Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sharing time with Deputies Luke Flanagan, Seamus Healy and Joan Collins.

I was quite intrigued by the Private Members' motion put down by the Fianna Fáil Party in that every sentence of it referred to rural Ireland. It is probably to do with the fact that most of the Fianna Fáil Party Deputies are from rural Ireland and, obviously, there is no Dublin Deputy in the House representing the party.

Some aspects of the Private Members' motion affect urban and rural people in exactly the same way. I specifically want to focus on community employment schemes. I am one of the directors of the resource centres for the unemployed in Kildare and I am also involved on the voluntary committees of a couple of other CE schemes. Essentially, what has been lost in much of this debate is that there seems to be a measurement in community employment schemes regarding the progression into work. As the House will be aware, there is limited enough work. There seems to be an incapacity to understand that in many cases the CE schemes provide important social services such as meals on wheels, the resource centres for the unemployed and a resource to sporting and community organisations that in most other countries would be provided by the local authority.

The reduction in the materials grants, from €1,500 to €500, will mean that some community employment is simply not sustainable. I would ask that this matter be reviewed specifically with a view to maintaining some of those services.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also refer specifically to the community employment schemes. Obviously, these schemes affect not only rural areas. Every town, city and village in the country will be severely hit by the changes to the schemes, both in grants and in personal payments. There is also the cost of sceptic tank upgrades. I refer to those two items in particular.

I want to focus on the part of the Government amendment which states that "the principles of fairness, growth and reform underpinned the outcomes set out in budget 2012", which is a completely unbelievable statement. Nobody in the country believes that. This budget is specifically targeted at middle and lower income families. The Government had a choice and we in the ULA put forward that choice consistently over the past number of months. Of course, the Government does not want to hear it because it means taxing its friends and cronies.

There is space for a wealth and assets tax in this country. There is none here, but such a tax is in operation in a number of other countries, including EU countries, and parts of the United States. The wealthiest 5% of persons in this country have personal assets, not business assets, amounting to €219 billion. A 5% tax on that would bring in €10 billion. That is the type of income that super wealthy persons should pay to the State. It would be at least a start in ensuring that everybody paid his or her fair share.

That is a choice the Government has and should make. It is a choice that would create rather than destroy jobs. The Government has destroyed 25,000 jobs in the past nine months.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the motion, but I would also have to say that the current Government does not have a monopoly on destroying rural Ireland. I come from Castlerea in County Roscommon. As the years go by, bit by bit we become smaller and smaller. There is a road - they call it the Ballymoe Road - out of Castlerea on the way to Roscommon and there is a shop there called Mannion's. I always remember asking my parents why one would put a shop there and who would ever go into it, stating that they must have been daft. There were people who used that shop at one stage. Taking it one step further, a village near me called Castleplunkett used have three shops. I used be a little baffled, wondering what would one do with three shops there. The answer is "Nothing", because they have all closed down. Moving on to a slightly bigger town, Ballinlough had approximately ten shops at one stage and now it is down to one. Then one moves on to a bigger town called Boyle, which had any amount of shops. People used travel from all over the country to it - similar to my own town - but nearly every one of those shops has closed down. I wonder at what stage someone will do something about the fact that rural Ireland is dying.

I hear this rubbish that people do not want to live in the countryside; they want to move to cities and they want to go to other areas. This is not a fact. The reality is that we have no choice. No more than the 19 out of the 20 in my family and my wife's family who had to leave our area, the same is the case for many other friends of mine. As I stated at the outset, the Government does not have a monopoly on ruining and destroying rural Ireland.

What I would like to see is someone coming up with a plan to save rural Ireland because it is an excellent place to live and to bring up one's kids.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Flanagan.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We should preserve it and we should see it as the precious thing that it is. From the point of view of tourism,-----

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is overtime.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----in years to come people will not come to this country to see empty towns. The Government will kill that as well unless it does something about it rapidly.

Shane McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Rural Ireland is flying.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must ask whether the Government has a bias against rural Ireland only. In my mind, the bias of Government is against working people and the poor in general, regardless of whether they live in rural or urban areas.

It is disingenuous of the Fianna Fáil Party to pose itself as the champion of rural Ireland. It is a false and cynical attempt to create the impression that rural communities will suffer more than others as a result of the budget cuts.

Those who are genuinely opposed to the transfer of the cost of the crisis, from the elite who caused the crisis onto the backs of the working people and the poor, have no interest in creating a false division between rural and urban communities. The task is to unite all communities and groups affected to fight back, put an end to the austerity that is destroying jobs and social and community services, tax the wealth and assets of those on very high incomes, as addressed by my colleagues, and invest in jobs.

My last point is on the Government's amendment. Last week, Deputy Pringle stated the Government's amendments are direct negatives of the original motions and, therefore, contrary to Standing Orders. This matter needs to be dealt with if the Government is to fulfil its promise to make debates and proceedings of the House more relevant. While I will not be holding my breath, I ask the Ceann Comhairle to determine whether amendments are contrary to motions or part and parcel thereof.

Nicky McFadden (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sharing time with Deputies Dan Neville, Derek Nolan, Tom Barry, Colm Keaveney and Patrick O'Donovan.

While difficult decisions were made in budget 2012, they were made in the context of improving Ireland's economy in the longer term. No decisions were taken lightly and, while I acknowledge many people are struggling and will be affected adversely by some of the cuts, it is important to note that positive change can only come about if the necessary decisions are taken now. The bottom line is that if we are to make genuine and long-lasting improvements to our economy, we must reduce the deficit. We ought to focus on allocating resources in an intelligent and progressive way. It was the previous Government's complete inability to make the necessary decisions and its lack of foresight, through implementing unsustainable policies and policies of short-term gain, that led Ireland into economic crisis.

As the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, has said, the motion laid down by the Opposition bears no relation to the reality of what is happening. The Government is acutely aware of the challenges facing many people across the country. This is the job that the people of this country gave us a mandate to do. We have been elected to fix the problems that this country was left with owing to years of mismanagement. This will not be done overnight but it is achievable.

