Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 May 1998

Vol. 155 No. 15

Objective One Status: Motion.

In view of the fact that the debate on this motion will continue next week, does the House wish the debate to continue until 8.20 p.m. tonight?

It is intended to continue until 8.20 p.m.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes the growing campaign for Objective One Status in the next round of EU funding for those regions of Ireland which continue to meet the requisite criteria.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I thank him for his attendance. I acknowledge the success of the national economy. The country's economy is growing at a rate three times faster than Europe. Our politicians and many others are to be congratulated on this success. However, there is a different story to be told in some parts of the country, particularly the west, the Border region and parts of the midlands.

It may seem childish to spoil the party and to throw cold water on the success at national level. Once again we can expect comments to the tune of "They are at it again in the west, complaining and crying". Various figures to which I will allude show that the west is in crisis compared with the rest of the country. I believe we are in danger of developing a dual economy. The situation is so serious that we cannot and will not remain silent.

In 1994 at the start of the current round of Structural Funds Ireland secured the highest per capita share out of Structural Funds in the EU. If we look closely at the figures we will see that the west and Border region were so far below the 75 per cent qualifying mark that they managed to pull the entire country just below that level. Mr. Seamus Caulfield of the Council of the West put it aptly when he said that the lame duck of the west laid the golden egg of the Structural Funds for the whole country.

It can be argued that on a per capita basis the west is getting slightly more than its fair share of Structural Funds, but the Structural Funds include the premia and headage payments for the disadvantaged areas and the west receives a high proportion of these payments. However, it does not include the Common Agricultural Policy money, large amounts of which go into Munster and Leinster. It would be an interesting exercise to factor the CAP money into the equation to get an overall picture of EU funding in this country.

This assumes that per capita is the proper basis for the share out of funds but three-quarters of the Structural Funds go to half of the land mass, that is, Munster and Leinster and one-quarter goes to the other half, that is to Connaught and Ulster. The pull of investment is towards the more advantaged and developed areas and this creates an accelerated and almost unstoppable momentum.

There are imbalances within the west region. The population of the west was 352,000 in 1996 with between one-quarter and one-third of the population living in Galway city and its commuting distance hinterland. Over the last four years the Irish economy has grown at almost three times the average European rate. Galway city is recognised as one of the dynamic centres of growth in the present booming economy and, therefore, it must be growing at at least the rate of the national average. Given that the west as a whole is only keeping pace with the European growth rate it would appear that the entire growth in the west can be accounted for by the growth in the Galway city area. This would suggest that County Mayo, County Roscommon and most of County Galway are showing minimal if any growth and are losing ground not just against the Irish growth rate but also against the much lower European growth rate.

Objective One status given to Ireland to allow us to move towards the European average per capita GDP must be deemed a failure in those counties where the gap in per capita GDP between them and Europe has widened rather than narrowed. The fact that this is happening in a country which has at national level moved from 64 per cent to parity with Europe within a decade is unacceptable. It emphasises further the urgent need to reappraise the mid-term review of the impact of the European funds. The per capita GDP of the west has remained static relative to Europe at about 57 per cent putting it equal with French Guyana which is the seventeenth of over 200 regions; the tenth lowest is Martinique at 52 per cent and the lowest is Guadeloupe at 37 per cent. In the light of the above, in what position will this leave much of the west when the present European funding ends in 1999?

The Border region and the west were so far behind initially that there should have been real and positive discrimination towards these regions in the allocation of Structural Funds to enable them to reach the same levels of wealth as the rest of the country. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

I mentioned various statistics that had been released earlier this year which give cause for concern. The regional accounts for 1991 and 1993 were published in November 1996 and June 1997, respectively. Per capita GDP of the west — Galway, Mayo and Roscommon — was 75 per cent of the national average in 1991 and dropped to 71.7 per cent of the national average by 1993, 28 per cent below the national average. We must remember that this region contains Galway city which is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe. Where does that leave Counties Galway, Mayo and Roscommon? In 1993 the country was, at most, at 90 per cent of the European average GDP with the west at 64.5 per cent of the European GDP. The situation in the Border region is similar.

What has happened since then? In February this year the Fitzpatrick report on the regional impact of Structural Funds for 1994-5 was published. This report tells us that two regions the west and the Border region started out in a relatively poor position and remained in that position vis-à-vis the other regions. It termed the regions the “non-convergers”. The 1996 labour force survey figures showed job increases of 50,000 in Munster-Leinster minus Louth and 2,000 in Connaught-Ulster over 1995. Figures for unemployment decreased in Munster-Leinster by 8,000 and increased in Connaught-Ulster by 8,000 over the same period.

The labour force figures for 1997 just published are an improvement on the shocking 1996 figures, but one figure is particularly interesting. The labour force survey is only compiled on a regional basis but the live register is compiled on a county by county basis. A document released on 14 November 1997 shows that all counties recorded a drop in live register figures between October 1996 and October 1997 except Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon.

In 1996 the IDA job announcements were overwhelmingly in the Munster/Leinster area. Once again we hear excuses: industry will locate wherever it wants and we cannot force companies into the west. However, we know that when IDA pursued a regional policy in the 1970s there were increases in IDA employment in the west. The region is falling so far behind the rest of the country's economic performance that it demands immediate and urgent action and while I strongly support the retention of Objective One status for the region, we cannot wait until after 1999 for increased investment.

I want the west to be given the opportunity for development which will allow us to participate proactively and on equal terms with the other regions in this small economy. The need for self-sustaining development is our key target — we do not expect or want to continue as a beneficiary of State and EU funds ad infinitum. I am pleased to see the commitment in the Programme for Government to seek Objective One status for those regions which still qualify, but we must ensure that the west does not lose out once again in the final shake up. I would propose Objective One in transition for those regions that will not qualify and full Objective One status until 2006 for those regions that qualify — the west, the Border regions and part of the midlands regions. This would maximise the total take for the whole country. I am seeking Objective One status to 2006 in the long term and in the immediate future; regional policies must be implemented and there must be increased investment in the region now.

In March 1997, as Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Bertie Ahern stated that with regard to Structural Funds post-1999 — or more probably post-2000 given the time lag in all EU payments — we will have to look seriously at regional structures if we are to continue to benefit. Reform is going to be forced on us with regard to cover centralisation, which is worse than in any other developed country. The west, the Border region, and the midlands in particular might still be able to benefit from Objective One status if Ireland ceased to be treated as a single region. He went on to state that the next Government would have to take this issue seriously if we are not to suffer a major reduction in Structural Funds, particularly in areas where they are still much needed and where the work of improving infrastructure must go on. More regional responsibility would in any case improve the dynamism of the Irish economy as a whole.

I would like to make it clear that this is not an east versus west debate. I accept that there are areas of extreme disadvantage within those regions with high GDP and I see no conflict whatsoever with those areas receiving the funding they need from either national or European sources. The issue here is one of equality.

