Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1998

Vol. 155 No. 17

Objective One Status: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

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.

[Senator Finneran.]

Mr. Coogan

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.

Ms Leonard

I welcome the Minister here this evening. I also welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. This is of particular importance to the western and Border regions.

It is not just recently there has been a debate on Objective One status. It has been on top of every agenda for the last 18 months as to whether we go in as one whole unit or are divided into regions. By and large the public is unaware what Objective One status means. No one seems to know what Objective One in transition means other than the gradual phasing out of money. It also appears that EU Commissioners hold varying views on the matter with some suggesting it would be unwise for the country to be divided into regions while Commissioner Wulf-Mathies appears open to this idea. From a European perspective the image we have as a nation is one of a thriving country. There is no doubt Ireland has benefited greatly from European funding over the past number of years. As Senator Coogan rightly mentioned, our infrastructure, particularly in Dublin, has improved vastly. We are constantly being reminded in the newspapers that we have the fastest growing economy in Europe. However, coming from the Border region, this is where I believe the problem begins.

It is all very well for EU Commissioners to decide Ireland should stand as a whole unit in accepting Objective One status in transition. This was secured by the Taoiseach during preliminary meetings before Christmas. This decision will potentially sound the death knell for rural Ireland. I do not wish to act as the poor relation but I will be parochial and mention Counties Monaghan and Cavan. We are all aware of the drain from rural Ireland to urban areas in recent years. Traditionally, Cavan and Monaghan have been farming-based counties. Unfortunately, we are not blessed with the same soil as in the south of the country where there are a number of large tillage farmers. Cavan and Monaghan are totally dependent on dairy farming and livestock and derive the biggest income from milk production. However, due to increased expenditure in improving equipment and hygiene, a number of small farmers have had to lease their quotas or become involved in intensive farming, particularly in the mushroom and poultry industry. In 1978 there were 4,000 dairy farmers in County Monaghan; in 1997 the figure had decreased to 1,300. The majority of farms range from 15 to 40 acres. It has become impossible for a large proportion of farmers to survive without some form of off-farm employment. A problem for more and more farmers in this area is under-employment. This damages the confidence and morale of farmers.

Like all small farmers, we have become totally dependent on the cheque in the post. In the west and the Border counties GDP per capita is well below the European average of 75 per cent and the average of between 110 and 112 per cent in other parts of the country. It is essential that the Border counties and the west retain their Objective One status because without it the incomes of small farmers will be eroded. They are already being driven away from rural areas. It is not a bad reflection of the farmers in my area that they are dependent on the cheque in the post. There is a strong work ethic in that area where many individuals have started their own enterprises over the past 30 years but if we are to survive in rural Ireland, it is essential that our Objective One status is maintained.

The recent Council for the West report shows that EU funds are not equally distributed. Three-quarters of the funds have been spent in one-half of the State, while one quarter is spent in the underdeveloped half which includes the west and the Border region. We all know Ireland as a whole will not meet the criteria for Objective One status but the Border areas and the west will be entitled to it until 2006 if they are divided into regions.

The Border area also has other problems particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. As a result of the troubles in the North over the past number of years, grant aid has been pumped into it by the British Government. This means that potential industries opt to go to Northern Ireland where grant aid is available.

Over the past number of years all computer related industries have been located beside third level colleges along the east coast. As a result, the Border region and the west have been neglected. Despite all the investment in Ireland in recent years, there is no doubt that counties such as Monaghan and Cavan have not benefited to the same extent as other counties. We are grateful for funding such as that provided through the IFI, INTERREG and Leader.

As discussions continue on retaining our Objective One status, we should go back to our roots and realise that rural Ireland is as important as our large urban areas. We need large industries but we must also ensure that one half of the country is not left behind. We are supposed to be living in a classless society. The west and the Border region want a level playing field because they want to receive the same benefits as everyone else. People living north of the N4 and west of the Shannon are entitled to the same benefits as those living south of the N4 and east of the Shannon.

Mr. Connor

In a statement the Taoiseach made when he was Leader of the Opposition in March 1997 he said:

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 over-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 1 Status, if Ireland ceased to be treated as a single region. The next Government are simply going to 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.

In a declaration to the Council for the West in September 1997 the Progressive Democrats stated:

The Progressive Democrats accept that the present pattern of economic development in Ireland is unbalanced. Rapid development has placed excessive pressure on essential services in Dublin, while at the same time the population is falling in the West and North West. The Progressive Democrats are committed to the concept of balanced regional development, and the Party is currently examining various policy options for the best way of achieving this. We strongly support the retention of objective one status for the West of Ireland and for other under-developed regions of the country.

The programme for Government states:

Objective One Status will be sought for the West of Ireland, the Border Regions and all other rural areas that are suffering from population decline for the post 1999 period.

This debate highlights the need to retain our Objective One status to the year 2006, the period for the next round of Structural Funds. Despite all the pious pronouncements a year ago by the partners in Government, I am not satisfied that the Government is committed to a policy of regionalisation — in other words, adopting a policy so that we benefit as much as possible from EU regional funding. I am satisfied that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, a Deputy for a Dublin constituency, are not committed to a special Objective One status for the west and north-west regions which are in decline. I am also satisfied that the Minister for Finance is not committed to a policy which would give greater priority to the western regions under the new round of Structural Funds because I heard him expound his views at a meeting of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs when he was in Opposition. If those three key players are not committed to it, it will not happen.

Members of this House, particularly those from regions which are suffering decline, should put their foot down and insist that we adopt a proper policy of regionalisation. There must also be a proper policy of regional administration because the EU will not give funding to the west unless there is a proper administrative structure there.

