EC Regional Fund Plans: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann deplores the Government's handling of the preparation of plans for submission to the enlarged EC Regional Fund and in particular the secrecy surrounding these preparations, the absence of effective local participation and the virtual exclusion of elected representatives from this process.

—(Senator Manning.)

Mr. Doyle

A development plan has been drawn up by the Department of Finance for submission to the European Commission as part of an application for funding from the substantially increased EC Structural Funds. Up to now there have been three Structural Funds. During 1987 the Structural Funds had a combined budget of £5,700 million. That was increased by some £300 million during 1988. In order to support the completion of the internal market the Structural Funds will be increased by about £1,000 million a year in each of the years from 1989 to 1992. With a further increase of some £770 million allocated for 1993 the three Structural Funds should be disbursing about £10,800 million by that year. In rough terms, there should be a doubling of the annual resources available from the Structural Funds between 1987 and 1993.

For the purpose of applying for these funds Ireland has been divided into seven regions. Specific proposals for economic and infrastructural development will be presented to the Commission for each of these regions. One of these regions and the region in which I am most interested is the greater Dublin region comprising the city and country. A consultancy study has been commissioned by the Government. I understand a programme for development drawn up after the study was completed will be used as a model for the other regions. We in Dublin Corporation have been consulted at just one meeting about this measure. Even though I have been a member of the council for ten years and the leader of a group, the elected members had no responsibility whatsoever in drawing up the list of items under which Dublin Corporation are to seek funding. I will refer briefly to these. They are roads, sewers, pedestrianisation, the updating of the markets, secondary and tertiary sanitary treatment and the expanding up of water production at Ballymore Eustace. It may come as a surprise to Senators, especially Senators from rural Ireland who have serious grievances in relation to roads and the maintenance of roads, to hear that there is a problem in Dublin. There was far more consultation with the elected members for the estimates for the city than there was in the preparation of these items for funding from the EC Regional Fund. I quote from the manager's report on the estimates:

Again, the 1989 Government Estimate for Public Services include a special provision of £20 million for country roads. It is equally important in my view that additional moneys be made available for renewal or urban roads and pathways many of which in Dublin require more expenditure than we have been able to allocate.

Under the heading of "sewers" he had something to say which really caused us concern and I quote from his report:

Some of these are at the point of collapse from the combined effects of age and heavy traffic. We may no longer be in a position to avail of opportunities for sewer renewal where street reconstruction is in progress. In the redeployment of men from sewer reconstruction, there will be a loss of the skills and expertise in this area which has been built up over the years. If the funding situation was otherwise than it is we would make more provision for work of this nature.

Of course it is very important that we receive money from the Regional Fund for that purpose.

One of the main issues in relation to the environment is the quality of water in Dublin Bay. We have a primary treatment service but to make it better we would need a secondary and tertiary treatment service. We are also seeking funding for these services. These are issues which involve local elected members. We all have a great interest in the issues I have mentioned but we have not been consulted in any way in relation to these issues beyond the manager, out of courtesy, informing us of the proposals he was putting to the consultancy commission. It is regrettable that this should happen, that local authority members, when an application for extra funding from the EC is being made, should be completely denied any opportunity to make their own representations.

I understand that up to now there has been a system of a £1 for £1 — for every £1 we spend we are supplemented by £1 from the EC Regional Fund and the ratio will be 75-25 in the near future. The EC seem to be interested only in supporting the capital expenditure of local authority and Government services. If Governments are not prepared to put money into certain services the EC Regional Fund will not provide any funding.

I was speaking today to the assistant manager who is responsible for drawing up this plan for the city of Dublin. He informs me that they have included housing, even though they feel that housing will not be included under the EC regulations. It is a serious issue. For the past two years the Government have not sanctioned any layout for housing, either for inner city housing or for senior citizen accommodation in Dublin. The Department of the Environment inform us that there are no finances available. We have now reached the stage where there are a number of sites in the city awaiting redevelopment. These can become derelict very quickly. Dublin Corporation have now endorsed a plan for the sale of these sites. This is very tragic.

I hope that the economic policies of the Government — we on this side of the House support the thrust of their main economic policies — will result in greater economic prosperity in our country and will ease the emigration situation. We now have 30,000 people leaving our country each year. There is a cycle in this, as I saw in the fifties and sixties. The same number of people were leaving in the fifties and they came back to a more prosperous Ireland in the sixties. If this happens — and I hope it will — we will find ourselves with a need for a housing programme. In the meantime we will have sold the sites. I know the EC consider that we are well housed as a nation. Indeed, they would say that we do better than most countries, and we have done very well. I hope the Government will be able to divert into that area some of the finances they will get from EC funds for other purposes I have mentioned. That is an essential area and it has been neglected up to now. The officials are entering housing as one of their priorities. Nevertheless we do not feel we will be all that successful.

I do not doubt the ability of consultants and country management teams but they do not have a monopoly on wisdom or insight into what is required. I believe the base for this consultation should be considerably widened to include local authority nembers, members of the business sector and members of the farming community. Indeed, in not involving local authority members the Government may have created serious risks for Ireland's ability to secure maximum benefits from the doubling of the Structural Funds. The effectiveness of the regional development programme must involve the strengthening of the role of local authorities. It is no coincidence that Denmark, which currently has the second highest national output per head of population, after Luxembourg, has followed the pattern of administrative decentralisation. There are now 273 local authorities and 14 regional authorities in the country, with a population of over five million.

There is also the question of giving local authorities a more independent role in relation to public revenue as well as public expenditure. It is only with financial autonomy that local authorities, as distinct from the central Exchequer, can have a meaningful partnership with EC Structural Funds. That is the problem we have to address. It is a problem the Government have so far failed to address. As a result, we will put at risk some of the benefits we can get from the EC.

Mr. Mooney

In speaking to the terms of the motion I have to take issue with the content and tone of the opening sentence:

That Seanad Éireann deplores the Government's handling of the preparation of plans for submission to the enlarged EC Regional Fund.

I beg to suggest that the activity of this Administration, particularly in the past six months, has been a far greater and wider operation than we saw in four and a half years of the previous Administration. Indeed, the advent of 1992 and the implications for this country were very clearly evident early in the decade. In that context I could not agree with the content of the motion in that regard or, indeed, the reference in the latter part of the motion to the absence of effective local participation.

