Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 May 1996

Vol. 147 No. 6

Economic Development of Border Counties: Motion.

Mr. McGowan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann condemns the Government's lack of commitment towards the economic development of the Border counties; stresses the absolute necessity to draw down the maximum amount of EU funding available to this area; and calls on the Government to utilise all available peace initiative funds towards industrial infrastructural development in the Border areas.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this important matter and I welcome the Minister to the House. I will outline briefly the picture of neglect as I see it.

There has been a long history of neglect of the southern Border areas largely because the focus of attention is on the six Northern counties. This Government, and indeed the previous Government, did not realise the serious deprivation in the southern Border counties and elected representatives of all political persuasions, because this was a delicate or taboo subject, were never in a strong position to make a case for the southern Border counties to compete with the northern Border counties.

When money was allocated from the EU, the International Fund for Ireland or elsewhere this psychology of 80:20 emerged because the focus was on the six northern counties. I do not have enough time to make a good case but it is easy to establish that the southern Border counties have suffered serious deprivation and have not been paid. In the North, where 80 per cent of all funding has been allocated, the deprivation, destruction and damage was paid for on time by the British Government. This is not widely known and it is not taken into consideration by the different agencies allocating funding. The psychological focus is on the North of Ireland.

I will outline the history for the Minister. The first cross-Border study was conducted in December 1977, 19 years ago; I will make that report available if necessary. The second report came from a social and economic committee of the EU which undertook a study of all the Border areas. The EU got involved but nothing significant happened.

I accepted the honesty of the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he wrote to me on 20 August 1985 stating:

This lack of financial additionality is a major drawback from the Government's point of view in so far as integrated operations are concerned. It could in practice lead to a situation where the existing receipts from the Structural Funds would be over concentrated in certain areas at the expense of the broader national development priority.

He recognised that nothing special could be done for the Border counties.

The first indication that we might get some assistance was in 1987 when the Irish and British Governments agreed on 21 October at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to initiate a study of the north-west cross-Border areas. An important statement was made on that initiative which read: "Both Governments have decided to press ahead with this study because they recognised that the problems of the area are enormous and cannot be effectively tackled by either Government acting in isolation". That is an important statement from what-ever side of the political divide one comes.

The next example of neglect in the history of the cross-Border area came on 12 October 1993 when the then Taosieach, Deputy Reynolds, and the Government announced that £20 million was to be allocated for jobs and that the creation of an extra 14,000 jobs a year was the target. I would like to refer to the National Roads Authority's plan mentioned in these newspapers.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry)

The Senator cannot display newspapers in the House.

Mr. McGowan

I will abide by the ruling of the Chair, but I am sure nobody would object to me trying to put my case. I will make these newspapers available to the Minister and, if he takes this matter seriously, I am sure he will be glad to look at them.

In 1987 the then Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, initiated a cross-Border study. An important conference was held attended by another former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, and Mr. John Hume. We also had a live link up with the former EU Regional Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Millan. I would like to read extracts from speeches made by the then Taoiseach, Sir Patrick Mayhew and Mr. John Hume.

The then Taoiseach stated:

....the presence of Sir Patrick Mayhew here today, my own presence and the link up with the Commissioner Bruce Millan shows our clear support and signs of distinct co-operation to try and help the North West to first highlight its problems and then to shape the future together ... Here I can pledge our support in principle to putting that project on a very sound basis for the future.

Sir Patrick Mayhew stated:

Both Governments are committed to maintaining and developing this co-operation... I know that this spirit of co-operation and its practical manifestation will continue to be fostered by our two Governments.

Mr. John Hume stated:

An analysis of unemployment figures shows that there is a concentration of disadvantage in the North West. When we take account of other factors and indications of poverty, we have a picture of ingrained deprivation... Our problems and our efforts entitle us to demand treatment, support and assistance which serve to redress our deprivation and disadvantage.

We are concerned that nothing has happened despite the efforts, conferences and commitments. We made a submission for funding under the INTERREG programme. Every Department, including the Departments of Finance, Tourism and Trade and Enterprise and Employment, received copies of that submission. I am chairman of a cross-Border group, so I have some responsibility in this regard. I have a difficult job because I find that people oppose me because of the political party of which I am a member. I am convinced that this Government is not committed, something which has been borne out on a number of occasions.

I was fortunate to have been part of a group which met Commissioner Wulf-Mathies. She was very frank when she said we should go to our Government and get it to refocus the National Development Plan fund to allocate some funding to the Border counties. INTERREG, the International Fund for Ireland, the Peace and Reconciliation Fund are subject to matching funding, which is not available.

I would like to compliment the Taoiseach's honesty on 27 October last when he met a cross-Border group. He said that there will be no additionality because the Government's priority is to monitor national funding so that it is in line with Maastricht.

Mr. Cotter

The Senator misunderstood.

Mr. McGowan

That is not a very helpful interruption.

We were told by Commissioner Wulf-Mathies if the National Development Plan fund was not refocused and treated as additionality, however anxious she and the EU are to help, that nothing can be provided. The only funding available to two sewage schemes in County Donegal comes from INTERREG. That is not additionality, but substitution. No attempt has been made by the Government to provide for the southern Border counties. Last week I read that £800,000 had been provided for an advance factory in Strabane.

The only honest person was the Taosieach who told us the truth. In a letter to me Commissioner Wulf-Mathies stated:

At the recent meetings of Monitoring Committees for the Irish Operational Programmes, the Committees were asked to identify ways in which expenditure could be refocused to take into account the needs of the border counties.

I will not name the senior official at EU level who said we need to put pressure on the Government because it is a good ringfencer. I needed two hours to make my case properly, but I had only 12 minutes.

Acting Chairman

The Senator had 14 minutes.

Mr. McGowan

I appreciate that, but I have not had enough time to do justice to the case which should and will be made by all political parties in the southern Border counties. It is not a political issue and the Minister will be mistaken if he opposes the motion. I ask him to recognise the issue. The monitoring committee comprises people elected in the southern Border counties. His response must be stronger than an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Mooney

Senator McGowan is a hard act to follow but I will do my best in the time available.

Mr. Magner

The Senator has lost three minutes.

Mr. Mooney

I compliment the Taoiseach for his wisdom and foresight in giving Minister of State, Deputy Carey, additional responsibility for the Border counties. As I am sure the Minister is aware from his frequent visits to the region — I am sure my colleague, Senator Reynolds, will remind him — the level of expectation in the area is high. It remains to be seen whether the Minister fulfils those expectations.

The best news the Government could give the people of the southern Border counties is that it is considering the introduction of an incentive tax for industry to locate in the region. This call has been made by all sides; my colleague has requested it on several occasions. It is one way of addressing the inequities in our region. The natural disadvantages of the area are well known. Poor infrastructure, distance from large centres and small urban areas coupled with a scattered population have all contributed to a downgrading of the Border region since the foundation of the State. Successive Governments are to blame for this.

Partition has been the greatest single evil perpetrated on the people of my area. They have been living with that legacy for over 70 years. The creation of the International Fund for Ireland in the late 1980s was the first public acknowledgement of the need to identify the Border region as a special case in economic terms. While I fully support the IFI and compliment it on the outstanding contribution it has made and continues to make with its limited funds, I have long objected to the decision reached by the Irish and British Governments — my party was the Irish Government at that time — at the outset to expend 75 per cent of the fund in the northern counties and only 25 per cent in the southern counties. I understand that, unofficially, this ratio has shifted somewhat and that, in real terms, the southern counties might receive nearer to 30 or 35 per cent. However, the legal reality is that the ratio is 75 per cent to 25 per cent.

