I wish to share my time with Deputies Hogan and Durkan.
Private Members' Business. - National Development Plan 1994-1999: Motion.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to publish this week the revised national plan showing clearly each alteration in any paragraph or commitment that is now different from the National Plan Programme originally submitted to Brussels.
This national plan has been doomed from the beginning for a number of reasons. In its preparation the type of proposals and method of preparation for which the Labour Party, in Opposition, had called in the preparation of the last development plan — real, effective consultation with groups outside this House, with all groups nationwide who would benefit from it — did not take place. There was a charade of consultation, certain committees were established although, as usual, late. My information from people who served on those committees was that there was not really any effective debate on the kinds of projects which would assist areas from where these people came. Therefore, the seeds of the destruction of the plan were already there.
It was not as though the Government had not been warned of the need for consultation with local groups. It was clear that when the last national plan was submitted to Brussels, questions were asked about how effective local consultation had been. Therefore, the Government should have been forewarned, but was not and did not participate in effective consultation. No doubt, when replying, the Minister of State will endeavour to say that is not true, that lots of people were consulted.
How did the Deputy guess?
Nonetheless, the Minister of State served on Dublin County Council, as I did, and would have decried the lack of real consultation with it in the preparation of the last development plan. I am disappointed that she, and others like her, did not insist on this type of consultation when the plan was prepared. As though that were not enough, the Taoiseach returned from a Summit meeting in Edinburgh and uttered the immortal words: "The £8 billion is in the bag". Of course, he did not tell us that, in making that statement, he did not have any written confirmation, that he had gleaned it from discussions he had on the margins of the Summit meeting. We all know what happened subsequently — there was a hole in the bottom of the bag through which the money disappeared. Then we had the unseemingly and discrediting débácle month after month, first by the Tánaiste, then the Taoiseach and followed by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, all adding to discrediting Ireland's name within the European Union. The Tánaiste said that while we might not get £8 billion we would get in excess of £7.4 billion. Eventually, when the plan had to be submitted to Brussels — belatedly, the Government announced that it had to be in Brussels by the end of September 1993 — my party called for the recall of the Dáil so that we could discuss it before its submission. The Government, in the manner in which we have become so familiar, told us not to worry that it had an excellent, well researched and prepared plan which did not need any advice or scrutiny by the Opposition parties, this from people who, in their Programme for Government, had said this would be a Government of transparency and openness.
As the months passed, we realised that those two words no longer existed in the lexicon of the Government; sadly, we no longer see any transparency or openness. The Government did not recall the Dáil, it would not allow anybody to see this gold-wrapped plan before its submission to Brussels. In October 1993, when we eventually debated the plan already in Brussels, it transpired that the Government, in submitting it, knew it would not get the £8 billion on which it was based. Nonetheless, the plan was submitted, supposedly warranting an allocation of £8 billion. Try as we would, we and other Opposition parties could not extract the truth from the Government, which was that the money would be reduced. In accordance with any mathematical calculation, if one was not to receive £8 billion, having submitted projects costing that amount, some of them would have to be omitted, cut back or rephased. They said, "never mind, we are not getting £8 billion but we will wait for the half-term review". We had been warned that the half term review would not yield the same benefits as the half-term review in the previous plan had principally because other countries had learned how to prepare proper national plans. The reason we got money in the first mid-term review was that some other countries had prepared plans that were less than adequate and could not draw down the money.
Despite the warning that this money would not be available at the mid-term review the Government forged ahead and in the House in October 1993 conducted a false debate by implying that the plan would remain as it was irrespective of the loss of between £800 million and £1 billion. We had further unseemly action when it became clear that the money was not available. The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, like a petulant schoolboy went to Brussels in January and decided to blame the officials for losing the £800 million. There was not a word of guilt by the Government that it knew it would not get this money; it blamed the officials and created great embarrassment and great discredit on the country that we could not add and subtract properly.
It was not until the end of February last that the Government admitted — it was almost like extracting a tooth from a duck — that there would have to be rephasing, maybe some rebalancing and changing of the plan. The Government is caught up in putting "re" in front of so many words as if somehow it could not bring itself to say it will have to cut out, reduce or rewrite the plan. Instead it "rephases" and finds some other way of making the language unclear to the public as to what exactly is happening. In doing that it has discredited Ireland's role in the preparation of national plans. We know that the actual figure is £7.2 billion.
