We had an earlier discussion on this report and we will now have another look at it, as amended. I hope that it will satisfy the Joint Committee. You will see that we have a table of contents which shows the areas covered by the report and it might be helpful, assuming that you have all read it, if we looked at the conclusions of the Joint Committee first and then we can look at various aspects and elaborate on them. Paragraph 41 brings out further how the philosophy of the EEC affects infrastructural developments where one of the fundamental objectives of the EEC is to promote economic convergence by removing regional imbalances. Those regional imbalances can arise for many reasons—industrial, cultural, transport and communications in those various areas. If regional imbalance exists, obviously Ireland should be looking to the EEC for every possible help to achieve economic convergence. The report spells out what the Irish Government should be doing to attain the objectives, of industrialisation and economic development, which are designed to align the standards of living in Ireland with those of the other European nations and to eliminate underemployment while progressively evening out regional differences in levels of development.
Community Aid for Infrastructural Development in Ireland.
Is that a quotation from Protocol (30) or from the declarations that were exchanged at the time of our accession?
It is from the Protocol. We are suggesting that the Joint Committee should say that substantial and sustained investment in infrastructure such as roads, communications, sanitary services, ports and harbours is of paramount importance. We are saying that, although we recognise that this would mainly be the responsibility of the Irish Government, significant aid should be received from the EEC where it would be applied in areas which would be in line with the policy as set out. The Regional Fund is one way of handling this. One thing this Report brings out is that the Regional Fund is inadequate to meet the requirements of this policy and it examines other ways of funding infrastructural development, through mainly three other methods of funding, namely the European Investment Bank (EIB), the new Community instrument (NCI) or the "Ortoli Facility" and the new method of funding which is being made available as a result of the establishment of the European Monetary System (EMS). That is, by way of interest-rate subsidy. We are saying therefore in our recommendations that the Joint Committee consider that substantial improvement is needed in the area of transport infrastructure and that we support the Commission's view that the aims of the common transport policy call for direct Community involvement and we urge that the proposed Regulations submitted by the Commission be energetically supported. The report shows that the next review of the Fund Regulation is due in early 1981 and this report is our effort to support the main recommendations going for decision in Brussels.
Is this the amended Regulation with regard to the Regional Fund? I am trying to understand all of this which is not all that easy. The first item, as you recorded, seems to be a regulation amending the Regional Fund development. That comes up in 1981.
Yes.
The second seems to be specifically transport infrastructure in addition to or a variant on the common transport policy that has been pursued up to date. Is it that particular one that you are now referring to?
In respect of the Regional Fund, on 6 February 1979 the Council adopted a Regulation which is No. 214/79.
Where is that in the report?
It is in paragraph 4.
That is an amendment of the Regional Fund?
That is so.
There is also the aid to projects in the field of transport infrastructure.
The first one you recently referred to is an amendment to the European Regional Development Fund.
It is in paragraph 1.
Then you have an EEC transport proposal or general kind of discussion about common transport policy. Then I make it, thirdly, proposals for specific regional projects and, fourthly, the aid to transport projects in particular. There are different funding sources that are materially important from the policy point of view, whether we are getting them by way of grants under one scheme or another or by way of grants in aid or borrowing from the Ortoli Facility or straight borrowing from the European Investment Fund or the European Investment Bank.
There are a number of items being looked at and paragraph 1 seems to summarise the EEC documents involved. You will see that the exercise involved the examination of Council Regulation No. 724/75 as amended by Regulation No. 214/79 and the memorandum sent by the Commission to the Council on 20 November, 1979 on the role of the Community in the development of transport infrastructure. We also considered specific European Regional Development projects under Article 13 of the European Regional Fund Regulation as amended and aid to projects in the field of transport infrastructure.
The general point is that the Regional Development Fund will be up for review in 1981. Certain things have been agreed to already such as dividing the Fund into quota and non-quota sections, the non-quota section making up some 5 per cent and the quota, 95 per cent of the total Fund. There are conditions being laid down for the application of the non-quota portion. I am saying that as a general point. We can refer to it specifically when going through the report.
In the area of transport infrastructure where substantial improvement is needed, the Committee support the Commission's view that the aims of the common transport policy call for direct Community involvement and it urges that regulations submitted by the Commission be energetically supported. Finally, the Committee wishes to acknowledge the significant assistance received by Ireland by way of Community loans, particularly since the EMS interest-free subsidy became available. That is the third one that I mentioned. I hope it will be possible to avail of these sources of finance to an increasing extent in the future.
In regard to the last few sentences, you would want to bring the Committee through your argument.
I will bring them through it now.
It invites us to make a specific recommendation on a borrowing for transport and for that kind of infrastructure. Maybe it is not what the Committee want to do, but it is a choice we are making, or suggesting that as a Committee we should make, as between that particular operation or not. We get our 3 per cent subsidy only if we borrow.
If we work our way through it, we will deal with those points. If that is what the Committee is going to support, that is what they will be supporting. We can discuss it when we reach that point.
