The Minister for the Environment moved the adjournment and he has 25 minutes left.
National Development Plan, 1989-1993: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on Wednesday, 12 April 1989:
That Dáil Éireann take note of the Government's National Development Plan, 1989-1993.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 2.
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"condemns the failure of the Government to consult Dáil Éireann on the National Development Plan prior to its submission to the European Commission on 31st March; resolves to amend the Plan by taking into account the contributions in the Dáil debate of 12th April-14th April, 1989 inclusive. Dáil Éireann further instructs the Government to establish, on a formal and legal basis, the seven sub-regional working groups and their advisory bodies, so as to provide for an open democratic forum which would actively engage the energies of local and regional community groups throughout the country."
—(Ruairí Quinn).
I was promised it was only ten.
Last evening I was opening my contribution and I was making reference to the success the Government have had over the past few years and that the time was not opportune to put new strategies in place to allow us to continue and to improve on that success. I made reference to the fact that the plan was a clear, credible and coherent plan both nationally and regionally. It involves programmes which talk about real money for real programmes. It deals with the future prosperity of the country, job creation and better living standards for all. I was somewhat disappointed with the Opposition response to date. In advance of the national plan being published and submitted to Brussels we were being told by the Opposition that we were pitching the plan too low and that it would fail but, of course, it did not, then they met our success with disappointment and, of course, there has to be something deeply sad about that kind of attitude because it is the politics of trivial pursuit as far as I am concerned. The attitude is, never mind the realities, just dream up a long list of whinges. What we have heard to date from the Opposition in this debate is the desire to frustrate the plan and not to contribute to it. That must be politically sad for all of us. Because of this politically shabby response there are now no matters of substantive content raised by the Opposition which must be addressed. Therefore, I propose to provide the House with the precise details of how the National Development Plan will affect my own area of responsibility and with some comment about the sub-region attached to the west of Ireland.
Nineteen eighty-nine is the first year of a strategic road programme designed to meet the challenges and opportunities of 1992 and the opening of the channel tunnel. Some £1.8 billion will be spent on roads in the five year period 1989 to 1993. This massive level of funding is only possible due to the very expanded and higher rates of assistance available from the EC.
We can look forward to the implementation of a comprehensive road programme which is intended to reduce transport costs, to provide an adequate inter-urban network of national roads, to eliminate traffic bottlenecks and relieve the traffic congestion of lorries and cars in our cities and towns, to improve non-national roads contributing to economic and regional development, to strengthen bridges to cater for EC weight limits, and to make our roads safer.
An important aim of our programme is to ensure that Irish road users are generally not disadvantaged vis-à-vis road users in other member states. As a result, transport operators should be able to compete more effectively both at home and abroad thus leading to lower prices being charged to the Irish consumer. The programme will also result in the creation of approximately 8,700 extra man years of employment over the next five years and generate spin-off employment.
Last month, we submitted a detailed operational programme for roads to the EC Commission, in support of the outline of the road elements in the National Development Plan. This is the first time in the history of the State that a comprehensive medium- to long-term strategic plan has been prepared relating to national, regional, urban and county roads.
Apart from the condition of Irish roads, a number of factors have been taken into account in analysing road needs.
First, I have had regard to very high relative transport costs in Ireland. Transport costs for Irish exporters to mainland Europe are approximately twice those incurred by Community countries trading with one another on the European mainland. The most significant reason for the high Irish transport costs is the deficient state of the national roads and of the access roads to the principal ports and airports.
Secondly, I have been influenced by the fact that roads are the dominant mode of inland transport, accounting for 96 per cent of passenger travel and 90 per cent of freight travel.
Thirdly, I have had to meet the needs arising from the very rapid increase in vehicle numbers. The total number of licenced vehicles trebled between 1960 and 1980 and is forecast to double between then and the year 2005. Of particular significance is that since 1960, there has been a forty-fold increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles, over eight tonnes unladen weight.
Fourthly, it was necessary to meet our special needs arising from our open economy. Ireland is very dependent on external trade, which represented 133 per cent of GDP in 1986.
Fifthly, I found it necessary to provide for improvements to meet the requirements arising from the fact that traffic on national routes is projected to grow at the rate of 3 per cent per annum over the next 20 years.
My Department have estimated total road needs at £9 billion at 1989 prices on the basis of a 20 year evaluation period. The average of £450 million a year compares with an expenditure of £280 million in 1988 of which £150.5 million was financed by the State, including EC grants, and the balance by local authorities.
The Government propose to invest almost £1 billion in road improvements over the next five years. When account is taken of State grants for road maintenance and local authority expenditure financed from their own resources, over-all roads expenditure in this period should reach £1.8 billion.
The Government provision for the improvement of national roads in this period is £755.2 million. The average expenditure of £151 million a year represents a massive increase of 74 per cent in real terms, compared with £86.6 million last year. These important roads represent 6 per cent of the total road mileage and carry 35 per cent of the traffic.
Immediate priority will be given to the development of the following sections of strategic national routes. Euroroute EO1, from Rosslare to the Border including the Dublin Ring Road, section of Euroroute E20 — Portlaoise to Dublin and Dublin to Kinnegad.
The strategy for national roads will concentrate on a few broad categories of work, for example, the first is the major improvement projects on national roads, mainly town by-passes and relief roads and major route realignments and bridges. Sixty-nine major projects are expected to commence construction in the period while a further 23 are already under construction, involving a total expenditure of £610 million in the plan period. The strategy also concentrates on smaller improvement projects on national roads including minor widening and realignment and accident blackspot eradication with an expenditure of £90 million over the five years. The remaining elements of the strategy are road pavement improvements and bridge strengthening on national roads primarily to cater for increased EC vehicle weight limits. The total expenditure here will be of the order of £55 million.
The new programme has already got off the ground. By way of practical examples, I might mention that 12 major schemes costing £190 million are starting this year. These schemes include Navan Road, Newbridge, Shankill/Bray, Glenmore/New Ross and Phase 2 of Cork/Mallow. Major schemes in progress include the public section of the western parkway and Chapelizod in Dublin, Glanmire in Cork and Athlone by-pass.
I also expect to obtain private funding through toll franchises. I recently issued an invitation to private interests to consider further toll-based investment in the Dublin Ring Road and I am looking forward to a satisfactory response. I have also identified three other projects which may have potential for private investment remunerated by tolls. They are the Newbridge and Kilcullen by-passes, the Lucan to Kilcock Road and the downstream crossing of the River Lee in Cork. Any realistic proposals will be fully considered. It is important to stress that any private investment obtained through tolling will be used to accelerate the road development programme and will be additional to the Exchequer funding spelt out in the national plan.
The Government also propose to spend a total of £230 million on the improvement of non-national roads during the next five years. During the course of discussions I had in Brussels last January, I pressed the case for EC aid for urgent investment in non-national roads. EC aid has been sought for State investment totalling £75 million which will be concentrated on non-national roads which significantly contribute to the objective of promoting economic and regional development. These include important access routes to ports and airports, roads providing access to industrial, agri-business, fish processing and aquaculture facilities, access roads to commercial forestry developments, tourist access routes and scenic routes as well as roads which contribute to rural and urban economic development.
The planned investment in road improvements includes provision for an estimated expenditure of £135 million to strengthen or replace bridges. This is based on surveys of some 2,500 bridges since 1986. These surveys show that, of the 20,000 bridges in Ireland, 7,000, or 35 per cent will need to be strengthened or replaced to meet EC lorry weight requirements.
While Irish road accident rates compare quite well with other EC member states, there are no grounds for complacency. An important objective of the planned investment in road improvements is to make roads safer. In particular, there should be a significant reduction in road accident rates on national roads as a result of the improvements, based on international experience.
I also propose to revise speed limits generally. It is widely accepted at EC level that speed limits must be realistic to ensure that they can be properly enforced.
In the past, there has been serious underinvestment in roads. What I am now providing for is a medium-term strategic road programme with a financial commitment over a number of years designed to meet the challenges and opportunities of 1992. Our roads are the most deficient part of our physical infrastructure.
We have now embarked on the first five year strategic roads programme in partnership with the EC. The Commission shares our view that a coherent roads programme is urgently required to reduce our transport costs and assist the Irish economy to compete more successfully in the proposed single internal market. The programme is good news for the transport operator, the purchaser of Irish goods, and the building industry. We are determined that it will succeed in its objectives.
The National Development Plan provides for expenditure of £316 million over the five year period on sanitary and other local services. This element of the plan will be implemented through an operational programme, which will establish a framework for the effective utilisation of capital resources.
Expenditure on water and sewerage schemes will be £62.5 million for each year, 1989 to 1993. These services have benefited from ERDF aid over past years and the Government are now seeking 50 per cent Community support towards continuing expenditure on the programme. The level of Community support sought has been determined having regard to the overall objectives of the National Development Plan, the Government's assessment of priorities in the area of infrastructure development, and the best balance of Community and national resources which should be invested in the different sectoral areas in order to achieve the development objectives of the national plan.
The national plan sets out a succinct analysis of the importance of these services to the economy and the environment, as well as a clear statement of objectives for the development of water and sewerage services. It also contains a concise indication of the basis for the programme of work which will be carried out over the next five years, together with annual and regional breakdowns of the planned capital investment.
The planning exercise undertaken for sanitary services has several significant features. For the first time, a multiannual programme has been devised within which priorities for investment are clearly defined. A better basis has been created for close, structured co-ordination between economic and infrastructural development. Major emphasis is placed on quality factors as well as on the availability of services and there is a stronger correlation between environmental protection requirements and development objectives. A framework has been put in place within which the impact of changing demand factors can be effectively assessed.
During the period 1989-1993 the intended investment of £62.5 million a year on sanitary services will be directed towards supporting planned expansion in defined economic sectors, including agri-food, fisheries and tourism, thus meeting national and rural development needs; upgrading water supplies so as to achieve statutory quality standards and keep pace with demand; extending sewage treatment facilities to ensure effective environmental protection; and extending and renewing water supply and sewage collection networks, increasing the availability of safe, piped services.
Sanitary services provide an essential infrastructure basis for several sectors of the economy. The investment planned will support this Government's policy of promoting rapid exploitation of natural resource based industries, including food and fisheries. Good quality, high capacity services must be available to allow these industries to expand. Clean, pollution-free waters are a basic requirement for the further development of aquaculture. Sanitary services have major implications for the quality of our environment and this, in turn, influences the perception of Ireland abroad, for example, as a producer of high quality food and as a tourism destination.
Apart from the substantial volume of work already in progress, a total of 145 new water supply, sewerage and urban flood relief schemes, valued at £277 million in current costs, are scheduled to commence during the period of this plan. These schemes have been selected because of factors relating to the quality or standard of existing services, or factors generating a demand for the extension of existing services, or the provision of new services. In devising the programme, account has been taken of national, regional and local development priorities. An important objective was to provide an incentive to the regional location of industry so as to assist in achieving balanced economic development and job opportunities.
Sanitary services both utilise and protect water resources. Last year, I gave effect in Irish law to the requirements of three important EC Directives relating to water quality, setting standards for drinking water, bathing waters and salmonid waters. These standards are stringent and meeting them has considerable cost implications, but they must be met in full, and as quickly as possible. Positive concerted action will therefore be taken under the sanitary services programme on a priority basis in the case of water supplies, to replace existing sources of abstraction, where necessary, provide new or upgraded treatment works and improve distribution systems, and in the case of sewerage schemes, to provide new or improved services with better collection networks and treatment or higher levels of treatment, where appropriate, in order to protect designated waters and abate pollution.
In this way, the programme will contribute to the maintenance of the amenity and recreational value of water resources, while utilising those resources in a prudent, controlled way to provide necessary consumer services and a base for economic development.
The level of investment projected for sanitary services, while lower than spending in the first half of the eighties, is realistic, given the general level of sanitary services development which has already taken place, the pressure on the public finances and the overall infrastructural demands which must be met in order to develop our economy to compete in Europe.
