Vol. 599 No. 5
1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if his Department has statistics that indicate the numbers of full-time and part-time farmers in the 1950s, in the early 1990s and in 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6985/05]
Comparable figures are not available on the numbers of full-time and part-time farmers for the full period from the 1950s to 2004.
Up to 1991 the focus was on the land holding, without distinguishing between the holder's full-time or part-time involvement in farming. In 1950, there were 317,900 agricultural holdings of at least one acre. In 1960, the figure was 290,300. By 1970, there were 279,500 and in 1980, there were 263,600 holdings of more than one acre.
In the 1991 census of agriculture, a new system was introduced which focused on the operational aspects of farming. All farms of more than one hectare, about 2.5 acres, were surveyed. It distinguished whether the farmer was involved full-time, that is, his or her sole occupation was farming, or part-time, that is, farming was a major or subsidiary occupation for him or her. For 1991, the total number of farms was 169,900, of which 124,700 were full-time and 45,200 were part-time.
The most recent available figures are from the 2003 farm structures survey, indicating a total of 135,100 farms — 77,900 full-time and 57,200 part-time. The new system introduced in 1991 would suggest an approximate comparable total of 193,000 farms in 1980, of which 158,000 were full-time and 35,000 were part-time.
I asked a statistical question on the basis that Teagasc has given figures that I assumed were based on CSO figures. Is the Minister of State in possession of all the facts in regard to Government figures? Perhaps he will need to give me the reply again when he has had an opportunity to discuss with Teagasc the real situation which I understand has resulted in a couple of thousand farmers moving out of farming every year. Does he have any reason not to give me those figures? Does he recall that Fianna Fáil had a stated objective of retaining a maximum number of people on the land and would he like to say whether that objective has been abandoned in the light of the information——
That is a question for another Minister. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, this is purely a statistical question.
I am looking for statistics but I am not getting them.
A policy question is for the line Minister.
Forgive me for straying into policy, but the statistical question I want answered has not been answered here. The Minister of State has informed me he does not have the figures. The figures are available and he does not have to go very far to obtain them. I would like an explanation as to why he does not have an answer to the question I have asked in the Dáil.
Obviously, the relevant Minister, in this case the Minister for Agriculture and Food will pass to the Deputy any further information the Deputy requires. In regard to the figures, as I explained in the reply, the modus operandi changed in 1991. I would be pleased to pass to Deputy Sargent any additional information in my possession, such as briefing notes. I have precise figures for all of the years, some of which I have already communicated to him. I have attempted to make comparable figures from 1980 on the basis that the system changed from one acre to one hectare.
The figures for 1991, when the system changed, and later years, are not directly comparable with those for earlier years, as the earlier figures included a significant number of inactive land holdings without cash crops or livestock in addition to smaller or more marginal units. In other words, every possible parcel of land was included in the figures on those occasions. We have more pertinent figures since 1991 when the system changed and these can also be used to make comparisons.
The officials who supplied the figures in the reply have endeavoured to translate the system as it was in 1980 into the updated system. The figure for 1980 was 158,000 full-time farmers and 35,000 part-time farmers. The figures clearly show that the number of people on the land has declined. I have no difficulty in sharing with the Deputy any of the information contained in the back-up material. If Deputy Sargent wishes to have additional information I am sure the Minister for Agriculture and Food will be pleased to supply it to him.
Has the Minister of State any further breakdown on a provincial, county or constituency basis of the numbers he has just given?
I do not have such information in this file. However, if it is available, I will be happy to pass it on to the Deputy. I presume information of that nature is available. I will ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food to take note of the Deputy's comments and the information will be passed on.
Has the Minister of State statistical information, not only on the numbers actively engaged in agriculture, but also the number of people, including children, dependent on it as the primary source of income provision? How many citizens are wholly or in part dependent on agriculture as a primary source of income and provision for life's needs? Will the Minister of State indicate whether that degree of detail is available from the CSO figures——
The Deputy is going outside the scope of this particular question.
