The time limit for this debate is two hours. The time limits are 15 minutes for the Minister; the speech of the proposer of the motion will be 15 minutes; the speech of other Senators is ten minutes and the reply of the proposer or a Senator nominated by him will be ten minutes. I bring this to the attention of the House as it was agreed by the House on the Order of Business.
Rural Development: Motion.
Acting Chairman
I move:
"That Seanad Éireann endorses the policy measures of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in support of rural development."
I am delighted that the Minister, Deputy Hyland, is here to debate this important issue of rural development. We are fortunate in having the services of two very experienced Ministers, Deputy Walsh and Deputy Hyland, who have shown their dedication to rural development over the last few years.
Agriculture, despite Common Agricultural Policy reforms, continues to be the mainstay of rural development and affects the rest of the economy. There is no substitute for the conventional beef and dairy industries. We should have developed a market for our high quality beef, instead we took the short-cut and dumped the finest quality beef into intervention, which means that now we do not have proper markets. I hope we will try to redress that situation; EC regulations encouraged that type of dumping as there was a greater financial reward for the meat industry. However, it was very short-sighted, as in the long term it was bad for the farmer and the meat industry not to try to develop a broader market for our high quality beef.
We must address a situation in which agriculture is no longer sufficient to secure rural development and to maintain a strong and viable rural community. A healthy, thriving rural community augurs well for a happy people. De Valera's vision that people in rural Ireland would have a happy healthy outlook and would trade jobs to stay on the land and be educated is still relevant and a challenge to these changing times. The idea of small being beautiful is more attractive as the days of the big multinational industries creating jobs recede.
We must develop jobs and opportunities on and off the farm to supplement the income of people on holdings, big or small. Regardless of the size of farm, there are many problems in regard to quotas and so on. Many forms have been filled in the last few weeks and I hope all farmers will remember to submit them by Saturday, 15 May 1993, at the latest. I thank the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, the officers in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry at county level and Teagasc for their advice and help over the last couple of weeks.
The operational programme for rural development provides a framework of aid for farmers and farm diversification, for example, relief services and forestry. There were developments in forestry in recent times to create jobs. Great progress was made over the last number of years in increasing the acreage of land under afforestation, which contributes a major part in the development of our tourism industry, for example in the construction of forest walks and so on.
Every county has its fair share of beautiful areas which we should try to preserve. There are small community enterprises in these areas such as fisheries, harbours and research and development in marketing.
Considering our fish stocks over the last 60 years or more, it is amazing that we have not made more progress in the development of our fishing industry, particularly in the area of job creation.
There has been a good response to the measures, especially those in relation to diversification such as agri-tourism. We must not depend on the government for help, we must help one another to help the community in general.
Reforms have introduced an integrated approach to tackling our economic and social problems in a more effective and coherent manner. I thank both Ministers and their officials for the manner in which they established the Leader programme and others. The EC concern for rural areas is illustrated by the vast amounts of money earmarked for them.
The Leader programme is an exciting new Community measure which provides support for local development and effort. It allows people to help themselves, it has taken off and is making great progress. I wish it well. Every assistance has been given by the Department to help people get their projects moving. Considerable funding has been allocated to the 16 selected Irish groups to enable them to pursue business plans which they have drawn up to meet needs in their own communities and areas. That is what it is all about. There is much satisfaction when a development is carried out by a group of neighbours.
The recent establishment by the Government of the County Enterprise Partnership Boards complements the Leader programme. It provides an opportunity for people to get together on a county level with the County Development Officer, the County Manager and various representatives from business, trade unions and farming, etc., to pool ideas and money, with the help from various Departments, in order to do something for their county. There is very little red tape involved which we hope will result in speedy action. There are job opportunities in every county. The response to Leader has been tremendous and it is my experience that people are only too eager to contribute to the development of their own county and the creation of jobs for young people. Future rural development policies require an integrated approach that encourages rural communities to harness all the resources available. I am sure in 12 months time that much will have been achieved between the Leader programme and the County Enterprise Partnership Boards. Together something can be done to move away from dependency on Government and the EC. Creating jobs ourselves will also reduce our dependency on foreign multinationals although most of those are responsible and have contributed much to Ireland. The employment scene is changing to smaller units and smaller projects based on tourism and agriculture. In the period 1991-93 over £100 million of public funding, £60 million of which came from the EC, was allocated, an indication of the confidence of Government and EC in the development of the Leader and other programmes. The ball is at our feet.
It is worth recalling the Edinburgh summit that took place just before the last general election. There, it was said that the Taoiseach was talking nonsense and would not get the money he expected. It silenced many critics when he clinched the deal on behalf of the Irish people. We should be grateful to the Taoiseach and his Government for achieving a deal worth worth 85 billion ECUs. That is a vast amount of money for Ireland in both Structural and Cohesion Funds over the next six years which I am sure will be spent sensibly. With the current level of financial commitment and improving economic indicators, such as low inflation and falling interest rates there is a good reason for optimism about the future of rural Ireland. I have every confidence that the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, will do everything possible to create jobs.
I second the motion. This is a subject that could be discussed at length. It is a situation that will cause many problems. The kernel of the problem is that we live in a capitalist society. In such a society the only place projects will be located is where there are people because that is where profits are to be made and as the rural population dwindles there is less incentive for people to invest there. This is why people are leaving in the first place.
Structural funding has been mentioned and this is our last hope of stopping the mass migration of young people especially to urban areas. I am not naively suggesting that they are leaving only because there is nothing for them; they see on television and read in newspapers about a more exciting life far beyond their immediate rural habitat. They experience a life that is exciting and fast moving when they move to urban areas for second level or university education. Many people wish to return to their homes but they get involved in the urban way of life, get a job if they are lucky enough and settle down. This is what happens; people wish to return but cannot.
A massive amount of money in Structural Funds will be injected into this country over the next couple of years. Structural funding mainly goes to urban areas to alleviate the problem caused by the depopulation of rural areas. One of the reasons for this is that roads in urban areas are overcrowded by people travelling to cities for work and enjoyment. I suggest that if roads were upgraded, people could travel quickly to cities either for work or social activities and they would be more inclined to live further from large urban areas. This is a realistic suggestion because travel here is too slow. People living in a rural area feel they are missing out on what is happening in the urban area.
The problem that has arisen with planning regulations needs to be seriously questioned. For example, Cork County Council's new directive says it will only grant planning permission to areas where there is already a high density of housing. The reason given is to meet criteria laid down by the EC with regard to funding for sewage treatment plants. Towns with a population of over 5,000 will be granted money for sewerage treatment. What it is trying to do is to take people out of remote rural areas and into towns to increase the population there to qualify in the long term for EC funding. This has to be seriously questioned because if people are moved from a rural area investment will cease. People are the essence of investment because they generate profit.
