asked the Minister for Finance if he has noted the comments of a group representing the Association of Chambers of Commerce in Ireland with regard to their findings when discussing the regional development fund with EEC officials in Brussels; and if he now proposes to revise his approach to the way the fund should be applied.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Regional Fund.
2.
I have noted the comments referred to by the Deputy.
The Deputy will, however, be aware that following reportage of these comments in certain Irish newspapers on the 30th May, the Commission of the European Communities issued a statement to the effect that these reports might give the erroneous impression that the Commission was not satisfied with the system that the Irish Government proposed to adopt in applying assistance from the regional fund. This statement makes it quite clear that the intention of the Government to use Fund aid to increase the total level of regional development investment rather than to increase the level of aid for individual projects is fully in conformity with the principal purposes of the regional fund. Contrary to a newspaper report on the 7th June, the Commission have confirmed that they stand over this statement and are entirely satisfied with the method which the Government propose to apply.
I welcome this formal Commission endorsement of the Government's intentions which, I trust, will establish beyond doubt for all concerned that the manner in which, from the beginning, we proposed to apply Fund assistance in this country not only accords fully with the spirit of the Community's regional policy and letter of the fund regulation but is, in fact, the best possible means of maximising the benefits of the fund as far as the promotion of additional industrial and infrastructural investment is concerned.
I might mention for the Deputy's information that, again contrary to newspaper reports, there has been no change in the line which I have maintained from the outset that regional fund aid should be used to complement our total regional development efforts rather than to supplement the level of aid to individual projects.
I might also mention that it is our intention to show on the resources side of the capital budget for each year the total payments expected to be received from the fund in the course of the year and thus to demonstrate that the receipts from the fund will be recycled in order to increase the total resources available to finance industrial and infrastructural development. Mr. Thomson, Commissioner for Regional Policy, informed the Regional Policy and Transport Committee of the European Parliament on the 10th June that this budgetary treatment of regional fund receipts was fully satisfactory in fulfilling the principle that these receipts should supplement national resources devoted to regional development. I might add that Mr. Thomson also stated that two other countries had made similar commitments and he hoped that the other countries would do likewise in due course.
I would like to know why the Minister for Finance who was in this House up to two minutes ago, is not here to answer this question. When this matter was raised by way of special motion, it was his Parliamentary Secretary who——
That is not relevant.
It is relevant.
This is Question Time.
(Interruptions.)
Order. The Deputy must proceed by way of supplementary question.
I can only interpret from that that the Minister is not prepared to put his position on record. I cannot accept that a Minister——
I am asking the Deputy to proceed by way of supplementary question. This is the order of Question Time.
The Minister referred to reports in our newspapers on 30th May. I am referring to reports in the Irish newspapers of the 25th June—to which the Minister made no response—of a reply given by Commissioner Thomson to his Commission colleagues the previous day in Brussels, indicating two major points. First, he thought there should be a separate fund and pointed particularly to the case of Italy where the money was being directly transferred to the Casa per Mezzogiorno and, secondly, to the provisions being made in France for a separate budgetary allocation for the grants from the Community. In view of that, does the Minister not accept that it is the Commission's hope, and policies demand, that there should be a separate fund here as is planned in those countries?
I do not accept what the Deputy says. What is proposed by the Minister for Finance is fully within the regulations under which this money is provided in the EEC. We are complying fully with those regulations.
Does the Minister accept that the Commission, through their Commission for Regional Policy, seem to——
Is the Deputy anticipating Question No. 3?
I am sorry. I thought the Minister had taken Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
No, we are dealing only with Question No. 2.
3.
asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the reply of Commissioner Thomson to his Commission colleagues in Brussels on 24th June, 1975, to the effect that there is a clear political obligation on the part of member States to increase their regional spending by the amount allocated under the European Community Regional Fund; and how the Government proposes to discharge this obligation.
I presume the Deputy's question refers to a report in The Irish Times of the 25th June, 1975. This report seems to be based on a note sent by Mr. Thomson, the EEC Commissioner for Regional Policy, to the other members of the Commission on the 17th June. In that note Mr. Thomson states, and I quote:
This principle, that Community resources should not "lead Member States to reduce their own efforts", is contained in the preamble to the fund regulation. It is thus not a legal requirement, but a political undertaking.
This country, in common with the other member countries, subscribed to this undertaking in accepting the regulation setting up the European Regional Development Fund. We have told the Commission that we will fulfil this undertaking by using the receipts from the fund to increase the overall level of investment in industry and infrastructure.
As I have already stated, it is our intention to show, on the resources side of the capital budget for each year, the total payments expected to be received from the Fund in the course of the year and thus to demonstrate that the receipts from the fund will be recycled in order to increase the total resources available to finance industrial and infrastructural development. Mr. Thomson, Commissioner for Regional Policy, informed the Regional Policy and Transport Committee of the European Parliament on the 10th June that this budgetary treatment of regional fund receipts was fully satisfactory in fulfilling the principle that these receipts should supplement national resources devoted to regional development.
As the Deputy is aware, the summary of the revised capital budget, 1975 which was circulated with the Minister's financial statement on the 26th June shows under a separate heading the payment of £4 million we expect to receive from the fund this year.