This motion calls on the Government to present the plan. Let us see what exactly is proposed in that plan. The Government is hiding behind its cowardly exteriors by saying it has no right to publish the plan and yet, in the past few weeks, and I am sure in the remaining seven or eight days before the by-elections, the Euro elections and the urban elections, Ministers will continue to announce all types of projects that they think will give them votes. We do not know what sum of money is available for national and secondary roads or whether the Dublin light rail system will be built. Neither do we know how much money for the Tallaght Hospital project will come from Brussels and what amount will be required from the Exchequer. However, Ministers feel confident in announcing all types of projects in their constituencies.
We are deeply concerned that this revised plan is ministerially and constituency driven where there is a certain amount of bartering and exchange of goodies from one Department to another. Ministers appear to be saying: "If you give me some of your money towards one of my projects, I will give you some money towards one of your projects". That is not the way to prepare a national plan. We can only go on the information we have because the Government will not announce the details of the revised plan submitted to Brussels. No amount of speech-making will convince us that there has not been a material change in the plan as published last year.
The Government will be out of office after a number of years and will disown the fact that certain projects could not be proceeded with. We will be told that projects had been re-phased, nothing happened and all the money was used. Ministers will say they did not get the mid-term review extra help they had expected. That is not credible politics and it is bringing discredit on the Government.
I wish to deal with the effectiveness of the plan. The 1989-93 plan set out to create 175,000 jobs. I realise the Minister of State present is from the Labour Party and so was not a party to the 1989-93 preparations. That plan created 80,000 jobs in a period when 70,000 jobs were lost, thus leaving a net increase of 10,000 jobs. If ever we needed a warning that the last plan should not be used as a blueprint for the present plan that was it. In the meantime while those 10,000 jobs were being created, 98,000 people emigrated and 63,000 people joined the dole queues. If that is progress and value for money from the 1989-93 plan I am a Dutchman.
It is evident that the last plan was not a blueprint for creating economic activity here or for improving the quality of life for people on the margins or for improving our infrastructure. We got some new roads but there are many things we did not do with that money. The warning must go out loud and clear that this is the last major tranche of money we will get as a result of our membership of the EU. We must use and invest it wisely and ensure that at the end of the five year review the credit column will be healthier than the debit column. As this plan has been bungled so badly I have no confidence that the position will improve.
The National Plan outlines four priority strategy goals: to strengthen the productive capacity of the economy — in other words create jobs; to improve economic infrastructure; to support local initiative for economic development and to develop skills and aptitudes of the workforce.
There are serious question marks over the Government's proposals to develop the skills and aptitudes of the workforce. The Minister of State may shake her head but that was one of the programmes the Commission questioned.
The Deputy should wait and see.
The Minister of State should not tell me to wait and see. The Government should publish the revised plan so that we do not have to be all hopes, promises, ifs, buts and whens. Let us see the plan. The Minister is afraid to do so before the European elections. If the Government was not afraid that plan would have been published. If it contained good proposals it would be published in order to gain benefit. Clearly the downside of that plan is greater than the upside.
I hope the Minister will give us some information and announce that she will make the plan public so that the public can see what her trials and tribulations have yielded. So far the Departments of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste's Office and every Department has been covered in shame on how this plan was prepared and changed and how we lost money. We do not know from where the local contributions will come. It is a matter of fudge.
It is regrettable that Fine Geal had to table a motion calling on the Government to publish an amended national development plan. It is regrettable also that the National Development Plan published last October can be discarded. Officials and sub-regional groups throughout the country put much effort into joining the various pieces of the jigsaw which they hoped would ultimately make up the national development plan which was published with a fanfare. I thought that the consultative process would have proved to be most rewarding for those engaged in it but when one examines the plan as published it is difficult to believe that the views of the sub-regional groups were taken into account by the Government which has not implemented its commitment to create a link between the people and power.
