Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 1997

Vol. 485 No. 2

Written Answers. - Community Support Framework.

John Bruton

Question:

246 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if his Department, or agencies under its aegis, are receiving funds from the Community Support Framework of the EU; and, if so, the steps, if any, he is taking to ensure that the private sector are allowed to participate in tendering for grants under the operational programme on the basis of criteria set down in advance as agreed as part of the mid-term review of the Community Support Framework. [22607/97]

John Bruton

Question:

247 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the money, if any, his Department has received under the Community Support Framework; the underspendings of allocated funds, if any, there have been under the Community Support Framework in the areas for which his Department is responsible; if a report giving details of the reasons for under spending has been prepared for the monitoring committee; and, if so, if he will publish this report. [22608/97]

John Bruton

Question:

248 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the measures, if any, which are being taken to increase cost recovery or provide for more competition in the delivery of services in accordance with a decision taken in the context of the mid-term review of Structural Funds in relation to funds received by his Department, or bodies under the aegis of his Department, from the European Structural Funds; and, if so, the specific new measures, if any, which are being undertaken for this purpose. [22658/97]

John Bruton

Question:

249 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the steps, if any, he will take to improve the quality of cost benefit analyses in relation to funds received by his Department or by bodies under the aegis of his Department under the Community Support Framework in view of the criticisms of the quality of some cost benefit analysis arising during the mid-term review of the Structural Funds. [22674/97]

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 246, 247, 248 and 249 together.

My Department is the lead Department for the Transport and Environmental Services Operational Programmes, although other Departments are responsible for certain measures assisted under these OPs. The urban and village renewal sub-programme of the Local Urban and Rural Development OP also comes within the remit of my Department.

Details of the different measures to be assisted, including the financing arrangements and implementing agencies, are set out in the various OPs, copies of which are available in the Oireachtas Library. In so far as measures for which my Department is responsible are concerned, EU aid receipts are remitted directly to the Exchequer, with the exception of small amounts of FEOGA aid which are brought to account as appropriations-in-aid under my Department's Vote.

In general, progress on the measures for which my Department is responsible is satisfactory. With the exception of the waste management sub-programme under the Environmental Services OP, any underspend which has occurred has been minor in the context of overall OP spending, and should be made good over the remainder of the CSF period. The Mid-Term Review of the Community Support Framework 1994-99 (CSF) recommended the re-allocation of 8 mecu of aid from the waste management sub-programme of the environmental services OP and the addition of aid of 26 mecu to the national roads programme, and this has been taken into account in formulating my Department's Estimates for 1998 and the relevant "no policy change" projection for 1999. Funding for the waste management sub-programme was reduced due to the fact that arrangements to mobilise this sub-programme took longer than originally anticipated. The sub-programme focused on new actions, for which national legislation and policy were being developed when the OP was approved, and which required consultation with or approval from the EU Commission.

Regular progress reports on all measures are provided to the relevant monitoring committees and annual reports are prepared in respect of OPs. The question of publication of reports prepared for and by the individual OP monitoring committees is a matter for decision by those committees.

While the specific criticisms advanced by the CSF evaluator in relation to cost benefit analyses were not directed at measures for which my Department is responsible, I accept fully that we should aspire to secure the best possible value for money from all public and EU assisted spending. The Mid-Term Review of the CSF notes that the CSF evaluation unit will finalise its draft paper on cost benefit analysis to address certain concerns of the CSF evaluator regarding the quality of such analyses. I understand that the unit will be issuing guidelines in the matter for the benefit of Departments and implementing agencies; these will be taken into account, as appropriate, in relation to EU co-financed programmes for which my Department is responsible.

The Mid-Term Review of the CSF acknowledges the CSF evaluator's recommendations in regard to greater recourse to cost recovery and competition in the delivery of services. It goes on to recognise that there are inherent risks, as well as practical difficulties, in attempting to introduce fundamental changes over a short period of time.

It seems clear that both the CSF Mid-Term Review itself and the CSF evaluator's report do not focus on measures under my Department's remit in the context of encouraging greater competition in service provision. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the private sector, through the competitive tendering process, already undertakes construction of the roads and water-waste water services infrastructure which accounts for by far the greatest part of my Department's structural fund spending. The concept of procuring projects on a design-build-operate basis has been introduced into the waste water services programme already, and this option will be kept under review in relation to other programmes also.

As far as cost recovery is concerned, the Mid-Term Review highlights the importance of carrying out a study on road pricing. I refer to the answer to Question No. 250 on today's Order Paper in this regard.

Finally, in relation to Question No. 246, I am unclear as to what grants and what operational programme the Deputy is referring to. If clarification can be provided on this, I will be pleased to provide the information required.

John Bruton

Question:

250 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if the provision of additional resources for national roads under the Community Support Framework has been made contingent by the European Commission on the issue of road pricing being examined; the nature of the correspondence, if any, received from the Commission on this matter; the way in which he proposes to introduce road pricing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22691/97]

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey)

In the context of the Mid-Term Review of the Community Support Framework, it was agreed at the request of the European Commission that a study of road pricing and related issues, with reference to practice across the EU, would be carried out. Arrangements for that study are currently being finalised in consultation with the European Commission. I have no proposals to introduce road pricing.

Brendan Howlin

Question:

251 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Cohesion Fund Monitoring Committee has suspended further payments towards the Ballymount Waste Baling Station until the local authorities in Dublin introduce a user charging system; his views on this development; if he will meet the shortfall, if any, in funding from the EU from Exchequer sources; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22842/97]

Brendan Howlin

Question:

252 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government his views on whether the Cohesion Fund Monitoring Committee's demands that a user charge be introduced in Dublin in relation to the Ballymount Waste Baling Station is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity; the action, if any, he will take to address this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22843/97]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 251 and 252 together.

I am aware of the position adopted by the European Commission concerning the grant of assistance under the Cohesion Fund in respect of the waste baling facility at Ballymount, County Dublin. It is a matter for the local authorities concerned in the first instance to address the issue raised by the Commission. Having regard to the polluter pays principle and the principle of producer responsibility, Exchequer funding is not available in respect of waste disposal infrastructure.

The interpretation of the law in relation to the application of the principle of subsidiarity is a matter for the courts.