No apologies have been received. We have one item on the agenda, which is the OECD rural policy review of Ireland. Ms Betty-Ann Bryce is the rural and policy co-ordinator from the regional rural unit in the OECD.

I will read a note on privilege and housekeeping matters before we begin. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that would be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction I may make.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. This is due to the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask any members participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex if they wish to contribute to the meeting. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or placed on silent mode.

Today's meeting concerns a discussion on the OECD's rural policy review of Ireland 2026. This is a landmark publication, being the first OECD rural policy review of Ireland, and is the culmination of a two-year examination of rural policy and rural development issues.

The report is comprehensive and wide-ranging addressing numerous aspects, including spatial planning, housing, enterprise development, the green transition, community supports, volunteering, well-being, innovation, farming, food production and ecosystems. The report also identifies both challenges and opportunities to promote enhanced rural policies and greater delivery of services. As a committee, we look forward to engaging and teasing out those key insights and the recommendations contained in the review. We also note the importance of the policy review in terms of inputting into the successor to the Our Rural Future strategy, which will cover the 2026 to 2031 period.

With that in mind, I welcome from the OECD, Ms Betty-Ann Bryce, rural and policy co-ordinator for the regional rural unit. On behalf of the committee, I thank her for travelling, attending today and representing the OECD in her capacity as co-ordinator of the rural policy review of Ireland. We discussed the review and wider issues relating to rural development policy in the OECD in February, shortly after the review's publication as part of a bilateral meeting. Those meetings were extremely insightful and we are delighted that Ms Bryce is here to build upon the committee's interaction with the OECD.

We look forward to continuing engagement and harnessing the OECD's knowledge and expertise on significant policy issues that have the capacity to impact and promote vibrant, sustainable and inclusive communities right across Ireland. I now invite Ms Bryce to make her opening remarks.

I thank the committee for the invitation and for the opportunity to engage with it today. OECD countries have been undergoing a paradigm shift in their approaches to rural development. They are trying to address the important challenges that rural regions are facing. One of the most defining characteristics we see in this shift is a focus on places instead of sectors. At the request of the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, which was the Department of Rural and Community Development when I started the review, the OECD conducted a rural policy review, which was published earlier this year. The aim was to assess Our Rural Future and identify areas that could be considered in the development of a second Our Rural Future policy.

To give the committee a sense of OECD rural policy reviews, we assess rural development policies and this was our 15th rural policy review. We analyse rural policy against the OECD's principles on rural policy and the OECD rural well-being framework. The OECD has standards to which it holds governments in terms of rural development and we base our evaluations and assessments on this. We work with the OECD's working party on rural policy, which provides the guidelines and oversees our work. These guidelines encourage governments to view rural areas as dynamic regions of opportunity and outline how to organise policies across sectors and levels of government. The 2020 publication on rural well-being added a layer to this as it encouraged governments to view rural regions as places of opportunity and to develop policies that put people first and addressed well-being, economic, social and environmental issues. Sometimes we find one or the other.

The review process is quite involved and intensive. It took 18 months and involved a series of engagements with Government and non-Government representatives at national, regional and local levels. The aim was to understand the approach to rural policy in Ireland from all different angles. We engaged with over 600 Government officials. We had seven virtual meetings as well as meetings in Dublin, Limerick and Roscommon. These meetings were based on themes and we looked at public services, economic development, the local labour market and rural well-being. We also had town hall meetings where we heard from people. It is important to state the discussions and visits were supplemented by a very comprehensive background report prepared by the Government of Ireland. I believe it was the longest background report, at more than 350 pages, I have received since I began this work. I commend the Government on giving us what we thought was very comprehensive information. It allowed us to use the report to engage.

The OECD includes international peer reviewers in this work. The OECD invites peer reviewing countries to participate in all our discussions. Usually we use two peer reviewers but in Ireland's case we have five peer reviewers participating with us in every virtual discussion and on every visit. They were from Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, which sent a local government official as well as a national government official, and Switzerland. These were not academics but people who work every day and took time off to come and engage. They provided their perspective on everything we discussed. They also provided their input to the final report.