At a recent foreign affairs council meeting common positions were finally agreed on the draft co-ordinating regulation and on the three draft implementing regulations for each of the Structural Funds. Subject to consultation with the European Parliament the way is now clear for this new regime to come into effect on 1 January next. The regional development plan for Ireland will have to be submitted by 31 March. I understand that the Government's aim is to submit the operational programmes simultaneously.

It is impressive to note the importance and, indeed, the priority attached to this area by the Government, contrary to the terms of the motion. They are ensuring that we will maximise our entitlements from the doubling in the size of the Structural Funds which will be used to equip our economy to compete successfully in the internal market, providing badly needed jobs and contributing to narrowing the gap between our living standards and those in the more prosperous regions of the Community. In that respect the Government are to be congratulated on the fact that they have battled long. I also pay tribute to the previous Administration in that they have always looked after the interests of Ireland to the best of their ability. The reality is that what is coming on-stream now is a result of intense and successful negotiations during the past 12 to 18 months.

In regard to questions that have been raised about the geographical boundaries of the seven sub-national programme areas as well as on the composition and roles of the working groups and the advisory groups, it should be emphasised that decisions on these matters were taken by the Government only after the fullest consideration of all the issues involved as well as having secured the agreement of the social partners to these arrangements through the Central Review Committee on the Programme for National Recovery.

Time is short. The year 1992 is but three years away and the pressing need now is to make rapid progress in preparing high quality programmes to tackle the development needs of the various areas, none more than my own area. The Border counties, now designated as region six, are in pressing and urgent need of the implementation of the plans to be put forward to Europe. The composition of the advisory groups reflects the need for balanced representation of various interests and areas. It is the view of the Government that it is not possible to add to representation on the advisory groups without upsetting the delicate balance or making the membership, already reasonably large, so numerous as to make the groups too unwieldy to be effective.

I am sure all sides of the House and public opinion in general would agree that this Government, or indeed any other administration, could be justifiably criticised if they were to set up yet another quango that was going to enlarge itself out of proportion to the point where decisions that are urgent and immediate would not be taken because of vacillation due to the large numbers involved on a committee. That is not an anti-democratic stance; it is a practical point of view.

The position in relation to the boundaries is also similar in that it is not arbitrary. They were settled with a view to grouping together counties, or parts of counties, having regard to geography, population, previous administrative divisions, common concerns and economic structures. No matter how the Government grouped areas it would not be possible to satisfy all parties. The important thing now is to advance preparation of the programmes and arguments over boundaries will not promote this. Here again there is a strange fatalistic attitude in Ireland in that, whenever ideas are put forward out of which should come benefit for our people, the first thing we do is to pick holes in them. Within Europe we must be seen to be united in our approach towards maximising the amount of money which will come to this country from the Structural Funds. While valid and constructive criticism is always welcome, in this instance on such an important issue there should be unanimity of approach and of purpose.

At this stage the various sub-national areas defined are simply for the purposes of these operational programmes for submission to the Community Structural Funds. They do not have any other administrative implication. For example, they do not mean that Louth will cease to benefit from any special programme for Border areas. Louth and Sligo have been exlcuded from section 6 which covers the Border counties. Yet for cross-Border funding and for ongoing funding of Border areas, Louth would obviously be included and rightly so. Longford is another case in point. It will not cease to be regarded as a less-developed county for the purposes of schemes in which it has hitherto been included. These matters are settled. Subject to that, the views of locally elected representatives in the regions will be taken into account through their membership of the advisory groups. That is a two-tier system, as most people now know, and there is no question that elected public representatives are being denied access.

I understand that county managers, who are the main advisory group, are reporting back to their locally elected representatives on a regular monthly or bi-monthly basis, depending on the number of meetings being held. If, for example, there are some county managers who are not reporting back to their local authorities, or if the information that is being discussed and decided at advisory group level is not percolating down to some local authorities, that is not the fault of the system. Rather it is the fault of the officials involved. In County Leitrim the county manager has been most meticulous in ensuring that the locally elected representatives on the council are kept fully informed of the developments in relation to the integrated programmes.

Specific arrangements have been introduced to ensure effective working and liaison arrangements for this purpose between the advisory groups and the working groups so that the latter will take fully into account the ideas of the advisory groups which I now encourage all the groups to put forward as early as possible. As I said at the outset, 31 March is the deadline here and obviously time is of the essence. The advisory groups are also totally free to receive and consider submissions from all relevant sources within the regions and, after assessing them, to transmit those they consider worthy of priority to the working group with their own comments. Indeed, they should be encouraged to engage in such a consultative process but it will have to be pressed forward rapidly in view of the time constraint set by Community regulations.

Again, I have to refer to my own area here. All of the Border counties have suffered badly on an economic level down through the years. We see the proper and effective implementation of the working groups and the ongoing submissions to Europe and the subsequent funding from the Structural Funds as being imperative to the future viability of our county and the counties surrounding us.

The suggestions that the views of elected representatives are either being ignored or are not adequately provided for are, in the context of what I have said up to now, totally without foundation. In that context I could not accept the wording of the motion:

... the absence of effective local participation and the virtual exclusion of elected representatives from this process,

Mr. Doyle

There is no participation by local authority elected members.

Mr. Mooney

I have already made the point that there is a two-tier system——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Mooney should be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. Mooney

I understand what Senator Doyle is attempting to suggest but I suggest to him that it is untrue and totally without foundation. I have tried to bring the Senator through the various component parts of this new operation and pointed out to him that there is a direct linkage between the locally elected representatives through the county manager on to the advisory group. If some county managers are not getting the message or the message is not precolating down to the local representatives, that is hardly the fault of the system. Surely the Senator is not suggesting that these advisory groups should be so top heavy and unwieldly that they are going to result in vacillation and time wasting. Time is of the essence here and it is in that context that I made the point.

