development that in no way, I would trust, would inhibit, block or hold up the normal development in forestry, turf cutting and so on. I believe it will help to balance out and indeed add to the attractions of our country, which of course is so vital as part of our tourist development.
On the other front, when we talk about the environmental advantages of this country this, too, facilitates agriculture and horticulture. If we allow our countryside to be despoiled in an unnecessary way by pollution, our agricultural products need not be as welcome abroad as they are. I see no reason that we cannot build up a very vital and important horticultural industry in view of the fact that we have such an important and, to some extent still, pollution free landscape.
The other point I want to touch on briefly is education, which the plan rightly recognises as of great importance. It points out that the quality of Irish third-level graduates is high. This is shown by the fact that third-level graduates seemingly have no great difficulty in getting employment outside the country, including other EC countries.
I note that the report has identified the need for technologists. That is certainly true. We do need technologists to carry on the work but we also need certain specialised people. I have already mentioned the development of road building, port development and so on which is vital to economic development; but we must ensure that we still maintain a good crop of what one might call civil engineering graduates to be sure that we have got the resources and the trained personnel to carry out these tasks.
I might also say that we should not in any way underestimate the value of people with a training in arts, because no matter how good our technologists may be, no matter how skilled our engineers may be, we will also need managers and various other people to keep control. So, I would hope that one can look at this educational aspect of the report in as broad a way as possible.
A final point I would like to make — and this brings me back to some of the points I made earlier — is the proposal for the creation of an adequate physical infrastructure for the whole of the island. I think this is quite essential, and there are very lively and stimulating sections of the report dealing with Border issues. However, I trust that it is not assumed that the Border is going to last forever more — after all, the Black Pig's Dyke only had a duration of a century or so. Meanwhile I think that as much as possible should be done to develop and to encourage this general cross-Border co-operation and this will affect not only areas close to the Border but indeed throughout the entire country.
If we talk about cohesion we should think of cohesion starting at home. Furthermore, we have a small population as such, the indigenous market is fairly limited and in this way it is important to try to expand the range of our market internally as much as we can. This brings me back to tourism. An enormous amount can be done on tourist development and related projects on both sides; whether one is in County Fermanagh or County Leitrim does not matter because you are dealing with a tourist zone. I am therefore particularly pleased that the question of the Ballyconnell-Ballinamore canal system has been raised again. I hope that this is something which can go ahead; not only would it link the great waterway systems of the Erne with the Shannon as the plan develops but it would help to open up a whole aspect of tourism as well as everything else in this particular area. On the wider issues I would hope that this co-operation and contacts between the various counties in the Border areas will go ahead with as much speed as possible.
To summarise what I have been trying to say, I would consider the National Development Plan as an honest and wide-ranging evaluation of a series of complex but interrelated issues. As such it can be a blueprint for progress since it charts the way for the exploitation and exploration of all opportunities and all of our resources. We are still at a relatively low rung on the economic ladder. These disadvantages have to be remedied and the key to this is sustained economic growth. For such growth I believe that the plan charts the way, so I trust that there will be a positive response from the EC. With such help, but above all by the use of our own ingenuity, hard work and commitment, Ireland as a whole can become a wealthier place not only economically and financially but, I trust, culturally and spiritually as well.
I would like to join with other Members in welcoming the Minister and wishing him every success in his responsibility for Forestry, which, as Senator Eogan pointed out in his well thought out speech, will play a very major part in our national plan in the future. The manner in which the Government have dealt with the national plan in the last two weeks has confirmed all the worries raised by Fine Gael, and concerns expressed in the months leading up to the publication of the national plan were correct. It is clear that the consultative exercise the Government have engaged in is a mere cosmetic exercise to try to convince the European Commission that the plan genuinely contains a regional imput.
I want to deal in this debate with the plan as it affects the greater Dublin area. In the context of Dublin extraordinary confusion has arisen. Last August the Government appointed consultants to prepare a report on the Dublin region, which report was to be completed by 31 December 1988. At the end of January the Minister for Finance advised the other House that the report would be completed in early March but on Wednesday of last week, the Minister, in response to a further question in that House, stated that the report would not be completed until the end of this month. On Thursday last the Taoiseach misled the other House. I am not saying he deliberately misled the other House but he stated that the Dublin consultants had not yet reported and that their report had been commissioned, not by the Government, but by the Dublin local authorities. He implied that the local authorities were at fault for the delay in the report's completion. The following day, Friday, a major national newspaper published what it stated to be the final draft of the consultants' report.
It is regrettable, as a member of the premier local authority, that I have to depend on this report for information for the greater Dublin area in relation to the National Development Plan. This proves the point beyond all doubt that the Government have made a mockery of local democracy in the manner in which they have dealt with the National Development Plan. Dublin City Council have little or no input into the plan for their own region.
In the National Development Plan in Chapter 6 under employment trends, it states that employment patterns in the Dublin area differ remarkably from the rest of the country. A survey carried out over the period 1971 to 1987 indicates that unemployment in Dublin increased at a far more rapid rate than in the rest of the country. In fact there has been no impact on net job creation in Dublin in recent years. The numbers in productive employment have fallen while remaining constant in the remainder of the State. Over the period 1971 to 1987 Dublin's proportion of national industrial employment has fallen from 40 per cent to 28 per cent. The survey also showed that the gross output of industry in Dublin in 1985 amounted to only 20 per cent of the national total. This has been weighed against the fact that Dublin has 31 per cent of the national labour force. The main reason for Dublin not holding its share of industrial employment was the fact that State grants were biased in favour of the rest of the country throughout the seventies.
While the grant ratio improved in the eighties, the figures show that in 1981 grant and capital expenditure per member of the labour force was £103 for Dublin and £196 for the rest of the State. For 1987 the corresponding figures were £95 and £118. The clear picture is that Dublin is not getting its fair share of State funds.
The consultants' report for the greater Dublin area indicates that by even assuming an annual emigration rate of 5,000 from Dublin, it would still be necessary to provide 14,500 new jobs in each year of the programme, if unemployment levels are to be brought down to the average of 10.8 per cent rate throughout the EC. The consultants' report indicates quite clearly that it is of primary importance that net new jobs be generated during the terms of the programme. Even if the target of 21,000 new jobs for Dublin is reached, net gains will not arise unless job losses are significantly lower than has been our recent experience. Between 1981 and 1987 gross job losses exceeded gross job gains by an average of 5,000 per annum. A proportionate share of resources in the Dublin area would involve, on the basis of these figures, expenditure of almost £300 million or £60 million for each year of the plan.