With careful, detailed appraisal of specific projects and comprehensive assessment of investment needs, the most productive and worthwhile sanitary services schemes will proceed during the next five years. Although a programme of 145 schemes is projected in the operational programme, I do not intend that sanitary services policy and planning will now become rigid or static. The planning framework is changing in fundamental respects, and it is vital that we can respond to new priorities where these arise. Accordingly, I will be reviewing and updating the programme annually to take account of any significant priority changes or urgent new demands which may arise in the years ahead.
As well as recognising the importance of ensuring that existing water pollution problems are remedied, there is provision in the national plan for dealing with the high smoke levels which can occur during the winter in Dublin. We must eliminate that problem by April 1993 at the latest to comply with an EC Directive and we are taking measures as quickly as we can — by means of special control areas in seriously affected areas, measures in the housing and planning areas, and promotion of smokeless fuels. The implementation of an effective smoke control programme could involve considerable public expenditure and we are, therefore making the case to the European Commission for assistance towards the cost of remedial measures which will achieve a solution to our smoke problem and so help to make Dublin more attractive for its own residents and for tourism, investment and leisure purposes.
Industrial waste disposal aspects are also dealt with in the plan. If these wastes cannot be disposed of satisfactorily and economically then that creates problems for industry and for the environment. Lack of proper facilities for the management of wastes has already been identified as a constraint on industrial development and job creation in some areas. Investment is therefore needed to support the development of services for the treatment, recovery and disposal of industrial wastes. Such investment would ensure that wastes are disposed of in a manner which does not cause environmental damage.
As regards the incineration of hazardous wastes, the report of the consultants who carried out a feasability study of contract incineration requirements has been made available generally. The Government have decided that there will be no involvement by the State in providing a national incineration facility, either directly or by way of a joint venture with private interests, but we intend to promote and assist, where possible, the development of such a facility by the private sector subject, of course, to stringent planning and environmental controls. I will shortly be inviting the submission of proposals on that basis.
The Government are also conscious of the increasingly important role played by our towns and cities in the context of the overall development of the country. To this end, the urban renewal scheme is actively encouraging the renewal of selected inner urban areas by making a range of financial incentives available for developers. The scheme is generally working well and is succeeding in its aim of attracting commercial and residential redevelopment to the targeted areas and so uplifting the local economy. This year, for the first time, incentives to private developers will be complemented by a modest scheme of public works, at a cost of £2 million, aimed at further upgrading the environment in designated areas. Structural Fund assistance is being sought under the plan for this expenditure.
I would like to turn now to the west of Ireland and, in particular, the west sub-region which comprises the counties of Galway, Mayo and Roscommon. Although the area has a population of over 348,000, the population density is low both in national and European terms. The sub-region is predominantly rural, and suffers high emigration levels. Unemployment is high throughout the three counties. The region has approximately 20 per cent of the land mass of the country and 10 per cent of the population.
While much has been achieved over the past 20 years the region is still under-developed relative to other regions within Ireland and even more so in the European context. The regions principal assets include a very high grade environment with major areas of unspoiled landscape, an extensive scenic coastline and major inland rivers and lakes. It is one of the most important tourist destinations in the country, with major potential for redevelopment. In common with the other sub-regions, a working group and an advisory group representative of the main bodies concerned with development, together with the local authorities, State agencies and Government Departments, were established and have produced a substantial report on the region. Submissions and other representations received from private individuals and bodies were taken into account in the deliberations of both bodies.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the individuals and organisations represented on the working group and the advisory group for their efforts in producing a stimulating and very interesting draft report. This report has provided a most important input into The National Development Plan which has recently been published. It will also be an important input into the operational programmes which will implement the national plan.
The National Development Plan, at Chapter 6, sets out a summary of the socio-economic position in each of the sub-regions, together with the objectives and strategies identified for each. A breakdown of the planned expenditure over the period of the plan in each of the sub-regions is also set out. I do not propose, therefore, to re-travel all of this ground but rather to refer to certain specific areas.
The development strategy for the next five years as set out in the report prepared by the working group focuses on key actions and operations which will directly and immediately benefit the infrastructural adjustment of the sub-region. A major component here will be the improvement of key aspects of the infrastructure base so as to facilitate economic growth and to support the development of the main economic sectors.
In so far as my own Department are concerned, the need for the protection and improvement of the environment is stressed in the report. This emphasis is reflected in The National Development Plan which fully recognises the importance of the environment. Apart from the protection it warrants in its own right, the physical environment can make a major contribution to economic development. It is important therefore that existing pollution problems are dealt with and that there is sufficient investment in sanitary services and pollution control systems. The plan also recognises the need for facilities for the proper disposal of industrial and other wastes and for the achievement and maintenance of proper quality standards for water supplies.
Priority in the provision of sanitary services will, as recommended in the report of the working group, be given to projects that meet the established needs of industrial and other forms of development, to projects which will facilitate and encourage development and to projects which are particularly necessary to remedy deficiencies in existing systems. The Government fully accept that the provision of adequate water and sewerage services is a vital prerequisite for industrial and tourism development, for rural development and for the enhancement of the environmental quality of the west region. Expenditure in the sub-region on sanitary services during the period of the plan will amount therefore to some £60 million. In the case of County Galway, I have already approved a new water supply scheme at Kinvara to start this year. Several other major schemes will be provided for under the plan — for example, sewerage schemes to serve Galway city, Oranmore and Tuam and water supplies for Tuam and the Costelloe regional area. In Mayo, I have approved a major sewerage scheme at Achill and a water supply scheme for Erris; further sanitary services development is projected under the plan at , Ballyhaunis and Swinford. Investment in services in County Roscommon will enable the local authority to undertake new schemes at Elfin-Strokestown and Ballinagard, both of which I have already approved, as well as at Boyle and Fairymount. A number of the projected water supply schemes in the western area will benefit from the terms of the western package, revised and extended last year.
In the area of transport, the report recommends a major improvement of transport infrastructure. This emphasis is fully reflected in the national plan. Ireland in general and the west sub-region in particular suffer from major cost disadvantages as compared with other EC countries due to our peripheral location and the generally poor quality of our internal transport network. Furthermore, following the opening of the channel tunnel, Ireland will be the only member state without a land link to the Community. Under the national plan, improvement to the roads system will be achieved by selective improvements to the national roads providing access to and within the sub-regions. Furthermore, regional and county roads will be improved and strengthened, with particular attention being given to the more important access roads and to bridges which need to be strengthened.
The National Development Plan is an essential element in our response to the increasingly open European Market. It is realistic. It maximises the support available for Europe and, based on that support, sets out objectives that are achievable.
The huge investment outlined in the plan will help to bring our roads up to EC standards. It will erode the competitive disadvantages faced by our exporters. It will lead, in the short term, to more jobs in the construction industry and in the long term to better employment opportunities across the nation. It is a plan informed by the need to control inflation and overheating.
We now know where we are going. This plan lays down the methods by which we are going to get there, and get there we will.
The planning exercise invested in this document that we are discussing, entitled The National Development Plan was a complete charade. There was no real consultation. The motions were gone through with the CII, the FUE, ICTU, the IFA, the chambers of commerce in the various advisory groups and sub-regional levels. These also included county and city managers and chairpersons of various local authorities. All of the bodies and individuals now realise that they have been used by the Taoiseach and the Government to give the Commissioners and Brussels the impression of a regional input into the plan. On the Taoiseach's own admission to this House yesterday, only the interim reports from the seven sub-regions were considered. This glorified public capital programme is all about hardware and is very short on software. It is about roads, yes, and indeed very welcome. The Minister, Deputy Flynn, has just outlined the details but it is not about the people who will travel those roads. It is very strong on capital spending, but there is no evidence of reform of the taxation or social welfare systems. It is full of aspirations while ignoring the practical realities.
At the recent press conference to launch The National Development Plan, the Taoiseach said that the doubling of the Structural Funds would be sufficient to remedy the severe structural deficiencies in our economy, which restrict our ability to compete, especially as we face into 1993 and the Single Market. I challenge the Taoiseach's views that the doubling of these funds will suffice. As pointed out the increase in Structural Funds support for productive investment to Ireland, to overcome the difficulties which will result from the intensified competition in the free trading of goods, services and capital will amount to £500 million more in 1993 than in 1988. In other words, £800 million will be spent in 1993 compared with £300 million this year. This increase is very welcome, but we must be realistic about what it can attain and not unnecessarily raise expectations throughout the country. To put it in context: the tax amnesty of last year brought in £500 million and the benefits of that, though real, made such a small impression on our economy, that it serves to underline the enormity of the problem ahead.
If our growth rate exceeded that of the Community by 1 per cent for the next 40 years, only then would our income levels, now at 58 per cent, catch up with the average in the European Communities. The increases proposed over the next five years in the Structural Fund allocations to Ireland, representing less than 2 per cent of our annual GNP, will fall far short of what will be needed to ensure that the opportunities rather than the dangers of the Single Market will predominate. They will fall far short of what is needed to guarantee that the economic and social benefits of the single market accrue to the 12 members of the European Communities rather than just to its centre. They will fall far short of ensuring that the present social and economic disparities between the centre of the Community and the peripheral regions, such as Ireland, are removed to allow us to benefit from the increased market opportunities.
I welcome Deputy Stafford to his new position.
Thank you, Deputy.
We need larger allocations from the Structural Funds than indicated, but we need to assure Brussels that the money will be put to productive use. On the Opposition benches we are not in the business of giving a long list of whinges, as the former speaker suggested. Throwing money, even in billions, at our country is not what is needed to solve our problems. We need disciplined and integrated physical planning on the one hand and the lighting of economic fires — as one economic commentator put it — on the other, so that the flames will burn years after the initial funds are spent. We need to implement strict monitoring and assessment of the strategic objectives of the plan and the operational plans that will follow. The build up to 1993 is about opportunities and our ability to make use of them. This is no dress rehearsal, it is a once off, it is for real. It is our last opportunity to get it right and as a nation not remain indefinitely on the periphery of the Community. It is our last opportunity to ensure that our sons and daughters can choose to stay in our country and find gainful employent, if they so wish, or alternatively, if it be their choice, armed with an education which has opened the doors of Europe to them, by giving them fluency in one or more European languages, go to the European state of their choice to widen their horizons, and then if they so wish come home, bringing back their experience which will be of benefit to all of us. You will be aware, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that Fine Gael proposed a national consensus to prepare for the single market. This document, An Economic Accord for 1992 indicates in detail the Fine Gael proposals and I can commend it to the House. I regret very much that the Government chose not to discuss with Fine Gael nor indeed with the entire democratic framework of this House how we could move forward together to maximise the opportunities presented by the increased drawdowns from the Structural Funds. In this document we propose regional development authorities to implement and monitor the operation plans for the seven sub-regions, along the lines of a SFADCo type authority. Indeed, that proposal for regional development authorities had the approval of the European Parliament when they debated the Hume report on the “Regional Problems in Ireland”. We did not leave it at that but we followed up our Economic Accord for 1992 with our Economic Development Bill which is going through the House at present during Private Members' Time. That will give effect to the many proposals in our economic accord.
As the agricultural spokesperson I wish to comment on the many issues contained in this plan which beg an explanation. The Structural Funds, as we know, comprise the Social Fund, the Regional Fund and the FEOGA Guidance Fund. Have the Government, or indeed Brussels, made any provision for the doubling of the Structural Funds, over the next five years to ensure that agriculture holds its share? Has the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy any criteria for the allocation of moneys as between guidance, The Social Fund and the Regional Fund?
FEOGA guarantee money is at best likely to stabilise, but it is far more likely to decline with the ominous reports from the GATT talks in Geneva last weekend, in relation to the new international agreement on farm subsidies. This, together with the inability of our Minister for Agriculture and Food to face up to his former colleague, the farm Commissioner, Mr. Ray MacSharry, and to defend the special position of agricultural production in our economy, is a major cause of concern for us. We must remind ourselves that the main plank in the argument for initial entry to the European Community in 1973 was based on the benefits to agriculture and the agri-food industry. Again, this argument was to the front during the Single European Act debate, leading up to the referendum, that this Government never wanted.