The Government's first priority is jobs. Everything we do is done to make this an economy in which we can create jobs. We have an action plan for jobs, a plan to help provide temporary credit for commercially viable small businesses and a new strategic investment fund and plan to help finance micro-enterprises. We are working to a reform agenda. The public service is being streamlined, with 23,000 fewer positions, more efficient working methods and better value for money in the lifetime of this Government.

Local government plays a pivotal role in the delivery of local services such as housing, water supply and road maintenance. Local authorities need the appropriate resources to deliver efficient and effective services. Commercial rates are collected and spent locally, ensuring that money is invested in essential local public services. The introduction of a household tax will further contribute to the provision of essential local services. The focus now should be on efficiency so local authorities can play a role in developing local enterprise.

The Minister is not introducing the legislation on septic tanks because he wants to; he is doing so to address a European Court of Justice ruling against Ireland from October 2009. It was a lack of will on the part of the previous Government that resulted in a lack of action on the issue. The charge is by no means an attack on rural Ireland but a measure to protect rural Ireland by providing good-quality drinking water. The protection of ground-water is vital.

People have a responsibility to ensure their septic tanks are in good working order and not endangering their water supply and that of local communities. Householders who already meet their responsibilities have no reason to fear an inspection system. We must ensure that septic tanks are not endangering human health or the environment.

I am particularly confident that agriculture will play a key role in Ireland's economic recovery. The Government's overall objectives are job creation, addressing the fiscal challenge as fairly as possible and creating a more efficient public service which provides value for money. To deliver on this strategy, the agriculture, food and marine budget focuses on four key objectives: to support schemes for farms targeting available funding at active, productive farms in vulnerable areas; to encourage productivity and up-skilling; to focus available funds on driving the Food Harvest 2020 strategy objectives; and to introduce reforms within the Department and State agencies under the Department's remit to generate efficiencies and savings.

The rate of stamp duty on agricultural land is being cut from 6% to 2%. A half rate of 1%, which will be available on transfers to close relatives until the end of 2014, should encourage the transfer of farms to the next generation. This will help to improve the age profile of Irish farmers and ensure the viability of the sector. Restructuring the retirement relief on capital gains tax will further incentivise the earlier transfer of farm assets to younger farmers.

Dan Neville (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I want to speak about an area of concern in rural areas that is addressed in the budget, namely, the levels of depression, loneliness, isolation, attempted suicide and suicide, as raised in the House over the past year. Rates have increased over the years and, in recent years, there has been a dramatic increase. Figures show there is a higher rate of suicide and depression in rural areas.

Following the promise in the programme for Government, the budget resulted in the allocation of an extra €35 million for the development of mental health services, as outlined in A Vision for Change. The €35 million is ring-fenced for this purpose. When former Minister for Health and Children Mary Harney allocated money to the HSE for this purpose, it was hived off for other purposes. In 2009, she informed me she would allocate no money in this area because the HSE would not use it for its stated purpose, that is, the development of mental health services. We must, therefore, ensure there is a detailed plan for the spending of the €35 million.

We are asking that just €4 million of the €35 million, or 11.5%, be allocated for suicide prevention. Six hundred people died by suicide last year. This is an enormous number. It is not unreasonable to ask that just €4 million of the €35 million be allocated to assist the National Office for Suicide Prevention in its work to prevent and research suicide and assist those who are bereaved thereby. To that purpose, it is important that somebody has executive responsibility and that there be a directorate of mental health services to ensure we have the necessary change management capacity and skills to drive the implementation of A Vision for Change. We are not asking for extra people as there are very good people already. There is a very good person in the HSE who is capable of doing what I suggest very efficiently. I ask that he have executive responsibility to do so.

In the period 2009 to 2010, the mental health service lost 1,000 posts. It lost a disproportionate number of health service staff. Despite exemptions to the recruitment moratorium for certain grades of staff, it appears that the number of new staff is falling far short of the losses. Only 54 nurses have been recruited to the psychiatric service even though 600 retired in 2009. I back the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, on her proposal to re-examine the moratorium on psychiatric nursing appointments.

Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hate to spoil the party but the Fianna Fáil Party has identified all the solutions after ten months of a new Government. I have made a point of not criticising that party in this House or on the doorsteps because the electorate can make its own democratic decisions. However, I feel obliged to answer this motion in a forthright manner.

With the possible exception of Deputy Moynihan, Fianna Fáil Deputies do not understand farming. They think crop rotation means wheat, beet and bungalows. The bungalows have stopped, the beet is gone and we are left with continuous wheat. That is not sustainable farming. Former Minister Mary Coughlan shut down the sugar industry in Ireland. She wanted more stamp duty and she had a golden share that she did not use. Mr. Liam Carroll, who owned 30% of Greencore, was the first person admitted into NAMA. We will be paying promissory notes for the next ten years to sort out that mess. AIB also had shares in Greencore and is equally responsible.

We need to work our way out of this mess but we will not do so by means of a pyramid scheme. The last Government operated great pyramid schemes until they fell apart. Have the Members opposite ever created a job, beside their own? It is difficult to take their criticisms seriously given that they never had to worry about finding the money to pay their employees next week. I do not like to criticise the previous Administration but it is difficult to hold back when motions like this are moved in the House.

Fine Gael was criticised for not bringing the bondholders or implementing haircuts but breeding comes out in the eyes of a cat. Fianna Fáil burned the farmers of Ireland in 1932. The land annuities the British Government loaned to Irish farmers were withdrawn. That landed us in the economic war. It was terrible because we decided to boycott English goods in retaliation for the tariffs imposed on our exports. That crippled our economy and the United Left Alliance should study what happened during that period. Funds were diverted from annuities to local government to buy votes. The Land Commission transferred land from widows to their own people to buy votes. That happened in my locality until the 1960s. The left should bear in mind Edmund Burke's advice to resort to experience rather than consult with invention.

Fianna Fáil burned the public service. It increased the number of public servants and gave them more money to buy their votes. When it had no more money to give, it doled out big pensions and lump sums. Then a brilliant person decided to benchmark the people who had retired. How can one be productive when one is retired? This vote buying exercise landed us in our current predicament. They are burned now because they went out to spend according to what they were earning. They believed their future was safe but they are screwed, they are gone and they are caught. It is terrible because Fianna Fáil burned them and their children's futures. The very people it bought off were hurt the most. The experience gives a new meaning to the acronym "B and B", namely, burn and buy. The gas thing is that Fianna Fáil burned its own house at the end of the day. It is terrible that a fine party has been reduced to what it is now.

