Deputy Brennan has six minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Regional Policy: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the failure of the Government to formulate and implement a regional policy designed to stimulate the growth of the less developed parts of the country.—(Deputy Colley).
I was endeavouring to illustrate the changing attitudes of the Minister for Finance in relation to the economy generally. It is something which has baffled most people. We all know of the television programme "The Many Faces of Dick Emery", which is rather amusing. That actor portrays a man who can rapidly change from one role to another. The Minister for Finance, who reminds me of him, recently exhorted our people to prepare for the tough times which inevitably lay ahead and asked workers to be careful about claiming any further increases in their wages or incomes.
However yesterday we had the same Minister in a different role, dispensing largesse all over Ireland and, in particular, to County Mayo.
We will be receiving £5.9 million from the regional fund for 88 projects. Work has already been carried out on most of these projects or is being carried out. In the normal course of events they would have qualified for such assistance, but we have not received any indication from the Minister for Finance as to what our regional policy will be. An old politician's cliché: "The mill does not run on water that has passed" applies in this context. We were all interested in getting the advance factories which Fianna Fáil were responsible for erecting and also interested in getting the sewerage and water schemes but we are more interested in what will be done in the future in relation to the underdeveloped regions, particularly Mayo.
We do not want a recitation of pious hopes from the Minister about what he would like to see happening or what the Government may do because we are tired hearing about matters that are under review. We want to see a blueprint which will spell out in detail what will be done in relation to the less-favoured areas. There must be fundamental planning which must refer to infrastructure and not simply applying grants to isolated water schemes. We want a definite policy that will open up access to the west. We want proper highways and primary roads based on national planning. We want a plan that will show airways and the development of harbours and the fish processing industry. It is laughable for the Minister to talk about the establishment of industries on the western seaboard when there are 104,000 unemployed with an addition each week and a forecast that the figure will run up to 140,000. That figure is a modest estimate.
This is the frightening situation in which we are seeking to get some hope for the west in relation to regional development. We sold membership of the EEC in those areas based on the hope they would experience such development and this was written into the Treaty of Rome. We had a right to expect this sort of development and I hope that before the end of the debate a document will be circulated to Members outlining regional policy for the future.
While the Minister for Finance dealt comprehensively with the motion before the House, I felt it, since certain questions put by Deputy Colley and Deputy Brennan were directed specifically at me as Minister for the Gaeltacht, appropriate for me to contribute to the debate. I felt obliged to outline in greater detail the thinking, the philosophy, the aims and objectives behind the recent Government decision setting up the Western Development Board. As Minister for the Gaeltacht I am responsible for what might be called the most peripheral maritime regions in western Europe and the question of regional development is of great interest to me. That question is also of vital interest to the people of the Gaeltacht and those living in the west.
Allowing for the fact that this motion was put down and the debate commenced in a by-election atmosphere I was hopeful that we might have a reasoned and constructive debate on regional development. Unfortunately, Deputy Colley, for reasons best known to himself, destroyed any possibility of such a debate taking place. His contribution would be more appropriate to the after-Mass meetings in the West Mayo Constituency.
The Minister is mistaking it for the speech of the Minister for Finance.
I should like to spell out the case for the establishment of the Western Development Board. Since I made the announcement about this new board in Westport Fianna Fáil have displayed a considerable amount of surprise, annoyance and, in some cases, anger. Frankly, the attitude of Fianna Fáil to this concept of a western development board is very difficult to understand, because the Fianna Fáil Party when in Government and since going into opposition have lost no opportunity to laud and extol the merits of the two regional agencies which they established when in Government, SFADCo and Gaeltarra Éireann.
If the idea of establishing a special agency for the mid-western region was correct then, it is still correct today. As a Deputy for that region who has spent 14 years in the Dáil I have on many occasions paid tribute to the work of SFADCo, acknowledged the progress they made in promoting economic and social development of the mid-west region and their tremendous success in the industrial estate at Shannon since they extended their functions to Limerick city and county, north Tipperary and Clare. Everyone is aware of SFADCo's success in promoting tourism and their original concept of castle tours, medieval banquets and so forth.
In every debate which took place on the Gaeltacht since I had the privilege to be appointed Minister, Fianna Fáil speakers, notably Deputy Faulkner, referred to the fact that "We set up Gaeltarra Éireann". If SFADCo was a good organisation for the mid-western region, and if Gaeltarra Éireann was necessary to promote the development of the Gaeltacht areas, surely there is a cast iron case for a special agency to tackle the appalling economic and social problems to be found in the province of Connacht and County Donegal, problems that are without parallel in any western European country. I cannot understand the attitude of Fianna Fáil in this respect.
I want to remind the House that the case for the establishment of a special agency in Connacht and Donegal is a compelling one. Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at the official statistical evidence available from the census of population over the past few decades will immediately realise that we in the west are confronted with an appalling and frightening situation.