With respect to the Ceann Comhairle, I am within the scope of the question and want to know if that information is available. Any evaluation of this type is valuable only when we appreciate the number of people dependent on agriculture to provide for life's needs. It would be outside the scope of the question to recognise the significant——
Will the Deputy please ask a question?
——and dramatic decline. It would be interesting to know whether the Government has any strategies to arrest that decline. I will probably be told that this is not the responsibility of the Minister of State.
The Deputy is indeed straying into new territory. I am conscious from my involvement in the World Trade Organisation talks, for example, and discussions on the Common Agricultural Policy reforms etc. that a wealth of information is required and must be examined in terms of what happens to these farms. Many of them are changing to alternative usage as a result of the CAP reforms. The Deputy's question obviously relates to the number of farms. I do not have data on the number of dependants except to say that we are talking about family run, not commercial farms. I understand that approximately 200 commercial concerns were excluded from the figures supplied to me on this occasion. There is also the distinction between full-time and part-time agriculture. As I said in my answer, full-time means farming is the sole occupation of a farmer, whether male or female. The part-time figure relates to where a farmer has a major or subsidiary occupation from that source.
Even though I do not come from a farming family, I am fully aware of the dramatic changes in agriculture over the years in places such as my native east Galway, and that numbers have decreased substantially. I have witnessed that taking place over decades. The information I have is substantial, but if there is anything additional which the Deputy requires, he should let me know. Questions have been raised in the House and I can follow up on those.
The Minister of State mentioned the difference between part-time and full-time farmers. Is a proportion of income taken into account in terms of what constitutes part-time versus full-time? As regards the 200 commercial concerns, perhaps the Minister of State will explain the basis on which this is measured. Are families still involved in some of those commercial concerns, as I imagine they are? Has the Minister of State the figures for the ratio of full-time to part-time farmers from the 1980s in comparison with the statistics available for 2004?
On that last question, the full-time figure for the 1980s was 188,000 with 35,000 the part-time number. If that is added to the list, obviously there has been a fall in numbers between 1991 and 2003.
The Deputy asked about the proportion of income involved but my information refers to farming being the sole occupation or a major or subsidiary occupation on a part-time basis. The figures for those in farming on a part-time basis were 45,200 in 1991, 52,900 in 1993, 51,800 in 1995, 49,300 in 1997, 62,600 in 2000 and 57,200 in 2003. With the exception of 1997 and 2000, there has been an increase in part-time farming.
In response to the question on commercial farms, I am talking about family-run farms, excluding commercial concerns and institutions such as agricultural colleges. Commercial farms are those where a company produces mushrooms or other products on an intensive basis on farms that are not family-run. There are only 200 such farms so it is clear what we are talking about in that regard. If the Deputy would like more information, I will pass it on.
That answer was so convoluted as to be meaningless, with talk of changes in systems and the collection of figures. Does the Minister of State accept that if the figures were presented clearly, they would indicate an exodus of thousands of people from the land and farming as a way of life every year? The figures exist and the Minister for Agriculture and Food gives them to me from time to time on the acreage of any crop or on any farming enterprise.
The Minister of State indicated 1980 as the change-over point but in 1970, 57,000 hectares of land were used to grow potatoes and this fell to 12,500 hectares by 2004. In the past five years, 20% of growers have left the business and more are leaving this year. That is a pattern.
Will the Minister of State come back and give us clear figures that are not confused by references to family farms and commercial farms? Since when is a family farm not commercial? It would not last long if it did not operate on a commercial basis. We must cut through the statistical jargon and tell people the truth, that the Government has done a huge disservice and stood over an amazing exodus from the land.
The Deputy is making a statement. He should ask a simple question related to the question he initially asked.
I am asking for an answer and I am not getting one. I will ask this question again on another day and I want to receive clear figures that are not confused by dates or differences between family-run and commercial farms. We want to know how many people are dependent on agriculture each year.