Senator McGowan mentioned another major obstacle facing development — the lack of matching funds. The area suffers many disadvantages but the biggest is that there are no large business centres, such as those in other parts of the country. The ability to create wealth does not exist in the region; the necessary seed capital is not available. The Minister should consider this aspect in terms of his remit for the Border counties, not as it applies exclusively to EU cross-Border funding but the EU operational programmes, such as that relating to tourism. I appreciate the Minister was not responsible for its negotiation but there will be a mid-term review.

Under the current programme for tourism development, unless one is prepared to establish significant hotel accommodation in the Border region, one will not receive the necessary funding and the project must be above a certain size. Yet, most of the people who want to become involved in tourism in my county and many other Border counties wish to do so at a lower level, such as bed and breakfasts or a small cluster of accommodation. However, they do not have access to funding and the result is a top tier.

I understand the reasons for this. The idea was to secure grand projects involving a major investor who would locate a major hotel with conference centre and leisure facilities which, in turn, would generate their own prosperity. However, with limited exceptions, this is not happening. It may be taking place in one of the six counties because County Donegal has a highly developed tourism infrastructure but all the other counties are lagging way behind in terms of tourism development and I ask the Minister to consider this aspect. The thresholds should be lowered to allow people access to the funding mechanism.

It has always been a source of frustration to those of us who live on the southern side and who regularly visit our separated brethren across the Border that the huge subsidies which kept, and continue to keep, Northern Ireland afloat as an entity have had a beneficial effect on the environment there. Successive Irish Governments, due to limited resources, have been unable to match this infrastructural development and consequently there are better roads and services in County Fermanagh and County Armagh. Why would there not be, given the massive amounts of transfers to the northern side?

Can the Minister imagine how annoyed many people were when they realised that the IFI, and the more recent peace and reconciliation fund, would continue to widen the gap between North and South by the unfair distribution of resources? It is perhaps not widely known, particularly among people outside rather than inside Ireland, that some quarters feel much of the money from the IFI has gone to businesses which were devastated by the bombing campaign of the last 25 years. This involved urban regeneration and the restoration of businesses which suffered. However, the British Government has compensated, up to the hilt and way beyond, every one of those bombed businesses, irrespective of the presence of the IFI. Our perception of the IFI money is that it is topping up something which the British Government is already doing. Under the current IFI rules the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland provides the other 50 per cent.

One small example, which is known to some of my colleagues, involved a bombed hotel in the small village of Garrison, County Fermanagh. The local community took it over and decided to regenerate it. The locals have done an outstanding job and the hotel is a model of its type; what has emerged from the ashes of the bombed hotel is a credit to the IFI and the community; it includes a community hall, a beautiful environmentally landscaped area, retail units, a centre for old people and a number of other services. It cost £1 million to develop in a village with a population of between 100 or 150, but not one penny came directly from the community. My town on the southern side of the Border this year received £100,000 from the IFI for the provision of footpaths and environmental improvements. Leitrim County Council must provide £100,000 in matching funds or benefit in kind in order to avail of that sum. This is unfair and it is time something was done about it.

I wish to mention many other points, but I appreciate my time is almost up. The Government must state unambiguously that it will provide additional funding for Border regional development. If this means a special tax incentive, so be it. Colleagues in the rest of the country who may cast envious eyes at the level of EU funding available to Border counties should remember that the Border region is probably the most disadvantaged in the country, particularly in economic terms, due to partition. This unnatural division has been a far greater handicap to the ordinary economic development of the region than any other factor. Would others like to live in an area where roads lead nowhere, railways are shut down and there is the politics of the deaf from those with whom one lived in peace and harmony for generations?

Over the last 12 months, on an initiative from my council, an organisation called Inter Cross-Border Regional Association was formed. This group, which involves local authorities in Counties Fermanagh, Leitrim, Cavan and Monaghan, south Donegal and parts of County Tyrone, is now focusing on matters of mutual interest cross-Border and it should be encouraged and nurtured because, importantly, it involves cross-party support. It is almost the first time for almost 30 years there has been a relationship between those on the northern and southern sides.

The continuation of the loyalist ceasefire is important for the Border counties. Its end could have disastrous consequences for the people of the area. They would be in the first line of attack in any concerted effort to intimidate the people of the South. We should admire the courage of David Ervine and Gary MacMichael and all the others on the loyalist side working for a just and lasting settlement on the island. I look forward to meeting the Minister of State in the future so that we can work to enhance the prosperity of the region in which we live. I second the motion.

Mr. Reynolds

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"endorses the Government's approach to the socio-economic development of the Border regions; welcomes the continued support of the EU for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and in the Border counties; and commends the Taoiseach for his initiative in asking Minister Donal Carey to undertake a review of funding arrangments in the Border region so that all funding for the region is used to the maximum effect."

I come from the same county as Senator Mooney and I agree with most of his constructive criticisms. There are many issues that have to be tackled so that funding can be provided in a better way for the county. However, the Fianna Fáil motion is not based on reality. Senator McGowan gave us a blinkered view of how the funding has been set up for the Border counties over the past number of years. He reserved his criticism for Fine Gael and the Labour Party and his compliments for Fianna Fáil.

With regard to Northern Ireland politics, one should look forward rather than backwards. I will always remember when I was a fledgling member of Leitrim County Council in 1985 the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. I proposed that Leitrim County Council would support its signing but the proposal was defeated. The Fianna Fáil members voted against it according to their ideas of progress for the Border region. The then leader of Fianna Fáil, Mr. Haughey, sent a number of his representatives to Washington to try to undermine the work that had been done.

The International Fund for Ireland came into being after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. The 1995 IFI annual report indicates that since 1987 over £290 million has been spent in the Border counties and in Northern Ireland. Over the past few years I have heard criticism from Fianna Fáil that not enough is being spent in the southern Border counties. It cannot have it both ways — either it is for it or against it. As long as I am active in politics I will remember Fianna Fáil's hypocritical attempts to undermine the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the funding which came to the Border region.

Senator Mooney would agree that a flagship project of the IFI was the Shannon-Erne link or, as we call it, the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal. A total of £35 million was spent on that and it has regenerated the socio-economic development of County Leitrim.

A lot of money has been spent in the area through the IFI which has created a lot of employment. The 1995 report of the chairman of the IFI, Mr. William MacArthur, also indicates that up to September 1994, 16,645 jobs were created in IFI supported projects and a further 7,142 indirect and construction jobs arose from IFI supported projects, giving a total employment impact of the fund of 23,787 jobs.

The Delors package for peace and reconciliation provided £300 million which will be made available up to 1997 by the EU. In this regard an office has been set up recently in Monaghan and the funding is now coming onstream. It will play a major role in providing economic development and employment in the Border counties.

My only criticism of how the funding has worked is that many people looking for funding are not aware of the type of funding available. There is a lot of misinformation and a lack of information. The Taoiseach's appointment of the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, to review the funding available for the Border areas is a positive step. The Minister of State will identify difficulties, no doubt; but, knowing him, he will address those difficulties tactfully. In his review he should examine the ways in which information is made available to those applying for funding. The South receives 25 to 30 per cent of the funding available. That is an acceptable level, but it would be excellent if it could be increased. I know that will be one of the Minister of State's priorities. The funding available is being well spent in the region.