We are particularly vulnerable to changes in the Common Agricultural Policy. Again I must condemn the Minister for Agriculture and Food for what obviously are his sentiments and his contribution to the National Development Plan that we are debating this morning. Page 61, paragraph 3.26 of the National Development Plan 1989-1993 reads:
A number of schemes have been devised to address the specific problems and requirements of the Irish farming community in the light of changes in the Common Agricultural Policy. I take that statement to mean that he has abandoned our farmers and our agri-food business by supporting unequivocally the derailing of the Common Agricultural Policy which the International Monetary Fund report has recently reminded us will benefit all countries with the notable exceptions of Ireland and Denmark. We have a lot to fear from the derailing of the Common Agricultural Policy and our Minister is supporting that move without fully understanding the implications to farmers and the agri-business sector in this country.
The plan talks about structural measures to assist farmers to adjust and about rural development. Integrated rural development is a theme that occurs many times in the plan, but at no stage is there any indication as to how extra resources will be applied to achieve this or as to what the Government have in mind. There is no reference to global grant from the Regional Fund or whether we are in a position to make the best use of draw downs from this grant. We know the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy has nothing in mind, because he has no one to advise him. What we do know is that this Government have no commitment, apart from lip service, to integrated rural development.
The Minister has no one to advise him as the Rural Economic Research Centre in Teagasc has had its staff and resources decreased by 75 per cent in the past year or so. The few who are left in the section are dealing with the national farm survey for the Communities, this is part of the farm accounts data network which is compulsory for member states. This section is left because the Government have no option as it is part of their commitment to the Communities.
The well enunciated view of the Chairman of Teagasc, Mr. Joe Rea, assuming he represents the Minister's views on the matter, is that the national farm survey is the only necessary function for the Rural Economy Research Centre — Athenry has now been designated as the centre with the rural development brief. But as all the rural development officers and those who were in a position to impart advice in this area have been driven out of Teagasc, technical agricultural advisors are only now being retrained in their new role as rural development officers. This retraining is referred to in the plan. So much for this Government's commitment to rural development, so much for this Government's commitment to the future of the family farm unit and the stabilisation of remote rural populations. They have decimated the only centre qualified to look after a proper rural development programme and have asked another centre to start from scratch.
We have, as we know, an agricultural economic institute, in a country where agriculture plays a major role in our economy, accounting for 15 per cent of the total at work and 11 per cent of our GDP. I do not think that Brussels can be aware that we have no capacity to evaluate the new policies that arrive daily from them and to put up alternatives. We have no single body acting as an agricultural economic watchdog with the continuing reform of the Common Agricultural Policy being mooted and the new international farm agreements which reach us daily. The section of Teagasc which was charged with this brief is effectively decimated and do we as a nation, so heavily dependent on agriculture and indeed agricultural policy emanating from Brussels, even care? The Government do not. Surely there must be someone who will raise the alarm and shout stop before it is too late?
Much has been made by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, and indeed in the plan, of extension and reclassification under the Less Favoured Areas Directive. Headage payments under this directive are part of FEOGA guidance and hence are covered by the Structural Funds. For the purposes of the plan, Brussels has grouped our country as a single region, part of the Objective One Regional Grouping — among the most peripheral and disadvantaged in the Community.
In January last I called on Minister O'Kennedy to insist — as part of the ongoing price negotiations and to extend the draw down from FEOGA guidance section of the Structural Funds over the next five years — that the entire country be designated as a less favoured area under Directive 75/268 and to reclassify as more severely handicapped all existing less severely handicapped areas and mountain sheep grazing areas. This would be a major compensation in the face of changes and reforms proposed in the Common Agricultural Policy using the Structural Funds. It would significantly boost farm incomes. The field officer survey now being carried out — it should be noted in the face of the European elections on 15 June — would be unnecessary. We would meet the terms of the directive that require the grading of payments to reflect the degree of natural handicap and, above all, the time-scale involved would allow the maximum number of farmers to benefit for the entire five years of the doubling of the Structural Funds which would increase their viability as economic units as we face into the opportunities and difficulties which will be posed by the Single Market.
Recent economic commentators have indicated that over the next ten years 60,000 full time farms will be gone. That is a frightening statistic as they were talking about full time commercial farms. When we see the demise of the family farm unit in rural Ireland, particularly in the more remote regions, we really have no idea what that figure could be. I am afraid that the attention of the Minister and the Government to this major problem is totally inadequate. Until the whole country is classified under the less favoured areas directive, as I have proposed — and indeed my views are supported by farm organisations and other independent agricultural commentators — it is clear from previous experience that no matter how many reviews are done on this directive — this will be the fourth review since 1975 — and no matter how often the boundaries are redrawn there will still be dissatisfaction with the outcome as a line drawn along townland boundaries cannot by itself distinguish or differentiate between the physical features of an area.
There is another obvious major issue on reading this plan. For the last two years the Minister for Agriculture and Food has postponed the commencement of the present review of the less favoured areas directive until he got a commitment from Brussels on 75 per cent recoupment on headage payments and on contemporaneous payments from Brussels. While there is no reference to the latter in the plan, it is obvious from the figures that the Government have capitulated on the 75 per cent recoupment before any official response to their request from Brussels. Accepting the principle of additionality as a condition for increased payment from the Structural Funds, I must ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has now accepted defeat on the vital issue of increased recoupment. Will he be man enough to admit it and give the House reasons? Could it be yet again to save his former colleague, Commissioner MacSharry, embarrassment?
I applaud the inclusion in the plan of emphasis to eliminate farmyard pollution and to solve the general problem of the safe disposal of agricultural waste. Indeed, primary production and the primary agricultural enterprises have been removed from pole position on the agenda of agricultural meetings in most of our European neighbouring countries to be replaced by environmental issues. Interestingly, in the plan the Minister accepted verbatim my proposals of 18 January last to extend the benefit of western package levels of anti-pollution grants to the whole country. This has been an obvious move for some time, particularly as most of the intensive livestock units and silage making is in areas outside those designated at the moment. I am delighted that my views on this matter at least have found favour with the Minister.
The plan refers to "the intention to encourage the introduction and maintenance of environmentally friendly farm practices to protect the ecology of sensitive areas on the landscape". My response to these aspirations is very warm. However, will the Minister for Agriculture and Food be specific and assure the House that these aspirations will be speedily translated into the determination of environmentally sensitive areas under Directive 797/85 in the appropriate regions? He will have my support and areas such as the Burren in Clare, the wetlands of the Shannon basin, Lady's Island Lake and the Pingos in Camross in County Wexford immediately spring to mind.
Under the heading "Diversification of Production" in the plan, much has been made about the operations of the producer group regulation. Will the Minister for Agriculture and Food please explain why one obvious group, pig producers, who have been experiencing catas-trophies for some time in production, have been excluded from this regulation? In the same section, in relation to encouraging alternative enterprises not controlled by production quotas, there is a reference to "horses for sport". I appeal to the Minister for Agriculture and Food to extend his generous premium announced in November last for Irish draught foals — indeed it was very welcome — to the non-thoroughbred foals eligible for registration in the Irish horse register. There is a crisis in the number and quality of our non-thoroughbred brood mares and, without them, we will not have an industry in the future. Such an incentive would ensure a future for this flagship and it is one of the most labour intensive enterprises in the agricultural sector.
I should like briefly to mention an area of great concern to many, the position in relation to animal and plant health status post-1992. I know the various animal health and veterinary committees in Brussels are debating this at the moment but, thus far, the debate has not opened up in this country. There is enormous concern among our farm and veterinary organisations about the implications of what is being proposed. The threat of rabies, foot and mouth, Newcastle's disease and many others from which we have been effectively free for many years has to be answered. What has been the response of the Government and the Minister for Agriculture and Food to the proposals? Should we be looking at the possibility of declaring Ireland the foundation stock island of Europe in relation to animal and plant health status or have we nothing to fear from the proposals of removing all the technical barriers to the free movement of animals and plants and their products post-1992? I am concerned about the ignorance and lack of debate.
Ireland has an enormous contribution to make to Europe and we can have a disproportionate influence in the Community. We have many friends in Europe. We can be its garden for the production of pure agricultural and horticultural products and we can be its playground for special interest activity holidays. We must recognise the opportunities and the dangers posed by the Single Market commencing on 1 January 1993. I have for a long time been amused by the fact that my own colleagues and, indeed, all Members of this House keep referring to 1992. Nothing will happen until 1 January 1993. Therefore, it is really 1993 we should be preaching in referring to the dateline.
As I say, we must recognise the opportunities and the dangers posed by the Single Market commencing on 1 January 1993. We must acknowledge that the doubling of the Structural Funds to encourage us to achieve social and economic parity with our Community colleagues is a once-off measure. It is our last chance to get it right. Indeed, by our application to the measures necessary to resolve our economic disadvantages, we must convince Brussels that we are worthy of even greater financial support over the next five years.
I call on the Minister for Labour, Deputy Ahern.
It is nice to see you, Acting Chairman, in your new position. We start from the position that, while we are a rich country in world terms, we are relatively poor and underdeveloped compared to our partners on mainland Europe. Irish GNP per capita in 1987 was less than 60 per cent of the Community average. We are experiencing a rapid growth in our population and our labour supply and we have a high dependency ratio. We have continuously experienced relatively high levels of unemployment, under-employment and emigration. The national debt at the end of 1988 amounted to about 133 per cent of GNP. We have weaknesses in our infrastructure and in the industrial sector, characterised by small sized traditional indigenous industry, mostly dependent on the home and UK markets. Our investment levels are also low, with the rate of fixed investment per head in 1986 being less than two thirds of the EC equivalent. The National Development Plan puts forward the strategy with which we, with the European Commission's help, propose to overcome our problems and close the gap with richer, more developed member states.
I would like, first, to talk today about the plan as it relates to the Dublin sub-region. Dublin's importance nationally is highlighted by factors such as its strategic importance for access to the rest of Europe, and its concentration of population, with some 29 per cent of the total State population. The National Development Plan identifies and summarises the numerous problems currently facing Dublin. Overall, it appears that Dublin has recently fared somewhat worse than the rest of the country in investment terms, resulting in problems such as a lack of jobs, poor levels of access to education and training, serious infrastructural deficiencies and simultaneous inner city decline and outer suburban growth. These have been worsened by the 42 per cent growth of population experienced in the sub-region in the 25 years to 1986, particularly in the earlier part of that period. Indeed, Tallaght alone now ranks as an equal third with Limerick as an urban population centre.
The plan exposes serious deficiencies in Dublin's employment structure, particularly in industry. The relative position of the sub-region has worsened over the last decade, with Dublin rising to a position slightly above the national average unemployment rate. The overall rate of 19.2 per cent masks massive local variations, with black spots of up to 56 per cent unemployment in certain outer suburbs and also high concentrations in inner city areas. The majority of those who work do so in the service sector, which has remained static in overall numbers recently, while 29,000 jobs were lost from industry between 1981 and 1987. A major priority for the plan for the Dublin sub-region is thus to promote industrial and services development.
We propose to build on the existing strengths, encourage new business and revitalise areas particularly affected by industrial decline. The plan proposes to concentrate on marketing and technology and to pay particular attention to the food, engineering, electronics and clothing industries. The western suburbs, with a growing young population and already high unemployment, will be specially targeted for development. A massive total of £763 million will be spent on industrial development, the largest single area of expenditure.
Unemployment problems are closely related to the more general area of infrastructural deficiencies. The recent return to higher economic growth will exacerbate existing problems. These problems affect both Dublin as a sub-region and also the economy as a whole. Dublin, for instance, is located at the hub of the country's road and rail network linking all parts of the country to the capital and, via the Irish Sea central connection, to the UK and the land bridge to mainland Europe. Its airport handles 70 per cent of the rapidly increasing international air traffic and its port is of major importance, handling over a quarter of Ireland's seaborne trade.
