Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

Cuireann sé áthas orm a bheith sa Seanad inniu agus deis a bheith agam labhairt faoi fhorbairt na tuaithe in Éirinn. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Leas-Chathaoirleach as comhghairdeas a dhéanamh liom.

We all realise that there are many challenges to the goal of rural development, both within Ireland itself and coming from outside. An objective analysis of where Government is placed to meet this challenge shows us having a solid foundation on which to build our plan of work. To my knowledge I am the only Minister with responsibility for rural development in the European Union who is not also a Minister for agriculture and this shows that the Government believes that rural development, and agriculture, fisheries and forestry are so significant that two separate Cabinet Ministers should have responsibilities for these important issues. It also shows that rural development, though complementary, is a separate issue from the industry of agriculture.

Looking at the principal parameters within which Government operates, there is a clear mission to develop rural communities. The Government's White Paper on rural development sets out as a key part of its future vision and policy that:

The Government is committed to ensuring the economic and social well-being of rural communities, to providing the conditions for a meaningful and fulfilling life for all people living in rural areas and to striving to achieve a rural Ireland in which there will be vibrant sustainable communities.

According to the programme for Government, "Vibrant rural communities are vital to the future of our nation." This is the clear policy framework within which the Government and I, as Minister, must operate.

The European Union shares our values on rural development and is committed to rural development in its wider sense, as well as being committed to agriculture. Commissioner Fischer-Boel has been particularly engaged in preserving and developing rural populations across Europe. The EU takes a wide view of rural development as total community development. One of the main objectives in supporting rural development as set out in Article 4.1(c) of the 2005 Rural Development Regulation is "...improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of the rural economy."

Within Pillar 2 alone of the European Rural Development Programme, €2.4 billion is set out for a range of rural development measures in Ireland over the period from 2007 to 2013. I am particularly pleased to announce that next week my Department will proceed with the new rural development programme. Under this programme, our funding of €425 million, three times what it was before, will see an investment of almost €1 billion in measures to develop rural enterprise and quality of life in the period to 2013, obviously made up of European and national money as well as private investment. I believe that a "Yes" vote in the upcoming referendum on the EU reform treaty will strengthen Ireland's position within the European Union, and will support Ireland, as a negotiator and as an ally of other countries with similar concerns, in continuing to pursue our strong rural development policies.

One of the provisions in the EU reform treaty that is of particular relevance to my work as Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, and the work of my Department, is the enshrinement of the concept of equality across all regions, urban and rural. The White Paper states:

Among the regions concerned, particular attention should be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and areas which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as the northernmost regions with very low population density, and island, cross-border, and mountain regions.

This mirrors our national commitment, through my Department, in programmes such as CLÁR, RAPID, the community services programme, the rural social scheme, support for islands communities and so on.

To explain how my views on rural and agriculture development developed over the years and my journey to the firm belief in the importance of both, I would like to share with Senators my background in this regard. As many Members will probably know, I was brought up and educated here in Dublin. Having completed university, and having an interest in the Irish language which is mainly spoken as a community language on the west coast of Ireland, at the age of 23 I became manager of a small community farmers' co-operative. I was the first employee of the co-operative. It was registered as a farmers' co-operative and the initial idea was to develop and improve farming services, particularly through the intensive fattening of hill lambs.

During its early years, the co-operative focused on agriculture. However, very quickly two issues changed fundamentally not only the direction of the co-operative but also the direction of the local community. One was the difficulty in an area of very poor marginal land of an agricultural co-operative becoming viable, which was a challenge that took me a long time to crack. The other issue was the realisation, very early on, that no matter how much was invested in agriculture, it would in no way sustain the local population, and that what was needed was economic diversification of the rural economy and the creation of off-farm jobs. I am glad to say that through the efforts of the co-operative, there are now 200 industrial jobs in the region and that the population decline has at last been stemmed. Agriculture, although still important to the local economy, is no longer its mainstay and the vibrancy of the community is linked around a multifunctional, multidimensional economy.

Having seen the dramatic effect that such an approach had on a small rural community and seeing this as an incubator or experimental plot, I came to the conclusion that the only possible long-term approach to rural development and halting the rural decline which is pervasive throughout the developed and developing world, was to develop diverse multi-sectoral local rural economies. Such local rural economies should have a mixture of both local enterprise and access to public jobs. A sensible and well-delivered policy of decentralisation of public jobs has a key role to play in developing rural life and releasing the congestion strains on our main urban areas.

I was in India for St. Patrick's Day. When I mentioned I was Minister with responsibility for rural development, they were fascinated. That country has a population of 1.2 billion people, 70% of whom live in rural areas. The nightmare scenario for them is mega-migration, which is happening already. If half of the 70%, 800 million people, suddenly descended on the cities, Senators know what would happen. As we tend to deal with things on such a small scale here, it was very interesting to get some view of the challenge we face in shifting populations as a world community and not our own little community. The only other answer is the one I am proposing, which is to diversify in situ by leaving the people there and bringing the diversification to the communities. In that context I saw a headline recently in a newspaper that stated more than half of the world's population lives in cities. It stated that people worldwide continue to flee the countryside into the cities. We must ask whether that is socially and economically a good thing, or whether the maintenance of balanced population structures and population stability would not be more desirable. It is not the absolute population of an area that causes problems but rapid shifts of population in terms of the need to build houses and schools. That is a significant problem. The Government believes that is the case, as does the European Union, which has been putting an increasing emphasis on spending in the general rural economy. Some people say that those policies are built on an idealistic view of green fields and frugal living, and that such policies are economic madness. I have heard that said many times. I believe, however, that there are cogent arguments that show that the maintenance of rural populations and ensuring the growth of cities is not at the expense of rural communities not only makes economic sense but also makes social sense. As the Minister with responsibility for urban deprivation as well as rural development, my Department has a bird's eye view of the challenges facing different communities. From what I can ascertain, the pattern in Ireland is replicated in many developed and developing countries.

The Government believes that rural development is an important engine to ensure the balanced development of our country. It makes no sense in economic terms to have rural areas with a wide range of services, including schools, health centres, social facilities etc., which are under-utilised due to population migration, and at the same time have rapidly growing cities that cannot cope in terms of the provision of those same services because of their burgeoning populations. The second reason, which is a social one, is that examination of deprivation levels in Ireland shows that while the richest communities in the country are urban, it is also the case that the 46 most deprived communities are all urban communities. No rural area in the country has either the social, economic or quality-of-life deprivation issues that are experienced in the most deprived urban communities.

An economic commentator recently pooh-poohed the importance of culture and said it is all about economic growth and that culture is an extra. I puzzle about the huge challenges we face in deprived urban communities — challenges that break my heart because so many of the young people there have no future. They do not get education in large numbers and, unfortunately, the most likely place some of them will end up is in prison. Many of the deprived areas are located in a ring around the M50 in Dublin. I puzzle as to why that is the case, given the proximity of people to all of the jobs that are located around the M50 and the fact that access to university is no problem. Universities and jobs are on those people's doorstep, so why do they not avail of all the opportunities? What is the problem? In rural areas where the parents have had only a primary education large numbers of their children are getting not only secondary but tertiary and fourth level education. I ask myself what is the difference. The conclusion I have come to is that the difference is culture. I refer to culture in the wide sense where it relates to values. Rural people believe in education.