The main highlights of the review include that Ireland’s whole-of-government approach is a stand-out model. It seems complex on the surface but is well above what other countries do and would love to be able to do. It is difficult. The stand-alone Department is a unique characteristic that distinguishes Ireland. Other countries are very interested to see whether it is a model they should consider. The Our Rural Future policy is able to tap into what is happening across Government, and the fact that rural actions in Departments such as housing and other Departments are built into its 172 priorities is also very distinctive. There is also an expressed interest in driving more bottom-up action, including the creation of regional assemblies, the reform of local authorities with expanded responsibilities and the separation of rural policy from agricultural domains. Collectively, these offer new mechanisms to support broader rural development.

Ireland’s rural regions demonstrate significant potential but face persistent challenges, including spatial inequality, under-resourced subnational structures and insufficient spatial intelligence to differentiate policy responses. The Government-wide visibility of rural policy provides the institutional architecture to facilitate the activation of more robust policy levers. It also comes with some nuanced challenges and this is where the report provides recommendations that could be brought in or considered. We structured our recommendations on five pillars. These are governing better for place, which is thinking about what rural intelligence should look like and how we monitor and co-ordinate; building a resilient rural economy through building up more SMEs; making places work, which includes how housing works with planning and building in hinterlands; making rural life work, which encompasses services, health, volunteering and supporting these institutions; and anchoring agriculture in territorial resilience. These are the pillars for our recommendations.

I will highlight two of our recommendations. We talked about embracing spatial differentiation. This means we know that Ireland outside of Dublin has different types of rural regions and it is important to build this into the strategies so it can be seen where rural areas are performing in different ways and what type of support they need. There is also providing a bit more capacity at the local level to enable local authorities to do the work they need to do. I will stop there to take questions.

I thank Ms Bryce and I appreciate her opening statement. Each member will have seven minutes for questions and answers.

I thank Ms Bryce for coming before the committee and for her presentation. The OECD highlights that local authorities have limited mandates and are heavily dependent on central government funding. Does Ms Bryce see merit in potentially giving local authorities greater discretion over rural development funding?

We see the merit in thinking holistically about how to use the funding so that it is not just about providing more funding but aligning the strategies so that if local authorities have a say in the funding they can also bring all of the pieces together. It is about funding as well as the strategies, and knowing what is needed and using the intelligence. It is not only about the funding but about the complete picture.

In a lot of cases Government funding is for a specific project but the local authority would know more about what is needed in a particular area and what the funding should cover. This is the question I am asking.

What we found sometimes is that the local authority did not necessarily know. It was not just funding. Local authorities did not really have the lens of how to use it and where to go. They felt a bit limited because some of the strategies limited what they could do. That is why I said it was not just about giving them the funding but also flexibility in the strategic decisions they need to take.

Ms Bryce may have heard last week that the Irish Men's Sheds Association confirmed that 25 or 26 men's sheds grants will not proceed. The OECD report highlights the importance of social infrastructure such as men's and women's sheds in providing social connection, reducing isolation and supporting well-being for many people, including those living in rural areas. What does the OECD's research tell Ms Bryce about the importance of adequately funding these kinds of community organisations?

Our research tells us that it is very important. It confirms that they are playing a vital role in rural communities and having them there is making a difference. The work they are doing is very good.

The OECD identified limited access to services and supports for people with disabilities as a particular concern in rural areas. What assessments have been made, if any, of the additional costs faced by disabled people living in rural areas, particularly where public transport and local services are limited?

We did not look just at people with disabilities. We saw the limits of public transportation. Where there was limited access to public transportation, there was an effect on the ability to engage and it was working against the social fabric of the community.

The OECD identifies carers as one of the groups particularly affected by rural cost-of-living pressures. Does Ms Bryce believe that additional travel and service access costs associated with caring in rural Ireland are reflected in the supports available to carers? If not, what measures would she propose be implemented by Government to balance the scale there?

We looked broadly at what funding or mechanisms were available at the local level. For us, it is more about the ability to blend funding they were receiving and being able to target it. There were the limitations of being able to take funding from X and apply it to Y. We did not look specifically at X but at different angles. We looked at the ability to take the funding pot and use it the way they would like to use it and build in more flexibilities, which is what local government was asking for.

