Deputy Quinn has given me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment matters appertaining to the preparation of programmes for submission to Brussels and the exclusion of public representatives at local level from participation in their formulation.
Adjournment Debate. - Formulation of Programmes for EC.
A Cheann Comhairle, I must first thank you for having facilitated me in this matter. I realise there are many demands made on you for matters to be raised on the Adjournment. Therefore, it is with appreciation that I want to place on the record of the House a concern of mine which has obtained for some time past, effectively over the past year. I appreciate also that the Minister for Finance is here in his new capacity and with his new portfolio.
My submission is that, for whatever reason, perhaps a variety — on which I can speculate only — we are in danger of shooting ourselves severely in the foot in relation to maximising what we would otherwise be entitled to obtain from the EC and that the whole process of the preparation and presentation of the integrated programmes within the EC has been clouded in secrecy, compounded by incompetency and extraordinary amateurism.
It has to be remembered that we are talking about a unique, historic opportunity of a once-off investment spoken of by the Minister for Foreign Affairs according to The Irish Times reportage of his meeting with the Council of Europe — of some £4,000 million. Were anybody else to suggest that we would have seven ad hoc regions lumped together or that the preparation of planning in relation to them would be entrusted to three military officers on secondment from the Army or that three planners from, say, Dublin Corporation were to be seconded to the Army, there would be public outcry. People would ask what planners know about the Army.
We should not be subjected to the tyranny of qualification either.
Neither should we be subjected to the tyranny of people who fail to get something raised on the Adjournment themselves.
My argument is that this country at present seriously runs the risk of significantly losing out on funds to which it would otherwise be entitled. One of the reasons for my so contending is that the Department of Finance, who are in control of this process, have chosen deliberately to exclude public participation in the preparation of these programmes at local level. I shall cite evidence to back-up this claim as I progress.
Everybody knows, and the proponents of the programme for 1992 freely admit, that there will be winners and losers in the process of completion of the Internal Market but it was indicated at all stages that the losers would be compensated by the enlarged Structural Funds that would be applied in a new manner, under a new system of administration in the various regions affected.
At national level we constitute a top priority. The former Minister for Finance has announced already that the country will be divided into seven sub-regions each having working groups of representatives of Government Departments, State bodies, local authority managements, that these will prepare operational programmes for the seven regions and that the European Commission will work in close liaison with those working groups. The advisory groups, in turn, will accept submissions from interested bodies and individuals and make recommendations on the content of the development programmes. While I do not agree with the sub-division of the country, the preparation of the integrated plan announced by the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn, on 12 October 1987 is proceeding at a snail's pace and, in some cases, is outrageously behind any kind of a serious timescale.
Effectively the problem is that, because the Department of Finance want to ensure there will be no extra public expenditure incurred by the Exchequer, they are dampening down specific programmes and refusing to allow others to surface in some of the draft programmes at present being prepared.
My second contention is that public representatives or local authorities at local level, deliberately or otherwise — and it is for the Minister to state otherwise — are being excluded from this process. In some cases the advisory groups who are supposed to meet with the working parties have had absolutely desultory or nominal encounters.
Hear, hear.
It should be remembered that we are talking about millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that would be spent in this country. I have spoken separately to county managers around the country who regard the entire process as a total farce.
While having regard to the rules of parliamentary language and procedure I would have to say that, for whatever reason, the present Government are engaged in one of the greatest political scams of all time. I feel confident putting my case to the incoming Minister because it will be his task to re-examine this whole process.
To cite another example to back up my argument, I might add that the consultants preparing the programme for the greater Dublin area have earned up to £300,000 while there remains a group of public planners in Dublin city and county who have nothing to do because there is little or no development going on in their areas while, for the remainder of Leinster, a consultancy group was appointed for a fraction of that cost. I might add, neither is there any apparent procedure for tendering in relation to these consultancy reports.
There is absolute chaos in the administration of the process. While I do not have anything against the competency of the three military gentlemen who have been assigned this task, it seems to me to be absolutely extraordinary that there should be under-utilised local authority administrators or planners in one area twiddling their thumbs while there are others who must learn on the job and prepare a plan to be ready by 31 March next.
I cannot understand the reason for the secrecy. I sought to have the matter raised in this House. I issued a number of statements before and after August this year, for example, on one occasion on 18 November 1988 in the Labour Councillor newsletter for members of local authorities about what I regard as the real scandal about EC funds and likewise, in another of those newsletters on 17 September, 1987. I issued a press statement on 31 August 1988 in which I described the role of the Department of Finance having been put in charge of this entire matter as, effectively, “putting the fox in charge of the chickens”. Let me explain why. The only area in which this Government have succeeded in substantially cutting public expenditure has been on the capital account.
I hesitate to use the word "lying", but misinformation has been furnished by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the effect that we could qualify for 75 per cent intervention. We will get 75 per cent intervention from the EC if we can prove additionality. Jim Curry, who is a personal friend of mine, with whom I have had meetings in Brussels, has told me that he has told officials in this city to their face that it is ridiculous what the Department of Finance are endeavouring to do at present, suggesting that existing programmes will qualify for 75 per cent funding when they will not be eligible because the requirement of net additional activity will not be met.
The Minister knows quite well that officials in Brussels are not idiots. They know what are the public capital programmes of our semi-State companies and local authorities. For example, they know what the Department of Finance have done in relation to the roads programme. For example, they know the Department of Finance have consistently refused to tell the chairman of the National Roads Authority how much net money will be put into the roads programme for the next three years. On that basis we will not qualify for the 75 per cent intervention; we shall be lucky if we get 55 per cent.