The IDA strategy for employment generation in the Dublin area includes the designation of specified areas for development, in particular areas such as Tallaght, Lucan, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. Industrial sites will have to be developed in these areas which will make them attractive to prospective investors. The development of an enterprise centre in Tallaght to form the focus of local indigenous business development and the development of small industries throughout the area is most important.
The consultants' report also points out that small businesses which employ up to ten people have not been expanding due to the existence of barriers to growth. Among these barriers to growth is a weakness in the key areas of marketing and technological capacity. If business firms are to develop and expand, these strategic weaknesses must be removed. Senator Eogan during his speech spent a lot of time dealing with tourism as it affects the country generally. There is also a tourist aspect to cities. It has long been agreed that Dublin, as a tourist venue, was far better than many people believed. It has more to offer than many cities abroad which are attracting a greater number of people. The consultants' report recommends in the tourist sector a sport and leisure complex, squash courts, a health centre and a multiplex cinema costing approximately £10 million. It recommends an international leisure complex incorporating a championship golf course, boxing centre, health centre, swimming pool, gymnasium and accommodation. It also recommends that financing of this project would be about £5.2 million and should be phased in over four years.
The report also recommended a museum and exhibition centre at Trinity College, Dublin, at a cost of £4.7 million, a brewery tourist route at a cost of £3 million and a Samuel Beckett centre for the performing arts at £2.85 million. It also recommends a national geological database costing around £3 million. A residential leisure centre to include bowling, bridge, indoor golf, health centre, craft centre, holiday apartments and a communication and language centre is also planned at £6.85 million. It is estimated that 295 permanent jobs will be provided under this project.
The brewery tourist route, which I mentioned previously, would entail the creation of a tourist route from Dame Street to James's Street involving a number of tourist facilities and urban renewal projects. Indeed there is a tourist trail at present in this part of the city and its development would be very welcome. A number of projects based on the success of the Irish Life Viking adventure project, which is still being attended by a large number of people, is also under design. A project of this nature, according to the report, would cost £2 million.
It is also to be welcomed that the report acknowledges that progress has been made in pedestrianisation in Dublin and provides further funding for an extension to this pedestrianisation. The consultants' report also recommends improvement in the existing water supply system and to water treatment facilities which will require significant investment. Central to this is the development of a new water quality management plan. Such a plan would achieve conservation of water quality and water amenities in the interests of public health, recreation, fisheries and tourism and would provide a framework for the management of water resources in the context of port and harbour use, waste disposal, industrial development and recreation that would ensure that pollution control measures would be applied in the most effective manner.
Senator Eogan made an interesting point that Ireland has — two days sailing away — a market of over 200 million people. If we are to provide the facilities to service that market we must provide the necessary port facilities. As a member of the port authority for Dublin, I want to say a brief word about Dublin port, which has a major role to play in meeting the economic challenge facing Ireland. Dublin port handles 63 per cent of all Ireland's seabound traffic and 80 per cent of its traffic is confined to or generated within a 30 mile radius of the port, that is in the Dublin metropolitan region. Therefore, as our valuable export traffic grows, the port must expand its facilities to cater for that growth.
The port recently published its annual five year development plan which specified in great detail the measures to be taken to cater for growth in the port traffic up to 1993 by expanding the south bank quay container terminal and by developing a new container terminal at the North Wall extension. Growth is estimated to be at the annual rate of 5 per cent. Beyond 1993, as our trade expands, the existing and planned terminals will not be able to cope with the increased output. It is for this reason that the port has sought a works harbour order to reclaim 52 acres of land on which to develop a container terminal. It is ironic to see recent headlines about the effect that the British dockers' strike might have on Irish exports. The headlines last year dealt with a problem caused for manufacturers by the British seamen's strike. A lack of container handling facilities at Dublin port within the next decade will cause similar problems for manufacturing industry and our exports will be particularly vulnerable. At present, 170,000 units of Irish traffic use the ports of Northern Ireland each year. Should we continue our dependence on these ports or should we develop and control our own port facilities? That is the question to be resolved in this instance and I hope the national plan will provide the necessary finances to the port of Dublin to facilitate the traffic that will use it over the next number of years.
The report also highlights serious deficiencies in the water system in Dublin, some of which are seriously overloaded and date back to the middle of the last century. As stated by the city manager in his report to the city council at Estimates time last year, there is an urgent need for investment for the renovation and replacement of old brick and stone sewers, some of which are in a state of collapse at present. The situation is tragic because the skilled tradesmen who operate in this area have now become redundant and if finances are not available in the near future it may be difficult to get qualified personnel to carry out work in the relining of the sewer system.
I regret to note from the report that there is no great emphasis on finance to be provided for the Ringsend sewerage treatment works. As everyone knows, primary treatment is provided at this plant by Dublin Corporation but if we are to keep Dublin Bay free from pollution — and this is one of the great amenities we have on the east coast — then secondary and tertiary treatment is required. Dublin Corporation in their submission to the consultants requested that finance be made available for secondary and tertiary treatment and, as a member of the city council, I very much regret that this has not been addressed by the consultants.
Marinas are to be provided at Dún Laoghaire and Malahide but it also proposes that the Grand Canal harbour is to be redeveloped. This facility is within walking distance of this House and in any other civilised city this amenity would have been developed years ago. At this late stage I am pleased to note that it has been given the recognition it deserves in the National Development Plan.
Traffic and transport issues have been major problems facing the city and the county of Dublin for many years. Regrettably, the consultants' report does not favour the extension of the DART system to the western suburbs, such as Tallaght. It provides for a busway on the disused Harcourt Street railway line and a diesel rail community service, to Clondalkin.
In making a case against the extension of the DART system, it is the view that if it were constructed at the expense of all other transport projects, it would probably cater for less than 10 per cent of the total transport demand in the area because Dublin is basically a low density city. There is some doubt that the system would ever recover its operating costs. They say that, while the existing DART line from Howth to Bray has significantly increased the numbers using suburban rail, it is still performing below projections; usage is 63,000 passangers per day, compared with the projected 80,000 per day. They also state that much of the DART's market has been captured from the bus services.
One of the low cost priorities that the consultants identify, and with which I fully agree, is traffic law enforcement. If we had better traffic law enforcement we would have a much easier flow of traffic, especially within the inner city. The report proposes wheel clamping of illegally parked cars, high parking fees and fines, but I do not agree with the introduction of road pricing to charge commuters a realistic price for driving in the inner city. Indeed, if all other measures fail, that could be considered but we must try other measures before we take that drastic, draconian measure.
