Vol. 499 No. 4
7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the role he envisages the Ministers and Secretaries Gen eral group will have in co-ordinating the Government's response to the Agenda 2000 proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1216/99]
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 1 of 17 December 1997, he will make a statement on the activities of his Department in recent months to make an effective Irish input to the work of the European Council on major issues on the EU agenda, including the Agenda 2000 negotiations. [1738/99]
9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the work taking place within his Department on the Agenda 2000 proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2581/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
The Ministers and Secretaries General group on EU policy, which I chair, meets approximately every four to six weeks. As part of its general supervisory role in relation to EU policy, the group is responsible for co-ordinating the Irish approach to key European issues, including Agenda 2000. We are in a period of intense negotiations on the next round of Structural, Cohesion and agricultural funds. In recognition of this, the Government has established a Cabinet subcommittee, which I chair, on Agenda 2000 specifically to co-ordinate the Government position on the main elements of negotiations on the next round of EU funding as they develop. This committee is serviced by an expert technical group, which I also chair, and comprises senior officials from my Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Finance. This group has met twice and prepared a number of papers for the Cabinet subcommittee. The smaller more frequent meetings of the subcommittee, and its technical group, will allow for much greater engagement by the key Ministers in the detailed strategy of the negotiations.
The German Presidency has underlined its determination to reach agreement on the Agenda 2000 package by the end of March. To achieve this aim, there will be an informal Heads of State and Government meeting on 26 February. After this meeting the Presidency intends to bring all strands of the negotiations together in advance of the special summit meeting in Berlin on 24 and 25 March.
In addition to the groups mentioned, the Department of the Taoiseach participates in policy formulation and follow-up on key issues arising in the EU agenda, such as Structural and Cohesion Fund negotiations, agriculture funds, enlargement, EMU, institutional reform, employment, justice, freedom and security and external relations of the EU through a variety of interdepartmental groups and fora.
EU policy formulation is the product of liaison between my Department and the other key Government Departments, notably, Foreign Affairs; Finance; Agriculture and Food; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. My Department also liaises with the offices of other EU Heads of State and Government and their embassies in Dublin. Through this network of contacts the Department advises me on the views of our European partners and contributes to the development of EU policies.
What is the status of negotiations at EU level on the issue of transferring heavier responsibility for financing the Common Agricultural Policy to member states and the proposal to reduce price supports for beef and milk?
The German Presidency has presented additional proposals which disimprove what is on offer in the European Commission paper of 18 March 1998. The French have presented counter proposals which are not acceptable to us. We are opposed to co-financing, although a growing number of member states are in favour. On the 1984 milk quota system, under the latest proposals we would receive an additional 1 per cent. This is highly unsatisfactory given that other member states would receive another 7 per cent or 8 per cent. The proposals presented by Commissioner Fischler would largely assist mountain farmers in other member states, not us. We are working closely with the French on some matters and with the Spanish on others. There is, however, substantial disagreement.
What is the Taoiseach's estimate of the reduction in farm incomes which would result from the implementation of the German proposals?
I do not have a percentage but if the German proposals were accepted, it would be enormous. Direct payments account for 54 per cent or 55 per cent of farm incomes. All headings would be hit. Currently we receive in excess of £1 billion each year in transfers. Last year we received £1.065 billion.
Is the Ministers and Secretaries group discussing the issue of regionalisation?
Yes, and we are awaiting the outcome of the discussions between the Department of Finance, the Central Statistics Office and EUROSTAT. We hope to have a result of those during the month of February.
Is the Taoiseach aware that figures released by the Revenue Commissioners in the last two days, under the Freedom of Information Act, indicate that the counties of Wexford, Carlow, Kilkenny and Tipperary have incomes below the national average and therefore, on the basis of income assessed by the Revenue Commissioners as being earned in those counties, have a case to be included in Objective One?
The question is not simply one of income. When we looked at the ground rules for regionalisation we found that the counties in a region must be contiguous. When the submission was being prepared last year we concluded that the best way to achieve regionalisation, based on the realignment for Ireland of our present NUTS II arrangement, was to divide it into two regions, one to comprise of the Border counties, the midlands and the west, including counties Cork and Kerry and regional transition for the rest of the country.
