Proinsias De Rossa
Question:5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the next summit of EU Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19362/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Ministerial Meetings.
Denis Naughten
Question:6 Mr. Naughten asked the Taoiseach the date of the next meeting of EU Heads of State; the venue for the meeting; and the agenda items. [19365/98]
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the Austrian Chancellor, Mr. Klima. [20118/98]
John Bruton
Question:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Cork with the European Commissioner for Regional Affairs, Ms Wulf-Mathies. [20119/98]
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings, if any, he will have before attending the EU Heads of Government meeting in Vienna on 24 and 25 October 1998. [20120/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:10 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 16 October 1998 with EU Regional Commissioner Wulf-Mathies; if the issue of regionalisation in Ireland in the context of the next round or EU Structural Funds was discussed; and the Commissioner's view on the possibility of splitting the country for purposes of the next round of funds. [20181/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, together.
The EU Heads of State or Government and the President of the Commission will have an informal meeting in Pörtschach in Austria on 24-25 October. Given the nature of the meeting, no formal decisions will be taken and no written conclusions will be issued.
In preparation for this meeting, I met Austrian Federal Chancellor Viktor Klima on 12 October in Government Buildings. The meeting took place as part of the Chancellor's tour of capitals in advance of Pörtschach, and was preceded by an official level meeting on Wednesday, 30 September.
The subjects for discussion for Pörtschach have not yet been finally identified. My discussions with the Federal Chancellor focused on the issues identified in the Cardiff Conclusions which included subsidiarity and democratic legitimacy, institutional issues, the role and proposed reform of the General Affairs Council, and the appointment of a high representative for common foreign and security policy. Those issues have been discussed at recent meetings of the Ministers and Secretaries General group. In addition, the Chancellor indicated that a number of essentially forward looking questions would be addressed at Pörtschach. Among these are the economic role which Europe should play in a global economy and consideration of how best the Union can be represented externally, including the mechanisms available to co-ordinate policy in this area.
In terms of specific priorities, I highlighted to Chancellor Klima Ireland's fundamental concern that every member state should retain the right to nominate a full member of the Commission, a principle which was respected at Amsterdam but which will undoubtedly come up again. I will also be attentive to ensuring that whatever changes — procedural or administrative — which are suggested are examined with a view to maintaining the rights and interests of smaller member states.
I met EU Commissioner Monika Wulf-Mathies in Cork on Friday, 16 October. We had a very useful meeting which covered Agenda 2000 and the timetable for the completion of negotiations. I emphasised Ireland's strong case for generous transition arrangements and the need to continue a targeted approach in the areas of social inclusion and infrastructure. The Commissioner confirmed our understanding that regionalisation is an internal issue for Ireland. While it is open to the Government to decide whether to make a case for regionalisation, ultimately Eurostat will decide whether any regions specified are acceptable.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the statement issued by the Combat Poverty Agency on 29 September in which it warned against proposals to prioritise selected counties for Objective One status? Is he further aware that a report on poor households and spatial distribution of poverty in Ireland shows that there is poverty in every county and that the Combat Poverty Agency, whose role is to advise Government on poverty issues, strongly advises against a two region strategy, which appears to be favoured by the Government currently? Have the statements and submission by the CPA and the report I referred to earlier been taken into account during current Government consideration of this issue?
I have read large sections of the report and it will be taken into account in the Government's deliberations on this issue.
What role has Commissioner Wulf-Mathies in the decision-making process? Will the Taoiseach confirm that she has no role in the designation of regions for Objective One status? Will he also confirm that should the west, midland and Border counties not receive Objective One status, this would restrict the amount of grant aid which the State could give them for industrial and tourism projects? Following a statement in the House last week by the Minister for Finance and a statement by some of his officials at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs will the Taoiseach confirm that the country as a whole will be a net beneficiary and receive increased Structural Funds through regionalisation compared to transitional status for the entire country?
While the questions do not strictly deal with regionalisation, all of the cases referred to by the Deputy are correct. The country would be a net beneficiary and Commissioner Wulf-Mathies does not make the decisions. We will make the decision to go for regionalisation. Eurostat picks the region because it is based on a statistical fact and the definition it uses of GDP, not one which we would put on it. The question regarding resources and how they would be divided is correct. My discussions with the Commissioner were very much on the Agenda 2000 package which is her responsibility. Her role is to hold such discussions over the next six months or so. She reiterated her desire, which we strongly support, that the discussions should be concluded by Easter and should be discussed in detail at the Vienna Summit in mid-December 1999.
