Vol. 420 No. 3
16 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in regard to the meeting of EC Foreign Ministers in Lisbon on 11 May, he will outline the progress made with regard to the promised increase in EC aid for Ireland; if he received a specific guarantee that Ireland would receive £6 billion if the Maastricht agreement is ratified, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
43 Mr. Ryan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the present position regarding the Delors II package; the number of meetings that have taken place between (a) Ministers, (b) permanent representatives and (c) Government officials regarding the terms of the package; the changes, if any, which will occur in the distribution and administration of the fund, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 43 together. The Delors II package sets out the Commission's proposals on the resources that the Community will need over the next five years, and the expenditure that will be required under the main headings. Under the heading of structural policies and cohesion, the Commission propose that the resources going to the four less developed member states, of which Ireland is one, should be doubled overall.
The package has been the subject of intensive discussion at Council and at official level in recent months. No decisions have been reached on the amounts of money proposed. Considerable analysis has been carried out regarding the benefit of the Structural Funds, in particular to the less developed regions — the Objective 1 regions, which include the whole of Ireland.
At present the discussion is concentrating on the overall amounts to be attributed to the funds. The question of the detailed administration and distribution of the Cohesion Fund as well as of the Structural Funds after 1993, must await the presentation by the Commission of the draft regulations on these.
In one sense, however, the Commission proposals on the overall amounts do involve changes in the distribution. They propose an even higher concentration of the funds in the Objective 1 regions, which, as I mentioned, include the whole of Ireland. The proposal is for an increase of the Structural Funds for these regions of 67 per cent compared with an increase of 50 per cent for other areas. When the new Cohesion Fund for the four less developed countries is included, the Commission proposals would, as I indicated, provide for a doubling of the funds for these four countries — Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland, taken as a whole.
The Delors II package reflects the greater emphasis on cohesion — on the need to reduce the disparities between the less developed areas and the rest of the Community — which was included in the Maastricht Treaty and the attached Protocol on Cohesion. There is still considerable work to be done before agreement is reached at the Council, and tough negotiations lie ahead. I am confident that the outcome will involve substantial increases in the amounts available to Ireland. We argue our case for increases for Ireland of the order proposed, on the basis of our continuing lag as compared with richer regions in the Community, our very high level of unemployment, and on our productive use of the funds received to date.
Since February, the proposals have been formally discussed at Community level between Ministers on seven occasions, by the Permanent Representatives on 12 occasions by other senior officials on 11 occasions. In addition, there have been regular contacts on a continuing basis with the Commission and with officials of other member states.
First may I ask the Minister whether the Commission, or anybody in the EC, has put a figure of £6 billion on the amount which this country will receive in structural and cohesion funding? Second, I invite the Minister to put it on the record of the House, should he wish to do so, that this country will get £6 billion if the Maastricht Treaty is ratified?
The Commission has proposed to double the funds available. On the basis that we got about £3 billion in the last tranche we take it that £6 billion is the figure the Commission will propose and that is the figure we will argue for. As I said, detailed discussions and debate will take place before this figure is finalised. Surely we should hold out for the Commission proposal which is to double the amount we received previously which would amount to £6 billion in round figures.
If it is the case that there have been a number of meetings of permanent representatives and of Foreign Ministers, to which the Minister referred, will he agree it would have been in the national interest for the Taoiseach to have visited Lisbon during the Portuguese Presidency to see whether there is any basis for the figure of £6 billion which has been mentioned? Would he agree that the long litany of meetings which have not given any substance to the figure of £6 billion, as we head into the British Presidency, suggest that while there may be some increase it will not be of the order claimed by the Government?
The Taoiseach will be in Lisbon on 26 and 27 June when it is hoped that this matter will be finalised but it may not be possible to do that. The Foreign Ministers meet on 15, 16 and 21 June. There is still much negotiation and discussion to take place before the final figure is arrived at. On the basis that the Commission propose to double the amount we received in the last period we will fight for £6 billion. That is our position, that is what we will be looking for and that is what we hope to get.
Questions must now come to finality. The time is clearly up.
Would the Minister accept it is somewhat insulting to the intelligence of the Irish electorate to, effectively, attempt to bribe them with a figure of £6 billion which is not guaranteed? We hope we secure most of it but it is not guaranteed. It would be far more effective from the point of view of securing support for the Treaty on European Union to tell the people of the almost £2,000 million per year we are already getting as members of the Community, the existing benefits of membership and the assured benefits of membership of the European Union?
I have given the factual position to the Deputy and his colleagues.
That has not been the case in the past.
I do not see that what I said differs in any way from what has been said in the past. The proposal from the Commission is for a doubling of the funds for the less favoured regions, including the whole of Ireland. In the last package we got £3 billion; when that figure is doubled it comes to £6 billion. I do not know how one can change that. Nothing is different now.
We accept that three and three are six.
I am calling Deputy De Rossa for a brief final question.
Would the Minister agree — as I am sure he will — that the objective of the Community is to create a single market by 1993 — convergence of the economies of the Twelve — and that cohesion is part of the commitment to that objective? Therefore, regardless of whether the Maastricht Treaty is accepted, those commitments remain and, regardless of the size of the Delors II package after it is negotiated, structural funding will be in existence.
I wish to put this as simply as I can, cohesion is part of the Maastricht Treaty.
The Delors II package is not part of the Maastricht Treaty.
It is.
That must dispose of questions for today.
On a point of order, the Minister has just made a statement which is a deliberate misleading of this House.
The Deputy must not allege that anyone deliberately misled this House.
He was prompted to say so by the Taoiseach. Delors II is not mentioned at all. Within two weeks of the vote, the junior Minister for Foreign Affairs does not know what is in the Maastricht Treaty.