Parts of the National Development Plan are supposed to have been taken from the submission of the south eastern regional sub-group with which I am familiar but it includes projects not recommended by that group. The Government also failed to include many of the projects it recommended and wanted to see included. This proves that the consultative process was just a sham as Ministers and officials in Merrion Street made the decisions.
The National Development Plan should include more than a list of priorities over the six years of the plan. One would have thought that the Government would have learned from its mistakes in the last round of Structural Funds from 1989-93 and realised that throwing money at a problem in the economy would not necessarily yield a return in terms of growth and employment.
Fine Gael firmly believes that European Structural Funds will be wasted unless they act as a catalyst in the economy. Barriers to growth and job creation should be removed by domestic policy makers. In typical Fianna Fáil and Labour fashion this plan, although aspirational in terms of its likely impact on the economy, does not address the question of competitiveness, reducing the overall cost structure of the economy to sustain permanent employment rather than temporary training schemes. The current round of Structural Funds provides a unique opportunity to link people with power by ensuring that decisions with respect to the formulation of plans and the disbursal of funds are made at local level rather than in Merrion Street.
In view of the fact that this is likely to be our last major opportunity to achieve significant transfers of resources through the Regional and Social Funds it is crucial to get it right and learn from past mistakes. Unfortunately, it appears that the Government is committed to maintaining centralised control over the allocation and distributions of those funds. Instead of offering participation the Government proposes to consult the people. This flies in the face of statements made by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, in respect of the information campaign he has been seeking to wage about Europe during the past few weeks.
Local people are not being given any opportunity to make a meaningful input to the way in which plans will be implemented at local level. Is it any wonder that the Government has to expend considerable resources to ensure that the public knows what is happening in the European Union, that people feel alienated and that there is apathy about the European elections? Instead of devolving decision-making powers the Government is offering a confusing picture of more boards, authorities and fora which will not be held accountable at local level and to which local people will not have access. An initiative which would have provided a mechanism to draw local communities into the European process in a meaningful way has served to reinforce the concept of Europe as distant, impersonal and imposing where power resides with the Eurocrats, not people. Local involvement and participation have been marginalised in favour of centralised control. Cosmetic efforts have been made to consult local people to see what their priorities are. This decision should be reversed in the amended National Development Plan to give local people more discretion.
While there has been consultation in other European countries the National Development Plan was not debated in this House before it was published. Greece, for example, debated its plan for a considerable time. In Northern Ireland, the business community and voluntary groups were asked to make submissions to the Minister of State with responsibility for its national development plan which were later discussed with them. A balance was struck between the needs and aspirations of all sections of the community and the State. That is a model we could have used in terms of consultation and participation by local communities.
There has been much talk about the need for clarification in the Northern process and for North-South co-operation and institutional arrangements. I was the only politician who discussed the National Development Plan with officials in Stormont despite the fact that there is a chapter on North-South co-operation. The Government missed an opportunity to enter into meaningful discussions to see how economic cohesion and integration can be promoted between both parts of the island to the advantage of Border areas.
I call on the Minister of State to publish the amended National Development Plan immediately and to stop playing politics because people have a right to know. I was impressed by her yesterday when she stated she would like to see open and transparent Government and that that was why she supported the Ethics in Public Office Bill. She should not be afraid to publish the amended National Development Plan and not hide behind bureaucrats in Brussels and excuses that certain matters have not been resolved. The people are now deciding how they should vote in the European elections. This gives us an ideal opportunity to have a proper debate on European issues and on how we should spend the moneys we received from Europe. The Minister of State should take the opportunity, therefore, to publish the amended National Development Plan this week.
