Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Oct 1993

Vol. 434 No. 9

National Development Plan: Statements.

The Taoiseach

On the morning of 20 July a specific agreement was reached on a figure of £7.84 billion in 1993 prices as Ireland's allocation of EC Structural and Cohesion Funds for the years 1993 to 1999 between President Delors acting on behalf of the European Commission and the Tánaiste acting on behalf of the Irish Government.

I will recall for the House the events which led up to the agreement of 20 July. Following the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council, the European Commission prepared a draft framework regulation as the key legislative instrument for the implementation of the 1993-99 Structural Fund decisions, and for that reason requiring unanimous agreement of member states for adoption. That draft regulation was considered by the General Affairs Council on 2 and 3 July. At that meeting Ireland did not agree to the adoption of the regulation. The reason for withholding agreement was clearly set down in a statement prepared jointly with the European Commission and in direct consultation with the Belgian Presidency which issued on 9 July. I quote:

When the Council established its common position on the six regulations on 2/3 July, the Irish Government made it abundantly clear that its agreement on a final decission would depend on satisfactory assurances as to an equitable outcome on the question of allocation of resources.

The reservation it entered on the framework regulation has to be seen in this context.

The Irish Government will not agree, in the Council's second reading, the overall package of the six regulations without such assurances.

Since last Saturday a number of contacts have taken place both with the Commission and with the Presidency.

These contacts have been helpful but need to be continued in order to reach a satisfactory outcome.

While maintaining its overall reservation in connection with the allocation of financial resources, the Irish Government — having obtained assurances from both Presidency and Commission that the text of the six regulations in no way prejudges this fundamental issue — does not object to proceeding to the second reading of Parliament on the common position on the six regulations as transmitted to Parliament.

It reiterates, however, that its final agreement to the formal adoption by the Council of these regulations will be subject to the satisfactory outcome being sought in continuing contacts.

There was then no doubt on the part of the European Commission, or on the part of other member states, of the Irish Government's determination to obtain assurances on an equitable share of EC Structural Funds and of the European Commission's acceptance that the determination was legitimate and could be met.

The draft framework regulation was next considered by the General Affairs Council on 19 and 20 July. In the run up to, and on the margin of, that Council direct contact took place between the President of the Commission and his officials and the Tánaiste and Irish officials. As a result, a specific agreement was reached on a figure for Ireland's allocation of 9.35 billion ECU at 1992 prices which equals IR£7.84 billion in 1993 prices, of EC Structural and Cohesion Funds for 1993 to 1999. The same form of agreement was reached with a number of other member states and the fact that agreements were being reached by the President was clearly known to, and accepted as a legitimate procedure on the night by the General Affairs Council members and the Belgian Presidency in particular.

I reiterate the Government's belief that the agreement reached will be honoured, our determination to act, in particular, as normal, through the current Belgian Presidency to have our agreement honoured and our wish to have the full support of the House on a matter of national importance. If efforts are being made in Europe to undermine the Irish agreement it is extraordinary that they would find support in this House.

Mr. Allen

Rubbish. That is an insult.

The Taoiseach

Tell that to the people.

Mr. Allen

The Taoiseach should explain himself.

The Taoiseach

I wish to state clearly the Government's resolve to implement the National Development Plan in full and to secure the full EC commitment so that we can meet the combined EC and Exchequer public funding input to the total plan expenditure of £20 billion for the years to 1999.

Mr. J. Bruton

The House has two separate jobs to do in this very brief debate and it is important to do both of them. The first is to ensure we get the maximum amount of money for Ireland and that everything said in the debate strengthens the case for the money. The second and less palatable job we have to do is to come to a judgment as to whether the Ministers who have been representing us have done their job competently. Both jobs must be done without one damaging the other.

In terms of getting the maximum amount of money for Ireland, the Taoiseach can be sure he has the support of my party. There is eminent justification for the full, in current day equivalence, £9.2 billion, which the Taoiseach said he was getting before the Maastricht referendum. It is justified by the fact that Ireland will be the only island nation in Europe; on the basis that we have the highest rate of dependency and the maximum number of people who have no jobs depending on those who have jobs. If a GATT deal goes through Ireland will suffer more than any other European country and the number of job losses will be immense as a recent EC study has shown that peripheral nations suffer more from economic and monetary union than those near the centre.