The Taoiseach has mentioned contiguity. Is the Taoiseach aware that the counties I mentioned are contiguous? Counties Tipperary, Carlow, Kilkenny and Wexford are at least as contiguous to each other as Clare is to Kerry across the Shannon estuary. They have been shown by the Revenue Commission to have incomes below the national average. Is the Taoiseach aware that these Revenue Commission statistics will cause grave concern among people in Wexford, Carlow, Kilkenny and Tipperary who are being deliberately excluded from the possibility of qualifying for Objective One status even though statistics indicate that they have below average incomes?
Unfortunately, the European Commission and EUROSTAT do not examine Revenue figures in making these decisions. They are concerned with GDP, as Deputy Bruton knows. In trying to fulfil the criteria we worked on GDP. That is how the counties were included. Counties Clare and Kerry were included because they are on the western seaboard.
Will the Taoiseach accept that after 25 years of membership there has been a marked shift in attitude among our partners in the European Union and within the Commission itself towards Ireland's general position? If he does accept that, does he think the bargaining position with regard to regionalisation put forward by the Government – and he admitted earlier today that this new proposal will itself not require any primary legislation – will further alienate a Commission which is increasingly alienated by the Irish position?
I accept that Ireland has done relatively well and improved over the years. What is at issue is that in the final transition period we, like other countries, get a fair and equitable share of what remains. I do not understand those who argue – and I do not include Deputy Quinn among them – that we should negotiate on the basis that we do not wish to see any of the Objective One regions maintained and that we move to a position of receiving approximately 40 per cent of the funds we receive at present. I do not under stand that argument and I think it is hopeless tactics. I wish people would desist from making it because it is entirely unhelpful to the Government in the negotiations. Parts of the Border region and the west are still a long way behind anything resembling the average European income. We are trying to ensure that as we go through this transition period, when we will lose a substantial amount of resources, that we try to hold on to some of those resources and that for the areas which are still disadvantaged we try to retain Objective One status as other countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Spain are doing. That is what we are trying to achieve. I do not believe because we have done well overall that we should concede that argument. We would be very foolish to do so.
The Taoiseach's claim that we will lose substantial resources is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. That is precisely the kind of attitude that is aggravating our partners in Europe. To suggest that we are not being helpful is to invite the riposte that if the Government wanted Opposition support in relation to maximising our position in Europe he should have spoken to us last June or even July when the proposal for regionalisation was first mooted. He could have engaged in meaningful dialogue with the rest of the country, which he has refused to do. He postponed a consideration for submission until after a certain date in October and the time available now – hoping to get a reply from EUROSTAT late in February, a couple of weeks before the meeting to which he referred – gives us no time at all. Would the Taoiseach not agree that to suggest we will suffer a reduction in resources is a mispresentation of the facts when we have substantial resources of our own and our European partners know that? We are aggravating them. I will give one specific example because it affects the Taoiseach's constituency as well as the entire country. I refer to the attitude held by the Commission with regard to the urban designated areas and in particular the International Financial Services Centre.
I take issue with that understanding. I attend the meetings and I know the views of our European partners. The Commission is not aggravated. They see that we had growth of 8 or 9 per cent last year. In terms of the docks in my own constituency, they see that an acre of land there was sold for something in the order of £30 million. Deputy Quinn will probably remember the price and will know the site to which I am referring. At the same time we argue that we need capital allowances and double rent and rates reliefs. That is what people cannot understand. I think Deputy Quinn will agree that it is difficult to convince someone that if a buyer pays more than £10 million for an acre of land he needs allowances to develop it profitably. That is what aggravates our European partners, not the fact that we are arguing for Structural and Cohesion Funds. Every country is involved in this debate. Rent relief is an issue in every European country. Commissioner Monti is doing precisely the same thing – trying to close down what he believes are State aids – throughout the Community. There is no aggravation. He is dealing with the matter dispassionately and as he sees fit.
In Ireland the question is being presented as one of Ireland against the rest of the Community. That is not the case. We will lose EU resources because of the relative wealth of our country. When we joined the Community 25 years ago our income was approximately 54 per cent of that of the average for the rest of Europe. It is now more than 90 per cent. That is the reason fewer resources will be transferred to us. In the meantime we must try to ensure that, in the transition arrangements, we get an equitable transfer and that the regions of Ireland which have not benefited continue to receive help.
