We have a quorum.
Western Development Commission Bill, 1998: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, subsection (1)(e)(i), line 15, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Ministers".
This is a technical amendment. As the section currently stands the legislation can be considered to allow consultation with only one Minister. I explained this matter on Second Stage. The intention is that the commission should have access to all Ministers and to facilitate this the word "Minister" should be deleted and the word "Ministers" inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(g) to promote, foster and encourage the development of social and voluntary housing projects in the Western Region.".
The basis for this amendment is my feeling that the remit of the commission should be widened somewhat. I have no problem with the core structure about which we spoke at length on Second Stage. However, the commission will have an over-arching embrace of the entire area. If it is to work it will co-ordinate many of the industrial and social projects in the western region. Section 8 is restrictive. I have discussed the matter with a number of groups. My amendment speaks of the development of social and voluntary housing, but this is only one issue. There is no doubt that for whatever reason rural housing has become a very important facet in the relocation of families to areas which are losing their populations. However, there is an awful amount of bureaucratic tangling between local authorities and there are many houses which, if done up, reconstructed and improved, would provide homes for families wishing to move from Dublin and other cities. It is a shame that under section 8 the Western Commission could not get involved in this issue in which it should have an input.
In addition, there is the issue of the railway line to Westport and Sligo. We know it has been starved through the years of the type of investment necessary. The Western Commission, geared to tackling infrastructural problems - the word infrastructure is used in section 8 - should not be eliminated at this stage from doing something for railways in conjunction with Iarnród Éireann, etc. This would not be the commission's core business, but it is too restrictive to eliminate the possibility.
I spent a lifetime looking for something such as the Western Commission, as did many others over the years. I hope now we have it, albeit for only six or seven counties, it will play a vital role if and when we get Objective One status for the west. In the context of devolution and in conjunction with the regional development authorities the commission should be able to come together and create the rainbow effect over the entire region. I know this issue is not covered by the amendment. We are talking about a body that will have a profound effect on the development of this area. It would be a shame to restrict its development by denying it the possibility of doing those things. I acknowledge that its core business will be somewhat different, but Members from the west will testify that we do not want another organisation running on the outside of the greyhound track. We need a co-ordinating group, and I hope the commission has a huge influence on bodies such as the regional development authorities and the county enterprise boards. That is not included in section 8, and that is why I tabled this amendment. The Minister of State should consider this on Report Stage. The matter may not be as simple as I have put it, but the principle should be examined and noted for the future.
I support Deputy Connaughton. I have often remarked on the number of vacant houses in the west. A trust should be set up to renovate those houses and to allocate them to people in need of housing, which might attract some of our emigrants back. Consideration should be given to allowing a non-profit making organisation take over these houses and sell them to applicants for the rural resettlement scheme. Deputy Connaughton's aim may be implemented through the existing provisions of the Bill, but the essence of his proposal is worth considering. Those working for the rural resettlement scheme find it difficult to promote their philosophy, and this policy might also be hard to promote. However, this departure could be very effective. The Minister of State and his officials should consider this matter, as a co-ordinated approach is needed to deal with those vacant houses. The owners of such houses can frequently be indifferent to the uses to which they are put. They could help to bring people back to rural Ireland and this could help rural regeneration. It would also aid those who cannot afford high cost urban housing and emigrants who wish to return.
I support this amendment. The Western Development Commission will have to deal with this matter, as county councils find it difficult to purchase property and not just in Dublin. That is the case in urban areas in the west, such as Galway. Councils cannot buy property even though there are many vacant houses lying derelict in the region. With a small amount of investment they could be renovated and reallocated. The voluntary housing organisations and social housing bodies are doing a tremendous job. They have come in for criticism but they are doing a great job in developing facilities. The new commission should consider reintroducing the reconstruction grant, which was a valuable asset to the refurbishment of houses in the past. It was abused in the past, but a limited scheme introduced by the commission would help to bring these older houses up to standard. There would be less infrastructural demand because the houses and sewerage systems already exist. This would be a valuable asset to rural areas given the difficulties they experience retaining schools and post offices. Part of the commission's remit relates to social development; population decline is a serious issue in the west. The population level must be restored and the social development remit of the commission should include housing.