We would not have succeeded in obtaining Objective One status in the period 1994 to 1999 were it not for the poor income and performance of the western and north western region. In 1994 the rest of the country had reached the EU average of 75 per cent, which would have excluded it. The country was lucky, although the west was not, that incomes were low enough in the west to drag down the national average income to just below the threshold. As a result, the country continued to qualify for Objective One status, as it had under the first regime between 1989 and 1994.

What was galling for people like me who live in the west and come to this city each week was that while the west and the poorer regions ensured we qualified for the 75 per cent grant — and, in some cases, 85 per cent — for major infrastructural projects like road improvements and so on from 1994 onwards most of it was spent close to Dublin in building the new radial roads which enter the capital city. All of this work needed to be done but the Exchequer should have borne a greater portion of the burden for such work.

Mr. Jacques Delors spoke about solidarity, cohesion and the need for people in all regions of the Community to have a sense of cohesion with the better off parts. He was a man of vision and knew the experiment which he pushed — greater integration within the Community — would not work unless everyone had a sense of belonging and fair play about the way the Community spread its resources. In Ireland we found there was not fair play in the way resources were spread because the more favoured regions got the greatest amount of the money made available. The capital city needed a completely new road system because various Governments had for generations neglected that type of infrastructure.

When the bonanza of transfers came we found we were spending it in regions which had already reached and were above the average income of the Community while peripheral regions in Counties Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo and Leitrim hardly got a shilling. People flew from these areas in droves and we have plenty of official statistics and figures to prove that. Between 1991 and 1995 and as far back as 1986, areas were emptied of population. For example, 9 per cent of the people in the Castlerea, County Roscommon, area disappeared between 1991 and 1995. They moved to the capital, the United Kingdom and perhaps some of the young people went to the Continent. The people, the most important resource, disappeared because these regions got nothing from the EU regional funds, which was unfair.

That is why we try to make the point as eloquently as possible that we cannot accept such a situation again. This time the Government must not talk about Objective One status in transition, which will last about two years, and then about moving on to Objective Two status. The peripheral and declining regions will get little for the rest of the regime until 2006. The Government must decide that these regions, which are easy to point out and where the average income is well below that of the EU, must be submitted for Objective One status for the years 2000-6. Only by doing that will we ensure that grants received will be ring-fenced for those areas and will we have a hope of pulling ourselves up by our boot straps and have some chance of participating in the better economic life which membership of the EU offers us. I am sorry I do not have a little longer to expound on the other salient points I wished to make.

Mr. D. Kiely

I welcome the Minister and am sure if he stays here long enough he will get a full tour of the country by those making contributions on Objective One status. We will hear from Members from the east, south, cross-Border regions and the west. I would like to speak about Structural and Cohesion funds, which we have received for some time, and where the money has been spent. Much of the money has been invested wisely and the Government should be complimented on that. During the earlier years of Structural Funding, however, some of the money was not invested as well as I would have liked.

I would like to be parochial and speak about my county since it has been omitted from the western region. Into what category does it fit? I am sure the Minister is concerned about west Cork and into which category it fits. Is it in the south or west? When I was at school I thought the west stretched westward from County Donegal to west Cork. Some people believe the west extends as far south as Galway.

Mr. Finneran

No county was mentioned in the motion.

Mr. D. Kiely

During the last Government Deputy Donal Carey became a Minister of State and all of a sudden County Clare was included in the west but part of west Cork and County Kerry were excluded. We were left out in the wilderness.

Last week a Member spoke about national secondary routes and said there were more miles of such routes in his county than in any other. That is not true because County Kerry has the largest proportion, 17 per cent, of national secondary routes and has received a pittance over the years. We received grants in the region of £0.5 million over the past ten years for the main artery into north Kerry from the port of Foynes to Tarbert, Listowel and Tralee. When I brought the matter to the Minister's attention, we received more money for the route this year than in the past ten years. I compliment him on that.

I also compliment the Minister on the money spent on the primary route into County Kerry from west Limerick to Abbeyfeale, Killarney and Cork. That money was badly needed because that route was the main gateway to the tourism part of the county and to our airport.

I wish to refer to my area, north Kerry, which is in the west and about which we have forgotten. The population has declined by 0.3 per cent over the past two censuses. Employment has been forgotten and no industry has located in the region for the past 15 to 20 years. Migration is rampant as people must travel all over the country to get work. Immigration has been rampant for the past 30 to 50 years. Regions will have to be selected and, naturally, everyone will try to fight their corner to get as much money as possible. Objective One status will have to be maintained for parts of the country. I would hate if a case was made for the west which excluded parts of Kerry and west Cork.

There is a discrepancy in relation to the regions. The regions around Cork city are associated with it, thus depriving west Cork and Kerry of their status. The same applies to the midwest region in which Limerick city and Shannon Airport are located. I would like to highlight the fact that Shannon Airport is now the third airport, although it was the main one. Cork Airport is ahead of it and I compliment the Cork people on that. Something will have to be done in that region as far as the airport is concerned.

I would like to refer to infrastructure, including the rail infrastructure. The McKenzie report on national transport infrastructure was adopted by the Fine Gael-Labour coalition Government in 1994. At that time some Deputies wanted to close down the railway from Tralee to Mallow. They wanted to put a main line from Limerick to Dublin. Looking back, it might have been as well to close the Tralee-Mallow line at that time since people are not using it because it is dangerous. In recent years there have been three serious accidents on that line and it is only luck that no one was killed. We asked various Ministers, including Deputy Dukes and Deputy O'Rourke, for extra funding to improve that stretch of line but we were told that only a small amount of money was available.