Paragraph 2 refers to the different methods of funding and mentions the less well-known ones—that is, other than the Regional Development Fund—the direct support from the European Investment Bank, the new Community instrument, which is the Ortoli Facility, and the EMS type subsidy. Those are the three. Paragraph 4 talks about the amendment to the Regional Fund. It gives the principal amendments which were introduced. The size of the Fund will be determined annually. There is some redistribution of national quotas to allow for France to get 2 per cent, but it did not affect Ireland that much. There is the introduction of a non-quota section. There is a more flexible definition of eligible infrastructures, an increased intervention rate in certain cases from 30 per cent to 40 per cent and certain administrative improvements, in the sense that money was paid faster. Many of us know that in the EEC very often payments are outstanding for long periods of time and this involves high interest charges for those involved in projects. It explains the fact that projects would qualify which are not directly linked with the development of industrial handicraft or service activities and, in fact, as paragraph 6 shows, the definition was widened to include infrastructures "which contribute to the development of the region or area in which they are located", so that each body does not have to be tied to something, which obviously would cause delay in getting clearance for a project.
And the contribution rate would go up to 40 per cent.
Yes. Under paragraph 8 lists of eligible infrastructures are to be drawn up by the Council and it is hoped that this work will be completed before the next review of the Fund Regulation, which is due by 1 January 1981. That is what I was referring to. These lists have not been drawn up yet and, as a result, a certain amount of this is in the air. The Council minutes restrict somewhat the widening of the definition and we are encouraging them to get on with the job.
What exactly does that mean? Take, for example, our country under paragraph 8. Under paragraph 6, I understand, they can now look at projects which are not linked directly to the development of industry that can be seen to develop the whole area. As a result of their decision, which is minuted, does that mean that, in fact, unless we have been pumping across to Brussels proposals for development in particular areas, they are not going to be taken into consideration and that we are not going to get the benefit of this increased flexibility unless we do this? If this is so, have we found out whether we are doing it or not?
My interpretation of it is that the Council have got to decide on the infrastructure measures, as paragraph 8 puts it, to which the fund may grant assistance, because now what you are doing is giving a blanket approval for a plan to develop an area or a region and they must decide what infrastructure projects within that will qualify.
If Ireland has not put forward, as a Member State, a regional development programme, if I understand this matter correctly, will it then not be included in the review? Is this just apprehension?
It is, because in our discussions with the executives and officials from the Department, it was quite clear that they had put forward anything that was required to be put forward in order to get anything that was going.
The point you raise is an extremely important one. We are talking about broadening the perception of what the Regional Fund will fund in the different countries and, in particular, the area of transport infrastructure. On further consideration, on re-reading this report recently, it occurred to me—and this will come up later as I have an amendment—that we were encouraging the support of road infrastructure and development of our roads to the exclusion of any other kind of infrastructure for transport. Therefore, I have a specific amendment which we can take when we come to paragraph 35, to include rail infrastructure. I also have been in contact with Fr. Michael MacGréil who is involved in a study of rail in the west of Ireland, stretching from Sligo to Limerick. I asked him if he would put in writing the present state of proposals and I have got copies which I think have been circulated. I do not know if you want me to refer to this. It is the kind of infrastructural development that is taking place, which I believe is the sort of example which should be going from here to the Director General on Regional Development with at least a proposal that there be Community funding.
If members of the Committee feel that it should be referred to, that is all right. Would anybody throw light on this paragraph for me? I do not know about the other members of the Committee. We should really only try to understand the proposal at this stage and, in that sense, perhaps Senator Mulcahy would make a contribution? We will not discuss the amendment itself.
What is the difficulty in understanding that a certain criterion will be required for the kind of infrastructure developments which can be funded? That is a general statement. If we get involved in what Senator Robinson is saying, we are going to start talking about one single type of proposal.
The proposal seems to arise from the definition of eligible infrastructure in paragraph 6 here. Under the amending regulation the definition of eligible infrastructure has been widened to include infrastructure and I quote "which contribute to the development of the region or area in which they are located". This is just an example. There are probably other good examples but I think it is specifically relevant because it is a proposal for an on-going study of the railway line, Sligo/Collooney/Claremorris/Limerick.
It involves the regional development organisations. The three regional development organisations, Galway-Mayo, Sligo-Leitrim and Limerick-Clare-North Tipperary and they have had meetings. They have commissioned this survey and study by Fr. MacGréil and other people working with him. Page 2 of his memorandum gives the rationale behind the project, when he says:
"There is a serious problem in the North/South Transport Infrastructure in the West of Ireland in that the roads are inadequate and are overcrowded, while the railways are under-used and, in some cases, are not used at all and are under-maintained. The portion of the line from Collooney-Claremorris is in total disuse. The line from Claremorris-Athenry is used mainly to carry excursion trains to Claremorris from the Knock shrine and the occasional goods-train service to Tuam. The Limerick-Athenry section of the line, while carrying the Knock pilgrimage trains from the south, has additional goods trains also from the south, but even its use is minimal." Then Father MacGréil goes on to set out the arguments for revitalisation of the line some of which are as follows: (1) The relatively recent increase in population and the industrial growth and development in the west of Ireland; (2) The energy conservation factor; (3) The growth of Knock Shrine as a place of popular pilgrimage and the general growth of tourist travel; (4) Development of the tourist potential served by the line, and (5) The growth of the chemical industries in the South.