The opening of the cross-Border roads as part of the peace process has played a significant role in the socio-economic development of the region. I raised the issue in the Oireachtas on many occasions that Leitrim was the only county without direct access to the North because all the Border crossings were closed. Since the IRA ceasefire the cross-Border roads into County Leitrim have been opened. One can see the regeneration of areas such as Kiltyclogher and Kinlough, from where Senator Gallagher hails. The funding available through the IFI has assisted that regeneration and, hopefully, will be available through the Delors package.

The Government can work to improve matters, but I do not agree with the tenor of the Fianna Fáil motion. It does not take into account the vast amount of money that has been spent in the area or the improvements made. I can see Senator McGowan shaking his head, but I have listened to him complaining about the lack of initiatives taken by many Governments. However, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have worked hard to secure funding and I am sure President Clinton's visit last November will help secure extra funding for the IFI. The Minister of State, Deputy Carey, will carry out a worthwhile review of the money spent in the Border region and whatever improvements can be made will be made.

Mr. Farrell

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach seo. Go n-éirí an t-ádh leis maidir leis an obair mór atá roimhe. There is no doubt that the Minister has a difficult task ahead. I believe this motion will help in this regard because he can put pressure on the Government as increased pressure is placed on him.

The Minister is aware of the problems experienced in the west of Ireland. There are daily newspaper reports regarding the creation of new jobs but the population of the west, with the exception of that in north Sligo, is still decreasing. The area between Ballymote, Tubbercurry and Leitrim is completely denuded of population.

Mr. Reynolds

The result of contraception, I believe.

Mr. Farrell

Perhaps more procreation is needed.

For many years I have stated that the funding is unfairly divided — Northern Ireland receives 80 per cent while the Republic receives 20 per cent. Northern Ireland suffered in the past, but not nearly as much as the regions immediately south of the Border. Northern Ireland received compensation from the British Government and is now receiving money from the International Fund for Ireland. The Republic has suffered greatly and is in a cul de sac in relation to cross-Border motivation. To redress the balance the thresholds for access to IFI funds must be lowered. Small guesthouse and tourism operators must be given the opportunity to benefit in this regard.

Ireland needs only a few large hotels with a large number of smaller units to complement them. Large hotels provide golfing, fishing and leisure facilities. However, the hinterlands surrounding such establishments could be greatly improved if money were provided for small guesthouses and tourism projects. We should discriminate in favour of areas such as north Sligo and north and south Leitrim. People entering business in these areas should be given a five year tax break. I have stated on previous occasions that money cannot be lost because there is nothing coming in. If jobs are created, the Government will achieve returns on goods sold and PAYE and PRSI returns. What is the problem about not receiving tax from the promoter when the area in general benefits? It would be a positive step to give these people a five year tax break to aid development. It would not cost the Government anything because at present there is no source of income in the areas to which I referred. What can the Government lose if business is generated by providing a five year tax break?

If one travels through Northern Ireland — or in Beleek, for example — one can see the amount of money being spent because these areas received matching funds. People in Northern Ireland pay housing rates. In my opinion it was a mistake to abolish rates because this removed the main source of local revenue. Northern Ireland has access to money to obtain matching funds and larger grants while the Republic does not. For that reason the Government must provide extra money for matching funds. That is the only way progress will be achieved in the west of Ireland.

There has been much development of the west during the past four years. In 1992, there was a crusade for survival, a Government task force was appointed in 1994 and the Western Development Partnership Board was put in place to prepare an action plan, which was published in 1995. A ridiculous amount of money has been spent on establishing the many organisations and providing funding to people to carry out surveys. I do not see what this has achieved. A person living in a small village could inform the Government with regard to what action must be taken.

Another problem relates to the application forms provided by voluntary organisations. People must employ consultants in order to complete such forms and those consultants are making a fortune as a result. Why must people employ consultants to complete application forms for small community projects? Why is this necessary? It is time to remove excess bureaucracy and simplify the position. Is it not time that we put job creation first and made it easy for people to obtain employment? The simple way to do this would be to invest the money spent on assessing and examining people's applications for matching funds. This would go a long way toward launching more projects.

The Minister faces a tough task. The major problem in the west of Ireland is that the land is useless and small farming, which was the main source of employment, is no longer viable. It is time that a project was initiated in relation to the environment. A major problem exists with regard to the loss of wildlife. I like to be outdoors and during last winter, when snow prevented my playing golf, I walked through the countryside surrounding my house. I noticed the absence of birds in many places, with the exception of a field where a farmer was feeding his calves. There is no source of food for birds at present. In the past when farmers planted gardens and produced tillage, birds had adequate access to food. Today, they are dying of starvation.

Ms Gallagher

What has that got to do with the motion?

Mr. Farrell

There are many more predators than in the past. Grey crows and magpies are multiplying at a great rate and destroying wildlife throughout the country.

Mr. Maloney

The wild geese have emigrated.

Mr. Farrell

In the past there were poachers and gamekeepers who provided a system of checks and balances to keep wildlife healthy. I believe a project could be put in place to encourage farmers to produce small amounts of tillage with the specific purpose of feeding wildlife. This would enhance wildlife. A system could also be introduced to employ official gamekeepers to cull grey crows, magpies and foxes. When did Members last see a yellowhammer or hear one singing? Many jobs could be created by making use of the land.

Mr. Maloney

I must express my amazement at the motion before the House. I spoke to Deputy Bertie Ahern at the recent by-election in County Donegal. He informed me that the one thing County Donegal does not have is poverty. He told me he had never seen so much growth and development in the building industry as he had since crossing the Border at Lifford. I was surprised that this motion was tabled because the Leader of Fianna Fáil seems to be of a different opinion to the Senators in his party. However, I am glad to contribute to the debate as I represent a Border constituency.

As a result of the recent IRA ceasefire and the ongoing peace process, the Border counties have received unprecedented levels of attention in the media and from the Government. In supranational terms, the most obvious example of this is the special programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border counties. I welcome the EU's continued commitment to the programme despite the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire.

It is appropriate that we consider the prospects for peace on the island. It is generally accepted that one of the reasons why the Border counties have been unable to fulfil their potential has been the existence of the conflict in the North. We are now only a few weeks away from the elections and the beginning of the all-party peace talks in Northern Ireland on 10 June. I ask all those involved in these negotiations not only to remember the social and cultural costs of failure on that front but also the economic costs, which are quite considerable. In the long term the achievement of peace may prove more economically beneficial than any programme run by the Government or the European Union.

It would be wrong however to view the issue of economic development in a purely negative light. Of course the failure to achieve a lasting peace on this island will have a negative impact on economic development in the affected areas. However, we should not underestimate the impact economic development can have on creating the conditions whereby mutual conciliation and understanding between the two traditions in Northern Ireland and between North and South can be enhanced.

The two EU programmes specific to the Border counties, the Peace Fund and the INTERREG fund, have a role to play. I am particularly pleased to see that pursuit of objectives under these funds has already had a beneficial effect on cross Border relations. In my own county of Donegal we have co-operated with councils in Derry and Limavady to produce a joint economic plan. I congratulate people like Senator McGowan on their input. He has been very active on that front. We are not alone. Monaghan and Louth are also working with the Newry and Mourne District and Down District on joint approaches to economic development.