In the intercensal period 1951 to 1971 there was a net percentage reduction in population of 17.6 in Donegal, 6.9 in Galway, 31.2 in Leitrim, 22.8 in Mayo, 21.4 in Roscommon and 16.9 in Sligo against a net national increase of 0.6 per cent. More recently the Mayo County Council commissioned a survey into two specific areas. It was known as the Shipman Survey, and was carried out by a gentleman of that name with his associates. I have the reports for the Erris and the Achill areas. Time does not permit me to go into detail but the survey in the Achill area alone showed that between 1951 and 1971 there was an annual net drop of 100 people per annum, a reduction of 2,000 in Achill alone in that 20 years. This has been reflected in more recent years by the fact that six national schools have closed in that area. Another striking and frightening figure brought out in the survey showed that only one in 20 families there can hope to make a living from the land. In that period the net loss of population in Achill was 37.9 per cent.
Anybody who drives through the west of Ireland will be aware of this appalling and frightening situation. The time was long overdue when special strategies, policies and action had to be taken to try to tackle this very serious situation. The Government were satisfied that the approach to SFADCo and Gaeltarra Éireann, where there are special agencies implementing specific policies tailormade to the economic and social needs of a specific region, was the correct one. More than that, we look at the position in Europe and find that it is now accepted by all western European Governments that there are two basic prerequisites for a successful regional policy. Firstly, there must be a comprehesive, co-ordinated and well integrated development strategy. Secondly, and just as important, there must be a special agency charged with overall responsibility for implementing that policy. I have referred to SFADCo and Gaeltarra Éireann.
I have also seen an example of such a board—the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Scotland, which is a special agency set up to tackle the particular needs of the north of Scotland and the islands. I am aware, and I am sure Deputy Colley and Deputy Herbert are also aware, of the Casa del Mezzogiorno, a special region in the south of Italy, including Sardinia, which has a special Government agency implementing specific policies tailored towards tackling the economic and social problems of those regions. I am aware also of the regional council in France and Belgium. I have here an excellent article published in The Economist of January, 1975, where there was a comprehensive feature and a survey into the regional development policies and strategies of the nine EEC countries. Anybody interested in regional development could not do better than read that article. Here the theme is of special and comprehensive policies and special agencies to implement those policies.
Since I had the honour to be appointed Minister for the Gaeltacht, I travelled extensively throughout the Gaeltacht regions. I think I can justifiably say that I have probably been in every parish and I have certainly been in the seven Gaeltacht offshore islands. Despite what Deputy Colley said last night, that we were making false claims about the employment generated from the Gaeltacht areas since 1973 when we took office, I have in my possession the latest statistics furnished to me by my Department and Gaeltarra Éireann. On 31st December, 1972, the end of the last full year of Fianna Fáil Government, 1,864 were full-time employed in the Gaeltacht. On 30th June, 1975, the last date for which official figures are available, 2,815 people were in full-time employment there, a net increase of 50 per cent.
And the projects were ours, as the Minister disclosed when pressed.
I do not propose to enter into an argument with the Deputy who has been making snide remarks and allegations and so forth. I have seen the great work done in Glencolumbcille, the wonderful community development there, embracing agriculture, industry, tourism and craft works under the magnificent guidance of Fr. McDyer backed up by the full support of Roinn na Gaeltachta and Gaeltarra Éireann. I have seen the wonderful cooperative in Corca Dhuibhne, fully backed by the Department, and the special development agency, Gaeltarra Éireann.
I am very proud of the fact that Commissioner Thomson at a seminar in Galway referred to the great development that had taken place on Inis Mór in the Aran Islands. He said it was the most outstanding example of regional development he had seen in the matter of modern technology in that corner of Ireland, where he had seen electricity being laid on all over the island, water being supplied and small industries being established. The fruits are being seen of the efforts of my colleague, Deputy Dick Burke, in making available in the island full post-primary educational facilities up to leaving certificate.
That is the situation right through the Gaeltacht. It is a wonderful thing to see. On the other hand, as I have travelled through the areas, I have met deputations from communities, church leaders and lay people from local communities from outside the official Gaeltacht asking that something be done to enable them to generate the same type of community development as in the Gaeltacht communities. I recall Bangor Erris——
Tullycross.
I have seen it in Ardrath in County Donegal, but because one half of it is outside the official Gaeltacht and the other half is inside it is a problem. There is Inis Mór. There are English speaking islands. I am conscious of the pleas from many people about the economic and social problems in non-Gaeltacht islands, some of them off Mayo. They have the same economic and social problems as the Gaeltacht islands. They are in need of medical and other social services. It is a crying shame in this nation that our island people have been deprived of these for so long. There is a crying need for them in the non-Gaeltacht parts of Connacht and Donegal. I have had pleas from individuals seeking this overall comprehensive policy.
The case, therefore, is clear-cut: the concept of a Western Development Board is a logical one, a practical one and I have no doubt that through it we will be able to generate the economic and social development which will enable the young people attending school in those areas at least to have the choice of finding suitable employment at home that will provide them with a decent standard of living. I am proud the Government have decided to set up the board and I am particularly proud of the enthusiastic welcome it received on all sides throughout the west following the announcement. There have been all sort of allegations and suggestions by Deputies Colley and Brennan——
I asked questions.