In all these areas the present position is seriously inadequate. Dublin's streets are clogged with traffic, contributing to a range of problems ranging from higher transport costs to increased pollution and a poor urban environment. The plan, accordingly, devotes major attention to infrastructural and environmental improvement. Expenditure on the roads and on rail and bus transport totals £248 million for the sub-region. In particular the Government will give priority to three developments: The Dublin Ring Road as part of the Euroroute from Rosslare to the Border; the section of the Euroroute from Portlaoise to Dublin and the road west to Kinnegad.
A planned £26 million will be spent on providing new diesel commuter services on existing Dublin rail lines to the western areas of Dublin. This will include opening eight new commuter stations and will result in a high speed and efficient commuter service to this large hinterland. Investments will be made in bus services in order to provide better links between Dublin, its outer suburbs and other regions. The peripheral ring road, together with a port access route, will facilitate long distance traffic and greatly reduce congestion in the city streets.
Because of Ireland's peripheral and island location, international access transport to the country has a particular strategic importance. Dublin's position means that the development of its sea and air freight facilities is a major priority. Final decisions on development possibilities such as air freight channels have not yet been taken but options are being explored urgently with the help of the European Commission. A large extension to the terminal building at Dublin airport and a major ugrading of port facilities, including passenger terminals, are planned. It is intended to provide intensive air and sea freight shuttle services to Britain and the Continent. Total expenditure in these areas will be £183 million in the Dublin sub-region.
Another key infrastructural area central to economic development and business success is the postal and telecommunications networks. Significant improvements have been made in the last few years in both of these. Nevertheless, the increasing emphasis both on technological developments and on speedier, more efficient processing through traditional postal and telephone systems means that we must invest significantly on updating mail handling and telecommunication systems. The plan includes a proposed development of four modern mail centres in Dublin. Improved services and reduced costs will result from the overall investment of £169 million in the sub-region on post and telecommunications.
Dublin as a tourist destination is currently under-exploited. Its location has unrivalled natural advantages in its proximity to both Dublin Bay and the mountains, its access to the Liffey and two canals, and its parks, particularly the Phoenix Park which is the largest urban park in the European Community. These are matched by its rich cultural and historical heritage. The plan envisages expenditure of over £60 million on measures which will improve the attractiveness of Dublin for visitor and resident alike. Dublin's Millennium last year showed what could be done with a combination of public sector, local community and individual initiative and gave a great boost to tourist numbers. The plan will build on and develop this further.
While Dublin's agricultural employment is tiny, the north County Dublin area is one of Ireland's three premier horticultural areas. The plan envisages development of an industry capable of competing at home and abroad on a commercially viable footing. A sound basis already exists for this development. The plan also envisages increased emphasis on forestry and fishing development. Total expenditure in all these areas is planned to reach £16 million for the sub-region. Dublin will, of course, have a substantial share in other national investments. National developmental measures for energy supplies and cost reductions will total £478 million, of which £134 million will be spent in the Dublin sub-region.
National investment in sanitary and local services, designated both to cope with economic and population growth and to achieve adequate standards of environmental protection, will total £316 million, of which Dublin's share will reach £54 million. In particular, measures will be designed to cope with major deficiencies in waste disposal in the Dublin region, in Dublin Bay and in landfill sites.
Of particular interest to me as Minister for Labour is the development of our labour force. Here, because of my responsibilities in relation to the European Social Fund and for the operations of FÁS and CERT, the Manpower agencies, I would like to broaden the debate to include both proposed investment in Dublin and relevant aspects of the national programme.
In the Dublin sub-region, planned investment in education, training and employment measures, including the vocational education infrastructure, is envisaged at a total of £602 million, the second largest area of expenditure. From the education sector's viewpoint, I understand from my colleague, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, that her major priorities include the re-equipping and upgrading of facilities at the third level institutions and the provision of a regional technical college in Tallaght, as I said, now the third largest urban centre in the country. These and other measures will provide the necessary infrastructure to cater for today's increasingly complex demands on the education system.
As a major development under the plan, I am arranging to provide for a single training outlet in Dublin where CERT activity will be centralised. This will improve the access possibilities for trainees, allow for a 10 per cent increase in throughput and facilitate greater organisational efficiency and impact.
Turning now to the overall aspects of training and employment programmes in Ireland, as the Taoiseach said yesterday, we are recognised as very successful in making efficient use of European Social Fund assistance. Its role in the development of the vocational training infrastructure and of individual programmes has been vital. Since Ireland joined the European Community in 1973, we have been approved for aid in excess of £1,437 million from the ESF and have, to date, actually received £1,031 million. Last week, I received official notification from Brussels that Ireland's ESF allocation for this year would be over £183 million. When the new regulations for the ESF, and the higher rates of assistance, come into operation on 1 January next year, I am confident that the level of assistance from the Social Fund will further increase, in line with the contents of the national plan and of separate plans soon to be submitted to Brussels and designed to help the long-term unemployed and facilitate the integration of young persons into the labour market.
There have been significant improvements in the Irish workforce since these moneys became available to us in 1973, despite major problems of structural adjustment, changing patterns of demand and production methods and the movement from a mainly agricultural structure to an industrial and service based economy. Our highly qualified workforce contributes to domestic expansion and attracts from abroad industries which today employ somewhere in the region of 80,000 workers in good quality jobs.
Despite these improvements, weaknesses and problems still remain compared to the countries with which we now seek to compete. These weaknesses are most graphically illustrated by the high level of unemployment and our lower productivity levels compared to other EC countries. Our unemployment rate is the second highest in the Community and 7.3 per cent above the EC average. Our labour productivity is about three quarters of the EC average. Our relative under-achievement, judged on these two measures, is attributable to a number of complex factors — some relating to the labour force, some not.
We continue to experience a relatively high inflow of young people into our labour market. The labour force is projected to increase under all the migration assumptions prepared by the Central Statistics Office. For the foreseeable future, there will be somewhere in the region of 70,000 young people leaving the educational system each year. They will require training and education in order to make the transition from school to work.
Irish companies provide relatively little training and development for their employees. Data available from the 1985 Labour Force Survey indicate that only 6.5 per cent of all employees in the four weeks prior to interview had received some education or training. The corresponding figure for Britain is 10.4 per cent. This shows a relatively low level of training by Irish firms, well below the major economies. The Cecchini report indicated that most small companies in particular lack the necessary resources to acquire the skills and qualifications that will be needed in the Single Market. Nearly 90 per cent of Irish industrial firms employ fewer than 50 people and fewer than 0.5 per cent of firms employ more than 500 people.
I do not want to present too pessimistic a picture of our workforce. I believe, however, that it is necessary to be realistic about where we stand — our strengths, weaknesses, problems and, particularly, opportunities. Our situation on the geographical periphery of the Community will always involve costs for ourselves above those of other Community countries. This places a greater need on us to develop those areas and key sectors where we could have a comparative advantage and develop those resources which would contribute to this process. Our workforce is such a resource. This is the type of thinking behind our application for ESF assistance under Objective 1 — promoting the development of regions whose development is lagging behind the generality of Community regions.
Our request for assistance under Objective 1 falls under three broad headings: training; aids to recruitment by new and expanding enterprises; and expenditure on temporary employment schemes for unemployed people. These activities are designed to ensure that our workforce and our enterprises have the skills required for competition and growth in the wider Single Market. At the same time, our expenditure plans have regard to the need for a social dimension in Ireland's approach to 1992, just as such a dimension is being promoted at Community level. There is provision, for example, for disadvantaged groups — both in access to our mainstream training activities and in the more targeted provision of temporary employment opportunities.
With regard to vocational training the programmes involved will be delivered by a range of agencies, including FÁS, the Department of Education, CERT and Teagasc. They are designed to provide trainees with sector specific skills in some cases, and in other cases with more broadly applicable skills, in areas such as marketing, computing, finance and engineering, which are vital to the development of the economy generally.
Major features of the proposals include, first, a substantial increase in the level of vocational training to be assisted in the upper levels of the education system, with average trainee numbers rising from under 40,000 this year to nearly 60,000 in 1993. This expansion will concentrate largely on higher technological skills required for future industrial competitiveness, secondly, a special FÁS training programme for employees of small and medium enterprises facing external competition, thirdly, a significant growth in the activities of CERT in support of the tourism industry and of Teagasc in training for new farm enterprises; and, fourthly, increased training for the short-term unemployed over 25 years of age. ESF assistance in recent years has been negligible under this heading because this category has not figured in the priority operations of the fund.
Total expenditure over the five years on vocational training under Objective 1 will come to £1,360 million, with average trainee numbers rising from 54,000 in 1989 to 80,000 in 1993. The full national expenditure on education, training and employment programmes then will be £1,905 million.
An industrial restructuring programme is being established to counter the low levels of firm based training I mentioned earlier. Our firms are going to have to undertake major programmes of product development, quality improvement, marketing and processing efficiency. These changes will often require new equipment and technology. They will also require new skills in firms — with a need for training and retraining of existing employees. The restructuring programme will provide advice and financial support for such training. The budget for this new activity in FÁS is set, provisionally, at some £6 million per annum, and it is expected to provide short duration training for some 14,000 workers each year.
FÁS's training for the unemployed will also see some expansion — most notably in the area of specific sectoral skills, where activity is set to increase by 20 per cent between now and 1993. As in the case of support for in-company training, the thrust here will be increasingly towards skills demanded as a result of heightened competition. We will also be able to offer more assistance to those over 25 years old who have not yet become long-term unemployed.
The heading "Aids to Recruitment in Industry", includes those parts of the operational programme for industry described in the development plan and the operational programme for industrial development, for which support is being sought under the Regional Fund. These include training grants, recruitment and management grants. The heading also includes enterprise programmes, administered by FÁS, which support the recruitment of unemployed people by expanding small firms, and the establishment of small enterprises by the unemployed themselves and their communities. These latter supports include pre-business start-up training as well as financial supports during the early period of trading. This category of aid represents an acknowledgement of the potential of locally-based indigenous ventures to employment throughout the country. Total expenditure under this broad heading is scheduled to amount to a total of £260 million over the period.
The temporary employment element included in our Objective 1 submission is basically the social employment scheme, aimed at the long-term unemployed. While the primary objective of the programme is the re-integration of long-term unemployed persons into the workforce, it does so through their employment on works of benefit to their community. Many of these projects are designed to enhance the environment and/or to contribute to tourism infrastructure. I am satisfied that this type of programme has made a significant contribution both to the job prospects of the long-term unemployed and to the community. Total expenditure on temporary employment programmes over the five years will reach £285 million.
The development of tourism has been highlighted in the Programme for National Recovery. This sector is highly labour-intensive and employment in it is projected to increase by 25,000 over the plan period. The activities of CERT, which has responsibility for the hotel and catering area, will assist the realisation of set job-targets through the provision of suitably trained personnel. Graduates from CERT courses will increase from a total of over 7,000 in 1988 to more than 12,000 by 1993. The range of courses to be provided will range from the short-term introductory modules to comprehensive craft and management training programmes.
A high calibre workforce in the hotel, catering and tourism sector is essential. Success in gaining an image for efficient work practices, good hygiene standards and well-prepared and presented cuisine is vital to advancing the potential contribution of tourism. CERT plan to increase their training provision with a simultaneous increase in the quality of that training, which is already very high. In that way the trainees who graduate from courses will continue to find quick access to secure employment. Employers for their part have an obligation to ensure that the working conditions in the industry are also improved so that the attractiveness and image of working there is enhanced.
This, then, is a brief outline of the proposals which we have included in the National Development Plan for vocational training and other labour market measures under Objective 1. I am pleased to say that discussions between Commission officials and officials of my Department on these proposals have already commenced.
I want to underline one issue which is of central importance in the context of our application for support for training activities. Renewed emphasis is now being placed on the quality of training and its impact in fitting trainees for access to worthwhile occupations. This reality must be fully understood and taken account of by all training providers in receipt of Structural Fund support. A new concentration is necessary in the setting of realistic objectives for training programmes which are in accord with the manpower needs of the labour market.
We will also be submitting soon to the Commission plans for assistance under Objective 3, dealing with the combating of long-term unemployment, and Objective 4, dealing with the vocational integration of young people. We are at an advanced stage in the preparation of these plans. They do not have to be with the Commission until the latter part of June, but it is my intention to submit them considerably sooner.
