It is proposed to take No. 21 — Voluntary Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill, 1998, Order for Report and Report and Final Stages, No. 20 — Statements on the Rail Safety Report, No. 2 — Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, 1998,[Seanad] Second Stage; and No. 3 — Protection of Children (Hague Convention) Bill, 1998, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings of No. 20, if not previously concluded, shall be adjourned at 1.30 p.m. and shall not be resumed today. Private Members' business shall be No. 57 — Motion on Education.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 20 agreed? Agreed.
Is Deputy O'Dea continuing as a Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science or has he become a member of the Opposition?
That question is not relevant to the Order of Business.
That is not promised legislation.
The Taoiseach has two super-numerary Ministers of State — one who is running for Europe and the other who is running away from Europe.
The Deputy is just running for the bus.
Will the Taoiseach outline in detail the Government's proposals to make orders under the Local Government Act, 1991, and to amend that Act to reconstitute Cork as a single region or to attach it to another region and to constitute a new region in the mid west to exclude Clare? Will the position and regional governance of those counties be clarified quickly by legislation and, if not, will the Government be unconvincing in Brussels in the sense that if it has not made its own legislative provisions for the new regions, it can hardly make a convincing case that they should be recognised in Brussels?
We cannot have a debate on this matter but I will allow the party leaders to ask questions relevant to it.
The Deputy knows we have a NUTS II classification at present and that eight sub-regional divisions are in NUTS III.
The Taoiseach split them up yesterday.
The Government hopes that the model put forward by the Department of Finance in its preliminary discussions with EUROSTAT and the Commission will require the regions to be divided by order under the Local Government Acts. That is subject to the discussions which will now start formally with EUROSTAT and Commissioner Wulf-Mathies. It is not envisaged that primary legislation will be necessary, but if we come up with a different model or the model put forward by the Department of Finance in its preliminary discussions with the Commission requires primary legislation, we will introduce it.
The Labour Party is in favour of full and proper regionalisation. Our difficulty is that we do not know what the Government is proposing. The last part of the statement issued yesterday, which we could not discuss during Question Time or on the Order of Business but which is in today's newspapers, states that the Government has decided that a revised regional structure is needed in the context of the regionalisation proposal. Will the Taoiseach indicate what legislation is proposed and will that indication come prior to any decision being made in Brussels?
Does he agree the application the Government is proceeding with in Brussels would be strengthened if there were clear and concrete legislative proposals for regionalisation which had the support of the majority of this House, including Deputy Healy-Rae? Will he indicate to the House if we will have a comprehensive debate on what is now in front of us, which we did not have because we did not know the Government's formal decision? Could he outline the Government's thinking on the legislative structures which will underpin regionalisation? Does he agree the case the Government wishes to make so strongly in Brussels would be immeasurably strengthened if this House debated it and if the legislation on regional structures was put in place? He either believes in regionalisation or he does not. If the Taoiseach believes in it, a value judgment does not need to be made by EUROSTAT in Brussels, but by this House.
I thank the Deputy for his support for regionalisation in which I also believe. I have already said the model being used by the Department of Finance at this stage, prior to formal discussions with EUROSTAT, does not require primary legislation. That may be different after the discussions. The decision is that the NUTS II region of Ireland will be divided into two NUTS II regions, the Border and the west, and will include Clare and Kerry.
The Government is cracking nuts.
The Cabinet is nuts.
Please allow the Taoiseach to continue.
That is the phrase used for many years for regional structures in Europe. It is unfortunate the Deputies do not know that. They seem to think it is funny, but it is not.
Since when did Kerry become part of the west?
The rest of the country will include all the other NUTS III regions. Consequently, Cork city and county will be designated as a new NUTS III region on its own. Clare will be removed from the NUTS III region. On the basis of this and following discussions with EUROSTAT this matter will based on one main issue. Whatever combination we put forward as a new regional structure to EUROSTAT will have to meet the 75 per cent GNP criterion. There are two central issues in this. If the application does not meet that criterion or if it is refused, whatever areas remain following the conclusions on Objective One in transition will hit sudden death and will not receive any more funds. Any counties or regions divided or included in new regions in the new system would continue possibly from 1 January 2007 to 2012 or 2013 to receive——
I wish to ask the Taoiseach a question.
The Deputy will have to be brief.