There is a furore at the moment regarding the pricing of telephone calls. All calls in Ireland should be equal in charge. This is a very important issue. Since the increase is to be phased in this issue must be addressed as soon as possible. This is important if we want to keep people in rural areas. I see no reason a person in Ballydehob should not have the same right as a person in Dublin to ring his neighbour. We are all living in the same country. People leave rural areas because it is better to live in a city area where more services are provided. We have made great strides in addressing this situation. I welcome the commitments of the Minister of State and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, in this respect. Traditional farming has suffered due to over-production and we must encourage our farmers to move into agri-tourism and other means of subsidising their present income.
Their income has to be supplemented in a profit making sense. It must be generated from people rather than from the coffers of the EC or the State. Unfortunately, farming being a traditional occupation, the people involved are also traditional by instinct. It takes a lot of time and encouragement to get them to develop other activities apart from traditional farming activities of beef, milk and cereal production.
Unfortunately, while it is still profitable to farm, the smaller farmer is being squeezed out since the standard of living of a small farmer is not comparable to that of a person living in an urban area. I do not want to suggest there is a rural-urban divide. I represent 60,000 people living in a high population density, urban area and 20,000 people, mainly from a farming background, in a low population density area. From my experience I have noticed that people in the city feel under pressure when their rural counterparts move to the city. People from urban areas may feel under threat because they consider people in the rural areas have more money and a better standard of living. Yet people in the rural areas see the issue differently.
One may ask what is a good standard of living? A good standard of living means having a reasonable social life, a reasonable amount of money, being able to educate one's children, living a happy life and owning a home eventually. That is what most people wish for and it is a fair ambition.
We must decentralise, not from a national level but within regional levels. There is no point decentralising from Dublin to Cork because the same problems will be created. The same problems exist in Cork and Limerick as in Dublin. Rural areas are being rapidly depopulated. I know from my involvement with Macra na Feirme and youth groups that this issue is always discussed. Addressing these problems will require a massive injection of funding in rural areas.
The biggest problem is that people like to move to the city for a couple of years. However we must encourage them to bring the skills and education they have acquired back to their own areas. I have a couple of proposals that might be helpful in future years. Grants will have to be made available but not to farmers or to any one group in particular. The IDA, the Leader programme and other groups should be brought together. To avoid duplication there should be one body, to co-ordinate the local groups, organisations and programmes and tackle the immediate problems. We must develop this mentality of helping ourselves. With so many bodies involved there is a complete breakdown in communications between the IDA and other organisations. What we need is an overall group in small regions.
In discussions on the Roads Bill it has been mentioned that bad roads are a problem and I agree with that. However, a person once suggested to me and I suppose it defeats the thrust of my argument, that if the roads are bad people are not inclined to move out on them in the first place. I think that when the roads are good people are inclined to travel more while living in their native area. It is a four hour car journey from Cork to Dublin yet it takes nearly a hour to travel perhaps 50 miles from parts of rural Cork into the city centre. This will have to be addressed immediately if we are to keep people from moving to urban areas.
I recognise the commitment of this Government and I hope that the Structural Funds, which are the kernel of this issue and our last chance for a solution, should be diverted to the areas which people are leaving rapidly since this has already created problems in urban areas. I wish the Minister of State and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the best in their endeavours as I know they have done their utmost to address the situation.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"calls on the Government to outline the EC policy measures in relation to rural development; and to clarify the Government's commitment to these policies."
The four main issues as far as rural development is concerned are an acceptable early farm retirement scheme, sound investment in rural development as far as agri-tourism is concerned, the development of land suitable for afforestation and, something that is absolutely essential, access to what we describe as reasonable interest rates. We have seen, particularly over the past six months, great variation in interest rates ranging from 14 per cent to 22 or 24 per cent in some cases. This is unacceptable and there can be little development, rural or otherwise, with these fluctuations.
There is now a large number of organisations representing rural development. We have the Leader programme with 16 companies across the country, Bord Fáilte operating through the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in the case of agri-tourism and in the proposed new county enterprise partnership boards. I agree with Senator Kelleher that these different organisations should be brought together under one umbrella organisation to avoid duplication on the one hand and ensure co-operation and consistency in the areas of development on the other. Teagase is also involved in all these schemes. We must look at the issues regarding disadvantaged areas, reclassification and the various headage payments. It is vital that a thorough examination be made of the operation of these schemes in the different Departments.
Agriculture is still the cornerstone of the rural economy of this country and will be for some time to come. I have always argued that when import substitution is taken into consideration agriculture accounts for between 35 and 40 per cent of the total economy. Therefore, in rural areas it is not just the farmers but the villages and rural towns, shops and other small business within these areas who are sustained by agriculture. We should not forget that when agriculture is having a difficult time, so are these dependent businesses.
There is a great deal of talk about creating jobs in the servicing area. Agriculture is one of the biggest consumers of services in the country. There is a huge number of people employed directly and indirectly in the agri-business. When we consider agri-tourism we must not forget that there are limits which must be taken into account because if there is over-capacity and heavy expenditure without proper planning, even bigger problems will be created than those that already exist.
We must have planning with market strategy. The industry is competitive not alone on the home front but also abroad. Package holidays — bringing people from one area to another be it to a heritage park, hill climbing, pony trekking or any other tourist attraction — are important to rural areas because people will holiday in an area provided they get good value. The day is gone when we can "ripoff" the unfortunate tourist. It must be remembered that the customer is the boss in any tourist activity and we have keen competitors for the European tourists. Our biggest rivals are Scotland and Norway.
I would criticise the tourist board for not adequately promoting our tourist industry. There should be more emphasis on the European market rather than on the American market. American tourists are very welcome but we are closer to the European market and, as fares at present are favourably competitive, there should be an Irish tourist office in every major city in Europe. Expenditure on such offices would be justified and I would encourage that development.
The EC early retirement scheme is fundamental to the development and sustenance of people in rural areas. It provides older people with a reasonable income while keeping the young people on the farms, and farming is a young man's job. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry indicated that the early retirement scheme would be formally sent to Brussels in March. Has the submission been sent to Brussels? If not, it should be sent immediately. The Minister should tell the House what approach he will take in respect of this early retirement scheme. He should remember that the last two attempts to introduce such a scheme failed miserably.
I welcome the fact that the retirement scheme includes transfer of the farm from father to son as this was the reason it previously failed. I would like the Minister to explain certain provisions in the scheme. One is the requirement on those who benefit from the scheme and who succeed to their fathers' farms, to acquire 10 per cent more land over the succeeding two years. This is a peculiar decision as in a certain number of cases it will not be possible to comply. The question of leasing land should be examined in respect of that provision.
What is the proposed starting date for this scheme? No dates have been mentioned aside from speculative ones in the newspapers. The starting date should be from January 1992 to allow people who have signed over farms during that period to benefit. Many issues must be resolved. It would be fatal to introduce a scheme and discover in two on three years that it has not succeeded because then, nobody can benefit. I urge the Minister to have discussions with the farming organisations and all the interested parties about this early retirement scheme. It is fundamental to the farming industry and the Minister must ensure that it succeeds this time.
