Michael Woods
Question:11 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Social Welfare the status of the EU Poverty IV programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5842/97]
Priority Questions. - Poverty IV Programme.
While 13 member states including Ireland support the proposed Poverty IV programme, two EU member states have blocked the proposal which, to be put into effect, currently requires unanimity among all European member states. The situation in relation to the Poverty IV programme has highlighted the need to underpin the capacity and competency of the Union to carry out effective actions in this area.
Last year the European Commission invited applications for funding in respect of anti-poverty projects, separate from the Poverty IV programme. Soon afterwards, the United Kingdom Government made an application to the European Court for an order annulling the decision setting up the schemes.
The President of the Court issued an order in September 1996 stating that while groups could continue to apply for grants no funds could be paid out until the final judgment by the court had been delivered. The effect of this judgment has been to make it very difficult for some poorly resourced groups to plan or commence projects without a guarantee of Commission funding.
The laudable, ambitious and visionary plans for economic and monetary union highlight what can be advanced at a European level and also, when compared with EU anti-poverty initiatives such as I have described how much remains to be done at a European level in the area of social policy.
It was for these reasons the Minister secured the agreement of his Government colleagues to the advancement by Ireland of a proposal within the Intergovernmental Conference to include a specific treaty change which would improve the Union's competence in the area of actions relating to social exclusion.
Was a positive report given on the previous poverty programme on behalf of Ireland? Was it strongly recommended that these programmes be continued? Did the Minister visit and make representations to the two States involved, the United Kingdom and Germany? Has the Minister spoken with the relevant Ministers in Germany and in the United Kingdom to win over their support for a continuation of the poverty programmes?
During the Irish Presidency, the proposal was advanced by the Minister through numerous bilateral meetings with other EU social affairs Ministers. On World Poverty Day in October 1996, the Minister spoke to the European Anti-Poverty Network at the European Parliament on the subject and later that month spoke in the parliament regarding a resolution by MEPs broadly supportive of Ireland's proposal, which was subsequently carried without dissent.
During the Presidency, within the Council of Ministers, the Minister reluctantly took the view that there was no point in seeking to discuss directly the Poverty IV proposal as the German and United Kingdom Governments were firmly opposed to it. Instead, the Minister's efforts have centred on a proposed treaty change in relation to social exclusion, in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference and also, particularly during the Presidency, on leading a broadly based discussion on the major challenges facing social protection systems in Europe.
Discussion concentrated on what social protection systems should be doing to contribute to the fight against unemployment. Drawing on discussions in July, the Minister and his fellow EU Social Affairs Ministers agreed, at Council on 2 December 1996, a resolution — Council Resolution 96/C 386/02 — which set out the broad principles which would be applied, within national systems, in this regard. Ministers indicated their commitment to develop new approaches aimed at helping to prevent people falling into unemployment; they also indicated they would co-operate, under the aegis of the Commission, in the exchange of information between member states on practices and policies in this area. Such commitments were directly reflected in the Dublin Declaration on Employment, The Jobs Challenge.
My Department continues to be represented on and is actively participating in the debate and discussion relating to EU anti-poverty policy being carried out by the European Commission's high level group on social exclusion. It is expected that work undertaken by the group should result in a Commission communication, later in the year, on activities in the field of social exclusion across the Union. Publication of the communication at that time may well represent an opportunity to raise again the issue of action by the European Union in the anti-poverty policy area.
Is the Minister aware those two countries have been firmly opposed to poverty programmes in the past for reasons which affect themselves? Is he aware it was through negotiation with the Ministers directly and a review of the schemes as they operated that a new programme was agreed? I gather from what the Minister of State has said that the Minister did not consider it worthwhile to pursue this line because he believed the two countries were so firmly opposed. That is not an adequate answer or process because negotiation is at the heart of the work of the Council of Ministers. The Minister should discuss these matters with some of the Ministers and show how valuable they have been here and agree a review. That is how it was done in the past. It seems the Minister is not interested in doing that and consequently has failed to deliver.
Quite the contrary. The Minister used every opportunity at his disposal to ensure the case was made to achieve the objective, of which the Deputy is supportive. He was negotiating, at the level at which the Deputy has negotiated previously, and was in a better position to judge the method by which he should proceed. He proceeded correctly on the basis of what he saw as being the area where he was likely to get most support and be most successful. So far the result he desired has not been achieved but he is continuing to pursue, at this moment, the procedures necessary to achieve a resolution of the problem.
Not at this moment. He has other things on his mind.
It is one thing to presume what is likely to happen in particular circumstances, it is another to be at the coalface and to achieve the desired result.
Where is the Minister?
Be careful.
A question has been asked as to where the Minister is. The Minister sent me a note indicating he was detained elsewhere and that the Minister of State would deal with questions on his behalf. On both these issues — butter vouchers and the Poverty IV programme — the Minister has failed to negotiate a proper position. We have been let down badly by the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. It is regrettable that these valuable projects, of which we have had some useful ones in Ireland, have been allowed to fall by the wayside. What moneys have been provided for continuing the projects here?
I refute the Deputy's allegations that the Minister or the Government has failed. In fact, the Minister has proceeded in a correct fashion. As regards the reference to the butter mountain, we have already dealt with that and I do not propose to go back over it again. However, I feel that the use of the sound bite, which is obviously what the Deputy is attempting to avail of in that circumstance, is——
I am not very good at sound bites. Some of my colleagues can do that.
I always listen with great interest to the sound bite. Over the years I have become attuned to recognising it at an early stage. It is not true that the Minister has failed in any regard.
He just did not bring home the bacon.
He prefers to bark than to bite.
Negotiations have taken place at every possible level and are still being pursued vigorously by the Minister. In the interests of the country the Minister has pursued the best policy with a view to achieving a satisfactory outcome. It has not happened in relation to the Poverty IV programme yet but, hopefully, it will eventually.
It would want to happen very soon.
Time is running out.
I would not advise the Deputy to hold his breath in relation to some other event he may have in the back of his mind. There will be ample time to deal with this issue to the satisfaction of the Deputy, other Members of the House and people throughout the country who depend on the outcome.