If the west, or any rural area, is to be developed one must first put a proper transport infrastructure in place. If that is not done one cannot expect to have proper development in such areas. Investment seems to be concentrated in centres of population. The west can appear remote from the rest of Europe while the eastern side is more accessible to trade. Trying to get around the south and south west coasts to the west may take longer, but the transport issue will have to be looked at in depth.

People have been speaking about the Shannon estuary for years, saying that it could be a second Rotterdam and a hive of industry but no real development has taken place there. Even though it is the deepest port in western Europe it has not been properly utilised. Hopefully, the course of history will be changed in the next few days.

I appeal to the Government to maintain Objective One for various areas. We will have to do everything in our power to achieve that, even though people say we now have 92 per cent of the European wealth average. That may be so for parts of the country but not others.

I have been seeking a regional water scheme in my own area. In 1991 Kerry County Council applied for a group water scheme for Astee, which was famous for moving statues at one time. Some 400 households in that area have no water supplies. We thought we would obtain a water scheme under the EU Cohesion and Structural Funds but it never came. It would cost in the region of £3 million to put a reservoir in place there. We will have to examine these projects in future if we are to develop the regions. We will have to obtain money to upgrade our secondary and primary road network.

I compliment the Minister on the amount of money he allocated to County Kerry this year. I am pleased with the amount involved. For the first time ever we received proper funding and as a result we can see some meaningful work being done on the roads. Extra road funding is needed for a county as large as Kerry which has 2,500 miles of county roads. It will take until 2005 to put those roads back into a reasonable shape. It is a long time to ask people to wait for proper roads.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, who is well used to rural areas and knows the problems of the people there. A previous speaker said they had met the EU Commissioner in the North of Ireland recently and that she was very sympathetic to granting Objective One status to cross-Border areas. I implore Ministers and EU Commissioners to put the west of Ireland in its rightful place for funding and to inlcude County Kerry. West Cork should also be included in the west.

The south west region is out on a limb and, while everyone goes to Kerry on holidays, the local population in north Kerry has declined according to the last two censuses. Only 15 children attended a first holy communion ceremony recently in my own village, an area that was blossoming and blooming in years gone by. The falling population will affect our schools. Investment in infrastructure is required to keep the west alive and to create jobs for local people. Those who think the west finishes in Galway should wake up and include parts of Limerick, Kerry and west Cork also.

Mr. B. Ryan

I have rarely seen a motion in this House which is so implausible and riddled with contradictions. The first thing to say is that, collectively, the country has become rich, but many people are amazed by that. They do not know why the country has become rich because they have not seen any of the rewards and they have not examined the matter closely. When one takes the average figures the country appears to have become rich. However, the country has now managed to break a new record. It already has one of the highest levels of child poverty in the EU, yet cannot afford to do anything about it even though it has become rich, and we now have the most unequal distribution of income in the entire OECD. This makes it easy to understand why most people do not believe they have experienced the new found affluence.

Nearly 35 per cent of the entire income of the State goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Before taxation 0.29 per cent of State income goes to the bottom 10 per cent. The people who have made all this money do not live in the areas that most require investment. They do not live in rural areas or deprived urban areas. They live in certain areas of the big cities and a couple of the big towns. The rest of those who have made all this money are concentrated on the east coast.

If Members of this House or the Lower House want to start talking about regional development they should first look at the fact that we have an appallingly unequal distribution of income which is worse than that of the Third World. Just last week, for instance, I saw figures which showed that Jamaica, an impoverished Third World country, is less unequal than Ireland. If we are going to do anything about seeking a redistribution of resources from the centre of Europe to this country or parts of it, we had better put our money where our mouth is and begin to redistribute the existing resources within the country from those who have done so well out of the last ten years to those who have seen nothing of it, yet have carried the burden of the negative side in terms of insecurity of work. Otherwise, we are crying crocodile tears while at the same time celebrating the vulgar affluence of the 10 per cent in this country who have done so well.

They were, incidentally, shamefully and spectacularly rewarded by this Government in the last budget. It was the most socially unjust and economically irresponsible budget of the last ten years and was described by the Conference of Religious in Ireland as the worst budget in ten years. That was a polite understatement, probably because they are better Christians than I am and did not want to use any stronger language.

This kind of aspirational motion does not address the problems that exist in the regions that Senator Kiely and everyone else talked about. We could deal with them ourselves if we had the political guts to do so. However, we have gone on a rampage of rewarding the already rich at the expense of the already poor which has left rural Ireland, many parts of our cities and our educational system — particularly primary education, before Senator O'Toole says so — in an appallingly under resourced state. At the same time we go off to Brussels with our hand out asking for more money. We believe in redistributing the resources of the German taxpayer but we do not believe in redistributing the resources of the Irish taxpayer. In Ireland taxes are given back to the rich whereas Germans are expected to tax the rich so that we can continue to live in the style to which we have become accustomed. That is a fundamental contradiction which runs contrary to the entire redistributive philosophy of regional funding.

The Minister for Finance stood in this House recently and spoke about the benefits of low taxes and his lack of belief in the principle of redistribution. If the Minister for Finance does not believe in redistribution within the State we, as a society, have a damn cheek going to Brussels asking it to redistribute in our direction. That is what this Government has done. We do not believe in the very principles by which we expect Europe to operate.

There are no regions in Ireland. Regions are areas which have a legal and political existence of their own, preferably defined under Constitution. There are no regional governments in this country either; we have emasculated county councils, even more emasculated urban councils and town commissioners who are totally lacking in virility. We will not get recognition for sub-regions in this country until we are prepared to put a regional government structure in place which would be independent of central Government and would have the capacity and right to be represented in Brussels. We have all manner of quasi-nominated and indirectly elected bodies but no one body represents regions of the country which are in need of funding. If regions which were in need of funding had independent political representation, such a fuss would be made about the unevenness of the distribution of resources that considerable embarrassment would be caused to the Government.