While the human resource developments form a significant part of the over-all National Development Plan they are only a part. Our training, education and employment programmes are linked to and supportive of the other development initiatives in the areas of industry, infrastructure, tourism and rural development.
Returning in particular to the Dublin sub-region, I am convinced that the plan meets the genuine needs of the area. Its overall objectives are to promote the economic and social development of Dublin city and county in a balanced way. The aim is to increase economic growth and increase employment levels. It will improve Dublin's industrial competitiveness and promote expansion of its productive capacity. Aiming at balance, we have been fully conscious of the need to target assistance on areas of particular need of deprivation. The plan is of course geared specifically to measures eligible for Structural Fund support and consequently cannot be criticised for not including measures outside this category. It represents a comprehensive statement of the measures to be taken by the Government in partnership with the private sector and the European Community. I know that the total expenditure of £2,229 million envisaged in Dublin will transform our capital city.
Taken together, the measures in the plan will give a major direct and indirect impetus to investment in Ireland. They will greatly increase potential output in the economy, not least by increasing skill levels. And they will create jobs directly, through the investment programmes proposed, and indirectly by increasing the economy's capacity for job creation.
Our aim in the short-term is to increase the annual rate of job creation from the present level of 29,000 to at least 35,000. I am confident that this can be achieved and that we can begin to build more rapidly on the foundations laid over the last year, when employment began to increase after six years of decline. Progress along these lines is essential to our efforts to reduce both unemployment and emigration. This plan, therefore, requires and deserves the country's support and we look forward to its implementation within the next three or four years.
Acting Chairman
Deputy De Rossa please.
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I join with other speakers in congratulating you on your new post. I am sure it is a lot easier than some of the other jobs you have. I will not create any difficulties for you today.
I propose to read into the record the wording of our amendment, which is as follows:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"expresses total dissatisfaction with the Government's National Development Plan, calls on the Government to submit a supplementary plan to the EC Commission, seeking adequate funding for industrial development which is so essential for job creation, housing and public transport; Dáil Éireann further deplores the failure of the Government to allow any democratic or community input into its contents and the decision not to submit regional plans to the Commission."
In referring to that amendment, I would urge the other Opposition parties and Deputies to support it. It is an amendment which will not in any way interfere with the plan already submitted, but it does call on the Government to submit additional proposals which would make the plan far more realistic and effective in terms of our economy in preparation for 1992 and afterwards. It is important to recognise that 1992 is neither the beginning nor the end of the world. Life will go on after that. Whatever is being done now will obviously have a bearing on the shape of things to come and work will continue to be needed even after 1992.
The National Development Plan published by the Government is rich in words and lavish in design, but it is short on imagination and virtually devoid of vision. This plan is potentially the most important development plan produced in recent decades. Its success or failure will determine how this country will fare in the very different conditions we will face in the aftermath of 1992. It will determine whether we are to grow and develop and hopefully approach the living standards found in other parts of the EC, or whether we will continue to wallow as the poor relation of the Community with some of the lowest living standards and highest unemployment in the Community. As a response to this challenge the Government's plan is a dismal failure, and is totally incapable of producing the sort of development necessary to take advantage of the 1992 process.
The plan fails at almost every hurdle. The balance between funds going to infrastructure on the one hand and industrial development on the other is wrong. The reliance to such an extent on private investment places a major question over the feasibility of many of the proposals. The emphasis on privately funded roads rather than public transport seems designed only to put more money in the pockets of Fianna Fáil builder friends. The omission of housing is a major opportunity lost to improve the living conditions of many of our people. The failure to provide any democratic procedures either to prepare these plans or to supervise the disbursement of the funds is ominous. In fact this plan is so flawed that the Commission will probably be doing the Irish people a favour if they insist that the Government redraft it.
The most urgent social problem facing this country is unemployment. Many of our other problems, like poverty and emigration, flow to a greater or lesser extent from unemployment. Given the extent of that problem and the fact that it has been so high for so long — the last time unemployment was below 200,000 was in November 1983 and shows no sign of diminishing, it is incomprehensible that more emphasis has not been put on creating lasting, sustainable jobs. The Government hope that the plan would create an additional 20,000 new manufacturing jobs over the next four years, but this would account only for eight months emigration at our present rate.
Infrastructural projects do, of course, develop the country's economic potential for investment, and provide short term employment and permanent facilities. But with 600 people a week emigrating, the number one priority is not infrastructural development but industrial development which will give permanent, sustainable, productive jobs. Real productivity must be raised. A shift from mainly training and infrastructural supports must be made to direct investment of Community funds in industrial and productive projects. At least 60 per cent funds from the Community should be put into direct support for industry, with the semi-State companies receiving a substantial portion of this.
As far as industrial development is concerned, there is no indication that the Government have learned anything, and continue to rely almost totally on private enterprise for industrial job creation. The plan does acknowledge on page 17 that modern industrial firms in this country are foreign owned, that the traditional Irish sector is composed of firms, 90 per cent of which employ fewer than 50 workers, and that their performance has been so poor that they have lost even the domestic market. Irish private enterprise has in recent years shown itself far more interested in investing outside the country. How then, could anyone have confidence in a plan that relies to such an extent for job creation on the same private sector?
In addition, there is no guarantee that the EC Commission will match private investment with the same level of funding it has pledged for public spending. Thus, there is a double jeopardy in the Government's reliance on private investment. The private investment may not materialise and if it does it is likely to result in reduced EC funding.
The Workers' Party are opposed to granting Community funds, or indeed Irish public funds, to build toll roads and toll bridges as such projects can only increase transportation costs for Irish exports and prove a burden on Irish travellers and tourists. The Workers' Party of course support improvements to the Irish road system where economically necessary and environmentally and socially acceptable. However, the emphasis in the plan on roads and private transport is misdirected. This shortsighted attitude is illustrated by the failure to apply for funding for the badly needed extension of DART in Dublin. This is a direct snub to those living in the suburban housing estates of the capital who so badly need such a system. It indicates that Government support for public transport will decline and that we are going to see more and more privately owned toll roads and bridges.
Dublin has special needs and is entitled to special consideration in relation to any development plan and in any application for EC funding, not because it is our capital city, but because it is the home of about one third of our population. It is an indication of its low priority in the eyes of this Government that five pages out of a 123 page document are devoted to its special problems. It is shameful that the regional plan for Dublin — and indeed the other regional plans — will not be even sent to the Commission. The consultants' report for Dublin, produced at considerable public expense, has not even been published. In fact my information suggests that the consultants' plan for Dublin has not been accepted by the Government and has been sent back for redrafting because it did not have sufficient emphasis on privately build roads and bridges. The only ones to benefit from this nonsense are the consultants who now have fat fees in their bank accounts.
The way in which EC funding is spent can have a crucial impact on the future direction of the city. The Workers' Party want a revitalised Dublin, a city once again in the hands of its people, dynamic and alive, a city of equality and justice, a city which is a good place to be in, in which the inner city is buzzing with human activity and the outer suburbs fully integrated into the overall urban structure and provided with all the amenities of a modern living environment. We want a Dublin that is back at work with education, skills and hope for all its children, a city where it's safe to work and play.
The Workers' Party have produced our urban renewal plan for Dublin which would radically change the face of the city, creating a capital city in which people would come before the interests of the motor car, the land speculator and the slum landlord. Other community and interest groups have also put forward their plans for Dublin. In fact, Dublin is buzzing with ideas. Dublin people love their city. They hate what has happened in it and they want to see a change of direction. This is reflected in the wealth of imaginative plans and programmes produced for the development of the city, but those who have put so much effort and work into producing their plans have been snubbed in a contemptible way by Fianna Fáil. They have been denied a say in the National Development Plan's application to Dublin. Given that there are such ideas and such enthusiasm, why could the Government not have established a forum where all those interested in the future of their city could have had their say and an influence on the drawing up of this plan?
The regeneration of Dublin depends on re-establishing its vitality as a working and a living city with strong worldwide exporting and trading links in economic and physical planning terms. This means restoring Dublin's essential relationship with its port. Here I would like to say how much I welcome the proposals from the Dublin Port and Docks Board of which our esteemed Cathaoirleach is also chairman. The opposition being mounted against that plan is misdirected. We must have a vibrant port if we are to have a vibrant living city. While I agree fully that there has to be proper environmental concern about our port and our bay, for us to reach a position where it is not possible for us to have industry located in our port would, in the long run, be the death knell of this city.
We must create an integrated urban area out of the hotch potch of dislocated development that is now under the planning jurisdiction of Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council and Dun Laoghaire Borough Council. Most of all, people must be mobilised directly under a democratic planning system which would involve them in the planning process of their own local communities and of the wider area of Dublin city.
There is a whole range of proposals in our own plan, which I do not propose to go into here today, including ideas for pedestrianisation, the creation of squares in the city, the restoration of the Liffey as a central part of the city by widening footpaths along the river banks, narrowing the carriageway there and restricting traffic along the Liffey.
This is something which strikes me quite often when I try to walk along the Liffey. One is virtually blown off the footpath by articulated trucks trundling past and one gets one's lungs full of diesel fumes whether one is trying to get from O'Connell Bridge to Heuston Station or vice versa, which I often have to do. One simply cannot walk along the Liffey wall because it is a danger. Apart from that, in all my years I have not seen a woman or a man try to walk by the wall of the Liffey with a pram. It is absolutely impossible. Unless we reach a position where we can enjoy the Liffey, one of our most prominent features which could be a major asset to the citizens of Dublin and the tourists who come here in large numbers — and hopefully will come in even greater numbers — and unless we re-establish the Liffey as a focal point for the city we will be neglecting a major resource. I must say strongly that attempts to develop tangent ring roads and links through our city will be a disaster, and I would urge those who are proposing and supporting them to drop that idea and to allow a living city to develop.
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the national plan has suffered greatly from the refusal of the Government to allow any democratic or community control into the input of this plan. It is ominous that, despite the public outcry over this, no provision has been made for any democratic structure for supervising the disbursal of the fund. Unless there is democratic accountability through an Oireachtas committee, through a national programme of development group and a series of regional development boards, then there is every prospect of a repeat of the national lottery scandal with money being used and abused as political slush funds.
In a submission which The Workers' Party made to the Minister for Finance, and sent also to the Commission in Brussels, we made three specific proposals. We made the point that an Oireachtas committee comprising representatives of all political parties be set up to oversee the use of the funds and the later general EC matters relating to Ireland. Such a body would have to have a wider function than the present committee on secondary legislation. We also proposed that a national programme of development group be established comprising the national Government and representatives of various national, economic and social groups, including the Congress of Trade Unions, to plan and oversee the use of the funds on programmes at a national level. Most importantly, we proposed that regional development boards which would comprise governmental, European Community, local authority, council and managerial representatives, trade unions, local bodies and local community groups, would make submissions and plans directly to the European Community on regional development programmes within the national guidelines laid down by the Oireachtas committee. These boards would also have an implemental power over the use of funds allocated to them.
Unless that kind of approach is adopted, we are flying in the face of how the European Community wants these funds to be spent and how the plans for spending those funds are evolved. It seems that the Government are more intent on producing plans which will, in the first place, relieve the Exchequer of having to pay out capital sums for development and at the same time assist private enterprise in a way which will not produce long term productive jobs. That is an abdication of responsibility by this Government and will be opposed at every opportunity by The Workers' Party.
Tá áthas orm an deis seo a bheith agam páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht ar an bPlean Forbartha Náisiúnta. Baineann an plean seo le forbairt gheilleagar na hÉireann. Tá roinnt mhaith forbairtí ag teastáil d'fhonn a chinntiú go mbeimid ábalta dul san iomaíocht go rathúil sa Chomhphobal Eorpach sna 1990í. Faoi 1993, beidh an margadh inmheánach aonair ann agus sin é an deis is mó agus an dúshlán is mó roimh gheilleagar na hÉireann le blianta fada. Cuirfidh an Comhphobal Eorpach airgead ar fáil chun cabhrú le geilleagar na hÉireann tabhairt faoi dhúshlán an mhargaidh aonair, ach braitheann a lán ar an ullmhúchán a dhéanfaimid le haghaidh na hiomaíochta atá rómhainn amach. Tá an Plean Forbartha Náisiúnta ceaptha chun geilleagar na hÉireann ina iomláine a ullmhú chun dul san iomaíocht go ráthúil sa mhargadh inmheánach aonair.