These sort of criteria in relation to a very important infrastructural link, which is not a road development but is rather a development of the railways, seems to be very much in line with the expanded definition of the kind of infrastructural development which the Community appears to be prepared to support.
Would Senator Robinson be explaining the content of that letter as meaning that we might be in danger—as a result of the Council minutes—of that infrastructure eligibility phrase being narrowed so as to exclude what Fr. MacGréil has put to you?
We need to be particularly concerned to make sure that the definition of eligible infrastructure is not narrowed. I am pointing to one specific example; there are probably other examples.
If I remember correctly, there is another paragraph in this report which discusses the question of infrastructure.
We are talking at present about the Regional Development Fund, mainly the quota section of it, of which our share is 6.46 per cent. This debate has gone on for years about the inadequacy of the Regional Development Fund.
I was really wishing to understand Senator Mulcahy's report when he says that a minute restricted its meaning. I just wanted to understand that. That is all.
There is no way that the Fund will fund railway development.
If they have resolved to define infrastructure as anything which contributes to the development of the regional areas I do not see why railways should necessarily be excluded from that definition. I am not saying that they should be included as a matter of policy. I am saying that the words certainly do not exclude them.
I am not saying they should be excluded. I am saying that the reality of the situation is that the Regional Development Fund has been able to do very little in the past and it certainly will not be able to fund at the level they are thinking about here. The other three financial methods might be able to do it. That is the whole point. That raises your question, Mr. Chairman, as to whether the Government or the nation would be in a position to borrow the funds which they would have to borrow to avail of those three different ways of financing the operation.
This is my first meeting. I am a new member here. I know very little about the business. However, one question strikes me. In this country a decision has been taken in the past in relation to the railways. That was to run down the railways and build up the roads. At this stage, if we are going to talk in terms of this amendment, another decision must be taken by this Government as to whether we are going to re-utilise the railways and also build up the roads at the same time. I may be very wrong in this but that is my view. We could very well have 50 more reports from other parts of the country along the lines of Senator Robinson's Report from Father MacGréil. Are we not fragmenting the whole business by taking one, two or three of these?
I was just taking this as an illustration of how the extended definition of infrastructure might include something which previously would not have been included.
If we move on we shall come back at a more general level. I admit it is fairly obstruse type of area. Paragraph 10 says that Ireland's share was 6 per cent but an additional sum of 6,000,000 units of accounts were granted to Ireland. We will summarise later the amounts that come from each area of financing. The quota section is 95 per cent of the fund and non-quota section is 5 per cent. This adjustment that favoured France brought us to 6.46 per cent of the quota section.
Paragraphs 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 12
Let us now look at the non-quota section of the Fund which is dealt with in paragraph 12 where it is said that the non-quota section is intended to finance specific Community regional development measures either linked with Community policies and with measures adopted by the Community in order to take better account of the regional dimension, or, in exceptional cases, intended to meet the structural consequences of particular serious occurrences which basically is about natural disasters.
After the word "and" in the bracketed sentence should we insert the word "hopefully" to read "hopefully will not in practice arise"? It might be too much to assume that no natural disaster would ever befall this strange bit of territory.
Are we allowed to put in words like that?
I think so. I move:
In page 6, line 9, to insert ‘hopefully' after ‘and'.
: Paragraph 13 says that the Council, acting on an Irish initiative, arranged that Border projects would be included which was a very good idea. There was an expansion of the definition there. We said the non-quota is 5 per cent only. Paragraph 15 says that the Commission submitted to the Council proposals for regulations instituting five non-quota section measures on 18 October 1979. The proposals relate to five year programmes in the period 1980-1985. The sectors concerned are as listed in the report. There is aid to help France and Italy to offset the effects of enlargement; steel industry in the United Kingdom and in Italy and Belgium; shipbuilding in the United Kingdom; energy in Italy and, in the case of Ireland, a special project for the cross-Border problem which means 16 million units of account for Ireland and 8 million for Northern Ireland.
We seem to have done reasonably well out of that.
But the Council has not yet taken a decision on these proposals.
In regard to what Senator Mulcahy said earlier, do I understand that this will depend on the annual budget? In paragraph 14, we are told that for the current three-year period the resources available for the non-quota section will be limited to 5 per cent of the total resources of the Fund. Now in relation to these projects, we are talking about a five-year programme. I take it we are having a five-year programme which itself will depend upon the decision each year?
Yes, the annual budgetary decisions. We will be elaborating on the projects in the next paragraph. They will have to be programmed and costed. I am assuming that the money here is what the programme costs will come to. Paragraph 16 headed "Cross-Border Measures" tells more about it. The Commission's proposal is for the implementation of a special five-year programme to be presented by Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Does that mean that it has not been presented?
