Vol. 410 No. 3
10 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Finance if he will outline the position regarding the establishment by the EC of a special fund to compensate countries, such as Ireland and other peripheral countries, for entering into economic and monetary union; if his attention has been drawn to the comments made by the President of the EC Commission, Mr. Jacques Delors, that no such fund would be established; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The creation of a special fund to promote economic and social cohesion is one of a number of proposals with this objective which have been submitted to the Intergovernmental Conferences on Economic and Monetary Union and Political Union. These proposals have been discussed by both conferences and will be subject to further discussion in the second half of this year.
Specific proposals for a special fund have been put forward by Greece, Spain and Portugal. While there are points of difference between these proposals, they are all consistent with the framework proposals which Ireland submitted to both conferences in early January. The aim of this framework was the development of adequate cohesion mechanisms within the Community.
I would emphasise to the Deputy that none of these proposals should be seen purely in terms of compensation for entering into economic and monetary union. Their purpose is more wide ranging, involving as it does a firm commitment on the part of the member states to put in place the mechanisms for promoting economic and social cohesion which are appropriate to the degree of integration achieved by the Community at any particular time.
I am aware of the comments on the proposals for a special fund attributed to Commission President Jacques Delors. I would remind the Deputy, however, that these proposals, along with many others, are still the subject of discussion within the intergovernmental conferences. The results of those discussions cannot be prejudged at this stage.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Do I understand him to say the Irish Government are convinced of the necessity for a special development fund for the weaker and peripheral countries and that, notwithstanding the dismissal by the Commission President, that will continue to be the Government's position? Does the Minister agree that Structural Funding alone is inadequate to compensate for this peripheral disadvantage?
I am already on the record as stating my views and those of the Government that Structural Funds are inadequate to deal with the overall situation of social and economic cohesion for the future development of the Community. We have made that abundantly clear. The Taoiseach took the opportunity at last weekend's summit to draw the attention of the Heads of Government to that fact. Nobody in Europe is under any illusions about that.
We see the whole area of social and economic cohesion being dealt with by a commitment in the Treaty that will strengthen social and economic cohesion if EMU does not develop to the benefit of the peripheral States, including Ireland. We see the necessity for social and economic cohesion throughout all the policies of the EC and not just in relation to Structural Funds. The effect of the Structural Funds on narrowing the gap between, for instance, Ireland and the other member states will be the subject of review during 1991. However, we believe it will not provide the total answer to the problem of social and economic cohesion, and we made that abundantly clear.
Let me refer the Minister to his statement in London on Monday when he confessed that the greatest disappointment was our inability to generate sufficient jobs having regard to the extent of new entrants to the labour force and so on. Does this mean the Government are coming round to The Worker's Party view that there is a necessity for a common industrial policy?
We do not have to wait for The Workers' Party to lecture us on any aspect of future policy. I was referring to what I mentioned previously, and it is part of the first proposal I made on behalf of the Government to the intergovernmental conference, that I believed the Community should accept as one of their priorities and objectives the creation of full employment throughout the Community and consequently that their policies be geared towards that end. That is precisely what I was referring to in my statement in London.
Deputy Noonan (Limerick East).
Does the Minister——
Deputy Noonan has been called and will be heard.
(Limerick East): Does the Minister expect that the Structural Funds will continue after 1993?
Yes.
(Limerick East): Does he expect they will be increased? What is his view on the suggestion from MEPs that they are likely to be doubled for the next tranche?
Yes, I believe they will continue after 1993. I believe the suggestion from President Delors of a 50 per cent increase is totally inadequate, and I am more inclined to the view of the Parliament that they should be doubled at least. I think I have expressed that view already.
Is the Minister aware that as recently as three weeks ago the Taoiseach ruled out any question of the Government arguing for a common industrial policy? What mechanisms are open to this country in the event of the Commission President continuing to rule out the question of any special fund being established, having regard to the Minister's own views that Structural Funding alone is inadequate to cope with the impact of economic and monetary union?
The President of the Commission or the Commission itself initiate proposals. They do not take the decisions. The decisions are for the ECOFIN Ministers in the first place and, if we fail to agree there, it will finally be resolved by the Heads of Government, not by President Jacques Delors.
