asked the Minister for Finance the amount of money outstanding from the EC and the Departments involved.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Outstanding EC Moneys.
10.
I hesitate to say that the reply to this question is long.
A speech.
In the interest of information, I like to be as open as I can with Deputies opposite.
The Minister may also be confusing us.
It is assumed that the Deputy's question relates to the difference between commitments entered into by the Community in respect of Ireland and the payments received.
Ireland's receipts from the European Community can be grouped under two broad headings. The first is EAGGF guarantee section receipts which finance the price support arm of the Common Agricultural Policy. As these payments are made in advance, the question of moneys outstanding does not arise. The second heading relates in the main to receipts from the structural funds — the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and EAGGF Guidance Section, which are dealt with by my own Department, the Department of Labour and the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries respectively. In the case of the three funds there is a difference between amounts committed for payment and actual payments. This is because the commitments relate to multi-annual programmes and projects and payments are phased over the life of these operations according as expenditure is incurred. Accordingly a certain amount of payments will normally be outstanding.
With regard to the Regional Fund, on 28 June a total of IR£84.319 million was due to Ireland in respect of commitments entered into by the Commission prior to that date. As I have said, payments from the fund are made in line with member states' expenditure on approved projects and the amount at present outstanding will accordingly be paid in this and subsequent years. I would add, lest there be any misapprehension, that the latest figures available from the Commission indicate that in terms of translating commitments into payments from the Regional Fund, Ireland has the best record of all the member states.
As far as the Social Fund is concerned, the amount of moneys claimed but not yet paid by the EC in respect of pre-1984 operations is £25.5 million. For 1984 operations a total of £158 million was approved for Ireland but claims for payment of this amount will not be submitted until October next. Because of the considerable amount of work involved in the preparation of these claims member states are allowed ten months after completion of operations to submit final claims. As regards the current year, a total of £187 million has recently been approved for Ireland and advance payments of 50 per cent of this amount are now due. I expect that these payments will be made in the very near future.
In relation to EAGGF Guidance, two types of measure are involved: the first are the socio-structural schemes where Departments' claims for EC aid generally relate to expenditure in the previous year. For some regional measures — drainage and the programme for western development — part of the EC contribution may be advanced in the current year. Moneys outstanding from the EC amount to £46.2 million of which £41.4 million relates to claims made this year. As in previous years, every effort will be made to obtain early payment from the EC.
The second group of projects are grant-aided projects for marketing and processing. These EC payments are made direct to firms and depend mainly on the rate of completion of projects. Moneys outstanding as at 31 May 1985 amounted to £35.2 million of which approximately £23 million related to grants awarded in 1983 and 1984. While the firms have five years in which to complete their projects it is the practice for the Department of Agriculture and the IDA to encourage them to submit their claims as rapidly as possible. However, the final responsibility for claiming the grants awarded rests with the individual firms.
A sum of £3.513 million is also outstanding in respect of schemes relating to aid for the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels and aid for aquaculture, operated under the aegis of the Department of Fisheries.
Is the Minister satisfied that all the appropriate funds due from the EC were claimed under the conditions laid down in EC regulations?
Yes.
Would the Minister agree that a number of EC schemes have not been adopted, or reduced or not participated in by the Irish Government — the farm modernisation scheme is the outstanding one which comes to mind — and that we are not taking up EC moneys because the Exchequer will not commit itself to a share of the money required?
That is not the case. Unlike the European Regional Development Fund, the entitlement of this country to assistance under these schemes depends directly on the level of activity. We make our own choices as to the level of activity in relation to farm modernisation, for example, so that there is no fixed amount of money to which we are entitled or which by not carrying out the scheme we forego.
Is it not evident that fuller participation in these schemes would lead to a larger transfer of money to Ireland?
Yes. Further and more comprehensive participation in these schemes with the application of extra amounts of Exchequer, that is taxpayers', money, would have the effect of attracting further EC moneys, but those decisions are made by people who are engaged in carrying out the individual projects.
Would the Minister not agree that they would be capital commitments and that the Minister's present capital budget is being under-utilised, unlike the current budget?
The answer to the first part is yes, and the second part no.
Over the years there have been a number of substantial approvals for FEOGA grants and at one stage a commissioner was critical of the slow take-up, but are there are any problems of drop-outs?
I think Deputy Leonard is referring to the marketing and processing scheme. As I said in my reply, the rate of take-up of the money depends on the rate at which the firms involved carry out their projects. If they are slow in carrying out the projects obviously the money will be slow coming in, and if firms drop out then obviously the money will not come in. At one time there was a worry that firms seemed to be excessively slow in taking up their entitlements and efforts were made to ensure that they got on with the job so that they got the aid to which they were entitled. But essentially that is a matter for decision by the people involved in the individual firms.