Members should be very careful. This amendment relates to a situation in the west which is very different from Meath, but we have the same problem with derelict houses in my part of Meath. Local people have a problem getting planning permission. Planners tell local people to buy derelict houses, but they cannot compete with buyers from cities and larger towns. I advise against pushing this amendment. The day will come when this will reach the west also.
I support Deputy Naughten. I see Deputy Brady's point, but the west, and my constituency in particular, has a large number of derelict houses. There is no infrastructure in some of these areas; there are no buses, public services or roads. Appropriate grants should be made available. People in council houses are allowed to buy them after a year, but they can also sell them, which is crazy. If a person moves to rural Ireland and gets a council house and a grant, he or she should be obliged to stay there for a period of at least 15 years or repay the grant to the State. Such people should not be given grants to move to rural areas and be allowed to move again. I hope the commission will play a role in this regard. Many people in Dublin want to live in the west, but Mayo County Council has great difficulty in getting sites or houses for them to buy. We want to get people into the area, and there should be grants to encourage people to live in rural areas.
The purpose of section 8 is to promote, foster and encourage the growth of the west. However, as Deputy Connaughton said on Second Stage, the commission should not cross the paths of other organisations. This is unique legislation and we see the commission as being different. I would be concerned about it getting involved in social housing. The demand for such housing may take off and leave no money for enterprise or other areas. Deputy Ring suggested that there was no co-ordination. The commission can promote such an idea, as the IFA has done with rural resettlement under the voluntary housing schemes. Individual areas in the west can be promoted and I am sure the commission will get help from auctioneers in this respect. I would be afraid that it would involve directing moneys to an area which is already funded. I have no problem if the commission wants to promote some ancillary service.
In what regard?
Let us suppose that a railway line is being upgraded and there is a need to invest in a hostel or some such establishment beside the line, the commission can promote such tourism initiatives which are ancillary to the development of infrastructure. We have these fights with other Departments. This measure might take moneys away from the original objectives of the commission.
The commission can invest money in return for equity or provide low interest loans. This is the more immediate need. I am aware of the housing problem but there are two voluntary agencies and a Department addressing this issue. This measure would direct money to the wrong areas. The commission might be able to become involved in such an area if, in a few years, it has solved the unemployment problems in the west. However, there is no need for housing unless people are there in the first place. We want to create jobs to keep the existing population in place and to improve that situation over a period of time.
I mentioned social housing but I never intended that the commission would build houses. That is not its job. I may have put my point across wrongly. My idea was that the commission, as the engine of development in the west, might take it upon itself to organise and promote local developments. Under section 8, is the commission within its remit to take such initiatives? Is there any danger that another Department will tell the commission to keep out of such areas?
The Deputy knows that all Departments do such things to other Departments at some stage. All Departments are willing to accept money. Section 8(1) states: "The general functions of the Commission shall be to promote, and procure the promotion of, and assist in, foster and encourage economic and social development". That is a wide enough remit to cover all the areas referred to by the Deputy.
I would like to think that by Report Stage there would be a stronger commitment to allay fears that the commission might not be the umbrella body that the Minister of State and I wish it to be. The Bill must show that the commission is within its remit to promote, foster, organise and integrate community development. Section 8 is a little weak in this regard.
The section is not that weak. If it is more specific, other people may take a different interpretation and force the commission down a different road. Section 8(1)(d) states that one of the functions of the commission shall be: "to promote, foster and encourage the provision, maintenance and, if appropriate, the enlargement of, and procure the provision of assistance for, such infrastructural projects, both local and regional, as it considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of economic and social development in the Western Region,". This is a great opportunity for the commission to get involved in job creation and tourism and all the other areas mentioned.
I do not share the Minister of State's optimism.
If we are not optimistic at the start we will not encourage anyone.
I have been down this road many times but we will see what happens.
