Vol. 423 No. 5
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach whether an application for approval of the use of Structural Fund assistance for the £100 million jobs fund was lodged prior to the announcement by the Government on 26th August, 1992 that this jobs fund would be backed by EC Structural Funds; and, if not, if such an application had been lodged prior to 30th September, 1992.
The Government have decided that additional funds for the county enterprise partnership boards will be provided as follows: from an additional £50 million of public funds provided by the Government from savings already made by the National Treasury Management Agency; from contributions of over £100 million from the financial institutions by way of loans and equity; and from the reallocation of unspent existing EC programmes, from the proposed EFTA fund and from the global grant for local development, subject to the specific agreement of the European Commission.
The position on EC Structural Funds is that, on foot of discussions which commenced at the end of January 1992, the European Commission formally decided on 24 September 1992 on the allocation of a global grant of 10 million ECU for local development in Ireland. The Irish side indicated, in the discussions I have just referred to, the Government's intention, as stated in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress Section VII, to extend the area based approach to development nationwide.
Discussions are ongoing with the European Commission to make the detailed arrangements necessary for additional EC structual funding which, as set down in the Government statement of 1 October, requires the specific agreement of the European Commission. I am satisfied that this matter will be finalised very soon.
Is it not correct that Ireland had made no application to the European Commission for approval to spend European money in that way as at 30 September 1992?
I do not know where Deputy Bruton is getting his information from. Perhaps he has been to the wrong office. The Government have been in discussions since January. We have a firm commitment on global grant funding and we have received a commitment to have that increased; we are discussing the Structural Fund position and we have got a commitment on that; we have a commitment on the EFTA fund and we have received commitments here at home. The Government are seeking to create an enterprise culture in this country. Heretofore there was absolutely no money available in this country or outside it for an enterprise initiative on the ground. The Government are now putting the funds in position. The European Commission have committed those funds, the Government have committed funds from the Exchequer, financial institutions have committed funds, the employers are committing funds, and I am sure that local communities will be delighted to respond.
Does the Minister know that a European Commission official has stated publicly that no such application had been received by 30 September? Would he agree that such a statement throws a considerable degree of doubt on the Government's fixity of intention in this matter? What proportion of the £100 million jobs fund does the Minister expect or hope to be provided from European funds?
I do not accept that applications have not been made for European funding. If Deputy Bruton refers to a specific kind of application for a specific programme I should be delighted to give him a direct answer on that.
I am talking about the £100 million fund that the Minister announced.
The Deputy has said that no applications for funding were made to Brussels. I do not understand that. What is the Deputy talking about? To which heading and to which programme does the Deputy refer?
That information is contained in the question.
When the Government went ahead with the initiative the funding had already been agreed and was in position; there is no difficulty whatsoever about that. So far as I am concerned, the Government have from Brussels a commitment on 10 million ECU for the global grant, to be extended, a commitment in relation to the EFTA fund of about £16 million and further commitments on the Structural Fund. There is also £50 million from the Exchequer and £100 million from the financial institutions.
That is different.
That is huge money. There has been a demonstration of a tremendous amount of goodwill and support and the Government are confident that the money will be spent wisely.
May I take it from what the Minister has just said that the money announced at the end of August when the package was unveiled by the Government in respect of the moneys that were to be financed from the EC, was money that had already been pledged by the EC and was not, therefore, new money, and that perhaps the Government in their enthusiasm may have misled the public into thinking that there was new money?
I detect an effort by the Opposition to say, first, that there is no money available and that the Government have no money available and, second, when I say that the money is available, that the money was always available and is not now available.
It is not new money.
Of course it is new money. Never before was there a global grant. We are talking about a firm commitment from Europe to the member states on a global grant for job creation on the ground. That is a new fund. The EFTA fund is a new fund——
We know that.
The money available to this structure is coming in new.
But it was not new in August.
It was all agreed. I told the House that it had been agreed in September.
I am going to bring this question to a close. There is too much unnecessary argument.