Other less formal arrangements are also under way under the auspices of the INTERREG programme. For instance, a joint management structure has been initiated on the Shannon-Erne waterway committee involving input from both sides of the Border. I understand that it has also been very successful.

Perhaps the greatest criticism of the funds available for the Border counties, whether Government or EU sponsored, is the sheer complexity involved in drawing them down or ascertaining who controls them. This is fair criticism. Some people have estimated that there are now 36 programmes in operation in the Border counties. Given that there are 18 EU programmes, aside from the Peace Fund or the International Fund for Ireland, this does not sound like an exaggerated figure. The EU consultancy — knowing what is where — is fast becoming a growth industry in itself. However, we would do well to recognise that it is a problem that affects not only the Border counties but the rest of the country as well.

It is not for nothing that the Minister of State for European Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell, has had to publish a booklet outlining the range of supports available from the European Union and the State and who is responsible for each of them. It is a welcome booklet. It is hardly surprising that in the Border counties, where there are extra programmes available, such confusion is even greater. Partial responsibility for this rests with Brussels, where rules have added a further two supervisory bodies to those already involved in drawing down funds.

I welcome the decision of the Government to request the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, who I welcome to this House this evening, to chair a task force to ensure cohesion and interdepartmental co-operation in the operation of these programmes. Despite recent comments by members of the Opposition, I have no difficulty with the Minister of State with responsibility for the west also having responsibility in this area. It does not matter who does the job as long as it is done.

The range of programmes available is considerable. Special consideration has been given to local development initiatives. I support such an approach because there is concrete evidence of co-operation to avail of these funds. The benefits from the latest INTERREG programme and the peace programme are beginning to come on stream. Of the 330 million ECUs under the peace programme, 20 million is being made available to the six Border counties. This is the equivalent of £48 million. By last February there had been over 1,500 requests for the accompanying information pack, both North and South of the Border, and 76 applications from the South had been processed and passed to the relevant authority for final consideration.

The position of the INTERREG programme is even better. In this case 156 million ECUs have been allocated to the Border counties. Progress in implementing this programme is considerable and I particularly welcome the appointment of an INTERREG development officer to assist applicants for funding under this programme. All of this funding is additional to that planned under the CSF, which has a nationwide application.

I support the Government amendment. Funds currently available to the Border counties are unprecedented — a fact for which all parties and not just this Government can take credit. The one criticism which I believe is valid, namely the difficulties involved for those who wish to access the funding, is being addressed by the Government, although it is not only of their making. I wish the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, every success with the task he has been given and I ask him to pursue it as a matter of priority.

Mr. O'Kennedy

While I live a distance from the Border region I nonetheless feel obliged to support this motion in the strongest possible way. We have been wrestling with the political issue for some time and the Government are currently preoccupied with it. However, one of the practical consequences of partition has been, is now and will remain for the foreseeable future that the Border counties on both sides have been gravely disadvantaged.

The reality is that when one cuts off any region from its natural hinterland and economic contact, it will be at a significant disadvantage. Over the years in Government I became very conscious of this fact. It can be illustrated by reference to infrastructural investment on the part of the Government. It was clear to us over the years that the return for investment in major infrastructural development and roadways was much less in the Border counties than it was in counties like Kildare, Tipperary, Longford or Cork because one went so far and no further.

If one developed a major road in Kildare it opened up the whole area for industrial investment. The same was true of all the other counties throughout the Republic, but when one was investing in the Border regions one found that the return on the investment was much less than it would be in equivalent areas in the rest of the Republic. One went as far as the Border and no further. One did not get a return in terms of economic development in a natural hinterland as one would get in Kildare, Dublin or elsewhere. That has been one of the constant features of the disadvantage to the Border areas by virture of the partition of the island and it remains so to this day.

When I became Minister for Foreign Affairs I was privileged to propose to my colleagues in the European Community in 1978 that the European Community had a role to play in the economic development of disadvantaged regions on both sides of the Border. I recall the day with some degree of satisfaction when at an informal meeting of the Foreign Ministers it was agreed that, for the first time, the European Community would take a hand in supporting economic and infrastructural developments in the Border regions. Obviously, it has come a long way since then, which I greatly welcome. However, the condition we addressed in 1978 remains a major disability in the Border regions.

Nobody in this House will complain about special priorities for the Border regions and the six north-eastern counties. Nobody will complain about that as a measure of our political commitment, our understanding, our common purpose and solidarity. We all need to demonstrate that to be so. Whether that is fairly reflected in the 80:20 allocation being applied by the European Union is the issue. There is at least as much economic deprivation in Counties Monaghan, Cavan, Louth and Donegal as exists on the other side of the Border. For that reason there has always been an onus on us to ensure that we compensate to the maximum possible extent for this imposed disadvantage. It is not a natural disadvantage.

If one looks at the level of industrial investment in the Border regions over the years, one will see there has been a distinct lack of such investment compared to that in the Minister of State's constituency in Clare and even in Tipperary, which has not been a focal point for industrial development, not to mention Dublin, Cork or Galway. The reason for that is obvious. External investors looked at conditions as they found them and discovered that the disadvantage to which I have referred exists. They wanted immediate infrastructural access to ports and other entry points. They wanted the natural amenities that are required to make a successful enterprise area and they concluded that our Border counties did not have what they wanted, for the reason I have outlined.

Donegal clearly has been disadvantaged as it is the most northern county on the island and is cut off from its natural hinterland in Derry. Try to think of Derry without thinking of Donegal and think of Donegal without thinking of Derry: it is a contradiction to attempt to isolate one from the other. They are both part of the same culture, the same geographic entity and the same community spirit, which is an essential characteristic of any development.

If Donegal differs from the other Border counties it is a tribute to its local authority representatives and those of Derry. They have done everything possible at regional and county level to overcome this imposed disability and the level of co-operation, which I witnessed as Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Finance, between both local authorities has been exemplary. I have no doubt, however, that it would have yielded much more if there was not an unnatural disability imposed on them. It is only in relatively recent times, with the developments that have taken place through Fruit of the Loom and so forth, that we found we could present both counties as a composite for a programme for development. That is why I support this motion.

The European Community indicated from the first that it was supportive and it has demonstrated that support. However, it has been demonstrated through matching funding, a system it applies in every such case. I worry that even if there is an 80:20 ratio we may be at risk of losing the 20 per cent share because the Government is not putting up the matching funds to ensure that we draw down that 20 per cent. I am from Tipperary and that is a long way geographically from the regions concerned. However, I like to think I am not far philosophically from those regions. The least they are entitled to is that we would put up the matching funds and ensure they will get the maximum return, a return they are not getting at present.

Mr. Cotter

I support the Government's amendment to this motion. The motion makes no sense when one examines what has happened over recent years. It might have made sense in the late 1980s or early 1990s but it makes no sense now.

What is the catchphrase in the Border counties at present? There are too many funds, everybody is confused and nobody knows what to apply for. We are referring to enterprising people not knowing which fund to choose and not being able to find out which fund is appropriate or available. It makes no sense. Enterprising people by definition are the salt of the earth and generally know how to find their way around funds that might be available.