One other area with which I would like to deal is forestry policy. Our primary objectives are to increase the acreages under forestry, to increase employment in forestry related enterprises and to improve the recreational and scenic value of the countryside. These objectives are often inter-related and complementary provided their multiple objectives can be recognised and properly integrated at the planning and development stages. A threefold increase in the area under forestry is both feasible and desirable. The increase can be achieved by increasing the acreage in both the private and State sectors. We should encourage increased private planting by improved premiums of up to £240 per hectare, improve grants, remove any distinction between farmers and non-farmers, promote partnership and leasing arrangements and, above all, retain the tax incentive. Only land which is suitable for forestry should qualify for improved grants and premium payments.
We should encourage the present policy of planting 12,000 hectares of State owned land annually, provided it can be financed from internal resources. The semi-State body, Coillte Teoranta, is ideally placed to promote partnership and leasing arrangements. We should also plant a minimum of 10 per cent broad leaf hardwoods, encourage community and urban planting of broadleaf trees and plant broadleaf hardwood trees in tree derelict regions.
As 1,000 new jobs can be created for every 10,000 hectares planted, long term employment opportunities will be created, especially in rural areas. Increased planting and forest maintenance, development of timber export markets, establishment of board manufacturing mills, feasibility studies on the establishment of pulp mills and paper mills, the development of the wood processing and timber manufacturing industries as well as the centralised marketing of Irish timber products should be pursued with vigour. The complementary role of commercial woodlands in the improvement of the scenic value of the countryside can be achieved by increasing broadleaf planting by 10 per cent, species diversification and urban broadleaf tree renewal programmes. Wexford County Council has set a target of planting one million trees in a ten year period. Last year approximately 94,000 trees were planted.
Since many matters have not been clarified, particularly the farmer retirement scheme, I will not support the motion. The Minister, in his speech to this House on the Common Agricultural Policy on 6 May 1993, made a very evasive statement. The early retirement scheme should be clarified before it is sent to Brussels and not when it is returned. With regard to the forestry industry, there are approximately two million unused acres of land in this country. We have made progress in that industry during the last couple of years but, if we make changes permitted by the EC, we can introduce a comprehensive semi-State and private programme. I appeal for those two important issues to be clarified before this motion is agreed.
I am glad to second the amendment. It is an unexpected honour for me as I became a Member of the House in order to listen and learn, but that is a fairly specialised activity. It is a sensible amendment that seeks information about the Government's plans for rural development, and particularly its co-ordinated plans.
I listened with interest to the contributions made and there is nothing with which I would wish to disagree in terms of content. However, I have a few questions. There is much discussion of integrated programmes. What is the alternative in principle or practice to integrated programmes? Logically it should be disintegrated programmes but I do not think anybody ever consciously proposes a disintegrated programme. I understand it to mean sectoral programmes; programmes which reflect the sectoral interest of individual Departments of State or individual agencies without reference to the interests of other Departments or agencies and which are, in a sense, producer or bureaucracy driven rather than consumer orientated.
I am a strong believer in integrated programmes which aim to improve the standard of living for people in particular places. None of us lives in a sector; we live in places and it is the collective impact on those places of various programmes that constitutes the final consequences of policy. Rural and urban areas have a great deal in common although, of course, some aspects of their lives are different.
I share Senator D'Arcy's view that agriculture remains, despite its declining share of GNP, a sector of fundamental importance. It is also clear, however, that life in rural areas is changing and will continue to change very rapidly. Many of the problems and challenges which will arise in our society have been anticipated in other societies and I wonder if we have learned anything from the difficulties and opportunities that have arisen elsewhere.
It would be a pity if we resigned ourselves to the inevitability of the decline of rural Ireland without trying to take pre-emptive steps to not only arrest that decline or postpone its inevitability for another generation but to see if one can transform rural Ireland in a positive economically effective way. Nobody will remain in rural Ireland — nor can they be expected to remain — unless they can enjoy a satisfactory economic existence.
There are values, in addition to the economic ones, which rural Ireland embodies and which could be fostered. Since becoming a politician, I am conscious of the fact that academics who call for long term thinking are able to do so with conviction because they have life tenure and do not have to face elections, unlike those who have to listen to their arguments. Therefore, I am sympathetic to their problems.
We have a collection of ideas and experiences from which we should be able to draw when planning for the implications of inevitable change. This change must be embraced and, if not welcomed, at least acknowledged so that we can anticipate its consequences and build on the change, rather than battle valiantly, but unavailingly, against inevitable defeat.
Integrated programmes should be seen to be effective. We cannot return to what has been unsuccessful in previous programmes. It is important that we do not use the rhetoric of integration but try to ensure effective integration.
I suspect there is a learning process for those involved. One should not expect instant results but should realise that the process is part of an activity of local democracy which is good in itself, and which is being fostered. I will not avail of the opportunity to speak on local democracy, although I have strong feelings on the subject. It is important that integrated programmes are given time to be successful and that they become an integral part of what developing an effective civic spirit ought to be about.
As an educationalist I wonder if the education system and in particular, higher education is making any contribution to the quality of our thinking about integrated programmes. It strikes me that almost all the people in universities are specialists. We specialise in subjects and we develop tunnel thinking. We may be good at our subject but we develop a fairly narrow perspective. Integrated planning is meant to transcend that narrowness of perspective or that degree of specialisation.
Perhaps higher education could think ahead and try to produce graduates with a training which would make them more integrationist in their thinking, rather than bringing people together with specialisations who do not know what integrated thinking is about. We could do more in universities and in education in general to develop thinking along those lines.
I would like to see closer liaison between policy makers and the education institutions, particularly the agriculture faculties. This matter transcends the departmental distinctions one finds at third level institutions where integrated planning is a concept which has yet to gain ground in certain areas. Some form of discussion should take place between those who must face the problem of policy making and those who ought to be training and educating graduates as effectively as possible.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, to the House. I know he is aware of the need for rural development because of his background.
The issue of rural development is of great importance because this is still a rural nation and agriculture is our biggest single industry. Therefore, we have a vested interest in sustaining the economic and social fabric of rural areas. The need for increasing emphasis on wider rural development in Europe can be appreciated when one considers the current trend in our rural areas, namely, the continued decline in the importance of agriculture in the rural economy and in the numbers employed in farming.
The introduction of set aside means that employment on the farm will decrease to such an extent that the rural farm worker and the rural area associated with the farming community will become extinct. If we could improve labour intensive agriculture it would help to increase employment. This is how local farmers and their employees increased rural development in the past.
Many rural areas have become depopulated. To counteract this, I ask the Minister to try to increase the value of agri-tourism to the farmer. I would also like housing to be part of the rural and urban structures, as it is at present. All county councils have a plan to encourage the person living in rural areas to be a part of the urban initiative. As a result, people are becoming town oriented to the detriment of the rural community.