In relation to the roads programme for the Dublin area, the view has long been held that the inner tangent is now probably beyond the point where anything useful could be gained in an environmental sense by not completing it, and I fully agree with that. I also accept the consultants' view that the case for completing the outer loop of the tangent, including Pimlico, Thomas Court, Bridgefoot Street, Queen's Street and the western end of North King Street, is not as compelling because it would involve a considerable amount of property demolition and environmental problems which would be difficult to design around.
The consultants are also of the view that further road widening proposals should be considered only in exceptional circumstances and when justified by transportation studies. It is interesting to note they are of the view that there is justification for the controversial Clanbrassil Street dual carriageway system because it is connected to the long term plan for a busway from Tallaght via Mount Argus.
The consultants accept that the Dublin Port access route or, by another name, the eastern bypass, was dropped from the development plan because it had to pass through areas of considerable environmental sensitivity. We see now that the real issue is whether an improved version could be designed which would deal adequately with the environmental problems. The consultants are of the opinion that these problems could be overcome by using cut-and-fill tunnels. Indeed, I understand, from my own area, that if the eastern bypass was tunnelled through the Sandymunt Strand area there would not be the same objections to it as there were in the past.
I am pleased to note that the consultants deal at some length with the Liberties and the Temple Bar area. They say that with the growing interest worldwide in cultural tourism, the medieval area of Dublin, including the Liberties, should be developed to its full potential. It is their view — and accepted by the city council — that the Temple Bar area is not an appropriate area for a large scale development such as CIE's plans for a transportation centre. This old area of Dublin contains some of the last remaining cobbled streets in Dublin and is a mix of the 18th and 19th century architectural styles not found anywhere else in the city. The consultants in their report spell out what is required to secure the conservation and restoration of the Temple Bar area. They recommend that CIE should dispose of their property holdings in the area and that Dublin Corporation should also drop the transportation centre objectives from their draft development plan. The development plan is now under discussion and I have high hopes that when the discussions are over the transportation centre will be deleted from the development plan for that area.
During the course of this debate I have only covered some of the proposals which the consultants have made for Dublin, but if the consultants' report for Dublin is accepted then I am sure that it will go some way to redress the balance between Dublin and the rest of the country. It would make Dublin a worthy city to be designated as the European cultural capital of 1991.
It is in the interest of the country as a whole that the National Development Plan is implemented and I hope it brings the prosperity which this country badly needs.
I am very glad of the opportunity to welcome this plan because like the majority of people I have high hopes that it will take us across the threshold into a very prosperous era.
I listened with great attention to most of the debates, including the contribution by the previous speaker, Senator Doyle, and I am very disappointed that in all cases, I think without exception, emphasis was placed on the negative aspects of the plan. I regard Senator Doyle as a fair minded man, but in his contribution he used very strong terms; he said it was clear, for example, that it was a purely cosmetic exercise and that it made a mockery of local democracy. These are very strong terms and I hope to say why I disagree with him, but it is very easy to criticise. It is very easy even for the non-expert to be critical, to give the impression of competence where there is none and to give the impression of careful study and scrutiny. Quite candidly I cannot understand why all the contributions here and in the other House were negative. Are we really speaking about the same plan? To an outsider I am sure it would seem that we are talking about different plans. I listened, too, to the first contribution by Senator Bulbulia and I was impressed——
With your permission, a Chathaoirligh, I would like to clarify something. As an elected member of a local authority I have little or no input to the plan for Dublin, but I fully accept that plan and welcome it. I want it to be accepted in a most positive way and my speech indicated that.
I hope to develop in a very brief way my approach to what Senator Doyle said. I am in total sympathy with that view, but it is not the central issue. With regard to Senator Bulbulia's contribution, I felt the lady doth protest too much and I will deal with that later.
I must admit that I did not make an exhaustive study of the plan, and I do not think it was necessary. It would take a long time for anyone — even an expert in that area — to make an exhaustive study of the plan because it is a major opus and would involve considerable time and expertise, which I do not have. However, I must ask if all those people made an exhaustive study of the plan, leaving aside their concerns for the different areas, which are understandable. I am not so naïve as to ignore the fact that all the parties have a political philosophy and their own concerns and priorities, I accept that. However, at the end of the day, it should be possible to look impartially at any plan and to recognise the good and bad aspects and accept them for what they are. It seems, with regard to all the criticism that has been levelled at the plan, that many of the people who are dealing with it and making those criticisms would not recognise a plan if it struck them between the two eyes. It reminds me of a football team in my own locality in the distant past and, indeed, I suppose it applies to every area. Their approach was, when in doubt lash out, in this case everybody seems to lash out.
I also accept the fact that to a large extent you see what you want to see and I accept that it is probably no different with me. In these matters it is almost impossible to be totally objective. We have our own feelings and priorities as Senator Doyle emphasised and I accept that. However, in the final analysis, all these criticisms are personal opinions only and should be accepted as such.
I also accept that the Opposition have a role to play by way of constructive criticism. I hope that while on the other benches I did so to the best of my ability. I hope also when praise and commendation were due I gave it. That, however, does not seem to be the case with regard to the debate on this plan which means so much to this country. We have a reputation for tearing ourselves apart in every area. I do not think we have a good reputation for planning. In the areas of housing and planning, for example, I could give students many examples of the way not to do something. In general, if there were ten easy ways to do something and one difficult way, we would opt for the difficult way. If there were ten right ways and one wrong way to do something, without any effort on our part, we would opt for the wrong way.
My grandfather used to bring hay to Dublin by horse and cart. Between Dunshaughlin and Navan there is a very steep hill, Soldier Hill, and as the horse was not able to pull the cart loaded with hay up the hill, he would have to back up the hill. We have all experienced something similar in our lives. As a result of this — all Governments are at fault — we are faced with this enormous problem. Wrong decisions were made. All the political parties accept this and want to make sure it does not happen again. It may be extraordinary but I see positive aspects in the areas that have been already condemned. Let me refer to one or two of them.