A wide range of sectional interest groups are involved with development issues and are represented on the advisory groups. Indeed, the Government have gone much further in this area than is necessary under EC regulations — and I make that point to Senator Doyle. They have done it deliberately in line with the stance and consultations and involvement which they are pursuing at national level with a view to ensuring that local knowledge and experience are drawn on and utilised to the full. Since September there has been a seminar on each working day somewhere in this country devoted to 1992, to the regional Structural Funds and to the implications for Ireland and for the various regions. That hardly smacks of lack of preparation.

Also, the awareness of the general public and, more important at this point, the business community, is highlighted by the fact that, as a result of the Government's advances in this area and their activities in this area to inform as wide a grouping as possible, a survey carried out by Stokes Kennedy Crowley earlier this year indicated that over 50 per cent of the business community was aware of 1992 and the implications for Irish business. That hardly smacks of unawareness.

Mr. Doyle

I hope they are. That is all I say.

Mr. Mooney

I suggest to the Senator that he should look at other statistics in this area of awareness. Over 17,000 leaflets have been sent out by the secretariat in response to queries from the general public and from the business community. That hardly smacks of a lack of awareness or preparation.

In relation to the whole question of advisory groups and the whole process involved there will be no rigid directives laid down in Dublin with which the regions will have to comply. Provision has been made for interaction between preparation of the national development plan and that of the sub-national operational programmes and also for input from the sub-national areas into those operational programmes which will be drawn up at national level such as that for the strategic roads network. Again, I welcome this as one who comes from rural Ireland. I can understand Senator Doyle's point of view because I know the roads are excellent in the area from which he comes in Dublin and there are no difficulties in that respect. I have every confidence that the advisory groups and subsequently the Government and the coordinator of this European Structural Fund programme, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, will ensure that we get substantial and adequate funding for our roads network. I am sure Senator Doyle can hardly criticise that.

With the advisory groups getting down to work the arrangements are now in place for the preparation of our sub-national programmes. I would like to avail of this opportunity to wish those groups every success in their work. I am confident that we can rely on them all to give of their best. We encourage them to take a view transcending the individual counties. I would be the first to concede that while I am very anxious that Leitrim should get perhaps more than any other county is getting, in the context of the motion we are addressing here and the whole question of EC structural funding, it is important to remember that, in the regional set-up that has now been put in place, there is real hope for counties that are economically disadvantaged and that they will now be part of an integrated regional operation rather than having to look for something in their own areas. I have every confidence that, within the next few years, the roads and, in particular roads in the Border counties will benefit greatly from the implementation of the Structural Funds.

I would like to take issue with many of the points made in the motion. I think I have attempted fairly and honestly to point out certain flaws in its approach and I am sure Senator Doyle and Senators on the other side of the House will join with the Government and with all of us to ensure that the very best deal is got for Ireland in the shortest possible time.

Mr. McCormack

The motion is very carefully worded. If Senator Mooney had studied the wording of the motion — which he may have done — he would have noted that it says:

That is what the motion is about. Senator Mooney can rightly say that great work has been done in the past three months, and we recognise that. Our contention, in putting down that motion, was that this work should have been going on for the past two years. Time is of the essence now, as he says, but we are deploring the fact that valuable time was lost in preparing plans for submission for programmes to be included in this scheme. I will deal with that more thoroughly in my submission.

The enlarged regional fund is the bringing together of the current FEOGA Guidance Fund, the Social Fund and the Regional Fund. The income to Ireland from these three funds in the current year is about £300 million. That amount is proposed to be doubled under this new proposed enlarged regional fund. That is £600 million a year over a five-year planning period and that amounts to the spending of £3 billion. I submit, as this motion declares, that the Government's handling of the proposed regional fund left a lot to be desired. It should have been obvious to the Government that a new regional development plan would be necessary when the Single European Act became law early in 1987. In fact, that was the first legislation passed by this Seanad. I remember that clearly because we sat in the Dáil for the first time and I made my maiden speech on the Single European Act. From the time that became law after it was passed by the Seanad, the Government should have been aware of the situation and should have set in motion more than a year and nine months ago what is in the motion now.

The enlarged regional fund has been set up to give disadvantaged countries such as Portugal, Spain and Ireland a chance to catch up on the more developed countries before the open market in 1992 when we will have a united Europe. The year 1992 will cause massive problems for Ireland when the barriers are removed, border tax is eliminated and common VAT rates will apply. It is estimated that this could cost Ireland £430 million in the first year and about £350 million each year after that. The danger that I see with the new enlarged regional fund is that some powers in the EC may try to tell us that our loss is being made up by the enlarged regional fund. The Government should be alert to this and should not allow it to be part of the argument about what Ireland will get from the enlarged regional fund.

In 1993, when the tunnel linking Britain to the Continent is completed, we will be the only island in the Community. This will place us at a serious disadvantage as against our European partners and we should and must ensure that we be compensated for this. We will not be compensated without having viable programmes before the EC for the correct funds. We cannot do this unless plans are ready and submitted by our Government. We should submit plans for our tourism and food processing industries. These are areas where Ireland can have a special advantage over our competitors in Europe.

The potential market for our tourism industry is unlimited. In fact, we are about the only country in Europe now where salmon and trout can still be fished in rivers and lakes. Let us promote, encourage and sell these assets. This debate here tonight is reminiscent of a debate which took place on the Adjournment of the Seanad before Christmas last year. We had practically the same speakers then. Senator Mooney and I spoke when the famous rod licence Bill was introduced. I implore the Minister for the Marine to repeal this rod licence which has already cost our country and, in particular, Counties Galway and Mayo, as the Minister of State will be aware.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is surely going away from the motion in referring to the rod licence.

Mr. McCormack

No, I am not, because it is very much part of the tourism potential that we have——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not see how the House can fit it into the motion.

Mr. McCormack

Of course we can. We lost several millions in tourism revenue by having that licence imposed last year. I am imploring the Minister to repeal it.

Mr. Connor

The fishing industry is at the very core and essence of this.

Mr. McCormack

It is, of course.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McCormack does not need any assistance.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McCormack

I am always willing to accept assistance from whatever quarter I get it. To get back to the preparation of plans, I visited Brussels earlier this year and I was amazed to discover that Ireland is way behind all other member countries in having planned programmes submitted for consideration for the enlarged regional fund. At that stage other member states had programmes already submitted. We are now at the stage where the regional committees are drawing up programmes which have to be submitted to the Department of Finance and which will eventually have to be submitted before March. Other countries have got a head start on us. Despite the fact that March 1989 is the latest date for the submission of programmes for grants, it is astonishing that only now are the Government making real moves to establish suitable programmes.