There is a very strong case for extra money. The Taoiseach should have tabled a motion in this House outlining the case he sought to make in this debate so that it could be agreed by the House. He would have been wise to have such a motion agreed here. Even in the absence of such a motion the Taoiseach should this afternoon, in the company of the Tánaiste, go to Brussels to meet President Delors to discuss this matter before any decisions are taken at the Commission meeting tomorrow. Only if the Taoiseach does that will he show he has the requisite seriousness in regard to getting this money for Ireland.

In regard to the second function the Dáil must perform relating to the competence of Ministers in this matter, two questions remain unanswered. If the Government enters into agreements of such importance why does it not get those agreements in writing signed by the people who made them? In even the most minor matter such as the text of a double taxation agreement between Ireland and Malaysia, the exact agreement is written in reams of paper even though in practice the amount of money involved may be minor. Why, in a matter of huge moment in Edinburgh, did the Taoiseach not get agreement in writing to what he claimed he was getting at that time — £8 billion over seven years?

Before the Maastricht Treaty was agreed by the people the Taoiseach said we would get £6 billion over five years. Taking into account that the planned period is now seven years and that the pound has been devalued by 10 per cent, what the Taoiseach was telling the Irish people before the Maastricht referendum was that we would get the equivalent, over seven years, of £9.2 billion. We are not getting that amount and the Taoiseach's credibility in terms of what he said before the Maastricht Referendum has been devalued as a result.

One of the reasons Members of the Dáil were so upset this morning is that, unfortunately, the Taoiseach does not have very high credibility in matters of this nature. In the Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil on 16 December after the Edinburgh Summit, he said:

Deputy Bruton, on 6 May last in this House, accused me of making wild promises and of presenting the £6 billion as a bribe from the European fairy godmother.

He went on to say:

My strategy and negotiating tactics have been vindicated. The agreement now reached ensures — and I say this with complete confidence — that Ireland will obtain in excess of £8 billion over seven years.

Subsequent to that statement the Irish pound was devalued. The Taoiseach was saying that in present money terms we would get £8.8 billion. He said he had an agreement to that effect but it was not in writing. Why was that agreement not in writing and who was the agreement with? Why is it that even last week the Taoiseach said we would get £8 billion, and not the £8.8 billion promised? There is a question as to why the Government seems to think it can say one thing to the electorate at home and say a different thing to the people with whom it is negotiating in Brussels? Why does the Government delude itself that one will not find out what has been said to the other?

I am concerned about the amount referred to by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs in his statement in July of this year, which of course was considerably less in terms of the amount promised than the amount referred to by the Taoiseach after the Edinburgh Summit. The Tánaiste said that instead of £8.8 billion in current money, we would get £7.8 billion in current money. One billion pounds was lost between the Taoiseach's statement after the Edinburgh Summit and the Tánaiste's statement after the meeting last July. After the meeting last July, the Tánaiste said "there is certainty in relation to the figures". Furthermore he said that he was "100 per cent satisfied that the figures would not unravel". There was a report this morning on AERTEL that the European Commission is to discuss proposals today which could reduce Ireland's £7.8 billion share of Structural Funds by several hundred million pounds.

I should like to know why the Tánaiste did not get an agreement in writing in regard to what he said was an agreement which would not unravel. If he was 100 per cent satisfied that the figures would not unravel, then presumably the people with whom he was dealing were also 100 per cent satisfied that they would not unravel. If both were 100 per cent satisfied, why could they not agree to put the figures in writing? Why did the Tánaiste fall into the same trap the Taoiseach had fallen into by relying on an oral agreement when he could have had an agreement in writing? Did the Tánaiste not learn from the problems with which the Taoiseach was faced after the Edinburgh Summit where he had relied on an oral agreement rather than an agreement in writing? Why did the Tánaiste not insist on getting an agreement in writing?