Does the Deputy want the CSO to transfer the old figures into the new system, where acres were measured but now hectares are used? I stated in my reply that inactive farms were measured. It is a fair point. If it can translate that information into the new regime, as it were, it should be done. I will take the matter up with the CSO.
Livelihoods.
I was Minister of State with responsibility for trade for five years and I was involved in the World Trade Organisation talks in which we tried to deal not only with the developing world but also with our own agricultural requirements. I worked closely with the Minister for Agriculture and Food in that context. The Government has consistently been conscious of the need to protect small farmers. Part of that agenda was trying to deal with——
The Minister of State is going well outside the scope of the question.
Yes, but the Deputy has suggested that the Government has been negligent about small farms. One of the many initiatives was to try to promote agritourism and so forth. There was and is a consistent effort by the Government to deal with that aspect of farming.
I will be glad to take up the Deputy's point with the CSO to see if anything can be done to draw better parallels between the situation in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and the current regime. I will refer back to the Deputy.
Does the Minister of State have statistics on the number of full-time and part-time farmers who have applied for the rural environment protection scheme? Is there a greater take-up of the scheme on the part of full-time farmers or part-time farmers? Has the Minister of State statistics to show that full-time farmers are expanding their farms by purchasing more land? Are there statistics to show that part-time farmers are reducing stock, particularly those in the beef sector? Obviously, part-time farmers would not be involved in dairying if they were working. The reduction in stock would have an adverse effect on the beef industry.
I will allow the Minister of State to answer the questions on statistics but some of the Deputy's questions are more appropriate for the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
They are. I do not have figures on the REPS or on the expansion of farms. They are not part of my remit. The questions are quite technical and would have to be referred to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. However, one can glean from the figures that farms are being expanded given that the numbers are reducing incrementally each year in the case of full-time farmers. Obviously, amalgamation of farms must be taking place. The questions should be referred to the Department of Agriculture and Food.
Does the Minister of State have information on employees who are employed on farms? If there is a dramatic reduction in the number of farmers, it must be 100% greater with regard to the number of people employed on farms. Does the Minister of State have statistics on that?
I do not. The question was about full-time and part-time farmers. I do not have figures about other people employed in the sector. I can try to get them for the Deputy. According to my officials, a farm is defined as a single unit both technically and economically which has a single management and which produces agricultural products. These questions were asked previously of my predecessor. Any items which have been raised and on which we can be of assistance, I will be glad to pursue.
2 Mr. Broughan asked the Taoiseach his views on the recently expressed aspiration of a key leader of the Irish computer industry (details supplied) that every home in Ireland should have a PC and be on-line; if he is considering strategies to achieve this laudable and essential ambition for Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8202/05]
In 1999 the Government published its action plan for the implementation of the information society in Ireland. In 2002, a further plan, New Connections, was published. Both plans were aimed at stimulating greater participation in the information society through the creation of infrastructures, raising awareness and promoting engagement by business, the public service, the public and organisations that could benefit from exploiting the Internet and its related technologies. Our strategy in this context has also reflected trends and policies articulated at European level in e-Europe 2002 and e-Europe 2005.
The Central Statistics Office published its second set of statistics on the information society in December 2004. It contains statistics on how information and communication technologies are being used in Ireland today. The main highlights included an estimated 1,489,200 people aged between 16 and 74 years have used a computer at some time, while 1,198,800 have used the Internet; 649,400 homes have a computer, an increase of 420,100 on the 1998 figure; the number of homes with Internet connections grew from 61,200 in 1998 to 537,000 in 2004; and broadband customers have now risen to 120,000 compared with just 1,000 in May 2003.
The CSO report is particularly encouraging as it shows continued growth in engagement with the information society as reflected in the figures for computer ownership and broadband access. The figures bear testimony to the success of the Government's strategy. However, a significant aspect of the statistics is in regard to the use of the Internet. The most popular use of the Internet is e-mail, which is followed by information searching and on-line services, of which travel and accommodation is a significant element; buying and selling and e-government. With respect to the latter, we are continuing to put services on-line and to make it easier for people to access services and related information using the Internet.