Ireland has been divided into seven regions and each of these regions have to agree and submit programmes which, in turn, will be sent to the Department of Finance for final sanction. Our region in the west consists of Counties Galway, Mayo and Roscommon and it is only in the past month that a body has been set up to produce programmes. They met in the last month for the first time. We have had only one preliminary report back from our county manager, as the Minister of State here would know, at a recent council meeting. It is only now that we have a chance to have any input into this.

This is all despite the fact that the Government were aware for two years that such a planned programme was necessary. Mr. Jacques Delors, President of the EC Commission, has been urged to postpone consideration of Ireland's claim for aid because nobody has been given a proper opportunity to submit projects or make submissions in the inclusion of projects. By that I mean county councils, community councils, the general public and people involved in projects that might be submitted as part of the programmes. Our outgoing Irish Commissioner, Mr. Peter Sutherland, has tried to draw attention to the fact — that this is a very crucial point — that there will be no longer be national quotas of any kind for aid from the Structural Fund. Instead, it is the quality of the plans submitted to Brussels that will count in the end. This is vital.

We now have to have our plans on paper. No longer can we go to Brussels with a sort of begging bowl attitude and say: "Ireland must get this and that." We must have submitted our plans in advance so that we can make up some ground on the countries that are ahead of us. Do the Government think that a proper programme to spend £3 billion over five years can be prepared in a matter of months? What have we been doing for the past year and a half or so?

I want to refer now to the structure of the regional committees set up. This is our biggest bone of contention as indicated in the motion, despite what Senator Mooney has said. The committee in our region of Galway, Mayo and Roscommon consists of 17 people, three county managers, one from each county, about seven regional heads of Government agencies in our area and six senior people from the Department of Finance — probably all fine people in their own right. I know a number of them but I am sure they have the interests of the region at heart and that they will submit proper and correct plans.

What about the case for local democracy? None of those people is answerable to the electorate. None of them has to be elected and, more important, none of them has to offer himself or herself for re-election — another indication of the Government's lack of commitment to local councils. I am a local representative on two local authorities. We have had no opportunity to have any say in the drawing up of the programmes. I have to take this opportunity to put on the record, as Senator Mooney did, projects that I think should be included in the programmes for our region.

The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, will be aware that there is a programme in which I have a deep interest. I brought it to the attention of Galway County Council when I was first elected there in 1974. This is a proposal for a bridge crossing of the Corrib at its narrowest point, Knockferry on the western side to Kilbeg on the eastern side, a crossing of approximately 350 yards which would save a round journey of 40 miles. I am sure the Minister would be most willing to help in this matter. Both sides of the Corrib at that location are in my county council electoral area. That is not why I am bringing the matter up here. A bridge crossing at that point, which would be the most suitable project for inclusion in an overall programme for the three counties, would open up entire new areas of county Galway, both east and west and Connemara, in particular, to the tourism industry. It would open up east Galway from the point of view of agricultural and local tourism development also. It would be an advantage to the marts on the eastern side of the Corrib and to the proposed new marts which we hope to build in Maam Cross. It would open up a new area for that also.

That is a project that is readymade. It would be of advantage to Galway. It would also give an advantage to the other counties in the region — Mayo and Roscommon — because it would be no harm to bring down the Roscommon people to see Connemara as they go on to play golf. I do not know whether my colleague, Senator Connor, plays golf but he will be welcome to cross that new bridge when we open it as a result of including it in a programme for the Structural Fund.

We will include a couple more items which I believe should be included. For example, schemes worth £75 million for sanitary services are ready and available in Galway County Council. They could be submitted. These are schemes like the Oranmore sewerage scheme — at an estimated cost of £3 million — a regional water supply scheme — at an estimated cost of £6 million — and the ClifdenTully-Letterfrack regional water scheme — at an estimated cost of £5 million. Plans and programmes are already waiting for those. I am suggesting that they should be included in the submission.

We have £10 million worth of schemes ready and planned for roads in County Galway, the completion of the Oranmore-Galway eastern approach road, an amount on regional road works in Connemara and strategic county roads in Connemara. All these programmes are ready and are ideal projects for inclusion in an overall programme. There should be a plan for tourism development in Connemara, development of our islands, a roll on — roll off ferry service to the Aran Islands at an estimated cost of £3 million. We have plans ready for that also. I was in communication with the Minister already about that scheme. There is the development of Inis Thiar — Kilmurvey pier badly needs development —and that could also be included. In our region we must make the case that of the three counties concerned, we in Galway have the island with the largest population.

I will conclude by saying that another very important aspect in our region would be the protection of the environment. New problems are beginning to arise with the advancement of fish farming and aquaculture developments. We want more research into that. This would be an ideal project to submit for grant-aid under this scheme whereby we could set up testing locations and so on.

All in all, it is a pity that we did not get a chance two years ago rather than in the past three months to now make our submissions. This is the first real chance I have got to make any submission. I am very glad that the Leas-Chathaoirleach has given me an opportunity to make submissions at this level, even though we will have to transfer them from here to the committee that is dealing with this matter in our region.

Mr. Connor

The purpose of this motion is to draw attention to the fact that, if we look back at regional policy and the history of regional policy in this country, it has been a disaster because all the wrong kind of thinking and very often the wrong kind of information went into making up these policies. There was never real consultation with the people to whom regional policy was to be delivered or on whom it would have direct effects. The Single European Act in many ways replaces and certainly complements the Treaty of Rome. I found it interesting to listen to Senator Mooney talking about all the positive developments which have taken place in the past year and a half, coinciding with the coming into power of the present Government who went somewhat out of their way to decry what had been done by the previous Coalition Government. I have to remind Senator Mooney — and he is not here now——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not in order to refer to the presence or the absence of a colleague.

