Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I join the Chairman in welcoming the delegation, many of whom have been personal friends and colleagues for a number of years. I thank them for their presentations. I subscribe to their objectives, which I will develop later, but I begin by asking about the reference to a territorial approach to the management and in terms of the Europe 2020 objectives. Councillor Richmond stated that the Border, midlands and west region, which my constituency is within, was one of the EU regions with the highest level of GDP decline and has a number of structural weaknesses which require more tailored interventions, and that gap is very clear. This was something the Chairman homed in on also. It is a serious gap in terms of the income levels of the area I represent, other parts of the country and other parts of Europe. That arises from a number of historical matters, which we do not need to repeat here, but they include the conflict in Northern Ireland and other in-built disadvantages. That is a very serious matter.

On a good note, and I have some questions for the witnesses, I was pleased to hear the announcement in the budget that €1.2 billion of Structural Funds are to be spent in Ireland in the period 2014 to 2020. That is a great achievement by the Government. I am also very happy, and I am interested to know if the witnesses see it as a positive move and whether it fits some of their objectives, that we have secured an allocation of an additional €100 million for the Border and midlands region, which is the area I represent.

I am very interested to hear the witnesses' analysis, having highlighted what I know about my own area which is that we suffer huge disadvantages that Government and Europe should be working to correct. I acknowledge the great success of our Government in achieving an additional €100 million in Structural Funds for the Border region.

I agree strongly with the witnesses on the need for a territorial dimension. Would they agree that an area such as the one I represent, and it is typical of the many areas that suffer disadvantage, needs special allocations and additional moneys for investment in high speed broadband? Do they agree that is crucial infrastructure to attract industry and inward investment and bring us to a level with the rest of the country, which we have a difficulty doing? Do they see that as a major territorial objective?

Would the witnesses accept that in the absence of a rail network in our area there should be positive discrimination towards us in terms of the road network?

Something like the east-west link connecting Dundalk to Sligo is crucial infrastructure. Do the witnesses consider that should be a priority in a territorial approach?

Do the witnesses accept, as I have experienced in my area, that a great many people were displaced from the construction industry during the recession? Very often they are young men who went into construction when it was booming, took up low-paid positions and were left unemployed when construction ceased. They need re-education and the Youth Guarantee scheme should focus on that group. In sum, do witnesses feel territorial initiatives are necessary for my region and regions like it and do they see that being delivered by their objectives?

The witnesses stated that they believe we should have a partnership approach at local level. I completely agree. I spent more than 25 years in local government myself and had the honour of chairing my local authority. I have a great affinity with local authorities. Do the witnesses consider that the role of local enterprise offices, LEOs, will widen? They are now under the control of the local authorities but should they have a wider remit?

We cannot possibly deliver the 2020 objectives without the approach suggested by the witnesses. The witnesses are correct to say it should have a spatial, territorial dimension. Areas like Cavan-Monaghan need positive discrimination which we cannot deliver without the involvement of all levels, which includes local authorities and, very specifically, the witnesses' organisation. I am interested specifically in the witnesses' response to my specific points and in their view on the role of LEOs. What most interests me - and I make no apology for it given that it is why I was elected - is that my area suffers hugely by comparison with other areas in terms of family income and opportunity. That must be corrected.