Deputy Herbert gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 7 which appeared on today's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate: European Regional Development Fund.
It is not my intention to detain the Minister or this House one second longer if the Minister would give me simple, basic but vital information in relation to Irish infrastructural projects qualifying for aid from the European Regional Development Fund. I am simply asking the Minister for the total amount of money involved in each infrastructural project, the amount of national contribution and the amount of contribution from the regional development fund for each project. This is a simple, straightforward request, not very involved, and if the Minister will give or even indicate his willingness to give this information I will immediately sit down and not detain the House one second further.
There is no response from the Minister. He is not accepting my invitation or the simple request which it is my constitutional right to make and it is, I believe, the Minister's right to give this information. I know that the Irish Government and, strangely enough, the European Commission have consistently failed to supply proper information on regional fund aid to Irish projects both industrial and infrastructural. This situation has existed since October, 1975, when aid was first granted under the European Development Fund.
This lack of information refers to the types of project I have mentioned, infrastructural projects, to the amount of national aid given and the amount of aid given from the regional development fund. This, I submit, should not be a very involved process or procedure but the Minister will not, for his own reasons, give this information.
I have put down several Dáil questions, written and oral, to the European Commission. I have raised this very problem in debates in the European Parliament and I have also raised it in the European Parliamentary Committee for Regional Policy but at all times I have been faced with a blank refusal to give all those relevant figures.
In the Dáil several of my colleagues have tried to extract similar information from the Minister and from several of his colleagues. For example, on the 27th November, 1975, Deputy McEllistrim asked the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, the grant that his Department had received from the EEC in respect of the new sewer which was constructed in Tralee, County Kerry, last year. The Minister for Local Government flatly refused to give this vital information in relation to this project which is being funded partially by the ratepayers of Kerry, a grant from the local loans fund and the contribution from the regional development fund. Still the Minister for Local Government failed to give this vital information.
He is not the only one. Several other Ministers have been guilty of this capital sin. The consistency of these blank refusals from both Commission and the Government would seem to indicate collusion between the Commission and the Minister to prevent any disclosure to the public or to Members of the Dáil or of the European Parliament on what is happening to taxpayers' money that is being distributed through the regional development fund.
The taxpayers have a right to know what is happening to public money and Members of the Dáil and all national Parliaments have the right to inquire—in fact, it is their moral right—as to how it is being spent. This right of the public to be informed as to how taxpayers' money is being spent and the right of elected public representatives to inquire on their behalf is being openly flouted by the Coalition Government and by the Minister. Because of this attitude of the Irish Government and through a very strict interpretation of the regional fund regulation the European Commission has been reluctantly forced to act in collusion with the Irish Government in failing to reveal how public money is being spent.
This is an attack on our democratic principles, traditions and practices and illustrates a lack of credibility vis-á-vis Ireland's membership of the EEC. I was most embarrassed when last week in an EEC committee we were discussing the Regional Fund on the basis of document PEW4498—unfortunately earlier I cited it as PEW4478— a copy of which the Minister must have in his possession. It contains details of the regional fund allocations to all the nine member states on a regional basis. It states the number of projects, industries, and the amounts of money being spent in each sub-region with one exception, Ireland. All there is from the Irish Government is the number of projects in each sub-region without any mention of the moneys being allocated or how they are being used.
If this information can be given by the other eight states I should like the Minister to tell the House the reasons why this information about Ireland is not contained in this very important document. On several occasions I have sought to elicit the reasons for this and all I have got are silly excuses. The Minister told me on one occasion that it was to protect the commercial confidentiality of the projects. It is my submission that if any person wishes to benefit from public money the public have a right not only to know that the person is receiving it but how much. There would be some credence in the excuse about commercial confidentiality if it were given about industrial projects, but it has no pertinency in regard to infrastructural projects undertaken by local authorities solely out of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money.