What will the board be? They will be a development agency on the same lines generally brought into being, for the same reasons, as Gaeltarra Éireann, charged with responsibility for implementing a proper development programme for Connacht and Donegal. As I pointed out in Westport, they will not be an industrial development agency only. They will have responsibility for promoting overall development in agriculture, industry, tourism, fisheries and the natural resources. They will work out and co-ordinate the activities of the various State agencies just as SFADCo are doing.
The Minister knows that SFADCo have industrial development power. Will this body have the same type of power?
The Deputy was not listening to me. The Shannon Development Company have responsibility for promoting industrial development and tourism. The Western Development Board will be concerned with tourism, industrial development, agriculture and fisheries.
The same as SFADCo.
SFADCo have no responsibility for fisheries. One very important qualification here is that the Government very rightly decided to provide a blueprint from the top on which there will be full consultation with the various agencies already working in the field so that the experience of such bodies as SFADCo and Gaeltarra Éireann will be called on, because as time goes on it will be necessary to design or to devise a board which, as the Taoiseach pointed out in Castlebar, will utilise all the resources of the region, assured of the full co-operation of all the agencies already operating in the region and co-ordinating all their activities into a comprehensive overall development strategy.
That is what regional development is all about. Deputies Brennan and Colley asked about the other regions. I said in Westport, and it was widely reported in the media, that the Western Development Board are another milestone on the road towards the formulation of a national regional development strategy. I said that the problem and the needs of other regions were being looked at by the Government, but the western region now being covered is the one that has the greatest problems.
I have no doubt the board will be a good one that will be able, through consultation, to generate throughout Connacht and Donegal, in the non-Gaeltacht areas, the same type of dynamic community development that is to be found in Glencolumbcille, Corca Dhuibhne, Cois Fhairrge and other such areas, in north Connemara, Mayo, Donegal and the English speaking off-shore islands. I am proud to be a member of a Government who have made this decision which should have been made years ago——
It was made and implemented.
They had the Buchanan Report and all sorts of experts whose reports filled Government offices. As Deputy Richie Ryan pointed out yesterday, we are not interested in that kind of codology of reports and surveys. We want action.
We are taking action in the west, and through the appointment of this new board we will do it more efficiently and more comprehensively and will stop the haemhorrage of our people from the west. We are giving an opportunity to the young people to find a living in their own community.
All of us realise that the Government has no regional policy. When we examine the way they distributed our current allocation from the regional fund it is obvious it was allocated for reasons of sheer political expediency. There was no sign or trace of any regional policy in the allocation.
Some months ago, through the mechanism of a question on the Adjournment, I attempted to uncover the manner in which the Government intended to spend or use our regional fund allocation. I had genuine fears that the fund was going to be misspent and used to subvent the Exchequer. I said this could be done easily by a Minister for Finance, by an administrative sleight-of-hand, because of certain provisions of the amended regulations. I pointed out that all of Ireland was deemed to be an underdeveloped area and that a large portion of the capital budget, especially that dealing with infrastructure, would be considered appropriate expenditure under the fund criteria. This, coupled with the fact that the Government intended to activate the partial repayment clause of one of the fund regulations, ensured that it would be very easy for a Minister to subsume our fund allocation into the Exchequer.
My fears have not been dispelled. On the contrary they are now very real because what I forecast has happened. There is no extra money being spent on regional development. The money alleged to be spent on the various projects was already earmarked. It is true to say that industrial projects, alleged to be receiving aid from the regional fund, have been asked to acknowledge portion of the money as coming from the regional fund. What could be more dishonest? I have evidence of this in one specific project in County Monaghan and I can supply more details.
Why did the Government not publish the amounts given to individual projects or areas, as did all the other member states? Recently I was furnished with a document at a meeting of the Regional Policy Committee of the European Parliament and I saw that every member state, with the exception of Ireland, published the amount of their allocation to their various regions. We were the only culprit in this matter. Italy, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark and Holland all gave a detailed and comprehensive résumé of how they were going to spend their regional fund allocations and they specifically mentioned the amounts going to each area. All the Italian regions in the Mezzogiorno have been mentioned and the number of projects, the type of projects, whether infrastructural or industrial, whether there was an agricultural content, have been set out. There is specific mention of the amount of money allocated to each region.
For some peculiar reason our Government have withheld this vital information. Why is it a closely guarded secret? It is contrary to article 14, paragraph 1, of the fund regulations which states very clearly:
The investors concerned shall be informed by agreement with the member states in question that part of the aid granted them has been provided by the Community for infrastructure projects. The member states by agreement with the Commission shall take all necessary steps to ensure that assistance from the fund is given maximum publicity.
This publicity should go right across the board. It should not be merely descriptive but it should tell the actual amount of aid given to each individual project or to each individual region.