The Fianna Fáil Deputies went to the fountain of confession, dipped themselves in the water of forgiveness, stood up and said "We are all better". I do not buy it, and neither do the people of this country or the employers of this country. I suggest that maybe it is time for them to wrap it up. They do not need to rebrand. They should wrap up the whole blessed thing and put the deficit in their funds into NAMA. However, there is no need to make that decision tonight. They should go home for Christmas, the season of goodwill, sit down and look at what has happened, and, unless they intend to come up with constructive motions in the future, admit that there is no room for them. If Fianna Fáil's agricultural policies had been followed, P.J. Sheehan, who sat here for many a year, would have been right, because all we would have been left with is bullocks, briars and bachelors.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish the proposers of the motion a happy Christmas. Santa Claus has come early to Fianna Fáil. Judging by the palpable sense of relief on the faces of many of its Deputies, they are delighted to be out of Government. Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "History, in general, only informs us of what bad Government is." The budgetary measures that Fianna Fáil seeks to condemn this Government for are the very same as those to which Fianna Fáil, through the late Brian Lenihan, signed up in December 2010. The memorandum of understanding between Ireland and the EU and IMF is not an agreement that anybody in this House should be proud of. It has tied the hands of this Government in certain matters of fiscal and economic policy. We have little scope to form the policies we believe in. Not all of the proposals outlined in the budget last week are palatable, but they are necessary in order for us to recover our economic sovereignty, which was surrendered by the previous Administration. Despite the constraints faced by the Government, we have committed not only to protecting but to increasing labour activation within our communities. We will spend €95 million extra on labour activation, which is an endorsement by this Government of the role of community employment schemes. The Government is fully committed to protecting the community, promoting community development and providing valuable services in the areas that are most deserving in society.

Without doubt, this motion sets out to scaremonger on the issue of rural school closures. I have contacted the Department of Education and Skills, which informed me that there is no plan to close any rural schools. Fianna Fáil gave us the McCarthy report, produced by a man who has a pathological hatred of rural Ireland. The report that will be issued in February is a Fianna Fáil report, but we will consider it in terms of getting better value for money for rural schools. When I talk about better value for money, this is because Fianna Fáil has pulverised the public purse.

It is true that 30 of our Garda stations will close next year, and that is regrettable. Eight of these have not been resourced over the last number of years because there have been no gardaí in them. We are shackled by an employment framework as a consequence of the arrangement with the EU and IMF. As Deputy Barry said, we have to control the number of people within the public service.

The savings the Government has made on the rural environment protection scheme will be as a result of alterations in eligibility and qualifying criteria. In this way, we will be preventing abuse of the scheme by wealthy landowners and we can control subsidies that we otherwise could not afford. The Government has set out to insulate the taxpayer from having to fund frivolous spending on those who simply do not require it. I am delighted to say that no cuts will be made to the disadvantaged area scheme, which is important in the area from which Deputy Kitt and I come.

I know Fianna Fáil Deputies are hesitant about reading the memorandum of understanding to which they signed up. I have a copy here for anybody who has not read it to date, and I refer the Deputies to page 25, in which Fianna Fáil committed the Government to introducing a property tax and carbon taxes. On page 26, it committed to the introduction of water charges. That is the reality.

The Government has reduced stamp duty on agricultural land sales from 6% to 2% and introduced a new VAT rate of 9% for farms. We have allocated €5 million towards the establishment of beef technology. The threshold for exemption from the universal social charge has been raised from €4,004 to €10,036, which will be of particular interest to low-paid workers in rural Ireland.

This motion is nothing more than selective posturing to try to create a credible position with regard to one particular demographic in society. It is politics at its worst. As with the contributions from some Fianna Fáil Deputies on the economic situation last week, I am left wondering if they have nothing more constructive to add. They are living in denial and trying to prevent any acceptance of the fact that Fianna Fáil's fingerprints are all over the destruction of this economy. Its signature is on the memorandum of understanding. It wrote this country away, but we will resurrect it. We will give this economy the kiss of life. We will get people back to work, and it will have nothing to do with any contribution Fianna Fáil has to make.

Nicky McFadden (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Well done.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak. When I first looked at this motion, I wondered whether it was a joke. The Fianna Fáil Deputies have fair neck, as they say. I often wonder whether the people were kind of stupid for booting them out last February, because to listen to them, one would think that in these nine months they would have everything solved. They have identified every problem that rural communities are faced with, so we have to ask ourselves, if they could only have hung on for another nine months, would we have any problems at all. The reality is that we would, because to be honest, the biggest problem we had was not that they did not stay the additional nine months but that they stayed 14 years. In that time, they managed to put this country on a one-way route back to the Stone Age. Now they come in here and have the audacity and cheek to distance themselves from this, while at the same time adopting an air of empathy - they understand what the people are feeling, they understand that rural people are under fierce pressure, they understand that the country has no money. It is an awful pity they did not do something about it when they had the opportunity, rather than coming in here now to lecture the people who have been left to clean up the mess they conveniently walked away from, albeit in depleted numbers.

In the last couple of days, I have been speaking to people of my own age group and younger, and I have been asking them specifically what they would like to see for rural communities. They have been hearing the Opposition parties, varied in colour as they are, giving out about everything that is wrong until they are blue in the face. What they are looking for is suggestions similar to those put forward by the Minister for Finance last week in the budget, such as proposals on stock relief, stamp duty and tax relief on land transfers from one generation to the next. These are tangible things that will make a big difference to the community. In the constituency I represent, the only industry that will have any major potential to drag the country out of the economic doom and gloom it is suffering at the moment is the farming industry. When the farming industry does well, many of the issues dealt with in this motion will be resolved - although it will take time - because the rising tide should lift the rural boats. The strategy adopted by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, in which we target Brazil, Russia, India and China, among a swathe of other countries, with the aim of breaking into new markets for Irish goods and services, is something we need to examine. Unlike some members of the Opposition, who take cheap shots at the Minister for using the Government jet to promote the sale of Irish cheese in Algeria, I feel that if the Minister could sell another ten thousand tonnes of Irish cheese in Algeria he should keep the Government jet on the road every day of the week.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It does not go on the road.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The only way we will get this country back to work and out of the mire in which Fianna Fáil left it is by allowing people such as Deputy Noonan, Deputy Coveney and Deputy Howlin to adopt initiatives. The attitude should be: when we have a massive problem, we can look at it the Fianna Fáil way, by pulling the duvet over our heads and pretending it will go away, or we can actually tackle it.