Gaeltacht areas are represented by Údarás na Gaeltachta but successive Governments, encouraged by the Department of Finance, were so frightened by the idea of the people of the Gaeltacht having control over their own affairs that they ensured the majority of Údarás na Gaeltachta members were nominated. The Government will not even allow the people of the Gaeltacht to elect their own representatives. Údarás na Gaeltachta is not allowed to deal with issues such as tourism because the Government is terrifyingly obsessed by centralism.

If one is not going to allow any form of serious devolution of power to the regions, there is no way one can hope to persuade Brussels to recognise those regions. Eurocrats, in spite of all their limitations, operate according to a certain logic. If regions are alleged to exist, Brussels wants them identified, defined in law and given independent powers to make decisions about themselves. We must move away from the ridiculous situation where every single decision about expenditure must be referred to the Government Department from which funding is forthcoming which, in turn, is obliged to refer it to that centre of all power, the Department of Finance.

The power which the Department of Finance claims for itself over other Government Departments is, in my view, quite unconstitutional. The notion that the Minister for Finance is the boss of any other Minister runs contrary to the notion of collective responsibility where all Ministers are equal. Given that the Department of Finance has such an obsession with controlling the expenditure of every other Government Department, how will it allow a regional authority in the deprived parts of Connacht or Munster to have the sort of autonomy which Brussels would expect? I am quite convinced that the Department would happily forego Objective One status rather than concede to direct regional negotiations with Brussels as such negotiations would take the power out of the Department's hands.

In spite of its alleged free market convictions, the Department of Finance is the last surviving bastion of Stalinism in its espousal of the belief that the centre knows what is good for everybody. It believes the centre knows what is good for remote areas such as rural west Cork and the Inishowen peninsula. Although it does not admit to knowing what is best for everyone and, in spite of the fact that it believes in consultation, the Department of Finance claims the right to supervise and veto every significant decision about public expenditure in this State. Because of that centralisation of power there is no possibility of Ireland setting up a regional structure which would be acceptable in Brussels. We lack credibility because we want redistribution from Brussels but do not believe in practising it here. We want regions identified on the basis of their poverty but refuse to recognise those regions in any serious legal fashion.

The vast majority of Members of this House are eloquent about the need for resources to be directed at particular areas, yet the entire House walked into an exercise in centralisation the likes of which Europe has never seen before, namely, the European Central Bank. When the European Central Bank decides to flex its muscles that will do infinitely more harm to this country's economic wellbeing than a reduction in Regional Funds would ever do. The day the bank decides to raise interest rates because Europe is growing very fast at the centre, even though Ireland may be in recession, will be the day we will discover the joys of centralism to be very short-lived. The benefits of economic and monetary union will also be short-lived if such a level of unaccountable centralism is allowed to continue.

Having created unaccountable centralism in the Department of Finance, we are now creating equally unaccountable, but more powerful, centralism in the European Central Bank. Anyone who attended the meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs today will have heard the Governor of the Central Bank admit that neither he nor the European Central Bank are politically accountable any more. The banks are governing without any political direction at all. If our own public policy on redistribution and regionalisation was consistent with what we expect from Brussels, we might stand some chance of being accorded Objective One status. However, I believe the Department of Finance, which does not believe in public expenditure in the first instance, would be quite happy to let us lose out in that regard.

Mr. Moylan

I heard a great deal about the western region in Senators' contributions. With developments occurring in the west and the east, the midlands tends to lose out heavily. The rapid growth in the Irish economy in recent years has resulted in significant reductions in disparity between certain regions in Ireland. However, the imbalances which continue to exist are a source of concern, particularly in the midlands and my home county of Offaly. The future of any region lies with its people. Population growth in the midland region has stagnated over the last ten years with few exceptions. There was a population decline in excess of 2.4 per cent in the 1986-91 period. In the 1991-6 census the national average population growth was almost 3 per cent but population growth in the midland region was one third of that.

Those depressing figures mask an even more disturbing story. With one exception, all rural districts in my county showed a population decline. In the period 1986-91 net emigration was in excess of 10 per cent while nationally the figure was 7.5 per cent. Most of those people were of working age, one third of them in the 20 to 25 year age group. Not only did these people leave, they took the reproductive capacity with them causing further weakening of the population structure.

The labour force in my county, 22,000 people, consisted of those gainfully employed and those actively seeking employment. It is predicted that the size of the labour force will expand over the next five years. Currently the region has an unemployment rate of 15 per cent. When the next sum of money for development is allocated the aim should be the reduction of our employment figures to the national average.

The midland region is an agricultural area. There has been a huge drop in the numbers employed in agriculture due to CAP reform and ambitious job creation targets must be set if we want to keep abreast of other regions. The economy of the region suffers from potentially fatal structural problems. There is a much higher than average dependency on agriculture based employment. In County Offaly 20 per cent of the workforce are employed in agriculture as against a national average of 10 per cent and the average economic farm size is much smaller than the national average. Beef farming plays a significant role in county farm enterprises and this sector has been weakened by the BSE crisis.

There have been major employment losses in County Offaly over the past ten years. The region was dependent on Bord na Móna and the ESB for employment. In the period 1983-93 the number employed by Bord na Móna has fallen from 2,200 to less than 700. That type of job loss in a midland county would be equivalent to the loss of 30,000 in the Dublin region. Many of the jobs lost in the midlands region were part-time. Small farmers who kept family holdings intact have suffered. That is why the region should retain Objective One status.