How important is the availability of face-to-face access to public services for people in rural areas who cannot easily use or access digital services?

There is a balance, and we talked about that. We talked about the need for balance because there are some services that are going to be inherently difficult to bring back, such as the ability to have a family doctor in every place, but the ability to innovate and bring in the doctor in different ways should be something that we accommodate. We talked about examples of that. If the doctor is not there every day he could be there once a week, or mobile help vans, or he could see others sometimes not face-to-face but virtually and sometimes in person. It is about finding a blending way and a new way to innovate.

How significant are transport costs in explaining differences in living standards between rural and urban areas?

Transport costs came up in the sense that rural people have a perception that they incur more transportation costs than urban people.

The OECD's report discussed access to services as a particular challenge in rural areas. Is the issue simply the level of social protection payments or does the availability of services themselves need to be considered when assessing rural deprivation?

Access to services across the board seems to be a reoccurring challenge, whether we are talking about health, housing, broadband or transportation.

I will leave it at that.

I thank Ms Bryce for her presentation. Ireland is described as having one of the OECD's most sophisticated rural policy frameworks. However, given the ongoing inequalities identified in the review, what specific outcomes have not been achieved under Our Rural Future and how should those shortcomings be addressed in our rural future 2?

We call it a very sophisticated policy because it has a very overarching, comprehensive outlook at what is going on in government. That is also where the built-in challenge is. It is how to take the next level of that. Now that you have this lens and visibility, how do you help to nudge other Departments into understanding what they need to do vis-à-vis these actions? That is why we think what they can do now is think about the monitoring aspect we mentioned in the report and not just collect what they are doing but the impact of it, and actual rural outcomes. It is about looking at whether people have - going back to the earlier question - access to housing, transportation etc. We talked a bit about the ability to change the way that they monitor the realisation of the different priorities.

The OECD identifies under-resourced structures and calls for increased discretionary funding for local authorities. Should the Department commit to providing local authorities with additional ring-fenced resources, staffing and decision-making powers, rather than simply asking them to implement a centrally designed scheme?

It is finding a balance between both, to be honest. There is a need for thinking, and we identified that need, about how you identify support. First, you need to also understand who needs the support and where. That is the part that is less clear. We did not say just give more support, design and ring-fence. We said to, first, understand the nuances and differences and then determine where you need to bring in more resources if needed.

Fair enough. The review highlights that rural Ireland is not equal, with different regions facing different economic housing and servicing challenges. What concrete measures should be introduced to ensure that funding is allocated according to the specific needs of individual rural regions rather than through a one-size-fits-all national approach?

The review pointed out the spatial intelligence. I will give the Deputy an example. Sometimes when you look at a macro level using data, it tends to mask issues but when you use the data at a more granular level they show you the nuances and that rural places that are closer to cities have different needs than places that are further away. That is what we call more spatial intelligence. We gave as an example that you already had those types of data available in terms of the six-way split, which gives a very good sense of the different dynamics happening across Ireland. Using that which you already have to then align it closer to the strategies will help you to get to serving the needs of the people because it helps you see what is happening locally and where the needs and gaps are.

The OECD recommends greater diffusion of foreign direct investment and support for rural SMEs. What measurable targets should be included in our rural future 2 to ensure that the investment, employment and skills development reach smaller towns and rural communities rather than remaining concentrated in large urban centres?

We identified a gap in the middle. There are entrepreneurs who, based on some of the targets, are maybe being missed and depend more on the EU for funding. This is the missing middle that we identified in our entrepreneurs. I refer to the ability to zero in on the group that is being missed and bring it in, whether via training or more targeted funding. Now that you know that some of the strategies are maybe missing a core group of the bread-and-butter part of local community businesses, how we bring them in is something that we recommended for our rural future 2.

This is my final question. Have I time?

Yes, work away.

The review identifies access to public services, health and volunteering as key challenges for rural communities.

How can the Department ensure that our rural future 2 delivers measurable improvements in access to essential services, particularly for older people, those with disabilities and those without access to private transport?