I have every sympathy for members of the Government and those sitting on the Government benches who have shown a lack of imagination in some instances and too much imagination in others. Members of both parties in Government, without exception, have ample opportunities to career around the country with gay abandon to deliver the goodies from Castlebar to Wexford and from Louth to Kerry; there is hardly a person who has not been the beneficiary of some announcement during the past few weeks. As election day draw closer commitments are being made with increased rapidity. It is amazing that this should happen at election time. I suppose it is purely a coincidence and that Ministers would have done this in any event. Group water schemes, hospitals and road works have been promised but, lo and behold, the framework for expenditure in the next four years is missing. The much vaunted national plan was examined in great detail by Members seeking inspiration but they failed. The people in Brussels also failed to find inspiration because they had to curtail the fervour of some of the people who contributed to its construction with the result that we are poorer now than in December 1992 or January 1993, as outlined in April 1993 by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State present. Having discovered that we are less well off then we thought, the Government in its wisdom decided to examine the next way of deluding itself — it is not deluding anybody else — and decided not to publish the revised plan because the unfortunate people of this country might then be as wise as it in regard to its intentions. That could not be the case because, notwithstanding the commitment to ethics in Government and so on, it would be terrible if they knew the intentions of the Government. Publication of the revised plan is far from the minds of those in Government.
It is understandable that at election time this might happen, but with the high mindedness and standards set by both parties in Government and their commitment to such ethics, the Government could depart from tradition in this case and publish the plan so that we would all know the areas in which there will be a shortfall. However, the Government did not do that. God help the poor people of this country, whether they live in constituencies where by-elections are about to take place or elsewhere, because ultimately some area will lose. Somebody will be codded, but who? Will it be the unfortunate people in Tallaght whose long awaited hospital has commenced construction, the unfortunate people of Castlebar who were promised a hospital yesterday, the mentally handicapped or those on training programmes? What Department will be involved, what Minister will be weakest when it comes to kicking shins under the table? What Minister will fall victim and pay the highest price? The Government has not published its revised plan because it has not agreed on the victim. I am sure that, as knives are being sharpened and shoes primed for the kicking sessions, a number of people will be lined up and targeted by both parties with a view to determining that they alone will get the biggest slice of the cake and under no circumstances will they be the victims of the campaign they are about to undertake.
Many of us are naive despite our years here. I was naive enough to believe even at this stage that there was some semblance of truth in what the Government has been telling us about ethics, transparency and so on for the past number of years, but I have been disappointed in that regard. I canvassed in the west Mayo area in the past few days and met people who were the victims of the recent agreements on fishing rights. They said that Government Ministers told them the Government was not responsible in that regard, that the bad, bold Europeans exerted the heavy hand and put a clenched fist on the poor unfortunate Irish people negotiating and fighting valiantly for the rights of their people. Needless to say it took me some time to explain that the Government was responsible for creating a position whereby an Irish delegation was not well received in Europe. The Europeans are sick to the teeth of the bowing and scraping, the cringing, the tearing of hair, the beating of breasts, the olagóning and the begging bowl tactics. The Irish delegations negotiating in Brussels have lost credibility because the Irish have outlived their welcome there. They have spent too much time in the past six months whingeing, whining and calling for more. Oliver Twist would not hold a candle to them.
Irish Ministers should have identified the correct amount in the first place but instead they damaged our image and standing in Europe. I hold both parties in Government responsible for that and the price will have to be paid for many years to come. The Government does not care because it believes its destiny is to be revered in the future as "the great white hope".
That would be acceptable if we were playing parish pump politics but they will not work in Europe. The people in Europe are past masters in that regard, they recognise parish pump politics at a glance and know how to deal with people who embark on them. They will laugh and neatly side-step them, as they did in this case.
The revised national plan has not been published, the Government claims it is prevented from doing so by the nasty people in Brussels who do not believe in transparency. However, after 9 June word will filter through and there will be some indication as to the full extent of the shortfalls and their location. We will then hear Ministers from both Government parties howling about who was hard done by. That will be a pretty sight, one would love to be a fly on the wall when that debate takes place at Cabinet as accusations and counter-accusations fly as to who misled whom and by how much. The unfortunate victims will be the people and our standing in the European arena.
I hope that somebody will resurrect a semblance of the halcyon days when both parties expressed high ideals at every available opportunity before going into Government and restore public confidence in the Government. What I gleaned from the public on the hustings in the past few months does not indicate a great degree of confidence in the ability of the Government to do anything at any level, not even at the parish pump and that is regrettable.