Over the past 12 months the Council for the West has lobbied for full Objective One status for the region; today is not the start of a campaign, rather it is the continuation of one. The campaign in gaining momentum, with more and more groups adding their support. I want to place this issue firmly on the agenda because I believe that our case is just and equitable and it is supported by all the facts and figures. It is European policy to grant Objective One status to regions below 75 per cent of European GDP; not only are we below 75 per cent, we are below 70 per cent. We are asking for what is fair and reasonable, no more and no less. We are not making a special case or asking to be treated differently; we are simply asking to be treated like any other region in the EU.

I second the motion and concur with everything Senator Finneran said. It is now generally accepted that Ireland as a unit will no longer qualify for Objective One status because the GDP of our country far exceeds the 75 per cent average standard of living threshold within the EU. It is well known that the European Commission is adamant that the rules for categorising regions or countries for Objective One status will be strictly and rigidly implemented according to whether a particular area is below 75 per cent of the average EU standard of living. This has important implications for Ireland because clearly there are regions within Ireland which can and should qualify for Objective One status during the next round of EU Structural Fund assistance for the period 2000-2006. Objective One status entitles particular regions to the maximum amount of European regional, social, agricultural, fisheries and Cohesion Funds.

The fact that Ireland has been designated as an Objective One region has paid off in large dividends ensuring that our national economic performance has improved substantially and that we are strong enough to join the new European single currency. Extensive and widespread discussions are taking place between national Governments and the European Commission regarding the breakdown of the package of European Structural Fund assistance within the EU member states for the period 2000-2006.

There is a very compelling case for regionalisation in Ireland for the next round of EU Structural Funds. Some regions in Ireland have clearly been out-performing other regions in terms of economic performance and therefore all regions must not and cannot be put into the same bracket for the next tranche of EU Structural Fund assistance. Figures recently produced from the Central Statistics Office clearly show that the Border counties region is still below 75 per cent of the average EU standard of living. The case for granting Objective One status for this region for the period 2000-2006 is real and beyond reproach. Clearly much work remains to be done improving the road networks in the north-west of Ireland and in the Border counties region. The continuation of European regional and Cohesion Funds would be a step in the right direction in ensuring that disparities which exist in infrastructural development in the country is redressed.

We must acknowledge that the EU has played a positive and constructive role in developing the Border counties region in recent years. The EU contributes 40 per cent towards the overall budget of the International Fund for Ireland. It finances both the INTERREG II cross-Border initiative and the European Fund for Peace and Reconciliation. I welcome the statement of Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, in Agenda 2000, the proposals for the future of the EU, that cross-Border programmes will continue.

However, much remains to be done in the Border counties and western regions if economic disparities across different regions in Ireland are to be redressed and a level playing pitch brought into existence. It makes no sense to group the east coast and counties such as Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, Mayo and Roscommon in the same bracket for the purposes of drawing down EU Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006.

Regionalising Ireland so that differences in economic performance can be levelled out serves only a positive social and economic purpose and it will ensure that Ireland will remain strong and competitive in an internal market where a single European currency is operating across 11 member states and covering a population of 290 million people.

I disagree with European Commissioner Flynn's recent statement that Ireland's share of EU Structural Funds could be less if the country is subdivided rather than treated as one region. He proposed Objective Two status for the country, while the country as a whole gained from having Objective One status in the last round of EU funding. This status was gained because of the low standard of living in the western and Border regions. However, these regions have not reaped the same economic benefits as those in the south and east. We also fared badly from cross-Border and peace and reconciliation funding and the International Fund for Ireland, getting 20 per cent of the funding as opposed to 80 per cent for Northern Ireland.

Objective One status must be made a priority to ensure economic development in the north-west. Live register figures show no significant reduction. The IDA stated that the lack of proper infrastructure such as roads, water and sewerage is delaying inward investment to the region. Any new investment project is due to the efforts of existing corporations based in that area.

Traditional industries in Donegal such as clothing and textiles are in decline. The fishing industry is also under threat and its survival will depend on more favourable terms, hopefully to be renegotiated at the next round of the Common Fishery Policy in 2002.

It is time for the Government to deliver to the Border regions in the west. The Programme for Government clearly states that priority is to be given to getting Objective One status for the region. The Taoiseach said last year in Gartan that the gaining of Objective One status for the Border counties post-1999 was a priority.

The Border regions in the west need Objective One status and funding to build the necessary infrastructure to attract inward investment and industry, to develop tourism, create the necessary employment to keep people in the area and to take pressure off the increasing population on the west coast.

There is a precedent that regions within countries have been granted Objective One status, even though the countries themselves have been granted another classification. East Germany, southern Italy, the Highland region in Scotland and Merseyside have been designated as Objective One regions for 1994-9, even though Germany, Italy, Scotland and England have all been classified in other brackets for the purpose of drawing down EU Structural Funds.

I welcome this motion tabled by the Government parties. To make proper use of the opportunity to discuss this matter, we need to ensure we receive answers to hard questions and that we do not just have a self-serving discussion about our success in the past few years and how we have been great in getting a certain amount of money from Europe. We need to concentrate on the quality of spending, the quantity of the money and how the Government is maximising the Irish position for the next round of Structural Funds. We also need to look at the future of cohesion funding.

In reality the debate has not started, certainly not in the public forum. Legal proposals were published in March to give effect to Agenda 2000. If we concentrate on those we might tease out answers to some of the questions. The success of the Celtic tiger means we have worked ourselves out of eligibility for continued full Objective One status. I am not sure we should even take that at face value — that is acceptable if Objective One status is measured on GDP per capita. However, GNP per capita is a truer reflection of the situation in Ireland because of the huge repatriation of profits from non-nationals. This immediately reduces figures by about 5 per cent across the board.

The west, the Midlands and the Border regions all meet Objective One criteria based on the 1994-95 figures. We are making our case based on the mean figure for 1993, 1994 and 1995, which is perhaps just as well. Should we accept the figures based on GDP, which is not a true reflection of the Irish position?

Ireland is unique in Europe in having this problem because of the extent of the profits from non-nationals. Can we make a case for basing figures on GNP, which would measure like with like in terms of our EU colleagues? To what extent has the Government pursued this important argument in Brussels? Assuming that we will be given Objective One status in transition at some stage between 2000 and 2006, has the Government pursued the case made by Government Senators? Has it pursued the case for the west, the Border regions, the Midlands, Laois, Offaly, Longford, Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal?

What case has been made in Europe for these regions which fall well below the average GDP? They are further disadvantaged because of their distance from the centre of Europe and even from the east coast of Ireland — because of transport and infrastructural problems and demographic structures. There has been a huge decline in agriculture in many areas, and the way CAP reform is directing farmers in the future, there will be further consolidation into larger farming units and fewer people will be involved on the land. What socio-economic problems will this cause and will there be further difficulties in these areas?

My area of the south-east stands at 79 per cent of GDP per capita. If we are measured on our GNP, we are under the 75 per cent cut-off figure and therefore eligible for Objective One status. As one goes up the east coast and into the greater Dublin area there is a huge increase which pushes the national average to over 92 per cent. However, on GNP, the south east would still qualify. This is what we should measure because this is what is left in the country. The south west would also qualify if Objective One status was measured on GNP.