Mr. Connor

It is a great pity that on such an important motion — to which I put down my name — I am speaking to empty benches. Nevertheless I want to remind Senator Mooney that his party opposed the Single European Act for the most rubbishy of reasons, I would say. They trotted out all the old nonsense about sovereignty etc. in the latter part of 1987 when the legislation giving effect to it here in Ireland was in both these Houses and his party opposed it. Then we had to have a referendum on it, not related to Fianna Fáil opposition may I say, but related to action in one of our higher courts. When one listens to the kind of argument he made people need to be reminded of their history and of their very recent history.

The point I began to make was that the Single European Act strengthens the Treaty which binds all the member states together in a way that was not done in the original Treaty of Rome. There is a very confirmed Common Market or European Market. That, to me, certainly was badly needed and very beneficial and it will continue to be beneficial in the future.

Under the title "Economic and Social Cohesion", the Single European Act states:

In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion. In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions.

One can see there, at the very outset, that the basic principle set down is to direct resources away from areas that are well favoured into areas that are relatively less well favoured. That is the basic principle of what we adopted when this country became, with all our partners in Europe, a part of and a party to this new Treaty which we call the Single European Act.

The Commission, in turn, makes five basic proposals to that aim set down and I will read them for the benefit of the House:

(i) Achieving growth and adaptation in structurally backward regional economies, so that they can be fully integrated into the Community.

(ii) Converting declining industrial regions by helping them to develop new activities.

(iii) Combating long term unemployment:

——that is very important in Ireland——

(iv) Integrating young people into employment, especially first jobs.

(v) Assisting the adjustment of agricultural structures and the development of rural areas.

I submit to the House that there is no way that we can develop a policy to cover all of those five very worthy aims unless we involve the people in the regions whom they will affect directly. Let us say that has not been the history. That is the very first point I make. My party would take some share of the blame for that too. I am one of those who never believed that Ireland should have been taken as a single region for aid under the regional policy, so-called, as it commenced in about 1985. The whole island of Ireland was taken as one region and we applied the policies here as if there were no disparity between the east and the west. Of course there is major disparity. At every economic level of activity there is major disparity between the level of disposable income on the eastern side and the level of disposable income in all regions roughly west of the River Shannon.

We are repeating the same mistake because whatever we say about these advisory groups, they are only talking shops. There is no commitment that the Department of Finance would take on board and implement what they advise. There is a piece of tokenism, saying to them: "Right, we will take you in; we will listen to what you have to say". Many of the people, especially the people in the working party — that is the one dominated by the senior civil servants — lack the necessary background. I have nothing against senior civil servants but by the very fact of their calling, their very attitudes — and they live here in Dublin— they have no perception of what is good for or what the difficulties and the major problems of economic backwardness are in the declining regions which we have in so many parts of this country.

The only way in which there can be a meaningful input by these advisory committees is that when they advise their advice is taken. Under the present set up and structure that cannot happen. I suggest to the House that, given our history in these matters, it will not happen, because the mandarins in Merrion Street, across the road from here, will have the final say. I say that from experience and nobody inside or outside this House will deny it.

It is interesting to look at the history of the regional fund since its implementation going back to about 1975. I referred to how we implemented policies here. The principle behind the regional fund — not alone Community-wide but within the nations and countries — was to help areas that were not in a position to help themselves. In other words, if resources are transferred from the European Commission to Ireland under the heading of regional development, they should, by and large, be spent in areas that need the greatest level of help. That did not happen in Ireland purely and simply because we operated this one-region policy within our own borders.

I read in a report compiled and prepared by the office of the European Commission here in Dublin that in the years 1976 to 1985 the amount of moneys under the ERDF spent in the region where I live — and I live in what would be called the midlands, which consists of the counties of Roscommon, Longford, Westmeath, Offaly and Laois — was 13.3 million ECUs which were spent under the heading of industrial development. Under the heading of infrastructure — that is roads, water, sewage, etc. — the amount of money spent was 24.15 million ECUs over that 12 years. The average value of an ECU over those 12 years was about 77p at current values.

It is interesting to look at what the Eastern region got. I do not subscribe to an east-west divide in Ireland but I always make the point that there are areas relatively well off and areas very badly off in this country. The east region consists of the counties of Meath, Kildare, Wicklow and Dublin and under the heading of industrial development they succeeded in getting 79.65 million ECUs in those 12 years and under the heading of infrastructural development they got 163.34 million ECUs. That illustrates, very graphically I suggest to the House, the policy of not applying regional policy in the way it was meant to apply, certainly by the people who originally framed it in the early seventies. Its real genesis was there in the Treaty of Rome but the major policy was the one on the Common Agricultural Policy and the policy governing coal and steel.

I often wonder, too, how much thought goes into the structure and distribution of the population here on this island when we come to making these policies. It is interesting to note that 46 per cent of the people of Ireland live in rural areas — the highest in Europe. Only 22 per cent of our population live in towns and I mean by towns centres with 2,000 people or more. Thirty-three per cent of our people live in cities; and I mean by cities centres of population with 100,000 people or more living there. It is interesting to note that by that yardstick there are only two cities in Ireland, Dublin and Cork. Using that yardstick, there are about 35 cities in Italy, there are about 60 cities in Germany and I understand that there are about 48 cities in the United Kingdom.

We have borrowed the application of regional policy. The way we made up our minds about these things and the way we put them into final policy was very much taken from the thinking that went into the regional policy made for the British midlands, because that was a declining industrial area in the sense that it had been one of the major industrial areas in the last century and at the turn of this century. The same was true of the Ruhr and the same would be true also of northern Italy. The regional development policies that we evolved, not only evolved but indeed applied, had very much of the thinking behind the regional development policies that were tailored for those areas.

Again at the end of the day it was a case of the mandarins who make these policies for us not listening to us, not listening to the people who really matter and who were going to be afected by these policies, but taking the easy option of looking at another example that had no relevance at all to our problems and applying broadly or roughly speaking the principles of what they saw elsewhere because that was the easiest way out of it. That has been a disaster because we have all of these regional imbalances and they are worse in this country than in any other member state. We cannot remind ourselves often enough of that fact. Yet we come to this crucial time again — and I do not wish to be repetitive in the House — when as and from 1 January we will get an opportunity to change these policies in the sense that the aids we are to get will be doubled under three headings.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has one minute remaining.