The National Development Plan has been prepared in the knowledge that the years immediately ahead will be decisive for Ireland's economic future. As the European Community moves towards the completion of the single internal market, Ireland has to remedy many disadvantages associated with our peripheral location and other structural characteristics. At the same time, we have to strengthen the competitiveness of our economy and further develop the key sectors.
Before discussing the sectors for which I have responsibility, I would like to refer to the special mechanism for consultations at sub-regional level which was established by the Government as part of the process of drawing up The National Development Plan. While the territorial basis of the plan is Ireland — by definition from Europe — in accordance with EC regulations, the Government carried out an extensive consultation process, at both national and sub-regional level, in preparing both the plan and the programmes to implement it. For the purpose of this consultation the country was divided into seven sub-regions. The consultation involved the main bodies concerned with development, the local authorities, State agencies and Government Departments operating through working and advisory groups in each sub-region. These groups received submissions from other bodies and private individuals and took them into account in their deliberations. I know that for a fact in my own sub-region. I would like to commend these groups for their excellent work. That work has provided a valuable input into the formulation of the plan and programmes and will be an important factor in the detailed implementation of the programmes.
I should like to point out to the House that this is the first time — I emphasise the first time — that an Irish National Development Plan has contained such sub-regional planning. At local level, there are long standing operational administrative arrangements whereby such sub-regional expenditures are the subject of co-ordination on an on-going basis between the various agencies involved, such as the local authorities, the Industrial Development Authority, FÁS, the regional tourism organisations, etc. This system of co-ordination and integration at sub-regional level is efficient, cost-effective and practical and will continue to apply to the expenditure and programmes under the plan.
The plan will be implemented through a series of operational programmes. Nine programme headings have been agreed with the European Commission. Tourism and transport, the sectors for which I have responsibility, are included among the agreed headings. These two sectors have a crucial role to play in strengthening the productive capacity of the economy. Because of the sheer size and scale of these sectors, their pervasive nature and their importance to the national economy, tourism and transport are key sectors for the attainment of the single market objectives.
The development of the Irish tourism sector, having regard to its labour-intensive and its scattered nature throughout the Community, even ins na háiteanna is iargúlta, is central to the Government's medium-term strategy in relation to employment. The national plan recognises that a more developed tourism industry can help to strengthen the productive capacity of the economy. For this reason, tourism has been chosen as a major axis for development in Ireland over the period of the plan.
Ireland has considerable assets which can be effectively marketed to international tourists — a rich cultural heritage, a tradition for friendliness and hospitality, a relatively unspoilt environment and a folk tradition which is still reflected in a vibrant performing arts sector. The primary objectives of tourism policy are to exploit these advantages, to expand the capacity of the sector, to strengthen its competitiveness and to market it more effectively abroad. Our operational programme for tourism will contain specific measures to achieve these objectives.
Statements have been made from the Opposition benches that it would have been profitable had the Members of the House had a chance of debating this plan before it was finalised. Judging by the contributions from Deputy Dukes and Deputy O'Malley yesterday with regard to tourism, I have grave doubts about whether that is so. In his contribution to the debate on the National Development Plan yesterday, Deputy Dukes asked when niche marketing would start so that we can benefit from it. I have good news for him. It started almost two years ago in earnest. Deputy Dukes said he had not noticed it in any of the magazines he read. I have got more news for him. He is reading the wrong magazines.
Perhaps I should explain for his benefit that the whole point of niche marketing is to match the particular product with an identified target market. Advertising in magazines is but one of the methods used to promote holidays. It is an extremely expensive method and the magazines in which particular niches are advertised are carefully chosen to ensure that the appropriate target market is reached, thus ensuring the optimum return on expenditure.
I brought into the House some of the Bord Fáilte publications for niche markets. I am sure Bord Fáilte would help to educate Deputy Dukes if he called in to them. The publications include, Historic Houses, Castles and Gardens, Walking Around Ireland — Only The Best, Cruising in Ireland, Cycling in Ireland, Golfing in Ireland, Angling in Ireland, Equestrian Ireland, publications dealing with coarse fishing and game fishing in Ireland, Sailing in Ireland and Ireland's Heritage.
Is there anything about rod fishing?
There are about ten or 12 niche booklets which have been beautifully produced. They are a credit to Bord Fáilte and it is a pity that Deputy Dukes, as Leader of Fine Gael, would not expand his range of reading to include them.
If Deputy Dukes were to read any English angling magazine he would see Irish holidays featured regularly. The February-March 1989 edition of France Golf, the most widely distributed golf magazine in Europe, contained a ten page feature on Irish golf. Bord Fáilte, in association with Carrolls, were the only non-American delegation present at the recent convention of the Association of American Golf Writers in South Carolina. As a result of this, eight American journalists will travel to Ireland this year and will feature Irish golf holidays in their magazines. Last Sunday's The Observer newspaper contained a very complimentary feature on a new Bord Fáilte brochure for garden enthusiasts. I have just given the House the benefit of a look at its cover and I advise all good Christians to read it fully.
These are just some examples of the type of newspaper and magazine publicity best suited to niche marketing.
As I mentioned, this is just one of the methods used to promote niche holidays. Bord Fáilte also promote extensively through tour operators. In addition Bord Fáilte are active on many other fronts. For example, last June they held a special interest marketplace to which they brought 110 foreign tour operators, 50 of whom had not featured Ireland previously. All were specialists in different product niches and all now incorporate Ireland in their programmes. Bord Fáilte will be repeating this exercise on 30 June next.
Deputy O'Malley's contribution made me doubt what the benefit would be if we had had a debate about the National Development Plan before it was sent to Brussels. His comments on tourism were shallow and simplistic. He mentioned statistics, citing an ephemeral report about a footballer who came several times to Ireland and was, according to him, counted among the statistics. I wonder how he would cater for the 240,000 visitors from France and Germany last year. Were they all to play for Garryowen, Ahane or some of the Limerick teams? If they were, we should promote that game to bring in more tourists. Deputy O'Malley appeared to be labouring under some major misconceptions yesterday, again due to his shallow approach and lack of study of the plan. He was under a misconception in particular about the role private investment would play in overall tourism investment over the period from this year to 1993.
Deputy O'Malley erroneously equates the figure of £130 million, which is the projected net contribution of the private sector to eligible projects under the plan, to total private investment in tourism plant over the next five years. A very simple lesson in logic would have saved him that mistake. What the Deputy said was totally incorrect. I am sure Deputy O'Malley would neither expect nor support the idea that all private investment in tourism plant over the period should be put forward to qualify for regional development fund assistance. We have been quite selective in what we propose to put forward, taking into account the views of the Commission and the sub-regions. The objective of the plan is clearly to increase tourist traffic and revenue to this country over the next five years.
As indicated in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1.12 of the plan, qualifying investment will be concentrated on the provision of all-weather facilities, mainly in the sporting and cultural areas, and other tourist attractions which maximise the tourism potential offered by the country's natural and cultural environment. I have spent sufficient time trying to educate Deputies Dukes and O'Malley and I will continue with my contribution on the plan in general.
The cornerstone of the tourism development strategy over the next five years will be major capital investment in the Irish tourism product, backed up by a new, specially designed marketing scheme to capitalise on the new amenities provided as a result of this investment. We have been heavily into the marketing area already, as the House will be aware. The House also is aware that we have provided extra money for that. Because of the constraints which budgetary imbalances impose on the Government's ability to finance this investment, policy will be primarily directed towards supplanting Government expenditure by private sector investment in the provision of the necessary amenities.
I should like to emphasise that our tourism strategy was prepared after detailed consideration of the excellent analysis and recommendations on the strength, weakness and potential of tourism in each of the seven sub-regions. Our plan is built on these foundations. I should like to illustrate this by reference to my own region, the North-West. This sub-region, which comprises counties Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal, is regarded by many as peripheral, not only within the EC but also within Ireland itself. Tourism is already reasonably well established in the sub-region but the full potential is far from being reached. Furthermore, for many areas within the sub-region tourism offers the best possibility for economic development and employment creation. The analysis prepared by the working and advisory groups for the region identified a number of deficiencies and also its strengths.
Among the main weaknesses are distance from ferry ports and inadequate internal transport links from major access points. The north-west sub-region also has image problems because of the Northern Ireland troubles, and also suffers from pollution problems in some small inland fisheries.
On the positive side, the north-west sub-region has a physical environment which is its greatest asset, boasting a variety of scenery, including mountains, hills, extensive network of lakes and rivers, extensive coastline sprinkled with a range of high quality sandy beaches and coves; woodlands and forest parks; boglands and pasture. The sub-region also has an extensive accommodation base, concentrated in most instances in a number of resorts serving the domestic market for seaside holidays. The strong links with the Gaelic and Celtic heritage, including close association with Yeats, the poet, the availability of an internationally renowned coarse angling product, and developing questrian and cruising products are very positive features.
The North-West sub-region has not been without success in attracting tourists. Some 272,000 overseas visitors, visited the sub-region in 1987; by 1992 it is intended to bring this figure up to 588,000, giving rise to an estimated 2,000 additional jobs. The principal strategy is to develop products based on the subregion's natural, cultural and heritage attractions. The quality and range of the tourist product will require to be improved with particular reference to amenities and activities, and taking account of the need for all-weather and resort complex facilities.
I should like to emphasise that our plans for tourism development in the North-West are but a part, albeit a very important one, of a fully integrated strategy for the full economic development of the region. On foot of the work of the working and advisory groups in the North-West region, this strategy is designed to achieve the creation of viable, sustainable employment in all sectors of its economy so as to reduce unemployment, retain population and raise per capita income, while protecting and improving the environment.
An essential prerequisite for measures to achieve this aim is the provision of an adequate infrastructure. We will concentrate on four key strands of infrastructure: (a) access roads to the sub-region and roads within the sub-region will be improved. This will involve the improvement of national, regional and county roads and I have no doubt that this will receive the full treatment from the Minister for the Environment; (b) water supplies and waste and sewage disposal facilities will be improved to enable the region to attract more industry and tourism and to ensure its environment is protected and enhanced; (c) there will be further development of regional airports to facilitate tourism growth and other economic activity and (d) advanced telecommunications services to and within the sub-region will be introduced.
These are not just pious aspirations. They are backed up by hard cash of well over £1 billion comprising £428 million for agriculture and rural development, including forestry and fishery harbours; £295 million for industry; £182 million for education, training and employment; £89 million for roads; £36 million for sanitary services; £33 million for tourism; £26 million for telecommunications; and £23 million for energy. This billion pounds boost is a clear and practical illustration of the Government's commitment to develop all regions of the country to their full potential.
The National Development Plan is particularly concerned to improve cross Border co-operation. The north-west sub-region, which shares a land frontier of some 300 kilometres with Northern Ireland, is well placed for the further development of economic and social co-operation with Northern Ireland. In this context I would like to draw the attention of the House to a major cross-Border project — the restoration of the Ballinamore/Ballyconnell Canal linking the North's main inland waterway, the Erne system, with that of the South, the River Shannon — which is the subject of a feasibility study at present. If those two great waterways were linked up — of course there was also the link to the Grand Canal system to be taken into account which, in turn, links into the Barrow — we would have a waterways system which touches every one of the sub-regions into which the country has been divided for the purposes of this plan, with the exception of the Cork/Kerry sub-region.
The plan gives a specific commitment that, subject to the outcome of the study, this project will be included in the operational programme for tourism. In fact, it is included in the operational programme for tourism. We wait the results of the feasibility study. I am quite confident that there will be a considerable boost to tourism in both parts of the island with the proposed linking of the Shannon and Erne water systems by the re-opening of the Ballinamore/Ballyconnell Canal.
