The Government recognises that the Border region, by virtue of its geographical location, is deserving of special attention. The region is the subject of specific and intense emphasis on the part of this Government in the general area of economic development. This emphasis is both qualitative and quantitative and I do not think that the continual griping and doing down of the region by Opposition Deputies and Senators with redneck rhetoric and manufactured indignation as we heard here this evening is at all helpful.
Before I outline the level of Government commitment to this region, I want to say that I think all of it will be at nought if the IRA ceasefire is not restored. I concur with Senator Maloney's sentiments in this regard. Opposition Senators did not see fit to refer to the economic impact — even if we are only discussing the economic impact quite apart from the social impact — of a restoration of the IRA ceasefire in the motion. The economic impact of a restoration of the IRA ceasefire would be worth much more than all the Government, the British Government, the US Government, the International Fund for Ireland, the EU and all the agencies put together could possibly achieve in the Border regions. The restoration of the IRA ceasefire stands out as the single most important issue for the Border regions of the South and, of course, North of this island. That is where the real problem lies and it is where we should all expend our energies instead of on futile irrational exchanges across this House which will do little to solve the outstanding problems in the Border region.
The region is one of the principal beneficiaries of the Operational Programmes under the Community Support Framework 1994 to 1999. In addition, the region benefits exclusively from substantial additional funding provided under the International Fund for Ireland, the Ireland/Northern Ireland INTERREG Programme and the special EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland.
The INTERREG and peace programmes between them provide for additional EU funding for the region of £120 million—maybe Opposition Senators would add up these figures. When the full amount of public investment provided under the programmes is taken into consideration the full extent of additional funding available to the Border region under these two programmes exceeds £160 million. This investment is additional to what is available to the Border region under the Community Support Framework and other Community initiatives and, of course, the International Fund for Ireland.
As well as providing for this substantial level of investment, the Government is committed to the concept of full additionality. In the Dáil on 25 April 1995, the Minister for Finance gave a commitment that, once all the operational programmes under the Community Support Framework and the various Community initiatives had been approved by the European Commission, the relevant Departments would be asked to compile details of forecast expenditure under these programmes in each of the eight regions. This exercise has been completed and the forecasts from the baseline data by reference to which additionality of the expenditure under the peace initiative and INTERREG can be demonstrated over the period of the programmes.
In the specific instance of the Border counties, the Department of Finance is compiling details of projected expenditure in the area under the CSF and other Community initiative programmes. This information is updated on a periodic basis taking account of outturn, together with expenditure outturns under the peace and INTERREG programmes in order to demonstrate the additionality of expenditure over the period. The EU Operational Committee of the Border Regional Authority is supplied with the baseline data and the periodic reports in order that it can assure itself of the additionality of the expenditure under the programmes.
The baseline figures in respect of all operational programmes supporting investment in the Border region were presented to the Border Regional Authority's EU Operational Committee at a special meeting last July attended by Esben Poulsen, head of the Irish desk in the Regional Policies Directorate of the European Commission. These will be updated at future meetings of this Border committee and will also be monitored by the Community Support Framework Monitoring Committee.
Before I go into detail about the considerable additional infrastructural investment which has been provided for the Border Region under INTERREG and, indeed, the peace programme, I want to refer specifically to the Opposition request that the Government utilise all available peace initiative funds towards infrastructural development in the Border areas. The Senators who put down the Opposition motion seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what the Special EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation is about.
In drawing together proposals for the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation the relevant authorities in both member states took into account the overwhelming need to maintain the momentum for peace, the prevailing economic and social conditions in the eligible areas, the priorities set for the initiative by the Commission, the results of the prior appraisal and the outcome of the consultation arrangements. All of these have combined to provide the rationale for the programme.
The widespread consultation process engaged in the eligible areas by the European Commission Task Force found that the particular emphasis of the programme should be on peace, reconciliation and social inclusion. These findings were borne out in the course of an extensive consultation exercise in both eligible areas by the Department of Finance and the Department of Finance and Personnel, Belfast. In the Border region the consultation process included a conference organised by the Department of Finance in Ballyconnell, County Cavan, on 20 April 1995. This was attended by over 200 delegates, including participation from across the Border in Northern Ireland.