Mr. Connor

Yet we are making the same mistakes again. We refuse to consult the people who have the knowledge. It has been a popular thing, I believe, in the Departments here in Dublin to rubbish the role of local representatives. I know they are looked upon as some kind of tin-pot parish agitators.

An Cathaoirleach

We do not see them as that.

Mr. Connor

I am talking about the people who make policy in the Department. You and I may agree on this particular point, a Chathaoirligh, but, alas, the people who make these decisions look on local representatives and people who speak for local communities in that way. That has been a disaster. Most of these people have a lot to contribute. They live on the ground. They see the problems. They also foresee the problems, which is very important when you are making policy. Yet all they are offered under present arrangements is this piece of tokenism which has no relevance to the reality. There is one other point I would like to make.

An Cathaoirleach

Your time is up, Senator.

Mr. Connor

I was delayed for three minutes because the last speaker actually impinged on my time by about three minutes. I beg your indulgence, a Cathaoirligh, and I am sure Senator Haughey will not mind.

An Cathaoirleach

Your time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Connor

The funds to be enlarged come under three headings — the European Farm Fund, as under the guidance section, the Regional Fund and the Social Fund. It is interesting if you look back over the past 12 years. Ireland was approved for grant assistance under the Regional Fund to the value of £825 million in 12 years. Actually, we took up only £586 million purely and simply because Governments were not willing to put up the necessary finance to carry these programmes through a system of 50:50. Under the Social Fund, a major area of industrial training, we did very well over 12 years and especially over the last six years when that really became meaningful. An amount of over £1 billion was approved for this country and we took up over 90 per cent of that. They estimate that around £962 million has been taken up over the past 12 years, and most of that over the past six years, especially in the area of industrial training.

Under the guidance section of the FEOGA funds over 12 years we were approved for something like £557.2 million and it is estimated that we took up around 95 per cent of that. If you make up the total of these programmes for 1987, which is the last year we have figures for, they came to nearly £300 million, and by 1992 they are supposed to be £300 million. If we are approved for £300 million for this very badly needed development in 1992 we should be there to pick up every last cent of that £300 million and not be losing 10 per cent or 20 per cent of it as in the area of the Regional Fund where we are losing up to 20 per cent of it.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Connor, your time is definitely up. Thank you.

Mr. McDonald

I speak to the motion:

At the outset of my very brief intervention I should like to point out clearly that this motion is not tabled in any way to appear controversial; it is certainly not vexatious and it is not being pressed. We want to use this opportunity to highlight our fears as perceived from our vantage points in the different parts of this country. We hope the Minister and his Department will take these points on board.

My colleagues, speaking here tonight from different regions of the country, have highlighted the situation as they see it from the administrative areas in which they live. The situation in the south midlands in my constituency does not appear to be any different. As a former president of the regional policy committee of the European Communities and as one who during the establishment of the initial regional fund worked very closely with Commissioner Sir George Thompson, now Lord Thompson of Dundee, I can say that during the seventies I had the opportunity to visit every one of the classified regions in the Community of Nine.

I accept that it is not possible to have a direct input from every one of the disadvantaged areas and from every one of the regions right across the Community of Twelve. But I believe we should make the best of the opportunity there. I have on many occasions and in many speeches in this House in recent years — and not just under the present Government, I hasten to add — expressed my unease at the power the Minister's Department gradually usurped to themselves, especially under this arrangement. We who tabled this motion feel it is a pity that in ordering the priorities for the economic development of infrastructures in the various counties the views of the local representatives are not taken into account. Nobody will contest the fact that local representatives of all parties and of no party are very close to the reality on the ground and to deprive these representatives of a meaningful input, of an opportunity to order their own priorities for infrastructural development in their own counties is not the proper way to set about the development of our country and it is not the most advantageous way of utilising the funds, now that we are told they are going to be doubled and made more available. That is a problem, and I lay the problem, fairly and squarely at the feet of the Department of Finance. Our Department of Finance, unlike any other Department in the EC, is all powerful; it is too strong and in most cases it is not answerable to anybody. That is a pity. At this stage it should be split up into a budget Department, a Department to spend the money as well, so that there would be a distinct balance and check.

If we had to give a Nobel Prize to the people who have managed to get very good value over the years from the European Community the Italians are the colleagues in Europe we should look at, because they know exactly how to extend the benefits of membership of the Community not only to every region but to every parish and corner of the Italian Republic. It is very frustrating being a member of a local authority at present to say that a local councillor, irrespective of how many votes he gets or how many people stand behind him at election time, has not got the influence or the power even to fill a pothole. I do not want to have a debate on potholes, but it has gone to such a pitch that the Government say now that because the local authorities are not able to control or raise their own finances they must always be dictated to from on high.

That is going in the wrong direction from a democratic point of view. I do not wish to be political when I say that, because the last Government promised to bring in local government reform and they spent four years and were not able to produce meaningful reform. I hope that the same process is going on. It needs to be done. It is nonsense being a member of a local authority at present. Local authorities should either be scrapped altogether or they should be given a role with an input. There is not much point in looking at the situation on a county basis, having an input there and then finding that no matter what goes up for sanction it is decided by the Department of the Environment, whose finances are controlled by the Department of Finance. They just put the pen through developments they do not want, whether it is on a percentage basis or whatever. If that continues we are not going to maximise the benefits available from the European Regional Development Fund. We need to be able to maximise those benefits if we are to get this country in line to keep our place in the development after 1992.

With those few comments I would just like to say that I hope the Minister and the Government will be able to take on board some of the views expressed in the debate last week and this afternoon and to see in what way we can bring a little more democracy into this great and most important development.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. N. Treacy)

We had a wide-ranging debate in the Seanad this evening and last Wednesday on the new arrangements applicable to EC Structural Funds. I would like to commend Senators for their contributions to the debate which reveal a worthy concern that Ireland should maximise the opportunities which the enlarged funds will present and also, if I may say so, a grasp of the details of the new arrangements and their implications which cuts across some of the accusations which are the substance of the motion before the Seanad. Bearing this in mind, I shall confine my remarks on the actual arrangements to a very brief summary of the main features and then deal with the main points made in the debate.