It is also regrettable that the Government will have to crawl back publicly from its exalted position in respect of the so-called £8 billion. There was nothing wrong with the amount being offered in the first instance, we were delighted with it but we should not spend so much time whingeing and begging for more. Surely we have a little pride in ourselves. It is not good for one's dignity to be seen to be adopting such postures in the world arena during the bargaining process. Our experiences of negotiations in the past few years have not been good — this does not apply to the GATT negotiations — but the Government parties have not shown themselves to be expert in this arena. It behoves them to remember this because in time people will ask why different agreements were entered into and the answer will be that was the way the Government of the day handled the negotiations. That was the way the Government handled it but the country paid the price.
I hope cuts will not be made in the health services, for example in services for the mentally handicapped, the elderly, for those in psychiatric institutions or those about to be transferred from institutional care to care in the community. I hope that vulnerable services will not be cut. I hope also that cuts will not be made in retraining programmes and that the Government will not continue with its charade of pretence. In suggesting there will be no change it is as if the Government is in a dream but at some stage it will have to face reality. Perhaps after the European elections, the two by-elections and the elections to urban authorities some member of the Government will tell the people that because of the shortfall in funding certain programmes will need to be cut. I hope we will have a debate on the issue then and that we will no longer continue to live in the world of make-believe where the Government believes but does not make and is clearly seen to be lacking in its commitment to identify goals and objectives. We have had enough of pretence.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, recognising the major contribution to jobs and to Ireland's economic potential arising from the substantial investment to be made with EU Structural Funds and associated public and private expenditure, supports the strategy and priorities set out in the National Development Plan, 1994-1999 and notes the success of the Government in ensuring that this strategy and these priorities will be fully reflected in the Community Support Framework, 1994-1999, final details of which are now being settled”.
With the permission of the Chair I wish to share my time with Deputies Callely and Kirk.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I thank the Members opposite for their expressions of support for the Bill we published yesterday and I look forward to their constructive support when we come to debate it.
I am surprised at the tone of this debate because we have put on record what will happen under the National Development Plan. It is matter of public record that the Community Support Framework has been negotiated with the European Commission on the basis of pro-rata adjustments to the published plan. We have been successful in those negotiations and the shape of the Community Support Framework will reflect almost to the last ecu the proportionate share of the investment as planned in the National Development Plan. All our flagship projects are in place. I am delighted to inform Deputy Owen, as I know she and I have a great interest in public transport, that the light rail transport proposals will go ahead in Dublin. I am delighted to inform Deputy Durkan that the Tallaght Hospital will be built; the foundation stone will be laid tomorrow.
Without the full £80 million?
Without curtailment?
The full funding for Tallaght Hospital will be in place.
The Exchequer funding?
It is irrelevant. The balance between Exchequer and EU funding of projects is irrelevant because the total is the same.
It is not irrelevant to the taxpayer.
It does not matter if one project is funded 80: 20 by the Exchequer and the European Union and the other is the opposite as long as the total adds up the same way. I am delighted that all our flagship projects are in place.
Since the plan was drawn up conditions have changed. Our economy is a great deal better than anticipated. Since we entered Government we have seen a rapid fall in interest rates, an upturn of confidence in the economy and an upturn in the number at work.
Watch this space.
Last month the number of unemployed fell by 6,000 and there was an increase last year of 16,000 in net non-agricultural employment. I am sure Deputy Owen will be delighted at the announcement of an extra 2,000 jobs in north County Dublin and as a fellow Dublin Deputy she will welcome that announcement. As the economy is doing well we are in a position to ensure that if we have to proceed more slowly than originally anticipated, the Exchequer will be in a healthy position. The paper by Mr. Patrick Honohan in the recent ESRI medium-term review states that if an investment yields a return that is higher than the cost of funding it, that investment makes sense for the Irish Exchequer. I made this point repeatedly in the House.
Discussions are almost completed with the European Commission on the National Development Plan prior to agreement on the Community Support Framework which will set out the broad national and sectoral strategies for the use of Structural Funds. We are at the stage of dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's", filling in the final details.
Joining the dots.
Contrary to the impression created by Deputies opposite — I appreciate they may not have the same detailed knowledge of the progress of the negotiations——
The Government will not tell us.