It is important to recognise that the difference we are talking about here is no minor matter of arithmetic; we are talking about real money. There is a gap between the amount referred to by the Taoiseach before the Maastricht Treaty — £6 billion over five years, translated to approximately £9.2 billion over seven years, taking into account devaluation— and the figure referred to this morning by European sources of a mere £7.3 billion. That is a very big difference of more than £2 billion. I wish to illustrate the enormity of this difference. The difference between the amount the Taoiseach said we would get before the Maastricht Treaty and the amount European sources in Brussels have said today we will actually get is £570 for every person in this county or £6,600 for every unemployed person. That is what is at stake. That is the amount which will have been progressively whittled away since the original statements made by the Taoiseach before Maastricht, his revised statement after the Edinburgh Summit, the further revision by the Tánaiste after the July meeting and the possible further revision tomorrow after the Commission meeting.

We cannot afford this progressive revision downwards of our entitlements in this matter. We have to question the competence of Ministers who could allow this to happen without ensuring that they got an agreement in writing. It is a cliché to say that an oral agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. A person in their first year in business after leaving school will tell you to get an agreement in writing if you want to be sure. Neither the Taoiseach nor the Tánaiste seems to realise that it is common prudence to "get it in writing" before they come home or say in the media "the money is in the bag; I am 100 per cent satisfied about the figures and this deal will not unravel", all statements made either by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste who subsequently had their words contradicted.

I should like to ask a question. I am being as restrained as possible in view of the fact that a meeting is to take place tomorrow. When the Government supplied this document last Friday week to the European Commission — I presume that the Minister for Finance went to Brussels with this document — did it ask whether it was definite and agreed, without any question of being reopened, that we would get £7.8 billion? Did the Minister for Finance ask if there was any doubt in the mind of Commissioner Millan, who is responsible for the Structural Funds, that we would get the money? If he did not ask that question, why did he not ask it? Why did he allow the Taoiseach to come in here and say that he had approximately £8 billion when it would appear from reports from Brussels that some people there were not as "100 per cent satisfied" as the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs about this matter? Not everyone had the same understanding.

The Minister for Finance who went to Brussels previously should have established whether this document was a work of fact or a work of fiction before the document was published and before the necessity of debating it in this House. It seems that the Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach have been shown throughout this episode to be at best naive in their approach to international relations. They did not take the elementary steps of prudence which even the most lowly and recently qualified solicitor would advise them to take, namely, if you are getting an agreement get it in writing. I am sure the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, in his capacity as a solicitor, would have advised the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach, if they were willing to listen to him, that they should get the agreement in writing. Why did they not get the agreement in writing and why did we debate a plan which contained figures which were not cast in bronze?

Miss Harney

This debate is not so much about figures because even if it is £7.3 billion it is still a substantial amount of money. It is more than the total Marshall aid package used to rebuild Europe after the Second World War. Rather this debate is about political accountability and credibility and the judgment of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, the two most senior members of the Government. I want to ask the Taoiseach what exactly was agreed at the Edinburgh Summit.

Will the Taoiseach say exactly what was agreed at Edinburgh? One newspaper headline read "Albert lands £8 billion bonanza". On 13 December the Taoiseach said that this was his "single greatest achievement", the biggest single financial package for Ireland. Today the Taoiseach told us that in an agreement with the Commission, the Belgian Presidency and Ireland on 9 July:

...the Council established its common position on the six regulations on 2/3 July [these were the regulations to put the Edinburgh agreement into effect] the Irish Government made it abundantly clear that its agreement on a final decision would depend on satisfactory assurances as to an equitable outcome on the question of allocation of resources.

It went on to say:

[The Irish Government] reiterates, however, that its final agreement to the formal adoption by the Council of these regulations will be subject to the satisfactory outcome being sought in continuing contacts.

There was no agreement in Edinburgh and the 9 July minute, which we now have from the Taoiseach, firmly indicates that nothing was agreed in Edinburgh and the Tánaiste was dispatched to do a sand bagging job as the possibility of an agreement was slipping. At 5 a.m. in the corner of the bar on the 14th floor outside the Council of Ministers Room, an agreement was made and we are told there is no minute of that meeting.