The region has no major road infrastructure and loses as a result. In the past we were divided between the mid-west and midlands-east. Thankfully now there is a separate midland region and we will be in a position to benefit from funding for the entire midland region. We lost out the last time. The motorway from Dublin to Enfield is a major development but the midlands would benefit greatly if funding was made available to develop the road from Enfield to Edenderry, giving access to the county and encouraging tourism.

According to Dr. FitzGerald, the CSO figures for 1994-7 indicated that the midland region might be the only region to meet Objective One status criteria. We hope the rest of Ireland will receive funding but the midland region must get its fair share.

Mr. Caffrey

Much has been said and written in the past few months about Objective One status and the need for it in the west, north-west and midlands. The Government should come clean and tells us that Objective One status is unattainable for the reasons outlined by Senator Brendan Ryan. Commissioner Wulf-Mathies told us that we have not got the political and geographic regional structure, with its own powers and budget, which would qualify us for Objective One status. That fact is not being sufficiently well aired.

Objective One status is being discussed at every cross-roads in the west but it is a futile discussion. The State will not qualify for Objective One status due to the increase in its wealth over the past few years. The disparity of that increase has been referred to by other Senators in this debate. It is time to put the facts before the people. They will then know what they are discussing and what they are trying to achieve. I blame successive Governments for not being in a position to avail of Objective One status on a regional basis. This move was heralded some years ago by Europe when it directed that we set up regional authorities.

Senator Ryan referred to everything. He referred to urban councils and county councils, but he did not refer to the regional authorities, which, if they were structured properly, should be in a position now to avail of Objective One status on a regional basis. However, as we all know, setting up the regional authorities was a cosmetic exercise to comply with the European directive. They were never given teeth; they never had any power. None of the six could build a hen house let alone do anything substantial in terms of budget and capital expenditure. That issue was funked by different Governments in the past five or six years. The regional authorities were set up by a Fianna Fáil Government in 1991, as far as I can remember, but they had no political structure. It is too late at this juncture to implement anything so that we will be in a position to retain Objective One status on a regional basis.

The position is serious. The Government is not stating the exact position. It is giving the impression that it is going down two roads, Objective One status in transition for the whole country or Objective One, and we could end up in a cul de sac. At present we do not know what is being negotiated but from what we can gather from Europe, Objective One status, as at present constituted, is not possible and that is the bottom line.

Where do we go from here? There is an obligation on the Government to ensure that, if it achieves Objective One status in transition, we, in the west, the midlands and the peripheral areas, which are so disadvantaged and in which the disparity of income and wealth is so great in relation to the other parts of the country, should get a concrete commitment that the weight of that money would be spread in those peripheral regions. I know that getting a commitment from a Government prior to getting money is rare, but on this occasion we have a special case.

All the peripheral regions have a special case to make for the Structural Funds which will be coming from Europe because of this disparity. For example, the population of Dublin has increased by 47 per cent in the past 35 years; the west lost 110,000 people in the same period. That is a major disparity but nothing is being done to address it. I believe that if Objective One status is not secured, this trend will continue. Some 46,000 jobs were created in Dublin over the past four years. In 1996 only 152 jobs were created in west Connacht, County Clare and County Donegal but, 12,525 overseas jobs were created in Dublin alone in 1996. The DART subsidy amounts to £15 million per year whereas they are threatening to close the Limerick-Claremorris railway line to save £250,000.

There was a project to create a deep sea port in Killala Bay but the first thing we got was a letter from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands expressing concern at the possibility of disturbing birds in the region. The project would create up to 1,000 jobs in that area at a cost of about £14 million. About £50 million has been approved for the Dublin docklands, a project which progressed quickly. The Western Commission was set but it has still to receive a penny; we have been waiting a year for £2 million. Even the legislation allowing that money to be put into circulation has not been introduced. Those are the facts which are causing widespread concern in my area, along the west coast and in the midlands.

I could list other disparities. In my area, County Mayo, there are still 10,000 people unemployed. Despite the Celtic tiger, the number unemployed only dropped by about 800 in the past year. That is not progress; that is regression, and it is continuing. About 1,000 people leave County Mayo every year and nothing is being done to halt that or to redress the situation. We should be told exactly where we are going and what we will get.

Mr. Dardis

Senator Ryan is a wonder to behold when he is in full flight, as he was when I heard scraps of his speech on the monitor earlier, but what surprises me is that his rhetoric does not accord with the facts, to which I always thought he paid cognisance. He spoke about reductions in rates of personal taxation and the people who have benefited from that. It is true that this Government increased the old age pension in the most recent budget by a greater amount than any Government in recent years and that the increases in other social welfare payments were well above the level of inflation. However, it is not true to say that the Government has no concern for, and ignores, people who are less well off. That is plainly not the case. This Government, indeed any Government, has an obligation to its less well off citizens and that obligation is taken seriously by this Government.

One thing which must be stated clearly is that it is a matter for national celebration that we are at the stage where it would be considered that Ireland no longer qualifies for Objective One status. When Ireland joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973, nobody would have expected the national wealth would grow to the point where Ireland could bear favourable comparison with countries on mainland Europe. At that time Ireland was so far behind that it would have been regarded as almost impossible to close the gap. That achievement is a matter of congratulations to the people who have worked so hard in the intervening years to bring us up to that level of wealth and, indeed, to the budgetary measures and prudence of successive Governments, of whatever political complexion. It is something to be celebrated and to be proud of in Europe.

It might be suggested that the Structural Funds were one of the key elements in achieving that status but that is not the case. The Structural Funds contribute, as far as my information is concerned, about 1.5 per cent to the growth in the economy at present and it is predicted that the level of growth could reach 8 per cent this year. Therefore, quite a small proportion of the growth in the economy is derived from the Structural Funds. That needs to be put in context.

