asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on reports from the Regional Affairs Commissioner of the EEC that there had been no progress on Irish cross-Border co-operation under the regional fund; whether the Government have requested the British Government to co-operate in cross-Border projects under the fund; if so, when and the particular projects which were proposed; and the reason for the delay in bringing forward these projects.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cross-Border Co-operation.
8.
At a meeting at Baldonnel on 17th September, 1973, between the Taoiseach and the then British Prime Minister, Mr. Health, it was agreed in principle that the Irish and British authorities would make a joint approach to the Commission of the European Communities with a view to having a cross-Border regional development study financed with the aid of Commission funds. As the Minister indicated in replies to similar questions on 7th November, 1974, and 5th February last, this agreement in principle was reiterated at two subsequent meetings between the Taoiseach and the present British Prime Minister.
On 24th January, 1974, we transmitted to the British Government a draft outline for broadly based studies of the north-west and mid-north-east cross-Border regions. We believe that such an approach would have wide support from all groups in the community on both sides of the Border. However, there have been differences between the British Government and ourselves about the need for the studies. We remain convinced that a broadly based study is a desirable step in promoting development in the Border area.
I can only add that discussions are continuing with a view to resolving our differences on the terms of reference for a joint approach and that we, on our part, have been ready for more than a year to proceed with an approach to the Commission.
I might add, incidentally, that the joint approach referred to above would be financed from sources which are independent of the regional fund as such.
How does the Parliamentary Secretary reconcile the latter part of his reply—that the Government have been ready for more than a year to proceed with an approach to the Commission—with the earlier part of his reply that it was only in January of this year that the Government approached the British Government with an outline proposal?
I said 24th January, 1974. It was January last year.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary then indicate the reason for the delay since the meeting between the Taoiseach and the former British Prime Minister? Nothing has happened since in relation to a cross-Border economic plan.
I understand that the reason for the delay is that the British approach to the problem is different from ours. The Government have been trying to get the British to agree to a large-scale study of a large area on the Border but the kind of study the British Government seem to prefer is of a more limited kind. That is all I can tell the Deputy except to add that this matter was pursued with the British Government as recently as last week during a meeting between the Minister and Mr. Rees.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary then explain why the Commissioner for the regional fund stated publicly two weeks ago that there was no evidence whatever that the British Government were dragging their feet, the implication being that there was dragging of feet on the Irish side or on both sides?
I did not say the British Government were dragging their feet. I said that their interpretation of what would be a useful study differs from the interpretation this Government have of that idea. Essentially, there is a difference of opinion of what is a useful way to begin. The Minister has repeatedly and no later than last week again pressed the point of view that a large-scale study of a large area spanning the Border is what is needed. But until he can succeed in bringing the British around to that point of view, it does not look as if we are going to make much headway.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say, then, that unless and until the British Government agree to a combined approach, it will not be possible for the Irish Government to make a direct approach themselves to the EEC Commission?
I do not say that. I am getting far away from the original question. I think that the utility of an essentially co-operative venture would be, to some extent, undermined from the start unless the two partners to it were in agreement about what they were going to do.
Would it not be a good exercise in public relations to let the Irish Government come out in the open with a formal proposal and get the British Government to move in that way?
As the Deputy will appreciate, there are other dimensions to this question. In normal conditions that might be the best way to do it but not in all conditions.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that an in-depth study, co-operatively by the parties on both sides of the Border, has been in progress over the past three or four years in respect of the region Derry, Tyrone and Donegal and that certain conclusions and proposals have been arrived at? Would the Parliamentary Secretary not now recommend to the Government that that area, which has some homework done, be considered for immediate attention?
I think that would be a good idea and I will pass on the Deputy's suggestion.
The Parliamentary Secretary's reply in based entirely on proposals to carry out studies. Does he not think that is a rather academic exercise at this stage? Would it not be better for the Irish Government to put forward a positive proposal for a particular trans-Border scheme?
This Government's idea was that the way to start was to make a thorough economic and social study of a large trans-Border area. That seems to me to make a good deal of sense. I can see that it may not be active enough, but we are only starting. I do not accept that it can be written off merely as academic. Until one understands thoroughly with what one is dealing it is premature to be making more concrete proposals.
Question No. 9.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that there are quite a number of well-known positive schemes in peoples' minds, or developed on paper, for the trans-Border area, any one of which, without any study, could be put forward at this stage for positive, concrete action?
I think that is possible. I will pass on the Deputy's point of view. But I repeat that the Government gave a great deal of thought to this much more than a year ago and came to the conclusion at the time that the best way to start was as I have said, and the Government have not changed their minds about that.
I take it from what the Parliamentary Secretary says he now acknowledges that it was open to our Government in the past, and is open now, to make a separate application to the Community and that, allowing for that, our Government have chosen not to do so for no reason.
The Deputy is losing sight of the fact that this whole question is part of a much larger and difficult complex of problems which do not resemble the question here.
Might I have a straight answer to my question? Do I take it that the Government have decided, in the light of the fact that they could have made an application in their own right, not to make such an application and, in fact, have not done so?
I cannot see the utility of making an application if one has not got the elementary agreement of the people with whom one is supposed to be co-operating.
The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that the Commissioner said he had no evidence that the British Government were dragging their feet and he had not received an application.
Question No. 9 has been called. The Deputy is imparting information rather than seeking it.
I did not say the British were dragging their feet.
The Chair has called the next question, No. 9.
The Minister has said on two or three occasions that the British Government were dragging their feet in this matter.
Next question, please.