The speech made by the Minister of State, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn was superb. It was comprehensive and took every aspect into consideration. As a synopsis of the plan, it was almost perfect. The Taoiseach's presentation to the other House included a paragraph that I think is worth quoting. The Taoiseach said and I qoute from the Official Report of the Dáil, volume 388, column 1201, of 12 April:
This National Development Plan is primarily a programme for investment in the country's economic and social structures. It is a detailed multi-annual development budget designed to modernise the economy, expand our productive capacity and promote stronger growth with higher employment and improved social equity. It is an integrated plan comprising inter-related programmes which will be implemented in every region of the country and every sector of the economy. The programme is a blueprint for economic and social progress over the next five years. First, the plan outlines the macro-economic framework within which it will be implemented over a five-year period.
Secondly, it sets out the amount to be invested annually in the principal sectors of the economy and in each region. Thirdly, it provides outlines of the programmes for each sector and the seven sub-regions. Fourthly, it indicates the manner in which the plan will be implemented with estimates of the employment to be generated.
That is a very comprehensive statement and the Government's efforts leave nothing to be desired.
I spoke earlier about the football club which had a good team but a bad committee. They never got anywhere. A good team on its own will get nowhere. What we need is for the Government, the local authorities and everybody else to pull together in order to get this plan moving. I doubt if many people in this House can recall, as I do, the introduction of another plan following the Second World War in the late forties and early fifties when we received Marshall aid. That aid was spent on what were known as local authority work sacks, drainage schemes, to the benefit of farmers, mainly the big ones. They had one advantage; they had a high employment content. At that time work was done with spades and shovels. However, I felt that this money could have been put to better use. In some areas the schemes were little better than the ones drawn up during the famine. They were geared to providing employment and keeping people occupied. Certainly Marshall Aid was of great help not alone to this country but to Europe, but I felt the money could have been spent better. In this instance, a completely different approach has been adopted, and we are speaking of a much greater input of funds.
As I said, Senator Bulbulia always makes valuable, well thought out and fair contributions. While the Senator did see some positive aspects in the plan, I thought she departed from her usual line. The Senator made some claims with which I would not disagree but, by and large, she rebutted some of the claims made by the Minister of State. Such claims were very well anticipated by the Minister of State and she answered them totally and completely. Senator Bulbulia referred to the democratic process, giving Denmark as an example, and spoke of the concern of public representatives. I am in total sympathy with the Senator's approach on that particular issue because in the past I made the case that by and large that is the position in this country. I pointed out that in Sweden, for example, when housing schemes are being constructed which may impinge on people's lives, people are consulted. I have called for more consultation and, from that point of view, it would be churlish of me to say that the Senator is wrong. Undoubtedly, Senator Bulbulia is right. Public representatives to a large extent are not allowed to play the role they need to play.
Senator Bulbulia also stated that there should have been a debate in the Dáil and the Seanad before the plan was finalised. I am not so sure I would agree with that approach. While accepting that this is a major plan and that major plans should be channelled through the Oireachtas, there were factors which prevented this from happening, even if there was a desire and a willingness on the part of the Government to do so. By and large, it was a departure from normal practice. I welcome this debate in the Seanad, it would be heretical of me not to as a Member of the House. However I have to ask if such a debate would have resulted in anything being added to the plan to be processed through the Houses of the Oireachtas. The answer would have to be no. I fail to see what the advantage would have been in taking that line.
Senator Bulbulia also stated that the plan was finalised before the seven working and advisory groups had made their submissions. Again, I would point out that speed was of the essence and this is understood by all. The Minister of State had this to say:
The plan has its origins in the decision of the European Council held in Brussels on 12 and 13 February 1988 when it was decided that as part of the Delors plan for the relaunch of the Community and the completion of the Single European Market the amount of the Structural Funds for the less developed regions should be doubled and a special effort made for the least prosperous, including Ireland.
It has to be agreed that the Government moved with commendable speed and no time was lost, in spite of the Government having consulted with all of the groups listed by the Minister of State in her contribution. Senator Bulbulia also stated that the working groups had essentially completed their reports. The Minister of State in her contribution stated: "As a result of a process on interaction, the subregional breakdown set down in the national plan matches quite well with the results emerging from the working and advisory groups, all of which have incidentally essentially completed their reports." We cannot take issue with that statement. The Government did not have to wait for written reports, and could not do so if it would result in a delay. There is nothing out of the ordinary in taking that course. If consensus had been reached on what they were going to say in these reports — I understand in all cases there was — and if this information was conveyed to the Government, I do not see why they would have to wait for a report. There was no time to lose. As I said, speed was important. The Government lost no time. Instead of being critical of the Government in this respect, we should commend them.
I am sure everybody would agree that this plan will be of tremendous help to us. The financial input will make a major impact. It would do so even if there were no plan. If that kind of money was ploughed into the economy at any time it would have to lead to enormous benefits. Let us take a look at the amounts involved, listed on page ten of the plan, in objectives 1, 2, 5 (a) and 5 (b). The State will contribute in total, between 1989 to 1993, £3,616 million, the EC £3,350 million and the private sector £2,144 million, giving a total of £9,110 million, a very considerable sum. The Government should be commended for making this amount of money available to the private sector who will benefit from the efforts being made by the Government.
In respect of objectives 3 and 4, the State will contribute £191 million with the EC contributing £366 million, a total of £557 million. This gives a grand total of £9,667 million. That is a considerable sum of money. As I said, even without any plan, such an input would make a major impact on the economy. The fact is we have a comprehensive plan, although Senator Eogan referred to it as a review. To some extent he is right, because there is room for manoeuvre.
It is my understanding that employment in the long term is not given priority in this plan. The reason is explained on page 9 of the plan. It states:
In accordance with the reformed Structural Fund regulations, this Plan deals with the development and structural adjustment of Ireland as a region (Objective 1), including conversion of areas of industrial decline (Objective 2) and rural development (Objective 5b), as well as speeding up the adjustment of agricultural structures (Objective 5 (a). Action to combat long-term unemployment (Objective 3) and to facilitate the occupational integration of young people (Objective 4) will be the subject of a separate Plan, which will be submitted to the EC Commission in accordance with a separate time schedule provided for in the Structural Fund regulations.
It is important to understand and be aware of that. Having listened to some of the contributions, it seems this was not taken into consideration. It is not a primary objective of the plan, but when money is pumped into the economy to that extent it is bound to make a big impact in the area of employment. Although we are not dealing with the social or employment aspects let me say in passing that the Government are very active in the fight against poverty in the social area.
In the programme for the period 1985 to 1989 £23 million was allocated towards the alleviation of poverty.
There is no hard and fast rule but your half hour is almost up. There was an informal agreement——
Have I much time left?
You have a minute or two.