I mentioned the memorandum of understanding to which this country signed up. I spent all day in a committee today listening to two people who, quite frankly, would wreck your head, talking about septic tanks. We have to introduce a tank registration charge, among other things such as household charges and water charges, thanks to the position in which the country now finds itself. When Members of the Dáil bring forward motions such as this, I wish they would visit the Oireachtas Library and Research Service and ask for a copy of the last programme for Government which they signed up to with the Green Party. About halfway through page 4 or page 5 it states that the Government will introduce an inspection regime for septic tanks and, among other things, it would introduce property charges. Then one hears one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies say that the party is in agreement in principle with what the Government is doing. In practice, however, the party opposes everything for the sake of it. As I have often said previously, those benches are the cheap seats. It is easy to knock things from over there. However, if I was a member of a party that did to this country what the party proposing this motion has done, I would not be so quick to take cheap shots at the crowd that is now trying to resolve it.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend Deputy Michael Moynihan on putting this motion forward. If offers a great opportunity to discuss many aspects of the budget. A Member has already paid tribute to Deputy Moynihan and his knowledge of agriculture. When Deputy Moynihan says there were cuts in the disadvantaged areas and the rural environment protection schemes, it is worthwhile listening to what he says.

Rural communities have been hit very hard by a number of cuts in the budget, regardless of how one dresses it up. As well as the cutbacks in agriculture, there was also the announcement of the closure of rural Garda stations and rural schools in addition to the increase in school transport charges, which is very important in rural areas. In the area of social welfare, the farm assist payment has been of great benefit to smallholders. However, the means test for farm assist has been changed in terms of the income criteria and this is hitting farmers who are struggling to make a living.

The issue of smaller primary schools is interesting. While there was no change in the pupil-teacher ratio, we were told that if a school had four teachers or less, there would be changes in the ratio. Of course, those smaller schools are located in rural areas and provincial towns. The cuts will hit those schools but we will know more about it in the future. Combine that cut in education with the changes in the DEIS schools and the abolition of the modern languages in primary school initiatives. These affect approximately 500 primary schools, which has led to further hardship. If this was not an issue, why would Government Deputies complain about it? Indeed, in the Topical Issue debates today and yesterday Government Deputies quite correctly raised the DEIS schools and the modern languages in primary school initiatives.

The Minister for Education and Skills is trying to promote literacy and numeracy, and I applaud him for that. However, at the same time, he is withdrawing other services for primary schools. I can offer an example. There is currently no school library grant, which is a great pity. Deputy Nolan and Deputy Keaveney represent Galway and I represent east Galway. If there was a school library grant of even €1 million for the entire country, there would be €100,000 for school library books in County Galway. We do not have that. We should have it if one is genuinely interested in numeracy and literacy.

There has been great disappointment with the cutbacks in funding for community employment schemes. Like all Deputies in the House, most of the e-mails I have received relate to the very important role these schemes play in the community. I received an e-mail from Ballinasloe community resource centre, where 34 people are employed. The e-mail states that the centre provides an information service, adult literacy, a learning and study centre, a jobs club and IT for senior citizens, to name a few of its services. It has participants working in the community crèche, meals on wheels, local sporting and social organisations, a charity shop and parish properties. Its target groups are the long-term unemployed, one-parent families and people with disabilities. In its 15 years of existence the centre has helped hundreds of people from these groups to get back to work, but this will now stop.

I received similar e-mails from the Ryehill community council in Monivea and my home village of Castleblakeney, where there is a scheme that serves the four villages of Castleblakeney, Caltra, Ahascragh and Gorteen and in which excellent work is done. When I hear the Minister talking about a review of the ongoing viability of each scheme, I am concerned that some of them will be stopped. It would be a great shame, considering the great work they have done. I hope the Minister will reconsider and allow the schemes to continue in view of their great work down through the years.

Finally, given all the expenses these schemes have in terms of getting a premises, paying the heating and insurance, paying a caretaker for maintenance, painting work and so forth, let us ensure there are enough resources in place for the schemes so they can continue the very good work they are doing, particularly helping people who are vulnerable, marginalised and who need a helping hand. The 34 people in Ballinasloe currently have employment, which is what we want for this country. We want people to have jobs. With that initiative in place we will get our people back to work.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened carefully to the debate. When Members on the Government benches point to the last Government and what happened, what has been forgotten is the fact that they were elected with a huge majority on a particular mandate. They are now in Government with the Labour Party but they appear to have abandoned all the plans they put forth and which won that majority of votes in the last general election. By and large, those Members have moved away from the promises they made. They broke those promises, which are regularly listed in the media and by Members on this side of the House as a reminder.

The Members conveniently approach debates such as this by hiding behind what happened in the past. They fail to debate the context of the motion before us or, indeed, some of the substantial legislative measures brought before the House. They also fail to understand that the electorate made a decision about this party. That decision was that this party would be in the House in these numbers and in Opposition. In that democratic role we must use these benches to criticise or make suggestions about the policies put forward by the Government. If the debate was approached in that light, we might make better progress in terms of making the better judgments that are required about the policies we implement that affect the lives of people throughout this country and not just in rural communities.

This motion refers particularly to rural communities because the budget and the general direction of this Government is very anti-rural. It is not as if there are no other solutions available to resolve the problems we face. The household charge, for example, will raise €160 million. The McCarthy report has pointed out that with better management of local government we could save €500 million. There are obvious and costed solutions available from previous reports which should lead the Government in a much better and more constructive way than what it is doing at present.

