John Bruton
Question:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if it is the Government's intention that Ireland State should remain as one region only for the purposes of regional policy aid from Europe.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - European Community Funding.
Michael Creed
Question:9 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Finance the terms upon which he believes regional and local authorities in Ireland should have direct access to the EC in Brussels for funds for development in their respective areas.
Joseph Doyle
Question:11 Mr. Doyle asked the Minister for Finance the terms upon which he believes regional and local authorities in Ireland should have direct access to the EC in Brussels for funds for development in their respective areas.
Michael D'Arcy
Question:33 Mr. D'Arcy asked the Minister for Finance the terms upon which he believes regional and local authorities in Ireland should have direct access to the EC in Brussels for funds for development in their respective areas.
Frank Crowley
Question:44 Mr. Crowley asked the Minister for Finance the terms upon which he believes regional and local authorities in Ireland should have direct access to the EC in Brussels for funds for development in their respective areas.
Paul Connaughton
Question:50 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Finance the terms upon which he believes regional and local authorities in Ireland should have direct access to the EC in Brussels for funds for development in their respective areas.
Austin Currie
Question:78 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Finance the terms upon which he believes regional and local authorities should have direct access to the EC in Brussels for funds for development in their respective areas.
Michael Lowry
Question:85 Mr. Lowry asked the Minister for Finance when the regional structures will be established for the purpose of attracting aid under the revised EC Structural Funds package 1993-1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 9, 11, 33, 44, 50, 78 and 85 together.
The current Structural Fund regulations treat Ireland as one region. The regulations also provide for applications to be submitted through member state governments.
While regulations governing the provision of Structural Fund aid after 1993 have yet to be negotiated at Community level, I do not anticipate any change in Ireland's status under the Structural Funds. I am not aware of any proposals to provide for direct access by local authorities to Structural Funds on the basis suggested.
Although Ireland is treated as one region for the purposes of the Structural Funds, the Government have established a consultative process at national and sub-regional levels to ensure the views of interested groups, including the local authorities and social partners, are taken into account in preparing applications for assistance and implementing Structural Fund aided programmes. When the National Development Plan was prepared, the Government established sub-regional committees to provide an input from local authority and social partner representatives. This consultative process has been developed further under the Community Support Framework which provides for a monitoring role for the sub-regional review committees. Deputies may be assured that the Government will provide for continued involvement for sub-regional interests in planning for Structural Fund assistance in the post 1993 period.
Deputy Noonan (Limerick East) rose.
I have an obligation to call Deputy Lowry if he so desires as he has a question tabled on the subject. However, he has agreed to defer to Deputy Noonan.
(Limerick East): I wish to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. Has he been given any indication yet as to what the increase will be in the next tranche of Structural Funds? Second, is he aware that there is widespread concern at the fact that there is no local input into the application for Structural Funds; that while, in theory, there is a consultative mechanism in practice decisions are taken centrally in his Department and that as a result frustration is building up in the regions? Has he any proposals to give the regions a real say in deciding which projects should be backed?
In response to the first part of the Deputy's question which relates to the Delors II package, there have been no changes to what was proposed by the European Commission in February. The Council will discuss this package the weekend after Easter. The indications at this stage are that the Commission would like an agreement to be reached in the middle of the year so that work could proceed in the second half of the year during the United Kingdom Presidency. It has been proposed that the Structural Funds should be increased by 67 per cent while the Cohesion Fund should be increased by the remaining amount. Therefore taking the two together, the funds available for the four less developed countries, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, would be doubled. The point should be made, however, that this would not mean that the funds available for each of the member states would be doubled, unlike the 1988 package. These are linked to the VAT base — 55 per cent as against a rate of 50 per cent. While I would like to see these figures strengthened I should say to the House that we cannot ignore the strong comments that have been made by a number of member states which are major financial contributors.
In response to the second part of the Deputy's question, the sub-regional committee were set up late in the day and they went to unnecessary expense in providing detailed reports which were not prioritised through no fault of their own. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the chairmen of the other sub-regional groups and the central monitoring committee and its secretariat when we discussed the points raised by the Deputy to see if the sub-regional committees can be given a more meaningful role. They accepted that while the central monitoring committee will continue to monitor developments they will have a say.
Can the Minister indicate when he anticipates the regional authorities to be formally established and if he envisages them having a role in the administration of the Structural Funds?
It was agreed yesterday that the chairmen of the committees would report back to the various people involved as to whether they would like to be under new arrangements or continue under existing arrangements. It is intended that the Government will soon agree on the new regions. I would not want the committees to start their task in one area and then have to move to another to complete their work. That would be unfair to people who, broadly speaking, work voluntarily on these committees. They are to consult on that matter and I undertook to check with my colleagues in Government on the question of a precise date when the changes might be made.
I welcome the assurance of the Minister in relation to the consultative committee. The Minister must be aware that, specifically in relation to county roads, members of the European Parliament are approached to do something about them; and that members of the European Parliament appear helpless because of the mechanism used nationally and have no clout in relation to regional development as such. Is the Minister also aware that ports here feel at a disadvantage in contrast to ports in the North? Will the Minister do something to achieve the true objective of the allocation of these funds which is to assist in regional development? Surely there is a contradiction in the approach adopted on a national basis.
One of the reforms sought in 1988 was to move from a project basis to a programme basis. The proposals come back to monitoring committees that are linked (a) with the committees, (b) with the Government Departments and (c) with State agencies. The projects from the various regions are then put into programmes. This is the same system as applies in all member states. The national authorities agree with the committees a set of operational programmes which define the measures which can be aided. The project selection is a matter for the implementing agencies. However, the local authorities feel they should have a greater role in that and I replied to Deputy Noonan on that.
There are other programmes apart from the European Social Fund, like the peripherality programme and the INTERREG programme and the rural development programme. There is no reason why projects which are at the heart of regions cannot be put forward. They do not have to follow the same strict and rigid criteria. I have tried to loosen up the involvement of the groups involved in the western development committee, the peripherality, rural and INTERREG committees.
I welcome the Minister's comments. Do they mean that the prohibition on local authorities going directly to Brussels to establish what assistance is available to them is now removed and that the admonitions issued in 1988 by the Department under the Minister's predecessor will now be removed to enable local authorities to find out exactly what is available to them in that area?
That is not what I am saying.
I thought it was not.
Neither is it what the committees are looking for. Nor is it done in other member states.
We are not even allowed to travel to find out what is available. We might as well be 14-year old councillors.
I do not know if Deputy Quinn is a member of a committee of which his colleague, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, is chairman.
They are not allowed to travel.
I do not think county councils are over-restricted in the travel business, but that is not the issue. That is not what they are demanding.
It concerns the right to information and to travel.