Let me say with regard to the programme, that it encompasses 91 projects, nine of which are in Ireland. The Community programme zones in on the fact that poverty is not just about the lack of money or the lack of access to traditional services, it is also about social and cultural exclusion. It seeks to combat that sense of isolation, exclusion, alienation and social rejection and attempts to reintegrate the poor into the wider society and stimulate them into making their own decisions. It is important that we realise that this programme goes hand in hand with the plan. I hope that at the end of this period there will be a revision.
I did not realise I was taking up so much time but in conclusion let me say there is flexibility and there will be a political input. By and large, this plan does not spell out what the nuts and bolts of the operation will be; that will be for the elected representative to decide. However the Government had to decide on where the money is to be spent around the country. I could argue that most of the money should be spent in County Meath, while I am sure, a Chathaoirligh, you would argue the same for your region. The Government must be fair. While to some extent money could be spent in particular areas to the benefit of the country as a whole in fairness, all areas have to be considered.
All elected representatives will have an input into what works will be carried out and the priority to be attached to them. That undermines most of the objections made by those who criticised the consultative structures in this plan. The Minister of State in her contribution was at pains to point out that never before have we witnessed the level of consultation as took place in respect of this plan. I accept that as I accept that the chairpersons of the county councils and corporations have worked very hard. All those who took part are listed. I had intended to pay tribute to them, but as my time is almost up, I cannot do so.
I also hoped I would have time to refer to the contribution made by Meath County Council to this plan and to go into some detail on the projected costs of the different projects. For having done so in such a short space of time, as was the case with all other local authorities, I think they deserve to be commended. I am sure their hard work will be rewarded once this plan is put into operation. Is my time up, a Chathaoirligh?
There is an informal agreement which all other Senators have stayed with.
I do not wish to overdo it but I had hoped to deal with the amendment which has been tabled and which condemns the failure of the Government to consult Seanad Éireann on the National Development Plan prior to its submission to the European Commission on 31 March, and which instructs the Government to establish, on a formal and legal basis, the seven sub-regional working groups and their advisory bodies so as to provide for an open, democratic forum which would actively engage the energies of local and regional community groups throughout the country. I have dealt with that matter. The Government have not failed. In this instance, they consulted at short notice with the local and public representatives. At the end of the day I feel that those who examine the facts in an impartial and objective way will come to that conclusion. I warmly commend the plan.
On coming into the House I had intended to stick rigidly to what is contained in the plan but I cannot help commenting on what Senator Fitzsimons has said. We have to agree that this is the only plan we have. It is the role of the Opposition to be fair in their criticism of the plan. There would be no point in everybody standing up in the Houses of the Oireachtas to say that this is the best thing to ever hit the country, that we are going to go from A to B and face no problems. It is indeed, extremely dull but there has been very constructive criticism of the plan. In fact it is the role of Opposition to be constructive in their criticism.
I am glad to note that the Senator's party have changed their attitude. I recall when the last Government were in power, if they uttered a sound they were criticised. It did not matter what the subject under discussion was, there was total opposition. No thought was put into that approach. Possibly, if the Government had decided to accept constructive criticism, this plan would now be in place and a lot of the work that needs to be done would have been carried out at this stage. It is up to the Opposition to highlight some of the problems that will arise in the implementation of this plan. As it is the only plan we have, we have to make the best of it.
I must say that the local authority of which I am a member were not consulted in the drawing up of this plan. I could yet be proved wrong, but this seems to be a public relations exercise carried out at the behest of the Government. Local authority members continue to see their powers being eroded. Advisory committees were set up to advise the Government and the Department of Finance on the way this plan should be implemented but on looking through the plan, it seems as if their advice was not taken to heart. Also, great enthusiasm was shown by members of local communities for specific plans for developments within their own areas. I would like to pay tribute to one community in particular, that of the Drumshanbo area in County Leitrim, who drew up a plan of enormous proportions which, unfortunately, failed to even get a mention in the blueprint for the development of tourism. That is a very imaginative plan, but it is more than likely it has been left lying on the shelves in the Department of Finance to gather dust, not to be touched for quite a number of years. I know the people of Drumshanbo and the people in the surrounding areas have put so much work into that plan that they will fight tooth and nail for as much funding as possible for the development of their plan.
We have been critical of parts of the national plan but the criticism is worthwhile. If the Government are willing to listen there will be a better plan implemented. The National Development Plan 1989-1993 aims at advancing the national and EC aspirations towards greater economic and social cohesion. That is the main objective of this plan and it is very important that we try and have those aspirations implemented as quickly and as successfully as possible. One of the reasons it fails in this respect is because of the deliberate exclusion of community and voluntary bodies for making meaningful and constructive proposals for the development of their own areas. I have dealt with that. The plan shows that advisory groups were not listened to.
The plan deals with roads and infrastructure. It is a structural plan. This is a very important aspect of the development of the country. We have to have very good infrastructure if we are to compete with the open market in 1993. I am concerned about the amount of money that has been based along the east coast and in Dublin. I know my colleague, Senator Doyle, thinks there was not enough thought put into Dublin, more from the social aspect than the economic one, but it has been totally centralised on Dublin. This country is the most centralised in population in the EC. Over one-third of our population lives in the greater Dublin area. That is not happening in any other country in Europe and to spend most of the money in Dublin is leaving the rest of the country lagging behind in a European context. We have all heard about Ireland being the only country on the periphery of Europe and that our export costs will be larger. That will leave our manufacturing industries to compete in the internal market of 1993. Something that must be remembered and was not in this plan is that the west of Ireland in particular is going to be further on the periphery.
Senator Fitzsimons said the plan did not deal with the problems of unemployment. It is important that the structures are put in place so that we can become competitive in the open market of 1993. That is one of the major concerns I have because if we do not have the infrastructure and if we do not become competitive, our unemployment will soar rather than decrease. It deals in a very serious way with employment structures, because we have to put the infrastructure in place. That brings me back to my point that the west of Ireland is now on the periphery of the EC and we do not have the money and the development resources to bring us up to parity with the rest of the country, never mind the rest of Europe. It will come against us when we are looking for manufacturing industry in that part of the country so as to sustain our population and sustain the standard of living which obtains in the rest of the Community. That is a very serious problem. It is one of the major criticisms of this plan that we seem to be aiming to centralise, to put the majority of the population in Dublin and along the east coast and let the rest of the country lag behind. If we do not give the rest of the country enough finance to bring up their infrastructure we will never be able to catch up with the rest of Europe. Then we will be at a major disadvantage. It is an onerous task. The Government have not paid enough attention to this. It is a short-sighted part of this plan.