The EC regulations which will apply include a framework regulation adopted in June last and a set of four implementing regulations which have only been agreed at Council level in the last few weeks. A new set of procedures for the operation of the Structural Funds is envisaged. The use of the funds is to be planned on a multi-annual basis. The first stage is for each region to draw up a development plan. Since Ireland is one region for Structural Fund purposes, this development plan will be at national level and it is likely to cover the period 1989-1993. It will set out our priorities for expenditure in the areas which can be assisted by the Structural Fund resources. The EC Commission will consider this plan and determine the extent to which it is willing to provide assistance from the Structural Funds. This will be set out in what is to be called the Community Support Framework.

The final stage is the programmes which will set out in detail how the objectives set out in the plan will be implemented. These will be submitted by the national authorities and will have to be approved by the Commission. The administrative arrangements which have been adopted for the preparation and co-ordination of the sub-regional programmes are as follows:

(1) A committee of Minister and departmental secretaries, chaired by the Taoiseach, will have responsibility for overseeing the implementation of new Structural Fund arrangements.

(2) Seven working groups are preparing the operational programme for each of seven sub-regions designated by the Government. These groups are representative of the relevant Government Departments, assisted as appropriate by the relevant State bodies, together with the management of all county councils and county borough corporations in the sub-region. The EC Commission may also be involved but have not yet nominated their representatives. I might say that in drawing up these programmes the working groups are drawing upon and building upon the excellent work which has been carried out at local level over the years by local authorities, regional development organisations and other bodies. They are also considering, where relevant, Border and cross-Border requirements of their areas in relation to the programmes.

(3) The working groups are being assisted in the task of preparing the operational programmes by advisory groups which comprise nominees of all the main representative bodies with an interest in development — CII, CIF, Chambers of Commerce, one to represent all in the sub-region, ICTU, FUE, IFA, ICMSA, ICOS and Macra na Feirme — as well as the county councils, county borough corporations, borough corporations and urban district councils over 15,000 population in the sub-region which are represented by the chairperson in each case.

These advisory groups will have an opportunity to comment on the programmes as they are being prepared by the working groups. They will also accept submissions from interested persons and groups and, on the basis of such submissions and their own thinking, will make recommendations to the working group on the content of the programmes. Any groups wishing to make submissions can send them to the Department of Finance, Merrion Street, for transmission to the appropriate group. There will be scope for feedback from the sub-national programmes to the national development plan and the national programmes and vice versa.

The Government gave careful consideration to the composition of these groups in order to ensure the widest representation possible of local authority councillors and interest groups while maintaining the groups at a workable size. Under the arrangements adopted the chairpersons of no fewer than 43 local authorities are directly represented on the advisory groups. This figure includes a number who are also Senators.

It will be evident from these arrangements that locally elected representatives can participate fully in the preparation of the programmes. Apart from the direct involvement of council chairpersons in the advisory groups, other local representatives have an opportunity to influence the preparation of programmes by making their own submissions to the groups. They are also in a position to influence their councils' submissions and to convey their views to the relevant city or county manager as appropriate.

The operational programmes will have to be consistent with each other and also with the national plan. To ensure this, final responsibility for the content of the plan and the various programmes will rest with the Government. I would like to stress that the need to ensure consistency is the main reason why the Government have had to assume this role although, clearly, Government intervention would be necessary if programmes submitted were unrealistic or did not tackle the important issues. Given the membership of the groups preparing the programmes, it is not envisged that such problems will arise.

A number of Senators have referred to deadlines for the preparation of the plan and programmes for the submission of proposals for consideration. The 31 March 1989 is the date specified in the relvant EC regulation for submission of the plan. Strictly speaking, the operational programmes do not have to be submitted at the same time as the plan. There are, however, compelling practical reasons for having the plan and programmes prepared and submitted simultaneously. These arise from the need for co-ordination already mentioned, but more particularly from the need to ensure that there is continuity in the receipt of Structural Funds assistance. Ireland does not have an array of ongoing programmes receiving EC Structural Funds aid. Continuity of funding would, therefore, be jeopardised if the Commission took the full six month period allowed to them for this purpose to agree the Community's support framework and there was also a delay in submitting programmes.

The chairpersons and secretariat of the working group have been provided by the Department of Finance. The advisory groups are also being provided with a secretary but they are to select their own chairpersons. This process has been completed in all but one of them. It was necessary to second some staff to the Department of Finance from other parts of the Civil Service to enable all the secretaries required to be provided. This arose because spare staff resources were not otherwise available. I might add that the main role of the secretaries is to provide a secretarial service to the groups, a task which is well within the competence of all of them.

Questions have been raised concerning the geographical boundaries of the seven sub-national programmes areas adopted. I should emphasise that decisions on these, and indeed the other arrangements adopted, were taken by the Government only after the fullest consideration of all the issues involved as well as having secured the agreement of the social partners to the arrangements through the Central Review Committee of the Programme for National Recovery. The boundaries are settled with a view to grouping together counties or parts of counties having regard to geography, population, previous administrative divisions, common concerns and economic structures.

I should stress that these sub-national areas were defined simply for the purposes of preparing operational programmes for submission to the Community Structural Funds. They do not have other administrative implications. Louth, for example, continues to be treated as a Border county and will benefit from any special programmes for Border areas while Longford will continue to be regarded as a less-developed county for the purposes of schemes in which it has hitherto been included. Similarly, in the case of the Dublin sub-region the fear that is has been cut off from a large part of its hinterland is without foundation. The co-ordination process mentioned will ensure that the programmes will fit with the objectives of the national plan and with each other.

In reply to a number of specific questions posed during the debate, the position is as follows: The Government have responsibility for co-ordinating the preparation of the national development plan. The Department of Finance will handle the administrative aspects of this process. They will also be responsible for overseeing the utilisation of any EC funding provided. The working groups will be considering the question of how the implementation of the sub-national operational programme will be supervised and monitored and will be including recommendations on this issue in their proposals.

Reference was made to invitations issued to select bodies asking for their views. I have not been able to trace the issue of invitations to any select bodies. The consultants engaged on the Dublin project did send a questionnaire to relevant Government Departments and State agencies but I think it would not be appropriate to refer to these bodies as select in the present context.