The summit has been called to explore, among other things, ways to engage the public more imaginatively in the process of European integration. What ideas will the Taoiseach put forward? Will he support the recommendation of the Delors group that each of the major groups in the European Parliament put forward its nominee for President of the European Commission in advance of the European Parliament elections to allow the public indicate its preferred party and thus give a mandate to the candidate of its choice for President of the European Commission? Did the Taoiseach raise with the Austrian Chancellor the recent change in immigration policy announced by the Austrian Government and discuss with him our immigration policy? Did he discuss with the Austrian Chancellor the Austrian experience in Partnership for Peace and the reasons Ireland has not joined? Did he discuss with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies his view that urban Ireland requires a special initiative, whether it be an URBAN II initiative, an extension of the local development partnership concept, territorial pacts or a specific project for urban villages such as Inchicore and Crumlin, to be pursued jointly by the Government and the European Union and, if so, what was the response?
The issues to be discussed at the Vienna summit will be further considered this week. It is unlikely much progress will be made on the institutional issue raised by the Deputy. There is no great demand for change. How the General Affairs Council operates and how its time has been taken up exclusively by security issues will be discussed. Issues which were not concluded in Amsterdam, including voting rights and the right of each member state to have its own commissioner, will not be reopened until the Amsterdam Treaty has been ratified by all member states, probably in the middle of next year. There was an attempt to have them reopened. The Chancellor is anxious to reduce the number of Councils from 21 to 14 or 15. That will be discussed with the effectiveness of the various institutions. While I did not discuss immigration policy with the Chancellor we did discuss the Partnership for Peace initiative. He sent one of his senior officials here to discuss his vision of the way neutral countries should operate. He has put forward proposals which we are prepared to consider.
With regard to the Commissioner, I restated my belief that urban blackspots must be dealt with effectively in whatever arrangements are put in place, whether that is through the Exchequer, European funds, URBAN or Structural Funds. Urban blackspots are the among the most difficult parts of the country and they must be dealt with.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the view of the Combat Poverty Agency that Structural Funds expenditure to tackle poverty and social exclusion is needed in all regions of the country?
The Taoiseach said a two region as against a one region strategy would result in a net benefit to the country. Will he indicate if the additional funding he envisages being available must be spent only in the 13 western, midland and Border counties? Furthermore, has any study been carried out, on a fund by fund basis, of the advantages and disadvantages of a two region as opposed to a one region strategy?
Officials from the Department of Finance told a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social, Community and Family Affairs last week that they had carried out no such study. If no study was carried out, how can we opt for a two region strategy and claim it will yield a net benefit?
The Department of Finance put forward a memorandum. No outside study was carried out but the memorandum on the pros and cons of the strategy was compiled on the basis of its vast experience——
I did not ask if an outside study had been carried out. I asked if the Department of Finance had carried out a study. The officials told the committee it had not.
The officials carried out an analysis of the situation. They might not consider it a study, but it was an extremely useful memorandum.
Until we see the calculations in the negotiations of the figures involved, I cannot say how much additional expenditure will be available. There will be additional expenditure. The Deputy asked whether in a regionalised system moneys would be spent in the areas that were Objective One in transition or in the regionalised areas. I assume they will be spent in the regionalised areas. However, these questions cannot be answered fully prior to the negotiations.
Deputy De Rossa is extremely concerned about the Structural Funds but the issue is whether there will be expenditure. Of the £11 billion spent on social expenditure, only a small percentage is co-financed. The important issue, as Deputy Mitchell pointed out, is to ensure the resources are spent in areas of disadvantage, areas we are anxious to include in society.
One way or the other, this country will experience a diminution of European funds in all sectors. That is already happening. Ireland is no longer using vast amounts of Structural Funds on social policy. The aim is to ensure there will be programmes of expenditure to deal with the problems in areas of disadvantage.
For a number of years we have had the benefit of European Social Funds and we will continue to have them in the next round. In addition, in transition in the next round either the entire country or the areas which would not qualify for Objective One status in the long term will have co-financed programmes. What happens after 2006 is an issue for another day.