There is an overwhelming degree of special pleading. We can all make a case. I can make a case for County Kildare. The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, could make a case for areas in his constituency which are extremely disadvantaged, and are as disadvantaged as any area in the west, but it also must be said that there are areas in his constituency which are well off.

Mr. Caffrey

There is no case for County Kildare.

Mr. Dardis

We can get rapidly to the stage of saying that this village or that townland should be treated as an Objective One area and the one beside it should not. We could get to the point we had for the disadvantaged areas where boundaries were drawn almost through farms and one qualified and another did not. That is logic of it. I agree that although the country has exceeded the level of wealth required to qualify for Objective One status, a substantially large region which is below that level should be considered for special treatment. However, I agree with Senator Ryan that it is a matter of centralisation. For the purposes of the disbursement of EU funds we are regarded as a single region. Our task is to have that increased from one region to two or more regions. That will not be easy and one of the reasons is that we do not have regional government. We have regional authorities but we do not have a system of regional government.

I am a member of a regional authority and we have a role in the submissions made for Structural Funds. We are currently preparing our submissions for the next round of funds. A group of worthy consultants is being paid £60,000 by the regional authority to produce a report, and fair play to them. However, this is a cosmetic and optical exercise because the decisions are not made at regional level but at central Government level by the Department of Finance which decides which projects will be submitted to Brussels. The regions can submit worthy projects none of which might be considered for inclusion in the Structural Funds. It is somewhat implausible of us to suggest to Brussels that there should be sub-regional treatment when we do not have the sort of regional government evident in several mainland European countries.

Reference was made to the number of people leaving Mayo and the land. It is true that something of the order of one family per day is leaving the land. However, what is also true and not often referred to in these statistics is that many of these are older people who are dying. We should be clear about the statistics — rural decline has been evident for many years and cannot be denied. The ESRI can confirm some of the losses from agriculture. It is the one disadvantaged sector and this is borne out by the statistics. The ESRI quarterly reports show that on almost any measurement of wealth, agriculture is falling behind while the rest of the economy is moving forward in terms of numbers employed, output, exports and contributions to GNP and GDP. Structural Funds have a role in terms of measures such as the farm retirement scheme, the farmyard pollution scheme and some of the structural measures available but there is scope for more progress in this area.

Another issue is the technical means by which we qualify or do not qualify for Objective One status. That depends on the measurement. If one takes GDP or GNP one comes up with different answers. What would lead one to exclude the country on one measurement would lead one to include it on another. There is a case to be made to Europe on this issue.

The other case to be made to Europe is that we are extremely successful in the use of funds. At a recent meeting I attended in Brussels, President Santer referred to Ireland and Portugal as the two outstanding examples of how the funds were properly used and we should not be victimised for this. This has to be borne in mind in the negotiations.

If one was to use special pleading, west Kildare would fall into the category. It is the same as Offaly from a regional point of view in terms of the population structure, the dependency on Bord na Móna and the decline which has taken place. We can come down to an ultimate degree in special pleading. The better the infrastructure of radial routes into the city the more the population will be dragged from these areas towards the centre. This has happened all over Europe and there is no reason to suspect it will not happen here.

I applaud the efforts to reach a sub-regional system whereby the less well off regions can be included. We also need to look at the issue of a single region comprising some of the counties across the Border. There would be a great degree of goodwill in Brussels towards looking at a single region which takes in the west and, perhaps, Derry and Fermanagh. In the present circumstances and as part of the peace process there would be goodwill towards considering such a sub-region.

Mr. O'Toole

I am not a county councillor and I do not have any vested interest in any areas of the country. However, I hope I have a vested interest in the general development of the country. A lot of nonsense has been spoken in this debate. What Senators want — that is, Objective One status for individual regions — is not going to happen. Senator Dardis finally said this from the Government side. Senator Caffrey said it was time people were told the truth and Senator Ryan made this very clear.

We have been through this issue before with the current Structural Funds when the strongest possible case was made to give Objective One status to one part of the United Kingdom, namely, Northern Ireland. That proposal was supported and proposed by all the parties in Northern Ireland and by the Government of the Republic but it failed. There is not the remotest possibility of individual regions of this State being given Objective One status. It cannot and will not happen.

That is not to say that the strong arguments made by both sides should not be examined. We have neglected those areas despite what Senator Dardis said. I do not want to reopen the debate on the budget but its effects could continue for many years. It could undermine the possibility of another national programme because of the perception that the less well-off did not get a fair deal in this year's budget. That perception is the reality whether it is correct or not.

The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, has an abiding interest is communications. What Ireland has going for it is that it is the only complete island state in the EU. That is putting it simply; and I acknowledge the position of Northern Ireland. However, we are the ones for whom it is most costly to communicate with those living in the heart of Europe. That is a major factor in our development. While we may not be able to obtain Objective One status, we can make a strong case for being in a special position for improving our infrastructure.

This debate has focused on individual people and groups. Objective One status and the issues attaching to it cannot be directed at individuals. This is one of the problems already experienced by people on this island and the reason they have not shared in the wealth. We should be focusing on those issues which can be addressed. The outstanding issue which is causing the greatest urbanisation in rural Ireland is communications. Roads, railways, airports and ports are all ignored. Anyone who has tried to drive a truckload of fish from Killybegs or Dingle to European markets can testify to this. Any student who has tried to commute from the west to the east weekly or daily can tell us about it. Anyone trying to sell a car having travelled the roads of rural Ireland knows about it. Earlier, I raised the issue of Arklow port with the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob. It repeatedly silts up, thus reducing its effectiveness as a fishing port at a time when it is on a major European route.