The same applies to the septic tank charge. This brings me to another point, which relates to fear. During the debate about the budget before it was introduced in the House all sorts of kites were flown. One could hardly see the clouds with the number of kites. They put fear into every community in this country, communities that were built up through family resource centres and through funding provided by the Government over the last 15 years. Those community organisations are delivering services to the public, the people we serve, in a cost effective manner. We are now taking away some of that funding through cuts that might not even have been announced, perhaps through HSE budgets and so forth which are affected every day. The level of service provided by those organisations will drop and rural communities and the structures within rural society will change dramatically. They will not be able to deliver to a community that is generally in distress as we speak.

I listened to Deputy Barry say that nobody on this side of the House might have created a job and that we did not understand the difficulties of small businesses and so forth. There are people on this side of the House who created employment. I understand that and the difficulties the Deputy is talking about having to face an employee and tell them one is sorry because one does not have a job for him or her any more. That is the reality of the economy we are in.

The 2% increase in VAT applied in the budget will cost every single household, family and business in the country money. As it is applied in the course of the first quarter of next year people will begin to see the hidden costs of the budget and how the Government sneakily put its hand into their pockets and took away a substantial amount of money from businesses and families. It should be ashamed of itself because of the different promises it made during the general election campaign. It should have told people the truth.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask people to respect speakers. We have had peace to up to now.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment my colleague for tabling this motion despite what members of the Government have to say, namely that we should be ashamed to table a motion or talk about any issue in the House. As I said before, the electorate has spoken. We are where we are and the Government is where it is. It has received a strong mandate based on election manifestoes. Both parties went in front of the people and promised one thing and another, and the Government was elected as a result of that. We are here as a result of the role we played over the past 14 years and we acknowledge that. The Government must acknowledge that our job as an Opposition party is to hold it to account and we make no apology for that.

For many years people on all sides of the House signed up to the agreement of spending more and taxing less. If the Government does not believe me all it has to do is look at the 2002 and 2007 manifestoes from all political parties, not just Fianna Fáil. In the amendment to the motion the Government states: "The Government in budget 2012 forms an important step in returning Ireland's economy to a sound footing and regaining our fiscal sovereignty." I compliment it on the job it has done so far.

There are 20,000 more people unemployed. In terms of getting people back to work, what it plans to do to CE schemes flies in the face of that. I have received numerous calls from throughout my constituency from CE schemes which told me they are not viable and will be unsustainable if the cut which has been voted upon is implemented. Both Government parties voted last Friday to reduce the grant to CE schemes by 66%. They then talked about having a review early in the new year. Why have a review in the new year when the cut has been announced? Why was a review not done prior to making an announcement?

I have met representatives from four or five different CE schemes in my constituency who will not be in a position to keep going if the cuts proceed. They would have been able to take cuts of 10%, 15% or 20% and would have helped the Government to achieve some of its targets. These schemes help people with disabilities, lone parents and the most marginalised in society. They give them a step up and an opportunity to return to work. Not only that, they provide much needed man hours for many community projects.

I am on the board of a community crèche and if it were not for a CE scheme providing it with three employees it would be closed. If it closed 15 jobs would be lost as well as a loss of service to the general area. Where would working parents in my area bring their children to be looked after? I would like to speak for longer on many other issues, especially the cuts proposed to rural schools.

The budget is discriminatory towards rural Ireland and the most marginalised in society. That was brought home to me when on the evening of the budget someone asked me how the budget had affected me. I said the 2% VAT hike affected me, which is a disgraceful result. People who are well paid were not hit in the budget. The Government chose to go after the most marginalised people in society and shame on it for that. It had choices to make and made the wrong ones. It said we did not propose any alternative. We did, but it choose not to listen.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister made a comment today that he could not understand why we were trying to divide urban Ireland and rural Ireland by tabling this motion. We are not trying to do that. We are trying to show that the emphasis of the budgetary decisions will impact far more on services in rural than in urban Ireland. For instance, to qualify for a second teacher a school has to have more than 12 pupils. In three years' time, because of the budget, a school will require 20 pupils to get a second teacher. That is not a problem in a city or urban environment where most schools are bursting at the seams but it is a problem in rural areas. The Minister has emphasised that no school will be closed, yet in response to a parliamentary question he said schools will be encouraged to amalgamate. That is a withdrawal of services from rural communities.

Community nursing homes will be a major issue in 2012. I referred to it this morning when I spoke about the Croke Park agreement being used as a Trojan horse to justify bad decisions. The Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, told the Joint Committee on Health and Children last week that nursing homes with fewer than 50 beds are not viable and he would have great difficulty keeping a lot of them open during 2012 and 2013. They are the standard model in rural Ireland and across the country. He referred to 50 beds as if they are inanimate objects but they involve older people who have been left hanging because of his comments. Such people generally live in rural areas.

My colleagues have referred to CE schemes and the impact of the reduction in the grant from €1,500 to €500. Such schemes include meals on wheels, older care services and sports services. Every year the Ballina Salmon Festival results in about 75,000 people visiting our town over a ten day period. They spend money and invest in the local economy. A large scheme is associated with it. At this time of year it is involved in crafts, making props and dealing with the physical equipment that goes with such a large event. It stands to lose €35,000 because of this decision.

It is in the budget documentation, but not the social welfare legislation, with a saving beside it. The Minister for Social Protection said she will conduct a review of each scheme starting in January but has not given us the conditions or time lines. Will it involve whichever scheme she likes best? Unless we get an independent analysis of the situation how can the success of schemes be determined?

Elsewhere in the budget there is a cut of €50 million - sorry, it is identified as efficiencies - in disability and mental health services. This will affect organisations, such as Western Care, which provide community and voluntary led health services.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From €2.8 billion.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some €50 million is still a lot of money for a lot of organisations. The difficulty is that we do not have detail. The saving has been included in the budget documentation in order to specify an amount.

We spoke at length in the House on septic tank legislation. It is an attack on rural Ireland. I live in a town and do not have a septic tank, therefore I will not have to pay the charge or fine that may be imposed because of what I did 30 years ago which was correct at the time, but it will affect those in rural areas.