With regard to the Taoiseach's discussions with the Commissioner about State aid strategies for urban deprived areas, did he raise the issue of whether the approaches advocated by the Taoiseach will be constrained by State aid rules? This is important in view of having today learned the plans for the Dublin Docklands have been provisionally rejected by the Commission on the basis of those rules. Does the Taoiseach agree this significantly undermines his strategy? The docklands are among the most deprived areas of the north inner city. Does that not imply that he will be severely restricted in the State aid he can give to deprived areas and that he will not be able to take significant economic action to improve those areas?
One can of course look at what grant aid can be given to industry in those areas.
Which are very circumscribed.
Yes, they are. I correct the Deputy regarding the discussions in Europe, which are ongoing. The cases have not been closed, as reported in today's media.
If the country remains a single status region and the entire country is Objective One in transition, no part of the country will be able to use the more advanced State aids. This is one of the issues the Government has been deliberating. If the country is regionalised, the areas in Objective One in transition would not be able to use the higher State aids but the other areas would. That case has been strongly made by the Border region, which has not had the benefit of investment for 40 or 50 years, and this is part of the consideration being made.
Will the Taoiseach clarify whether the Objective One decision of the European Commission is being made on a purely statistical basis, and that the only political decision to be made regarding this matter will be made by the Government? When does the Taoiseach hope to make that decision? Will the Taoiseach confirm that without Objective One status, the west, midlands and Border areas would be seriously inhibited regarding Government investment to attract industry to those regions? Those regions need that industrial investment if they do not have Objective One status. Also——
The Deputy's question should be brief. The time has elapsed and I need not have allowed any questions.
The Deputy should argue with his Front Bench.
The Minister should do his job.
Is the Government committed to tax designation on the Shannon corridor? That application was not made to the European Commission until last September. Will the Taoiseach ensure that at the next meeting the agenda for this designation will be pushed and approved immediately?
My question relates to the Taoiseach's reply, which was that a study or inquiry has been done. Officials of the Department of Finance said it was not possible——
He said analysis.
——for a study to be done at this stage. How can the Government make a decision on a one region or two regions strategy if a fund by fund analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, both financial and social, has not been made either by the Department of Finance or the Department of Enterprise and Employment? There seems to be a conflict between what the Taoiseach is saying today and what the Department of Finance told the Joint Committee on Social Affairs last week. If the Taoiseach claims that there will be a net financial benefit to the Exchequer as a whole, what is the magnitude of that benefit? Is it £5 million, £10 million or, as has been suggested in some quarters, as little as £20 million over the period from the year 2000?
Does the Taoiseach agree that in considering the needs of urban areas there is a specific need to consider the villages of Dublin? I refer to villages such as Crumlin, Rialto, Dolphin's Barn and Inchicore, where I indict the Eastern Health Board for contributing in a big way to the run down of the area — the Taoiseach will be aware of this. Given the Taoiseach's indications regarding his discussions with the Austrian Chancellor on Partnership for Peace, is the Government rethinking its policy regarding participation in Partnership for Peace following those discussions?
Regarding Deputy Naughten's question, the Government will continue to analyse the various facts of this matter in our deliberations. The Deputy is correct in saying that the Government makes the decision and Eurostat comes up with the facts. That is what will happen. In relation to Shannon, the Deputy should make that case in a separate question to the Minister for Finance.
On the net benefit, it has been said constantly that we will be slight net beneficiaries but until it is calculated I do not know what the figure will be. I will not put a guesstimate on the record.
Give us a range. Is it £1 billion?
No, it is not.
£500 million?
I do not know the figure but we are not talking about enormous amounts of money, although £10 million or £12 million is an enormous amount if a region is the beneficiary of some of those resources.
In terms of Partnership for Peace, that will not be the initiative. The Chancellor wants to see what the neutral countries can do, the role they should have in the future in regard to all of these bodies and try to put together a new negotiating position. That will not be part of the Partnership for Peace initiative.
Is the Taoiseach rethinking the matter?
No. We are involved with Chancellor Klima to see what initiative the neutral countries might take collectively, but we are not thinking of Partnership for Peace.
The Tánaiste does not agree with the Taoiseach.
When the initiative is finalised the Deputy will see that the new countries can play a more useful role.
In terms of the urban blackspots, the Deputy mentioned areas with which I am familiar. Dublin Corporation has already made its submission to the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, whose committee is independently analysing these proposals. That committee will devise both the urban and rural renewal schemes to help these areas and it is a matter for Dublin Corporation to prioritise the schemes it believes should receive assistance. Hopefully it will choose some of the areas the Deputy mentioned.