The Minister of State's comments are positive but the legislation is not strong enough. We need to strengthen section 8. The Minister of State should consider an amendment on Report Stage to strengthen the social aspect of the commission's remit.
I mentioned the reconstruction grant earlier. Perhaps this should be brought back as a pilot scheme in the commission's region. The problem with the previous grant was that it was abused. A targeted scheme in the west, administered by the commission, might be useful in ensuring that many derelict houses are developed. It would also encourage voluntary and social housing groups to develop some of the derelict houses. This may be one way for the commission to become involved in such an area. Will the Minister of State raise this possibility with the Minister for Finance before the budget? The reconstruction grant was very useful but it was abused. The reintroduction of the grant would be one way of redeveloping these derelict houses.
I support Deputy Naughten's suggestion. The Minister of State should consider a targeted grant for an area such as that covered by the commission which would help to improve the housing stock. The Department of the Environment and Local Government would provide the money so it would not be financed from the commission's fund or result in any slippage of funds.
There are vacant houses throughout the country for which no one seems to be taking responsibility. The Minister of State mentioned that other authorities are involved. However, local authorities are not encouraging owners to renovate or sell these houses. There is a model for this approach in Scotland or England whereby trusts have been set up. A similar trust could be set up for the west which would work with the commission. The trust would have the responsibility of developing houses which would be available for various people. I am not only referring to social housing. The houses would be redeveloped on a non-profit basis. The Minister of State should consider including such a provision in section 8. It would improve the effectiveness of the commission. It may be impossible but it is worth considering.
I thank Members for their suggestions. Some Members spoke about spending £10,000 or £15,000 but that involves a different Department, it is a different area. We do not want the commission to act against another Department. Nominated senior civil servants will be available to the commission at all times. My first amendment allows the commission to approach any Minister on any policy issue involving the west. It has this facility to promote the west, particularly with regard to social issues. To refer specifically to housing would impose an obligation on the commission to spend some of its own money when they can go directly to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, tell him they think it is a good idea and that they have picked out 200 houses for resettlement. They have the direct authority to go to the Minister. We tabled that amendment to ensure that was clear.
I raised a different question. No one is looking at the opportunity to develop the great potential which exists. There are period houses representing our vernacular architecture which are decaying and no one is trying to influence their owners to do something with them.
They are derelict until one goes to buy them.
These people should be encouraged to think about selling such houses. It is one of the main reasons for rural depopulation. Last Sunday I counted 15 uninhabited houses out of 20 on a stretch of road in west Limerick. Eight or nine of those 15 houses could be habitable if they were sold or passed on to people now but they will not be if they are left for another two years.
That will be part of the White Paper.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, lines 38 to 40, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) The Commission shall not provide financial or other material aid for the infrastructural projects referred to in paragraph (b)(ii) or (d) of subsection (1) unless they are subsidiary and ancillary to business or social enterprises or projects.".
This amendment relates to the commission's powers to become involved in funding infrastructural work. As currently worded, the subsection might be interpreted as prohibiting any funding of infrastructure. The original intention, which remains, is that the commission would not be involved in the funding of major infrastructural projects, such as national roads. Funding is provided directly to the Department or State agencies for these purposes and the commission may not compete or overlap with these efforts.
The revised wording reads: "The Commission shall not provide financial or other material aid for the infrastructural projects referred to in paragraph (b)(ii) or (d) of subsection (1) unless they are subsidiary and ancillary to business or social enterprises or projects". The amendment will ensure the commission may fund all works relating to a specific project, including minor infrastructural works such as access or services which are an inherent part of the projects. The more general role of the commission in relation to identifying and promoting developments involving infrastructure remains unchanged.
The relationship between the commission and the other State agencies is clearly defined in the legislation. Section 8(1)(b) empowers the commission to identify the business and social enterprise projects, and infrastructural projects related to those projects, that should be accelerated.