To dispel all doubts and ambiguity about the spending of regional aid, I am asking the Government to do as the Italians are doing. In his contribution the Minister referred to the Casa del Mezzogiorno and he compared his western development board with the Italian board. He was quite correct in this because the Italians are looking after the development of the depressed regions of the Mezzogiorno. However, there is a very great difference between the two cases because the Italian Government have given all their regional allocation to the Casa del Mezzogiorno. At this moment the necessary legislation is being discussed in the Italian Senate to enshrine it in legislation.
I should like to see the Government embark on a similar operation here. This would dispel all my fears and suspicions. It would dispel, too, the fears and suspicions of the people in the underprivileged regions. Such legislation should be introduced immediately so that it will be available as soon as the new board becomes statutory. The legislation would be simple and would be in keeping with the commitments made by Fianna Fáil to the people in those under-privileged regions during the referendum campaign. We promised that our allocation in toto from the fund would be devoted to these areas so as to correct national imbalances before such time as we would tackle the question of community imbalances.
Another matter that caused me much anxiety was the decision of the Council of Ministers to reduce by 33? per cent the payments appropriation in the 1976 budget in relation to the regional development fund. The fund and our allocation were small enough without making it smaller. The net result of this action will mean that the expenditure of the fund will now be spread over a period of five or six years instead of the original intention, as envisaged at the Paris Summit in December, 1974, of having it spread over a three-year period. Contrary to the decision taken by the heads of state at that summit, the Council of Ministers have settled for a five-year period. Our allocation will be eroded greatly by inflation so that in the fifth or sixth year our allocation will be appreciably devalued.
I would be interested to learn what stand the Minister took at the meeting at which this decision was reached.
He may say such meetings are confidential. However, during the past couple of years we have had experience of Ministers rushing to give Press conferences if the outcome of a meeting was in Ireland's favour. They have hailed such outcomes as being in the nature of personal victories. But if the outcome was not in our favour we had the spectacle of the Minister concerned blaming the Commission. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is notorious in this respect. In fact, he has evoked the wrath of Commissioner Lardinois.
On an Adjournment debate here I asked the Minister whether aid would be given under article 4 paragraph (c) of the fund regulation. That article refers to investments in infrastructures as embodied in article 3, paragraph 2, of the Council directive on hill and mountain farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas. The less-favoured areas in question must correspond with or be located within one of the regions covered by article 3 of the regulation. Paragraph 2 of article 3 of the Council directive states that these areas must have adequate infrastructure, including access roads to farms, electricity and drinking water and, in tourist and recreational areas, facilities for disposal of sewage. It states that if such amenity should be lacking their provision should be envisaged in the near future in public amenity programmes.
The provision of this type of infrastructure for the disadvantaged areas is permissible under an article of the regional fund regulation. As reported at column 1863 of the Official Report for May 14th last a question was tabled to the Minister for Transport and Power in relation to huge amounts being requested by the ESB for connections to outlying areas. The subsidy had been withdrawn and it was stated by Deputy Gallagher that in some instances sums of £1,200 were being demanded by the ESB in respect of connections.
We were informed that this service would not qualify for a FEOGA grant unless it related to agriculture production, because the installation of electricity for domestic purposes would not be allowed under the FEOGA regulations. Did the Minister wilfully withhold the information or, perhaps, he was not aware of the fact that under Article 4 (2) of the Regional Fund regulation it is possible to get EEC aid for this type of operation —the provision of electricity, drinking water and access roads to farm and, in tourist and recreation areas, for the disposal of sewerage. This was why I was so attracted to this particular article and this was my reason for putting down a question to the Minister for Finance. Nothing has happened. No application has been made under this article.
I was in west Mayo for the last few days and I experienced conditions there. There are literally miles of unsurfaced roads. The surfacing of these roads is quite outside the resources of the Mayo ratepayers. People must have proper access. Deputy Staunton is aware of the conditions and is he also aware that this type of infrastructure can be provided? Drinking water can be provided? I have seen people in Mayo hauling buckets of water. I was a member of the European parliamentary committee on regional policy and we fought a very arduous battle to get a realistic allocation of regional aid and we certainly influenced Commissioner Thomson to take a liberal view of our case. He admitted that himself. We fought for two-and-a-half years for the under-privileged areas so that certain amenities would be provided for those who live in them. I was on a road last night which serves quite a big number of houses, on the townland of Ceimagh in the Belmullet peninsula. It is a road used by tourists for six months of the year. It is also used by fishermen. I was told that the residents believe most people will be dead before the road is properly surfaced. This is an appalling state of affairs. An expenditure of a few thousand pounds out of our allocation of £6 million this year would put things right. Apparently we cannot afford money for the provision of these basic amenities.
The Minister gave us figures about the increasing population. I heard last night in Belmullet that emigration is once more raising its ugly head and, if things continue as they are, the flow of people out will become a raging torrent. A man informed me who came back from England four years ago, having spent 20 years there, that he would not return to Mayo now.