They may not have listened to our discussions on the subject. Negotiations have gone extremely well in Brussels and the shape of the Community Support Framework will reflect the National Development Plan. There is no question of a separate revised National Development Plan. National authorities decide their development strategy and on the basis of this put forward their proposals for expenditure in the structural area, including the use of Structural Funds and domestic resources in the National Development Plan. The plan is then discussed with the European Commission and following those discussions the Community Support Framework is agreed. It will set out inter alia the development objectives, the priorities adopted for Community assistance and the indicative financing plan.
Following adoption of the Community Support Framework, the operational programmes are approved. These set out in more detail the objectives and measures for each of the main sectors. The programmes are the legal basis for the commitment of EU aid. As I told the House on several occasions, we agreed the financial details with Brussels and at this stage we are filling in the small print.
The National Development Plan and the Community Support Framework are separate documents representing different stages in the process. The question of a revised National Development Plan does not arise. As I will explain later, the publication of the Community Support Framework will be a matter for the Commission in due course.
In addition to expenditure proposals which will be aided under the Community Support Framework, Ireland's plan includes investments to be aided by the Cohesion Fund, under the Structural Funds Community initiative programmes and under the EFTA Cohesion Fund in the 1994-1999 period. Those are governed by different administrative procedures to the Community Support Framework and are not part of the current negotiations. The plan also includes eligible national structural expenditure not proposed for EU aid and 1993 expenditure, including 1993 EU aid.
As Deputies are aware, the allocation of resources to Ireland agreed by the Commission in July 1993 falls within the range 8.1 to 9.3 billion ECU in 1992 prices. Converting to Irish pounds and to 1994 prices, this is equivalent to a range of £6.9 billion to £8 billion.
In October 1993 the Commission decided the amounts on which it would negotiate Community Support Frameworks for the disbursement of the Structural Funds in the period 1994-95. These amounts do not cover all the resources in the range because 1993 Structural Fund resources were already allocated and Community initiatives and Cohesion Fund moneys are treated separately.
Community Support Frameworks are broad statements of priorities and commitments and the indicative amounts of Community assistance contained in them may be subject to adjustment during the implementation period. For Ireland, the Community Support Framework amount expressed in 1994 prices is 5.62 billion ECU or IR£4.54 billion, that is the figure we understood we would get on 24 October. As regards Community initiatives no allocations to member states have yet been made. Cohesion Fund resources over the period 1994-99 are expected to be in line with the figure included in the National Development Plan.
The allocation approved for Ireland under the Community Support Framework fell short of the amount which the Government had included in the plan in respect of the Community Support Framework element. This shortfall was recognised and acknowledged by the Government from the outset.
It was not.
It is important to distinguish between two different issues. The Community Support Framework has to be agreed now on the basis of the EU aid allocated by the Commission at this stage. Accordingly, adjustments have been made to the expenditure allocations to take account of the shortfall in EU aid. That will be done on a pro rata basis. It is our belief and expectation that we will do better over the period. We will continue at every stage to maximise the aid for Ireland. We have no intention of taking our plan off the table. However, the Community Support Framework has to be agreed on the basis of the aid now available.
The National Development Plan represents a set of strategies and priorities carefully chosen by the Government. The Community Support Framework has been agreed on a pro rata basis reflecting those carefully chosen strategies and priorities. As the Dáil has been previously informed, the Government has decided that in the light of the shortfall, there should be a pro rata reduction in the allocation to Departments under the plan. That reduction was applied to combined EU aid and Exchequer totals. I am somewhat amused by Deputy Durkan's description of people kicking and screaming because the agreement had been reached.
The National Development Plan was submitted to the Commission in October 1993. Since then discussions have proceeded with officials and they have gone extremely well. The detailed discussions on the Community Support Framework began in February 1994. Agreement was reached on the major substantive issues and on the financial allocations in April. Since then officials in the Commission and in the Government Departments concerned have been working on the preparation of the text and sorting out issues of detail — literally the small print. The final items relating to matters such as the completion of the list of development indicators to be included, verification of some statistics and fine tuning of the text are being wrapped up at present.