I have no objection to that.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, lines 11 to 16, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
"(5) Financial or other material aid provided to enterprises or projects by the Commission shall be in such form and subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined from time to time (at such times as may be specified by the Minister) by the Commission with the consent of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, and the amount thereof, in the case of any particular enterprise or project, shall not exceed £250,000 without the consent in writing of the Minister.".
This subsection relates to the financial ceiling on the aid approval provided for a specific project. Detailed examination of the original wording suggested it could be construed from it that ministerial approval would be necessary for each individual project being funded by the commission. This was never the intention and such a procedure would be unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic.
The revised wording states more clearly that only projects exceeding £250,000 must be referred for approval. It reads: "Financial or other material aid provided to enterprises or projects by the Commission shall be in such form and subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined from time to time (at such times as may be specified by the Minister) by the Commission with the consent of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, and the amount thereof, in the case of any particular enterprise or project, shall not exceed £250,000 without the consent in writing of the Minister".
What I want to say is covered in the amendment which was ruled out of order. I agree with the Government amendment. I had not understood from the Bill that each individual project would have to be approved by the Minister. My problem is that SFADCo, for example, does not have to return to the Minister for sums much larger than £250,000. I cannot understand why there is a different rule for the western commission. I assume there is a good reason for the £250,000 ceiling but I cannot see it.
This issue will arise in another amendment I have tabled. A sum of £250,000 will be relatively small for some of the projects, particularly if they involve private enterprise money. Will the commission have to return to the Minister for joint venture projects which cost £250,000 but to which the commission is only contributing half that sum?
They do not have to once it is under £250,000.
Is that £250,000 from the purse of the commission?
Yes.
It is important to know that. There is a number of people involved who do not know that.
They must only seek permission in writing for projects over £250,000. It is correct financial procedure. SFADCo is in place of the IDA, which is a different body entirely.
It will be doing the same job in many cases.
The IDA is already working in the west. It will be doing that with Enterprise Ireland.
The IDA has not worked in the west for the past 20 years.
Will Deputy Ring restrain himself and let the Minister of State finish?
I cannot when he makes such comments.
It is important to think positively.
I want to get at the truth - it has not worked there for 20 years.
Deputy Ring must restrain himself.
A sum of £250,000 is 5 per cent of the entire allocation for one year - it is a lot of money.
I know that - we can argue at another time about the amount of money which has been allocated.
Approval is not necessary if investing £100,000 or £249,000 in any project.
I want to put on record that I cannot see why SFADCo should be dealt with differently from the western commission. I assume private investment can exceed the £250,000 ceiling.
The ceiling only applies to taxpayers' money.
I accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 4 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the revenue. I have notified Deputy Connaughton of the position.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) In providing financial assistance to private enterprises, the Commission shall have regard to any Regulations, Directives and Decisions issued by the European Commission in regard to the effect of State funding on competition in the private sector.".
This is a fundamental amendment. If the western commission works in the way I think it will, it will obviously be in the market for joint partnerships, equities and loans to various bodies. Will the Department of Finance or the European Union regard such investment in a project in the west as being anti-competitive as far as European aid to member states is concerned? As we know, the urban renewal schemes have been held up because the European Union wants to test whether giving Ireland more than its fair share, as the EU sees it, of funding for urban development could be seen as making the other member states less competitive.
Where do we stand in the case of funding under the Western Development Commission, particularly where the Western Development Commission's money is matched by private enterprise in the form of loans, equity, etc.? What if it turns out in a few years that the urban development business goes against the Government as in the case of certain taxation matters in urban renewal which are now not permissible? There is a direct correlation in what we are doing here with the Western Development Commission. I tabled this amendment although I know that the Minister and his Department have thought of this. It is an extremely serious matter which would have a hugely negative effect on investment in the west through this system if that was the policy adopted by the EU.
The big problem with this Bill and the Western Development Commission relating to EU regulations and directives is that without Objective One status in that region there will be a limit on the amount of grant aid which can be given by the Western Development Commission to various organisations and companies. Will the Minister clarify that that is the case, that there will be a limit on the amount of funds which can be provided to private enterprise in areas without Objective One status? With Objective One status there is a certain amount of leeway to give a greater percentage of grant aid both through the Western Development Commission and State bodies.