The Government have no regional policy and no national programme. A programme of regional policy must be submitted to the Commission by 1977. The programme should now be well advanced. I understand that Deputy Colley as Minister for Finance requested the RDOs to draw up plans for their various regions so that these could be co-ordinated into a proper regional programme and an overall national policy. Unfortunately, Deputy Colley moved over to this side of the House and nothing has happened since. I have been told by officers in certain RDOs that they have programmes drawn up but there is no response from the Government.
I should like to remind the Deputy he has just two minutes left.
I shall not be able to say in two minutes all that I would like to say. I would appeal to the Government to do what the Italian Government are doing at this very moment in respect of their allocation of regional aid. They are bringing in the appropriate legislation. We must do the same to ensure that our allocation next year and in the future will be spent in those areas in which it was intended originally the money would be spent, the underdeveloped areas of the western seaboard, Cork and Kerry included. The Minister for the Gaeltacht omitted these two counties from his western development board. I presume he has taken other measures to cater for these two very needy counties.
Acting Chairman
I should like to remind Deputy Staunton that he has to give way at 7.15 p.m. to Deputy Colley.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Private Members' Motion put down by Deputy Colley. I regret that my time is limited. The motion deplores the failure of the Government to formulate and implement a regional policy designed to stimulate the growth of the less developed parts of the country. It does not seem altogether fitting that this motion should come from a party who, in the latter years of their administration, were subject to the most intense criticism from sources in addition to political sources, and from vocational interests on the lack of any activity in this field.
Deputy Herbert spoke of his recent ventures into County Mayo, and the lack of development in County Mayo, with which I agree. I agree there are many projects which need to be undertaken in that county and, indeed, in other western counties, which are beyond the capacity of the ratepayers. I wonder has it occurred to Deputy Herbert, coming from Limerick, coming from the mid-west region, to reflect on the organisational structures under which, apparently, an entirely different system operates for the economic development of the mid-west region in comparison with that which operates in the western counties, apart from the Gaeltacht areas. That fundamental difference of administration and the lack of the same degree of autonomy in western regions are to a degree, responsible for the very lack of development to which he was a witness.
He spoke at length about the EEC allocation. Let us put it into context. In this year we are talking about, we are talking about a grant of somewhere between £6 million and £8 million which is very small relative to the total budget. There is no need to make a dog's dinner out of this. It is an important matter. Exaggerating this question at this time is not very helpful. Let us give the background to this issue of regional development. Sometimes there is confusion about two aspects when we speak about regional development and regional policy. Of course, funds are important and money is important because, without money, you cannot get your investment moving and you cannot create wealth or jobs. Also of great importance so far as any regional policy is concerned, is the issue of organisation and the structure of organisation and the degree to which autonomy rests within a region, or the philosophy of the Government in regard to the centralisation of the State, or this very issue of autonomy.
We are speaking about this issue of regional development especially as it pertains to the west. Deputy Colley referred to the less developed regions. We are speaking about a background of disillusionment and imbalance. If those who have a vocational interest in the subject, apart from wanting to milk whatever political advantage there is in it, look at political decisions and Governmental decisions made in the past 20 years, what do they see? They see in this mid-west region from which Deputy Herbert came to Mayo and came to Dublin today, a structure under SFADCo which bears no relationship whatever to any other organisational structure for economic development, with the sole exception of the organisation for economic development under Roinn na Gaeltachta, under the direction of the Minister for the Gaeltacht, through Gaeltarra Éireann.
Let us pay a compliment to the Opposition. Let us pay a compliment to their decision when in Government. No doubt at that time they were criticised for that decision, as we are being criticised for a certain decision this week. Let us say with hindsight that it was a good decision. Why had we to wait ten, 15 or 20 years after that decision to learn certain lessons? Why could we not stand still at some stage and ask has SFADCo been a success or a failure? Should we amend it? Should we scrap it? Should we further develop it? Should we democratise it a little further? Instead of that footsie was played, and we had regional development when it was fashionable to be regional engaged in by semi-State bodies and by Government Departments and other Government agencies, all going off at a tangent and all setting up their separate regional structures and their own little bodies of autonomy, entirely unrelated and unco-ordinated with other semi-State bodies or Government Departments.
We had the setting up of regional development organisations under Fianna Fáil. What purpose did they serve? In general terms, in large counties they were two county units. The two county unit for some purposes was too small and for other purposes too big. They are demanding statutory powers. If you give statutory powers to an RDO, you tend to weaken the local authority, which is the last thing I want to do as a Deputy on this side of the House. During those years why did we not look at the experience we had in autonomy and decentralisation? Why did we not take a look at the level of industrial development in the mid-west region, the level of job opportunities, and the level of State investment and learn something. That lesson was not learned.
Additionally, if we speak about the Gaeltacht, and an organisation within the Gaeltacht, it seems to me that there is a necessity for a separate policy without question, when we think in terms of national identity, our culture, our aspirations, our past and our history. When we get into the economic area, we are talking about an entirely different kettle of fish. For many years speeches have been made about the necessity for a separate economic policy in the less-developed areas of the Gaeltacht, about the merits of autonomy, the merits of decentralisation, the merits of community participation. If it is necessary in the less developed regions of the Gaeltacht, by definition, if we are speaking in terms of economics, it is equally necessary in the Gaeltacht, or the English speaking areas of the less-developed regions. Within the very backward regions an imbalance is being created. For example, in Connemara, without going to Mayo at all, the imbalance is being created through the total neglect of north Connemara because of the craziness of the policies we have inherited in this area.