To summarise what is in the newspaper and what the Taoiseach has said, can I take it the Government's position is that if EUROSTAT agrees to our regionalisation proposal, the Government will bring in legislation to give effect to regionalisation, but if EUROSTAT does not agree to our proposal the Government will not introduce legislation to give effect to regionalisation? Is that an accurate summary of the Government's intention in legislative terms?
I was not allowed to finish my reply to the previous question. The answer to the Deputy's question is that the model, as prepared by the Department of Finance in preliminary discussions with EUROSTAT and Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, is based on a position that would not require primary legislation to change regional structures. They could be changed by regulation. That is the model on which we are working. It should be understood that anything that has happened to date has been preliminary. The process has been laid down. Portugal and the UK have had to do this and we are following the same model. The UK has included West Wales, the valleys and Cornwall in its regional structure. It has not introduced a regional structure that is any different from the model being followed by the Department of Finance and Portugal has not followed a different model in its proposal to separate Lisbon and the Tagus Valley.
It lost a referendum on that.
Portugal sought to change the existing structure of five regions to eight regions, but it got agreement to split Lisbon and the Tagus Valley. I cannot answer Deputy Quinn's question as to whether this model will be accepted in respect of Ireland.
The south east has been flushed down the toilet.
If it is, it can be introduced by way of regulation and, if it is not primary legislation may be required. That the Government has decided on this may not carry any weight with EUROSTAT and we may have to come back here with a different arrangement, but we are only——
So the Government will not carry any weight. That is a fine statement to make.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputy Bruton understood the concept of regionalisation, he would understand that these issues are not based on weight carried. The Deputy does not understand how EUROSTAT or the basis of this works.
He does not want to understand it.
It is a political stroke of the worst kind.
It is a case of make it up as they go along.
The test of whether this is a justifiable proposal is whether we would create such a region if we were to plan on the basis of our resources and our understanding of the needs of our people.
It is a sham.
The proposed region for Objective One status is artificial. The Taoiseach has ignored the advice of Commissioner Wulf-Mathies when she told him he could not presume on additional funding if he submitted this type of proposal and neither could he presume that there would be any money available for any region post 2006. It seems he has failed to take into account the advice Mr. Poulsen gave at the conference at which he spoke last Friday, that a better approach might be to identify growth areas here and not to try to get the last penny out of Europe. He said that was not necessarily the best way to provide for our development, that man who is responsible, on behalf of the Commission, for regional development in this country and other areas. The Taoiseach is going against all the advice from the European Commission and the Combat Poverty Agency which argues strongly that we should not go down the road the Government is following. There is poverty, disadvantage and marginalisation in rural and urban areas in every county in this State.
Regionalisation is being considered in the context of local government. The emphasis currently is on developing local government at county and sub-county level, which, apart from this issue, is the way we are proceeding. I heard what Mr. Poulsen said, I spoke to Commissioner Wulf-Mathies and I listened to the advice they gave. I am sure Deputy De Rossa would accept that practically every country in the Community has gone down the regionalisation route. Germany and other member states have gone down that route.
We have a population of only 3.5 million.
I will answer questions I am asked. The Chair said he would allow a question and answer session and I must be allowed to answer questions that are put to me.
Let us hear the Taoiseach without interruption.
Regarding the importance of what we are endeavouring to do, Deputy De Rossa in his presentations on this issue continues to ignore the fact that public expenditure is £16 billion of which 7.5 per cent is co-financed. The Deputy mentioned the report of the Combat Poverty Agency and I noted what it states. We have a figure of £11 billion for social expenditure of which 2 per cent is co-financed. We must be honest in this discussion. This proposal will not make any difference to 98 per cent of social expenditure.
It will make a big difference.
It will not have any effect on that. The existing programmes will continue and the only ones under threat are those the Commissioner may exclude because she may decide to remove the EU's programmes and reduce the number to three. They have allowed some of the important programmes, INTERREG and the Leader programme.
The people of Darndale, Ballymun and Knocknahinny have not seen any of those benefits.
The Deputy also refuses to accept a second point. He does not want to hear what I have to say. If we do not have a regionalisation programme, Objective One in transition will be all we can get because we have a rate of 104 per cent of GDP for the whole country and we will not be able to obtain higher State aid in any part of the country. If one believes in regionalisation as I do, surely the way to deal with congestion and over population in some parts of the country is to use parts of the country to obtain higher State aids and more benefits, which will allow this country to properly regionalise and develop into the future.