We may be at odds here because we are not talking about grant aid. We are talking about equity and, above all, loans at reasonable rates of interest. The compliance of all semi-State bodies, including the one in this Bill, with EU regulations is mandatory in every area. In fact, it is covered in other parts of Irish legislation with regard to accession to the European Commission. Therefore, it does not and should not affect this in any way because we are not talking about grant aid to the west; we are talking about people who are taking an equity stake. It is the niche market in which Enterprise Ireland is not involved because they are either too small or too big, or it is not interested. It is in areas where there are slots and vacancies. This is purely on the basis of giving an equity share or, indeed, taking on the loan at a lower interest rate. Therefore, it does not affect that market in any way.
I would certainly be delighted to accept the Minister's word for that and there will be many people delighted to hear that. Until recently, the Department of the Environment and Local Government saw no problem with the urban renewal schemes but we found out there were many problems with them. As the Minister will be aware, the files have been held up for several months and we do not know what will be the outcome. It would be a tragedy if a similar view was taken of loans and equities as put forward by the Western Development Commission.
No, because this is not a tax benefit of any sort. It is just the taking of an equity shareholding.
Is the Minister happy enough with it?
I am.
I take the Minister's word for it.
I agree with the Minister, it is a good provision. I was a member of the county enterprise board in County Kerry for a period and it was always seeking a revolving loan facility or the capacity to inject capital into enterprises. As the Minister and the committee will be aware, there is vast investment potential, especially among the greater Irish community in America. Will it be possible for people who are not natives of Ireland who want to invest in the west to take equity in business? Will people outside the State be able to invest in various enterprises?
As a famous County Roscommon man would say, there would be no problem. That is allowed for in the Bill. They may accept presents of land or anything else in that area for the promotion of the west.
Will the commission be able to go to America and form these connections?
That will be its own business. It will depend on how it runs its business. The commission will be able to accept gifts of land, money or anything else in that area.
Is this based on the SFADCo model?
No. It is unique to the west.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 is in the name of Deputy Deenihan. Amendment No. 8 is consequential. Therefore, it is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 6 and 8 together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (7), line 31, to delete "and Sligo" and substitute ", Sligo and Kerry".
I am not introducing this amendment lightly. There is no ulterior motive behind my amendment. It is not an effort to embarrass my county colleague, Deputy Healy-Rae. As I am reviewing the policy on rural development and regionalisation, I can see that the trend is towards the western seaboard. I feel that we, in County Kerry, could be isolated. I mean this sincerely and I am not crying wolf.
As I described the last day in an expression which I took from the report, being lumped in with County Cork has not disadvantaged County Kerry to any great extent in the past, although it probably has in the health area. It did not matter because there was no strong regional structure in place and the existing regional authority has no powers and no authority as such. Without a budget, it is more or less ineffective. However, it is working hard to establish a regional identity. In the future regional authorities will be more important. The EU is moving in that direction at present.
To return to the County Cork issue again, even areas in County Cork are being disadvantaged in a way because they must cope with the high GDP of Cork city and the harbour region. A supplement to Business and Finance of 22 October 1998 was entitled “Boom times in Cork: Coping with Success”. The people of County Kerry are in the same region and we are coping with failure, rural depopulation and total frustration.
Dara Doyle in an article in the same issue of Business and Finance put forward the argument - these are two separate issues but they may become the same issue in future - that, as regards Objective One status, if County Kerry and County Clare were included in the block already suggested by the Minister, it would not bring the GDP of all that region to over 75 per cent. That makes a clear argument for having County Kerry included in the Objective One area because it would not affect the overall balance or exclude anybody else. However, that is another question which I am not bringing into myargument today. It will be important in thefuture.