Of the 31 Garda stations to be closed, although some are in Dublin city, the majority are in rural areas. It is easier in a city for other gardaí to cover an area than it is for gardaí to travel, for example, from Castlebar to Tourmakeady, where I was yesterday, which is 40 minutes from Castlebar. Yet when an incident occurs we expect a garda to be on the scene without delay.

We are not intent on splitting the country with this motion. Rather, we are pointing out that the emphasis of this budget is anti-rural, as is the emphasis of Government policy to date. In pointing that out, we hope the Government will rectify it for 2012. We hope those around the Cabinet table will be more conscious of the impact of these policies. When they impose a reduction of €50 million, which is detailed as an "efficiency", or produce a school staffing schedule which will increase class sizes from 12 to 20 by 2014, they should be cognisant of the specific effect of such changes on rural areas.

That is why we are taking this opportunity to raise these issues, and I commend Deputy Moynihan on bringing forward the motion. We do so constructively. I was four years on the other side of the House and saw how those in government behaved. In fairness, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, as Leas-Cheann Comhairle, was not part of the chorus led by his party leader, the Tánaiste, which damned every decision taken by the last Government. The language became increasingly apoplectic as the years went on, with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, being the lead cheerleader. To point out that the Government is now getting a dose of its own medicine is not constructive, but its members delivered that treatment for four years. We are asking the Government, when we come back in 2012, to bear in mind that decisions taken in the first nine months of its term have weighed disproportionately on rural Ireland.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. There has been a suggestion that my party, or this side of the House generally, has sought to streamline the debate into an urban versus rural divide. That is not the case at all. We are concentrating, in this motion, on the impact of the budget on rural pursuits and the rural way of life. In doing so we do not deny its significant impact on urban life. I am sure we will have an opportunity to deal with that in due course.

As my colleagues have identified, the budget includes cuts to services that will impact substantially on those living in rural areas. The first that comes to mind - incidentally, it is one which bridges the gap between urban and rural - is the reduction in funding for community employment schemes. I had an opportunity at the weekend to meet with various people involved in this sector, including those who are attempting to run the schemes. It is clear that 99.9% of them are run exceptionally well and in a highly efficient manner. These scheme benefit both their communities and those who participate in them.

I am confused as to what exactly is being reviewed in respect of the community employment sector. The Minister, Deputy Burton, has made several statements, indicating on the one hand that there will be a review and, on the other, that no schemes will be shut down. I did not think there was a proposal that any would be shut down unless they had failed to meet their audit requirements, as was always the case. What is of greatest concern to the people trying to operate these schemes is the proposed reduction in the funding per participant of €1,000. Many of these schemes have already made payments towards the services they will provide next year by way of the purchase of materials. I visited one scheme at the weekend where the people running it had chosen to purchase certain goods and materials in advance on account of the Government's plan to increase the VAT rate by two percentage points. They are being penalised for using their heads, being now in an uncertain state as to whether the funding will be made available to pay for those purchases.

A red herring was put forward by some backbenchers on the Government side to the effect that people were not being trained to an appropriate level under these schemes or that some of the money was being lost in the system. That is not correct. For the past five years, as I understand it, if the sum apportioned to a participant was not spent on the individual concerned, that money was automatically returned. In other words, there was a safeguard in place which prevented commingling of the training pool. As such, a level of efficiency was built into the system.

What is of most concern now is the capacity of these schemes to continue their work without the materials grant. Some of the schemes with which I am familiar used it for the provision of bus services for people with disabilities, for example. If those schemes are no longer operational, it will fall to the Health Service Executive to provide that service. I do not want to get into the cuts to the health budget, some of which we accept are necessary. However, the reality in this case is that a service was being provided in an efficient way, through community employment schemes - a service, moreover, which the State has an obligation to provide. The schemes effectively provide cheap labour, offering service delivery in an holistic, community-based way which benefits everybody who participates, including the recipient of the service. Yet, for the sake of a few million euro, the Government is potentially dismantling an entire architecture that has taken a great deal of time to build up.

Will the Minister clarify whether or not the saving which has been identified in the Budget Statement is now off the agenda and will be restored to the Estimates for the coming year? If not, will he give us some indication of whether the proposed savings will be achieved through the elimination of some schemes or by forcing schemes to take cuts to the extent that they will be unable to continue to provide the relevant service? Unless he does that, I will have the same issues this weekend when I meet representatives of the schemes, as will Government backbenchers. The types of platitudes trotted out last weekend - that there will be a review and that no schemes will be closed - are nothing I have not heard before. I was that soldier in the past. We rallied against that evasion and sought a straight and honest statement. When we got it and delivered it, we sometimes suffered the consequences of doing so, but at least we were up-front in explaining people's situation and allowing them to plan, albeit in a lesser way

As it stands, we are left with a hiatus where people do not know what they will be doing next year, whether they will be able to collect the goods from the hardware store, whether they should begin planning, or whether they should simply pull down the shutter, sit in a corner and say, "To hell with it, we will get the few bob anyway and there is no need to bother looking at the output". That will hollow out the outstanding work that was done in bringing these schemes to such a level that they are now an integral part of communities throughout the State.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of this important motion. Colleagues have highlighted the broad range of areas affected by the changes brought forward in the budget, including means testing for the farm assist scheme, reductions in disadvantaged area payments, closures of rural Garda stations, increases in school transport charges, an increase in the pupil-teacher ratio, the abolition of the local improvement schemes for rural roads, and changes in funding for community employment schemes. In the case of the dreaded septic tank regime, the fear is not the inspection charge itself but the costs that may subsequently arise for householders. In County Cavan, for example, it is estimated that there is a malfunction in 25% of domestic septic tanks, requiring remedial work at an average cost of some €2,500 per owner. That is the type of charge facing many households in rural areas, including farmers, elderly pensioners and so on. It will impose severe stress on people.

I listened to two Deputies from County Cork speaking before the Minister, Deputy Howlin, came into the Chamber. It was enough to make me think that we should implore Paddy Sheehan, "All is forgiven, Paddy, please come back". These two speakers derided Members on this side of the House for their lack of knowledge of rural issues and the agricultural industry. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, is a decent, hard-working man from the same county as those Members. We on this side of the House have been lobbying for some time for a review of the milk quota regime, including the transitional arrangements up to 2015. We must examine whether changes can be effected that will improve the prospects of the rural economy in a tangible way.