To the disadvantage and poverty of marginalised areas in Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Limerick.
Before I call on Deputy Bruton, I remind the House that I have allowed a good deal of latitude on this matter. I will allow a final round of questions, not statements, from the leaders of the parties. I call Deputy Bruton.
I thank the Chair for allowing a degree of latitude on this matter. It is good that the House can respond quickly to issues that are matters of public controversy. The Chair's rulings have been good in that regard, although they place him in some difficulty.
Does the Taoiseach see a risk that the Government will appear faintly ridiculous in Brussels because of its indecision on this matter over many months and that appearing ridiculous is the worst possible position in which a sovereign state can place itself? In its consideration of the matter will the Government consider the possibility of allowing district electoral divisions, by means of an amendment to section 43 of the Local Government Act, to be included in contiguous regions which are being included in the proposal for Objective One status?
I make this suggestion in view of the fact that there are a number of regions in west Cork, west Limerick, Carlow, Kilkenny, Tipperary and other counties with incomes which fall well below the level required to qualify for Objective One status. By virtue of a simple change in section 43 of the Local Government Act, they could be included with the other areas that will be considered for Objective One status. Such action would ensure that the regions in question, which will otherwise become centres of industrial blight because industries will not establish there and will insist on siting their operations in Objective One areas, will be treated fairly. In view of the fact that the Taoiseach stated that the NUTS regions are not necessarily based on existing administrative structures, does he accept that this course of action is open to the Government?
Is the Taoiseach aware that he will be asked questions about statements made by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen, on 11 June? At that stage, the Minister of State indicated:
The Commission has made it clear it could not support proposals to change the current regional map basis for Objective One status which were not adequately based in terms of regional administration. In addition, it is clear the Commission fears the precedent effect of such a proposal.
How can the Taoiseach reconcile his earlier comments with those made by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance on 11 June and how will he answer questions about inconsistencies between their respective statements?
I remind Members that I asked them to table brief questions.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that this debate has the potential to be highly divisive and not only will it affect his party but it will also set one region against another? Does he agree that this island has suffered in the past from such divisions and that this debate is in no one's interest? Will the Taoiseach publish a White Paper to articulate and defend the Government's argument on this issue and will he provide time for the House to debate that White Paper? If he is serious about regionalisation, will the Taoiseach not introduce legislation — irrespective of EUROSTAT's concerns — to give effect to the devolution of powers? If these things are done, the country will be able to unite behind the Government to try to maximise the interests everyone supports. Does the Taoiseach not agree that the way and manner in which the debate has unfolded has been highly divisive and that the case being put forward by the Government in Brussels has been weakened as a result?
Does the Taoiseach not agree that it would be better for Ireland to base its regionalisation plans on the real incomes of the regions, rather than the distorted GDP figure applied by the European Union to the allocation of funding in different states? Will the Taoiseach indicate why, if European Union funding is unimportant to places such as Knocknaheeny, Darndale, Ballymun and Ballybeg, the Government has decided to divide the country down the middle and set one area against another? This is one of the most divisive decisions to be taken in the past decade by any Government.
Deputy Bruton inquired if the Government will be embarrassed. The answer is "no". Since March, the Department of Finance has been involved in active discussions — admittedly on a preliminary basis — with EUROSTAT and the Commission. I discussed this issue on two occasions with the Commissioner who is well aware of the Government's views on it.
With regard to sub-divisions, the position outlined by Deputy Bruton was considered by and received no support from the Commissioner, the Commission or EUROSTAT. It would have been good if blackspots in Dublin and other cities could have been taken into account for Objective One status but that was comprehensively ruled out.
I referred to contiguous DEDs.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
It is not believed that what Deputy Bruton is requesting could be achieved. However, the Commission did consider the inclusion of pockets that would have fallen under 75 per cent.
If the Government is intent on following its current course of action on regionalisation, surely it could include the areas to which I referred.
The areas which have so far been considered under the regionalisation proposal and discussed in a preliminary way with the Commission are the existing NUTS III regions. I will not repeat the entire list but, as Deputy Quinn stated, these include the Border region and the midlands. When the Commission considered the NUTS III regions to see if the pro-gramme could be made more ambitious, it reached the opinion that it could allow the addition of Clare and Kerry to the area already included in those three regions to form an extended Objective One area——
What about southwest and northwest Cork?