The review talked a bit about health, volunteering and the community structure. At the local level, communities are dependent on volunteers to fill a number of the gaps and to build out the things that are needed in the community. That is true. They are experiencing some strains around that. In many places, volunteers can be identified. In some places where they cannot be identified, there are more gaps in the services. The OECD recommended looking more broadly at where the Government could reinforce those dynamics and maybe not be so dependent. Appreciate the volunteering community - it is the pride of rural Ireland - but reinforce it a bit more from the Government side so that in the places where volunteers cannot be found to fill the gaps, the services are still being provided.

From the health sector, we talked a bit about looking at innovations and new ways to deliver health services within that same line, including ways that they can collaborate and help to support, with the Department of Health, new ways to bring the services that are needed into local communities.

I thank my Ms Bryce for being here, sharing this with us and answering questions, which is always important. She says that the OECD changed its methodology from looking at sector to looking at place. Will she explain to me why it did that? What extra, different or better information did it get out of it?

When we initially started doing our reviews, we noticed that we were looking mostly at moving away from agriculture in rural places and now they were thinking about making it more competitive. It still stayed in the realm of the rural economy. When we were evaluating based on that, we realised we were missing those social and environmental pieces. We re-evaluated our framework years later and built in the three pillars. We built them into our principles so that when we evaluate now, we look at not just how you are doing economically and whether you are diversifying, but also at how it works with the social aspects, the demographic challenges that you are experiencing and the climate and renewables piece in terms of green skills and the green transition. When we look at these issues now, we look at them as a collaboration. Taking Our Rural Future, we looked at how the Government was doing, how it was looking at the rural economy, the social piece and the environmental piece.

That is interesting. It is a good way of looking at it because my former boss, a trade union leader and former head of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, said that it was very important that we never forget that we were a society and that an economy was only a part of that. It gives us that bit of extra information.

In the report, positive reference is made to volunteers and the culture of volunteerism. There are a lot of people - we would all know them from our local areas - who are holding up rural Ireland in their spare time. When we have volunteers, the labour is free. The work is done for nothing because they volunteer to do it, which is great. They keep our towns tidy and some social and local services running. However, in terms of matching up the resources and resourcing those volunteers, what did the report find? I talk to a lot of volunteers in my area, and they are pretty close to burnout because they are plugging the gaps. I want to talk a little bit about the gaps as well because the OECD identified that issues. How can that volunteering be supplemented? Is there something better than can be done at local level to supplement it?

We talked a bit about that in the review. The potential burnout or the potential of being overwhelmed or seeing it as second job came through very strongly in our visits on the ground. At the same time, there is community pride and volunteering is so much a part of Ireland's history, so I tread lightly. I am not saying that people should not volunteer, but we said that where it felt like it was a professional job, volunteers should not replace a government job. That is basically what the report says. We need to evaluate where that volunteer is going just a bit beyond simply volunteering. One way to put that is to ask whether the system would collapse if he or she disappeared tomorrow. If so, then maybe that work needs a professional role and is a government actor. That is a decision that the Government takes.

I appreciate that. It is just so I understand. I welcome the fact that the OECD met volunteers and that, while "sacrifice" is a big word, their sacrifice was noted. We know them. There are many people involved in our local areas. If Máire or Pete was not there, we would really struggle to deliver basic services. That is an important gap and is something that the committee could look at it because volunteering is really positive. People give a lot and get a lot of out of it. It is fantastic, until it becomes like a second job for someone or when a person does not notice when they have retired because they are still doing the same amount of work.

The report also identified gender, migrant and cost-of-living gaps and the manner in which they were suppressing the capacity to create local rural jobs. This is something I have a particular interest in. There are two planks to it. There is the issue around the gaps that are there and that make it very difficult for people to work or run a local business. Overlaid on top of that - I noticed this is in the report - is our housing crisis, which is contributing to it. What were the points that the OECD noted? There was a reference to the housing crisis, which has been going on now for well over a decade. All of those factors coming together are forcing people out of rural Ireland. Am I right in saying that?