Another thing one often hears said in the Border counties is: "We are not getting our fair share". Who is getting their fair share? I do not know. It is just another catchphrase. The local newspapers carry headlines in which Deputy or Senator so-and-so claims the Border counties are not getting their fair share. I canvassed in Donegal during the by-election campaign along with many friends and colleagues from Monaghan. They came back with reports that Letterkenny was like a city — on one's way into the town one was confronted with roundabouts and got confused by them and huge road construction projects. They came back to Monaghan and said: "We are not getting our fair share; Donegal is getting it all". However, Donegal people were also claiming they were not getting their fair share because Monaghan or some other county was getting all the money. It is the poor mouth phenomemon and a product of our dependency culture. We are entirely dependent on others and we keep screaming for more.

We have been moaning about additionality and matching funds for a long time and we ask why there are no matching funds at local authority level. There are many people who should strike their breasts and say "mea culpa”. Local authorities in Ireland have no matching funds because most of their money is secured by screaming at the Government. Why? It is a result of decisions taken in 1977 to buy people's votes.

Local authorities are impotent. They can make little input into local development although they are local development authorities. They cannot carry out development because they have no matching funds and no way of getting them. They scream at the Government for them. A terrible dependency culture is running throughout Irish society; it is endemic. We must develop backbone. This motion would be better if it was positive and honed in on a few deficiencies rather than simply condemn the Government.

Let us look at what is available in the Border counties at present but is creating so much confusion. The funds include the INTERREG fund which Senator O'Kennedy mentioned and which he was involved in establishing. The INTERREG II fund is doing valuable work in the Border counties. There is also the IFI fund, although if Fianna Fáil had had its way it would not exist. However, it exists and has made an incredible contribution in every parish since 1987. Small enterprises exist throughout the area because there was support available through the IFI. Virtually all the hotels in Cavan and Monaghan have received funding from IFI as have some of the guesthouses. It is doing a tremendous job.

We have seen the establishment of county enterprise boards. They are putting money into smaller developments throughout the area. We also have a county enterprise fund in each Border county. It provides equity or the matching funds, about which people continue to moan. Equity is available for people who want to set up an enterprise but cannot get the money required. The county enterprise fund was set up by the IFI to provide some of the matching funds necessary. A company in the Border counties called Enterprise Equity provides equity for companies which are not able to start their business from grant aid and their own funds. It is doing tremendous work there. The Leader programme has reached every parish and townland in the Border counties and throughout Ireland. We also have the usual operational programmes. People say they are confused but they are only making excuses. There is so much money in the country, we are wallowing in it.

This motion is a reflection of the minds of those who tabled it. It is negative and destructive and it does not further anyone's cause in the Border counties. I disagree with the last sentence —"and calls on the Government to utilise all available peace initiative funds towards industrial infrastructural development in the Border areas". Most of the peace initiative funds are provided by the European Union while the Irish and British Governments provide smaller amounts. There was wide consultation and everyone in this House had an opportunity to be present at meetings to discuss the priorities long before the criteria were set down. Those people who now condemn what happened are condemning themselves. They did not make their voices heard at the time. The milk is now spilt and they have no option but to lick it off the ground.

I am happy the funds are directed differently from other available funds and that they are trying to improve the lives of those who have had a rough time over the past 25 years because they live in Border counties. The money highlights the peace dividend and this should not be interfered with. There is enough money in the other funds I mentioned.

The criticism of the Taoiseach is widely misunderstood. The Taoiseach and the Government were asked to give money to increase the amount of grant aid available. He is not willing to do that and I agree with him. In four or five years' time we will say good-bye to grants, and the sooner the better. If we, as a nation, cannot develop a little backbone and stop whinging and screaming in a dependent way we will never make progress. The sooner these grants are wiped out the better.

I support the amendment and decry the reasoning behind the motion.

Ms Gallagher

This motion is foolish because it is divisive. We should have common concerns and we should work together in the Border counties, but a motion like this does not help. It is not good enough to cry the béal bocht all the time or to force the Government to say we are delighted with what is being done. There is a happy medium. Motions like this do not help when there is still work to be done.

The motion makes the assumption that the Government lacks commitment. If that is true, which it is not, the same lack of commitment was shown by the last Government headed by Fianna Fáil. It also makes the assumption that the Government provides all the funds. That is not true either because Europe provides the vast majority of funding and it decides how it will be spent. The motion states that the peace initiative funds should be utilised in industrial infrastructural development. That is a huge assumption to make. It is simple and naive to say that the problems of the Border counties would be sorted out by a few vacant factories. It is on that basis that I strongly oppose the motion.

I grew up in Kinlough in North Leitrim which is across the lake from Garrison in County Fermanagh. I now live in Castleblayney, County Monaghan, which is surrounded by the North. That experience has taught me that people in the Border counties have suffered a lot as a result of the troubles in the past 25 years. Not only were farms divided but people were cut off from their natural hinterland. Businesses found it impossible to expand and parishes were also divided. People in Dublin fail to realise the effect this had on communities living along the Border; this effect should not be underestimated. I am not crying the béal bocht, but we deserve something in peace times to make up for that. Petrol stations closed in Castleblayney during the troubles and did not open again until recently. The troubles had a direct impact on the Border towns and villages. It is important that these funds are spent to build a new vibrant community south of the Border so that we can pick up the pieces and make up for lost opportunities.

The greatest sign of peace for people in the Border counties was the opening of the Border roads. County Monaghan was greatly affected because at least 50 roads had been closed. I thank the Tánaiste for his work as Minister with direct responsibility for this area. His presence in both this Government and the last provided a continuing force in the search for a peaceful settlement. Some years ago at a party conference I called for the opening of Border roads. That seemed like a dream then but it soon became reality. This development has had a huge impact on people in the Border areas.

There is a perception that a lot of money is available but we cannot get our hands on it. That creates problems. Community groups and businesses constantly hear about INTERREG, Cohesion Funds, IFI, the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, the Leader programme and county enterprise boards. People think there is a deliberate ploy to confuse them and that causes frustration. There is a definite lack of co-ordination. This is not a recent problem, it has always existed. There are too many offices dealing with too many areas and more co-ordination would help. Given that there are at least 36 programmes, people would need to be geniuses to be able to go through each sub-programme and know exactly what funds apply to them because this is not clear from the documentation available on the subject.

There is a problem with regard to matching funds. In order to make a project viable and worth while, funds should be available. People locally should not expect 100 per cent hand outs. If they feel a project is worth while, they should be able to raise funds for it locally. However, there are communities which cannot afford to do this in the time available to them. It is on this basis that I would argue strongly that matching funds should be made available from funds such as the IFI. This should be seriously considered by the Minister.

There is no doubt but that there is a problem with regard to infrastructure. However, it has been vastly improved over the last few years. Massive infrastructural investment can be seen in Donegal and other counties along the Border. We must acknowledge that the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, has pumped money into roads, which we badly needed in Cavan and Monaghan. However, there is still a long way to go, particularly when we see the huge advantages in terms of infrastructure enjoyed by people who live north of the Border. Although this advantage is unfair, we must realise that it exists.

We also have a problem with regard to inward investment. Border areas were ignored for many years and they must now catch up.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The IDA strategy will surely help.