I would now like to deal with tourism. In Chapter 3 of the plan under the heading, Tourism, it says:
The cornerstone of tourism development strategy over the next five years will be a major capital investment in the Irish tourism product, concentrating on all-weather facilities and other amenities which maximise the tourism potential offered by the country's unique natural environment and cultural heritage. This investment will be backed up by a new, specially-designed marketing scheme to capitalise on the new amenities provided as a result of this investment.
That reads very well and as far as tourism is concerned if we could do that it would be very beneficial. I cannot but note that: "The investment will be backed by a new and specially designed marketing scheme to capitalise on the new amenities provided as a result of the investment". After 16 months we still have the problem of the fishing rod licence, and fishing is one major tourism activity in this country. We have had the farcical marketing by Bord Fáilte where they spent a lot of money in the marketing of free fishing here. But when tourists came in from England and the Continent they found that free fishing no longer obtained and that a licence had to be bought. I am not saying whether there should be a licence but the point is that there should be communication between Departments and semi-State bodies. It is very bad marketing to have our main tourist semi-State body stating something categorically on their brochures and when people come in finding it not to be so. If we make those stupid mistakes in the marketing of other amenities it will be money badly spent.
This brings me to another point as far as tourism is concerned. That is the amount of money sought from the private sector under the tourism programme which is in the order of £309 million. That is a great deal of investment from the private sector. It would be gladly welcomed but the Government are putting a lot of emphasis on this and they have not stated where this money is to come from. So if we do not get that amount of money does the tourism project fall flat on its face or if we only get one-third of that money from private enterprise where is the other money going to come from? These are questions which should be addressed and should be answered by the Government. So far they have failed to do this.
I read in one of the newspapers that Bord Fáilte have referred to the plan and stated that the Ballinamore — Ballyconnell Canal was one of the major tourism attractions they were going to take on board. I raised this on the Adjournment Debate in this House a number of weeks ago and I was informed that a feasibility study was being carried out on the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal. This must be the fourth or fifth feasibility study to be carried out on this canal. The amount of money and time that has been allocated to feasibility studies would have gone a long way in carrying out constructive work on the canal. I would press the Government to make sure that, once this feasibility study has been finished, which I believe should be within the next week or so, a concerted effort will be made to have this very worthwhile project started, because it will be of great financial benefit and tourism potential to Counties Fermanagh, Leitrim and Cavan. It will be very worthwhile navigably from Lough Erne right to the mouth of the Shannon in Limerick. In the context of Anglo-Irish relations this will also be a very worthwhile project.
Before Senator Mooney came in I mentioned that Drumshambo community have also put in a very worthwhile project for the Structural Fund. They wish to have a lot of mountain walks and the opening of Acres Lake to Lough Erne which would leave the whole Shannon navigable. I am sure Senator Mooney will deal with that. There has been no emphasis on this by Bord Fáilte. This is a great pity because the local community have put a great deal of work into this and they should get recognition for it, and it is not only that local community but I presume local communities throughout the country.
Afforestation has been raised on numerous occasions in the context of County Leitrim. The Government have stated that the potential of afforestation has not been realised in this country, that the timber industry could be far more competitive and I would have no disagreement with that. There is one thing I would like to say and seeing that the Minister comes from the west of Ireland I am sure he would come across the same problems that I would. The assets in our forests, that is the timber, should be taken out on to roads that are first strengtened to cope with the loads. This is something which has not been happening. It is ludicrous, and there is much local resentment that hauliers are coming in and taking out timber and the roads are being turned into dirt tracks. If we want to develop our afforestation industry to its full potential we must get the goodwill of the people on the ground. We certainly will not do this by bringing in heavy trucks to small country roads that are unable to take that sort of weight. These roads are being destroyed and people are going against afforestation rather than having goodwill towards it.
Basically that is what I wanted to deal with as far as the plan is concerned. As I said at the outset, it is the only plan we have. The country needs the money to be invested in it because we are so far behind our competitors in the rest of Europe. I hope the plan is successful. I have tried to point out a few areas that should have been given greater thought. I would hope the Government might take these suggestions on board rather than listen to the advisory groups who seem to have been set up as a PR exercise. No local contributions were taken into consideration. This is one of the great pities because the whole country needs this plan; the people need this plan and they should know what needs development in their areas. I hope the Government are successful in their negotiations for the money in Brussels. When implemented I hope the plan will have the desired effect but I have some reservations about that.
I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the National Development Plan. I compliment the Government on the structure they put in place for this very important programme. The country was broken down into seven sub-regions. If one were to look at the make-up of the two very important working groups who were given the responsibility of putting together the sub-regional programmes, one would see that the working group was made up of the county managers and representatives from different semi-State bodies and Government Departments and the advisory group was made up of the chairmen of the different county councils, urban councils, corporations and indeed representatives from the social partners. I believe this was a very important aspect of this plan because as in the case of the Programme for National Recovery which was put in place two years ago, the Government had the foresight and wisdom to consult with all of the social partners. This is one of the reasons this plan will be regarded by everybody as an outstanding success and a realistic programme for the infra-structural development of this country over the next five years. When implemented the plan will serve the country well for the realisation of the internal market in 1993, when all trade barriers will be removed and we will be able to move goods, services and manpower freely within the 12 member states of the European Community.
I also congratulate the Government for succeeding in negotiating the doubling of the Structural Funds. It will mean that this country will benefit from in excess of £3 billion from the EC and with that many innovative and well thought out programmes were submitted for inclusion in this plan. We all recognise that if we are to play a successful part in this market several aspects of our country must be developed. For example, there will be major road developments. Hopefully in the next five to ten years we will see the completion of the Euro-route from Larne to Rosslare and this will, of course, reduce freight costs and certainly assist Irish companies in becoming more competitive in the European marketplace.
I know my time is limited so I would like to focus on some markers in my own constituency in County Louth. Senators are well aware of the special problems that we have particularly in north County Louth. I believe this programme should address and should endeavour to develop cross-Border co-operation. I think it is an ideal vehicle which can be used to set up joint venture community programmes between the Border areas in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. If special status could be given, for instance, to north County Louth and to Down, whereby the EC might consider a duty free zone, and if it were possible to develop major industries in that area, I believe it would go a long way towards restoring harmony and peace to the people in these troubled spots.
