asked the Minister for Finance the moneys outstanding to Ireland from EEC sources and the steps being taken to ensure that these moneys are being recovered without delay.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Moneys.
3.
The bulk of the payments received by Ireland from the EEC budget are made under the guarantee section of FEOGA for agricultural price support. These are paid in advance to the Department of Agriculture as the Irish intervention agency.
In the case of EEC structural funds, principally the regional and social funds and the FEOGA Guidance Section, a distinction is generally made between commitments and payments. In these cases, certain amounts are committed for specific projects to be undertaken over a number of years. Payments deriving from those commitments are made pari passu with national expenditure on the projects in question, in instalments as each phase of eligible work is completed, or on finalisation of the project.
There are, however, procedures agreed in 1978 and 1979 whereby payments from the regional and social funds can be accelerated once a substantial part of the expenditure on the relevant project has been incurred. Nevertheless, only some of the money committed for multi-annual projects is paid in the year of commitment. Thus, the amounts committed for Ireland from the structural funds since our accession to the Community have been greater than the amounts actually paid over to Ireland during that period. This was the inevitable result of the time-lag inherent in the system of spreading payments over a number of years. The total amount of commitments and payments for Ireland under the main structural funds for the period 1973-79 inclusive was:
|
Commitments |
Payments |
|
|
£m |
£m |
|
|
Regional Fund |
99.6 |
55.4 |
|
Social Fund |
117.9 |
68.5 |
|
FEOGA Guidance |
||
|
Section |
103.5 |
46.6 |
While Ireland's utilisation rate of Community funds, that is, the rate at which commitments are converted into payments, compares quite favourably with that of other member states, the Government are concerned to ensure that payments will be speeded up as much as possible. Following a recent approach in the case of the regional fund, the European Commission has agreed an arrangement which will result in a greater proportion of commitments being converted into payments during the year of commitment.
I might add that our record in securing commitments is quite satisfactory. In the case of the quota section of the regional fund, where national quotas apply, we have consistently succeeded in having the full amount of our allocation committed in the year to which it applies. Similarly we ensured that the full amount of the capitalised interest subsidy earmarked for Ireland in 1979 under the EMS was drawn down in the course of the year.
Is the Minister satisfied with the present situation?
There has been a very considerable improvement in relation to utilisation of commitments in the past three or four years. In 1975 the utilisation rate, that is, the receipts as a proportion of total commitments, was 21 per cent in regard to the regional fund. In 1979 it was 61 per cent. In 1975 in regard to the social fund the percentage was 43 and in 1979 it was 73. The same pattern follows in the other fund where receipts were as low as 8 per cent in 1975 and 89 per cent in 1979. The Deputy will agree that considerable progress has been made in the last two years.
It appears that under the three funds referred to about £150 million was not collected in that six-year period. Has that money been lost entirely?
It has not been lost at all but over the years actual expenditure has fallen significantly behind commitment. It is fair to point out that some of the commitments are multi-annual and therefore it is not a question of measuring expenditure in any one year. I assure the Deputy and the House that the position has improved significantly. Now, it is guaranteed that the total amount of the moneys paid under the FEOGA Guidance Section can be paid within the year whereas previously 75 per cent only was envisaged.
How much of the total amount of £150 million—being the difference between the allocation and the receipts in the period to 1979—will we not recover at all? Can the Minister indicate what proportion, if any, of that will not come through to this country?
It is not only premature but ill-advised to suggest that some of it will not be recovered at all. It is not our intention that any part of it would not be recovered at all. We are now endeavouring to ensure, particularly through the FEOGA section—which is the area in which the speed of payments has been slowest—that the commitments will be followed as quickly as possible, through expenditure, within the year. That has not been the pattern.
Have all the moneys been paid in relation to the cross-Border study between Derry and Donegal?
That is a separate question.
How much has been—
The question relates to the application of funds generally. I do not have—and I do not think the Deputy could expect me to have—at this time the breakdown in respect of each individual subhead. I do not have that information with me now.
But the figure I require is quite a substantial amount. Surely the Minister would need that to get a general total?
The Deputy will appreciate that that would relate both to the quota and non-quota sections of the Regional Fund, which are to be found under two separate headings. The Deputy will further appreciate that, within those subheads, there is a distinction made between Derry—Donegal, the Erne catchment and Newry—Dundalk. All of that involves an amount of detail which certainly could not be answered today on Deputy O'Keeffe's question.
Perhaps the Minister would make the information available to me?
Certainly, I will.
Is there any section in the Department of Finance which carries out a running audit of the balance of advantage and disadvantage which EEC membership has entailed for us since we joined?
There is a constant Interdepartmental Committee, there is a Government Committee, and I can assure the Deputy that in all of these areas—as is evident from the improvement in the expenditure areas—the Government are acting in a very determined and cohesive way.
I could not hear all of that reply. I have no doubt the assessment would show that the balance lay on the advantage side but ought there not to be a specific running study, conducted in that Department—whatever its title from month to month—which will show the balance of advantage and disadvantage—money, on the one hand, the loss of exclusive fishery rights and so on, on the other—which membership of the Community, now seven years old, has entailed for us, because the balance might change one day and then we should like to know?
All I can say in relation to that is that I am sure the Deputy would be anxious that the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon. I am quite well aware that the regular biannual reports are now brought before the House simultaneously with publication. Therefore the House now has an opportunity it did not have in former years, that of discussing our membership of the EEC on the latest reports. That opportunity was not available to us at a certain time when I was spokesman for the Opposition.
That is not so.
That is true.
That is absolutely not true; there was never a more inexact terminology than that.