We should try to open up rural Ireland. Senator Ryan was correct in the points he made. Those parts of the island which have low levels of income per head of population have been ignored. I read recently of the difference between the treatment by the UK Government of islands off the west coast of Scotland and the treatment by the Irish Government of islands off the west coast of Ireland. The latter are barely able to survive. There is a belief, particularly in Dublin, that the beauty of the west should be maintained as if it were a museum piece which people can visit during their summer holidays instead of allowing the people there to develop and to have the best of facilities.

We have forgotten the size of the country. The distance between Dublin and Achill Island is 170 to 180 miles which is less than a two hour journey in terms of rail travel. My colleague, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers in England, lives further from his office, to which he commutes daily, than I would be if I lived in my home town of Dingle. We have not come to terms with such facts. Rural Ireland begins to be denuded when people finish their leaving certificate. Students in Ballina or Castlebar, for example, should be able to leave their homes at the reasonable hour of 7 a.m., stroll to the railway station, arrive in their colleges in Dublin in less than two hours, and be ready for their first lecture at 9.30 a.m. They should also be able to take the 6 p.m. train home in the evening. The problem is that people leave rural Ireland, make new sets of friends away from home and do not return. Others will not settle in rural areas because the local school, the post office or the Garda station is closed. Couples will not buy, build or move into a house in rural areas and the erosion of the population and culture of a village begins.

As regards agriculture, we have been dishonest with farmers in that it has never been pointed out to them what is meant by a viable holding. I would like the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, to address this point because every time I have raised it, it has never been addressed. Why is it that support for farming is based on acreage, animal herd size or some measure which ensures bigger farmers receive greater support? The same people who complain about people being forced out of agriculture never mention supporting farmers so that they will have a viable income to which they are entitled. Instead, they ensure the continuance of a system of support which means the person with 1,200 acres receives 1,000 times more than the person with 120 acres. We have been dishonest and unfair in our approach to the support of agriculture. We have not supported and have never focused on keeping people in farming and it is experiences of this kind which have led to this debate on Objective One status.

In The Economist this week, there is an interesting article on the responsibilities of rich and wealthy people, how these have changed over the course of the century, particularly in the United States, how such people should recognise that they have a commitment to the community and how they believe they have become wealthy through their ingenuity when it is often because the system is structured to support them in becoming so. Perhaps that is what we should examine in this discussion on Objective One status.

Mr. O'Brien

I support the motion on the retention of Objective One status for certain regions of the country in the forthcoming EU funding negotiations. It is important the six Border counties, Monaghan, Cavan, Louth, Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim, along with the west, are considered for Objective One status. I agree whole-heartedly with Senator Dardis who said that the entire country will probably not receive such status in the forthcoming negotiations.

The country has prospered over the past few years as the Celtic tiger has spread and the economy has become one of the most successful in Europe. However, certain regions and sectors still have many problems, despite people's best efforts, and they must develop considerably to match the more prosperous areas of the country. If Ireland is not developed equally in all areas, major divisions in wealth distribution will be a problem in future. I urge the Government to ensure that Objective One status is retained for the Border area and the west.

Development in the Border region has been greatly hindered by the troubles in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years with few cross-Border initiatives until recently. The British-Irish Agreement and the massive yes vote last Friday week, in tandem with the planned structures, should give the region great hope for the future. However, Objective One status must be available as one of the measures to assist this development because the region has considerable catching up to do with the rest of the country in economic and social terms.

The current round of Structural Funds has produced great developments throughout the country with the improvement in infrastructure, etc. The practical benefits are to be seen in every town and village where there have been much needed improvements in all services. The distribution of the current round of Structural Funds has been questioned by many because the main population centres seem to have received a larger share of the funds with rural areas only receiving a small share.

If the numbers leaving rural Ireland are to be halted, urgent attention must be paid to the west and the Border region. I urge the Government to ensure Objective One status is retained for these areas. I hope the Minister of State conveys that message to the Government because it is very important. Everyone in the House, if asked, would agree the areas are entitled to it.

Mr. McDonagh

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Unlike Senator O'Toole I believe there is reason to hope that Northern Ireland will be afforded Objective One status. In that case the adjacent southern counties will be included. There is therefore a legitimate expectation that the remaining counties of Connacht and County Clare would be granted the same status. The Government's application for Objective One status will be a matter of life and death for the economy of the west. If the Government does not adopt a policy of regionalisation the infrastructure of the west will fall behind the rest of the country, jobs will be lost, fewer new jobs will be created and the population will decline. The decision which the Government is about to take is the most important of the next two decades in determining how the region will develop. It is a life and death decision for the economy of the west. It is vital that the Government opts for regionalisation. We are one of the few countries in Europe which does not have a regional policy. If we do not adopt such a policy the west will fall even further behind.

Over the last two years the population of the west has declined by 4 per cent. The Government's decision will chart the future of the western region. Living in the heartland of the west, I see the huge backlog of water and sewerage schemes and essential roadworks which cannot go ahead because of lack of capital. In County Galway there is a six year waiting list for local improvement schemes on roads leading to houses and farms. This is typical of the situation in all western counties.

We all rejoice as peace descends on our island. We speak of the huge tourism potential and the interflow of traffic between North and South. It is strange, therefore, that the N63, the road from Galway to Belfast, which is the main route from the west to the North, is still a national secondary route. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government must re-examine this question and upgrade the Galway-Roscommon-Belfast road to a national primary road so that it can qualify for funding which will bring it up to an acceptable standard. The road is narrow, winding and dangerous. Many people have been killed in accidents on it. The state of this road is an indication of the neglect of this region over many years. The days of saying "to hell or to Connacht" or even "to hell with Connacht" are long gone.