I always like to say that it is unintentionally forcing people out because there is a convergence of different strategies. For example, we encourage the Government to think of housing as an economic development strategy and not just its own service. If you want young people to return, they need a place to live. If you want staff for health, they need a place to live, as does a new entrepreneur. Housing is almost inside, and it is linking all these other pieces. Instead of thinking of it as a stand-alone element, it needs to be brought in to see where it intersects. It intersects across all the different issues. That is one approach.

A second approach involves models that encourage thinking about the city, even if is a local or small city. One of the things that stood out to us in the meetings was that, when we were in local communities, businesses would come in to talk to us about the fact that they needed land. They were not necessarily agricultural businesses, yet they needed to be where land was, but because maybe the rules meant that they had to be closer to the city, they had to forgo being in a rural area and moved in.

When I talk about a convergence, there are different strategies that, while meaning well, may unintentionally result in pushing people out or forcing them to make decisions. Those were the gaps that we talked about. An integrated approach where the Departments are talking to one another and seeing where things need to be done and where it is not happening is what we talked about.

I thank Ms Bryce for coming in today and for giving us the opportunity to engage, leverage the OECD's expertise and evaluate the key challenges and opportunities that exist in rural Ireland. The report is fantastic.

It runs to so many pages and provides a great opportunity for us to review our policy in detail. The Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht is quite new. It is only in place since 2017. Having experts like the OECD reviewing that policy in conjunction with the successor policy, Our Rural Future 2026-2031, provides an ideal opportunity for us to review it and see what we can do better next time around.

Deputy Guirke referred to rural transport. It is mentioned in the report, particularly the challenges across rural Ireland, not just in regard to Local Link and Connecting Ireland but also in the context of the availability of taxis. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission published a review recently. Some 56% of respondents indicated that they were happy with the services available in Dublin. The figure fell as low as 21% in rural Ireland. Will Ms Bryce comment on that? Perhaps she saw the survey in question. What are her insights as to how we can improve the availability of public transport and taxis in rural areas and small towns?

We need to start with whether we understand how rural people move and where they move to. In the review, we discuss the function of rural areas and where do people go for daycare, work, etc. Aligning public transport with how people move, where they move to and how they get to work is the first step. There is also the question of their needs. We found that, like housing, public transport cuts across everything, including getting to daycare, work or leisure activities. Aligning public transport with that is where we saw the gaps. If two people in a one-car household both need to move around at the same time, one needs to take the public bus. However, a bus may not be available or may not go in the direction in which they need to go. It is the alignment. This goes back to the integrated approach, namely thinking across needs first. I always come back to the data and to rural intelligence. You cannot address public transportation gaps if you do not understand how people move and the flow.

We see there has sometimes been a lack of co-ordination in providing transport to urban centres. We have also seen a decline in the fleet of available hackneys and taxis. We piloted a rural hackney service a number of years ago through the NTA. That did not work. We rebranded and piloted again. How do we ensure that we keep both opportunity and flexibility when it comes to public transport, be it buses or taxis?

That is where co-ordination comes in. We have seen in countries where rural transport is provided for health, for example, the buses run empty and there is frustration because they are empty but people also need transport for jobs. There is a rural transport need across the board. First, is the question of what the needs are and then it is how to design rural transport so it fits staffing, people going to work or the doctor and students who need to get to school. The buses then may not fail because they will be suitable and fit in places. We have seen college buses that run across campus pick up elderly people going to stores. They are multi-functional because they the network was built across all services, not just to respond to one gap. This is especially the case in rural areas because there is frustration with the cost when the bus is empty or the resource is not used.

When rural transport was first brought in, it was mainly to bring older people into towns to collect their pensions, etc. A lot of people have that misconception about rural transport. It is available to everybody. It can be adapted and co-ordinated. More work is needed on that aspect.

Ms Bryce also mentioned supporting rural enterprise and the missing middle. We have had a series of discussions in this committee over the past 12 months about supporting social enterprises. A social enterprise is set up to fill a gap where the market has failed. Likewise, we have a lot of people involved in community enterprise. Sometimes, as a Government and as a State, we do not support them. I welcome Ms Bryce's further thoughts on how we can work on that in our new policy going forward.