Ms Gallagher

I wish to outline possible solutions which the Minister might consider. There is a crucial need to provide information about grants to ordinary people in ordinary language. We need more co-ordination and I welcome the Minister's appointment with regard to the task force. We need to speed up the process so that it does not take months to deal with applications with the result that people may find it is too late to submit other ones. We need more focus from Forbairt and the IDA on inward investment and domestic support in the Border counties. We need to look at the provision of matching funds through, possibly, the IFI. We need to consider special tax incentives. Such incentives were provided for seaside resorts, but Border counties have a greater case to make for them. I call on the Minister to provide improved roads from Greenore to Dundalk and to Sligo. This is vital if we are to build a base in terms of infrastructure and industry in the Border counties.

Mr. McAughtry

I cannot hope to go into the sort of detail I have listened to tonight. I can only give my more superficial impression of the problem. I was disappointed to hear Senator McGowan and others use phrases such as "sundered territory" and "separated brethren". This has nothing to do with the problem. The Government is a sovereign one and I have the honour to stand and serve it this evening. It is a party to the agreement for consent in the North. I respectfully suggest that the problem of the Border areas should be addressed as a single problem and not as it bears on the North, on history and on 70 years of separation. It should not be addressed with cries that "they have taken away my hinterland and I know not where to find it". This issue is to be addressed on 10 June and should not be dealt with here during a discussion on Border areas.

When I first heard the word "infrastructure" I was greatly struck by it. This was 30 years ago when Captain Terence O'Neill used it to refer to Craigavon. He built the M1, which shows that good roads in the North did not stem since the Troubles. It was built to convey heavy goods from Craigavon to Larne. The M2 was built later. Captain O'Neill was ahead of his time and he built not just roads but also good towns. This was when "infrastructure" first came into the vocabulary.

This motion ought to condemn all Governments since the founding of the State. I would like to see an exercise carried out in which we would, based on the hypothesis that the Border never existed, see what state the Border counties would be in. I remember when these counties were envied. I used to travel by train through Goragh Wood to Dundalk to buy items which were not available in Northern Ireland. Every advantage the North has today was sorely bought. We could not get these goods because we fought the Fascists from 1939 to 1945 and were bombed by them. We paid a heavy price for our involvement in that war. The steps taken by the Labour Government in Britain in 1945 and the Butler Education Act gave an impetus to the Northern state which it normally would not have had. Wonderful talents were brought out to pull the State up to a par with the best of what the British could do.

Monaghan is the only Border county about which I know in any depth. I attended a function in the Four Seasons Hotel in Monaghan and I was absolutely touched by the almost desperation in the faces of the people there at the plight in which they find themselves. They work hard and they have many volunteers and good ideas. I have seen the brochure they have drawn up and the ways they have suggested of tackling this dreadful problem. They are tackling it well on their own. There is no effort comparable to it in the North. This work is bringing the community together.

I know that Senator McGowan and his colleagues will agree that efforts should not be directed towards looking at the extra money being provided in Northern Ireland. People who live cheek by jowl with others are bound to make such comparisons. Within Northern Ireland, the agricultural sector made comparisons between it and the urban sector. It argued that urban decay was being addressed to a far greater extent than it ought to have been and that money should be diverted to agriculture. Such a reaction is only human nature.

This motion clearly seeks not a reduction in the assistance received by Northern Ireland but an increase in the assistance to Border counties to help them rise as close to the level of Northern Ireland as possible. I agree with this proposal. However, I must support the amendment, because in my view the present situation is the fault not just of this Government but of every Government which has touched on the problem.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Carey)

I welcome the opportunity to reply to this motion. This Government has been extremely successful in generating economic growth. It is important now to ensure that all our people benefit from the increase in economic activity which has been generated. The Government, the European Commission and the wider international community recognise that the Border region is economically and socially disadvantaged. In recognising this fact, additional programmes have been put in place in the Border region.

The objectives of the Government's socio-economic strategy are: to maximise the growth potential of the economy and services in tourism, agriculture and natural resources; to put in place productive infrastructure to improve the capacity and competitiveness of the economy; to maximise the skills and access to opportunity of our people through education and training; to place a special emphasis on harnessing local energies for socio-economic development and to rebuild the economic potential of unemployment blackspots.

A key feature of the Government's approach is the tackling of long-term unemployment, economic marginalisation and social exclusion. The European Union, through the Community support framework, supports the actions which the Government is taking to achieve socio-economic development. Operational programmes are in place which fund activities in the area of agriculture, farm investment, farm diversification, headage payments, control of farm pollution and research and advisory services. The tourism and human resources operational programmes fund tourism projects and education together with training activities. Under the industrial development operational programme, measures are funded which upgrade and improve the capabilities and capacity of indigenous firms, enhance the level and quality of research and development and improve industries' marketing capability. Actions are supported which improve the economic infrastructure, environmental services and fisheries.

Under these programmes, which operate nationally, it is expected that approximately £1.7 billion will be spent in the Border region up to the end of 1999. This represents a per capita expenditure of £3,846 in the Border region as against an average per capita expenditure for the country of £3,338.

As I said earlier, both the European Union and the wider international community recognise that the Border region is disadvantaged. The fact that it is a border region means that it is cut off from its natural hinterland. The violence that has taken place in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years has also had a negative impact. This recognition has been given tangible expression through the INTERREG programme, the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and the International Fund for Ireland.

The INTERREG II programme was approved in February 1995 and has generated a lot of interest in the Border area. However, implementation of the programme has been slower than anticipated because of the need to design and agree a common project selection, monitoring and evaluation process between the relevant agencies in the South and their Northern counterparts.

Out of a total of £96 million available to the Republic, £36 million has been specifically earmarked to support the Department of the Environment in the areas of roads, water and sewerage works. In addition, most of the funding available under the economic development measure of the INTERREG programme has been earmarked for actions supporting integrated area development and small and medium enterprises in the Border region. The total public funding available to this measure is £12 million.

The special EU initiative on Peace and Reconciliation is a generous response to the unique opportunities and additional needs which have sprung directly from the quest for peace. Funding under the various measures of the programme was consequential on the weighting given to the various constituent sectors by the EU Commission task force which took wide ranging consultations in the area. The programme contains measures which are intended to contribute directly to economic development.

Approximately £2 million is available under Subprogramme 5, productive investment, to increase trade and marketing both within the island of Ireland and beyond and to promote linkages between large firms and small to medium sized enterprises, local suppliers and networks and industrial clusters. Under another measure of the programme, £1 million is available to provide the facilities necessary to maximise the opportunities emerging, especially in deprived areas, and to support the development of small business, including tourism and subcontracting from larger businesses. Some £1 million is available to promote peace and reconciliation through initiatives aimed at boosting action for jobs and combating unemployment, especially among disadvantaged groups. Some £2 million is available to support innovative actions, especially those with the potential to create and safeguard jobs in deprived areas or in sectors which have been particularly disadvantaged by the conflict.

Particular emphasis has been given to measures which promote social inclusion. This theme extends across all the measures and there is also a specific social inclusion subprogramme which accounts for 30 per cent of the total funds available.

To date under the local development programme, three area partnerships in Border counties have had their plans appraised by ADM Limited. These are Dundalk, Drogheda and Donegal Local Development Company which has been allocated approximately £6 million to the end of 1999. There are six further partnerships in Border counties who, it is expected, will submit their action plans before the end of the summer. These are Counties Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim, Sligo, Donegal and the Inishowen and Donegal Gaeltacht areas. There are six Leader groups operating in the Border region. For the period to the end of 1999 they will receive funding of £12.74 million.