In addition to the two Government sponsored conferences, a further conference was organised on behalf of the European Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy in conjunction with the European Commission. The impetus for the conference came from a joint initiative of Northern Ireland's three MEPs, who had been closely associated with the work of the task force from the outset. The conferences, which brought together a very broad range of interests from both Northern Ireland and the Border counties, was an important opportunity for the European institutions to express, at the highest level, their ongoing support for the developing peace process.
Without exception, all recognised the particular emphasis the programme would need to place on measures to support peace and reconciliation. There was no support whatever for the view that the programme should allocate significant sums to infrastructure. The overwhelming consensus of those consulted endorsed the view that the prospect of lasting peace requires particular efforts to overcome the effects of the disruption of normal economic and social relations. By addressing these challenges, the programme aims to help secure a lasting peace.
In drawing up the programme full regárd was had to ensuring the optimum degree of complementarity and integration with the Community Support Framework Operational Programmes and relevant Community initiatives, particularly the Ireland/Northern Ireland INTERREG Programmes, in addition to the range of activities carried out under the IFI. In the Border region particularly there was a clearly perceived need to build on the support available under the Community Support Framework and the INTERREG programme to fully redress the negative perceptions that the region has had to face — I would hope that the movers of the motion would understand the importance of not increasing negative perceptions as we all try to help the region.
There are specific tourism measures under the urban and rural regeneration subprogramme which set out to give the necessary boost to ongoing efforts in this area. While there will be some scope for the statutory tourism agencies in this, the major emphasis is on bottom-up development arising from community based actions.
If the present peace process proves successful, then the restoration of economic and other normality in Northern Ireland should result in considerably lessening the specific and unique problems faced by the Border region vis-a-vis the rest of Ireland. We cannot emphasis that enough and I must say that none of the Fianna Fáil Senators who contributed mentioned the importance of the peace process to economic progress in the Border regions. The mind boggles.
As to how the programme should be implemented, the European Commission Task Force, following its widespread consultations in Northern Ireland and the Border counties, strongly recommended that as much as possible of the implementation of the programme be developed to local delivery mechanisms. Given the objectives of peace and reconciliation and the paramount importance of the need to combat social exclusion, it was considered that implementing mechanisms independent of Government and closer to the grassroots offered the best means of achieving these goals. The Commission, in adopting the report of the task force, required the respective Administrations to draw up proposals putting these recommendations into effect.
To ensure the independence of the intermediary funding bodies, the Commission required that they be funded through the medium of global grant agreements signed directly between them and the Commission. The devolved delivery mechanisms for the Border counties were put in place following a series of extensive consultations between Departments and the Commission.
The bodies set up have full discretion, within the parameters set by the programme, in relation to the implementation of the measures for which they are responsible. The exercise of this discretion sometimes gives rise to differences in interpretation between intermediary funding bodies, North and South, dealing with similar actions and measures. The joint monitoring committee for the programme monitors the activities of all of the implementing mechanisms and is in a position to require co-ordination of actions where this is appropriate and necessary.
Area Development Management Limited, already charged with responsibility for the local development programme, and the Combat Poverty Agency were the bodies charged with delivering a wide range of measures across the programme. ADM and the Combat Poverty Agency report to the Departments of the Taoiseach and Social Welfare respectively. Co-operation North, in conjunction with IBEC and CBI (Northern Ireland), implements the cross-Border business and culture measure. The Department of Foreign Affairs has responsibility for overseeing this measure.
The statutory responsibilities of the intermediary funding bodies became effective on 8 December 1995 when, with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission, they signed the global grant agreements which governed how they were to implement the relevant measures of the programme for which they were responsible. The bodies then had to set up offices, employ staff etc., and this process was substantially completed by end of February 1996. Since that date, the bodies have been actively involved in implementing the actions provided for under the measures.
Another innovative delivery mechanism involved county council-led task forces, operating in each of the six Border counties. They are responsible for delivering a wide range of actions in the urban and rural regeneration areas. The task forces have a considerable degree of discretion in deciding how the allocation is to be spent, but the programme requires that representative and relevant local interests be consulted as appropriate. The Department of the Environment has responsibility for overseeing the activities of the task forces. The total EU funding disbursed through these devolved mechanisms totals £33.7 million, or over 70 per cent of the amount allocated to the Border counties. The Commission accepted that a small number of measures could not be appropriately devolved to intermediary funding bodies. The Department of the Environment is responsible for EU investment totalling £5.2 million under the cross-Border infrastructure measure and a further £5 million in EU funding has been provided for cross-Border co-operative actions involving public bodies. I hope Senators are totting up these figures.