There is consensus in the House that the west and the Border region should retain Objective One status. There may be some argument about the midlands and about Clare and Kerry but by and large these areas can put forward a very good case for the retention of Objective One status until 2006 when the position will be reviewed. That is our negotiating position. It is an entirely logical and credible case. It creates no more difficulty in Brussels than that of any other country and I will continue to fight it for the next two months.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that to make a credible case in Brussels we must be credible at home? To be credible at home we must demonstrate that we are prepared to invest resources which we currently possess into the one area where we have a manifest deficit. I refer to our roads infrastructure, particularly at the primary level. The Taoiseach has referred to areas as being disadvantaged. Would the Taoiseach not agree that the one thing which would transform them would be a massive capital investment in primary roads?
And in public transport.
In the budget we banked a surplus of just less than £1 billion, yet we provided only £400 million for this area. To use the word "now" which the Taoiseach put on the order, does he agree that our credibility in addressing issues of regional disadvantage with the resources we possess is diminished by the way we present our case in Brussels? As a consequence, every urban renewal scheme throughout the country is virtually a year behind because of the changed attitude in the Commission. Something that the RTE correspondent in Brussels said would have gone through as a technicality has now become a major blocking instrument. Will the Taoiseach offer an explanation as to why the attitude in Brussels has changed so profoundly or does he believe it has changed?
Deputy Quinn will be aware that the one fear in Brussels last year was that the Minister's increase of 27 per cent in the capital programme for 1998 and of in excess of 30 per cent for 1999 would overheat the market.
Not on the capital side.
They made that point, particularly on the capital side. I agree the National Roads Authority and the Department of the Environment and Local Government should continue to press ahead with the road projects. The NRA programme published last month details approximately 20 projects under construction, under detailed planning or ready to start. To his credit, the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, has been pushing to speed up capital programmes. With the greatest respect, it is neither because of a lack of money nor because the Government desire it that these projects are delayed. A project on the airport road is the subject of a court case because of a row over whether the swans will move off it. Work on the Port Tunnel project is held up because engineers cannot convince members of the public concerned that their houses will not fall into a hole when work begins on the tunnel.
These matters, not a lack of resources, are delaying some of the infrastructural projects. I believe these matters are a good deal of nonsense, but money is available to deal with them. Other objectors include people who are trying to protect their gardens. Those and other issues are holding up major infrastructural projects. People are entitled to their say in a democracy and sometimes they may have too much of a say. People are swinging out of trees along the south-eastern motorway delaying work on that project. If we can overcome these difficulties, we will be able to proceed with building this infrastructure. I would be pleased if we could do that.
I do not accept we are in difficulties on our negotiating position with Brussels. We have every right to argue for an equitable distribution of funding and we will do that. That is the right thing to do. Last night the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, expressed his view on how we should proceed on the integrated areas plans, which have been held up. Brussels is being unfair on this, but I believe we can move ahead on it. The Minister of State said he would proceed on the residential aspects of these plans. We should be able to reach a conclusion on this matter. Given what the Commission has been saying recently, it is fairly obvious what the outcome of those discussions will be.
I know there is a restriction on the number of questions I may ask, but I wish to clarify the Taoiseach's last point which affects towns throughout the country. What action is the Government taking to expedite clearance from Brussels for the IAPs?
I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, will be able to make an announcement on that very shortly. We will probably have a reply from Brussels on that within a month.
There is a feeling among people in the towns which are seeking necessary urban renewal that these applications were lumped in with the Dublin docks site, which is a different type of project. Will the Taoiseach agree that it is unfair to the small towns throughout the country awaiting designation that Brussels has blocked such approval because of detailed requirements for the site in Dublin outlined by the Taoiseach?
I do. The Government did not lump these projects together, members of the Commission did. They took the 12 acre extension on the Dublin docks, which is an important development, the remainder of the designated areas in Dublin and other cities, the IAPs, the seaside resort and the Minister, Deputy Woods's seafarers' proposal and started arbitrating on them, and that was unfair.
Does the Taoiseach agree they deliberately slowed down the period for deliberation?
I do.
Why does he consider they did that?
It has nothing to do with regionalisation because this happened last January. Approval was given for the enterprise zones last January and in February they did not give approval for the 12 acre site. The Government will move forward on the residential aspect of the IAPs. Approximately 70 per cent of them are residential. There is a difficulty with residential units over shops which are to be found in many towns throughout the country, but hopefully we will have an answer on that soon. The Commission's view on rent relief and allowances is fairly obvious. It is clear that it is more positive about capital allowances.
The time allocated for the Taoiseach's questions is exhausted. We now come to questions nominated to the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.