The situation has matured over the lifetime of the two action plans and we have continued to make progress. However, it is not enough to see the situation purely from a technical perspective and in terms of PCs in homes. The uses to which people can put technology are perhaps more significant factors in promoting greater engagement. Meaningful and useful content provides the genesis of demand, which is what ultimately attracts people.
While the aspiration that every home should have a PC and be on-line is very laudable, the real issue concerns the purposes for which it may be used — the value to people in making the investment and engaging in the information society. Government policy is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity and reason to access the technologies so they can participate in the emerging knowledge economy and society. The statistics reveal that quite a number of people do not have an interest in using technology or accessing the Internet. Of the 848,000 households that do not have access to the Internet, more than 120,000 have access elsewhere and 326,000 do not want access to the Internet. Cost of equipment and access was an issue for around 190,000 households, while the lack of skills was an issue for almost 162,000 people.
While the cost of PCs was cited as an issue, the reason to use PCs is a bigger issue. This is what we need to address, because the issue of affordability has to be seen in the context of usefulness as reflected in the demand. Indeed, the cost of technology continues to drop, especially in comparison to such things as televisions and entertainment centres. Simply focusing on PCs as an access tool is narrow. There are other devices such as mobile phones, which have almost 80% penetration, and which will continue to grow in sophistication with the potential to play an ever-increasing role in people's lives.
In my role as Minister of State with responsibility for the information society, I want to concentrate on the vulnerable sectors of society, including the elderly, the disabled and children from disadvantaged backgrounds. I propose to ensure that these people get greater access to relevant technology and meaningful and useful content, so they can realise their potential as full members of society. To that end, I have created an e-inclusion fund of €1.025 million which I will be distributing this year to assist the categories outlined above. My Department is currently working on the criteria and mechanisms to ensure that we get maximum impact from the fund.
Will that fund be aimed at community centres, schools and libraries? Has the Minister any details on the availability of the relevant services for the most vulnerable in society?
I have asked my officials to look at the areas I have mentioned and to see how best that fund can be used under the e-inclusion approach. Last year, projects included the Rathkeale homework club and the Empowering Minds Lego Brick initiative, which I saw in a special class in Ballymun national school. That programme was working so well that children from other classes were coming in to see what these children were doing. One part of last year's fund was used in six public libraries to promote e-government and e-inclusion.
Elderly people could do with some support in this area. We heard from some studies that there is much loneliness among elderly people. Technology is not an answer in itself because there are many other things that we all need to do in society to assist in alleviating the plight of elderly people, but it might be part of a response from the Government to promote communication with elderly people. From my experience, many elderly people are using technology in a productive way and we should try to encourage that. I will be happy to listen to Deputies' ideas under those particular categories.
The Minister of State referred to one report but he may not have seen another report that was published in Britain yesterday. That concerned whether or not there is something to be gained by everybody having computers. Statistics in that report may belie some of the assumptions made in this regard. Perhaps the Minister of State could examine that report and consider its findings.
Will he examine the area of ICT in schools? There was a good programme in place until 2003 but it has not been continued. Did his Department have any involvement in that programme and will he consider resuming it?
The Minister of State referred to mobile phones but will he consider legislation to protect those under 18 years of age from receiving abusive text messages? The issue is current and statistics show that bullying via mobile phones is on the increase. We need to examine that matter so I ask the Minister of State to consider it.
I will certainly examine the UK report to which Deputy Enright referred. I agree with her that we must concentrate on the use of technology in schools and I have mentioned one particular aspect of this concerning schools in disadvantaged areas. The ICT proofing of the post-primary syllabus and the national digital learning repository, which is a collaborative proposal from all universities led by TCD, are important steps to ensure the development of a knowledge-based economy that will help us to grow to our full potential. We must concentrate on schools, therefore, and I am aware that Deputy Enright has been forthright in promoting that.