——because this would take the entire western seaboard into account. That is the logic of the case prepared.
Does it include Limerick?
No, the Commission was considering the western seaboard.
Apparently the Shannon Estuary is not on the western seaboard.
Deputy Quinn inquired about regionalisation. I reiterate that the matter to which he referred is being investigated by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, in the wider context of local government reform. This will involve consideration of local government, county and sub-board structures. That is what the Government has been considering.
Deputy De Rossa might be correct that it would be better if we could use other bases for our regionalisation plans. However, Europe has worked on the basis of GDP for a considerable period.
It is for the Government to decide the basis on which to proceed.
There is no other criterion available to this or any other Government. Every Government in the Union which has dealt with this matter on the basis of regionalisation has been obliged to use GDP.
I want to clarify that point.
Deputy De Rossa should allow the Taoiseach to conclude and he should resume his seat.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach did not interrupt Deputy De Rossa.
Do I have the right to ask a question?
The Deputy must resume his seat, he is out of order.
The Deputy should sit down.
I will not sit down.
Deputy De Rossa should resume his seat and allow the Taoiseach to conclude his reply.
Without interruption from the Minister for Health and Children.
Never in the history of the House has this kind of approach been adopted. I am anxious to answer questions but it is clear that Members do not like those answers.
The Taoiseach should answer the questions that were asked.
The Deputy never did so when he was in office.
The hole the Taoiseach is digging for himself is getting bigger and bigger.
I will allow no further interruptions.
At least, a Cheann Comhairle, everyone knows that Deputy Bruton opposes this process. I am glad he has told the truth.
The Taoiseach is not acting like——
Deputy Bruton criticised us on the last occasion and it emerged that our actions were correct.
Deputy Quinn rose.
Will Deputy Quinn resume his seat and allow the Taoiseach to complete his reply?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy De Rossa's final question related to the national plan.
What about the areas in Cork to which I referred? They have been completely ignored.
Deputy Sheehan should resume his seat and allow the Taoiseach to conclude.
As with the previous two national plans, the various applications, requirements and presentations of each of the regions will be taken together and worked through successfully. This time we will be equally successful. The people who worked on these and the people in the regions have become familiar with the structure over the past decade which has worked well.
Because of the relative wealth of the country, we cannot keep Objective One status for the entire country. At the end of the transition period there is dead end. We can use that transition period to best advantage, which will not affect any region.
It does affect the unemployed.
(Interruptions.)
The money goes outside those regions
The argument is that in the preparation of the national plan, the sub-programmes and groupings will be based on public expenditure. I have said already that £11 billion will be spent on social programmes, 2 per cent of which will be co-financed — in those areas Exchequer funding will have to be provided, as is currently the case in other areas.
It is not important for Dublin, it is more important for Galway.
It is clearly believed by every member state that as and from 1 January 2007 areas that still have Objective One status will be allowed to phase it out on some basis, by way of Objective One in transition, by getting more funds in Objective Two status or more funds in Objective Three. As Commissioner Wulf-Mathies said recently, she cannot answer for what might happen at the end of 2006 and I do not ask her to. The clear view of everybody is that those areas that now hold Objective One status will be allowed to transfer out.
If people are against this system they need to answer two questions honestly. First, they need to say which counties they believe should not have any funding after December 2006 that are clearly entitled to it under the GDP ratio put down by Europe. Second, they should say they do not want to see counties having the opportunity to get higher State aid for the next six, seven or perhaps 12 years. They should answer those questions. Our view is that we should try to maximise the amount of money we can receive legitimately — no begging bowl, no breaking of rules — as Portugal and every other country is doing. Should the Government, just to make an easy decision, keep one region and have dead end in December 2006 with lower State aid? That would be nonsensical.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Interruptions.)
We must move on to the next business. I allowed a final round of questions. I will hear no further questions. I have given an unprecedented latitude.
On a point of order——
There can be no point of order while the Chair is on his feet. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
I wish to ask the following question, to which the Taoiseach did not reply.
There can be no further questions. I have ruled on the matter. The Deputy should resume his seat. I have allowed an unprecedented latitude on this matter. I intend to call No. 21.
The Taoiseach omitted to reply to my question about a White Paper and time. We will have to return to this again. If the Taoiseach believes in the case, he should publish a White Paper.