The loan subsidy provisions are being administered by the European Investment Bank through the medium of the commercial banking system in the Border area. The Department of Finance is responsible for overseeing this measure and almost all of available funding has already been committed. It also implements the technical assistance measure, totalling nearly £1 million in EU funding. Its function is to support the administration of the programme. Nearly all of the technical assistance budget goes to meet the running expenses of the intermediary funding bodies. The total commitment figure to date is almost £28 million, or over 58 per cent of the EU allocation to the Border counties. This figure is highly satisfactory given the difficult circumstances pertaining, and it represents a high current pace of commitment as most of it has been committed within the last six months. I expect that rate of progress to continue and improve now that all of the delivery mechanisms are fully operational.
While the bulk of commitments to date can be accounted for by the activities of State agencies, the intermediary funding bodies have recently recorded impressive progress. In the coming months I expect them to account for an increasing share of commitments. It should be borne in mind that, in many respects, they had to engage on a steep learning curve and the areas of the programme for which they hold responsibility are among the most sensitive and difficult.
There has been a long standing commitment on the part of the Government that Structural Fund aid under the programme would be additional to Structural Fund spending in the Border counties under the Community Support Framework for 1994 to 1999 and other Community initiatives, and that the national matching finance would also be additional. The Government has provided funding to match fully the EU funding available under the peace programme. The programme specifically enshrines the principle of additionality, and I quote paragraph 3.29 which states
The expenditure under the programme will be fully additional to expenditure which is due to take place in the eligible areas under the SPD for Northern Ireland, the CSF for Ireland and the Community initiative programmes.
I would like to clarify the position on the matching funding element for the benefit of the House. In Northern Ireland and the Border counties funding to match the EU contribution comes from a variety of sources. However, as I already indicated, where necessary the matching funds will come from the two central Governments. It may also be provided from a variety of sources including local authorities, the private sector and community and voluntary groups as appropriate.
Due to the nature of the programme, many projects fall to be submitted from disadvantaged groups or individuals who may have extreme difficulty in making a direct contribution to the financing of their proposals and this is taken into account in deciding the level of funding from the programme. Account may also be taken of resources in kind; for example, premises and human resources. It is important that beneficiary groups be given every opportunity to develop some sense of ownership of a project even if a financial commitment from them is not appropriate. The International Fund for Ireland will also co-finance some of the projects under this programme.
Before I leave the subject of the peace programme, I want to return to the question of support for industrial infrastructural development. While the general consensus was that financial provision for investment in infrastructure was inappropriate to the peace programme, there, nevertheless, is provision for such investment under sub-programme 3, measure 2, where nearly £7 million has been made available for road improvements in the Border counties. The programme also contains other measures which are intended to contribute more directly to economic development, particularly sub-programme 5. Measures 1 and 2 of that sub-programme offer some scope for additional assistance in the area of provision of industrial sites. These measures are administered by the commercial banks and ADM Ltd. respectively. An essential condition is that relevant Departments and, in particular, the county enterprise boards are involved.
Senators living in Border areas may be aware of the criticism from all sectors in Northern Ireland to the funding of an advance factory in Strabane under this sub-programme. The question of additionality was raised in that connection and I would not like to hear similar criticism levelled should this measure be availed of in like fashion in the Border counties. While there is some funding available for infrastructural development under the peace programme, the Seanad might note that considerable investment in infrastructural services in the Border region was made under the Ireland/Northern Ireland INTERREG programme. The European Commission approved an EU aid allocation to the INTERREG II programme for the six years, 1994 to 1999, of 157 million ECU, £125.6 million, of which 89.5 million ECU, £72 million, was earmarked for the Border counties. With Exchequer co-financing and funding from State agencies and the private sector the total package for the Border counties under INTERREG amounts to nearly £115 million.