What is remarkable about Ireland is the number of social enterprises. That already shows that Ireland has the institutional framework and support for them. My colleagues did a separate study on social enterprises in Ireland. We talked more in the report about how to use it as a springboard to entrepreneurship. As the Chair said, social enterprises do so much. That could be used as a road to them becoming entrepreneurs by supporting them with technical training assessments and giving them the tools that if they wanted to grow and build from that, they could. That is what we looked at. That is the angle we took - seeing the skill sets they have, what they do and the scope of their work, they already operate as mini-entrepreneurs.

Many of those are in rural areas and in town and villages. We just need to reach out that bit more and support them in planning to operate or get into existence and the continuing supports available to larger companies and FDI companies.

Following on Deputy O'Reilly's point on volunteering, we have a huge tradition of people volunteering, being part of their community and proud to do so. How is the balance worked out? Deputy O'Reilly asked what is the balance in what Government Departments do to assist volunteering? Tidy Towns is an example. The committees do a lot of good work in our communities but a lot of the time they feel they are doing work the local authority should do. How can we set a standard or procedure by which local authorities support Tidy Towns? The level of support given to Tidy Towns varies from county to county and within counties. How can we set a procedure so there is a level of funding or support available to them so they do burn out or deteriorate?

Going back to the earlier question, there are three layers to that. The first is the volunteer culture but that is not even across the board which we have to take into account. It depends on the region. In some there are lots of volunteers and in others they cannot find any. That already creates an imbalance. Within volunteer culture, people volunteer based on interest so there might be areas going unmet because no one wants to volunteer. There are areas where the need is under-met and where the people who do volunteer do so across three or four different things. As a result, they carry an enormous weight. There are a number of structures in place to support volunteers.

That is something we saw. Because of the three things I just mentioned, there are people who want to volunteer but do not because it is a lot of work for that. There is a question of how to make volunteering more attractive and, at the same time, how to find the balance so it is not replacing a Government job. That is where taking a step back and evaluating what you want to achieve first comes in because you also have to bring in the places that are not getting the level of volunteers that you need.

What you want the volunteers to do versus what you want Government actors to do becomes the question that is the right one to ask because burnout is linked to the fact it feels like a second job. To the Cathaoirleach's point, even if you give more funding and support, it still results in more work to add to the 24-hour labour that I have if I am a mom, I have kids at home and I have a day job, and now I am trying to get this huge initiative stood up locally. Even with more resources, that is still not helping with the burnout. First, there should be an evaluation to find that line between how much should be on the volunteer versus local government and then, the second layer is to do with resources and ensuring you can put it in places where they are not finding volunteers.

That is a very interesting point. The last point is about rural planning and rural housing. I know our committees will discuss this later on in the year. The Government has made an announcement about the national planning statement. Would Ms Bryce have any view on that and how that will interact with the previous policy, the upcoming policy and how she could see how it would benefit it? I also ask her for any other recommendations she has that would enhance the opportunity for people to live in rural Ireland.

We looked comprehensively at the housing plans and the new initiatives that were being thought through. There are some important steps being taken. Smaller places are thought about within that. The challenge will be the ability to access the homes in the way they are needed in rural communities. There is still a need to think about that rural place and how they view housing, which is different from the bigger cities.

There is this idea that if you need to live outside of a city, you need housing close to where you work and how it is linked to business. We still go back to housing as an economic development strategy in rural areas, where the business is and where do you need housing. There are then services and staff. We saw a lot about the ability to attract healthcare workers being linked to not being able to find homes. The ability of businesses to attract workers is linked to the availability of homes. Housing is so central that you have to think about it as a strategy and that it is in the nucleus while everything else is around it. There are steps being taken to move in that direction but it should certainly be pushed a bit further.

I thank Ms Bryce. Does anybody have any supplementary questions?

I just want to follow up on a couple of things that the Chair asked. We know we would have nothing in this country without volunteers. I myself am involved in a walk that we almost cancelled last year because of insurance. All of these community groups are having bigger issues every year with getting insurance, and that is turning a lot of volunteers away from getting involved or setting up community groups. That is a big issue.

