Joe Walsh
Question:2 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Social Welfare the progress there has been with regard to obtaining £10 million for Ireland from the stalled EU Poverty IV Programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13942/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EU Poverty IV Programme.
It is a mistake to view this issue purely in terms of obtaining additional EU funds for Ireland. To do so is to misunderstand the role and importance of a further EU poverty programme. From Ireland's point of view the issue is not a budgetary one. The real question is what we can do about the gulf between those European citizens who benefit from increased economic growth and those who do not. Given the objective of a single European market and a political and economic union the value of a European wide anti-poverty programme is that it would create the circumstances for a comparative approach to poverty and social exclusion and thus opportunities for a transfer of experience between member states.
A further EU poverty programme would also be of importance in ensuring that issues of poverty and social exclusion are central to EU policies and programmes generally. Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union recognises that one of the tasks of the Union is to maintain economic and social cohesion and solidarity between all the member states. The Commission and all member states need to ensure that this aspiration is given real meaning in the day-to-day operations and policy making of the Union.
The Government is keeping poverty and social exclusion to the forefront on the national agenda by initiating the development of a national anti-poverty strategy. The strategy will involve all Government Departments drawing up specific plans to target poverty in society in consultation with and participation by people particularly affected by poverty and social exclusion.
As the Deputy is aware, a proposal for a fourth EU poverty programme to combat social exclusion, which requires unanimity, has been blocked by Germany and the UK. The German Government has objected not only to the timing of the new programme and to doubling the budget, but also raised objections in principle to the proposal. The proposal requires the unanimous acceptance by all member states. To date, all efforts by the Commission and other member states, including personal interventions by myself on behalf of the Irish Government, have not succeeded in changing the German and UK Governments' opposition to this particular proposal. It is clear that the objections to the specific proposal put forward by the Commission are deeply rooted.
The issue of a follow-up to the third EU poverty programme is on the agenda for the meeting of EU Social Affairs Ministers in Luxembourg tomorrow and I have had a meeting in advance with the current Spanish President of the Social Affairs Council who has offered support for my efforts to encourage our European colleagues to move this debate forward. I will be pressing for an initiative which will give practical expression to Europe's aspirations and commitments to tackling poverty and social exclusion, while taking account of the concerns and views of those who have opposed the specific proposal tabled by the Commission.
This has been going on since early this year. I have extreme difficulty in understanding the Minister's position regarding the straightforward matter of getting agreement at the Council of Ministers to a £10 million poverty programme for Ireland. How many meetings has the Minister had, and how many bilateral meetings has he had?
The Deputy is badly briefed if he thinks this matter started only this year. It has been going on for a number of years. The previous occupant of my Department, Deputy Woods, had no success either in overcoming the objections of the German Government to a fourth poverty programme. It is erroneous and misleading to imply that this is a new obstacle to the programme. I have made every effort. I have gone so far as to appoint a special representative of my Department in Brussels to pursue this and other matters on behalf of my Department. Only yesterday I met the President of the Council in Dublin and raised this matter with him, and he undertook to support any initiative I might bring forward at the Council tomorrow. I am hopeful that we can have some movement on the matter from tomorrow's Council meeting.
We have had more obfuscation from the Minister, which is typical. This matter has been going on since July 1994. Deputy De Rossa has been Minister since December 1994 and he has been fudging this issue at Question Time since the beginning of the year. How many bilateral meetings, and how many meetings in total, has the Minister had to resolve this matter? The Minister will probably again refuse to tell the House, but I am putting the question anyway.
It is irrelevant.
Is there anything a Deputy can do when the Minister refuses to answer a straightforward question?
This is a matter over which the Chair has no control.
It is such hypocrisy.
If Members are dissatisfied with Ministers' replies they have a remedy. They may pursue the matters in other ways.
Question Time, I assume, is for eliciting information. I am asking the Minister a straightforward question regarding the £10 million funding for poverty in Ireland, and he is refusing to answer.
Members will appreciate that the Chair, whoever he or she might be at any given time, cannot compel any Member to speak if he or she does not want to do so.
We may as well dispense with Question Time then. What is the point of having it?
Let us not continue this argument; it if futile. I want to assist the Deputy in eliciting relevant information. If the Deputy has a direct question let him put it.
It is appalling that the Minister refuses to answer a simple, straightforward question. How many meetings has he had with his colleagues in the European Council of Ministers to resolve the problem of the blocking of the £10 million programme for Ireland?
I have already indicated to the Deputy that that is irrelevant to the question of whether we will succeed in putting in place a European Union poverty programme which will ensure that the question of poverty can be dealt with on a European wide basis. I have already indicated the action this Government is taking relating to poverty in Ireland. I have indicated what my Department has done about putting in place a national anti-poverty strategy.
Answer the question.
I have indicated that for the first time a representative of my Department is now permanently located in Brussels to pursue this and other matters. The question of how many meetings and discussions I personally have had is irrelevant.
The Minister is waffling.
I have a lot of other information but the Deputy is not interested in asking about it. He is only interested in point scoring. He is not interested in poverty.
Is the Minister, with 2.5 per cent?
This is unsatisfactory and I wish to serve notice that I want to put on the agenda of the next meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that a Member of this House cannot elicit information at Question Time. I wish to give notice of my intention to raise this matter on the Adjournment because essentially the Minister is refusing point blank to co-operate at Question Time.
I will facilitate the Deputy in any way I can.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputy Callely persists again in intervening when he is not justified in doing so, I will have to ask him to leave. The Chair is finding it difficult enough to preside over this particular session just now. If the Deputy wishes to raise this matter at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges he may take the initiative himself. Many of his colleagues are on that body.