I welcome the Minister to the House for the debate which is of extreme importance, particularly to those areas which in the past have been left slightly behind. In my contribution I will describe these areas, namely, the Border regions, Counties Galway, Roscommon, Leitrim and Donegal and the midlands, as "the region". I have grouped these areas and will describe them as "the region" because the facts I have ascertained in relation to how well they have done in comparison with other areas indicate they have lagged well behind. This is not an attempt at begrudgery in the context of other areas which have benefited to a greater degree than those in the region. I say well done to areas such as Dublin which have done so well. The problem is that other areas have not done so well for reasons which are manifold. For example, we can talk about the base in these areas before entering the EU. The western regions always had a lower base than the eastern regions, something which has traditionally remained the same. It could be said that, per capita, the western region benefited to the same degree as those areas which have done extremely well. However, the truth is that while statistics do not lie, it could be said that liars use statistics as the per capita figures for the region — the Border counties and Counties Galway and Roscommon — include farming grants. The benefits are not accruing to industrial development or the creation of infrastructure.
The other reason they have lagged behind, apart from the manifold traditional reasons, is that successive Governments have failed to invest to a greater degree in the areas which have been deprived. We are talking about a region which constitutes 40 per cent of the total area of Ireland. In the programme running from 1994 to 2000, expenditure in the region as a percentage of expenditure nationally amounted to only 5 per cent on national primary routes, 15 per cent on national roads, 1 per cent on rail with £40 million being spent on the service between Athlone and Westport, 20 per cent on new water and sanitary services, 11 per cent on water and sanitary services currently under construction and only 1 per cent on new IDA jobs for Counties Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim for 1997. The figures speak for themselves and indicate something of extreme importance to people living in this area, namely, that the old concept of industry creating infrastructure no longer stands. It is now the other way around.
If I was an industrialist who wanted to establish in the west the first thing I would do is examine the infrastructure, including road, rail, electronic infrastructure, etc. I would also examine the grants and tax concessions available in the west in comparison to, for example, the Highlands and islands of Scotland, a separate region by definition and in the understanding of the EU. If the benefits were similar I would look at the infrastructure. If the infrastructure did not exist I would not attempt to establish myself in the west. We must create the infrastructure in terms of national primary routes, rail and water services because by doing so, we will encourage further development.
Regional development is a matter of national importance. At no time in the history of the State has there been such disparity between the success of one region and the failure of another. It is worth underlining the figures published by the Central Statistics Office for GDP by region in 1994-5, although I am sure they have already been raised with the Minister. Using the base of 100 for the country — comparison with the EU base shows the figures for the regions in a worse light — the figure for the Border region was 81.3 in 1994 and 77.2 in 1995; in Dublin and the mid-east the figure was 120 in 1994 and 121 in 1995; the figure for the west was 89.9 in 1994 and 70 for 1995. These figures speak for themselves and indicate the need for a structural programme for regional development which divides the country. I know the Minister will say it is better for the country to remain a single region and that as such we will benefit more. I do not disagree provided Objective One status goes to the areas that have been left behind and that the other areas get the benefit based on a lower amount over time until such time as they do not need it.
The west regional authority for the west will meet tomorrow in University College, Galway, to discuss these issues. Had this taken place last week I might have had time to distil some of the wonderful work they have done to indicate the disparity between the regions and the push-pull effect which indicates over-heating economically on the east coast. This becomes self-perpetuating because it encourages more people to live in these regions. The announcement today of the provision of 2,200 jobs on the east coast indicates the point I am making whereby people are encouraged to leave the underdeveloped regions to go to regions that are overdeveloped.
The western regional authority carried out an analysis of the strengths for the development of infrastructure in the western region. It found the area has considerable natural resources. These include: extensive areas of scenic coastline, landscape with considerable tourism potential, sea and fresh water resources suitable for aquaculture and proximity to rich fishing grounds, extensive areas of peat land, climatic and soil conditions suited to forestry and an abundance of water for water-use industry. Another strength is the development of infrastructure and facilities including an extensive road network, rail access to key points within the region and two airport facilities, an urban centre and dynamic growth poll around Galway city, third level institutions such as University College, Galway, and GMIT with significant potential for education, training and research, strong cultural traditions, a modern industry export section with specialisation in growth sectors, a good human resource potential based on a young and adaptable workforce with a good general education and a high participation in higher education.
These are the strengths that should encourage development. However, there are also many weaknesses in these areas. There is a poor standard of infrastructure, road networks of high inefficiency, a rail network based on old rolling stock with a need for huge investment and substandard tracks, a limited waste disposal capacity, especially for agricultural and municipal waste, limited airport facilities and services, no major seaport despite proximity to the ocean with great possibility for export orientation. There is a lack of computer and technical skills, domination of small agricultural holdings, a sparse and imbalanced population, population decline and high outward migration in the region.
The peripheral location of the region leads to problems of accessibility and competitiveness. When I sought the facts in connection with this matter I was inundated with detailed information. I am unable to touch upon all the details but the facts speak for themselves. We must develop infrastructure in these areas and I believe that giving Objective One status to the Border and western regions will create employment. According to the Commission on the West, there is potential for the employment of 15,000 people in this region if these infrastructures are put in place. In order to achieve this the area must be designated as a single region. The highlands and islands of Scotland have benefited by being defined as a region. This will be prevented for political reasons only. Given the opportunity, we can explain and justify our position to Commissioner Wulf-Mathies. The decision lies entirely with the Government.