When my colleague, Deputy Brendan Smith, was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he brought forward an important initiative. The Food Harvest 2020 initiative envisaged a 50% increase in milk production in Ireland yet we have the outrageous situation that on the island of Ireland with a total population of approximately 5 million, individual farmers in the Republic, in the province of Leinster in particular, and in particular in County Meath, which the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, represents, will be severely affected by super levy bills come early April 2012.

The Department and the Ministers should ask the EU authorities for a bilateral arrangement with the UK to ensure that at least we could utilise the unused quota north of the Border and which would go a long distance to dealing with the serious problems confronting many farmers in the country, those who are planning to expand their production and their output to benefit in a real and tangible way, not alone the local economy but also the export statistics which are sorely needed in order to turn this economy around. There has been a pathetic effort made to try to push forward that agenda-----

Shane McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You did not mislead them two years ago?

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please, Minister, allow the Deputy.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Michael Moynihan raised the matter in this House-----

Shane McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You misled the young farmers with false promises.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----and there has been no progress. At least a decent effort should have been made to tackle the problem to see if we can have a bilateral agreement. It would go a long way to solve the real problems confronting the agricultural industry in this country.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I listened with great interest to Fianna Fáil's response to the two Budget Statements. I congratulate both Deputy Seán Fleming and Michael McGrath on their contributions. Deputy McGrath, in particular, took the opportunity to outline the philosophical approach his party would adopt as a party of opposition. He said his party would take a positive approach to its role, mirroring what the party leader said on assuming office. He accused the current Government of being cynical in opposition. He went on to say that the choices made by the Government in our budget were those of the Government and the Government alone. This is fine rhetoric but it bears little relationship to reality. The choices made by this Government in this budget are those foisted upon us by the catastrophic failure of the previous Fianna Fáil Government. Our opposition in the last Dáil was opposition to the bungling and ineptitude that has left this country in penury and our opposition was both appropriate and necessary.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are now delivering everything they opposed.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Irish people will not allow Fianna Fáil to rewrite history.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We wrote it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Government has been elected to clean up the biggest economic mess ever created in this country's history. That mess was created by the previous Administration and no amount of fine words from the opposite side of the House will change that fact. The issues being discussed are serious because they impact upon people's lives. We know the impact the issues will have. They are the latest in a series of measures which the Irish people have had to endure since this crisis began. The decisions taken last week were not easy to take and nobody knows that better than myself. The choices to be made were not between these cuts and no cuts; they were between the cuts we decided upon and other cuts.

On the announcement of the Estimates, Deputy Fleming indicated that his party accepted the scale and composition of the Government's fiscal correction and so it should because anything else would be rank hypocrisy. Therefore, Fianna Fáil should spell out exactly where it would have sought to make cuts.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We did.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The last time Fianna Fáil could make the decisions, it cut child benefit for all and reduced basic social welfare payments. It is little wonder the party opposite is annoyed at this Government's budget which has protected these areas.

If Fianna Fáil is to seek to base its relationship with the people on honest agreement, as Deputy McGrath said last week and echoed by some Deputies tonight, then it should start now. As the Government amendment alludes, the fiscal correction on the current spending side decided upon a short 12 months ago by the party opposite is €300 million more than we implemented. Fianna Fáil needs to be upfront with the people.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like the Government was in February.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In addition to spelling out how it would meet this Government's fiscal targets, it should go further and spell out how it would meet its own far more onerous targets, an additional €300 million in cuts. The leader of my party, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, went on national television before the last election to say we would implement the cuts and this is what we did in the budget. There is no dishonesty there.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It must have been late at night.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I reject the thrust of this motion. For too long since this crisis emerged, some within this society have sought to divide the people by pitting public and private sector workers against each other. This has become almost a national pastime. The reality is that we require every worker and every sector of society to pull together in the national interest in order to get through this crisis.

Fianna Fáil's motion seeks to pit rural life against urban life. This may be a reflection of that party's anger at the capital city in particular which has chosen to reject Fianna Fáil utterly. The awful truth is that public spending cannot be reduced to the kind of levels necessitated by the inept management of this economy by the previous Administration, without placing a terrible burden on the people. We have further difficult choices to make on the road to regaining fiscal sovereignty. This Government may well make mistakes in some of the choices we make but we will be guided by the principles of fairness and job creation. The party opposite, in acknowledging its past culpability, might not pretend there are easy or pain-free alternatives.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuireann sé áthas orm labhairt ar an rún seo. The Minister spoke about pitting rural Ireland against urban Ireland. As somebody who comes from urban Ireland I believe in justice and if justice is meted out against one section of the community, all of the community will stand by that section. Since this Government came to power there has been a series of announcements that clearly discriminate against and do damage to rural Ireland. These include the reversal of the policy of decentralisation, the refusal to make funds available for waste water services in rural Ireland while spending billions of euro on these services in urban Ireland, along with a whole series of policies, well outlined by my colleagues last night and tonight, which are clearly intended to tear the heart out of rural Ireland and in particular, smaller rural communities. The Government has clearly declared a long war against our communities but if it believes rural Ireland will go down without a fight, it is mistaken.

It would also be true to say that this Government has shown scant regard for more disadvantaged urban communities with its attacks on the weak and vulnerable in the recent budget. Fianna Fáil's commitment to rural Ireland has been consistent from the day of our foundation. We believe that a proper balance must be struck between our rural and urban populations and that this balance is good for both. When in Government, we pursued proactive development policies in rural Ireland and appointed a senior Minister with responsibility for rural development. This Government has no such Minister.

When in government, we published a White Paper on rural development and we developed the CLÁR programme. We pursued spatial policies supportive of rural Ireland, developed the devolved school building scheme that ensured virtually every school in rural Ireland was upgraded, we improved the pupil-teacher ratio in small rural schools, provided water and sewerage schemes, broadband, new health services, the rural social scheme, decentralisation and many other initiatives. The Government, in a few short months, has managed to undo much that was done. It has halted and even reversed decisions on decentralisation. It is refusing to provide basic infrastructure, withdrawing vital services, strangling the life out of our local schools and imposing many new extra charges aimed exclusively at rural area. It is rushing the Water Services Bill through the Houses with unnecessary haste. This legislation will have disastrous consequences for our rural communities.