The implied accusation that there has been bad faith on the part of our Community partners is very serious. If, in the next few days, it turns out to be the case that what the Taoiseach and Tanaiste said is not true, it will be a very serious matter for both of them. To accuse the President of the Commission — implied accusations were made here earlier this morning and again in the Taoiseach's speech — is a very serious matter for this country. The President of the Commission has been a good friend to Ireland and I hope the Taoiseach will disassociate himself from the pigeon English remarks of one of his MEP's. As far as I can see we should be talking about pigeon arithmetic. The remarks of the MEP, Mr. Lane, are a disgrace and will do nothing to help the cause of this country tomorrow morning.

I wish to tell the Taoiseach, and the Government, that when called upon to wear the Irish jersey, as the Taoiseach did this morning, me or my party will not be found lacking. This is not about what we would like to see in terms of funding, it is about judgment, credibility and accountability. For the past number of months not only have all the Government Ministers, Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, and many other Ministers of State but every senior civil servant in Government departments have been engaged in drafting a plan on a false premise and that strikes at the heart of Government, the way we do business and the Government process that is in operation. Will we withdraw the plan if the figure is not correct? How will we tailor the plan? What will be taken out? Was it premature of the Government to publish the plan two weeks ago? Was the debate last week a false debate?

The Taoiseach asks for our support but there is no motion before us that we can support. I wonder why he has refused to table a motion telling us the exact position. The Government need not fear, it has a 35 seat majority. Why should it be concerned about tabling a motion? In my experience minority Governments are concerned about motions because they can be defeated but Governments with the unprecedented majority of this Government should have no fear about tabling a motion. The reason a motion will not be tabled is because there is no agreement other than nods and winks, a handshake agreement described more graphically by my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, this morning. I find it extraordinary that following the 20 July agreement no minute was drawn up and nothing was sent in writing to the President of the Commission.

Some time ago in this House members of the Government were highly critical of the Aer Lingus management for losing £1 million per week. Since December last, when we were told that we had £8 billion, to quote the Taoiseach, "in the bag"— with devaluation that should be at least £8.4 billion — we have lost £25 million per week. What would the Taoiseach feel about that type of management by anybody outside this House?

At best the Government has suffered from political self delusion and at worst it must be accused of not just misleading this House but misleading this country. I wish to tell the Taoiseach that our job is to be supportive but, more importantly, in the context of a Government with such a huge majority, we must ensure that the Government is accountable, through this House, to the people who have elected it. I could not give the kind of support which the Taoiseach is seeking because it is not support that is being sought on the basis of any concrete facts. Rather, we are being asked to put our faith and trust in something which I cannot support.

I heard the President of the Commission on the radio this morning. I do not like using words such as "lies" but that is the word he used. He is a man with an outstanding reputation throughout the Community. I do not think he would lightly use a word such as "lies" when the figure of £7.8 billion was put to him. This Government has not just put itself in a difficult position at home, it has brought the country into enormous political disrepute in Europe. We have shamed the name of Ireland——

Mr. T. Kitt

Disgraceful.

Miss Harney

——and if it is the case that there was no firm agreement then this Government has much to answer for.

Many Members may have been surprised at the news this morning but I am aware that at Commission level, members of the Government sitting opposite were informed that this was the position. They were informed yesterday.

Mrs. Owen

That is correct, and before that.

Mr. Allen

And last week.

Mrs. Owen

Perhaps last July also.

Mr. Yates

They were informed when the Taoiseach presented the plan.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Taoiseach bluffed it out.

Miss Harney

It is time to end the politics of deception. Last week I said of the plan that it was almost "Santa Claus like". Perhaps there are some people who think the greater the amount of money, the better, regardless of whether it is true. I do not believe in that type of politics. The Taoiseach has damaged the Government, he has damaged this House but, more importantly, he has enormously damaged this country.

The Taoiseach

That is what the Deputy is trying to do.