5 Mr. Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he intends to establish separate county enterprise boards for each of the three new local authority areas, Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown, in the Dublin region; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the proposed construction of the partnership board for the Dublin region, having regard to the existing local authority structure and the intentions to establish three new local authorities in addition to Dublin Corporation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
As set down in the Government statement on 1 October, the process of establishing the new county enterprise partnership boards throughout the country will be undertaken in full consultation with all existing interests at both local and regional level.
With the officials concerned, I am now making the necessary arrangements to give effect to the Government's decision, including that for Dublin. I have specific proposals to put to the relevant Dublin interests. I can confirm that the establishment of new local authorities in Dublin has been taken into account in those proposals. I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of the consultation process.
I would be happy, in due course, to report back to this House on the outcome for Dublin and to communicate that outcome to the Deputies who put down these questions.
I appreciate the Minister's response. He will recall that last Friday in the House he had a debate on the matter with both myself and Deputy Gilmore. I wish to ask two specific questions. With whom will the Minister and his Department be consulting in relation to the proposed structures for Dublin? Would he be prepared to receive representations from the economy committee for Dublin city and their counterpart in Dublin County Council?
The Government's decision is very clear. The establishment committee, which will put the new structure in position, is obliged to consult the county and city managers in all cases and consult anyone nominated by the managers for consultation. That will be done and is being done. As I said in the House last week, the Government want to get this right and I should be delighted to receive for consideration any submissions put forward by Members of the House. The Government are moving very quickly in this regard. Consideration of the provision of structures for Dublin will be given plenty of time so that they will be got right because those structures are very complex in comparision to the existing county structure. In Dublin there will be several area partnership boards. The Government will be delighted to receive a submission from the economy committee for Dublin and from any Member of the House who is interested in putting forward a submission.
I thank the Minister for his reply. It is obvious that he realises that the greater Dublin area accounts for about one million of our population and has a substantially higher proportion of unemployment than any comparable area in the rest of the country. In relation to the partnership committees that existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in both Finglas and Ballymun, is it intended to create an area board that would cover those two areas specifically?
The Government have not yet worked out the details in that regard but that will certainly be taken into account before the making of a final decision.
In the Minister's earlier reply he said that he is required to consult county managers. What is the position of elected public representatives? Will elected public representatives, whether in Dublin or elsewhere, be consulted in any circumstances? Secondly, in respect of Dublin, would the Minister accept the argument that Dublin is one region and that if there is to be a county enterprise board of that nature there should be one board rather than four? There is a need for an overall organisation for all of Dublin. Will the Minister agree that in Dublin, at least, the regional tourism body should be kept as a separate entity?
I note what the Deputy said but what was said last week in the employment debate would seem to be at odds with what is being suggested by him. There was an expectation that we would impose a single board on Dublin, which is not our intention. People in Dublin would like to have more than one board. If we are to fulfil our mandate and make a contribution to job creation in the capital city one board would not be sufficient to do that and to discharge the obligations which this new initiative should provide. We are having consultations with all the tourism interests and I am confident that at the end of the day the correct decision will be taken which will be to the satisfaction of the people of Dublin.
I do not want to broaden this question. The Taoiseach has given a commitment that where there is a necessity for more than one board structure it will be provided. There are historical reasons, particularly in my county where there are two structures, north and south riding, for providing two boards. I was pleased when the Taoiseach said he would not rule out boards if necessary in an area where they want to achieve the Government's target. I hope that what applies in Dublin will apply in other regions where it can be shown that more than one board is necessary. I should say that there has been no consultation with local authority members. It was at my request that my council put this item on the agenda for public discussion. There has been no dialogue with the members.
I should say that these questions relate to the Dublin region and I cannot allow any extension of that area.
In response to what Deputy Ferris said there are many reasons one should have more than one board in County Tipperary, a very historic place. We will take all those reasons into account before making a final decision. The House will agree that we have provided for the chairperson of each county authority to be involved in these boards. Obviously, there will be consultation between the manager and the chairman which will be transmitted to us. At the end of the day we will do what is best in the interests of each area.