I take it that it has not been presented but they know what is in it. Obviously they have to cost it. But it will have to be formally presented when it is agreed. The decision has not been taken. The previous paragraph tells us that the Council has not taken a decision. In our case it has as its objective the development of economic activities in the fields of tourism, communications and artisan enterprises. The Committee will see that it covers a wide range of counties: Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth in the Twenty-six Counties and the council districts of Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh, Fermanagh, Dungannon, Armagh, Newry and Mourne in Northern Ireland. The programme would be financed jointly by the two Member States. Aid would be provided by the Regional Fund to the extent indicated. Construction and conversion of tourist accommodation would get 50 per cent of public expenditure. Tourism would get 70 per cent of the operating costs. Amenities and tourist-related infrastructure, cultural and recreational facilities, including angling, riding and work in improving water sports, would get 50 per cent of public expenditure. They are all very creative projects, particularly involving cross-Border co-operation. Improvement of communications and development of transport activities would get 57 per cent of public expenditure and endeavours in the establishment and development of artisan enterprises would get 58 per cent of public expenditure on aids to investments and 70 per cent of public expenditure on aids for the provision of information and advice. There is a lot of potential in those projects.
All you have been saying relates to the first one. They are all amending regulations? You are now starting the second one, the memorandum on the role of the Community in the transport end?
Yes. Up to this we have been talking about quota and non-quota Regional Development Fund moneys and where we think the money should go in Ireland. That is the reason why I was saying to Senator Robinson, let us hold until we get into the big money if we want to talk about our finance projects.
In November 1979 the Commission presented a discussion document to the Council on the role of the Community in the development of transport infrastructure. There has been a tendency to consider transport as being a national responsibility. What I am stressing here is that there are international implications, particularly if economic convergence is to take place, which is a fundamental philosophy of the EEC. Basically that is what these paragraphs are building up to. There are some interesting facts which I think I should highlight. The intra-Community traffic has been growing twice as fast as the volume of purely national traffic.
That is very interesting.
There is a case for a special transport policy on traffic going outside the borders of each country. Networks are generally conceived in national terms but the link between the development of national levels of transport policies of Member States has always been evident. It varies from one Member State to the other and national programmes differ. Cost benefit analyses can vary from Member State to Member State as well. Paragraph 19 of the report spells out the philosophy:
The Commission believes that the Community's interest in transport infrastructure is reinforced by its impact on the economic, industrial, regional, environmental and energy policies of the Community. In relation to regional policy it points to the Community objective of counteracting the centralising forces of the Common Market by distributing economic activity more evenly over the territory of the Community.
I think that is the sentence that defends the whole purpose of the EEC in its economic and social terms. The report continues:
In the Commission's opinion it is essential for the success of this policy that "less favoured regions must have an internal network of communications appropriate to their present and future needs" and also that they "must be opened up and linked to the main centres of the Community by rapid modern routes to reduce, as far as possible, the handicap of distances."
That is what they propose and it is a significant shift away from just a national bias towards a more international and Community one. The report refers to the consultation procedure and the decision which was adopted in 1978. The Commission is now urging the adoption of a proposed regulation which would provide Community aid on a selected basis in the form of "loan guarantees, loans, subsidies, interest rate reductions" for a limited number of important projects particularly (i) projects to remove bottlenecks in Community traffic, (ii) cross-border projects, (iii) projects justified on grounds of Community benefit and (iv) projects which facilitate the standardisation of equipment and the synchronisation of work on the Community communications network.
The new aspect is that the aid would come in the form of loan guarantees, loans, subsidies, interest rate reductions and a lot of the remainder of this report goes on to spell how these operate. As indicated in paragraph 21 the Commission suggests that the removal of bottlenecks should have priority and provisionally identifies some links which merit particular attention, such as, (a) international rail links between major centres, e.g. Amsterdam-Brussels-Luxemburg-Strasbourg; (b) links with peripheral regions, e.g., in Ireland links with the North (Dublin-Belfast-Derry) and with the West (Dublin-Cork-Galway); (c) links affected by entry of new Member States; (d) links overcoming natural obstacles e.g. the Channel crossing; and (e)—I do not like the phrase here—"missing links", to denote inland waterways between the North Sea and the Mediterranean via a Rhine-Rhone canal. The criteria for such a fund have been widened and obviously the type of things they are talking about here are costly.
I take it that that is the memorandum of 20 November 1979?
That is correct.
Is this not different from the revised proposals with regard to the Regional Fund? This is a separate operation which really runs in parallel lines and can be made to support the Regional Fund?
The link is that both of them are financing infrastructure. Originally the Regional Development Fund was the only source of finance. It became clear during the years that it was inadequate to meet the requirements of the philosophy we spelled out in Paragraph 19.
Am I correct in understanding that the aid in this case will all the time be related to borrowing commitments? On top of page 11 your report refers to "loan guarantees, loans, subsidies, interest rate reductions". I take it that you do not get the subsidy unless you are to go into "hock".