Proinsias De Rossa

The matter we are discussing is one of the most important to have come before this House in recent years. We are dealing not just with sums of money on a balance sheet but with the livelihood of our people and with the hopes of thousands of the unemployed that they might find jobs.

It is very clear that the Irish people have been seriously misled about the extent of the funding which will be made available to fund the National Development Plan. We have been the victims of a financial three card trick: the money we thought we had secured, the money we were told had been secured by the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach, is just not there and every attempt by the Taoiseach in this House to wrap the green flag around himself will not make that money appear.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy will not help either.

Proinsias De Rossa

As a result the personal and political credibility of Deputy Spring and Deputy Reynolds is now on the line.

Speaking in an Adjournment debate in this House on 1 July, I pointed out that the whole saga of the Delors II package had been one of gullibility, ineptitude and downright dishonesty. Given the latest developments we might add the words, crockery and political fraud.

Dr. Woods

Shame.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Government has been guilty of either an enormous confidence trick or unprecedented incompetence. It either deliberately misled the people of this country and the Dáil as to what had been agreed, or it misunderstood what had been agreed. It is either incompetent or it deliberately misled us.

It is not as if it was not warned about the dangers of the strategy it was adopting. When it was claimed by Deputy Reynolds, following the famous all-night meeting in July, that we had secured £7.8 billion, the Democratic Left spokesperson on European Affairs, Des Geraghty, pointed out that the Government was relying on verbal bilateral assurances from Jacques Delors and that our claim to the full amount had been built on shifting sands. That clearly now is the case.

When it was pointed out to the Government that there simply was not sufficient money in the current Euopean Community budget to fund all the promises that had been made, it ridiculed the idea and accused Democratic Left of sour grapes. Yet the evidence is now clearly before us.

It will be simply incomprehensible to the majority of people that the final details of a package of such enormous consequence for the future economic development of this country should be based on a wink and a nod and a late night verbal assurance from Jacques Delors in a corridor in Brussels. It might be possible that this could be acceptable in a Ballinasloe horse fair but it is not acceptable for the running of the business of this House.

We also pointed out that while Jacques Delors was a powerful man in the European Community there was considerable doubt about his capacity to deliver, that what would be crucial was not the views of Jacques Delors but the attitude of the Commission as a whole. There is now even a major doubt about the amount which was the subject of that verbal agreement on that part of Monsieur Delors. Many people, including I am sure the Taoiseach, will have heard Mr. Tommy Gorman this morning, in his interview with Jacques Delors, when Jacques Delors said that the agreement was for IR£7.3 billion.

The Taoiseach

Minimum.

Proinsias De Rossa

That is what he said.

Mr. M. McDowell

It was not just a minimum.

Proinsias De Rossa

He went on to say that anybody who claimed otherwise was a liar. That was very strong language by the President of the European Commission.

Mr. M. McDowell

We were never told that.

Proinsias De Rossa

Clearly, the Government is now gripped by political panic as its promises lie in tatters. It is now calling on the Opposition to rally around and support it, which is asking a lot, considering the contemptuous way it treated this House in the course of the negotiations for the funds and in the preparation of the National Development Plan. The House was totally excluded from the process. At no stage did the Government come to the House to seek approval of its strategy. Information was kept to a minimum and no motion was put before the House. The most offered was a series of fairly meaningless opportunities to make statements. Even today, rather than putting a motion before the House clearly setting out its strategy, the Government has run for the cover of statements.

Democratic Left accepts no responsibility for the shambles created by this Government. We will be insisting that the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Monsieur Jacques Delors deliver on the promises they made. The Government should demand a clear, unequivocal statement from the Commission as to our agreed share. If the EC budget is insufficient to fulfil the promises made then that budget must be increased or cutbacks effected in other areas. Indeed, to introduce reality to this discussion, I might point out that expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy this year is running ahead of budget projections by as much as 1.5 billion ECUs.

It is important also to remind the House, even at this late stage, that the £7.8 billion, in itself, did not meet the promises made in the course of the Maastricht Treaty campaign, of a doubling of Structural Funds. In fact, properly calculated, it amounts to something of the order of £2 billion to £3 billion less than promised by the Taoiseach in the course of that campaign.