Will the Minister indicate to what extent the Government is prepared to fight the case for regions to retain full Objective One status? There is little evidence it is prepared to fight against the various Commissioners who are trying to dismiss our case before we make it.

There are many other hard questions which need to be answered. What type of transition are we looking at, on the assumption that parts of Ireland will be given the new Objective One transitional status? What will the transition arrangements be? How will the payments be made, front-loaded or back-loaded? What effort is being put into the national plan?

The same Government parties structured the last national plan. There was an international circus when the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Albert Reynolds, came home with a £8 billion plan in May or June. By November and December that had decreased to £7 billion. Only £5 billion of that money has been spent. Within the past month, another £200 million pounds was lost because the LUAS funding was sent back and because funding for the national conference centre is unlikely to be spent in time to draw it down, because of planning problems.

I do not accept the assertion by the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, that the planning of infrastructural projects can be in place before the end of next year and completed by 2001 to draw down funding. She made that statement to cover up for the appalling mishandling of the Luas project and it was contradicted by Europe.

What will happen to the next round of Structural Funds? How will we continue to attract inward investment? There is gridlock from Drogheda to Bray and apparently no plans to resolve it. There are no indications of how the Government will resolve this crisis which will affect investment in the east coast.

Hard answers to hard question are needed at this stage and not a self-serving discussion, although I have no difficulty with the drift of the motion. To stand up and give a menu of what we want from our regions and the areas in which we live will not be the answer either. I can make a case for the south east. I have the report of the regional committee of the south east which I could read through and put the south east's case. It stands alone and I do not have to tell the Minister of State the case for the second bridge in Waterford, an airport or a third level university in our region. The shopping list is there and the needs are real.

With the huge diminution in Structural Funds — we are down to 20 per cent of what we now get — how will we fund the capital projects which will be essential for the growth of the Celtic tiger we need to absorb the young people coming on to the labour force and to bring home emigrants who want to return and rear their families in Ireland, as they have been able to do in recent years? With 20 per cent of the funding we now get, how will the Government make up the difference for the capital projects?

Recently, the Minister for Finance with his ECOFIN colleagues tied us in — and rightly so in principle — as regards the stability pact and to rigid budgetary discipline in return for the 3 per cent revaluation of the Irish pound. He got the 3 per cent revaluation when he went cap in hand before EMU was nailed down. He got it because he gave in return commitments in relation to the rigid budgetary discipline and because of the stability pact in place that there will be no budget deficit of more than 3 per cent. That means in good times we will have to be in surplus to be able to carry the bad times at no less than 3 per cent.

Given the stability pact and the commitment he has given to his ECOFIN colleagues in return for the revaluation of the Irish pound, where will we raise the money? We cannot spend our own money as we are tied to what we can spend. How will these major infrastructural projects which are so badly needed be continued if we do not fight hard to retain Objective One status for the country on the basis of GNP rather than GDP assessment? At the very least, we must ensure large regions — the west, the Border regions, the midlands and the south east — retain their Objective One status based on GNP figures, to which they are entitled. The Government will not be able to make up the difference if there is a reduction to 20 per cent in Structural Funds on the capital projects which are critical.

We only have to look at the M50, the ring road around Dublin, which was much heralded. We could not wait for it to open. The cement was not dry or the tarmac was not set before notices went up which said to expect peak hour delays of half an hour. We are running hard even to catch up on where we should have been ten years ago. There does not appear to be the procedures where we will be able to spend the money ourselves to make up the shortfall from Europe for infrastructural capital projects which will prevent total gridlock in our city and in the greater Dublin area.

We need answers to these questions as to how the Government will pick up the tab if we lose Objective One status in or around the Dublin area, which by any measurement would be hard to defend. I urge the Minister to ensure the case is made and fought for in Dublin and that we assess Ireland's eligibility on the basis of GNP and not GDP figures. On that basis, large areas of Ireland should still be entitled to full Objective One status and smaller areas, including parts of the east coast should be entitled to Objective One status in transition.

We need to know what will be in the national plan for the draw down for the years 2000-6, the Government's plans, to which bodies it is listening and how it will ensure social cohesion as well as our capital programme, which is critical for Ireland, especially more remote isolated areas. We are the only island left in the European Union, the only country with no land bridge, and yet we are likely to be severed from our source of funding of which we have made good use — perhaps not the best of use in all cases — in recent years. I look forward to the Minister's response and I hope he will take up the points we made when discussing and making his case.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject which is dear to my heart. I welcome the Minister, who is one of the most conscientious and committed Ministers. He is sincere and will take the message he receives in this House on board. It is difficult to stomach the fact Senator Avril Doyle has turned this issue into a political football. We are fairly committed and sincere. The Senator may go back over old ground in a political manner and fly as many flags as she wishes, but where will it get her? Where will she get speaking eloquently about what Deputy Albert Reynolds did not get? Deputy Albert Reynolds was a suitable person, was well thought of in Europe and did a great deal. Those who helped him to negotiate did excellent work for Ireland.

The EU has been good to us. The case made initially in the national development plan included the need for improvements in the infrastructure in the west and in the Border counties. We were not as prepared as Dublin and other centres to take advantage of the funding, which is our problem. There is no truth in Senator Avril Doyle's statement that the Commissioners are not sincere and committed. Recently, I, and the cross-Border group, met the Commissioner for Regional Development, who is sympathetic and committed to the need to provide funding for certain regions which have not reached the standard of economic development she expects. Not only is she ready to negotiate but she is enthusiastic about meeting people from the regions and Government.

I met the IFA and one of the items on its agenda was to put pressure on to retain Objective One status. However, it neglected to draw a line on the map. This is shadowboxing. I would have thought the IFA with its national spread would have been the first to come up with a plan and recommendations. We have not done that yet and we will not depend on the IFA. The Government recognises the need to make a proposal quickly. The Commissioner for Regional Development and the EU are ready to accept and consider proposals. The Commissioner is waiting for a submission, which will not be easy to produce because there are differing opinions on whether we should select areas. People have even suggested parts of Dublin should be included. We have to make up our minds and reach agreement, which might not be easy because Limerick, parts of Clare, Cork and Kerry will seek to be included. Where will it end? Somebody will have to take on the responsibility and make a case for the areas where the retention of Objective One status is necessary.

We have a special problem in County Donegal. For the past 25 years we have survived despite the focus being on the North. It was economically profitable to set up a business in the North because, despite the political differences in the North where violence prevailed and people lost their lives, John Hume, Jim Nicholson and Ian Paisley got together and met the Commissioner in Belfast to put their case. They were successful in coming together to convince the Commissioner about the amount of money the North needed.

Approximately 80 per cent of the major funding for the Border counties was spent in Northern Ireland which meant that those counties were obliged to survive on the remaining 20 per cent. There are 70 national organisations, some of which are based in the Border counties, and there is not enough money to pay for the administration and structures which have been put in place. My team and I are going to fight to ensure that people recognise where problems exist.