The Minister is talking about the west but we should refer to the western seaboard. In early EU policy the 12 western counties were established and targeted for special aid. That should not have changed. Whereas places in County Kerry, such as Tralee and Killarney, have boomed because of tourism, little rural parishes have been totally wiped out in places such as south-west County Kerry, which is not in my constituency, east County Kerry and north-east County Kerry, which forms part of my constituency. Townlands have been wiped off the register, for example. The recent census report shows a big decline in the population of places like Tarbert, which had a vibrant community going back even to the last century. It lost 125 people between 1991 and 1996. That is just one village.
Other DEDs have also shown a decline in population. I fear for the future of those communities. When I travel through villages and witness the number of elderly farmers - many of whom are bachelors - occupying farms, I cannot but expect they will not be there in ten years' time. Their families will have moved on and they will not have anyone to whom they can pass on the farms.
The scheme outlined in this Bill is the type which would be most appropriate for a county like Kerry. This pioneering legislation has been in gestation for some time and we have had numerous reports on it. It represents a new and welcome departure. The co-ordination, co-operation, partnerships and synergies between State and voluntary agencies, Government Departments and regional authorities outlined in the Bill is exactly what is required in the west of Ireland and in a county like Kerry on the western seaboard. A definition of the west should not exclude Kerry which will always be understood to be in the west.
In regard to industry, the IDA promotes south Kerry and SFADCo promotes north Kerry while, in regard to tourism, Bord Fáilte promotes the south of the county and SFADCo promotes the north. We have Údarás na Gaeltachta operating in Dingle and Ballinskelligs as well as numerous county enterprise boards and a plethora of Leader companies. There is complete fragmentation. My understanding is that the Bill will encourage co-ordination and partnership between these agencies. That kind of co-ordination is badly needed in the west, particular in County Kerry.
I am aware the Minister reads the Leader magazine which comes from Brussels. In the lead article in this month's edition, Laurent Van Depoele refers to a new approach to rural development policy. I have no doubt the Minister attended the meeting of 18 March at which it was stated that new instruments would be introduced in regard to rural development policy. These commenced in Cork in November 1996 during Ireland's EU Presidency and were intended to form part of our declaration or mission statement at the end of our term, but that was blocked by the Germans. It is becoming increasingly obvious that a new type of rural development policy is emerging which will not necessarily be attached to agriculture. Agriculture will still be viewed as a core area but rural development policy will be more widely developed. I do not want Kerry to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
Places like Tralee and Killarney which have natural resources have done well but the rest of the county is not benefiting to the same extent. I am confident the Bill's provisions will work. The final report of the study of the west published in 1994, entitled "A Crusade for Survival", referred to the west as comprising Connacht and Donegal. County Clare has been added since then, no doubt because the former Minister exerted his influence in that respect. I applaud him for that. People like Fr. Harry Bohan would also have been very anxious that Clare be included. Fr. Bohan has been one of the greatest promoters of rural development since the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The action plan for western development published in 1996 recommended the setting up of the Western Development Commission on a statutory basis, together with the setting up of a western development fund. These measures have evolved over time but County Kerry was not included in their development. The Minister may ask where I was when this thinking was evolving. I accept we should have been involved at an earlier stage and should have been thinking more about Kerry's inclusion. However, recent developments and policy rumours would suggest Kerry cannot but afford to be included at this stage. We did not realise Ireland would be regionalised for the next round of Structural Funds. The reality is that regionalisation will occur and the Western Development Commission will be very important.
I want to comment on a paper submitted to me on behalf of the south-western development authority in regard to the GDP and GBA in County Kerry. A group of economists in Kerry presented a paper on the matter on 11 June and even though it was not published, I have a copy of it. Essentially, it is a study of personal income and other economic indicators for County Kerry and it reveals that income levels in County Kerry are far lower than in County Cork. The figures used in the study relate to 1995. Members will be aware that 1995 was a record year for farming and tourism. The figures were compared with figures for 1973. Figures are not produced on a county by county basis, but on a regional basis, although a commitment has been given to publish figures on a county basis from mid 1999.