Personal computers are not the only means of obtaining the best possible access to new technology. One can now do many new things with mobile phones. For example, I understand from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources that people can get tests done on various fish products and thanks to texting, they can now receive test results quickly and get the products on to the market. It is all about being efficient and effective, and if it is easier to do business by mobile phone rather than via a PC, why not do so?
I agree with the Deputy, however, that there is a worrying development with regard to bullying in schools via mobile phones. Nowadays, we all feel we cannot live without our mobile phones and to a certain extent that is true. It is also true for politicians, especially if they are out canvassing, whether in Kildare North or Meath, and one is trying to find people from the local organisation, if they are there.
They were turned off.
We should all be conscious of the misuse of mobile phones and if anything can be done at departmental level I will be happy to address it. I will mention the matter to my officials. I presume there are technological ways of dealing with this matter but parents, teachers and school principals have a responsibility to examine it also.
De réir an fhreagra a thug an tAire Stáit, má fhanfaimid fada go leor, ní bheidh gá leis an infrastruchtúr atá riachtanach don teicneolaíocht atá i gceist. Does the Minister of State expect people to invest in personal computers when the infrastructural environment in which those expensive pieces of technology perform best — in other words, broadband — is not fully in place? Does he accept that the Government has been partly responsible for the slow transformation to an e-technology environment? Does the Minister accept the slow roll-out of broadband has been partly responsible for discouraging people from engaging in the new technology? If technology is purchased but does not work to its specified performance level, this discourages people from depending on it. Will we simply wait until mobile telephones do everything?
The Deputy will be aware that the issue of broadband has been raised on a number of occasions since I took up my role in regard to the information society. I am pleased progress has been made.
Some.
Some progress has been made. Following European studies and the Cap Gemini Ernst and Young report, it is important we have some European system watching over us to ascertain the progress being made because, as the Deputy noted, these studies suggested we were lagging behind on broadband. However, to be fair to the Minister and his predecessor, they worked hard on this and some of the figures I have seen suggest we are catching up, and are ahead in many other categories dealt with by the Cap Gemini report.
The Deputy is correct that technology is changing rapidly. I do not accept we will need to radically change the systems we are using. The PC is now part and parcel of our lives. However, there are new technologies such as hand-held computers and mobile telephones and we should be open to considering any of the new technologies coming on stream. It is important that Ireland, which has a significant reputation in this area, keeps ahead with regard to technological innovation.
The Information Society Commission made two points, that we should renew and reorient our e-strategy priorities and deepen our commitment to the knowledge society foresight initiative to stay ahead. It is not simply a matter of supplying technology hardware and infrastructure. There needs to be strong emphasis on the meaningful use of the technology. We should begin with the basics, find where the gaps are and make progress in regard to the elderly and disadvantaged. However, we must ask what we want to do with technology and how we can enhance society. If we look at the issue on that basis, we will do the right thing.
Deputy Enright referred to some of the negative aspects of technology. However, there is a strong symbiosis between economic activity and society. If we can get this right, we will do good service for those we represent.
The question is appropriate to a Member from Clare given that Ennis was the first information age town, although the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, may not like this as Ennis beat Killarney to the record. Ennis was the first information age town and every home in Ennis received a PC and instructions on how to use them. Has the Government surveyed or does it propose to survey the benefits of PCs for towns such as Ennis? Ennis has become a kind of dormitory town but not many new IT industries have set up there despite it having the advantage of being the first information age town.
I do not have the relevant statistics available but I presume many would be available for a town like Ennis. It was a good idea to consider particular towns in regard to the use of IT, especially in western seaboard and BMW areas. I am sure data are available and I would be glad to share it with the Deputy.