In the past ten years at least 14 American trade groups visited Northern Ireland to identify areas where economic assistance was required. Not one of those groups visited the South or the Border counties. As stated on previous occasions, public and elected representatives in the Republic were obliged to keep their heads down and not complain because of the fact that people were being killed in Northern Ireland and the main focus was placed there as a result.

Representatives of the Border counties have made their case but the issue of the geographical extent of the west remains to be resolved. In that context, will the Minister of State endeavour to see if his Department can develop a final proposal to put to Europe? If we do not resolve this issue, we will lose out. As already stated, I met the Commissioner, who informed me that she would welcome and is awaiting a submission to deal with this problem. Will the Minister of State ensure that urgent action is taken? Everyone will lose if we continue to delay putting forward a submission.

When the initial submission was made in respect of the National Development Plan, the lack of infrastructure in the west was the reason put forward to obtain EU funding. It is difficult to understand how an area which was highlighted in terms of its need for infrastructural funding lost out to the light rail system, Dublin or other areas when that funding became available. We must be seen to be committed to obtaining Government support to enable us to get down to brass tacks and make a submission in the near future. If we do not do so, the west will lose out.

Representatives of the Border counties have made their submission and the Commission recognises that we have suffered serious deprivation because prospective industries were not sited in our region. Those who represent the west must come together, draw a line on the map and make their submission quickly.

I support the motion. The case for Objective One status for the poorer regions, particularly the west, has been well documented by a number of groups throughout the country.

The level of deprivation in rural areas of the west has been unprecedented in recent years. Let us consider the example of County Mayo, where the number of Dáil seats was reduced from six to five prior to the last general election. I am informed that the electorate in the county has decreased by 500 since the election took place. The situation is not improving. When the figures for GDP per head of population are compared with the European average, it is clear that those which obtain in the west are by far the lowest. According to the statistics for the period to the end of 1995, the figure for the west was 64.4 per cent of the EU average, which compares with a figure of 121.5 per cent for Dublin and a national average of 92 per cent. There is a need to balance the equation, particularly as it relates to the west and the northwest. There is also a case for redressing the balance in respect of the midlands — for which the figure in respect of GDP per head of population is 66.1 per cent, the second lowest — and the Border region. I hope the Government will give recognition to these regions, particularly the west.

When the last round of Structural Funds for the period 1994-99 was allocated, the west, particularly County Mayo, fared badly in the context of national primary and secondary routes and railway lines. Funding was not provided for a national primary or secondary route in County Mayo and it was not provided in respect of the Athlone-Westport-Ballina railway line. That line has deteriorated to such an extent that if drastic action is not taken it will have to be shut down on the grounds of safety. Will the Minister of State convey to the Government the necessity to seriously consider making part of the £114 million originally earmarked for the Luas project available to upgrade the Athlone-Westport-Ballina railway line? The line is in such a state of disrepair that it takes four and a half hours to travel from Ballina to Dublin on a good day. Trains using the line travel at a slower pace than the steam trains which used it when it was first put in place.

A number of sections of the national primary route from Longford to Westport were completed prior to 1994. However, no further work has been carried out on the road since the new round of Structural Funds were put in place. At present it takes three and a half to four hours to travel from the west to Dublin. At a time when huge amounts of money are being secured from the EU in the form of Structural Funds on the basis of the needs of poorer parts of the country, such funding should be allocated to the regions that deserve it. However, when the evidence is considered, it is clear that the vast bulk of this money has been spent on the east coast. I accept that many worthy projects were completed but it is obvious that there is an imbalance in the way this money has been spent heretofore. For that reason I fully support the motion before the House because the western, midlands and Border regions clearly require Objective One funding in the next round of Structural Funds.

The Government will face a dilemma unless the Commission accepts the devolvement of power to the regions or regional authorities. Given their present make-up, the regional authorities are inadequate; they have neither finance nor decision making powers at their disposal. Power will not be devolved to them as they stand. Does the Government have the will to devise an effective sub-regional scheme that will be empowered to draw down Objective One status for the next round of Structural Funds? We are all agreed there is an imbalance in the way these funds have been distributed.

There are a number of worthy schemes in the western region, from sewerage to water to national primary routes and the railway lines. No Government has addressed the problem of national secondary routes, which will require much funding over the coming years. My county has probably more national secondary roads than any other. Approximately £18 million to £20 million is distributed annually on maintenance and upkeep of national secondary routes, which is inadequate. In many instances they can be as important as national primary routes. Schemes must be devised to safeguard the national road network because national secondary routes are deteriorating to an alarming degree. It must be asked if they can cope with the increasing volumes of traffic on the roads.

I support the motion. The west and the north-west deserve Objective One status from the next round of Structural Funds. The seriousness of the matter must be impressed on the Government. I hope the Minister will bring the question of the provision of a railway line along the western route to the Government's urgent attention.

Those with an appreciation of economics can see the improvements and wealth created by the current tranche of Structural Funds. They have helped economic growth and all aspects of infrastructural development. Funding for health services, airports, county councils and water schemes have all benefited. There have been huge improvements in living standards, especially in areas where there has been substantial expenditure.

I support the concept of Objective One status for some of the regions. If it is to treat its citizens in an equal and fair way, the Government is obliged to look at the distribution of funding, especially in view of the NESC report which outlined the way investment and growth has occurred over the last eight to ten years. The report also details the regions which have suffered decline. In view of this, the Government must do something to redress imbalances which have arisen.

There has been much activity by the Commission for the West, the Western Development Authority, county councils, agricultural groups, especially the IFA and other interested parties, such as Knock Airport. There is also greater public awareness of the need to strengthen the Government's hand in redressing the imbalance created by rural decline and the lack of structural development.

The NESC report recommends strategic investment and specific development schemes. For example, County Mayo, a maritime county, takes in supplies of fish valued at approximately £500,000 per annum. Given the county's huge coastline its maritime economy should underpin the rural economy. Previous Governments have failed to develop the seaweed industry to its full potential in a way that would help the long-term sustainability of rural populations.

All county councils are setting down their objectives, some of which are very worthwhile. While all will seek Objective One status, the Government must pay specific attention to halting the decline of rural communities. Many towns in the western region have grown to the extent that industries can locate there. In view of their natural resources they can sustain most of their population if they are given specific support and if proper structures are put in place.

It is deplorable that the criteria used for approaching the EU with regard to the provision of funding for the rail services, especially to the west, were based solely on socio-economic issues when an economic case could be made. For example, semi-State bodies could become involved. Coillte engages in huge extractions of timber, much of which could be carried for export by rail rather than road. Iarnród Éireann has failed in that regard. Such an approach would also help to sustain employment and on that basis areas would justify investment in the long term.

One of the most important aspects of structural funding for our national road network is that the Government should allocate some Structural Funds to a targeted rural development policy. Many headage payments and subsidies were provided out of Structural Funds in the past and we should now target rural development. That, together with other strategic investment approaches, would do a great deal to sustain long-term development, particularly in areas which are in decline.