This information was requested also by Deputy McEllistrim and I am aware that Deputy Calleary requested it in respect of a road being constructed between Ballina in Mayo and the Asahi project and financed out of the regional development fund. There was a similar question about a project in Clare. Again, no information was forthcoming from the Minister and Deputy McEllistrim got no information from the Minister for Local Government. It has been an established practice here to state fully and to give wide publicity on a national and regional basis to the sources and the amounts of grants coming from public funds. If anybody is getting a grant from the IDA, Gaeltarra Éireann, Bord Fáilte or the Road Fund there is full public access to the information. Indeed, the IDA publish an annual list giving extensive details in regard to their grants.
On these grounds I fail to see the reasons for the Government's policy in this regard. I cannot see any reason for this secrecy. Perhaps the explanation is that the regional aid from the EEC is paid directly to the Minister for Finance and that there is partial repayment for the projects in question under what is now notoriously known as the reimbursement clause which has lost so much for the Regional Fund and which will affect its chances of becoming a vehicle for the correction of imbalances.
The Irish Government's policy of submitting projects in a group and seeking regional aid on a global basis does not allow the European Commission an opportunity to study the amount involved for each project. In this respect I warned Commissioner Thomson that the presentation of the Irish budget is a very complex operation. However, the operation by the Irish Government and the Minister for Finance of the reimbursement clause increases the possibility for the Government of subsuming through the Exchequer the regional fund allocations and using it for purposes other than those for which they were intended. In any case, the Irish attitude has been heavily criticised both at home and abroad, and the Minister for Finance must bear the responsibility for the position that has occurred.
I am happy that Deputy Herbert ended on that very outrageous note because it enables me to put on the record that one day I received a phone call from a very cross Commissioner Thomson in Brussels to express his total disagreement with a report which a Fianna Fáil hack had given of a conversation with him. That report purported to say that the Commission disapproved of Ireland's handling of the regional fund, I quote Commissioner Thomson: "I said the very reverse and I wish that other countries would handle the regional fund applications in the manner in which Ireland does."
That is what Commissioner Thomson said and he gave me authority to quote.
I cannot understand Deputy Herbert's motivation. He has again and again endeavoured to belittle this country at home and abroad in relation to our handling of the regional fund. He is the only member of the European Parliament who has persisted in this tactic, except for some of his colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party who are very close behind him. They are the astonishment of Europe because Ireland gives more information to the EEC in relation to the applications she makes than any other country. We have been congratulated on doing that. Ireland is not responsible for publications issued by the European Commission. They are the responsibility of the Commission itself.
(Interruptions.)
Order, Deputy Herbert, please.
Both on the Adjournment and during Question Time today Deputy Herbert took considerable licence—if I may say that without disrespect to the Chair. His question, upon which he speaks on the Adjournment, contains an allegation for which he has not a scintilla of evidence. He asked the reason for the inadequacy of the information supplied by the Irish Government to the EEC Commission. Who has complained about the inadequacy of the information given to the EEC Commission? Where is the evidence of this inadequacy? None exists and therefore it could not be produced.
The Parliament——
Deputy Herbert, please.
I want to put on the record of the House the precise nature of the information given by the Irish Government to the Commission in relation to infrastructure projects which they put before it. They give the total cost of a complete project and particularise all public expenditure on that project. They give the total public expenditure and the part in respect of which a contribution is requested from the regional fund. They give the starting and completion dates. They specify in detail the nature of the project and in respect of the location of each project give the town, the county and the region.
On a point of order——
Deputy Herbert, you had 20 minutes to make your case and the Minister has ten minutes to reply. I will not allow any interruption whatsoever.
On a point of information——
Deputy Herbert, resume your seat or leave the House.
Ireland also gives the Commission the full name, postal address and postal code of the authority, agency or body responsible for the completion of the project, so that the Commission are in a position to communicate its decisions direct to the authority in question. They give the priority area status of the location where the project is being carried out. No further information could be given and no further information has been sought.
Deputy Herbert ought to know, as a member of the Regional Committee of the European Parliament that his malicious interpretation has no foundation in fact——
Give me the information.