At present you are getting money as a subsidy only by way of interest subsidies which are paid in cash. You will not get them unless you commit yourself to borrowing. Paragraph 22 points out that the European Investment Bank provides some loans in various conditions, and they are being availed of.
Paragraph 23 describes the new Ortoli Facility which was designed to provide loans for energy projects and also for investments in infrastructure projects which contribute to convergence and integration, taking into account the regional and employment effects. The total facility amounts to one thousand million U.A. (and on) on 14 May 1979, the Council adopted a decision authorising the borrowing of the first transfer of 500 million EUA and, of that, 250 million EUA was devoted to infrastructure. The Commission decides on the eligibility of projects in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Council, and the European Investment Bank decides on the terms and conditions of loans.
The next method of funding is the EMS. In the EMS Ireland can draw on loans up to IR£225 million each year over a period of five years, and with an agreed 3 per cent interest rate subsidy in effect, we will get IR£45 million each year.
How does it work out? Five multiplied by three does not come to 45 million.
It is the present value of these, as far as I know, received over five years. It is discount of cash flow method of getting the capital equivalent of the subsidy.
Because they pay it ahead it is worth more in terms of future money?
That might be part of it. If you also multiply 5 x 45 it comes to 225. It would probably fool some people.
It has already fooled me.
As regards loans and grants to Ireland, the following should help to explain the position to the Committee. The borrowings by Ireland in 1979 under the Community loan instruments were as follows: (i) the EMS subsidised loans, IR£147.6 million and the Ortoli Facility, IR£25 million, giving a total of IR£172.6 million; (ii) European Investment Bank loans—mainly going to the Industrial Credit Company and the Agricultural Credit Corporation—of the order of IR£20.5 million; (iii) other NIC loans, infrastructure and energy loans through the Ortoli Facility of IR£33 million. The total moneys coming to Ireland for these types of investment were IR£226.1 million in that period. Loans under (i) were concentrated on infrastructure. I have already spelt out what the others were and some of them will find their way into types of infrastructure as well.
I will deal now with paragraph 26. By comparison IR£41.7 million in grant aid was committed in 1979 to Irish projects, of which IR£21.9 million was in respect of infrastructure. These came from the European Regional Development Fund. Receipts from that fund are of the order of IR£225 million and receipts for moneys used from the other loan facilities were IR£226 million. About ten times the investment from the European Regional Development Fund is made available through other funds.
That ten times is borrowed, and the other is given?
Yes. Regional Development Fund money is given as shown in paragraph 27. It shows the grants paid to local authorities over the years and it shows——
Paid through the central Government?
Yes, from central Government, and the other moneys come from the European Development Fund. On paragraph 28, the total amount of aid from the Regional Fund due on foot of road projects for the period 1975-1979 amounts to £11.24 million only.
Do you get that figure from any of the figures in the previous paragraph?
No, because the figures in the previous paragraph are on road projects put forward for European——
A proportion?
Yes. In this paragraph it represents a very small proportion of the public capital programme.
You have already told us they have power to give grants of up to 70 per cent, but have only given 40 per cent——
Thirty per cent.
Seventy per cent is the proportion of the Fund that you——
Yes, that is right, but it is a very small Fund. That is the problem. On paragraph 29—review of the Regional Fund—the widening of the definition to include regions or areas is welcome.
There is a rather important finding in paragraph 28 which is worth noting. We had some reason to doubt this. Since the establisment of the Regional Fund in 1975 Ireland has taken up its full quota of aid each year. That is of some importance because we were given to understand in Brussels last October that that might not have been so, that there was aid we might have looked for but did not get. You say that is not so.
We were advised in Brussels to make sure we were looking at regions as a whole when putting forward new proposals for support for infrastructural projects, mainly because this revision was coming up. This paragraph is saying that within the limits of the regulations existing to date, we have taken up everything we could get. This paragraph also says that it seems to the Joint Committee that the amended definition is wide enough to comprehend social infrastructures such as hospitals, schools, technical colleges and so on and it hopes that the Council will be persuaded to endorse such projects as eligible for Fund aid.
Would you want to include railways?
That would be better under the transport infrastructure section.
As an aside, if we are going to put it in I would prefer to see it as a general rather than a particular point about any specific part of the country. I am sure the Joint Committee could come up with suggestions for each county in which members are interested in. Paragraph 30 says the present Regional Fund, which amounts to about IR£1,725 million over the three-year period 1978-80, represents a significant increase on the original fund which amounted to about IR£531 million over the three-year period 1975-1977. Nevertheless we are saying it remains completely inadequate for the task of reducing regional imbalances in the Community. This is something we are coming back to all the time. We said—and this is what really spells it out—that in 1979 Ireland's actual receipts of IR£25 million amounted to only 2.5 per cent of the public capital programme. What is even more annoying is that it is clear other regions which do not really qualify are getting aid, for example, regions comprising half the territory of the Community and containing almost 40 per cent of its population continue to be eligible for Regional Fund assistance.