Many rural groups may become involved in the Leader programmes. The rural economy has become fragmented. Towns and townlands are divided by bypasses and there does not seem to be any regard for the rural economy or rural life. Infrastructural development must continue, while rural development and the rural economy are of secondary importance. The environment is also threatened by the change to intensive farming.
In EC terms, the current debate on rural development began in 1988 with the EC Commission's paper on the future of rural Ireland. That paper analysed current developments and trends in rural areas and identified standard problems in the launch of development initiatives. It listed potential areas for worthwhile initiatives, and, most importantly, it recognised that rural development must be integrated. We must continue that policy and ensure that we do not become town oriented. The time has come for people in authority to encourage those who love country life to enjoy it, rather than telling them that they must be part of the town development as far as housing is concerned.
With generous EC assistance, we operated a pilot integrated rural development programme in 12 selected areas from 1988 to 1990. Under this programme efficient rural development coordinators worked with local groups of committed individuals to decide priorities for their areas. The value of this type of pilot scheme has been highlighted. I ask the Minister to ensure that the results of these pilot schemes are highlighted in all areas, not just in areas where they have been successful. Perhaps the result of such pilot schemes could be published in booklet form so that they would be available to associations and groups throughout the country. This would show people that successful pilot schemes can be developed and would prevent the decline of rural areas.
Co-ordinators identify sources of official funds for projects which are considered suitable by local core groups. An evaluation of this pilot programme concluded that the model of development from the bottom up had something useful to offer and could play an important role in harnessing local initiative. Local groups, from different parishes, could come together to show what is on offer in their area in relation to tourism and other aspects of life. This would reduce unemployment and highlight areas which could be improved.
The operational programme for rural development provides the framework of aid for farm diversification, rural service, forestry, small and community enterprises, rural roads, harbours, research and development, marketing the food industry and training. Senator Byrne and others mentioned research and development in the fishing industry, to which we do not have a co-ordinated approach. Fishing harbours, regardless of size, receive the same entitlements in terms of funding.
The Leader programme is an exciting new community measure which provides support for local development initiated from the bottom up. County councils and associations must be made aware of these schemes and their potential for development. They must ensure that their area is high on the priority list of the Department from which they seek assistance.
Future rural development depends on an integrated approach which encourages rural communities to harness all available resources and ensure their continuation as viable entities. This requires a co-ordinated policy and a response at national and EC level. We have begun to discuss these issues with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh and his Department. The Minister must ensure that rural Ireland remains an important part of our culture. Employment, tourism and other rural activities must be high on the Government's priority list.
I object to the fact that a Government party was able to put down a motion in Private Members' Time. It is a disgrace. What rules govern this?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a matter for the Chair to decide.
Government parties have Government time. I object and I would like the Leas-Chathaoirleach to take it up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
It is in order.
If it is in order the rules should be changed.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask the Senator to speak to the motion.
I made my point and I hope it will be taken up. I am a friend and admirer of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh and the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland. However, I cannot support this motion. As regards the achievements of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry — or previous Ministers — in relation to rural development over the past five or six years, I condemn them. The Minister is doing a wonderful job in some areas but rural development is not one of them. We will continue to fail in this area because we have accepted an EC regime which is not suited to Ireland. This regime has been accepted and there is no way out.
We are moving into an era of decline in terms of rural population, job and wealth creation and the Government realises this. It has developed miserable alternative enterprise programmes and has tried to make them respectable but it knows that they cannot produce the kind of wealth or number of jobs as traditional farm enterprises.
Those of us living in inland counties know that agri-tourism and rural tourism, which have been discussed in both Houses, are not having the desired impact. In my county, which is near the east coast, the impact of tourism is almost nil, it is the same today as it was ten, 15 or 20 years ago. It is a minor element in the local economy of Counties Monaghan and Cavan, although there are many rural and agri-tourism programmes in place. People are not becoming involved in rural and agri-tourism and those who do make pennies rather than pounds. Those who say that rural and agri-tourism will have a major impact are wrong. Even if it is managed and developed properly it will not have a major input.
People at county council and other levels, spend an inordinate amount of time talking about tourism. It is essential that we develop and market our tourist industry to the best of our ability. However, we must be conscious of the limited potential for tourism in inland counties. Tourism has made an impact in coastal areas and in others which have been developed for this purpose. I am sceptical of the emphasis we place on tourism in inland counties. That also applies to alternative enterprises which are not making the desired impact.
Those involved in alternative enterprises, such as deer farming, usually have a lot of money and are not too concerned if they lose it. People interested in becoming involved in alternative enterprises are not doing so because they are afraid they will lose their money. Alternative enterprises do not generate much wealth.
The Minister of State visited County Monaghan and is aware of developments there. The mushroom, poultry and egg industries have developed to a very high level over the last ten or 15 years. We have been successful at making money from them and I hope we continue to do so. The market will probably not allow that kind of development to take place in other counties; it may have reached saturation point.
The big difficulty has been our total capitulation to the EC. Our reliance on agriculture, in comparison with the developed EC countries is shocking; 15 per cent of our population are still working in this industry, while the average figure for the developed EC countries is about four per cent. The GDP input from agriculture in Ireland is around 10 or 11 per cent, much smaller than in the developed countries, but we are obliged to accept the same conditions. It does not matter to Germany and other EC countries what quotas and restrictions are brought in, but it is of huge consequence to us. Farmers must fill in forms and are becoming increasingly frustrated and annoyed because the scheme has been rushed. Some of the Senators who talked about trying to get maps should go to the Land Registry office and spend a day working there instead of complaining about the difficulties.
Farmers are filling out these forms to ensure their cheque will arrive two or three times a year; they are being paid not to produce. Over time the value of these cheques, and of agricultural output, will decrease. The contribution from agriculture will probably remain relatively high because of these cheques, but there is no future in that. Our reliance on agriculture should have been recognised — our total agricultural production is minor in the EC — and there should not be as many restrictions. As a member of the EC, we have to accept some restrictions, but we should not be forced to accept the kind which developed countries can bear without grant loss.
We are in this position because we capitulated, and it is now proposed to congratulate the Ministers responsible. It is an absurd motion and should never have been tabled. The Senators who did so must now be embarrassed. I will ask my party to vote against this motion tonight. The Minister and the Minister of State should tell their Senators not to embarrass them like this in future.
What about the Ballyconnell Canal?
This régime is guaranteed to destroy rural communities and I will ask my party to vote against the motion.
I am glad the Senator has no more time because we need a more positive approach. I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, who recently celebrated 25 years in public office. We are glad he is in charge of this matter because he, more than anyone, is aware of the opportunities in rural development which must be exploited.
I have never seen, and I have been a public representative for almost 20 years, more enthusiasm in rural communities. I was in Carrigaholt last night at the launching of a Leader programme where, for the first time in over 100 years, oyster cultivation has recommenced in Carrigaholt Bay, with the guidance of Seán Keating, the chairman of the local Leader committee, in co-operation with the local community. There are 14 local people involved in an effort to create employment in the Shannon estuary, which would involve long term permanent jobs in one of the most remote areas of the EC. There are shortcomings in rural communities which need to be addressed by the Minister. Although there is enthusiasm and energy, they are hampered by the lack of important services. There is urgent necessity for road investment in rural areas. I appeal to the Minister for the Environment to work with the Minister of State with special responsibility for Rural Development to avail of Community funding for the development of the county road network, which will enable small projects to prosper.