This debate has not progressed much beyond the unsupported assertion that more European funding will be forthcoming if the country applies as a single region. In order to progress the debate and to identify the steps which need to be taken to maximise our expectations of continuing European funds it is essential that those proposing the continuation of the practice of applying as one region produce figures to support that strategy. The west is crying out for help. Our future is in the Government's hands. The Government has declared its commitment to support the west. If the leaders of Government adhere to that commitment they must opt for regionalisation. Ireland as a whole cannot qualify for Objective One status after 1999 due to the great success of the economy. We qualified in 1994 only because of the low GDP levels in the west and the Border counties which pulled the national GDP down below 75 per cent of the European average. As Ireland's GDP is now more than 100 per cent of the EU average the question of securing Objective One status for the whole country does not arise. Objective One status is granted to regions and not to countries. Ireland is divided into eight regions. The whole of Ireland has benefited from the disadvantage of the west. It is time the Government responded in a positive manner to the west of Ireland.

An Cathaoirleach

As the debate has taken place over two evenings I call on the Minister to respond to some points before Senator Finneran concludes.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Cullen)

I apologise for my absence at the beginnig of the debate this evening. I was present for the full debate last week. Such is the level of interest in European affairs among Senators that I have no doubt the debate could take place over three weeks. During my time in this House I felt the Seanad could be the guardian and watch dog of much that goes on in Europe. Delivering information about Europe into the public arena and debating issues of great importance would provide an independent role for this House. I am glad to see that my belief and confidence in that role has been borne out by this debate. I compliment the Senators who have contributed. A great depth of knowledge was displayed on a range of issues.

I dealt last week with the question of regionalisation. The Government is pursuing without question, and is committed to, achieving the best possible scenario for Ireland from 2000-6. That is sacrosanct and is in the interest of the people.

The regionalisation of weaker regions is possible and has been discussed with the Commission. It is important to understand that Ireland cannot unilaterally declare a new regionalisation policy — it is not within our remit and will have to be decided by the Commission. We are looking at a way to achieve the best results for Ireland, including the weaker regions which are easily identifiable from the programmes in which we have taken part over the years. Irrespective of the outcome, it is the Government's intention to ensure the weaker regions as they are defined at present are taken care of in 2000-6 so that development will take place on a range of levels. This will ensure a level playing field throughout the country. The Government is committed to that and whatever the final outcome, it will be the best result for Ireland and the regions about which many Senators spoke.

The Government has not ruled out the pursuit of regionalisation and the matter is receiving detailed consideration. It has been raised in discussions with the European Commission at both ministerial and official level and the Government will make a decision at the appropriate time. Commissioner Wulf-Mathies made it clear she will not support a regionalisation approach without sufficient regional administration.

The Government strategy is to obtain the best possible deal which maximises the available benefits for Ireland. The Government will strive to ensure that whatever approach ia adopted it will be the best, whether it is the single region approach we are used to or the regionalisation approach. We want to address three key issues — our substantial infrastructural backlog, our outstanding human resources problem and the development needs of those parts of the country identified as still lagging behind.

The regional authorities are preparing valuable information for the presentation of our reports and the conclusion of our deliberations in this area. I emphasise to the authorities that they should complete that process which is vital in determining all the elements which must be put together. There is a timeframe for that process and I would like to see the detail. I am confident the regional authorities will do that.

There are many Senators sitting on regional authorities who have an important voice in those fora. They should express their strongly held views and ensure that if they are not present their colleagues make the key points about their regions and identify the key objectives — infrastructural and human resource based — which should be included in the submissions from the various regions. I thank Senators for participating in the debate.

Mr. Finneran

I thank everybody who contributed to this debate. Some Senators attempted to misrepresent the motion. I did not mention a specific county in the motion but rather the areas which met the criteria. I was conscious that there may be areas in the inner cities of Dublin, Limerick or Cork which meet the criteria and this motion encompassed that fact. While we know that large sections of the west, the Border counties and the midlands meet the criteria and are under 75 per cent of the average EU earnings, investigation by the regional authorities may show there are other pockets to which this applies.

I was taken aback by the academic and simplistic approach of some of the Independent Senators. Dustin on the DART to Dingle was referred to, as was the DART to Ballina. I wonder if it is realistic to make such references in this debate. I disagree that all regions, including the west and the poorer areas are excluded. The Government reduced tax from 35 per cent to 24 per cent in the pound; the last Government reduced it by 1 per cent and it is proposed to reduce the higher rate to 42 per cent.

Senator Ryan said that unless we have a regional structure we cannot get Objective One status in certain areas. This was proved incorrect in the case of Liverpool, which qualified for Objective One status in the last round of EU funding even though it does not have a regional authority. That is a basis for negotiation and should be taken into consideration on the next occasion.

The political will is needed to ensure certain areas get Objective One status. There may be officials in the Department of Finance who are not interested in looking at regional status because, during less important debates in this House, more officials from the Department of Finance were present; this is not a criticism of the Minister of State. There are officials in that Department who wish to pursue a one region scenario. A good political debate is beginning which may change their minds.

This is a golden opportunity to raise the areas under the 75 per cent average to equal status with the rest of the country between the years 2000 and 2006. This must be looked at by the Department of Finance and there is a political movement which will push that point of view forward in the next few weeks. The Department should be conscious of the unanimous support in this House for a regional approach to Objective One status for the regions which meet the criteria. I hope the Department and those advising the Minister and the Government will recognise the decision of this House and the growing debate.

Without the availability of proper figures we do not accept lightly that one region status is best for this country. It has shortfalls for certain areas. Up to 40 per cent of this country is under the 75 per cent criteria and deserves the support of the Department of Finance so that the first card played in Europe ensures it gets Objective One status for the period 2000-6. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Finneran

At. 10.30 tomorrow morning.