Is that matter over and done with? Is there anything we can do about shifting the definition of regions needing aid?
That comes up every time we have a review of the Regional Fund.
It is a perennial fight.
But we have a perennial paragraph on it. Is that paragraph strong enough?
The facts speak for themselves.
Aid should be concentrated on the most needy areas of the Community.
If that fact could be brought out and given a bit more attention, it would help to make the case. There must be something wrong when regions comprising half the territory of the Community and containing 40 per cent of its population are considered to be in need of regional development. On paragraph 31, the Committee felt that the administration of the Fund was not as efficient as it could be. Something like 7,000 or 8,000 projects are being aided. To get a project through you have to go through God knows how many Departments and many regulations have to be sifted. As we pointed out before, our unfortunate local authorities end up in the long run with four audits—an internal audit, a Department of the Environment audit, a Commission audit and an audit by the Board of Auditors. What we are saying strongly is that somebody must find some way of administering this Fund which would reduce the amount of bureaucratic activity which seems to be involved. We are not saying that risks should be taken with State money; what we are saying is that the balance seems to be tipped in the wrong direction.
This comes back again to your point about what will happen in January 1981. The Fund is due for review which must be completed by the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, before 1 January 1981. We are hoping that the review will result in a radical reform of the Fund. Of prime importance, of course, are the resources and the efficiency with which they are administered.
In the case of the contribution by the Community loans—we have already gone through the figures—these loans are granted under the prevailing conditions of the capital market and recourse to loan facilities must depend on ability to service an increasing public debt, which in turn depends on increasing economic growth. As far as Ireland is concerned, therefore, further Community measures designed specifically to meet the requirements of infrastructure policy are necessary. For that reason the Joint Committee welcome the Commission's discussion paper on transport infrastructure.
Paragraphs 13 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 35.
We agree that the Common Transport Policy will not be achieved unless the Community get involved. Without going through the paragraph in detail, we are saying that there are various projects which would be suitable to open up links with the EEC as a whole and these would contribute to convergence. Here we come to the question of roads.
I move:
To add to the end of the paragraph the following:—
‘The Committee also believes that consideration should be given to seeking Community aid for the development of rail links between centres of population in areas such as the west of Ireland and the integration of railways into the overall development of transport infrastructure'.
My amendment is relevant here. Having looked at the broader position and the kind of values that the Commission are proposing, in particular the counteracting of centralising forces and having balanced regional development, we then refer to the proposal made in 1976. We end paragraph 35 by saying:
The Joint Committee believes that it may be in Ireland's interest to support the adoption by the Council of the proposed Regulation and to seek to have some grant aid assistance provided thereunder for the Government's Road Development Plan for the 1980's.
I am not really putting forward any specific proposals at this stage, but I have provided members of the Committee with the summary of this particular proposal because it is happening, it is real on the ground. Rail links will be increasingly important in the years to come because we have had to rethink our approach to energy and to regional development and railway infrastructure will play an important role. I am not putting forward a specific proposal so much as asking that the Committee include this reference to the importance of integrating the railways into the overall development of transport infrastructure. We see this as part of the expression of the kind of values that we have been looking at in the Community's approach and we should look for Community aid for this kind of development.
What is your attitude to the amendment, Senator Mulcahy?
It is a general point and if it is appropriate that railways should be supported, particularly in this instance, it will have to be considered on its merits.
I believe it would be relevant to put it in here, if it is acceptable, because we go on then in various paragraphs to develop the road plan. I have no objection to that, provided we preface it by including the importance of railway infrastructure and the possibility——
Could I have clarity on something? We have the Regulation with regard to amending the regional development policy; then we have the memorandum with regard to transport. In paragraph 20 you say that the Commission in 1976 made proposals for a Council decision, instructing a consultative procedure and setting up a Committee in the field of transport infrastructure and a Council Regulation for aid to projects of Community interest in the field of transport infrastructure and that the Commission would urge the early adopting of the proposed regulation. This I take to be another regulation and not the regulation to which we have been referring with regard to the regional development policy. Is it that regulation we are talking about in the last sentence of paragraph 35?
The heading is broad enough to encompass either Community aid or loans and use of the facilities and the calling down of funds on that basis for infrastructure and development. Community involvement in transport infrastructure in the member states is now going forward on a much broader basis. It used to be solely a national concern unless it was direct cross-border communication.
If Senator Mulcahy is content, the other members of the Committee would probably be happy about it.
Could we ask the Secretariat, before finally printing this, to clarify that we are using the exact language. It seems to me a little uncertain on first reading it that the proposed regulation is the regulation varying the regional policy or the regulation recommended following the decision adopted in February 1978, in paragraph 20.
I understand that special consideration is given to the cross-border matters but I do not see any mention of drainage.
That falls under agricultural policy. For that reason it is left out of this.
Efforts have been made by a cross-Border committee, of which I am a member, to take this out of the agricultural area and bring it under the Regional Fund. If a river rises in Northern Ireland and flows into the South, the people in Northern Ireland do not care very much about the river because there are only a few miles of it in the North and the rest of it is our responsibility. There is a proposal before our cross-Border committee to take it out of the agricultural context and bring it under the Regional Fund.