There is nothing new in the Labour Party's attack on rural areas. The Minister for Education and Skills has long being openly critical of the settlement pattern of rural Ireland, preferring us all to live in towns and cities. We are told by the experts, whom the Government clearly believes, that it is too expensive to provide services in rural areas. We are told rural areas are economically unsustainable, our lifestyle is ecologically damaging and, in any case, we should conform to European norms in the way we live. Each of these propositions can be shown to be false. However, even allowing for this, surely the most important measure of societal success are social outcomes for young people? Any analysis will show that when one compares the average number of students going to third level per 1,000, rural Ireland outscores urban Ireland. Any analysis of drug abuse will also show a lower incidence in rural areas. If we believe our children are our future, surely these are the most important measures?

On the proposition that our settlement pattern and policies are different from the rest of Europe, many other things are different here and should remain so. Historically our society developed in a different way, with our dispersed settlement pattern going back 6,000 years. Nowhere else is the attachment to the Baile Fearainn, civil parish, county and province so strong and nowhere else does this geography, which runs counter to the normal hierarchy of the city, town and village, have so much attachment and loyalty. As island people, we are different in many ways from continental Europe. Nowhere else do they have hurling, football and the GAA, music, dance and Comhaltas, the station mass and the many ties that bind us to our own townland or Baile Fearainn. Those who seek to destroy these differences on the spurious arguments of ecology and efficiency are wrong. Surely the answer to the ecology argument lies in technological developments such as electric cars, micro-generation and solar power?

On the cost of services, unless one totally depopulates the countryside, one must face the truth that the cost of providing rural services decreases as the population rises and increases with population decline. We are told the future lies in cities. I have nothing against cities and believe people have a right to live in them if that is what they want to do. Equally, however, people should have a right to live in the country and enjoy all basic services if that is what they choose to do. What will distinguish the 21st century from the 20th century is that not only will the nature of work change, but increasingly people will be able to work from home or wherever they choose to be. In a global world for many workers choice of location will be more and more a personal matter. While cities will continue to exist, thriving rural areas will co-exist with them.

Os rud é gur ceantracha tuaithe iad mórchuid de na ceantracha Gaeltachta, is ionsaí ar an tuath iad moltaí an Rialtais i leith polasaí teanga an Stáit agus an straitéis 20 bliain freisin. Mar is eol don Aire, an Teachta Howlin, scriosfaidh na moltaí atá curtha ar aghaidh ag an Aire Oideachais agus Scileanna na ceantracha beaga tuaithe mar go ndúnfar go leor scoileanna.

The policy which perhaps epitomises more than any other the attitude of the Government and the Labour Party in particular is the decision to attempt to squeeze the life out of our two, three and four teacher schools. The name of the game is to say one has a choice. Effectively, however, the Government is saying that in the case of any school with fewer than 20 pupils, the one teacher policy that existed before the Fianna Fáil Party entered office in 1997, when it was changed by Deputy Martin, will apply. In practice, the pursuit of this policy effectively forces schools to close because parents will not send children to one teacher schools. The Government is trying to attack three teacher schools to make them two teacher schools and four teacher schools to make them three teacher schools. It is tearing the heart out of rural Ireland. Parents in rural communities will not accept this as they know that communities die when schools close because people will not live far away from schools. We will oppose this policy with every sinew we can muster because it is retrograde, negative and defies the logic of educational outcomes. All surveys show that rural schools produce many of our top graduates and are disproportionately represented in our universities. All the statistics show that closing rural schools will, in terms of future generations, kill the goose that laid the golden egg of a well educated population about which we boast around the world. A disproportionate number of those who drive the large multinationals attended small rural schools.

Political parties will have to stand up and declare where they stand on rural issues.

Shane McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy did not mention how good the budget was for agriculture.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has been clear for some time where the Labour Party stands. I know there are many genuine rural Deputies in the Fine Gael Party and the question for them is whether they will allow the Labour Party tail wag the Fine Gael dog. Sitting idly by while the areas they represent are decimated will not be accepted by the people. I call on the Deputies in question to make a stand within their party and insist the policies to which I have referred are reversed. In the meantime, the Fianna Fáil Party will continue to fight the cause from townland to townland and from parish to parish in defence of our heritage. We will bring the fight to every county council, the Dáil and Seanad and, if necessary, Europe because we know this battle is about the heart of our nation and the survival of so much that makes us what we are.

The choice facing us is a simple one. Do Deputies believe in balanced spatial development or in decimating small communities and destroying much of what makes this country unique in the name of a type of modernity that is, in fact, post-modern in nature because its policies are from the 20th rather than 21st century?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy knows his party broke the country.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is interesting to watch the club championships every year because one finds to one's surprise that a large number of the clubs that reach county and provincial finals and even go on to win the national championship are from communities without any significant urban settlement. Will we destroy this on the altar of some dogma put forward by town planners or will we run this country in the interests of ordinary people who want to preserve the communities to which they have always belonged?

One of the extraordinary differences between this country and other countries is our great attachment to place. Large numbers of high powered, well educated young people return to their parishes every weekend because that is where their hearts are and they want to be part of them. This is due to the attachment to place that is prevalent in this country.

I have often noticed that people who do not have any real experience of rural Ireland other than looking at it as they drive around tend to view the countryside as a collection of houses. They are utterly stunned when we say they do not understand the geography because each house belongs to a village, not in the sense of a village in continental Europe because, as Professor Caulfield has frequently pointed out, our villages pre-date much of the modern history of continental Europe. People within boundaries that might not be visible to those who do not understand have an attachment and a connection that is absolutely vital to their well-being.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The historic bungalow.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Well-being is not just about fiscal issues. It is also about quality of life. Those who choose the quality of life of rural Ireland should have the same right to basic services as those who choose to live in our cities. The proposition that cities are cheaper to service than country areas is belied by all the statistics on transport and other facilities. When one breaks down the figures, such services can be provided equally cheaply in rural Ireland.