The Minister will acknowledge there is no indication that the Government intend to put this money into a separate fund and there is no commitment by the Government to increase their spending on regional policy by the amount which has been received from the fund. Will the Minister acknowledge that there is a need to do here what has been done in other countries by the main beneficiaries, apart from ourselves, notably Italy and France, that is, to set up a separate fund? Will he further acknowledge that the Commissioner in talking about the legal provisions of Article 4.2 indicated that it was important that this should not be confused with the political undertaking in the preamble to increase spending by the amount of money allocated? Could the Minister tell me how that is proposed to be done unless there is a separate fund here as there is elsewhere?
The putting of this money into a separate fund does not tie the Minister in any way in the use of the fund subsequently. He is showing this clearly as indicated in the reply to the question so that everybody can see clearly the amount spent last year and the additional amount spent in the year when the fund money was received.
Surely the Minister recognises that what he has just said is arrant nonsense. He said putting the money into a separate fund does not tie the Minister. Of course it does. The Minister must recognise it was the intention in the Commission's proposals that by so doing the Government would be tied. Is the Minister aware that it was at our Government and our proposals these comments were directed, since the other countries who are beneficiaries have already taken the necessary and appropriate steps?
The Minister proposes to spend this money by doing what is required by the EEC regulations.
The legal requirement.
The Minister does not propose to depart from the regulations.
I take it from what the Minister said that he wishes not only to ensure that payments from the fund will supplement those from the Exchequer but that this will be clearly seen to be done?
Yes.
If that is so, how does the Minister propose to demonstrate this clearly in a case where, for instance, an infrastructural development would cost £5 million and £1 million was coming from the EEC fund and £4 million from the Exchequer? How does the Minister propose to demonstrate in such a case that £5 million would not have been paid from the Exchequer if there had been no EEC regional fund?
The answer is that the Minister is not required to demonstrate it in this way.
He is by us and by the public.
The Opposition seek to require him but he is not bound by any regulation.
The Minister says he is not required to do this but, in his own interest, he should spell it out. Everybody is asking why it is not being spelled out. I would ask him to spell it out so that there will be no doubt that this money is being spent on new works.
It will be quite clearly shown that this will raise the overall amount of money spent in the disadvantaged regions.
Would the Minister agree that long before we joined the EEC the Fianna Fáil Government established a special western regional development fund specifically for regional development purposes in the west? Would not the logical, sensible, honest thing be to put this EEC regional money into that fund so that everybody could see it was being spent for regional purposes in the west of Ireland? That would prevent any obscuring of the position by the Minister as he obviously wishes to do.
My information is that that would be most unwise procedure.
Because it would be found out.
It could quite easily affect the amount of money we will get from the fund at the end of 1977. It would be based on the population in these regions where the population is quite small rather than on the population of the entire country.
That is silly.
I take it——
May I ask for the co-operation of Deputies in making some progress at Question Time? There are over 280 questions on the Order Paper. We cannot remain unduly long on any one question. I am anxious that as many questions as possible will be answered.
Do I take it from what the Minister said that the Government have no intention of spending any of this money in the west? He has more or less indicated that it will be spent in the more populous areas.
The Deputy can take nothing of the sort. It has been said over and over again that it will be spent for the purpose for which it is provided.
Apart from the legal obligations which, apparently, the Minister relies on, will he acknowledge that there is the political obligation which the Commission spelled out that the regional funds applied by each country should be increased by the amount made available from the EEC?
That is not specified.
It is a political obligation which the Commissioner has relied on and obviously, from the tone of the Minister's reply, it is one this Government do not intend to honour.
Question No. 4.
The Minister indicated clearly in his reply that we have undertaken the political commitment in the use of this regional fund.
4.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will initiate legislation for the automatic transfer of the full amount of European Community Regional Fund grants to a specifically designated regional development fund.
Grants from the European Regional Development Fund are payable only in respect of specific approved projects which qualify under Council Regulation 724/75 of 18th March, 1975, and, once approved, these grants become automatically payable, subject only to administrative procedures. Their subsequent transfer to a separate, Irish regional development fund as suggested by the Deputy would serve no useful purpose. I have already arranged for the identification of grants from the European Regional Development Fund by a separate entry in the revised Capital Budget which I presented to the House in conjunction with my Financial Statement on 26th June.
Would the Minister accept that the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party in the campaign in the EEC referendum gave the Irish people to believe that a regional fund would be set up with money from the EEC which would be used to supplement the national effort in regional development and that this would be clearly seen in the operation of the regional fund if we joined the EEC? Would he further accept that what he is now proposing to do is a reneging on what was put to the people by the Fianna Fáil and the Fine Gael Parties?
The Minister has clearly stated in all his replies on the regional fund that he has no intention of reneging on the use of fund money?
That is what he is doing.
They will be used fully for the purposes for which they are intended.
It looks on paper and on the Minister's statement as if he is reneging. We would not have any hope of getting a vote in favour of joining the EEC in the west but for the regional fund money from which we were supposed to get all the benefits. There is no sign that we will get them.
The Deputy's assumptions are completely incorrect. That is all I can say.
I have not been proved incorrect yet.
Question No. 5.
Why is the Minister not here?
Because he has an important engagement.
This is the most important place.
It is most unfair of the Deputy to infer that the Minister for Finance has run out on anything. No Member of the House or no Government Minister has spent more time in the Dáil than the Minister has spent recently.