There is an opportunity in the integration of these schemes to develop villages in rural communities. Many of them in west Clare do not have a basic sewage system or leisure and recreation community schemes. Such facilities would make it attractive, especially for young people, to live and work there. I must take issue with Senator Cotter, there is a great vibrance in local communities. They are energetic, active and are keen to make progress in development. Cavan and Monaghan are examples of the success of small community enterprises. The work done by the Leader programme could create long term permanent jobs in many attractive areas, especially in isolated rural communities, such as Carrigaholt. The lack of infrastructural investment to help these developments needs to be dealt with. For example, I have sought investment for Carrigaholt pier for nearly five years. The Minister must try to co-ordinate the activities between the Department of the Environment and others. Many departments and State agencies have responsibilities in these areas. Indeed I am confused by all the agencies involved, the Leader programme, SFADCo——
They are fighting a losing battle.
——IDA Ireland, Forbairt, Departments involved in schemes and State agencies like FÁS, Eolas, etc. The Minister would be the best person to co-ordinate these activities so that various Departments and agencies can pool their resources in dealing with their problems.
I must avail of this opportunity to pay tribute to the Leader programme in County Clare and to Fr. Harry Bohan who is well known to almost every Member of this House. He has given a major boost to rural development in County Clare. The documented success of numerous projects is ample evidence that where there is a will there is way. When financial and technical support are given to small schemes and projects, jobs can and will be provided. If anyone wants to see a successful development in action they should talk to Fr. Harry Bohan and look at the schemes which have already been established through the Leader programme in County Clare.
I advise the Minister of State not to be deflected from the Leader programme by the failure of some projects. It would be a pity if, because of a few mistakes, the whole programme was abandoned. The programme should be consolidated and put on a permanent basis. Under the Leader programme I have worked on many projects in County Clare to help break down the barriers of bureaucracy and planning difficulties. A special effort must be made to integrate and co-ordinate Departments, State agencies and local authorities so that we can break down the barriers of bureaucracy and cut the red tape which prevent many small projects from progressing.
As will be seen from the successful projects under the Leader programme in County Clare, long term, permanent, sustainable jobs can be provided. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Fr. Bohan for his work with the local community. He could not have been so successful without the co-operation of the local people.
The impact of headage grants has led to a major transformation of rural areas. In almost every area where headage grants and farmers' assistance have been paid, it has been reinvested to develop these areas. Research carried out by the Department of Social Welfare in the areas in County Clare where farmers' dole was paid directly to farmers shows this money was invested to increase productivity and create more opportunities for the people in rural areas.
I want to refer to a point made by Senator Lee. I am sorry he is not here to further develop the points he was making about the involvement of research institutions, such as the universities, in helping to establish projects in rural areas. I wish to refer to the University of Limerick and the development of technology connected with fish farming. Since the development of fish farming we have mainly relied on imported technology from Norway, Sweden and Japan. It is time that we put in place an Irish technology to suit Irish tidal and water conditions.
The University of Limerick has responsibility to the local communities. It should have a research station on the Shannon to undertake research into the natural resources of the Shannon, especially in the area of engineering technology because it has on tap the necessary qualifications in that area. Nevertheless, it would seem that some people in the University of Limerick are more interested in what is happening in Taiwan and Hong Kong. I would like to direct their attention to west Clare and the Shannon Estuary and ask them to work with the local communities to develop the type of technology which will provide permanent employment and create opportunities for employment for young people interested in technology. This is a subject worth debating and I am sorry such a negative approach has been adopted.
May I begin by assuring you that I will not refer to any Members who are absent, as I have done in previous weeks while you were in the Chair.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Thank you, Senator.
I welcome the Minister of State here this evening to discuss this important matter. I agree with some of the criticisms of successive Governments and of the EC in respect of their commitment to rural development, but I do not share the criticism of the Minister of State's commitment to this area. He has invested a lot in it and has worked very hard. I want to stress that any criticisms I make are not directed at the Minister of State.
It is unquestionable that rural development is an area of tremendous potential. We must accept the facts whether we like them or not. The European Community is moving from a system of price support to a system of income support which has implications for the entire rural community, particularly in this country as we depend so heavily on agriculture. That is why rural development initiatives are so important. It would be unrealistic to expect that rural development could replace production agriculture which must remain the dominant activity. That is what drives our meat processing plants, our milk production plants, our markets and our economy and it will continue to do so.
However, rural development has an important part to play in the overall picture. The central criticism of rural development is that it has not been adequately funded by the European Community. That is why it is so important when the Minister for Finance goes to Brussels that he ensures, as a priority, that the rural communities are potected within the framework of the Structural Funds and that adequate funding is provided for the rural infrastructure.
I agree with some of the remarks made about rural roads. It is not sensible to have a super highway from Dublin port to the area very near the Minister of State's home so that he would have to drive only a short distance on potholed roads from his home to the highway. The condition of the roads is having a negative effect on the agricultural economy in terms of hauliers and farmers bringing goods to market and it is something which needs to be addressed. When the Ministers go to Brussels they should remind their European colleagues that under the Article of the Treaty on Economic and Social Cohesion "The Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions, including rural areas". The European Community needs to be reminded of its responsibilities in this area. I also support the claims made by the farming organisations that 18 per cent of the funds should be devoted to agriculture.
One of the difficulties I have with rural development is that it is developing into a conference circuit. One can go to rural development conferences from the beginning to the end of the year and see the same faces and hear the same sense, or otherwise, depending on your point of view. It is becoming a nice, cosy, academic circle. Senator Lee and his friends might find attending these conferences very agreeable but I do not think it is the way forward.
Reference has been made to the Leader programme which I regard as very successful. I agree with Senator Daly that we should not take the unfortunate experience in Tipperary as a reason for not continuing the Leader programme. When is it proposed the new programme will replace the existing programme? Can we expect that it will be greatly expanded, as it should be? Can we expect funding to be made available for that expanded programme? How many departmental officials are available to administer the Leader programme? I understand the excellent officials who look after this scheme are badly stretched; there is a very small unit in the Department to look after a programme which I hope will be expanded.
My other questions relate to the operational programme for rural development. I do not agree with some of the comments made about rural tourism. I accept that it is a minor part of rural development but I also know that the demand for funding under the rural tourism programme was greatly in excess of the funds available. Is the European Community going to make adequate funding available, when the new programmes come onstream, to ensure the developments we need to foster?
Reference was made to alternative enterprise. With regard to these I return to the point I made about production agriculture. Meat, milk, sheep and cereal production will remain the basis of Irish agriculture, but that is not to say that alternative enterprises do not have a role to play in helping some people remain in the rural community who otherwise would have to leave.