If this amendment is not accepted today, I will reintroduce it on Report Stage in the Dáil and press it strongly. I expect to get the support of all TDs in the county in that regard. I am not taking a cheap political swipe at anyone; I am merely concerned about the future of a county of which I am very proud, one which has given a great deal to this country in terms of sport and education and its contribution to the Civil Service. The county is dying on its knees in many areas and that is something I cannot accept as one of its public representatives. This Bill is an important instrument which could be used to regenerate the county.
My colleague, Deputy Deenihan, made a fine contribution on the reasons County Kerry should be included in the commission. I am amazed he lost sight of south-west Cork. The terrain and the people there is similar. Deputy Deenihan spoke about the achievements of the Kerry team with a big ball, but what about those of the Cork team with a small ball?
The amendment relates to the addition of Kerry; if Deputy Sheehan wishes to debate west Cork, he must table an amendment in that regard on Report Stage.
I will do that.
Will the Deputy move on; I know he will not be welcome.
Before I cross the tunnel in Glengarriff - which is all that is between the renowned Deputy Healy-Rae and myself - I give notice that we will seek to have south-west Cork included in the Western Development Commission Bill. Since the formation of the disadvantaged areas schemes a region from Malin Head to Mizen Head was incorporated. I have seen no evidence of improvement in south-west Cork or any other counties which have been included. There is no airport in south-west Cork even though it is as big as five other counties in Ireland.
Will the Deputy confine himself to Kerry? I do not want to sound nasty but we have to move on.
Will the Deputy support me?
I will support Deputy Deenihan in his bid to have Kerry included on condition that he will reciprocate that when it comes to my amendment. It is a well known fact I am very familiar with the terrain in south Kerry, perhaps more so than Deputy Deenihan.
Is the Deputy going for Europe?
The kernel of the problem is that in regions such as south Kerry there is high mountain terrain and areas which deserve the same recognition as western counties in this Bill. I support, with pleasure, Deputy Deenihan's amendment and give notice that on Report Stage I will enter south-west Cork, from Malin Head to Mizen Head, as a disadvantaged area
I am grateful for the geography lesson because west Limerick and east Limerick do not exist here - one has to go from Clare to Kerry and then take the road to Cork. As Deputy Deenihan rightly said, he did not do it to politically embarrass his colleague in south Kerry, but he should have considered this when there was a Tánaiste and a Minister of State in north Kerry.
I clarified that and no doubt the Minister of State has it in front of him. He is throwing it back at me, although I knew that would be the mindset. That is not the point. Things have changed. I am serious about this. We can do without the smart talk.
It was Deputy Deenihan who started it.
It was not.
We are talking about what happened only a year and a half ago.
During Second Stage a number of Deputies, suggested that Cavan, Longford and Monaghan should be included. This legislation is being introduced to promote a specific region. As Deputy Connaughton said, many people have tried over the years to do something in this regard, and this is unique legislation to help that specific region. If it is successful, perhaps in the future it could be extended to other areas, including through the Healy Pass or the tunnel——
That area was very kind to the Minister of State when on the road.
Will Deputy Sheehan allow the Minister to finish?
The Commission was established to deal with the problems of the regions, as defined, based on the analysis carried out and we would dissipate the moneys and efforts of the Commission and dilute its intention if we moved too far from the areas outlined. Regions, such as Limerick and the rest of Cork, which would want to be included, would be left out. An approach was publicly stated in the newspaper that Rockchapel in Cork should be included.
I do not support this amendment because this is a Western Development Commission Bill for a specific region.
I applaud the people, the bishops and the communities who first took this initiative. The problems faced by the west are far more serious than those faced generally in a county such as Kerry where there is a vibrant tourism season and where it had, until recently, a very vibrant agricultural industry. That has been desecrated and destroyed but nobody seems to care. The reason Kerry should be included is that it has always been regarded as an integral part of the western seaboard, and if the Minister of State read through the reports, he would see that the problems that are evolving now are those which were identified in the reports. It is similar to writing one of the reports for Kerry because that is what is happening in many of the regional areas.