At this stage I would like to refer to the transport proposals in the plan. It is clear that Ireland suffers from major cost disadvantages vis-à-vis other EC countries due to its peripheral and island location with a consequent heavier reliance on air and sea access transport services and the generally poor quality of its internal transport network. The most significant reason for the high Irish transport costs — reckoned to be twice those of our competitors on mainland Europe — is the deficient state of the national roads and the access roads to the principal ports and airports.
Government policy, as outlined in the plan for the transport sector over the next five years, is to develop an adequate internal transport structure which is fully integrated with improved access transport services. To this end there are specific proposals for four main areas of investment in the plan. These are: rail and bus transport, access transport, sea ports and airports. I will refer to these areas in turn.
As regards rail and bus transport, it is proposed to develop the mainline rail network through improvements in existing stations, expenditure on the network to facilitate more container traffic and renewal and completion of the rail signalling programme. Plans have been prepared for the introduction of new diesel commuter services on existing rail lines in Dublin. It is also proposed to invest in the introduction of improved local and provincial bus services.
Turning to access transport, major investments in specially dedicated sea and air access services are essential for the future development of the Irish economy in the context of the completion of the internal market. In mainland European terms, these developments are equivalent in nature to investment in cross-Border road and rail links to other member states.
The plan proposes a total investment of £200 million for specially dedicated sea and air shuttle services. The main policy priority will be to improve transit times and reduce access costs to Europe. On the sea front, the development of fast sea freight shuttle services directly to Europe using Rosslare Harbour as its hub and/or via the British land bridge link using Dublin Port are a priority. These must be complemented by the development of viable air channels between Ireland and continental Europe if we are to benefit from the completion of the internal market in Europe. The development of these necessary sea and air freight facilities is an essential prerequisite for the Irish economy to maximise the export growth which must underpin sustainable economic growth and job creation. We are currently arranging, in conjunction with the European Commission, feasibility studies to determine the optimal organisational and commercial structures for such sea and air freight services with particular reference to their commercial viability.
In the case of seaports, proposals have been prepared by the Government for the development of the main Irish commercial ports. Expenditure will be concentrated particularly on Dublin, Rosslare, Waterford and Cork ports. The estimated total cost of the proposed investments in commercial ports will be about £72 million over the period of the plan.
As regards airports, existing capacity is being strained because of a dramatic increase in travel to and from Britain and mainland Europe on foot of radical Government initiatives in relation to access air fares into Ireland. As a result of the increase in traffic numbers there is now an urgent need for an accelerated capital investment programme at the State airports. Total investment in State airports over the period 1989-1993 will be £115 million.
Because of initiatives taken by this Government airport investment also has a very important regional dimension. The large volume of traffic using these airports is a clear vindication of our bold policy initiatives in this area. Further improvements in regional airports are now both warranted and essential if rural areas of the country are to be linked satisfactorily and efficiently with both Dublin and the rest of Europe. The plan provides £5 million for investment in these airports over the next two years.
While discussing the regional importance of airports I would like to specifically refer to the transport structure and needs of the north-west region. Its transport structure has many of the characteristics of the national structure: there are some strong transport links but also some weak ones. There are serious deficiencies in the road network in the north-west sub-region. There are 717 kilometres of national roads and much of this is substandard. There are 15,918 kilometres of regional and county roads and most of them have deteriorated in recent years due to lack of funds for maintenance. Rail services to the sub-region are fairly minimal with only the Dublin-Sligo link which serves a small part of the sub-region only. The most important part in the sub-region, Sligo, has suffered siltation over recent years with a consequent decline due to limitations on ship size and cargo tonnage.
However, thanks to initiatives taken by this Government, there has also been a considerable strengthening of transport links to the region. I refer to the two regional airports in the area, one at Sligo and the other at Carrickfinn in west Donegal. Both commenced scheduled flights in 1988 — Sligo to Dublin and Carrickfinn to Glasgow. Both airports are being further developed with assistance from the Government and also with local contributions.
The working and advisory groups in the area stressed the importance of improving both access roads to the sub-region and roads within the region. They also recommended further development of regional airports to facilitate tourism growth and other economic activity.
We got their message loud and clear —pace voices to the contrary — and have included specific provisions in the plan to answer it: £89 million have been provided for road development of which £38 million have been specifically provided for non-national roads. From an economic point of view they are equally as important as the national primary and regional roads because the paramount industry is agriculture, within which is dairying. It should be remembered that the county roads carry the goods to the processing plants. I would like to inform the House that I recently received the feasibility study, commissioned by the Government, on the contribution which a regional airport at Letterkenny could make to the tourist and economic prospects of the region. I can assure everybody concerned that the results of this study are being examined in a very positive way by my Department. I am glad Deputy Harte is present to hear that piece of news.
The Minister has not told me where the money is provided to do so.
The Deputy will see that we both have a vested interest in Letterkenny. I hope to be in a position to make a further announcement on this matter in the near future.
The expenditure plans which have been identified for the north-west sub-region and for the other sub-regions of Ireland are required in order to ensure that we can compete successfully in the Single Internal Market of the European Community. In this regard, The National Development Plan has been designed to prepare the Irish economy as a whole to compete successfully in the Single Internal Market. The plan sets out the structural measures which Ireland proposes to implement over the next five years, in conjunction with the European Community Structural Funds, with a view to achieving the national and Community aim of greater economic and social cohesion.
The total projected level of expenditure on transport measures in the plan is in excess of £1,427 million and that for tourism is over £300 million. This represents nearly 19 per cent of the total expenditure in The National Development Plan of £9,110 million — a clear measure of the importance which this Government attach to the transport and tourism sectors in our drive for overall economic development and employment creation.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the fact that the single internal market offers opportunities but it also presents challenges. The National Development Plan is designed to prepare the Irish economy as a whole to compete successfully in that market, but the success of the plan will depend not merely on the amount of Community funds that we attract, it will depend fundamentally on the extent to which the opportunities are grasped and the challenges are met head-on by all sectors of our economy. Our national psychology seems to like challenges and I am sure it will respond to this challenge as it has responded to many challenges in the past. The National Development Plan charts a course whereby we can maximise the opportunities and minimise the challenges. It deserves to be strongly endorsed by this House.
Tá áthas orm bheith ag glacadh páirt sa díospóireacht seo. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil sé an-tábhachtach ó thaobh forbairt na tíre agus tá súil agam go n-aontóidh baill an Tí seo leis an phlean atá curtha rompu ag an Rialtas. Cé go bhfuil daoine ag lochtú an phlean, tá a fhios agam go bhfuil daoine tuisceannacha sa tír seo ag tabhairt tacaíochta don phlean, agus tá mise thar a bheith dóchasach mar gheall air.
I wonder if I am living in the real world after listening to the fairy tales of Ireland from the Minister for Labour, Deputy B. Ahern, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, and the Minister for Tourism and Transport, Deputy Wilson. I must be excused for feeling like this because having spent 27 years in this House and listened to speeches about different plans which were to be introduced I am cynical. I was particularly amused to hear the Minister for Tourism and Transport, Deputy Wilson, talking about angling in Ireland. The party he represents, who have as a cornerstone the unity of Ireland, protest that they are the only party entitled to a monopoly on that. They cannot find a way to unity with fishermen in the west of Ireland. This is a total contradiction. However, I am glad the attutude of mind in that party is now concerned with cross-Border co-operation. I welcome that attitude but it is major U-turn on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party.
The tariff barriers, customs duties, the economic war of the thirties, the different economic policies which have been pursued by them in the years since we gained our freedom, and, the most crippling blow of all, the break with sterling, are in total conflict with the attitude they portray in The National Development Plan, of economic co-operation between North and South. It is a pity Fianna Fáil did not come to terms with this economic co-operation at the foundation of the State because I believe that if they had the differences which exist at present on the island of Ireland would not exist. Economic differences multiply the political differences which generate disagreement and lead on to violence. We can trace our present problems back to bad economic thinking on the part of Fianna Fáil so far as economic co-operation with Northern Ireland is concerned.
I am a bit disappointed with The National Development Plan with regard to County Donegal and the north-west, but we have always been the Eskimos of this nation. Having spent 27 years listening to various reports and having read The National Development Plan, I could not but think of that now infamous plan which was introduced by Fianna Fáil in 1977. I went out of my way yesterday evening to get a copy of the 1977 Fianna Fáil General Election Manifesto which states on page 1:
The vision of this manifesto is an Ireland in which a successful strategy for national re-construction offers real security for all. It has been carefully put together and costed for implementation in Government by a new team under Jack Lynch as Taoiseach.
To confront the facts of unemployment, rising prices and Coalition mismanagement there is a crash campaign to boost industrial expansion and agricultural production through a massive export effort based on appropriate investment and efficient partnership. Getting the economy moving again — and keeping it that way — will create new jobs and opportunities, develop existing employment and provide security and stability for those who have suffered most from inflation — the housewife, the elderly and those on fixed incomes.
To complete the Fianna Fáil strategy there is a programme of specific policies on which the legislation and reform of the next Government will be based. The new strategy demands structural changes which mean a reversal of Coalition decisions and attitudes. An Independent electoral commission will be set up to deal with constituency boundaries and put an end to all charges of gerrymandering. Departmental and executive responsibilities will be re-organised to provide the most effective machinery for the operation of Government.
Sample surveys of population, unemployment and other social indicators will be held to lay a more solid foundation for future economic and social planning. Fianna Fáil believes that this manifesto gives young men and women their best chance to participate in the building of a better and stable future. It is a blueprint for leadership which, by the firm and just administration of law, esteem for enterprise, and concern for the individual, will bring back that sense of confidence and interdependence which is essential to the growth of peace and social progress, and of our cultural heritage and place among the nations of the world.
What piety. We can trace the problems of the eighties back to the 1977 manifesto. The Fianna Fáil manifesto was slightly different to The National Development Plan, now before us. The Fianna Fáil Party were then going to implement the manifesto by reducing taxation, abolishing rates on houses, abolishing road tax and reducing the price of fuel. It was a giveaway manifesto and they were going to build on it, but it was only a means of getting Fianna Fáil back into Government. It had no respect for the building of the nation, generating prosperity and distributing that prosperity among those who need it most, the poorer sections of our community.
The troubles of the eighties can be traced back to three very important events in the late seventies, one of which was the 1977Fianna Fáil General Election Manifesto. When Jack Lynch took over leadership of this House in 1977 he said on television that the economy of the country was buoyant and that all the promises in the 1977 manifesto could be delivered. That is a matter of public record. The economy was buoyant in 1977 but within two years we were unapologetically clamouring to get into the EMS. The EMS stands for the European Monetary System, although at the time it was termed “easy money soon”, and I believe that was its attraction for Fianna Fáil: they wanted to get money to pay for the mistakes created by the 1977 manifesto.
I argued at the time that a party who preach national unity could not follow policies which interfered with the natural trading or the natural relationship between people in different parts of this country, and in particular between people living as near neighbours in Border areas. Fianna Fáil, in spite of the warnings, clamoured to get into the EMS and we broke with sterling. They introduced to this country a ludicrous situation where Irish money is foreign currency in six Irish counties. It was not the Unionists or the British who did this to us but ourselves. Nationalism, or what Fianna Fáil masquerade as nationalism, influenced that type of thinking. We have now got what must be the greatest Irish joke of all times that the four Irish banks — the Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Banks, the Ulster Bank and the Northern Bank — who have had a licence since their foundation to print currency, which they still do, and they print it in their Belfast offices—in sterling—but that currency, a Bank of Ireland tender note, is foreign currency in the capital city of this country. The four Irish banks which now print Irish money—the Bank of Ireland currency note, Allied Irish Bank currency note, the Northern Bank currency note and the Ulster Bank currency note — have been forced by bad foresight on the part of Fianna Fáil into a position where that money is now foreign currency in Dublin. That is the kind of cross-Border co-operation that Fianna Fáil was guilty of. I am glad they have changed their minds and I hope it is for real and that it is not the fairytales of Ireland we are listening to again. I have said enough, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, about what Fianna Fáil did in the past. I would like to put on record how I see the plan.