Greyhound training is an area with potential that has been financially assisted. We have a good record in Kildare and throughout the country for breeding greyhounds and selling them abroad. Another area of potential growth is non-thoroughbred horses. There are opportunities which should be examined closely and exploited.
The central problem for alternative enterprises is a bureaucracy which prevents them from flourishing and not only by inadequate funding. It is nonsense for somebody in a small rural community who decides to produce free range eggs to be suddenly told, having taken their eggs to the local supermarket for six or seven weeks, that they now need a packing licence. Health regulations must be enforced to prevent salmonella, but there is an inconsistency between the rhetoric about developing rural society and the restrictions imposed. There is considerable energy to be tapped within local communities. Ideas are flowing as the Leader Programme showed. People get discouraged by the impenetrable layer of bureaucray. It is the responsibility of the Minister of State and his Department to ensure that bureaucracy is not increased.
Sea trout have disappeared from the west of Ireland. Fishing is an essential part of rural tourism; it is a traditional tourist activity which has generated millions of pounds. Now, overnight, the sea trout has disappeared and nobody seems to care.
Regarding bureaucracy it is the responsibility of the Department to enter into partnership with the local community as is mentioned at all conferences on rural development. The partnerships should involve State agencies and voluntary bodies so that all may work together for the good of rural Ireland.
We must accept that there has been a decline in farming, but that should not entail a decline in rural life. Although we have reports of large numbers of farmers leaving the land and forecasts that farmers will continue to leave we should not allow rural areas to be depleted of their people. Common Agricultural Policy intervention is being reduced, but the rural development side should increase, so that people who wish to may continue to live in rural areas.
A bottom up approach can work, but it must not be stifled by bureaucracy. People must be made to feel involved in the rural community and in the planning process. The rhetoric about the need to have people living in rural areas does not fit with planning decisions which prevent them from doing so.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and echo the sentiments that have been expressed most eloquently by Senator Dardis. The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is the right man in the right place at the right time. Nobody questions his commitment on the mighty task he has undertaken. Rural development has only been recognised as an entity in its own right in recent years. I come from a rural area and I hope rural development will grow to become a full Ministry and that, perhaps, the present Minister of State will get that job.
The age profile in rural Ireland is a serious cause for concern and in that context, I welcome the recent initiative on early retirement. This is the third time such an initiative has been introduced; perhaps, Europe and Ireland will get it right at last. Certainly the immediate response in my home community suggests there will be a much greater take up on this proposal than on others in the past. I hope it will be implemented quickly.
Many Senators referred to the Leader programme. My home area is one of the pilot areas for Leader and the Minister recently graced us with his presence when the Leader programme there launched its proposals. Experience of the Leader programme has varied among the 12 designated areas. In some areas it has been good, in some bad and in others mixed.
Based on my own experience of the Leader programme, I believe the composition of the boards should be more broadly based. The Minister of State is anxious that this be so and I know that in other parts of the country boards are broadly based. However, of 12 members on the board in my area seven are teachers. The seven were nominated through various Community organisations but a majority of teachers leads to a deficit of other skills and experience on the board. Where are the people with an entrepreneurial background, who are used to handling money, who deal with employees and have already created viable jobs?
I believe the composition of the board in my area may hinder the Leader programme from acting as a conduit for the enterprise and initiative, which as Senator Dardis said is evident in all rural communities. The boards should be more varied in their composition.
On every occasion the Leader programme is discussed, reference is made to local authorities. As a recently elected member of Leitrim County Council I have noticed that while the Leader programme and the council may operate in parallel they do not work together. The Leader programme goes one way and Leitrim County Council goes another. When the Leader programme started up resentful comments were made by public representatives about its future direction and operation. I am glad to say that these initial difficulties have been sorted out; a meeting of the manager with the full council has smoothed feathers and clarified many of the difficulties and negative perceptions that had arisen.
This does not detract, however, from the essential point to be answered; what role can local representatives play in rural development? It seems that this "bottom up" concept is being expanded as more initiatives are implemented by the Irish Government. This is being done to the exclusion in many cases of the contribution of elected public representatives in choosing the direction the development of communities, particularly rural communities will take. This lack of public accountability in the implementation of the £2.4 million, in my case, is anti-democratic, and can lead to a Tipperary-type situation. I will use this opportunity to yet again voice my concern at this situation and I do so as an elected public representative without in any way diminishing the role of the Leader programme or of the Minister and his Department's commitment to the concept.
When the next operational programme begins and the Leader programme is, hopefully, continued into phase II and expanded, the Minister might consider changing the composition of the Leader boards to allow for a greater degree of flexibility without taking from the initial criterion, which is that it should be part of and grow out of the community. As public representatives, we are part of the community. We have been elected by the people. Therefore, why should we be excluded to this extent? It is not enough to say that the chairperson of the local authority should be included on a Leader board, or that there should be some involvement by the executive of a local authority in a discussion or in negotiations.
My experience in this area — the Minister of course can correct me because he is dealing with it on a day-to-day basis and my facts may not be exactly correct — is that there should be a greater role for local authorities. However, that is not in any way to underestimate the impact that the Leader programme has made in my area. The board should be allowed to offer grant aid in excess of 50 per cent.
The problem facing people in rural communities is a lack of money. The ideas are fermenting all the time, but when it comes to implementing them, money seems to be the problem. It is interesting that under the Structural Funds the Government can get grant aid of between 75 per cent and 80 per cent for certain schemes but under the Leader programme a grant of only 50 per cent is paid. This figure should be increased to 75 per cent.
INTERREG has proven to be a boon in Border areas but due to its small funding base it has whetted the appetite rather than provided a satisfactory meal. I hope INTERREG will be expanded, particularly in the Border counties because the biggest problem there is access. Why can some of the money not be spent on county roads? This seems to happen only in Border roads. There is a suspicion that successive Governments have used INTERREG as a substitute rather than an addition to the Structural Funds which, in the absence of INTERREG would be provided in the Border regions. There is a feeling that while money is being provided in this region through INTERREG, Structural Funds do not have to be given to that area.
I make no apologies for singling out the Border counties for special treatment because we are a peripheral area with problems which are unique in Ireland and in Europe. In the context of rural development and the Minister's activity in that area the Border region is a special case. There are rumours that the INTERREG concept will be expanded to other parts of Ireland. For example, there is some talk of an inter-regional grouping between Wicklow and Wales. Will this mean a dilution of funding under that heading?
I agree with everything that was been said about the co-ordination of agencies. In Leitrim alone grants are available from the following bodies: the International Fund for Ireland, which provides money to carry out feasibility studies; the Leitrim enterprise fund, which is set up under IFI and gives soft grant aid; EOLAS, which gives research and development grant aid; the IDA, which gives capital grant aid; the Leader programme which gives grant aid; the Arigna Task Force which gives grant aid; the INTERREG Fund which gives grant aid, and now we will have the county enterprise boards. Why should business people have to spend their time chasing grant aid through several State agencies when they should be getting on with their businesses? I wish the Minister well in his endeavours.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister must speak and three other Senators have indicated they wish to speak. I call Senator Sherlock for four minutes.