The programme also addresses the need for pollution control. I am delighted that included in this subregional programme there are many well thought out and planned areas for new sewerage treatment plants, interceptor sewers on the banks of rivers and water treatment plants. This will help particularly in the larger urban areas. If we can get proper water augmentation schemes in place it will create an infrastructure whereby we can cater for water based industries.
I would like to say a few words about my own home town of Drogheda, if I may be parochial. We have a mediaeval town steeped in history and tradition. Traditionally it is a great industrial town but it has been hit particularly hard and there is a high level of unemployment. People were mainly employed in the traditional industries — textiles and the Great Northern Railway — and these labour intensive industries were hit very hard. We have a regional technical college in Dundalk and a pool of well educated young people who have proved that they can adapt and apply themselves to high-tech industries.
The IDA are working very hard to bring high-tech industries to both Drogheda and Dundalk. It is significant that in subregion No. 7 the County Louth area has the highest level of unemployment — 25 per cent of the workforce are unemployed against the national average of 19 per cent. We must create jobs in this area. There is great job creation potential in the tourist industry. In Drogheda we have tremendous potential to develop tourism.
Drogheda is situated on a very famous river, the River Boyne, and is the gateway to the Boyne Valley. It is one of the most scenic areas in the country. We have the advantage of an archaeological park a few miles outside the town which was designated by the Taoiseach about 15 months ago. I hope the Taoiseach and the Minister with responsibility in that area, Deputy N. Treacy, will work quickly in developing this great natural resource. Already 120,000 people visit the neolithic passage graves at Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth each year. It is our aim in Drogheda to persuade at least ten per cent of these tourists to stay overnight. It would be a great boom to the local economy and it would also create much needed jobs.
I see in the national programme that the main port of Dublin is earmarked for substantial development in the future. I am glad Minister Daly has indicated that there is some flexibility in the programme because the other ports along the east coast in subregion No. 7 are playing a very important part in the industrial development of our country. At Greenore we have a deep water port, a private port and we have Drogheda, Dundalk, Arklow and Wicklow. Last year the port of Drogheda had a throughput in excess of one million tonnes of freight and it is set to break new records in the coming year. This is a port I see as not being in competition with the port of Dublin but there to complement the major port. I hope money would be found to develop schemes proposed in the subregional programme for a container port at Rosepoint and a container port at Mornington, County Meath.
I would like to say a few words on training. The whole area of training, particularly training of the mentally handicapped, must be addressed. I hope much needed funds will be provided in this programme setting up worthwhile commercially based training schemes and work programmes for the mentally handicapped, particularly those in sheltered workshops. In County Louth we have the St. John of God's, the Order of Malta and the arts club who are doing tremendous work in this area, but there is a need for additional funding. There are approximately 10,000 mentally handicapped people who need training and worthwhile employment and I believe this training should be encompassed in the plan. I know there will be a Government commitment for some support in this area.
I welcome the plan. I know it will be successful. The completion of the market in 1992 offers a very unique opportunity and it will open up a market of 320 million of the most affluent but discerning consumers in the world to Irish industry. The plan recognises that it will also expose indigenous Irish industry to intensive competition from abroad. The programme recognises the need to develop indigenous industries and give them technology to allow them to manufacture quality products at competitive prices which will sell on this market. I believe that if we could achieve this it would go a long way towards solving our unemployment problems. The multinational companies are well catered for because they have modern technology and they have quality products but it is the indigenous sector which in the past has been labour intensive and has used old methods. This is the area we will need to address and the area we will need to upgrade to ensure the survival and growth of that indigenous sector.
A Cathaoirligh, I thank you for being so patient; I know I am going a little over my time but I would like to welcome the programme and congratulate the Government and indeed all the working groups and advisory groups, which as I said earlier, comprise and encompass all of the social partners. I think this is where the success of the programme lies in this co-operation with Government and with local authorities, the unions, the IFA, the Construction Industry Federation, Macra na Feirme and all of the other social partners.
It is now 4 p.m. and in acordance with the Order of the House today it was decided that the Minister would come in to conclude the debate at this time. I now call on the Minister to conclude the debate.
I thank the Senators for their participation in this debate.
The National Development Plan is of fundamental importance to the economic and social progress of this country. It may be likened to a cornerstone which, although only part of a structure, provides a reference point from which we can build upwards and outwards.
The primary function the plan must fulfil is to provide a framework for the deployment of the increased Structural Funds. But it does much more.
The purpose of the doubling of the Structural Funds is to ensure that the more vulnerable regions and socio-economic groups in the European Community are strengthened, so that they can participate fully in the single internal market into which the Community is now evolving.
We are not talking about a payoff to buy the consent of the weaker countries to a Single Market that benefits primarily the stronger. That would be a false deal, out of keeping with the Community Treaties as amended by the Single European Act, and of no benefit to either party in the longer term.
What we are talking about is a structural improvement in the competitiveness and the productive capacity of our economy so as to enable us to participate fully in the growth and prosperity which the Single Market will bring. This improvement will be brought about both by the direct effect of the measures set out in the plan, and by the momentum it will generate throughout the economy.
There may be those who feel that too much emphasis is being placed on the financial and economic aspects of the plan — just as the plan has been criticised for appearing to fail to deal with social issues. But this emphasis is warranted: first, because of the purpose towards which the plan is directed, which I have already mentioned; and second, because the social and the economic are inextricably bound up with one another.
Who can deny that unemployment and emigration are social problems in their own right, quite apart from the secondary social problems they bring in their wake? Yet, unemployment and emigration — which can be one response to unemployment — are essentially economic issues. They spring from an imbalance in our economy which is such that there is simply not sufficient demand for labour. And if that demand is to be generated at rates of pay which our society regards as acceptable, it must come about through economic growth.
Other social issues, such as health care and housing, also have a major economic dimension to them, because ultimately the level and quality of services which the State — or indeed the country as a whole — can devote to them depends on the total resources available.
This plan affords us an opportunity to make sure that the additional resources coming from the increased Structural Funds are used as seed capital, which will strengthen our ability to generate additional resources ourselves through our own efforts. That is the spirit in which the plan has been drawn up.
The new impetus towards economic integration in the European Community can release a wave of dynamism in European business. If this happens, output, demand and investment in the Community are set to grow over the next few years at a rate on a par with the best achieved in recent times. If we can increase our share of this expanded market and capture our due proportion of the enlarged investment, we in Ireland can look forward to a period of buoyant growth in output and employment. But it is up to ourselves to turn this opportunity into real economic and social gains.