In addition, the International Fund for Ireland, which is financed by international contributions from the United States, the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, and most recently Australia, has contributed funds to the region. It gives top priority to areas of particular disadvantage.

One issue which needs to be considered, however, is how best to channel this financial support from both national and European sources. The variety of programmes and initiatives can be confusing. For that reason, I have been asked by the Taoiseach to review these arrangements to ensure that they are as effective as possible. I am currently examining the various programmes and I intend to make recommendations to the Government in the near future which will improve the co-ordination of this vital effort.

While recognising the unique needs of the area and the need for industrial infrastructure, it is essential to ensure that the development of the area is balanced. With regard to the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, any decision on a refocusing or a reallocation of funding from one measure to another can only be made with the approval of the programme's joint monitoring committee. This committee includes EU representatives as well as representatives of relevant Departments and implementing agencies. In normal circumstances, such reallocation of funding would only occur as a consequence of the failure of particular measures to use up their allocation.

Account may also have to be taken of the extent to which the objectives of a particular measure are already supported under EU financed programmes. It is desirable that the application process and the appropriate agency to which applications are addressed should be as clear and as simple as possible for individuals making applications. It is also essential that people should know the objectives and targets of each programme, the complementary nature of the programmes and the additional nature of the funding provided. Departments are required to examine on an ongoing basis the possibilities of refocusing operational programmes and other Community initiatives to provide additional support for Border counties. Given the long lead-in time, it is difficult to refocus programmes where large projects are concerned. However, the position regarding small scale schemes is kept under review.

It is important to emphasise that all INTERREG II and Programme for Peace and Reconciliation funds in particular have been and will continue to be allocated to the counties for which they were intended and there has not been and will not be offsetting reductions in other funding.

I am pleased I have been given this opportunity by the Seanad to put on the record the Government's commitment to the development of the Border counties. I have given a broad overview of the Government's priorities and objectives for the development of the region. We should strive to ensure that all our people benefit from the favourable economic conditions that now apply. We are all agreed that it is vital that the Border region, which we all recognise has particular difficulties, should gain to the maximum extent possible from all the programmes and initiatives in place.

I thank all the Deputies who contributed, even my colleague from the mid-west. I listened to each contribution. I have visited the Border areas a number of times recently and was struck by the vibrancy of Buncrana, Letterkenny and Derry and the interaction there. Anybody who met the people living in the areas close to the Border spoke of Derry as being the capital town. I found half of the people were employed in Derry and the other half in Buncrana, County Donegal.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is the same as Ennis to Corofin.

Mr. Carey

Yes; or even Shannon to Limerick.

I would not be as despondent as Senator McGowan was about it. There is a need to update the spending and improve the way in which it is being drawn down. To that end I must compliment the Combat Poverty Agency and the ADM for the initiative they are taking in this area — they have re-focused the application. There had been a complicated system of applying and, as Senator Cotter said, it is very easy to make an application now that there is a simpler form. They have set up a one stop shop in Monaghan, from which we hope all the information for the myriad of programmes can be made available.

I must say that I have inherited this myriad of programmes and I hope to see that the economy of the Border regions benefits from all the moneys that are available and can be drawn down. I will take into consideration all the points which have been made by Senators and I agree with Senator McAughtry that we need to join with our Northern brethren.

While in County Donegal before the by-election, I read in Northern newspapers of attacks on northern local authorities for the lack of development of major roads, particularly, for instance, the road from Derry to Monaghan. These reports illustrated the point by referring to the quality of the road from Monaghan to Dublin at present. The report could not understand why the Northern Ireland authorities were not putting more funds into that area, so Senators must be a little balanced too as some Northern Ireland development has not been to everybody's advantage. Perhaps the roads are too twisty for Senator McGowan and hold him up or perhaps they hold up lorries. I do not know exactly, but I believe we can come to an agreement. I have seen tremendous development associated with the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal and the people who pushed that project initially are to be complimented, because many people doubted whether it would ever be of any value. I am glad it has been such a success. It is the Government's intention, as I said, to provide the one stop shop to expedite the applications which have been processed already. As one Senator said, some 76 applications have been made under a number of measures. These allocations will be announced in the very near future.

When Senators see the result of the work of the task force for the committee, they will resist trying to down play the value of the measures put into place to relieve the depression which had hit the region. I would also have to balance that by saying that expectations have been raised way beyond reality. If this motion does anything to me, it makes me shiver a little, because while I have answered this question on numerous occasions in the Dáil, the fact of the matter is that when all these other measures were being negotiated at the time, the main Opposition party was in the position to include these conditions, such as the supply of factory bays in townlands which had been bereft of population or badly hit. That was not included in any of the measures, but these and all the criteria were agreed by all the people at a roundtable conference. The only measure I can offer in that regard is that there will be a mid-term review, which will begin at the end of June. Perhaps recommendations can be put forward in that mid-term review to alter some of the criteria already in place for the allocation of these funds.

Professor Lee

I will be brief because this is not my area. I was struck by something Senator O'Kennedy said earlier in the debate, which has been reiterated to some extent by the Minister, that is, that both sides of the Border had suffered from the artificial division. That is true, but it is still the case and I have never seen an adequate explanation of it. I do not know whether the work has been done to allow an adequate explanation to be given, but if you compare population movements directly on both sides of the Border either since independence or, more particularly, since 1980, you will find that the population has declined in virtually every area on our side of the Border. There is scarcely an area, including the most rural areas on the far side, whose population has declined. Some of them have just stabilised and some have gained by 2 or 3 per cent, that is, small gains, but there is a very striking difference in the pattern so it is not a question of just one area being lucky, or a particular initiative or factory being in an area. There must be something systemic, to use that horrible word, that is leading to population stabilisation at least; and I would go a little beyond that in terms of the figures available. There-fore, there has been a marginal increase in population on the Northern side and an absolute consistent decline in population on the Southern side the whole way from Dundalk, County Louth, to north County Donegal, in county after county. I would like to see some inquiry conducted into why that is the case.

I share many of the reservations expressed about consultants which one has heard here today and I have expressed them myself on other occasions, but if the right question is asked, consultants can be worth hiring. The problem with consultants when the wrong questions are asked is that it does not matter tuppence what blasted answer they come up with because it will not solve anything anyway.

Population decline in Border areas is a very important issue and it has been greatly neglected, to the best of my knowledge, in the type of inquiries which are worth while from a policy-making point of view because it cannot only be due to location or the various handicaps which have been so eloquently expressed here today. That is important, and trying to find out whether there is some reason for this would be more important than any number of debates. It may be exacerbated by the way EU funding is used or allocated, but I think it existed before the funding came on the scene at all so it is independent to some extent of the funding issue.

Second, I am a little depressed by the tone of the discussion, not by individual points made. The Minister's document is fine as far as it goes, but let us just say that it is aspirational, to use that term in a neutral sense. I am not complaining about that as such, because he has inherited the brief relatively recently, but we talk about an enterprise culture time and time again and if ever one hears of dependency psychology, it is in this type of debate. Why are there not more funds for A, B and C? Senator Cotter said that an area was not getting its fair share. Which area is not getting its fair share? No area is getting its fair share. Which area is getting more than its fair share somewhere along the line?

