Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is. Bhí an chéad amendment from Deputy Tóibín ar pholasaí Uile-Éireann and an all-Ireland policy. We heard from Deputy Ó Cuív that in former times in the Department a number of these areas were together and that there was much cross-Border and all-island activity. Many efforts were made, including by Deputy Ó Cuív. He might have been late for that meeting, but he was often late for meetings. However, he was always listening with a cluas mór that was oscailte í gconaí and he was ag obair go cruaidh ar fad. I often waited for him too, but it was worth waiting for him. I hope the Minister will be worth waiting for too. I genuinely wish him well with his portfolio. I will give praise where it is due, but I see the vagaries in this. This amendment will not deal with them. It is a case of how long is a piece of string. One thinks of the adage, dúirt bean liom go dúirt bean léi go raibh fear i dTiobraid Árann a bhfuil póca ina léine aige. In English, a woman told me that a woman told her that there was a man in Tipperary with a pocket on his shirt. The Minister has no pockets. This is like a shroud. The Minister has no money, no budget and no portfolio. In his reply on Second Stage, and I am not sure of the exact words he used, he did not give any dates and referred to as soon as he could. I accept his bona fides, but I am used to the permanent government being slow to allow people in rural Ireland to have their fair share of the cake, nothing more. It is not the béal bocht, just a fair slice. It might not be fully fair, but it should be a reasonable amount. We will make good use of it. Let the communities and groups make use of it, because they will. Allow them to do the work. As I said a number of times earlier, níl neart go cur le chéile.

With regard to the other amendments, Deputy Ó Cuív said that during his time in Government rural affairs, the Gaeltacht and na hoileáin were all together in a single portfolio. Too much chopping and changing makes matters hard to bed down. It can be difficult for groups to engage. There should be a one-stop-shop in the Minister's Department, when he gets it, which people, communities and organisations can contact so they are not going ar fud na tíre, ó áit go háit and ó bhaile go baile, as we were obliged to do with the Department for the environment in respect of voluntary housing, as I mentioned earlier. Voluntary housing groups were doing great back in the 2000s when there was a one-stop-shop. However, the Department got jealous of the success of these people who were embarrassing it so it set up seven regional offices where one had to go with a proposal. They were all over the country, ar fud na tíre. It is like IDA Ireland being covetous of ConnectIreland.

There must be a one-stop-shop, direct communication and clarity. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle said when I finished my contribution on Second Stage that my points were succinct and to the point. All of them might not have been, but we need clarity. Communities and groups are waiting long enough for it. After the last election Fine Gael was badly bruised and it had to form a minority Government with the supply and confidence arrangement with Fianna Fáil. The Rural Independent Group fought hard for a Department for rural affairs, but we did not get it. As I told the Minister, we got the hind teat of the bó bhocht, or the poor cow. It could not even be milked because it was a hind teat of the Department. I accept that the Minister will crack the whip when he gets his portfolio and into the saddle, but there must be rural proofing from all the other Departments and Ministers. There must be cohesion. We cannot go around in circles and not get anywhere. This Department is needed. It is a pity it is the second last day of this session. It is also late in the night and many of us might wish to go elsewhere and leave this, but we are here to support the amendments. I compliment na Teachtaí Tóibín agus Ó Cuív agus gabhaim comhghairdeachas leo for tabling these amendments in order that we could have this debate.

See this speech in context