Let us look at our nearest neighbour, the United Kingdom. In relation to Scotland, where the population is five million, there is no breakdown into the detailed subregions Deputy Herbert says is given in respect of other countries. In respect of Wales, a land of three million people, there is no breakdown into subregions in the form Deputy Herbert required.
What about——
In respect of Northern Ireland, which also has its own subregions, there is no breakdown in those areas. For Community purposes, Ireland is one region and one almost certain consequence, if Deputy Herbert were to succeed in his campaign would be——
That is the——
Deputy Herbert, please.
——that several areas in Ireland would be broken up and some would be taken out of areas qualifying for regional assistance, and that could include Deputy Herbert's own city of Limerick. I wonder what the people of Limerick might think if Limerick were to be cut out because of Deputy Herbert's zeal to try and embarrass the Irish Government and to belittle and besmirch the reputation of Ireland in the European Community—a reputation which Mr. George Thomson, a Scotsman, defended against the malicious onslaught of Deputy Herbert and some of his colleagues. It is high time this tactic was brought to an end.
Deputy Herbert asked questions in the European Parliament last December, February and the latest one, from which I quoted today. The Commission gave him an answer he did not like. He was told that the information given and published by the Commission was in accordance with the regulations of the Commission with which Deputy Herbert, as a Member of the European Parliament, ought by now to be familiar.
I want to quote the relevant regulation so that during the long vacation Deputy Herbert will apply his energy towards an understanding of the position instead of engaging in this tomfoolery. I want to quote from Article 7.2 (b).
(Interruptions.)
All that evokes from Deputy Herbert is the invocation of the Holy Name. Whatever that is supposed to mean I do not know.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I appeal to Deputy Herbert to show some sense of fair play. He had 20 minutes to make his case and the Minister has ten minutes to reply. The Deputy must resume his seat and allow the Minister to utilise the remaining time.
I did not use the Holy Name.
I accept what the Deputy says, but it sounded like that from here. Article 7.2 (b) from the Official Journal of the European Communities reads:
In respect of investments in infrastructure, the location of each investment and its character, and its direct link with the development of the activities referred to in Article 4 (1) (a), the predicted total costs and the costs borne by public authorities and the schedule laid down for their payment, the name of the responsible authorities, the total contribution requested from the Fund, and estimates regarding the implementation schedule.
That obligation has been fulfilled at all times by this country. If it had not we would not have received assistance from the Commission. It is because we did it, and were the first to do it properly, that Ireland received aid from the Commission when other countries were still trying to learn how to make proper applications.
This country must spend 100 per cent of the money on infrastructure before she receives any refund from the European Regional Fund, and then she receives a refund of only 30 per cent. That means the State will have paid 70 per cent, for which no refund is received. Last January we published—Deputy Herbert may have been flying his kite in Europe or between one European city and another——
I never fly my kite. I do not know what the Minister means by that.
——the public capital programme booklet which was put on the table of this House. It identified the manner in which Ireland would be using the £12 million which would be obtainable from the regional fund this year. We said that money would make it possible for this country to increase her overall capital investment in this manner—and we spelled it out— Industrial Development Authority, £8.5 million; Gaeltarra Éireann, £1.5 million; SFADCo, £1 million; telephones, £1 million: total, £12 million. We are unique in the Community because we spell out, in our own capital budget at the beginning of the year, the way we propose to apply the money we will receive from the Community. If that money were not coming from the Community, and if we did not qualify for all the projects we detailed to the Community, then our public capital programme would be reduced by that amount.
Let this be understood: important as it is to Ireland to get this money, it is not the beginning or ending of our public capital programme. It is only about 2 per cent of our total programme. It is not a question of having difficulty in producing information for Brussels. We could snow Brussels under with projects and we qualify under virtually every item for the public capital. Would Deputy Herbert stop trying to dirty Ireland's name at home and abroad.
I am not.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1st July, 1976.