I am rather dismayed by the announcement by the Minister of State that there will be more than one board for Dublin. Would he accept that this proposal is silly in view of the needs of Dublin? We have two, and shortly we will have four, local authorities. The development of Dublin requires for instance, an airport in a county area and a port in the city area. We need a plan for a convention centre for the entire city. If there are four development boards they will be in conflict with each other. Would the Minister accept, therefore, that in the case of Dublin special arrangements are needed?
Most definitely special arrangements are needed but if one was to provide the capital city with only one board one would not be focusing on the problems in different parts of the city. We have to address the unemployment problem. There are different types of unemployment in the city. There are major differences in the infrastructure, topography, population structure and demographics in the city all of which must be taken into account. We must take into account the four area councils being set up and the fact that they will have an administrative structure comparable with any other local authority in the country. Those councils must be given a role. The people in the new structures must have a role to play in implementing this initiative on the ground. There must be co-ordination, co-operation and involvement by as many as possible to address the serious unemployment problem.
Would the Minister accept that he is not giving the local authorities any role?
I am calling Deputy Byrne for a final brief question.
The Minister is contradicting himself.
Would the Minister agree that the way Dublin Tourism learned from friendly journalists who discovered the press statement they were being disbanded and absorbed into area enterprise boards was insulting? That was not the way to convey the message. Second, would the Minister agree that it would be crazy, in the extreme, to divide the city into areas for tourism purposes? The only logical way to develop tourism in the capital city is through a single agency.
I reject entirely what Deputy Byrne said about how Dublin Tourism learned of the decision.
I am a member of the board.
I am aware the Deputy is a member of the board but let me tell him the facts. The Government took a decision at a meeting which concluded at 2.10 p.m. The Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications, on the instructions of the Minister, communicated that decision to the chief executive officer of Bord Fáilte. As it happened there was a meeting of the regional managers of the tourism organisations in progress and that decision was transmitted to them. What they did immediately afterwards is their business and I will not comment on that. However, several people in the tourism business were fully aware of the decision before the Taoiseach announced it that evening at 5 p.m. I had consultations that night with people from tourism interests in Dublin, Donegal and other parts of the country. Since then we have met the chief executive of each tourism authority and the consultation process is proceeding. I note what Deputy Bryne said about the promotion of tourism in our capital city. Obviously, in any new structure the overall development of tourism in the city is of vital importance to the economy not only of Dublin but of the country and that will be taken into account.
Are the boards being abolished?
I am calling Question No. 7.
I should like to clarify one point. If you abolish something you get rid of it forever; if you amalgamate something into a new structure you give it a new role in a new operation which means that funding is available to them which was not available previously.
I have called Question No. 7 and let us have a response.
7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if his Department retains any role for the promotion of Dublin as a cultural venue of international significance following the nomination of Dublin as the European City of Culture; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
My Department exercise an overall role in the promotion of Ireland as a whole, which of course includes Dublin, as a cultural venue of international significance.
The cultural image of Dublin was greatly enhanced by the range and quality of the events which were staged to celebrate its year as European City of Culture.
The year has left behind a number of permanent contributions to the cultural life of the city, including the revival and development of the Temple Bar area, the opening of the Irish Museum of Modern Art, the restored Custom House and the Dublin Writers' Museum. In addition, the hosting of a number of major international art exhibitions at the National Gallery and the launching of the National Museum's permanent exhibition of Irish Gold were enormously successful.
A Dublin arts report project was also initiated by the promoting company for Cultural Capital 1991. The Arts Council have participated with Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation in this enterprise and it should provide for them a clearer picture of their priorities for cultural action and cultural projects in the Dublin area for the future. The Government are totally committed to the promotion of culture, historic and artistic tourism and our capital city, Dublin, has a key role to play in this ongoing development.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Is the Minister aware that many people involved in cultural activities in the Dublin area, and particularly in the support services such as hotels, are perturbed that due to Government indecision a decision to locate the Eurovision Song Contest here next year has not yet been made and that this causing problems in terms of cultural promotion for Dublin?
We always like to have major international events hosted in the capital city and in this country. Obviously that is a very complex matter to decide and I hope the relevant interests will soon reach a final decision.
