Before the debate was adjourned last night, I was referring, in the presence of my colleagues from Couny Kildare and the midlands, to the fact that direct action taken by the Government, particularly in regard to Bord na Móna and privatisation projects, had given rise to many job losses. These job losses have lead to an increased burden on social welfare, health, education and local authority resources. I also said that the cuts being introduced in the social welfare area by the Minister for Social Welfare are a direct result of the new Social Welfare Act.
The implications of the changes in the social welfare code will become obvious to anyone who tries for the first time to gain entitlement to the contributions they have paid during their working lives. My colleague, Deputy Bell, referred to many of the areas where changes have been introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare. Today SIPTU published a detailed list of some of the changes which have been introduced in the social welfare code. I am sure that many people in the midlands and elsewhere will soon find themselves in a position where they will not be able to avail of unemployment and sickness benefits, to which they contributed during their working lives, as a result of the changes introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare, a person from the midlands. One of the Minister's answers to the present problems was to send us a copy of a very colourful and expensive booklet which was published today by the Social Welfare Appeals Office. This booklet, entitled Leaving Ireland and Returning to Ireland, tells people their rights.
The major problems in the social welfare area need to be addressed as soon as possible. At Question Time today the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach confirmed that more than 300,000 people are now unemployed, if we take into account those in pre-employment schemes, people who are no longer signing on the register, who are not retired but have no work. The present unemployment level is now the highest in the history of the State. The Government cannot afford to continue their complacent attitude towards job creation and unemployment. The Government, and in particular local communities in the midlands, cannot afford the loss of 100 jobs in the Bord na Móna plant in County Kildare. Rather than accepting the Government's stark decision in relation to their livelihood, the people of Lullymore have set up the Lullymore, Ballydermot, Timahoe, Allenwood Action Group. They are to be commended for doing this. This action group are making representations in regard to the proposed 120 megawatt power station to be built by Bord na Móna somewhere along the Kildare-Offaly border. The siting of a new power station in this area will make use of the vast stocks of peat which remain in the local bogs and will help in some way to offset the huge job losses in the area over the past six years.
The Culliton report threatens the continuation of the strong relationship which has evolved between Bord na Móna and the ESB. It specifically recommends that steps should be taken to eliminate the cost imposition involved in peat generation by the ESB either by reducing peat costs to the ESB, if this is viable, or by closing down on a phased basis the most uneconomic elements of peat fired capacity. The Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, who is responsible for these two areas is not answerable on the floor of the House for any action taken on Bord na Móna or the ESB. The Minister is more than aware of the specific focus of the Culliton report. It would be impossible to implement the recommendations without some very strategic thinking and assessment of the relationship between the ESB and Bord na Móna. This could not be done without taking into account the huge overhanging debt problems which have been faced by Bord na Móna and which were referred to last night by Deputy Enright. I share his concern. Anyone who has met the management and workers of Bord na Móna will know a similar message is coming through from them about restructuring and the way in which that magnificent organisation, which has used our natural resources to tremendous effect, has been financed.
The Government still have to give a guarantee in regard to the future viability of Bord na Móna and their operations in the midlands area. I hope the Minister will be able to give that guarantee tonight. The workers and the people dependent on their wages, their families and people in the service industries, will want to hear assurances from the Minister and not just the pious platitudes outlined in the Government amendment to the Fine Gael motion.
In the context of the specific problems in the midlands area, the establishment of the new enterprise partnership boards was disappointing in that there was no prior consultation with the councils of the regional tourism organisations. This was confirmed today at Question Time when the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Noel Treacy, answered questions put down by Members of this House in regard to the consultation which took place to abolish the various regional tourism organisations and their incorporation into the new enterprise partnership boards. The key role tourism will play in job creation in the enterprise partnership boards does not appear to have been discussed with any of the local tourism organisations or elected representatives who will be affected by the change announced by the Government which is supposed to take effect within the next month. As I said today at Question Time, it was at my insistence that my council put this document on their agenda for discussion. Apparently it is sufficient to talk to the county manager and then throw a sop to the chairman of the council telling him he will also be involved. I hope this involvement is not the same as the involvement of regional chairmen in the preparation for the next tranche of EC funding, or Structural Funding, particularly as it related to the Delors II package. There was relatively little, if any, consultation in this respect and relatively poor acknowledgment of the local input. In fact, when the final plan was published it was difficult to see where the Government had included any of the regional submissions. Obviously, this money was redirected back through the Department of Finance.
The midlands do not need competition between the various enterprise boards for investment in the region. Irrespective of the structure which might finally be decided by the Government, that region has something to offer in its own right to the tourism industry — the tremendous facility of the canal which flows through most of the region. An issue which needs to be addressed is the putting in place of an effective mechanism to monitor the performance of these partnership boards. Central Government Departments must also have an involvement in this area. There is a danger that direct access to EC funding will simply result in a proliferation of projects to attract available finance, with a high failure rate and potentially disastrous effects on the morale of the localities in the midlands region and other regions also. If tourism is to be effective at local level there is need for a co-ordinated mechanism to avoid wasteful duplication, which objective can best be achieved by operating through the existing regional tourism board's framework.
It needs to be pointed out that regional tourism organisations with a permanent staff of 102 and seasonal staff of over 300 have played a major, central role in tourism at local and regional level at a net cost to the Exchequer of £400,000. These organisations have in excess of 7,500 members representing all sections of the tourism trade and they contribute £450,000 per annum to tourism at local level. We are all directly involved with them in a voluntary way. These organisations also operate a network of 76 tourist information offices servicing 2.5 million visitors annually. Therefore, it will clearly be seen that regional tourism organisations engage in a very intensive marketing and development programme. We should ensure that the councils of those regional tourism organisations represent tourist interests at all levels of the industry and, in addition to their chairment and county manager, include public representatives.
The concept of these new partnership enterprise boards places a question mark over the future role of county development officers because, in addition to tourism and industrial development, their positions will be defunct.
I rest my case on the basis that it is important for all of us that the midlands and all other rural regions receive a fair share of the cake when divided. It has been our experience in the past that these areas have been neglected by Government.