People have been used as political pawns, especially by the parties in Government, in that the electorate's needs and interests took second place to the desire of Fianna Fáil to remain in power and of the Labour Party to get into power.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I am happy to avail of this opportunity to reassure the House and the people that the National Development Plan submitted to the European Commission last week, and published by the Government, will be implemented in full.

Mr. J. Bruton

Are copies of the Tánaiste's script available? It would appear that some Members have it.

Mr. Spring

I did not interrupt Deputy John Bruton. I am sure it will be circulated. Perhaps Members would bide their time.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

In 12 years in this House I never heard Deputy Carey make a constructive comment on anything.

Mr. Carey

I am glad the Tánaiste reminded me of that. I will go back over his record which is not very good either.

Mr. Spring

A number of points were made by Deputies this morning. It seems they can be summed up in the assertion that an agreement solemnly made between the President of the European Commission and the Foreign Minister of this country is worthless. That assertion could not be further from the truth. Indeed, it reflects no credit on the Opposition Deputies who made it, by innuendo and inference, in this House and indeed outside it.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Commission is saying that.

Mr. Spring

On 20 July last I made an agreement on behalf of the Irish Government with President Delors. In common with any Member of this House who has had dealings with President Delors, I know him to be a deeply honourable public servant.

The Taoiseach

Precisely.

Mr. Spring

Furthermore, I know that he has always expressed and maintained a commitment to the interests of this country just as strongly as his commitment to the development of Europe as a whole. I have every confidence that President Delors, in entering into an honourable agreement with me, did so in the utmost good faith. Accordingly, I have every confidence that the agreement will be honoured in full. As a consequence, I have total confidence that the National Development Plan we have submitted will be honoured. It is astonishing that Opposition Deputies in this House, rather than supporting the full implementation of that plan, have chosen to play politics.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. M. McDowell

Did the Tánaiste make the agreement and get Jacques Delors to——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

I did not interrupt any Member opposite.

The Taoiseach

Deputy McDowell asked for the facts this morning; he will get them now.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman, Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputies must allow the Tánaiste to speak without interruption.

Mr. M. McDowell

Was the agreement minuted and given to Jacques Delors?

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

The Tánaiste without interruption, please, Deputies.

Mr. Spring

Even before this debate began the leader of the Progressive Democrats called for the plan to be withdrawn on the spurious basis that Ministers and officials were working on a false premise. Deputy De Rossa chose to misquote in this House what President Delors said on radio this morning.

The Taoiseach

Precisely.

Mr. Spring

I just wonder what these Deputies want. Do the Opposition parties want to undermine Ireland's position in relation to the Structural Funds?

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

Will Deputies opposite listen?

Mr. M. McDowell

Did the Tánaiste make the agreement and give it to Jacques Delors for signature? Would he answer yes or no?

Mr. Spring

Do they really want to play cheap, tawdry politics with the most important development project on which this State has ever embarked?

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

Will Deputies opposite listen to the facts?

Mr. Spring

Deputy Michael McDowell should save cross-examination for the Four Courts. It is not appropriate here.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Could we please have order?

Mr. Spring

If that is what they want — and I believe this debate has been useful in flushing that out — they will find that the Government is not prepared to engage in that kind of cheap politics.

Mr. M. McDowell

Will the Tánaiste answer the simple question I put to him?

Mr. Spring

Lest their misdirected charges and allegations should undermine in any way the confidence and morale that will flow from the National Development Plan, I want to put the facts on the record of this House as clearly and succinctly as I can.

The Taoiseach

Now.

Mr. Spring

Early in the morning of 20 July last, following intensive discussion and negotiation between the delegation that I led and some of the most senior officials in Europe, I met President Delors in the company of several of his officials and several of mine. We agreed that, granted the quality of Ireland's National Development Plan and the projects we would put forward, in the ultimate Ireland would receive 9.35 billion ECU in 1992 prices from the new round of Structural Funds, to cover the period 1993 to 1999. We understood, as did the Commission, that ultimately the Commission would meet formally to agree indicative figures that would be allocated as targets for each of the countries affected by the next round. In all likelihood those indicative figures would be expressed in ranges — or what the Commission call "fourchettes"— that is to say, a minimum and a maximum that could be achieved, depending on the quality of the plan put forward and the efficiency of member states in implementing their plans.