Some speakers have sought clarification of the role of the Minister for the Environment in relation to the new Structural Funds arrangements. In his speech in the Dáil on 24 November and in responding to parliamentary questions on 6 December, the Taoiseach indicated that he was giving the Minister for the Environment responsibility for planning and co-ordinating of the provision of physical infrastructure in the context of preparing the economy to compete in the more competitive circumstances of the Single Market. The Minister will be expected to take an overview of the situation, ensure the comprehensive nature of our approach and identify and eliminate any duplication of facilities or the omission of basic requirements in particular areas.

It will be his responsibility to see that the changes which are necessary take place without administrative delays as rapidly as possible and that developments in the different sectors are consistent with each other. As indicated by the Taoiseach, the Minister's functions will relate to the physical infrastructure of the country which will occupy a very important and central part in our development effort.

The Minister for Finance retains overall responsibility for the preparation of the national plan and the sub-national programmes. This makes sense because European Community funds must be matched to the appropriate extent by expenditure from public funds here, though, of course, there will be a role for private funding as well. The role of Minister of State for European Affairs remains unchanged.

I would also like to comment on the suggestion that there has been excessive secrecy in relation to the new arrangements and the preparation of programmes. I find this suggestion difficult to understand. The new arrangements which have been adopted governing the provision of EC Structural Funds assistance have been widely publicised by Ministers in addresses in different parts of the country over the past couple of months. There have also been questions in the Dáil and an Adjournment debate there on the arrangements held on 1 December last. As I have mentioned already, the quality of the debate on the matter here in the Seanad over the last two weeks and the knowledge shown by speakers of the arrangements adopted by the Government also suggest the proposition that there has been excessive secrecy is groundless.

The administrative machinery set up, together with the opportunity being afforded for any interested party to make written submissions in connection with the preparation of operational programmes, will ensure very wide consultation with interested parties. There are over 260 standing members of the working groups and the advisory groups who are directly involved in the process of preparing the programmes. Among these are county managers who have indicated that they will be keeping members of their councils informed of developments. I am sure reasonable people would agree that the overall effect of these arrangements must be to produce the most open approach to the preparation of these sub-national programmes which is practically possible.

Concern has been expressed that Ireland will fail to maximise the opportunities presented by the enlarged Structural Funds. This has arisen because of doubts about our ability to meet the additionality requirement laid down in the EC regulations governing the funds due to the continuing requirement to cut back on public expenditure. The level of EC assistance — called the intervention rate — which will be forthcoming for individual projects has also been mentioned in this context. Again, however, there is no sound basis for these concerns.

Additionality refers to the requirement that additional EC Structural Funds will result in at least corresponding additional national expenditure. The text of the regulations as agreed requires that public expenditure on Structural Fund investment should at least be maintained, with the EC contribution being used to add to the overall volume. From the point of view of the Public Capital Programme, we do not foresee any difficulties in meeting this requirement. Allocations for the Public Capital Programme for 1989 and subsequent years will be set at a level sufficient to ensure that all the Structural Fund assistance available can be taken up. In addition private sector, local and Community funds will, in certain circumstances, be eligible for matching funds from Brussels. The Government also received commitments in the course of the negotiations on the new arrangements that aid from the Structural Funds for the least developed regions, among which all of Ireland is included, will be doubled by 1992.

With regard to intervention rates, the maximum has been increased to 75 per cent with a minimum to 50 per cent except for revenue generating projects. Given the commitments that have been received in relation to the increased Structural Funds aid to be made available for Ireland as an Objective I region, it is evident that there will be a substantial increase in the rate of intervention.

Suggestions that the allocation of funds to the various sub-regions will in the end be taken by the Government on the basis of political considerations reveals some misunderstanding as to how the process will operate. The national plan and operational programmes prepared by the Government and the working groups will, as I have explained, set out the proposals for economic and social development throughout the country. The extent to which Structural Funds are to be provided by the Commission will be a matter for negotiation within the Community Support Framework. These negotiations will determine types of development measures which the Community will support and the extent of that support.

Some speakers have called for the introduction of a statutory entitlement for local authorities in relation to information on the content of programmes and for a statutory role in relation to implementation of the programmes. The contemplation of such measures would be premature at this stage. The whole process on which we are engaged is very much at an experimental stage both from the point of view of Brussels and in relation to the arrangements in this country. I am sure, however, that the practical steps which have been taken and are envisaged for keeping local authority members informed — I refer of course to the participation by councillors in the advisory groups and the involvement of county managers in the working groups — will ensure that all reasonable information needs will be met.

I would not accept that there has been an inordinate delay in getting the machinery for preparing plans and programmes off the ground. Much emphasis has been placed on the fact that the framework regulation was adopted in Brussels in June. There has, however, been no mention that the implementing regulations which will govern the provision of Structural Funds have only just been cleared by the Council. Recent discussions with the Commission indicate that they still have not worked out many of the details of how the new arrangements will operate. I am sure Senators will agree that the fact that the working groups and the advisory group have commenced their operations in a situation where all the requirements to be met have not been fully clarified is an indication of the urgency the Government attach to this task and a measure of the alacrity with which they have responded to the situation.

It should be abundantly clear to any fair-minded person from this brief resumé of the facts that suggestions that the views of elected representatives are either being ignored or are not adequately provided for are totally without foundation. The Government have gone much further in this area than is necessary under EC regulations. They have done this deliberately, in line with the stance on consultations and involvement which they are pursuing at national level, with a view to ensuring that local knowledge and experience is drawn on and utilised to the full. I have also rebutted the unfounded allegations of secrecy and in the process have sought to cast additional light on aspects of the new arrangements on which Senators required clarification.

With the arrangements now fully in place for the preparation of our sub-national programmes, I hope that public representatives generally will suspend further criticism of them and give the new processes an opportunity to function. I am sure that, in due course, they will be proved to be effective and that they will produce results which are commensurate with the high expectations the projected increase in Structural Funds has engendered.

I hope that outlines the situation in detail and I take this opportunity to wish all Senators a very happy Christmas.

Question put and declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. S. Haughey

At 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15 December 1988.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 14 Dec 1988