The Minister referred to the islands. What is the explanation of a special policy for Aran and a total lack of concern for the islands of Innisturk and Innisboffin where the Government have not got the statutory function they have in the other islands and where people are equally under-privileged? That is the background to this issue of a western development board. Unfortunately, I have not got sufficient time to develop these points.
We have been charged with issuing a blatant political ploy for by-election purposes with the announcement by the Minister for the Gaeltacht of the Government's decision to establish a western development board. There is a background on record in the Institute of Public Administration about the fact that this is the most centralised country in Europe. There is a background in a policy document issued by Macra na Feirme four or five years ago suggesting the establishment of a western development board. There is a background in a Fine Gael policy document entitled "A Policy for People, March, 1971", in which it is stated quite clearly that such a body should be established and that the other body would be a new body of a similar type to SFADCo whose efforts would be concentrated on the least developed parts of the country in the north-west and north midlands.
There is a background in that at the Labour Party annual conferences in Galway in 1971 it was stated that the Labour Party would establish a regional development board for the west. There is a background because of the special interest of the Taoiseach in this project. He wrote me a letter on 9th July, 1974, as a result of representations made. He said that in November, 1973, he instigated an investigation into the possibility of having these ideas put into effect. There is a background for the Minister for the Public Services at a function in Westport in February last where he stated that the Government were considering the establishment of this board. An invitation was accepted by the Minister for the Gaeltacht to a vocational study on regional policy before there was an issue of a by-election in West Mayo. This background is genuine, vocational, interested and sincere. For many years when we were in Opposition we shouted "Stop".
Let me give you a tiny example within the region of Mayo about which we are speaking at present. If we are talking about industrial development within Gaeltacht areas, I shall tell the House of a change of policy made there by the present Minister. At a meeting we had with Gaeltarra Éireann about four years ago when there was great controversy in Erris about industrial development we were informed by Gaeltarra Éireann that their brief from the then Minister for the Gaeltacht was to apportion industrial grants in Gaeltacht areas proportionate to the deontas. On a deontas basis Erris was at the bottom of the list of the three major Gaeltachtaí. That is an example of the lunacy we inherited, a policy which was changed very quickly by the Minister for the Gaeltacht on coming into Government and which has led to an infinitely greater amount of development, buoyancy and hope in that part of Mayo.
Additionally, there is a background from the people because in the last general election the change was in the west. I am not complimenting ourselves on that because the politics of the west for years has been one of protests. It has been a protest vote against the Establishment whether it be Fianna Fáil or a national Coalition. Certainly, if we do not respond to the people who elected us and to whom we said we would attempt to break through the appalling situation of this region and do something about it, we shall go before the electorate. And rightly they will come and will do to us what they did in the past. Therefore, there is a mandate from them too.
I think Deputy Colley last evening said there was no indication of the regions, functions, powers or money of this Western Development Board the Government have announced. It seems to me that the Government had two options in this area. They could introduce a cast-iron board with authoritative decisions and definitions being made without consultation and, in an arbitrary sense, could have said: "This is it." Alternatively, their only option was to make a broad decision in principle inviting consultation. They took the latter course which was the wise course and there was not an in-between. Certainly the cast-iron approach with all the various lobbies coming in to show all of the reasons why they believed the decisions made to be wrong—could be very wrong.
There is no question of this board interfering with existing bodies. The necessity rather exists because of the total lack of co-ordination with regional groups of semi-State bodies, of Government Departments going at tangents and overlapping. They are merely centralised structures in the sense that they are responsible to their individual bodies in Dublin. The decision making is done in the capital city. There is not the degree of decision making or autonomy within the province which we seek. If there is no merit in what we are saying, why should we laud what is happening in the mid-west or in Gaeltarra Éireann? Would it not be logical to scrap SFADCo, scrap Gaeltarra Éireann because that is the logical conclusion? If there is merit in what has been happening in SFADCo and in Gaeltarra Éireann, then there is merit in developing this board along the lines which are sensible, rational and reasonable.
There are simple examples of why it is necessary. We saw one such example with the development of Ballyglass harbour in North Mayo. We saw money voted by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to build a harbour but no commitment was made by that Department to build the road. Yet it was an entirely separate agency which was involved in the road, Mayo County Council, which did not have the resources within it to fund a road for that specific purpose, and so we had a terrible mess. But if one has a body within the province responsible directly to a Cabinet Minister, in the sense that Gaeltarra Éireann is at present responsible to the Minister for the Gaeltacht, then that simply could not have happened because there would have been co-ordinated planning.