Mr. M. McDowell

Why did we not hear about this before?

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

Deputies opposite do not listen; that is their problem.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

The Tánaiste without interruption, please.

Mr. Spring

The figure of 9.35 billion ECU in 1992 prices translates into 9.7 billion ECU in 1993 prices and into £7.84 billion. That is the figure I announced at the conclusion of those negotiations. That figure has never been publicly challenged to this day.

The Taoiseach

Never.

Mr. Gilmore

It was challenged by Jacques Delors this morning.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

We are still 100 per cent on target. I am confident of the merits of our National Development Plan. Equally, I am confident that the projects which we will submit under that plan will be of such merit as to attract full Community support at the level promised on 20 July last.

Everybody knows the history of these negotiations going back to the Edinburgh Summit late last year. My involvement, at a number of very lengthy General Affairs Council meetings, is equally well known and recorded. I challenge any Member of this House who wishes to assert that I have in any way misled this House, or the people of this country, to say so explicitly.

Mr. M. McDowell

Did the Tánaiste make the agreement and give it to Jacques Delors? Will he answer yes or no?

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Order, please, Deputies.

Mr. Spring

Deputy Michael McDowell is not in the Four Courts, he is in the Dáil.

Mr. M. McDowell

That is a cheap gibe. Will the Tánaiste answer the specific question I put to him: did he make the agreement? He is in Government.

Mr. Spring

Deputy Michael McDowell will never be in Government.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Bruton

Something somebody told him outside Doheny and Nesbitts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste to continue without interruption.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

The spectacle that has taken place in this House this morning is unedifying in the extreme. If there are people and interests who wish to undermine the agreement that we have made, the last thing they should be entitled to expect is the support of the Opposition in this House. By their actions this morning, they have demonstrated how little confidence they have in the ability of the Irish people to rise to the challenge presented by the National Development Plan and to secure every last penny of investment promised.

Mrs. Owen

It is the Tánaiste's ability we are questioning, not that of anybody else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste without interruption, please.

Mr. Spring

I can assure the House that the Government will not weaken its resolve to secure and implement that investment. We have never, and we will never, surrender to the voices that seek to spread doubt and confusion about this matter.

Mr. M. McDowell

It was the Tánaiste who spread the confusion.

Mrs. Owen

The Tánaiste cannot produce any agreement.

Mr. Spring

Even as this House debates this issue, we are taking the necessary, appropriate and measured steps to ensure that that investment is secured in full.

Mrs. Owen

If the Tánaiste had an agreement why does he need an assurance? By his own words will he be judged.

Mr. Spring

The Deputy would not understand how Europe works.

Mrs. Owen

I used the Tánaiste's own words.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

I have no problem with that. If Fine Gael stick to their commission and their new advisers they might improve their ratings in the opinion polls.

Mr. J. Bruton

If the Tánaiste stays with the script he will not get into trouble. The official who wrote the speech is much better than the Tánaiste.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste without interruption.

Mr. Spring

At the end of the day, what matters is not the cheap politics of the Opposition deliberately floundering around to find some relevance for itself against a background of change and progress. The Deputies opposite should listen for a moment.

The Taoiseach

They do not want to listen.

Mr. Spring

What matters is that the plan will be implemented, that the Irish economy will be transformed and modernised by that plan——

Mr. Carey

Cheers.

Mr. Spring

——and that Irish society will be enabled to become a more open and inclusive place for every citizen who wants to take part.

Mr. J. Bruton

The Taoiseach says we will get £8 billion, the Tánaiste says it is a target.

Mrs. Owen

By his own words the Tánaiste will be judged.

The Taoiseach

The record will show, and I should like to repeat, that the Progressive Democrats said we will get £4.5 billion and Fine Gael said we will get £5 billion.

Sitting suspended at 1.25 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.