Commissioner Pádraig Flynn indicated the case for regionalisation needed to be examined on the grounds it might do the State's overall case some harm. On the other hand, Commissioner Wulf-Mathies said Europe wants regional structures. Further thought must be given to that. Specific strategic investment must be given to the counties which need it.

I intend to adopt an attitude similar to that of Senator Chambers and look at the positive aspects of European Union membership. I am delighted we have this opportunity to air our views on Structural and Cohesion Funds. We all have our own local priorities but we must examine the best strategy to deal with the matter.

The country has benefited enormously from our Objective One status. Anyone travelling throughout the country can see how well we have managed European funding and the tremendous benefits it has given the country as a whole. The European Union is the best show in town in terms of all the bright, new homes throughout the country. A great deal of EU money has been channelled into every tier of education which has enabled us to advertise ourselves as young, educated Europeans which, in turn, has attracted multinational industries. We are also a stepping stone to the European Union for multinational companies which see us as a desirable base. That has, in turn, had an impact on our unemployment levels which are reducing at an attractive rate. There are also many EU funded infrastructural projects and cross-Border activities. Europe has undoubtedly been good for the prosperity of this country. We can all indicate pockets in which EU funding has not been evenly spread but the country has generally benefited enormously.

I sympathise greatly with Senators from the west. The area west of the Shannon seems to be almost totally an Objective One status area.

The Senator is speaking as a west of Ireland man.

I have to occasionally — one must remember one's roots. I will talk about Dublin soon. The west, and to a lesser degree the midlands, have undoubtedly lagged behind in terms of the distribution of funding. However, we must remember that Dublin has not benefited to a great extent. There is still massive traffic congestion and gridlock in Dublin and many necessary infrastructural projects, such as Luas, have not been embarked on yet. The £140 million for Luas will have to be distributed on other projects if we do not meet the deadline. We are not sure of the target date for the port tunnel, which is another major infrastructural project needed in Dublin. There is a great need for rolling stock on the various rail lines in the city. The quality bus corridors are underfunded and under-resourced and we still have not finished the southern cross motorway. There are substantial outstanding rail and road projects in Dublin.

There are also environmental issues, such as waste disposal. When will we reach the tertiary stage of waste disposal? Some 40 per cent of water in Dublin pipelines is wasted because of leakage. Does the Minister have any views on who is responsible, because the funding is there? Is it the responsibility of the local authority or the Department of the Environment and Local Government? What has stopped us from investing the money in that project?

There is also the question of integrated area projects. A number of Senators referred to the uneven distribution of such projects. There is a plethora of areas of serious deprivation in my constituency, such as Ballyfermot, Ballymun, Sheriff Street and Seán McDermott Street, where European funding and the Celtic tiger do not seem to have stopped. There is a great deal of work to be done there.

We are now in a transitional period in regard to Objective One status. How much money are we likely to get from the Structural and Cohesion Funds? Will there be mid-term reassessment of the funds between 2000 and 2006 or will we be able to plan for a six year period? Will we be able to get front loaded-funding from the Government or the private sector to make up the difference? These are the hard decisions we must make, but we cannot make them until we know how long the term will be, how much funding we will receive and the type of projects which will be presented. We have a very short period to present our proposals — I think the deadline is a few months away and there is a great deal of work to be done. There are many projects which need to be up and running, both in Dublin and throughout the rest of the country.

We must ensure we are at least in transition stage over the entire six years. The Union will enlarge after 2006. It is very unlikely we will be beneficiaries at that stage; we are more likely to be net contributors. Once we are net contributors we shall have to stand on our own and forget about EU funding, even though it is a major contributor to our economy at present. Therefore, any EU funds we receive now and up to 2006 must be used wisely.

In conclusion, I welcome the debate on our Objective One status and look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am delighted to be able to speak on this issue as I come from the West, a region that has been strongly disadvantaged throughout the last allocation of EU funds. While there has been fair allocation of certain funds, a larger amount of Structural Funds have gone towards the east coast rather than the west coast of Ireland. History books will record Ireland's decision to join the EU as a good one because in 1973 we had 55 per cent of the EU average earnings whereas now it is greater than 92 per cent if we include the entire country. Unfortunately, the average earnings in the west of Ireland are less than 75 per cent compared with the rest of the EU. It is, therefore, very important that Objective One status and funding for certain regions is maintained at its current level. Other Members will make a case for the regions they represent but I wish to represent the west.

We need a thriving private sector to maintain the Celtic tiger. While it is not the Government's or the EU's responsibility to maintain the Celtic tiger, it is our responsibility to continue to create an environment conducive to private sector expansion and growth. Job creation is the responsibility of the public and private sector. The economic conditions that must be in place are competitiveness, labour market flexibility, the ability of manufacturers to transport their goods to foreign markets and the ability to employ people to work in factories and centres of employment throughout the region. This means we must have a proper network of transportation for people to travel to and from work and for goods to be transported by rail or road.

There is not an adequate roads infrastructure in the west. If a person drove within the speed limit it would take three and a half hours to drive from Galway to Dublin. This length of time is unacceptable and we cannot allow this situation to continue. We need to improve the current roads network from Galway city to Dublin. If someone is driving from Clifden to Dublin by the time they reach Ballinasloe they have half their journey over. It is not possible for manufacturers in the west to operate in an equal climate to those on the east coast. We do not have a suitable infrastructure, neither roads nor an airline network. We have Shannon and Knock airports. In Galway we have only a small regional airport which cannot take aircraft larger than an 18 seater jet; we are looking at a 55 seater propeller aeroplane that Aer Lingus uses three times a day. Since they added a third flight into Galway airport the volume of business has increased enormously, particularly by people who travel to Dublin on the 6.15 a.m. flight and return to Galway on the 3 p.m. flight. The west needs more of this type of initiative. We also need a better airport to service the region. Some people might say there are enough airports here but as an island on the periphery of Europe air transportation is very important.

Our rail network needs to be improved. We particularly need a transportation corridor from Donegal to Cork which services the west. The current roads infrastructure is not good enough. Our telecommunications is not good enough. Telecom Éireann continually invests in this area but we still need better telecommunication services. There is no reason the west cannot become a home-based industry where people use ISDN lines and modern communications systems and computers to enable them to work for the rest of the country, Europe or the world. In order to do this we need an immediate investment in those types of infrastructure.

Our ports also need to be looked at. Again, Ireland is an island on the periphery of Europe. Another Member already mentioned that we have no land bridge to Europe. The west in particular — a region on the periphery of this island on the periphery of Europe — is a special case which must be emphasised at all levels, national and EU. The case for Objective One status for the west cannot be argued about.

In terms of our national secondary roads I wish to refer to the N84 which services Headford and Galway. In 1998 the National Roads Authority allocated £200,000 for improvements to that road. That amount does not even cover the necessary laying of tarmacadam on one tiny section of it to maintain its current standard. There are dangerous bends on this road. People are commuting to Galway on journeys lasting 30 minutes to an hour and these roads are unsuitable for the current level and type of traffic. If a person uses the national primary road from Galway to Dublin early in the morning or late at night it will take three and a half hours. It takes much longer if you have to travel during the middle of the day.