Many Deputies attend conferences in Kerry, which are usually held in Killarney or Tralee. They could be held in any part of Europe because the economies of Tralee and Killarney are very vibrant, just like any other European town, but that is not a reflection of the rest of Kerry. In 1973 there were 10,000 dairy farmers in Kerry, there are now approximately 3,500. That shows the fall-off in population. The Dingle peninsula has lost 42 per cent of its farmers since 1981. There is total devastation in the area. A rural community has been totally demoralised and people are in bad form; they are certainly not smiling. That is reflected in all the communities and small towns in the locality. I take the Minister of State's point that if this works for the west it can be replicated in other regions but, unfortunately, that may be too late for regions in Kerry. If remedial action is not taken immediately those communities will be lost.
The Government can have a laissez faire attitude towards the economies of communities - let them evolve and if they fail they fail. This goes further than that. We are dealing with people, communities, culture and probably some of the strongest cultural regions in this country. There is an opportunity now to do something about it. As a legislator from north Kerry, there is an opportunity to put my county into this structure and it would benefit. I am entitled to do that. I have been asked where I was when the whole thought process was evolving. I accept we should have been part of it. I admit my mistake. As the Minister said, I was not the only one representing Kerry at that time. I certainly accept we should have been involved in that process. Were other people in Kerry, even the bishop, who were very instrumental in bringing forward the report in the first instance. Having said that, we are dealing with the reality at present and that is why I am committed to having Kerry involved in this structure. Nobody can object to it. In this context, I see Kerry as part of the western seaboard, not as part of a south-western regional structure.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
Will the western development fund be index linked? What are the plans to increase the money available to the fund over the years?
The fund will be £5 million in total - over £2 million this year and £5 million in the full year. It will be reviewed at the end of next year to see how it is being invested and how it is operating.
I have no doubt the Minister will fight for more money for the fund. The more resources available, the better, although I do not suggest money should be thrown at projects. The more projects of scale to which it may be put, the better. That has probably been the experience of Leader. Because of restrictions on the amount of investment, projects of scale cannot be brought forward. Some £2 million will be divided among the entire region and, returning to my amendment, this is one of the reasons people will say that if Kerry is involved, we will dissipate the money further and will make it less meaningful. If £2 million is to be divided among the counties involved, there will be few decent projects. This Bill is well constructed and the philosophy behind it is very important. Nevertheless, it will not succeed unless a decent budget is provided.
Perhaps I am wrong but I believe the chairman raised the issue of funding on Second Stage. A special case must be made to make adequate funding available for projects of scale. The enthusiasm for this Bill and the proposed structure will wane over a period of time if people do not see something happening. That is very important. People must see projects promoted by the Western Development Commission take off and that is why the fund is important.
None of the expenses or running costs of the commission will be taken from that money. That will be separate and will come from the Department of Agriculture and Food.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
Will it be possible to debate the annual report at a committee such as this or in the Dáil? That would be important to heighten the profile of the commission's work.
The Whips would have to agree to time in the Dáil to do so. It should, however, be debated.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Connaughton was ruled out of order for the reasons I explained earlier.
I acknowledge that but I do not understand why the borrowing limit could not have been £300,000. I wonder what the rationale is for the £200,000 but I assume we cannot debate it once the amendment is ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
I agree with the section. I am delighted to see that the commission has got a number of new staff, and that is not only because I happen to know one of them. They are highly skilled and trained professional people and will provide a good basis. I hope it will be a springboard for the brightest and best executives. They are starting on the right foot and I wish them luck.
The commission has a big responsibility. It has the staff and will get the resources and I hope it will deliver on this occasion. I hope any questions we, as public representatives, have may be raised in the Dáil. Everyone knows what happens when one writes to a Minister asking about Leader, for example. The response is that Leader will respond directly, but one might have to wait six months before one gets a reply. That is wrong. This is a statutory agency under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture and Food and if a Member asks a question on how the commission is working, the jobs it has created and money spent, they should be able to get that information.
That is a separate matter. I hope the commission will take note of all representations from public representatives and that it recognises their authority and position.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 27 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Title agreed to.