Does Ms Bryce believe the current public expenditure on rural economic development is sufficiently targeted at increasing productivity and sustainable economic growth? Is there a risk that funding is spread too thinly across multiple programs?

Once again, it comes back to where you are looking and where you are taking your rural communities. At the OECD, we always go back to data and we look at whether you understand the type of rural communities you have and the needs they have. Before you start thinking about whether you need more or less funding, you need to think about whether you understand the rural place you have. That is one of the messages that came out of the review.

Of course, you probably will always need more funding, but it is about the strategic use of funding and ensuring the funding will make a difference. Once you look at the granularity of the flow of people, what people need, the different businesses, the different types of rural places and where the gaps are, you can then target the limited funding you have in really smart and strategic ways. I always come back to rural intelligence, and we come back to it in the report, and what it tells you at the granular level about the rural places you are trying to support.

My question is a fairly broad but simple enough one. There is a lot of uniqueness in our geography, the population dispersal, the fact that Dublin is a prime city and all of that, but are there OECD countries - I do not want to say getting it right as they are not going to be getting everything right - where we can learn from how other countries are managing that mix between urban, rural and economic development, as well as social cohesion? Are there OECD countries doing it better than we are or is there something we could learn from other countries?

Every country has growing pains in this space, let us be honest. We had several countries with us as peer reviewers and we learned this. You could learn some things from Finland because it has had a longer lens and because it is probably a more rural country so it has had the advantage of being able to zero in on certain elements but those from the country itself will tell you it is not getting everything right. There are elements coming in from Denmark. There are elements that were coming in from Switzerland on the entrepreneurs and how they build into the economy. There is not one example but different countries bring different things. There is Norway and how it is handling things at the local level. Of course, the structure is very different but you could look at how the country supports its local government actors. Does the Deputy see what I mean? You can draw a little bit from one country-----

You take a little from column A and a little from column B. I see that and that is very helpful. I thank Ms Bryce.

The only thing I would like to say is about the huge importance of voluntary people in the communities. We see loads of things that are going on in our communities that will not go ahead unless we address the situation of voluntary workers. Whatever it is they are doing, we must make it easier for them. I do not think they can do it anymore without huge support from local authorities through the OECD. That is my opinion.

Following on from Deputy O'Reilly's point and how we can learn from other countries, Ms Bryce mentioned Finland, Denmark and Switzerland. Are there any emerging trends coming out of that in terms of what is being done better than others and how we can learn from that?

We capture and collect a lot of examples of best practice. It is a question of what you are looking for. If you talk about volunteering, your country has the longest history of volunteering but then you can learn a bit from how they have managed to address that issue in Canada and Australia. There are these different things and we capture some of that. It is not in one report but across different reports and I am happy to perhaps send links to a few things that might be of interest.

That would be great because that would be something to prepare for. Finally, on demographics, does Ms Bryce think there is something out there we should prepare for or is there something that stands out which Mr Bryce thinks Ireland is currently not doing but maybe should be preparing for?

One of the weaknesses that we mentioned in the report is there is a lot of talk about the green transition, but with green skills and what that means in a rural place, there has been less work done on that. The OECD has done some work on the impact of green skills and the green transition. Broadly, it looked at jobs that would be going out of fashion in ten years.

Some of those skill sets are in rural places across OECD countries, so we like to remind governments that, if they are talking about the green transition, they should look at the skill sets that they have right now and consider whether they are prepared if those skill sets go out of fashion. What is that going to look like if they are not preparing the local workers to adapt to the green transition? Those are some of the aspects that we ask countries to look at.

That is a very good point to finish on. I thank Ms Bryce for her attendance and contribution here today and for providing the various briefing materials in advance, which assisted the committee's deliberations.

We look forward as a committee to continuing engagement with the OECD on a range of issues relevant to our work. Ms Bryce has been in Cork, she is in Dublin today and she is on the way to Belfast this afternoon, so she is doing a right tour of Ireland.

I love the way the Cathaoirleach said Cork first.