Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 May 1991

Vol. 408 No. 4

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EC Structural Funds.

John Bruton

Question:

3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to the annual report on the implementation of the reform of the Structural Funds for 1989, published by the European Commission this year, which states that the doubling of assistance from the funds depends on the observance of the principle of additionality and that this means that member states must meet the increased Community effort by at least maintaining the level of public spending in real terms so that the volume of structural assistance corresponds with the increase, and that the plans submitted by member states do not afford sufficient guarantees as to the observance of this principle; if he has received a formal request from the EC for a response in regard to Ireland's compliance with this requirement; his views on whether Ireland has met in full the requirement set out by the EC Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Ireland was the first member state to supply to the Commission the full additionality information of the type referred to in this question. While the Commission has sought some clarification on items of a technical nature, it has accepted in principle that Ireland's proposed expenditure on structural measures should fulfil the additionality requirement of the Structural Funds Co-ordination Regulations.

I should add that expenditure under the Community Support Framework in 1989-90 was in line with forecast. On the basis of the latest projections for 1991, we remain in line to meet the additionality target.

Is it not the case that the five year programme for 1989-93 for national primary roads provides for a 19 per cent reduction in expenditure by the Exchequer on roads? If that is true, how could it comply with the additionality principle?

I am not aware of the accuracy of the Deputy's statement. In fact, the Government have vastly increased expenditure on roads at all levels, main roads, national primaries——

That is not true.

——county roads, all roads.

That is not true.

(Interruptions.)

I am greatly surprised that the Deputy would have the temerity——

The Taoiseach is going off the road now.

The Taoiseach is beginning to believe his Minister for the Environment——

The Deputy should read the facts.

If you fly by helicopter you miss all this.

I am greatly surprised at the temerity of Deputy Bruton, who is now joined by Deputy Quinn, both of whom were members of a Government who reduced expenditure on our roads to a disastrous level.

That is not true, and I suggest to the Taoiseach that he should check the figures.

(Interruptions.)

Is it not the case, Sir, that any increase which has taken place in overall road expenditure has been as a result of increased funding from the European Community——

——and that there has been a reduction of 19 per cent in the Irish contribution in regard to national primary routes?

The Deputy is, as he does so often in this House, totally misleading himself. The main increase, to which we on this side of the House have often drawn attention, is in the provision for county roads, which is not funded from the EC at all.

I am asking about national primary roads. Would the Taoiseach not acknowledge two points, first, that my question was about national primary roads and that a moment ago he admitted he did not know the figures in this regard?

I know the figures.

Would the Taoiseach admit that he might have briefed himself better on this subject before coming in here to give his reply?

I know the figures, which at every level involve expenditures never before seen in this country.

At every level?

Question No. 4.

Of other people's money.

(Interruptions.)
Top
Share