We must continue to attract jobs to the west, otherwise we will witness rural depopulation. People will leave the areas they grew up in and move to towns, particularly those on the eastern side of the country which are already overpopulated. We must survive rural depopulation. We must provide people with facilities and jobs to enable them to remain in the areas in which they were brought up. There must be sustainable development. If we do not invest in the west, in its infrastructure, and we do not have the assistance of Objective One and the percentage of funds being provided for the west, we will not be able to survive. I do not want to live in a country where the markets, jobs and economic prosperity are based in one area. We need to ensure this does not happen. I appeal to the Minister when he and his Department are fighting to secure the best deal for Ireland — and I have no doubt that they will do that — that, while there is no hope of getting Objective One status for the entire country, they should not forget the west. The west needs the money and the investment. There is no argument as to what we can do for the rest of the country if we get our fair share of funds.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I am delighted the Government tabled this motion as it is important we have a full public debate on the entire details surrounding our EU membership. The EU was previously referred to as the EC. We have been members of the EU for the past 25 years. We have benefited greatly from this association and we must now examine our future within the EU. Many people feel we are in a position to be net contributors rather than net beneficiaries. We must outline in detail how much EU funding each county has received. The sooner this is done the sooner we will have a realistic view of our current situation.

It is claimed that only 8 per cent of Structural and Cohesion Funds have been invested in the west and that the overwhelming majority of money has been invested in the east. I want exact details of the breakdown because we should strive towards natural justice, fair play and equality. If a clear picture emerges that there is a serious imbalance, as I believe to be the case, the matter must be urgently redressed. The Government and the EU must take a proactive and positive approach.

Various EU Commissioners visited Ireland over the years. On occasions western counties felt privileged that a Commissioner was brought by the Government of the day to visit them. However, people in the counties may not have recognised that Commissioners were brought there to show a particularly disadvantaged picture, but it was not necessarily the case that the money allocated was spent in the most seriously disadvantaged areas.

Between now and the conclusion of the debate next week, I want the Minister to address a number of specific questions in relation to the amount of EU funding allocated to Ireland since 1990 and how much each Department has spent in every county. Given the availability of modern technology, this information should be readily available on a county by county basis. This debate cannot be conducted fairly unless the details of per capita income in each county and the source of funding, whether from direct employment or community or social welfare payments, are made available. Proper figures are needed to ensure that a fair case can be made to Europe.

The economy is booming but the Celtic tiger has not benefited all sections of society. Action needs to be taken in these areas to ensure there is natural justice and equality, particularly regarding investment in employment. There are many unemployment blackspots throughout the country, including parts of Dublin where there are massive contrasts between rich and poor areas. This position needs to be redressed. There is also a vast gap in terms of the west versus the east regarding standards of living, employment opportunities and ancillary services which need to be put in place.

Regarding the investment of Structural Funds, the national primary road network in the east has been dramatically developed in stark contrast to the network along the west coast. This aspect needs to be redressed. The position regarding national secondary routes in the west is a total disaster. If an industrialist who wishes to invest in an area travels on some of the national secondary routes, he or she automatically decides that they will not invest in the area because the roads are so bad. Substantial investment in national secondary roads is required.

A matter which does not receive much attention is the large extent of coastal erosion round the country. In 1994, the then Government made a submission to Europe for Structural Funds to address this area. This matter, which is a real problem in every coastal county, was not included in the original submissions. An assessment was carried out a number of years ago but the amount of money allocated would not even have dealt with the problems in one county. This issue must be addressed.

There is an international airport in County Clare but it has been downgraded by the removal of its trans-Atlantic status. From figures which emerged recently, there is no comparison between it and Dublin and Cork Airports in terms of the level of traffic and development. Shannon Airport is not at the races. The Government must consider investment in this area. I urge the Minister to take these matters into account when he is preparing the case for Objective One status.

I would appreciate specific answers from the Minister. The debate will not be successful unless specific details are provided. A proper case and proper judgments can only be made on the basis of this information. I hope the end result will be that the best case possible for the entire country will be put forward. There is a case to be made for regionalisation because some areas deserve Objective One status. This has been done in other countries, such as Italy and England. If the Government is consistent and positive in terms of adopting that approach, I am sure it can be implemented successfully in Ireland also.

I thank Senators for tabling this important motion and the quality of their contributions. I will try to respond to some of the issues raised and also set out the Government's approach to this important matter in terms of Ireland's interests in the future.

Between 1989 and the end of the current programme in 1999, Ireland will have received approximately £9 billion in Structural and Cohesion Funds. This has helped co-finance an investment programme of approximately £18 billion. Structural and Cohesion Fund transfers have, therefore, played an important role in Ireland's economic transformation over the past decade. They have enabled us to pursue our infrastructural development programme, tackle urban and rural deprivation and to facilitate major investment in key sectors such as indigenous industry and tourism.

By any standard, Ireland has made excellent use of Structural and Cohesion Funds. Combined with other factors, they have delivered the excellent economic position which Ireland enjoys at present. As a result, Ireland is no longer a region lagging behind economically but one which is fast approaching the European average in terms of wealth per capita. It is against this background that we face into preparations for the next round of Structural Funds.

In the context of the motion, we must be precise about what we mean when we discuss regions which meet certain criteria. We must be clear about what is and what is not available to us in the next round of Structural Funding. In addition, we must be clear that what we seek in the negotiations is in the best interests of the economy as a whole with which all our futures are bound up. I stress that the best solution is one in which there is no divisiveness or regional discrimination. Many Senators who represent different regions referred to this aspect.

Ireland as a whole is currently treated for Structural Fund purposes as a single region under Objective One which channels Community support to the most disadvantaged regions of the Union that are lagging behind economically. The criterion for this eligibility is a per capita income in GDP terms of below 75 per cent of the Community average. Ireland's GDP per capita now well exceeds this figure. Therefore, as a region and member state it no longer qualifies for Objective One status. This is the first truth which must be recognised.

Senator Doyle and others made the point that there is a larger gap in Ireland compared to most of our European colleagues in terms of GDP and GNP. However, the criterion used in the last round was GDP. We cannot expect this to be changed suddenly to suit Ireland. Nonetheless, we have explained and will continue to emphasise to the Commission and other member states that the GDP figure may overstate our prosperity, especially compared to our GNP. We expect and hope that the difference between the two figures will be taken into account when the final approach to the criteria for allocations after 1999 are considered. If it were the case that strict eligibility had to be applied, Ireland as a single region under the relevant regional statistical map of Europe — which comprises over 2,000 regions across Europe — would not qualify for Objective One status and would have to settle for much lower levels of transfers from the outset. The European Commission in its Agenda 2000 proposals recognised it would be undesirable for a region which had been receiving assistance to be suddenly cut off from it. This would create a shock to the economy which could threaten progress already made. Therefore — and the Government had been lobbying for this — some arrangement was essential to avoid such an economic shock.