The draft Community Support Framework is likely to be submitted shortly by the Commission services to the Commission for approval. Following Commission approval, the draft Community Support Framework will be sent to four Community level committees which deal with Structural Fund matters for their opinions. That procedure is likely to take about three weeks. The Commission will then formally approve and publish the Community Support Framework. Therefore, it is not possible at this stage to give a precise date on which the Community Support Framework will be published; I hope it will be early July at the latest.
That is convenient.
We have nothing to hide. We put our figures on the table and put forward a pro rata proposition which has been agreed by the Commission and the information is available. It is now a question of publication by the Commission.
The regulations governing the Structural Funds state that unless otherwise agreed with the member-state concerned, the Commission shall take a decision approving the Community Support Framework not later than six months after receiving the plan. The process has proved to be more time consuming than has been expected on either side. That is not only the case for Ireland, the same applies to other member states. We are anxious to wrap up the matter, draw down the money and move on. There is no delay on our side. I would have been happier if it could have been published before now. It is important that the officials take the necessary time to ensure that the detailed work is finalised properly. Although it has taken a little longer to finalise, that should not be a matter of great concern. Our operational programmes were submitted before the end of April and detailed work on them has been on a parallel line with that of the Community Support Framework. Expenditure from 1 January 1994 is eligible for EU assistance. Furthermore a significant part of the expenditure is Exchequer-financed and expenditure in areas such as roads, sanitary services, industry, agriculture, training and education has been provided for in the normal Estimates process and has been going ahead from the beginning of the year, even if final agreement with the Commission has not been reached.
It has been suggested that the Government has some reason to delay the publication of the Community Support Framework, but the opposite is the case. I am anxious to get it up and running. The Community Support Framework will demonstrate how wrong Members of the Opposition were in their prediction in previous debates on this matter. Our negotiations have gone extremely well in Brussels. I listened to some fiction about the description of the discussions between the officials in my Department and the officials in Brussels, which have been extremely business-like.
The attack by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, on officials in Brussels is not fiction.
The priorities we have addressed are included, particularly our strong emphasis on education and training, which was endorsed by the independent study of the plan sought by the Commission and carried out by Philip O'Connell and Patrick Honohan in the ESRI.
Deputy Hogan said that competitiveness was not taken on board. One of the four pillars of the plan is to improve our competitiveness and make Ireland a better place in which to do business by reducing costs, particularly in the area of transport and communications. Regarding the involvement of local communities, this plan places radical emphasis on the area of devolved local development. Community and voluntary sector interests will be formally represented, as appropriate, on the monitoring committees and on the sub-regional committees set up under the regional authorities.
I agree with Deputy Durkan about the need to maintain and increase expenditure for the mentally handicapped. Since we entered Government we have made this a priority. The Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, has ensured that we are spending an additional £25 million in the area of mentally handicap. I hope we will be able to improve on that as we draw down additional funds under Community initiatives and allocate the fruits of increased economic growth to caring for people who are not in a position to fight for themselves. I endorse his plea in that area. He can be assured that plea will be answered.
The Government strategy as set out in the National Development Plan has been endorsed by the Commission and the discussion has been marked by a large measure of agreement. All the key elements of the plan are in place. The total amount of EU aid is less than we expected, so the pace of implementation may be affected. I agree with Members opposite that we need to ensure value for money. We do not want any more Kilrush marinas or projects which do not provide the best value for public money. Because of our healthy economic position it will be more difficult to get as generous a share of EU aid in the next round. We must ensure that we spend each Ecu in the most effective way possible. I have asked the Department of Finance to draw up revised guidelines for the appraisal and management of projects and they are at an advanced stage of preparation. We say loud and clear to those concerned with spending these moneys that we want value for money. We want each project judged to ensure that the correct amount of money is spent and no more. We do not want Rolls Royce projects where a more modest specification would ensure effective value for public money.
We want rigorous appraisal and management of all aspects of projects to see they are designed and implemented in the most economical, efficient and effective way possible. Within the fixed allocations for each sector it is obvious that any over design of excess capacity built into projects or inefficiency in project management will reduce the overall number of projects that can be undertaken over the period and this must be avoided. It is important to secure better value for money than we got in the last round of the Structural Funds. That message must be got across and clear to ensure that we get the best value for our investment in terms of a long term contribution to Ireland's output and economic performance. That is the purpose of the plan and on what we will deliver. We have nothing to hide and are anxious to publish. We were looking for pro rata and we have got that. I am very happy that we will get that in the context of the very substantial local development programme slightly increased over what we looked for. There was very substantial local consultation and involvement, something that is new in this plan, a particular focus on unemployment black spots. I hope that in the better economic climate to which we look forward we can ensure that those most in need are not left out.