The Commission's proposal is for the implementation of a special five-year programme, having as its objective the development of economic activities in the field of tourism, communications and artisan enterprises.
I was referring to the efforts being made to do that.
It would probably be funded from a different source.
It would be better if it did not come out of the Regional Fund because that is small enough as it is.
Paragraphs 36 and 37 deal with the Road Development Plan. It is stated that the plan for road development will get something like £475 million, of which £73.5 million will be required for the upkeep of the national primary and secondary routes. The total investment envisaged for the improvement of the road network is almost £600 million. Paragraph 38 deals with the E-routes, the European routes. E-routes have been designated by the UN Economic Commission for Europe.
How would you know you were on an E-route?
By the road signs.
Are there many of them around?
The plan is designed to improve roads which form part of a greater European road network and to make for the better connection of our centres of industrial production with major ports and airport termini. In the Joint Committee's view, the successful implementation of the plan would be very much in the interests of the Community as a whole.
Paragraphs 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 39.
There is an amendment to paragraph 39.
I move:
"To delete the third sentence in paragraph 39."
I propose to delete a sentence which I feel might be misunderstood and it would not represent the view I would like to see expressed. It is that we say—and I would agree with this—that the development envisaged is no more than what is essential for Ireland's economic development. The next sentence in the paragraph states: "In no sense can the plan be described as extravagant. Even when it is implemented Ireland will be the only one of the member states without a motorway." This seems to be creating a sense of deprivation—that we are deprived because we have no motorway. I do not feel deprived. I hope we will not take that route. I do not think the deletion of that sentence would take from the text and I would like to see it out. There is some implication that we ought to be building motorways. I was in a position to oppose the Eastern by-pass and oppose the motorway development. I do not like that kind of development. I want to see our roads improved but I do not want to see motorways. Since it is not central to this report. I would like to see it deleted.
Is Senator Robinson opposing motorways that run across the countryside that would not interfere with urban structures?
I am opposed to major motorway development as part of our improved infrastructure.
I am afraid that that amendment would not be accepted.
The point I am making is that this sentence implies that somehow we are deprived because we do not have motorway development. That is not in my view necessary for the argument being made here which I support, namely, that there is a need for road development.
Despite the fact that we will spend £600 million on a road plan we are going to end up in the position where we will not have what is recognised on the Continent as a motorway linking, say, Cork and Dublin or Galway and Dublin.
I see an implication there that Ireland is a deprived country because it does not have motorways. I do not think that the motorway linkage is necessarily a good development. The experience in other countries is that it has hazards; it eats up an awful lot of land and it does not necessarily improve the infrastructural development. I would like to see that sentence deleted.
May we get some other opinions on that?
I did not appreciate the reasons behind Senator Robinson's amendment until she spelled them out but I would be loath to remove the sentence simply because of the implications Senator Robinson sees in it. I appreciate her views in relation to the Eastern by-pass in Dublin but people living in the west of Ireland looking for major industrial expansion might be very sorry to see us remove that sentence because of the implications that the Senator sees in it. These things should be considered on their merits.
A motorway is only a big straight road. We will be deprived if we do not have those roads linking the main economic centres of this country.
I can see the point Senator Robinson has in relation to motorway development in an urban district. The vast majority of our goods in relation to industrial development in the west are transported by road and when foreign industrialists set up an industry in any part of the west they take account of the type of infrastructure we have, the supply of water and power and the direct communication to the area in question by road or rail. Articulated truck drivers feel that a journey from Dublin to the west by truck is the equivalent of driving almost from Glasgow to London. It is a hazard to themselves and they are a hazard to everybody else simply because of the condition and the width of the roads.
Deputy Kenny is weighing in against the proposed amendment?
I am weighing in for motorway development in that sense, to broaden the industrial expansion that we have on the west coast.
We have already talked about the Road Development Plan the development of the primary and secondary roads and the use of Community funding particularly on the Euroroute part. That would be a very major development of our road network. That is different from having a large motorway development with a different perception. I do not know whether there is a certain confusion about improving primary roads or primary routes and building motorways as such. If that is the issue and if this sentence is, as it appears to be, in favour of a motorway development as opposed to improving the primary route structure and development, I would like to be recorded as dissenting from that.
Can we in any way meet both parties by substituting "extravagant" and saying "and even when fully implemented will not include a motorway"? It will illustrate that it will not be so extravagant as to include a motorway.
That would be better.
I am not against motorways. I am against what they do to urban areas, the knocking down of houses or that type of thing, but when a motorway is built in open countryside as a means of improving the economic development of a deprived region I say go ahead with the project.
We are not as a Committee asked to make any decision of that character. We are trying to express something on a matter that is for us to decide in a manner that meets with the approval of as many people around the table as we can. I suggest that we say that even if implemented this expenditure will not include a motorway. We were not asked to make a report on roads and motorways.