The current approach is to develop the metropolitan area networks, MANs, project and to roll out broadband to various towns and villages throughout the country. This is being extended with the group broadband scheme. A series of policies are in place which will ensure we will reach out to those areas that have not benefited from technological innovation. There are also a series of policy directions from the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to ComReg, focused on the delivery of competitive broadband pricing and the shaping of a telecommunications industry-supported programme to deliver broadband to 4,000 schools by September. There is a focus on the peripheral regions. Ennis has clearly benefited greatly from that project in the past and there is a continuum of similar projects in the pipeline in an effort to reach out to peripheral areas.
Over recent days, concerns have been expressed on the national airwaves regarding the capacity of broadband roll-out in terms of speed. The concerns are that the capacity of the new system being introduced falls significantly behind that of other European players. What is the Government's position and what view does it take? Has the Government responded to the criticisms aired by the national radio broadcaster?
Progress on broadband has been made in recent times. Some of the relevant figures were mentioned in my reply.
The €25 million county and group broadband scheme offers small towns and rural communities the chance to come together with the service provider to obtain broadband connectivity for their areas with funding assistance from Government. The scheme is open to smaller towns and rural communities of fewer than 1,500 people. It is modelled on the group water scheme and will enable local communities to draw up and implement their own broadband plans in partnership with industry. The Government will provide funding of up to 55%, the maximum allowable under EU rules. The group broadband schemes have already been launched using a combination of DSL, satellite and wireless technologies.
The Government is conscious of the need to ensure equal broadband access throughout the country, especially in remoter parts, and is making a strong effort in that regard. Broadband take-up continues to rise. In May 2003 there were 1,000 customers. This figure has now risen to almost 120,000 and in the last six months of 2004 there was a customer increase of 69%. That is a marked increase and we will continue to press for further increases. The area is specifically the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, but we work closely together on these matters.
3 Mr. Wall asked the Taoiseach the number of visitors to Ireland for the first two months of 2005; the way in which this compares with the same period in 2003 and 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9172/05]
We are back to tourism. I could easily refer this question to my good colleague, the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue.
Deputy Kitt may carry on. He is doing well.
The CSO introduced a new monthly release on overseas travel in January 2004. This release gives summary monthly figures in addition to the CSO's more detailed quarterly figures on tourism. The monthly release shows the total number of overseas trips into and out of the Republic of Ireland classified by area of residence.
The latest figures available are for December 2004. They show that there were slightly more than 436,000 overseas trips to Ireland in that month, an increase of 8.9% on the number in December 2003. In 2004 there were almost 6.6 million overseas trips to Ireland, an increase of 3.2% on 2003. It is expected that the January 2005 release will be published before the end of April.
Regarding the figures for December 2004, are there comparable figures for 2003? Although estimating procedures have changed, are there figures available for US visitors, English visitors and visitors from the rest of Europe? Regarding destinations in Ireland, are there figures for visitors travelling to Dublin or the provinces, for example?
Before coming in here I got figures on the number of trips to Ireland. These are the December 2004 CSO figures on overseas travel. There were 436,200 overseas trips to Ireland in December 2004, an increase of 8.9% on the 400,400 in the same month of 2003. I already gave the Deputy the figure of 6.6 million for 2004.
The figures for visitors from Great Britain may be of interest to the Deputy as we have often talked about the figures for those coming here from the United Kingdom. The number of trips to Ireland in December 2004 by residents of Great Britain increased by 2.4% compared with the same month in 2003. In 2004 the number is down 1% on 2003. That is a one-month figure and hopefully is a good sign of what is to come.
In December 2004, trips to Ireland by residents of other European countries increased by 27.8% to 100,600 on the corresponding December 2003 figure of 78,700. Trips to Ireland by residents of North America in December 2004 increased by 15.7% when compared with December 2003. In 2004, the number was up 8% on 2003. There were 22,400 trips to Ireland by residents of other areas in December 2004, an increase of 600 on the same month in 2003.
The Deputy did not ask me about the trips made by Irish residents, but I will give him the figures. Irish residents made 348,200 trips in December 2004, an increase of 8% on the figure of 322,500 in December 2003. That is the most up-to-date information we have. We will get more information on the following months for the Deputy.