A Leas-Chathaoirligh, I thank you for allowing me time. This is a very important motion. First, the decline of rural areas is so rapid that one wonders how the Mansholt plan could have been implemented by stealth as it has been in this country. The speed of rural decline was slowed down by the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy but the nature of this policy was such that it inevitably generated food surpluses. The present proposals to modify production in order to eliminate surpluses will inevitably speed up the decline of rural areas unless offsetting compensation is paid.
The central European market will further sharpen the push towards urban concentration and rural decline. When all the programmes are in place regional authorities will have a key role to play in research and planning development based on regional strengths and co-ordinating the implementation of national and EC policy. Ireland lacks the political maturity to put such regional structures in place. Politicians have been dissuaded in their attempts to put these structures in place by civil servants because they do not believe lesser mortals can achieve success where they themselves have failed. The claim that as a single region we stand to gain more from the EC has never been seriously questioned. I base my case on the fact that there must be a development of regional authority to bring all the agencies together to implement European funding to best effect.
The recent replacement of labour with capital intensive machinery in Irish farming is a cause for concern. I worked as a labourer on the land and saw that development taking place. As people became richer they made a capital investment. The replacement of labour by machinery on Irish farms in recent decades is a result of economic and monetary policies that included massive State borrowing and export subsidies. The labourer is replaced by borrowed capital and this has put the State and the farmers heavily in debt.
We are not fully exploiting the potential of our food industry. In Mallow a factory which formerly provided jobs and contributed to the economy has been closed. We are not making the best use of our timber resources which could significantly benefit the State and rural areas.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I thank and congratulate Senators on their objective contributions. I listened attentively to what they had to say and benefited from the wide ranging views expressed.
Senators are aware that rural development policy is now a matter of truly international debate and not just within the European Community. This debate is born out of a recognition of changing circumstances, both within the European Community as a result of Common Agricultural Policy reform and outside it, as a result of likely changes in GATT. There is now widespread acceptance that as we approach the end of this century the future security of rural areas lies in local economically viable enterprises that supplement farming which itself will become more dependent on the marketplace. I fully agree with the views expressed by Senator Dardis that the core agricultural industry will still be crucial to the economic development of our country.
In recent years the European Community has made significant progress in developing an effective rural development policy which will have a major influence on the future direction of rural communities. The publication by the EC of the discussion document "The Future of Rural Society" in 1988 also marked a watershed in current thinking. The document contained an analysis of current developments and trends in rural areas of the community. It identified standard problems facing the community in launching development initiatives and it listed as well, broad areas in which the Commission saw potential for worth-while initiatives.
One of the most important elements in "The Future of Rural Society" was the recognition that a fundamental requirement for rural development is to ensure that all action is fully integrated, and that development strategies must be dovetailed into a coherent overall policy. The point was made in the debate by most Senators. Indeed, the crucial role of the farm family is given recognition in our Constitution which says that the State shall direct its policy towards securing, inter alia, “that there may be established on the land in economic security as many families as in the circumstances shall be practicable”.
Agriculture and the food industry are vital elements not only in our rural economy but in the wider national economy. Agriculture and food account for close to 10 per cent of the gross domestic product in Ireland and for some 17 per cent of our overall employment. The low import content of agri-food exports means that as much as 37 per cent of our net export earnings come from the agricultural sector.
In common with trends elsewhere in the European Community and in the developed world generally, our farming population continues to decline and to age. Our most recent agricultural census in 1991 shows the total number of farms in the country at 170,500, down from 228,000 in 1975. Only 15 per cent of Irish farmers are under 35 years of age with almost 45 per cent over the age of 55.
Under-employment is a major feature of Irish agriculture. There is also a growing number of farmers with a gainful activity other than farming and this development must be seen as one of the most important structural changes which has occurred within Irish farming over the past two decades. The net effect of the increase in part-time farming has been that the proportion of farm household income derived from farming is now less than 50 per cent. The changing proportion of non-farm income in farm households illustrates the importance of rural development measures which increase the income and employment opportunities in rural areas.
As I indicated earlier, agricultural development and rural development are not synonymous. Agriculture alone will not sustain the economies of many of our rural regions but neither will those economies be sustained without a viable agriculture. Agriculture is, and will remain at least in the medium term, central to rural development in virtually all rural economies. However, our rural societies are changing and our farmers and agricultural sector as a whole are trying to come to terms with the most radical changes in agriculture support arrangements since we joined the European Community. As a result, the full exploitation of rural potential will be dependent on the degree to which we succeed in integrating agriculture into a wider rural development framework. This involves the creation of greater opportunities for on-farm, non-agricultural activities and more off-farm economic activity in rural areas. It requires a broad approach solidly based on local as against external enterprise. It requires a suitable blend of policies and measures both centrally operated and the "bottom-up" type fully attuned to a wide variety of rural needs. It requires partnership between the various interests from central level through regional and on to local community levels.
Put very briefly, the aim of rural development policy in Ireland is to preserve and strengthen the rural community, to improve the quality of life and to cultivate a sense of identity among the rural population. What we are endeavouring to do is to treat rural development in an integrated and coherent manner. Currently there are two important programmes directly supporting our rural development policy; the Operational Programme for Rural Development and also the Leader programme to which a number of Senators already referred.
The programme for rural development involves a broad range of measures aimed at stimulating rural development and is designed to complement the other major operational programmes such as tourism, industry, and control of farmyard pollution, as well as the various measures financed from the EC's Structural Funds. Total public expenditure under the programme is about £123 million with the EC contributing some £72 million. The EC funding is spread across the three Structural Funds. The programme was never seen as the only tool for addressing the many and varied demands of the rural communities. Rather was it seen as a measure to plug, as it were, any gaps left by the other operational programmes in order to assist certain activities and enterprises which could not be funded from other sources. The programme is essentially in two parts comprising first, a series of conventional "top-down" grant aid schemes operated centrally by Government departments and State agencies and secondly, a special fund to assist "bottom-up" initiatives by local communities.
The measures covered involve farm diversification, agri-tourism and forestry, rural infrastructure, small and community enterprises, research, development and marketing in the food industry, training and education, and promotional schemes. Grant rates of up to 50 per cent in disadvantaged areas, and 40 per cent elsewhere, are available for eligible projects. The rate and speed of take-up under the various measures have been very encouraging. Demand for the various diversification measures, particularly those promoting the production of sport horses and deer, agri-tourism and horticulture, quickly surpassed the initial allocation and more funding has had to be diverted to these activities.
The small and community enterprise measure which is designed to be responsive to local needs and to provide a safetynet for worth-while ideas by supporting projects for which aid is not otherwise available, is now operating very successfully after a delayed start. The scheme only got going in June 1992 as a result of steps taken by me, and considerable progress has been achieved in a short time by the county development teams and SFADCo, who are operating the scheme on behalf of central Government.
