The concerns and complaints which have been voiced during the debate emanate from good news but it is only the most negative, cynical and begrudging of people who would not want to be part of this celebration. All of us can recall the bad old days when there was more than 15% unemployment and the House debated economic decline, high inflation and interest rates, which were very much centre stage at that time. The difficulties facing us are the challenges which one expects from success and progress. Nobody could have foreseen 20 years ago that there would be labour shortages in specific industries, the cost of child care would be a significant issue, there would be congestion in major cities and towns, not empty streets, and house prices would escalate in heavily populated areas.
We must exercise our minds in this regard. The population is young and highly educated. If young people wish to leave Ireland they do so out of choice, not necessity, and wherever they go they generally find a ready welcome in their adopted country. People emigrated during the past two centuries because they had to and they were not always prepared for the new world. They were not always in a position to immediately avail of the opportunities which existed. Today we know that is the case. We now have a highly educated young population, most of whom wish to remain at home, who are able to command exceptionally good salaries. It is not only young people who are benefiting from this good news. Older people are benefiting also. There is a lot of concern abroad for people who are vulnerable, unable to help themselves or who in some way feel deprived. They are all part of the ongoing debate. The bottom line, particularly in the area of poverty, is that there is no better way of relieving poverty than by providing employment rather than thinking only in terms of charity or a hand-out.
That is the good news story we are talking about and I believe the Government has got it right. Anyone who examines the national development plan will realise that few countries in Europe could feel as confident or as happy as Ireland. It would be wrong, however, for us to rest on our laurels. As well as those that are evident, there are other challenges facing us but if we listen to what people are saying, perhaps those who are less vocal and who may not have any lobby groups behind them, we will meet those challenges. These problems are sometimes aggravated by talk of the Celtic tiger, the almost mystical figure that underlines our economic progress. The Celtic tiger exists, and we should celebrate that, but there is a lot of concern among small farmers in certain parts of rural Ireland in particular.
I am not making an argument for the big farmer, and I do not want to get into the specific issues which come to the fore from time to time – it is particularly important that many of those issues would be addressed – but I am thinking of small farmers who in the past could rely on making a living from their farms. They were self-sufficient, and a young person in the family would be proud to inherit the farm and continue in that occupation. That is radically changed now, whether because of market forces internationally, new technology or new demands which are now placed on farmers. That is a reality. When such changes take place, a traditional way of life changes also not only within the farming community but within the general community in that environment. A GAA club may find it difficult to put together a hurling team because most of their young people, benefiting from the new economic progress and the opportunities available, have moved away from their own environment. As a result, rural Ireland in some instances is being denuded, and that is not good. I am talking about the hidden problems. I do not wish in any way to take from what we are now celebrating but our policies must always take these issues on board. We can concentrate development first on the cities and then on the larger towns, and hopefully on the villages also, but there remains a whole area of life from which we can all benefit, even if we do not live in that particular area.
I am not saying our policies are not focused in this regard. Obviously our policies have to be focused on the populated areas but the time will come when these small towns will prove exceptionally attractive for people as they become more affluent and want to get away from the hustle and bustle of town or city life. They may choose to move to those areas and it is important that the basic infrastructure is there when they decide on doing that. That is already the case where Dublin is concerned. Many people now travel 40 and 50 miles to work, for a number of reasons. They may prefer to live away from the city; house prices are not as high or they may have ancestral ties with the area in which they choose to live. The main point is that it is happening and will possibly happen more in the future.
In talking about decentralisation, which has been raised in the debate on a number of occasions, perhaps it is not necessary to always talk in terms of decentralising a complete Department. We are living now in a time of technology, with computers and the Internet, and it is not always necessary to be close to the centre of activity. That has been proved already by our decentralisation policy over a number of decades, some of it experimental, which nevertheless has been highly successful. It would be worth examining the possibility of decentralising smaller agencies to particular areas as a workable proposition because it would greatly benefit a small number of people. There would also be a consequential follow-up to that type of decentralisation. From the point of view of technology, it is no longer necessary to have large buildings for that purpose. I can think of many areas that could be considered for decentralisation and which would be particularly appropriate to the environment in which they would be sited.
Such an initiative would be good for the quality of life in Dublin. We all join in the sense of success in Dublin but there is another aspect to that, and I am thinking largely in terms of tourism. I do not know whether Senator Doyle will agree with me, having been pivotal to a lot of the activity, but Dublin has become an exceptionally attractive city, particularly for young people, internationally. It is a fashionable place to visit; one need only look at the number of new hotels. I do not know what the latest figure is but there must be 160 or 170 hotels in Dublin. Driving in a certain area, one is often surprised to see another hotel has been built, as we can see in the Ballsbridge area. That is a good development and I would not be among the pessimists who say they hope it lasts. I believe it will last, but I would be concerned that the very thing which makes Dublin attractive could be undermined. We advertise Ireland in the context of space, facilities and amenities, yet when people come here they are back to what New York City was like 20 or 25 years ago, with everybody tooting the horn, until legislation was brought in to stop it. That would bring about an urgent decline in Dublin. It would not be a gradual decline, and we should seriously examine that because Dublin is becoming congested. More and more of the population are moving here.
Another area I would like to touch on is the contribution made by the people who went abroad over the years, because of economic necessity or otherwise. In the context of the peace process, I do not believe the President of the United States would have played such an intrinsic role were it not for the role the Irish community played in the development of the United States; in other words, it was payback time. The same applies in Britain. The Irish community played a positive role in Britain and they had a very good image there. People had first hand experience of the Irish, not just through headlines but from working with them in industry and they were aware of their dedication and integrity. In return the tourist business benefited from that because much of the interest in Ireland would have come through the Irish community abroad. In a time when we are doing exceptionally well economically, those making policies should keep those people in mind. That would make it possible for them to come back to Ireland with their newfound experience or with money to invest.
Recent surveys have shown that people who emigrated in the fifties and sixties, many of whom never married and are living in Britian, are deprived. Those people should be able to come back to Ireland and avail of our new found opportunities and affluence. While discussing the Appropriation Act and focusing on the national development plan, we must bear in mind that there are other things besides economic progress. I would like to think that as we cultivate our economy we would not cultivate a corresponding greed. Many people say greed is central to much of what is happening here.
Much of the language being used today in relation to refugees or other immigrants is close to being racist. Instead of using our affluence to help the less well off in the same way as other countries helped us, we must make sure to minimise the whole concept of greed. Likewise, when people are doing well I would not like them to forget those who are not. Some people are not as well off as we would like them to be. We should keep them in mind when it comes to the distribution of wealth. They may have suffered for their country and are perhaps in nursing homes now, are unemployed, are grieving as a result of a bereavement or illness in the family or are suffering because of the excesses which our new economic climate has brought. Certain sections of the community are suffering because of the excesses of affluence. It is important that we look after such people.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. We have a good reason for celebration and this has been recognised by all sides of the House.