What is the Chair suggesting?
I am suggesting a variation of Senator Robinson's amendment, to delete the sentence but substitute "and even if fully implemented" will not include a motorway. It is not extravagant for example that it has nothing to do with railways. That does not involve our making a decision for or against motorways.
An extra development is that a strong case can be made for special assistance towards the speeding up of the implementation of the plan, because even the roadway plan as it stands needs to be speeded up.
I move:
In lines four to six to delete ‘extravagant. Even when it is implemented Ireland will be the only one of the Member States without' and substitute ‘extravagant, and even if fully implemented will not include'.
The next paragraph refers back to the cross-border programme. The aid is modest and we welcome it.
Paragraph 40 agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 41.
We then come to the conclusions which I already glossed over when I opened the presentation of the report. It is not necessary to go through that again.
There is a possible consequential amendment. I noticed this earlier and I wanted to move the amendment before referring to it.
I move:
In page 23, line 2 after ‘roads' to insert ‘railways'.
Here we talk about a sustained investment in infrastructure such as roads, communications sanitary services and posts and harbours as being of paramount importance. I wonder whether we could include railways.
Does Senator Mulcahy feel terribly anxious to include a last sentence to paragraph 41? Perhaps he has already said as much as he will want to say without requiring the Committee to send out a message to the Government to go off and borrow a few hundred million more from the European Investment Bank. In the sentence before that Senator Mulcahy said that the Committee wished to acknowledge the significant assistance received. That is all right. We are not supposed to say that we should not have taken it. But we should not be required here to make up our minds on whether we want to encourage the Government to make further borrowing, even if the interest is subsidised for the objectives here. I suggest that we do not need that sentence. I would be happier if the Senator Mulcahy left it out. I move:
To delete the last sentence of the paragraph.
We are talking about the need for perhaps a regional development which means that we want economic convergence on the one hand and on the other hand we are saying that funds on a loan basis are there and available, and we should not use them to do this.
I am not proposing that we should not use them to do that. I propose that we do not get into the business of the Department of Finance, which is to make up their mind as to how much to borrow, from whom, at what rate and for what purpose. It is not our business to shape the budgetary policy of the national Government.
I am not going to try and do it from this Committee either. At the same time, questions of borrowing at national level tend to get confused because people think about that money being spent by the Government on areas like increased incomes and things like that, whereas here we are talking about the necessary infrastructure to bring about the EEC economic convergence which is the whole purpose of the EEC. I would imagine that we would be encouraging the Government and the EEC to speed up this infrastructural development. What that statement is trying to say there is: find the funds from the EEC and maybe let the EEC allow us to operate with financial and economic criteria which will enable us to catch up.
Senator Mulcahy has already said all that I would have thought he wanted to say on encouraging regional development. I am very open to Senator Mulcahy, but I put in the amendment——
I am not going to argue, it is at the discretion of the Chair.
Not really. I just put in an amendment.
The Chair can——
All Senator Mulcahy wants to say is said without that sentence.
What do the rest of the Committee feel?
In paragraph 30 it says that very important points——
Could we just have the Deputy's view? Does the Deputy have any view on the point that I have been concerned with, with regard to the last sentence? Does anybody have a view on it?
In the last sentence in relation to paragraph 41 I feel that we tend to place too much reliance on funds from the EEC. The essential point that Senator Mulcahy raised in relation to paragraph 30 is about regions comprising half of the territory of the Community still being eligible for Regional Fund assistance, and the hope that we have that we can gain increased financial assistance in the years ahead. I wonder what will happen when the additional countries join the EEC and we find that their infrastructures are so many years behind our own. Is this just a pious hope or is there any real merit in it? It is not for us to decide the budgetary policy of either this country or of the EEC, but it is a feeling I have.
Deputy Kenny is rather in favour of retaining this sentence then?
I do not mind. I am only making a general comment on it.
I will agree to deleting it.
Good. We all wish to thank Senator Mulcahy and Senator Robinson for their work on this Report. I have certainly found it a most illuminating job which has stretched much wider than we originally thought would be necessary. All that has been really valuable.
In terms of whether there will be any appropriate proposal will this be one of the reports which might be debated? It is extremely important. It is still very much relevant to decision making. As I understand it, we put in the necessary section now before the whole Joint Committee and ask for a debate.
I agree that it should be debated. It has a lot of data in it. I thank the Chairman for forcing us to clarify our thoughts on all this.
I am sorry that I could not understand an awful lot of stuff and had to ask questions. Would the Deputies like to have a debate as much as the Senators would?
In both Houses, yes.
Who will propose the motion for the Dáil? Somebody will have to bring it in.
Deputy Noonan will propose it in the Dáil and Senator Robinson will move it in the Seanad.
NEW PARAGRAPH.
I move:
Before paragraph 42 to insert a new paragraph as follows:
‘In view of the importance of infrastructural development in Ireland the Joint Committee requests that a debate on this Report take place in each House in accordance with the Orders of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann of 17 October, 1979 and 6th February, 1980, respectively'.