Leader is a pilot measure introduced by the European Community to aid rural development. Its objective is to find innovative solutions which will serve as a model for the development of all rural areas and which will ensure maximum integration between sectoral measures. The approach is to establish a network of local groups, each enjoying a substantial degree of flexibility and autonomy in the implementation of local development plans, and each funded through global grants, financed jointly by the European Community and the State. Some 16 groups were approved for Leader funding in Ireland, 213 for the Community as a whole, and the area of operation of the selected groups covers roughly 50 per cent of our rural areas. The groups involve various combinations of activities including community, business, co-operative movement, local authority and State agency interests.
The total funding approved for the Irish groups is £35 million, made up of £21 million in European Community funds and £14 million from the State. Individual allocations, on average just over £2 million, range from £600,000 to £2.9 million. As the groups are required to ensure that matching funding is available, total investment under the Leader programme will be in the order of £70 million.
Many items were raised in the debate to which I would like to be in a position to respond individually but, unfortunately, time constraints on this debate will not enable me to do so. I would, however, like to assure Senators that, in relation to a continuation of our rural development programme, I and my senior colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, and the other Minister of State at the Department, Deputy O'Shea, will be endeavouring to ensure the availability of the maximum amount of funds for future rural development programmes.
I agree with Senators who made the point that the Leader programme has been successful despite some shortcomings. At this stage I believe we can clearly demonstrate that the national programme is a success, that jobs are being created and that worth-while rural development projects are being put in place.
Rural development is about people, it is about the quality of their lives, their opportunity to work and the environment in which they live. The depopulation of rural Ireland and the increasing pressures on inadequate urban infrastructures, which were referred to in this House earlier, arise from the inability of past policies to ensure a reasonable balance between rural and urban areas. This problem is, of course, not peculiar to Ireland. Indeed, in many ways we have been more successful than some of our European neighbours.
We must, however, now act as a matter of urgency to correct this decline and through good and careful planning take effective measures to restore a reasonable balance between rural and urban areas. This plan must be more than just aspirational. It must be implemented through a programme for the economic development of rural Ireland.
The economic return on investment in rural areas is not always easily established or identified with specific jobs and is therefore difficult to fully quantify. It has, however, been clearly established that investment in rural development has and will continue to generate a significant number of new jobs. It is also important to remember that the preservation of existing jobs is as important as new job creation and very often more cost effective.
Those who cast doubts or raise questions about the importance and value of rural investment very often do not understand the complexities of the rural economy or its relevance to the broader national economy. In my view we have reached the crossroads. Decisions which we make now in the context of European Community funding will decide the entire future of our rural areas. The level of funding available to the peripheral areas of the Community such as Ireland will not continue indefinitely. It therefore behoves all of us to take positive steps to ensure that we get maximum value in terms of jobs and development from every pound that is now available. I have the utmost confidence in the Taoiseach and this Government that rural Ireland will get its fair share of European funding.
My personal commitment to this objective is and will be unrelenting.
I commend the motion to the House.
Senator Finneran and Senator Byrne are sharing the balance of time.
I thank Senator Byrne for sharing his time with me.
Like other Senators I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hyland, to the House. There could not be a more suitable man for this job. His contribution to rural development going back over a quarter of a century is well known and recorded. The number of people from all constituencies who attended his quarter of a century function was an indication of the esteem in which he is held by those who know him and by those involved in rural development.
Rural development has taken place already through our membership of the EC. I do not have to explain to the House the importance of the FEOGA grants for the supply of water to Irish villages and byways. In the 1970s a public rural water supply was not available in practically any part of my county. Today less than 100 households are without water. That is an important development.
In order to continue rural development we need funding. I fully support the proposal that 18 per cent of the new Structural and Cohesion Funds be made available to agricultural and rural development. Without that percentage the programmes that are necessary to maintain and invigorate rural Ireland cannot be implemented.
The concept of rural development is broad and varied. It includes tourism, organic production of food and vegetables, forestry and the development of forestry, peat and various programmes such as the Leader programme and the Operational Programme for Rural Development. There are three areas in particular, forestry, peat production and tourism, where rural development can invigorate rural communities.
Regarding forestry, a further development of timber processing presents a great opportunity for rural Ireland if managed correctly. I know the Minister has an interest in this. Further research and outside investment is required in the form of joint ventures and programmes.
Our peat industry has fallen by the wayside in recent times and decisions made to rationalise the industry have been counter productive. They have been anti-community and have contributed to the decline of the industry. A new approach is necessary and the Government must address the question of peat production, harvesting and processing. Otherwise we will have a slimmed down, ineffective industry with no ability to provide jobs or future opportunities for rural Ireland.
Some people concentrate too much on tourism to the neglect of other programmes. However, tourism can play a major role and that role can be expanded under the Operational Programme for Rural Development under the Leader programme. Recently the Minister attended our Leader programme in Arigna and I was pleased to be involved in the development of the programme as a member of the consultative council of the European Commission. I have great belief in the usefulness of the programme and I worked closely with Mr. Ray MacSharry and with the county managers of Roscommon, Leitrim and Sligo to have it established.
I wish to advise the Minister that there are 17 Leader programmes in this country. Europe will decide in future what funds should go into those programmes on the basis of how well the present programmes do.
The former EC Commissioner, Mr. Ray MacSharry, said at one meeting I attended that the possibility of obtaining three or four times the funding on the next occasion will not arise unless this tier of Leader programme proves successful. It is therefore very important that the Minister maintains an active role in this area which I know he is doing. I have no doubt that we can get over the little hiccup in Tipperary and get on with the business.
Senator Sherlock mentioned that the Mansholt plan or forecast has now been implemented. I doubt that. I believe that the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is a definite attempt to reverse the full effect of the Mansholt plan. Indeed that matter was to the fore in the discussions of the consultative council of the European Commission for the period 1989-91. The philosophy behind the Mansholt plan was damaging for Ireland and for Europe. As the Minister has said, there is worldwide rural development and, hopefully, we will have a further opportunity to discuss it. It is a very broad subject that impinges on practically every man, woman and child in rural Ireland. The representatives of rural areas must ensure that over the next seven years structures are established that will maintain rural Ireland and enable people there to make a living. I do not believe that funds will be available after the year 2000 for that purpose. Over the next seven years we must use EC funds wisely and if we do so some useful structures and opportunities for rural Ireland will have been set down.
It gives me pleasure to thank the Minister for his honest and open address on this motion. I wish him well in his task in the years ahead and his experience in Macra na Feirme, Muintir na Tíre, and on a county council will help him. The first time I met Deputy Hyland was through a group water scheme in 1968. That was rural development at the time. He is a worthy representative of rural people at a very critical time.
I hope peace can be achieved in the North of Ireland with benefits for Irish tourism and industry. I hope also that public liability claims will ease and that claimants will realise that they are putting a handbrake on progress.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Howard, Michael.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Motion agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.