This is a message the Seanad should take particular account of: the fact that we have an internal market opening up to us, does not guarantee us a share of that market. It simply presents us with an opportunity to win a share of it. The appropriate phrase is to win it and we have to go out and win it and this plan enables us to begin to win the market share which, at the end of the day, is the core of how we achieve growth in our economy. Only if we order our own affairs sensibly, and follow the appropriate course in our policies and our behaviour, will the potential benefits materialise. If we let the opportunity slip, we will have ourselves to blame.
This plan must be judged not just on the basis of the spending proposals it contains: for example, for technical reasons arising out of the relevant European Community regulations it does not contain the vital provisions for youth and long-term unemployment which will be the subject of a separate plan to be submitted shortly. It must be judged on its success in creating the right mood in the country, a mood of confidence in ourselves and in our ability to seize the opportunities which will face us in the coming years.
That is why it was so important to ensure that the plan took as its starting point the achievements to date of the consensus between Government and the social partners expressed in the Programme for National Recovery. This means that the disciplined approach to public expenditure which was one of the keys to the success of the programme to date had to be maintained. It also means that all sectors of the economy must exercise a corresponding restraint.
Yet again in this debate Opposition Senators have argued that there was inadequate consultation in the preparation of this plan. I think these criticisms are without real foundation. The fact of the matter is that, as pointed out by my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Mrs. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, at the commencement of this debate, there was a level of consultation with economic, social and local interests which was unprecedented in the preparation of a National Development Plan in this country. At national level the economic and social interests were consulted through the central review committee of the Programme for National Recovery.
During the course of the preparation of the plan there was constant interaction, through the representation of the central Government Departments on the working groups, between the regional groups and central Government. The plan contains summary material based on the objectives and strategies identified in the sub-regions. In addition, for the first time in a national development plan, the expenditure envisaged for each of the seven sub-regions is indicated in the plan.
In this context I would like to refer to the western islands which were mentioned by Senators Bulbulia and McCormack during the course of the debate. I thank them for raising these points. Since only summary material on the sub-regional aspects of the plan was included in Chapter 6, it was not possible to deal there in detail with the islands. I am glad that the matter was raised during this debate as it affords me the opportunity to assure the Seanad that the working and advisory groups for the western region attached a particular priority to the problems of the islands and this was reflected in the report from that region. Special importance was attached to improving access to the islands and developing their natural potential, particularly in relation to tourism and agriculture, with a view to maintaining a viable population structure and community on the region's inhabited islands. These issues will be taken into account in the detailed implementation of the original programme in the region. In the implementation of the operational programmes, the Government will be utilising the existing, well-established system of co-ordination between the various Government Departments, State agencies and local authorities to ensure that the development measures planned for each area are put into effect in a coherent and integrated way.
These existing arrangements have proved themselves to be cost effective and efficient and it is not the Government's intention to create additional unnecessary bureaucratic machinery. Under the co-ordinating regulations we are obliged, along with the EC Commission, to ensure effective monitoring of the implementation of the programmes which are assisted from the Structural Funds. We will be discussing the manner in which this should be done with the Commission in the coming months.
The plan has now been formulated by the Government and submitted to the EC Commission. Its fundamental provisions have been fixed and there is no scope for significant changes in them. The Government intend, however, to be flexible as regards the more detailed aspects of the particular sectors and as regards the timing and implementation of individual projects. Thus the Government welcome and will have full regard to constructive proposals and suggestions for improvement from any quarter, including the various representative bodies concerned with development and the contributions which have been made in this debate and in last week's debate in the Dáil. Both of these debates will be taken fully into account.
It has been suggested during the course of the debate that the plan might fail to meet the requirements of the EC regulations in relation to additionality, particularly in the case of expenditure on roads. I would like to assure the Seanad that this is not the case. Council Regulation No. 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 provides that the increase in aid from the Structural Funds must result in at least an equivalent increase in total spending on structural measures. This requirement is fully met in the plan. Irish public expenditure, that is to say the State's net contribution, in the structural area is being maintained under the plan. The additional Structural Fund support being sought will result in an equivalent increase in total spending. I should point out that one must look at the totality of spending in the structural area as covered by the plan in measuring the additionality requirement — the breakdown under the different sectors between State and Structural Fund contribution reflects various factors such as intervention rates for different types of activity.
As regards expenditure on roads, the crucial point is that investment on national roads rises steadily during the course of the plan from £113 million in 1989 to £190.6 million in 1993, giving a total investment over the period of over £750 million. In addition the Government have initiated a three-year grant scheme to local authorities totalling £150 million in 1989-91 for regional and local county roads, with further investment of £40 million a year in 1992 and 1993. Nor is public transport being neglected with investment of £46 million in rail and bus infrastructures and services.
This plan marks a turning-point. It marks the point at which we move from the objective of stabilising the ratio of national debt to GNP to the objective of reducing that ratio. But if it were to be seen as heralding an era of relaxation of control of public spending, the benefit of the sacrifices of recent years could be jeopardised. Likewise, if it is seen in the economy at large as announcing a period of "boom", there is every risk that the cycle will come around to "bust" again. How we respond to the opportunities now facing us will determine our economic and social wellbeing for years to come. It is essential that we respond in a mature and measured way so that we may enter the partnership of the Single European Market sure in the knowledge that we can design and produce goods and services of the highest quality and that, in that sense, we are able to compete with the best.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the 21 Senators who took part in this debate and to say that their contributions will prove very useful to the Government in seeing this plan through. While I have not dealt in detail with the points made by each Senator, I hope the points I have made cover what they had in mind.
It is important for Irish industry, and particularly important for people in business, that they understand what the Single European Market means, that they read the directive and that they take account of what it says so that they can amend their business plans accordingly. The Single European Market of 1992, with this plan backing it up is not a threat to this country. If we perceived it in that way then I am convinced it could become a threat. As long as we perceived it as an opportunity to do business, an opportunity to win markets, an opportunity to make money for the country and an opportunity to improve our economic growth, not as an incoming tide but more as a rising sun, then I am positive that we will make a good fist of it and we will win those markets. I thank the Senators for their contributions.
Is amendment No. 1 withdrawn?
No.
Question put: "That the amendment be made."
I think the amendment is defeated.
Vótáil.
Will the Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?
Senators Harte and O'Shea rose.
As fewer than five Senators rose in their places. I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment declared lost.
The names of the Senators who stood will be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings of the Seanad.
Motion put and declared carried, Senators Harte and O'Shea dissenting.
When is it proposed to sit again?
We propose to sit again on Wednesday, 26 April at 2.30 p.m.