I am pleased to have the opportunity of participating in the debate on the motion before the House. The National Development Plan is a substantial programme of investment of £17 billion, the biggest investment in the State since its foundation and an achievement of which the Government can be proud. The impact of spending such funds, if invested wisely, will be considerable.
I am pleased the Government addressed all major national interests in the plan and focuses on the need to create an environment for sustainable employment. It is a challenge to any Government to have such funds available for investment in the country. In Ireland there is a great fund of talent and it is hoped that with that mix we will get the cocktail right in the coming years. Under this and the last Government Ireland has an outstanding record of achievement. This has been the case under Fianna Fáil-led administrations since 1987.
Is the Deputy disowning the Minister of State?
Not at all. I am very proud of Fianna Fáil's record in all Governments to date, in Fianna Fáil-led administrations, including this Government. That is not to disown anybody.
I am a little concerned at the Opposition speakers having a bash at the National Development Plan.
At the Government.
It is not the first time Fine Gael tried to undermine the plan or the success of the Minister for Finance at the time, Deputy Albert Reynolds, in achieving the allocation for Ireland in December 1992. I am not too sure of the date.
He was Taoiseach and he came back from Edinburgh with it "in the bag".
We should give credit where credit is due. I do not like to embarrass Deputy Owen but, prior to the Taoiseach's visit to Edinburgh, her own party was on record as saying he would come back with £3 billion.
No, we never said that, but he said he had £8 billion and he did not. I would not boast about it if I were the Deputy.
Let us clear the decks on this. The Deputy's party said publicly that the amount would be £3 billion and other parties suggested different figures. In those negotiations Ireland proved the most successful in terms of funds per head of population. Fine Gael criticised the Taoiseach on that occasion. When it was deemed necessary to reduce our allocation slightly Fine Gael took the opportunity yet again to jump on the bandwagon.
The Deputy is great at rewriting history.
People listening to a debate of this nature do not want to get into the politics of politics because they do not like it. Perhaps it is because of its tactics that the Deputy's party is hovering at around 20 per cent in the opinion polls regardless of what it does. It is attacking a national development plan which addresses all the major national issues and addresses the issue of singular concern to everybody in Ireland today, that is, the need to create the right environment for sustainable employment. What does Fine Gael do except bash the plan and the fact that the Taoiseach was so successful in getting such high funding for Ireland? If one wanted to make comparisons one could look at what the Fine Gael-led administration did while in office.
The Deputy should pronounce our party's name properly.
I do not wish to upset the Deputy.
The Deputy is long enough here now. He is not a little schoolboy anymore. He should learn the real names of the parties.
Look at how successful Fine Gael was when it negotiated on behalf of Ireland. When one compares the £8 billion that the Taoiseach was successful in achieving——
He did not get £8 billion.
——on which he achieved agreement in December 1992.
Even the Minister is smiling.
At the end of the day there will be a total investment in Ireland in excess of £16 billion and probably more will be drawn down from EU funding. Other people might see a comparison between that and what Fine Gael did as the acid test. Fine Gael had the opportunity to secure EU funding for Ireland and came back with £1 billion.
The Deputy should remember there were no Structural Funds then.
I believe what was brought back to the country at that time was £1 billion but this plan is the result of consultation. Deputy Owen said there was no consultation but it is my understanding that there was extensive consultation and discussion when drafting the plan and the names of those who took part in the discussions are widely available.
I believe my time is running out but I felt it was important to clarify my understanding of the situation.
The Deputy did not do it very well.
I am pleased that we now have a Dublin regional authority in place and to note that the Minister has indicated that light rail and other matters relating to the transport needs of the city will go ahead. I have no doubt that the plans to be drafted by the Dublin regional authority will get due consideration and due airing and discussion.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 June 1994.