In Agenda 2000, the Commission proposed that regions like Ireland who were "graduating", so to speak, from Objective One status would be given transition status. I will explain what this means in practical terms. For the first two years of the next round of funding the whole country will enjoy full Objective One status, even if this will not be as generous as in the last round. It is important that we appreciate this. From then on there will be a gradual reduction in support levels until, by 2006, the lower Objective Two levels of funding will be reached. This is the Commission's proposal and we must see what can be done to improve it. This is what the coming negotiations will be about.

This idea of transition has been designed by the Commission to ease the way out of full Objective One status. In the Council of Ministers where the proposals have yet to be agreed there will be some who feel that this treatment is too generous. We must also recognise we cannot expect, on whatever basis the next round of Structural Funds is established, to do as well in money terms as in the last round. I think everyone in the Chamber recognises that fact.

Qualifying for Objective One is only part of the story. A region must also have the population numbers, low prosperity measured according to GDP and GNP, and high unemployment figures to justify its share of funding. Even if all of Ireland was to qualify for Objective One status under the next round the effect of these factors would be to reduce our share vis-à-vis the current round. This reduction could be higher given the inevitable fact that either all or most of Ireland will be in transition under the next round.

Turning to regionalisation, which got much mention this evening, the Government is conscious that the prosperity which has been achieved has not applied uniformly throughout the country and it is committed to addressing this problem. Undoubtedly certain subregions of Ireland — I call them subregions to distinguish them from regions for Objective One purposes — have not done as well as the rest of the country in terms of indicators applying at the more localised level. In particular, the subregions of the Border counties, the west and the midlands currently have a per capita GDP of less than 75 per cent of the EU average and are likely to be below that level for the reference period to be used for the next round. In this context one possible approach, as implied in the motion before this House, to address the development requirements of those parts of Ireland would be to adopt a regionalisation approach to the next round of structural unding. Under such an approach, the existing single region of Ireland would be reconstituted as two regions, of which one could consist of those parts of the country whose per capita GDP is below 75 per cent of the EU average. If such an approach were put in place, that region would qualify for full Objective One status, while the rest of the country would be a transition region covered by Objective One but on a diminishing scale.

I emphasise in the strongest possible way that we cannot unilaterally adopt a regionalisation approach. In the first instance, the proposal for new regions would have to be put to Eurostat, the Commission's statistical service, whose approval on statistical and other grounds would be necessary. It would then be for the European Commission as a whole to decide. Indications to date as to the likely response to this option are not positive. In particular, Commissioner Wulf-Mathies has made clear she could not support proposals to change the current regional map basis for Objective One status which were not adequately based in terms of regional administration. In addition, the Commission fears the precedent effect of such a proposal. If Ireland and other countries were to opt for this approach on the basis that it would increase their share of Structural Funds, the Commission's overall strategy for the next round — that is, concentrating aid in the poorest regions of the EU — would be undermined. It should be recalled that there are regions in Europe with a GDP per capita well below that of the west, Border counties and the midlands and the Commission will undoubtedly be opposed to transferring funds earmarked for poorer regions to more wealthy regions.

However, I reiterate the Government's commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium to those regions of the country which are lagging behind. I assure Senators that the Government has not ruled out pursuit of a regionalisation approach. The matter is receiving detailed consideration and has been raised with the Commission at political and official levels. A decision on the issue will be made as soon as possible.

Whether Ireland remains as a single region in transition or is split into two regions, the Government will ensure that the ensuing national plan is attentive to the needs of our poorer regions. The Department of Finance has already started preparations for the next national plan and has invited submissions from all regional authorities including those for the west, the midlands and the Border counties. I urge those authorities to submit well argued investment priorities for consideration in the context of the next plan. Whether we opt for the single region or regionalisation route the key must be that we are positioned to make good use of the funds, especially against the background of a drop in EU transfers.

This topic is particularly important to those parts of Ireland mentioned in the motion. I welcome the Minister's recognition that Objective One status has not benefited certain regions, according to indicators applying at a more localised level, because that is definitely the case in the west, the Border counties and my own region, the midlands. I am a member of Westmeath County Council. Twenty years ago the county had a five seat constituency, 15 years ago it was reduced to a four seater and it is now a three seater. That shows the decline of population in rural Ireland, especially the midlands, west and Border counties.

Commissioners who decide how best to help Ireland will know that Europe has made a tremendous contribution in the last ten years — it has transformed our infrastructure on many fronts, including roads and sewerage. However, the job is only half done. The Irish people have responded well and made great progress. Irish Governments have also contributed in this period, especially Mr. Haughey's Government of 1987 which reached agreement with the trade unions, farmers and employers. That put Ireland on a sound footing as a progressive economy playing its part in Europe.

Our great asset is our young people, but we do not want to see them going to school and then having to move into the bigger towns and cities. Longford has received special derogation in the upper Shannon region and it should be congratulated on a job well done. I know a former Taoiseach and many Deputies in the midlands, Roscommon, Cavan, Leitrim and Sligo will be pleased. However, unless north Westmeath, the area I represent, maintains Objective One status it has no chance of getting investment to help or improve the area. The parish of Coole has lost 26 per cent of its population and the parish of Castletown-Finnea has lost 31 per cent.

I quoted these figures previously in the House and received support from Senator Joe O'Toole, who is familiar with the area. Many Senators have made a case for the west of Ireland, but the Bog of Allen covers most of the midlands. Much of it is bogland owned by Bord na Móna or old forestry land. It is poor land and only a small portion of it has been known in folklore as "beef to the heel of the Mullingar heifer." 92 per cent of north Westmeath is severely disadvantaged but it never falls into a category where it can be assisted in job creation, population retention or area improvement. The people of the area are hard working and have contributed a great deal to the economy throughout their lives. They created Bord na Móna in 1946 and gave it everything they had, but the company has left and there is no opportunity for employment unless tax incentives are given to manufacturers to set up industry.

I make a special plea to the Minister on behalf of the people of north Westmeath and the Coole electoral area in particular, whom I have been fortunate to represent. Ultimately, it is shameful to see a 10 per cent decrease in population during one's tenure as a public representative. The Cathaoirleach will concur with this because Strokestown is no different to Castlepollard. Serious issues are being addressed and sustaining a population in rural Ireland is a must. We must maintain our values, the love of our national games and, in the words of Patrick Farrell, "Where is the one who does not love the land where they were born." No one likes to go into built up areas in large towns and cities. North Westmeath is the beautiful lakes district of the midlands. It is sheer bad luck, based on the breakdown of the country by all Governments, that incentives for investment have not been provided there as they have been in many other areas.

I do not want to see any more schools or churches close in the area. I read about the Celtic tiger and am aware of all the good it has brought and the increased employment in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and other major towns and cities. We have seen the success of urban renewal. It has been magnificent and has enhanced derelict areas in large towns and cities beyond our wildest dreams. In 1987 the most popular area in Europe for filming pre-war movies was from the Aisling Hotel to O'Connell Street in Dublin. A new building had not been constructed along that stretch in over 40 years. As a result of urban renewal, almost every building along that stretch of the quays is new. I congratulate all Ministers for the Environment, Taoisigh and Governments who made that happen.