Senator Maloney said there were 36 programmes. The Telesis report of the early 1980s used a phrase about strong agencies and weak firms, and it seems there is a hint of that psychology developing here. Any number of programmes are being developed, but who is in a position to actually use them effectively or even promote independent initiative in these areas? I am loath to believe that there is less enterprise in these areas than anywhere else in the country but it seems the whole debate is focusing around what the Government is doing and who is operating EU programmes most effectively. I am a strong believer in whatever can be got from Europe, and the more the better, but these funds will be used up at some stage. They are not infinite. They will lead doubtless to some improvement, but will that improvement be simply temporary? Will it be palliated or will it vanish consequently once those funds decline, as they will inevitably?

We need not just more balanced development within these counties but a better balance between what local initiative is doing and what is expected from outside. I understand it in terms of party politics but I cannot see the Border areas gaining greatly in the long term from the virtual obsession with what funds are available from elsewhere to help us do things we apparently cannot do for ourselves. We talk about £2 million being available for linkages between large firms and small and medium firms. What are the large firms? Are they incapable of themselves identifying where those linkages ought to be? There is hardly a mention of business people.

I suspect that I am beginning to sound like a Redemptorist preacher so I had better stop. We must get away from the assumption that it is the responsibility of somebody somewhere else to bail us out; if we cannot bail ourselves out, the Government, regardless of its composition, or somebody in Brussels is primarily responsible. However legitimate the complaints about the disadvantages from which the Border areas suffer — and they are legitimate — the area will never pull itself out of its difficulties unless the psychology changes. A dependency psychology will never solve its problems.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Dardis)

The Minister of State wishes to offer a short reply to Senator Lee's comments.

Mr. Carey

A study on population and population trends has been carried out in Queen's University and the professor has published his interim document. It was not too complimentary to politicians on this side of the Border. With regard to the other aspect, I could have given Senator Lee a full list of the details of each of the programmes that are ready but I did not think it would help.

Mr. McGowan

I welcome the fact that this debate has taken place. I will not criticise the messenger, the Minister of State, although he does not have a strong message.

I cannot understand Senator Gallagher and Senator Cotter who represent Border counties. We held an all-party meeting and they were enthusiastic to focus attention on the neglect of those areas. That is what I am trying to do.

Ms Gallagher

That was the point in my contribution.

Mr. McGowan

There was an all-party meeting of representatives of the southern Border counties and we highlighted to the Tánaiste the need to get our act together. The bottom line is simple: we cannot avail of all the funding and, as Senator Maloney said, there are 33 funds. It has been made crystal clear by the Commissioner for Regional Development that we cannot draw down funds because this Government has not provided matching funding. The Minister of State made heavy play of sewerage schemes in Musk and Ballybofey. After ten years of waiting the Minister of State is providing £2 million for the schemes out of INTERREG funding. The funds should not have come from INTERREG and people know that.

Senator Reynolds spoke about the opening of Border roads and the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal. A four year old child would know that the roads were opened and the canal was funded and opened long before any member of his party was remotely associated with Government. Let us be realistic. Senator McAughtry said that somebody had decried the brethren. The word "brethren" was never mentioned. For the Senator's information, the Northern Ireland economy has been based on a £19 million per day contribution from British funds for the past 26 years. We are not even going to match them.

Northern Ireland would not exist for a warm day if the British turned off the funds tap. That is the reality and not simply a declaration dreamed up by me. I am not criticising them; I compliment them and their public representatives who have been more aggressive and more successful than we have been. I can offer an example. A conference was held in Washington and it was highlighted, sponsored and managed by the Tánaiste. The feedback is that the Republic of Ireland was there socially but Northern Ireland was there on business.

Mr. Maloney

The Senator was not there.

Mr. McGowan

I had people there to see what went on. They were Americans who were concerned.

Mr. Maloney

The Senator was not there.

Mr. McGowan

The Senator was part of the social group that went there and never opened their mouths or participated.

Mr. Maloney

The Senator does not know because he was not there. It is unfair to say that.

Mr. McGowan

At the conference Baroness Denton asked all the representatives from Northern Ireland to thank President Clinton and the American people for their major contribution. She got them to stand up and clap. Our Minister did not ask anybody to stand up and acknowledge that contribution. They did nothing. The statement I received from my source——

Mr. Maloney

Badly informed.

Mr. McGowan

——said that the Republic of Ireland was present socially.

Mr. Maloney

The best singers were from the North.

Mr. McGowan

We have a real problem. In four years time Ireland will be removed from the Objective 1 regions and all the shenanigans and smart answers we have seen in opposition to this motion will not be much good to those in the Border region. There is an awareness in the Border counties that there is no initiative for the area. One can fool some of the people only some of the time and people will have to put up or shut up.

Matching funding must be put up for the INTERREG programme or we will tell the people what is happening; we will do more. There is an EU monitoring committee and we will ensure that it assesses the Government's input. That will be important. We will not be fobbed off with waffle or by Senator Cotter saying we have plenty of money and do not know what to do with it.

Mr. Cotter

There is a hole in the end of the bag.

Mr. McGowan

County enterprise funding is a joke. A sum of £90,000 was offered for £1,100,000 worth of projects in Donegal. Do not mention county enterprise funding because it is not there.

Mr. Maloney

Who set it up?

Mr. McGowan

It was set up by people who had good intentions but it was taken over——

Mr. Cotter

There is plenty of money in Donegal. There is so much the Senator is confused. He cannot get his hands on it.

Acting Chairman

Senator McGowan without interruption.

Mr. McGowan

Those who oppose me know that what I am saying is true. The Senator will pay a higher price than I will pay. At least we are seen to be trying while Members on the other side are trying to con and bluff. They are going nowhere and that was proven in the by-election when the Senator was given his answer.

Ms Gallagher

That is petty and unfair.

Mr. McGowan

The next time the Senator puts up his head he will pay a higher price.

Ms Gallagher

The Senator will gain more by supporting the Government in getting funds into the Border counties instead of putting forward motions such as this.

Acting Chairman

The Senator's time was up one minute ago.

Mr. McGowan

The Minister of State is a decent man. He has a problem because there is a harness on him and he is going nowhere. He can only read the speech and do nothing. Fianna Fáil was in power when the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal got funding. Deputy Reynolds and the former Deputy, Mr. John Wilson, were present at the opening. The Government's opposition to this motion is a political charade. It is as good today as the day it caught cross-Border workers; it promised them everything, but delivered Fanny Adams.

Mr. Maloney

The Senator's party told them nothing but lies.

Mr. McGowan

The Government will pay dearly.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl 18.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Burke and Magner; Níl, Senators Ormonde and O'Kennedy.

Amendment declared carried.

Belton, Louis J.Burke, Paddy.Cashin, Bill.Cotter, Bill.Cregan, Denis (Dino).D'Arcy, Michael.Doyle, Joe.Enright, Thomas W.Farrelly, John V.Gallagher, Ann.Hayes, Brian.Kelly, Mary.Bohan, Eddie.Byrne, Seán.Daly, Brendan.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Kelleher, Billy.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.

Lee, Joe.McAughtry, Sam.McDonagh, Jarlath.Magner, Pat.Maloney, Seán.Manning, Maurice.O'Sullivan, Jan.Reynolds, Gerry.Ross, Shane P.N.Sherlock, Joe.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.Townsend, Jim.Lydon, Don.McGennis, Marian.McGowan, Paddy.Mooney, Paschal.Mulcahy, Michael.O'Brien, Francis.O'Kennedy, Michael.Ormonde, Ann.Roche, Dick.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Manning

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.