In so far as what this board might or might not do, I should like to reassure people who think that it would take over existing functions to a substantial degree. My judgment is that that is not what is required. I do not see it as being a board that will scrap the functions of the IDA in the regions or those of Bord Fáilte. As a Deputy interested in this, rather would I see it as a board presided over by a Cabinet Minister containing representatives of the regional directors of such semi-State bodies, county managers and county councils, with an interlocking, co-ordinating and planning function being carried out by such a board in conjunction with Bord Fáilte, with the Industrial Development Authority, BIM and other bodies.
We have got to get away from the farce with which we have been living— the farce of the islands, the farce of the non-Gaeltacht areas, the dishonesty in Irish life at present where there are villages on the fringe of Gaeltachtaí craving to be put into the Gaeltachtaí when, of course, they should not because they do not speak Irish. The answer is to have a policy which would mean such Gaeltacht districts could put the same type of show on the road which we are witnessing in the Gaeltacht.
The Deputy must now give way to the mover of the motion.
The Taoiseach referred recently to this issue. He stated that it will not provide over-night solutions or automatic answers but it can provide a comprehensive, integrated, overall strategy within which we can plan the future. I would welcome the constructive support of the Opposition in the debate.
I should like to commence my concluding remarks by complimenting Deputy Staunton on making some reference to regional policy in this debate, to what has happened in the past and trying to apply it to the present. It is not a compliment I can pay either to the Minister for Finance or to the Minister for the Gaeltacht who were the other two speakers on the Government side. They studiously avoided the whole question of regional policy and for reasons which are quite understandable. I hope to come to the points made by Deputy Staunton who is, in my view, on the right lines except that he is unaware of certain developments that took place.
The first speaker on the Government side was the Minister for Finance. We had from him what can fairly be described as a blustering, cross-roads, by-election speech. Of course, we had the usual abuse we get from the Minister for Finance, the usual switching of statistics. In one breath he was speaking about the number of jobs and, in the next breath, about the moneys spent on job creation without reference to inflation. Wherever the figures seemed to suit him he used them, switching them around mercilessly but we are used to that from him. What we did not hear from the Minister for Finance was any reference to regional policy or the attitude of the Government to it. Not once did the Minister for Finance, when speaking yesterday and not once today did the Minister for the Gaeltacht, when speaking, use the words "growth centres". Not once did they indicate the Government's attitude on this basic question of any regional policy.
The Minister for the Gaeltacht complained that I had not, by my speech, induced reasoned debate on this matter. I want to remind the Minister for the Gaeltacht that I examined briefly, in the short time available, the major recommendation of the Buchanan Report and what happened after that. Of course, all of that boiled down to a general attitude of Government in regard to this proposition of growth centres. There was not one word from the two Ministers who spoke on that topic. This motion deplores the failure of the Government to formulate and implement a regional policy. The omission of the two Ministers concerned to advert in any way to a national, regional policy is of itself sufficient justification for putting down this motion and voting for it because, if any confirmation were needed of the fact that this Government have no regional policy, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Gaeltacht gave us that confirmation.
I referred to the fact that we were working towards a comprehensive, national, regional development policy and that the Western Development Board was another milestone on that road.
I shall come to that. This was the point with which Deputy Staunton was dealing. I drew attention yesterday by quoting from the relevant documents to what happened. I drew attention to the fact that in 1969 the then Fianna Fáil Government decided on a policy of regionalising the administration of the IDA. They also announced a policy of setting up regional groups to co-ordinate the activities not only of the IDA but of the local authorities and of tourism bodies and others in the different regions. That policy was implemented. At the time that was being done in this House I said, and was questioned by Members of the Government then on this side of the House, that I regarded the SFADCo model as the one to work towards, that that is what I wanted to see happening in the other regions which we had designated, the nine regions, and that I envisaged in due course, when we had experience of these operating in the different regions, the setting up of companies such as SFADCo in each of the regions.
There are nine SFADCos.
Yes, for each region. Now what do we get today? The spelling out to a slight extent of the by-election announcement of the Western Development Board, but what is that? That is putting the clock back to 1969. That is announcing with a big flourish that the Government are now setting up what we set up years ago. The only difference I can see is that the region is different. As I understand it from what the Minister for the Gaeltacht said, it is the province of Connacht plus Donegal and excluding the Gaeltacht areas. That, as a region, is not one of the nine regions we announced. That is perfectly legitimate if the Government want to do that. But is it not reasonable to expect that if they had a regional policy in relation to this region they are now designating they would say, "We are not adhering to the regions previously operated for the following reasons: (a) (b) (c)."? People could then weigh up whether that was a good or a bad decision. No reason has been given for that.
It is a logical unit.
The Minister will not deny that no reason has been given by him or the Minister for Finance, inside or outside this House, for that region. I am not saying there is not a good reason; I am saying it was not given. It is just one of the aspects of the reasons that should have been given and it was not. The Government were asked to explain what would be the role, for instance, of the IDA regional offices, of the county development teams and the local authorities in relation to this proposed development board. The Minister said yesterday in this debate, that the role of the Western Development Board would be "in substitution for this multitude of overlapping bodies", and the Minister for the Gaeltacht nodded his head and agreed when he said it.
