asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will now urge the British Government to submit joint applications to the European Community for the promotion of cross-border projects in Ireland.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cross-Border Projects.
29.
There are difficulties in the way of an agreement between the Irish and British Governments on the precise terms for such an application. I have adverted to these in response to previous questions. The Government attaches considerable importance to the question and will continue to pursue it as appropriate. I have recently been in contact with the NI Secretary of State and further discussions will take place shortly in an effort to overcome the difficulties to which I have referred.
I take it the Minister will accept that, in reply to the previous question to which he referred, he indicated to me the fact that the British Government refused to join in joint applications with our Government. Does the Minister accept that?
Let us be clear.
The Minister will recall, when I asked about this, telling me I should have a question put down in Westminster to ascertain why.
I do not recall saying that.
It is on the record.
If the Deputy says I did say that then I am sure it must be true. In spite of the difficulties relating to the carrying out of a general survey of the area, the Government regard this as a necessary preliminary to a more detailed approach in relation to the projects.
On a recent parliamentary delegation to Westminster I, among others, was informed by representatives of the Foreign Office that they had, in fact, suggested to our Government specific cross-Border projects and that our Government, for one reason or another, found these were not appropriate. Can the Minister explain to me why he informed me previously that the British Government had refused to join in applications for cross-Border assistance?
Because what I said on that occasion was true. What was originally proposed in 1973 was a survey of the north-western regions with a view to establishing forms of joint action desirable to improve the economy of the area which has, objectively speaking, been disrupted by the existence of the Border. Subsequently, on the British side, there was a suggestion that a similar survey should be carried out in the north-eastern part of the area, which we thought was a good idea. However, those proposals did not make progress. There have been proposals from the British side for specific detailed projects as a replacement for the general surveys which were agreed to at Baldonnel and confirmed subsequently and which we regarded as an essential preliminary. It was these general surveys for the north-western projects, and subsequently the British Government agreed for the north-east, which held up agreement.
In fact, there have been proposals from the British Government for specific projects.
Yes.
May I ask the Minister why it was on previous occasions he did not so indicate to me?
They are not projects. They are specific surveys. They do not involve doing something to develop the region. They are studies of particular problems which we would regard as an inadequate and inappropriate replacement for a general survey.
Would the Minister be precise?
We cannot remain unduly long on this.
This is important. Whatever the Minister intended the replies I got previously certainly did not convey——
This cannot be resolved by argument now.
The record is there. Was there not, for instance, a specific proposal for the development of fisheries in the Donegal and Derry areas?
The matter may not be debated now.
A proposal for a study of the possibilities of doing that and also a study of possible development of the port of Derry the Government regarded as inappropriate and inadequate substitutes for a general survey of the north-west, and the Government have, therefore, pursued the original proposal, which had been agreed to by the British Government in 1973 and again in 1975.
Finally may I ask——
Just one short final supplementary now.
——if that was the position when I asked my last question, and I take it it was, why could the Minister not have indicated to me that there were proposals from the British Government in relation to studies for particular projects? The answer I got was that, if I wanted to know the mind of the British Government in refusing to co-operate, I should put down a question in Westminster.
The Deputy is indulging in repetition.
The replies I gave related to the Deputy's question and the Government's proposals.
I take it the position now is that the British Government are apparently prepared to consider proposals, whether they are adequate or proper in the minds of our Government, and will the Minister at this late stage now ensure some action will emerge in vew of the fact that the co-operation we understood was not there is there?
The Deputy is taking up a position which is, if I may say so, disturbingly close to that adopted by the British Government. Our concern has been the general studies carried out of the overall problems within which we can identify areas in which action could be taken. An arbitrary pre-identification of the position of the areas does not seem to us to be in the national interest and neither would it be representative of agreement in principle.
If the Minister had told me that on the last occasion——
I answered the question the Deputy asked.
The Minister did not.
I have allowed considerable time on this and I am calling the next question.
The Minister is so rarely here it is nice to get a chance to talk to him.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 30.