Rural renewal is non-existent in the midlands, the west and the Border counties. If this Government under a dynamic, young Taoiseach is really interested in rural renewal I challenge them to show the people they are by putting the Department with responsibility for it into an area that is deprived and where the problem is understood best. Sub-offices of the Department were sited in many towns, but Mullingar and other towns in north Westmeath got nothing. I make a plea for fair play on behalf of the people of north Westmeath, who richly deserve it, and I am proud that I am the representative to make that plea.

Senator Cassidy stole my speech. I support the motion and welcome the Minister to the House. His contribution documented well the Government's current position and the direction in which it may go in future. It is not right to draw lines through the country. We need to drift away from the term "Objective One status" and have proper, professional studies conducted in urban and rural areas to examine where poverty and deprivation exists. Then we might produce a plan best suited to the country.

Since 1990 money has been well spent, but the gravitation of people from rural Ireland to centres of population has not benefited the country, even in wealthier areas, such as along the east coast. If we are to maintain a balanced population it is necessary to recognise the need for rural renewal and to achieve that result. The Minister needs to have the country examined professionally in terms of income and development potential. Investment in the past was good for Dublin, as Senator Cassidy said, but perhaps it was too good because it may have robbed the south, the west and the south-west of its people. A balance is needed, and when a new plan is drafted a system should be devised which would allow Dublin and the east coast, the wealthier part of the country, to grow at its natural rate and invest accordingly.

As for the other regions — the motion is concerned with the west, the north-west, the Border counties and the midlands — a study was carried out in northwest Cork by University College Cork and supported by Cork County Council which showed that the region was the most impoverished in the country. The same could be said for the furthest regions of west Cork and I am sure the same could be said for parts of other counties. There are parts of Dublin, Cork and other cities which are similar.

If something is to be done, if people are to be helped and if there is to be balance and common sense, a proper study must be conducted so that funding can be applied to the most deserving regions. I am not interested in whether it is called Objective One status or transitional status. We should plan for the whole country, concentrating on the regions most in need and on the regions which can support themselves. The opportunity should be given to all. Since 1990 we have received FEOGA grants and Structural and Cohesion Funds. They have been of assistance, and reference was made earlier to Munster, which did well from them as it had an agricultural base. However, as I pointed out, there are parts of Munster and my county which are badly deprived. I compliment the people of the west for examining their situation, discussing it and for coming together in a cohesive manner to project their requirements. There are other equally deprived areas and that is the case I make. If there were a plan for the country which would lend itself to the development of all the people, we would be on the right road.

I am sure the Minister will leave the House with the names of different parts of the country ringing in his ears as there has been something akin to a tour of Ireland during this debate. That is appropriate because it is obvious from the debate, and the Minister will be the first to acknowledge it, that there are areas of the country which are severely socially and economically disadvantaged. There are grave disparities within the nation. The Minister stated that there is general recognition that areas of the country and aspects of the economy are severely deficient. The most important part of the Minister's speech related to the realities facing this country as it struggles to convince Europe that it needs a continuation of funding under Objective One status. The Minister stated that we must recognise that we cannot expect to do as well financially as in the last round, whatever the grounds on which the next round of Structural Funds is based. We must start from that premise. I compliment the Government on its obvious determination to ensure throughout the transitional phase that Ireland gets as large a share of the loot as is going.

While I support the motion — coming from County Leitrim, I could not do otherwise — it occurs to me that we sometimes have a narrow view of the world outside. Expansion is occurring at an accelerated pace within Europe. The countries which will join the European Union after 2002 have a GDP well below ours. They are post Communist countries struggling to rebuild their economies and Ireland is to the forefront in supporting their entry into the EU. If we are the pacemakers in terms of what Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds have achieved over the past 20 years, it is not surprising that the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia are seeking Structural Funds to improve their economies. This will ultimately create a greater consumer base which will help our economy, which is open and export-led, to sell more of its goods and services. There is a downside and an upside.

A trend running through debates on this matter is the sense of anger and frustration felt in the areas seeking to retain Objective One status. The anger is because they believe that since Structural Funds first became available to the country, successive Governments have tended to support one side of the economy. The perception is that if one lives on the east coast, from Louth to Wexford, one has gained, be it the development of the DART, the arterial road system around Dublin or the creation of jobs and the consequent infrastructure from the industries which have set up. The frustration is that we now seem to be moving towards a phased reduction in funding from Europe in the very areas in the west and other disadvantaged areas, such as those in the midlands to which the Leader referred, which need assistance.

When people are asked what is meant by Objective One status or what it is they most wish to have for their areas, they will say they want better roads and a better transport system. They would like more access to buses and rail transport and an upgrading and improvement of the latter. They would also like better water and sewerage facilities so that they can continue to build and live in the areas, towns and villages in which they grew up or to which they have returned after emigrating. That is what Objective One status is about. People in the agricultural economy will say that they want most of all to be able to stay on the family farm, small and unviable as it may be, to raise their children in relative prosperity and to give them access to educational and other facilities available in cities and towns. They are the priorities of people when they talk of Objective One status.

The Government is preparing us for a phasing out of the high levels of European funding which we have enjoyed over the past ten years in the two operational programmes, 1989-94 and 1994-9. There are certain pointers in that direction — for example, the recent decision of the Government to go in the direction of privatisation. I welcome that and believe we should have grasped the nettle of privatisation of public utilities a long time ago. It is the way forward for us. The Government's actions and the response of work-forces, especially that in Telecom Éireann, is an indication of the new climate of acceptance in the area. While it is a debate for another day, it is obvious privatisation will generate significant sums of money for the Irish Exchequer. It is also obvious that this new money will help finance large public projects, such as the Luas and other major transport infrastructural programmes. That is welcome.

In the context of European funding, we in the west have not always gained from the criteria and parameters laid down by Europe on co-financing. For example, in the case of the cause céle bre, the Dublin-Sligo railway line, the result of the cost benefit analysis operated as a criteria by the European Commission was that only the Dublin-Mullingar section of the line was eligible for co-financing. Consequently, any further upgrading or improvement of the line from Mullingar to Sligo or for the Galway line, the Westport line or other lines to the west, must be met from Government resources. Whither Europe in that regard? In the funding provided by other programmes for other measures in the transport area, cost benefit analysis again seems to rule the roost. I believe that, based on the Minister's confident assertion, there is a recognition of the needs of the areas we are discussing and that the Government, pushed by lobbyists like ourselves, will move towards tackling the disparities which exist.

The invitation the Minister has extended to the regional authorities, in the context of the development of the new national plan, is to be welcomed and should be acted upon. May I sound one word of caution. Some of us remember, in the pre-1989 situation, the very same invitation being extended to the subregions to prioritise their investment projects and many of those projects are still gathering dust in the Minister's office. We have been down that road.

We were those soldiers.

I hope we will not be sold a pup a second time, that real consultation will take place and the priorities of the regional authorities will be implemented.

Debate adjourned.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Top
Share