I did not.
Then the Minister for Finance was asked questions today such as I asked last night, and he said something similar to what the Minister for the Gaeltacht said tonight. Anybody who was listening to him will have heard the Minister for the Gaeltacht talk about the functions of the IDA, of tourism functions and so on, and I asked him was he saying that these were going to be vested in this Western Development Board. The Minister will recall this. I asked, "Is it going to be the same as SFADCo?" and he said, "Yes, it is, except SFADCo have fisheries". When I had got that information the Minister suddenly remembered that that was a rather dangerous statement to make and he went back to what the Minister for Finance was saying today and said, "Of course, we are going to engage in widespread consultation". Either you are going to engage in widespread consultation and you do not know what is going to happen, or you have made up your mind as to what is going to happen, one or the other.
Following consultation.
Yes, you have made a decision or you have not made a decision because, of course, you are going to engage in widespread consultation. But you cannot have it both ways because if what is involved is co-ordination of these activities you are putting the clock back to 1969.
There is no co-ordination at present.
If the Government were to say now: "We feel that the organisation set up in the past in the various regions should now be developed into something like SFADCo in their particular regions and that the regions should have changed", and were to give reasons for their various decisions, I certainly would not quarrel with that as a policy. I might disagree with the reasons given or I might not—I might agree with thought it could be improved. But them—but it would indicate determination by the Government to have a regional policy, to develop what is there and to improve it if they that is not what we have got. It is very significant that neither of the Ministers in the debate have referred to what has happened in the past or used the words "growth centres". The only one who attempted to go even near this question of the continuity and development of what was there already and how it should be changed was Deputy Staunton, but Deputy Staunton cannot deny that if you look at what has been announced as a Western Development Board, and if it is not going to interfere with the activities of the IDA in the region or the tourism body in the region or the local authority, then it is going to co-ordinate. May I refer the House to the Government's statement setting up the groups, which was issued on 19th May, 1969:
The main function of these groups will be to co-ordinate the programmes for regional development in each region.
That was 1969, and it was done.
No, it was not being done.
It was done, but if it is not being done properly and if it is necessary to give legislative power in certain areas to those groups, well and good; let us argue about it. The whole dishonesty of this proposal, announced in anticipation of the by-election is that the Government cannot tell us, even when closely questioned, what the board is going to do in relation to these various bodies such as the IDA regional office, such as the county development team, such as the local tourism organisation. When they cannot tell us what is going to happen about that, when they cannot tell us whether any money is going to be given to it or, if it is, whether that is going to come from any of these bodies—and that is what emerges from the parliamentary question replied to by the Minister for Finance today to Deputy Hugh Gibbons—when they cannot say any of these things, is it not quite clear that no thought whatever has been given to this, that it is purely a gimmick to pretend that something great will be done for the west? We know the value of that kind of an approach, one that has no regard for regional policy.
If one wants confirmation of the fact that there is no regional policy with this Government, one has only to look at what they have been doing in regard to the EEC fund. Because it is small that is all the more reason why it should be concentrated to operate effectively. It has been spread throughout the whole country and there is some notion that because the whole country is accepted for EEC purposes as eligible under the regional fund, all the money should be spent there. There is no obligation whatever to do that, and there is a risk, if we do it, that countries which are contributing substantially to the EEC will refuse to do it if they see that money being spent in areas which are not by any means deprived compared with some other areas of this country. We find that this money, which is supposed to be allocated and given publicity as coming from the EEC, is being allocated in respect of one project which, as Deputy Joe Brennan mentioned last night, was carried out in Donegal seven years ago, and this is now part of the allocation of the EEC Regional Fund.
This is reducing the whole thing to a farce and any benefit that could have been got for this country from the EEC Regional Fund is being dissipated and thrown away because again the Minister for Finance is simply snaffling it for the Exchequer. He used very accusatory tones last night but he did not specifically say what was wrong with what was said on this side of the House. If money is, as he said, being allocated on top of the ordinary allocations in respect of the amount received from the EEC fund, how much is the ordinary allocation? Who is going to know what is the ordinary allocation and what is the additional one? Nobody could possibly know that except the Minister for Finance looking into his own heart, and I am afraid that I and many other people do not have sufficient confidence in the Minister to accept that the ordinary allocations of the fund are going to be augmented to the amount of the EEC Regional Fund so received.
It is clear from the manner in which the Government have approached the EEC Regional Fund, from the announcement we have had for the by-election, the utter disregard for any basic national regional policy, from the total silence on the Government side in regard to the vital question of the Government's attitude to growth centres, from the action of the Government in opening up the small dwellings programme to Dublin so that the incentive is the same in one part of the country as in another that there is no regional policy under this Government. Dáil Éireann would do very well to deplore the failure of the Government to produce a regional policy and to implement it and so benefit the poorer areas of this country and in particular the west of Ireland.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Healy; Níl, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.
Question declared lost.