asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the present position concerning the cross-Border proposals for the Derry-Donegal area as outlined in the cross-Border study commissioned by the EEC in conjunction with the British and Irish Governments; and if he will explain the unusual delay in commencing work.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cross-Border Projects.
22.
The Government are at present engaged in an examination of the report on cross-Border communications for the Derry and Donegal area which contains a wide range of proposals relating to road traffic, freight transport, public passenger transport, port development, air transport and postal and telecommunications services.
As the Deputy will be aware, the recommendations of the consultants urge the need for cross-Border coordination in relation to the development of the area as a whole and for joint action by the two Governments in relation to certain specific projects in these fields of communication.
In the course of discussions of the study which I had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in Dublin on 5 May both sides agreed that a joint committee of officials from North and South should be set up to ensure a coordinated approach on the part of the two administrations in relation to the recommendations of the study and, where appropriate, possible applications for assistance to the EEC and to monitor the implementation of the report. I anticipate that the first meeting of this committee will take place at an early date.
In relation to a number of aspects, for example, roads and telecommunications, funds have already been allocated which will give effect to certain of the recommendations and I anticipate that work in relation to these will get under way in the near future.
I hope that this will satisfy the Deputy that the Government are pursuing the follow-up to the report as rapidly as possible and that there has not been any unwarranted delay in the matter, as his question seems to imply.
Does the Minister agree that a report has been in his Department since shortly after he took office and that it is rather alarming that now, nine months later, there is no definite decision to go forward? I appreciate that the Minister has been in contact with the Secretary of State in the last fortnight; but unless the Minister makes up his mind that progress will be more rapid than it has been in the last nine months I will ask more questions about this. When the Minister is talking about the financing of this he continually mentions a figure of £40 million. What figure is recommended in the study? Does that figure relate to 1977 values or does it relate to values when the scheme is initiated?
I do not accept that there has been any delay in my Department. The House and the public will know that this matter has been pursued very expeditiously since we came to Government. Certain steps have already been taken by both Governments. Moneys have been voted in relation to roads within County Donegal in our case and for telecommunications. Even at this stage that gives the go ahead in respect of the responsibilities of both Governments. At the meeting I had with the Secretary of State a committee was set up to monitor the implementation of the report, not just to make recommendations. I assure the Deputy that it is proceeding at a pace much faster than anything hitherto.
Would the Minister clear up this misunderstanding? The Minister should know that people in Brussels and London have been asking me what the hell are the Government in Dublin doing about this. It is more in the Irish Government's interest than of anybody else, but there is no movement. I have been asked why the Government are not getting things moving again. The attitude in Brussels and in London is that the Dublin Government are not serious about this. Would the Minister tell me what is the amount of money—is it £50 million or £40 million?
I think Deputies will agree I should be reasonably close to the attitude in Brussels, but I have not heard any such expressions of surprise as Deputy Harte has suggested. I can give the Deputy the amounts involved in great detail——
I should make known to the House that the time for questions has been exceeded. Unless the House decides to finish the Foreign Affairs questions——
I suggest that we finish the Foreign Affairs questions.
The report on this will be published shortly and then Deputies will be in a better position to ask further questions.
Is the figure £50 million or £40 million, and will it be 1977 money or 1979 money?
The total figure mentioned is not in any event a final figure because in some cases the consultants were not able to give precise estimates as to cost. Therefore, any figure I might give now would not be the final figure. However, I can say it is in excess of £40 million.
The surveyors have given a figure of £50 million and this seems to be acceptable in Brussels and in London. Now the Dublin Government say it is only £40 million.
I have been trying to tell the Deputy that in regard to the matters earmarked precisely, the figure is considerably in excess of £40 million. I have also told him there are other projects for which the consultants did not provide adequate cost estimates. Perhaps that explains the matter of disagreement the Deputy has been talking about. The figure will be agreed between both Governments when the work has been undertaken.
If he can remember it, would the Minister tell the House whether there was any issue on which he persistently nagged the last Government more than this one?
That is a matter for argument. The situation since has shown that my comments then were warranted because so much could have been done then which was not done.
Does the Minister not agree that it is more in the interest of Ireland to get this thing off the ground as soon as possible than of any of the other group concerned? Is it not a fact that the Minister is dragging his feet.
I do not expect Deputies opposite to acknowledge what everyone else recognises, that there is a degree of urgency being attached to this now that hitherto was not there.