I too would like if you would discuss the plan before you.
I am entitled to criticise it.
Acting Chairman
You are, but you have strayed a long way from it. You are now back to 1977.
There is one other factor which obstructed this plan and which makes me wonder whether it is for real. When the Taoiseach took over as leader when Jack Lynch retired as Taoiseach he had to captain a ship that was sinking and he spent money like a drunken sailor. That contributed to the bad economic situation we have in the eighties as well as the Fianna Fáil manifesto of 1977, the break with sterling and the squandermania of the Taoiseach in the two years in which he was leader before the National Coalition took over in 1981. These are the things which have caused the economic convulsions of the eighties. Now let me get on with the plan itself.
Acting Chairman
Please do.
The National Development Plan challenges the credulity from start to finish, beginning with the claim that the plan was compiled after an extensive consultation process at both national and regional level, which we all know to be a complete fiction.
A matter as basic as reform of the taxation system in line with the requirements of 1993 has been ignored in that not one specific proposal is put forward — only a mention of widening the tax base "in the years to come". Is this supposed to be a practical proposal? Indeed, the Government missed the opportunity to make a start in the right direction in the January budget. Instead of reform, they went in the opposite direction by putting an additional 5p on the price of a gallon of petrol — look where that has got us. That is evidence of cross-Border co-operation, putting petrol suppliers and filling stations out of business in Border areas.
The Government claims to have created an additional 29,000 jobs last year alone. We all know that after redundancies had been accounted for, the net increase in jobs was something of the order of 1,200. Bandying around unrealistic claims only undermines any confidence one can have in the Government's plans for an average of 35,000 jobs annually over the coming years, particularly when the plan already anticipates many more redundancies as industry modernises to face the challenges of 1993.
In this regard, I am particularly anxious about plans to automate most activities in the postal service which must be one of the largest employers in the country. Great credit is due to An Bord Post for the improvements they have made to the system. One must question, however, whether it is wise expenditure for the Government to invest large sums in further automation if it is going to lead to redundancies on a very large scale. Many largely unskilled workers will not find other employment.
In this regard, I am also very disturbed at the fact that there is no section on education in this plan. The recent census reports indicate an alarming number of children leaving school at the minimum age requirement. In an increasingly specialised and technological labour market, the great majority of these young people would seem to be doomed to a life of unemployment or emigration, and we already know how appalling are conditions in England for unemployed, unskilled young Irish people.
There is a major section on education.
You can talk about that. I would have thought that greater commitment should be given to vocational education. Not everyone is academically inclined and there should be greater provision, particularly in the west and north-west regions, for young people in this regard. I do not believe that short term FÁS and other such training schemes are sufficient to enable young girls and boys prepare for the challenges of 1993 since without a good educational base they will lack the necessary flexibility to adapt to market changes.
Part 2 of the plan deals with education.
I will not stay here to interrupt the Minister. If you read it you will find that my remarks are relevant.
Human resources, education training and employment are dealt with.
In the plan there is a lot of talk about the sub-regions, yet for the west and the north-west there is little that is concrete despite the Government's supposed concern for that peripheral region. I have already said I feel like an Eskimo.
The £86 million for airports, air freighters, support facilities and improvements is all to be spent on the three national airports, Dublin, Shannon and Cork. All other airports around the country are to share out of the total of £5 milion between them over the next two years despite the repeated emphasis on the importance of access for the peripheral areas. Just where does this leave Carrickfin, Sligo, Galway and Horan, which the Minister for Transport has just spoken about, and, of course, the proposed airport for Letterkenny? He failed to tell me from where the money would come for that airport.
Development of Horan as a freight port "will be considered"— is what they say — but apparently no money has been allocated for that. Let me say that Horan airport could be supported without additional expenditure by allowing all transatlantic flights terminating at Horan to fly directly to that airport. That is something which the Government should look at very seriously because there is a growing awareness in the U.S. of Horan being beside the shrine of Knock. There is a great devotion in the United States to Our Lady of Knock, far greater than I ever anticipated. There is a tremendous willingness or desire on the part of Irish Americans to come in great numbers to the Knock Shrine. They can do that by flying directly into Horan.
A sum of £50 million is to be spent on seaports and sea freight, but it is all on the east coast and Cork. The plan admits that the biggest harbour in the north-west, namely, Sligo, is silting up and is increasingly restricted in the size of vessels and tonnage it can handle but there is not a word about doing anything about it. Neither is there a word about Galway port, apart from improving roads to it. Donegal is totally ignored and Buncrana and Moville are not mentioned. This plan seems to have a fixation about roads as if that was the solution to all our problems.
There is a lovely piece about the development of inland fisheries and the job that will ensure. Since the rod licence dispute is in its second year, the whole tourist angling industry in the west is on its knees and many small businesses catering for the trade are in serious trouble. Apart from that, the fishery board got £1 million less in this year's budget. A prospecting licence has been sought, with every likelihood of it being granted, for Clew Bay, which is acknowledged to be one of the best sea angling waters in Europe. With these kinds of proposals how can anyone take the Government's plan seriously?
Tourism, we all know — apparently except the Government — is of major importance to Connacht Ulster. However, the Government plans to build on the progress made over the past two years. May I ask what progress has been made over the past two years? I do not see any progress in Donegal, SligoLeitrim or in Cavan-Monaghan, whatever about the City of Galway and Connemara. There has been no progress in Roscommon and Mayo over the past year. Business has dropped alarmingly except for visits from young emigrants and they do not, as a rule, stay in hotels or eat out. They stay with their families and, perhaps, visit the local disco. The Government, according to this plan, lays great stress on cleaning up our rivers, lakes and general environment. With just a token nod to industry, the whole blame for pollution has been put on the farmers. Yes, some bear heavy responsibility but they are putting their house in order, but industrial pollution, whether in the north-west, or in the south-east is being largely ignored or denied.
What of the pollution caused by local authorities who have been starved of funds to clean up their act? Local authorities, unfortunately, are serious polluters. Whether it is river pollution, rubbish dumps, sewage outflows into the sea at resorts, or merely the litter along hedges and roadsides all over the country, local authorities are not being funded to eradicate these problems. These things upset tourists as much as anything else.
I refer specifically to the pollution of the Donagh River in Carndonagh where for the last two years, because of storm damage to a bridge which was washed away, raw sewage has been spilling into that river. The Minister for the Environment knows exactly what is happening. Everybody is protesting about it and every member of Donegal County Council feels that this problem should be remedied as a matter of urgency. The amount of money needed is not very large, but the Minister has told us he has no money. I am told that the ESB power station at Moneypoint is one of the worst polluters in the country. Do the Government have no idea of the impact of this deterioration of our environment, not only on tourists but on the Irish people who live here?
The planting of trees is to be doubled. That is welcome, as we all want to see an increase in this valuable natural resourse. The Government have not indicated any intention to modify plantings with a greater proportion of indigenous hardwoods which are not only valuable but beautiful. What about the islands and their great tourist potential? I was in Achill a few days ago and it is bereft of tourists. The Government have made no effort by way of grants to bring the hotels, guesthouses and other amenities up to the standards expected by visitors to that beautiful part of Ireland. The islanders do not have the money to improve amenities.
I am told that the Aran Islands have been without a ferry service for months. The only boats that take passengers come into Rossaveal, quite a distance from Galway and there is no decent transport available.
I am also told that Inishboffin is being ignored by Bord Fáilte because there is no "safety approved" ferry. The islanders do not have the money to provide such a luxury. Yet because they are without it, the island is not being promoted so the hotels get emptier and there are even less funds for improvement.
The islanders on Tory Island have recently launched a plan for the future of the island. Despite promises from Government Ministers who attended, their proposals have been ignored in The National Development Plan. What islands have the Government been talking about when they spoke of island tourism? Is it one island off the coast of Kerry?
The lack of public transport to serve the islands bring me back to a major area of expenditure planned in this document. The only public transport to be provided is for Dubliners, and millions are to be spent on that. I understand why the Government spend so much money in Dublin and ignore the rest of the country. There is some improvement in bus services from Dublin to the provinces, but within the provinces the bus service is infrequent and expensive. If one lives in Downings, Glencolmcille, or Belmullet, or in any of a dozen other towns throughout the north-west, one cannot get to work because there is no public transport. Unless one has a car or a neighbour with a minibus, one is at a distinct disadvantage. To talk of developing industry and roads without developing public transport within the regions means the roads will be used mainly by large trucks ferrying imported goods around the country, or by emigrants leaving in even greater numbers. For £89 million to be spent on roads, the Government could have done better than earmark a mere £0.6 million for the development of bus and rail services.
On cross-Border development, the re-opening of the Ballinamore-Ballyconnel canal is mentioned, but there is no commitment to do anything about re-opening it if the IFI-sponsored report so approves. There is no sign of any money being allocated for it.
Again, under cross-Border co-operation, there is reference to "operational liaison on marine search and rescue". There is no indication of funds being allocated for this purpose. Is that an indication that the Government intend to rely on British Sea King helicopters to search for and rescue our fishermen, particularly since we have just learned that the Air Corps have been so run down that they do not have the capacity to base a helicopter in the west for this purpose?
Surely the provision of an effective search and rescue operation based along the west coast was an appropriate measure to put before the EC and for which to seek funding in this plan. The waters off our west coast are fished by many nations so there is every reason to expect the EC would be willing to assist, but we do not find any mention of this vital service in the plan. Not a word.
There is another lovely piece about the development and promotion of export services, such as insurance and data processing at appropriate locations, including Roscommon. Will this be on the site of the promised briquette factory? How convenient to be able to include a piece like this just before the Euro elections, with no indication of what particular company is involved or when it will be established. Fianna Fáil election promises have caused a lot of pain already in Roscommon, and the Roscommon people deserve better than this.
The overall thrust of this so-called National Development Plan is downright dangerous. Billions are to be spent and bilions borrowed. Is this to be a replay of the infamous Fianna Fáil plan of 1977? Too much of this money is to be spent on roads and national airports and east coast ports. Given the lack of any detailed investment in agriculture, fishing, angling tourism, industry and education, these roads, ports and airports will be used to ferry goods into the country and people out. Too much of it is a once-off type expenditure with no total investment for industry or regional development to produce on-going returns and employment opportunities for our people.
As I said at the outset, I am so disillusioned with the introduction of so many plans that have been shelved in Government offices that I do not take this for real. I welcome it perhaps as an attempt to identify what has to be done, but if one looks at the promises in the 1977 Fianna Fáil manifesto of 20,000 new jobs in 12 months, and looks at what they did, one becomes disillusioned. They proposed in that manifesto house improvement grants to refurbish homes and the first thing they did when they returned to office in 1987 was to abolish that kind of grant. The Coalition Government made such grants available during their term in office. I take this National Development Plan with a pinch of salt. I hope it succeeds but I will be back with every ounce of energy I have to remind the Government about the things they have identified. I hope that this well prepared, well drafted plan has the same commitment from the Government as was put into it by those who drafted it and by the printers, but I doubt it very much.
I will comment, in the short time available to me, on some points made by Deputy Harte. The Deputy's remarks are beyond comprehension. Deputy Harte said that there is no provision for education in this plan. I would refer Deputy Harte to the provisions in Chapter 3 which provide that a sum of £879 million will be spent on education. I cannot understand how the backroom people in Fine Gael are so benefit of ideas——
(Interruptions.)
—that they have to distort the facts like that.
There are a number of little schools that will need thousands of pounds to put them in order.
There is a full chapter there, covering education. In relation to agriculture, Deputy Harte said there was no adequate provision for agriculture. The Deputy is even wider off the mark, if that is possible, in that criticism. A sum of £1,428 million is provided for agriculture and rural development under the plan. If that is the extent of the Opposition criticism of the plan, based as it is on total ignorance of the facts, it demonstrates just how successful the plan is.
Reading the plan and considering the Fianna Fáil manifesto of 1977, that raises many questions.
Debate adjourned.