The Government placed particular emphasis on ensuring the additionality of funding under INTERREG I. The independent evaluation carried out on the INTERREG I programme on behalf of the Commission bore this out. The emphasis on ensuring additionality has been continued under INTERREG II. Senators are aware that the programme provides for funding for a wide range of measures in support of economic development in Northern Ireland and the six Border counties of Ireland — Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Louth, Monaghan and Sligo.
At the time of the drawing up of the INTERREG programme, the Government took the view that a coherent economic development strategy for the Border region is dependent on adequate infrastructural foundations. The Government agreed that the bulk of the funding on the southern side be allocated to the infrastructural and environmental protection sub-programmes. Roads, sanitary services, electricity networks and telecommunications are vital underpinnings to the tourism, agricultural, food processing, industrial and service sectors. The Commission accepted the argument that a significant part of INTERREG funding should be invested in infrastructure and over £32 million out of the £72 million was reserved for such areas. When the matching funding elements provided by the State and State agencies is added, the total available for infrastructure in the Border counties comes to over £51 million.
Under the infrastructure sub-programme, a special emphasis is being placed on investment in non-national roads additional to the main Operational Programme on Transport. This includes the improvement of roads which are of importance to economic and rural community development in the Border area, including cross-Border roads that were closed due to the security situation. Other road improvements includes projects which are complementary to the trans-European road network.
The energy provision relates principally to funding for electricity interconnection projects between the northern and southern electricity systems, including the restoration of the main interconnector on the Louth/Armagh border. These projects are of significance to the development of the electricity market and to the containment of costs. Funding for telecommunications is supporting the creation and development of a digital communications system which will benefit communities on both sides of the Border. Exporters are increasingly dependent on telecommunications for marketing, purchasing and the electronic transfers of cash transactions. Industrialists are reluctant to locate in areas where modern telecommunication facilities are not available.
The International Fund for Ireland operates through a range of sectoral programmes — tourism, business enterprise, community initiatives, rural development, urban development, etc. One of the fund's projects which has particularly benefited the Border region has been the £30 million restoration of the Shannon/Erne waterway. This project, which has also received substantial funding under INTERREG and the Operational Programme for Tourism, is the largest single project approved by the fund so far.
The fund's Border towns and villages — BTV —scheme focuses on those towns and villages closest to the Border and most affected by the troubles of the past two decades. To date, 17 such schemes have been assisted involving total fund support of over £7 million. They include such villages as Carlingford, County Louth, Inniskeen and Clones in County Monaghan, Ballinamore, Manorhamilton and Kiltyclogher in County Leitrim, Blacklion and Swanlinbar in County Cavan and Ballyshannon, Castlefinn, Newtowncunningham and Raphoe in County Donegal. Under the fund's business enterprise programme community groups in a wide number of towns and villages in the Border counties have received considerable assistance towards the provision of workspace.
The North American Business Partnership, in conjunction with Forbairt, has promoted strategic partnerships between high-tech companies in the Border counties and North America. Under phase 1 some 200 jobs have been created. The significant additional EU investment to the Border counties and the additional funding leveraged through the medium of those programmes specific to the Border region are having a significant and noticeable impact on its general economic development. I would like to draw the Seanad's attention to particular instances where Government intervention increased the economic benefit to the region over that originally proposed by the Commission.
The special EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation was originally conceived to support the peace process in Northern Ireland following the IRA ceasefire. It was not initially the intention of the Commission that it should also apply to the Border counties. The Government argued strongly that the Border region should also be included in the aid framework emerging and following much discussion the Commission agreed to include the five counties of Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Louth and Monaghan. The Government continued to push for the inclusion of the entire Border region and the further inclusion of County Sligo was eventually conceded by the Commission.
It is the case that during the consultation period indicative funding proportions of a 75:25 breakdown north and south were being considered by the Commission. However, I note that Deputy Carey, Minister of State with responsibility for funding arrangements in the Border region, remarked in the course of a similar motion taken in the Lower House recently, that Fianna Fáil Border Deputies and Senators had sent a letter criticising the proportion being proposed for the Border region by the Commission to President Santer and Regional Commissioner Wulf-Mathies.
Shortly after this, the Commission informed both member states that the funding would be proportioned on an 80:20 basis; a reduction of some £12 million to the Border region which went instead to Northern Ireland. Take a bow Fianna Fáil. I will leave the Seanad to draw its own conclusions. What I have said is a fact.