The Minister should not treat the rest of this House with contempt. We are not idiots. We have been around. We have been in Brussels. We know the local authorities. We are talking to the people and we know what is going on. Because the Government want to keep the books straight, they cannot run away with the ball and pretend that everything is happening. It is not happening.
This situation has caused the anger with which I am animated this evening. This is about something which is much bigger than balancing the books for the next year and a half to keep interest rates to a certain level. We will never again in this century get the opportunity to get this massive transfer of resources from the European Community.
Hear, hear.
We have hundreds of qualified people, some with degrees and some without degrees, but all with expertise. I am thinking of county managers who know precisely what needs to be done in terms of infrastructure which is the obvious area of disparity in competition between ourselves and the rest of the Community in terms of access to markets. These people with their wisdom, knowledge and experience are being deliberately excluded at one level and are being effectively insulted at another by the perfunctory process of consultation that is going on. That is happening because a group of people in the Department of Finance who would not know their way to the Naas Road are trying to decide what is good for the rest of the country in terms of regional development. It is absolutely scandalous.
The very presence of the Minister for Finance here and not that of the Minister for the Environment who is supposed to have responsibility for the co-ordination of these programmes is proof positive, if it were needed, that the sop given to the unfortunate man who cannot dispel the smog from Dublin city was nothing more than a sop. This is part and parcel of the scam. The Department of Finance are running this show. Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn who has nominal responsibility in the Taoiseach's Department is the acceptable face of this scam. The real people are the Department of Finance who are simultaneously a department for the budget and a department for enconomic expansion.
As the Department for the budget they are doing a very good job. They have taken very many painful decisions many of which I disagree with but they have to be complimented for making those decisions with courage. However, the Department cannot simultaneously adopt that role and look after economic expansion. A specific example is that the Department of Finance, who know so much about transportation, wrote into the terms of reference for the consultants for the greater Dublin area that the DART in any shape, size or form was not to feature as a recommendation in the conclusions. The Department are nobbling the conclusions of independent consultants who are being paid something like £300,000, before they report because the Department of Finance bitterly opposed the DART from its very outset.
The only way that many of the people in Tallaght, who were referred to by Deputy Lawlor will get any access to the part-time jobs available in the city centre is by having a cheap reliable and safe system of transport. The DART is that system. We are now committed to diesel-related projects which on top of everything else will compound the smog problems of the Minister's colleague.
I am so angry about the effective robbery that is going on that I am convoluted in the presentation of my argument. I could go on for an hour citing chapter and verse as to specific instances where the Department of Finance, in trying to protect their position as the department of the budget, are preventing people from actually spending money that would benefit this country. Another instance is that Wexford County Council had a letter which the Department of Finance sent to all local authorities basically telling them that under no circumstances were they to go to Brussels and that if they were to go to Brussels they were to tell the Department of Finance in advance who they were going to talk to and meet and they were to undertake no commitments of any kind. That is financial terrorism. Elsewhere in the Community the County Council of Kent which is on the receiving end of the Channel Tunnel between France and Britain, and the department of Pas du Calais Nord, have formed a joint group which are regularly being feted in Brussels because the Commission in Brussels want to do business with local authorities. Brussels recognise that in the past the Regional Fund was ripped off by national Departments of Finance in all 12 member states.
(Interruptions.)
Every administration has done it. The Commission in Brussels recognise this and they now want a closer connection with the local communities. The Department of Finance know exactly what is going on and they have intimidated councillors and local authorities from making separate connections with Brussels. The Minister will know that I am really very angry about this. I am asking the Minister first of all to come clean, to trust us. We are on the same side in this. What is the big secrecy about?
I do not know.
The Minister will have ten minutes to tell me about it.
I hope I will be able to enlighten the Deputy.
The Dublin city and council authorities have submitted their plans.
The Minister should tell us what is going on and he should show us the terms of reference for all the other six regions. From what we have been able to deduce we know that the terms of reference in relation to Dublin have spancelled the outcome of the report in respect of the DART, or so we are led to believe. Will the Minister confirm whether my information is correct as I want the full facts? If the local community are involved in an up front manner in Brussels we will qualify for the 75 per cent intervention which will come if we can prove additionality.
We have a new Minister for Finance whom I wish every success in what is undoubtedly a very unenviable task. As a consequence of the completion of the internal market we will have losers in 1992. Everybody accepts that. The only way the Community at large will compensate us is by providing the possibility of an even field with the rest of the Community. I know from my contacts that other parts of Europe such as Portugal, Spain and parts of Greece have got their act together in terms of applying for limited funds under priority objective No. 1 and, unlike the operation of the funds previously, we are not guaranteed any quota. We will simply be treated on the same basis as any other region. There is no automatic guarantee that we will get the money simply because we come from this area unless we have the proper programmes prepared. Brussels has repeatedly said they want to have local participation in the formulation of these programmes. Brussels knows this debate is taking place this afternoon and know there is no such thing as local participation.
May I have a minute please?
I should be calling the Minister.
Will the Minister give me two minutes?
Yes.
I congratulate Deputy Quinn on his persistence in raising this matter. I have two concerns. First, I think a mistake has been made in the way the regions have been drawn up. Louth should have been included in the Border region and Dublin should not have been cut off from Meath, Kildare and Wicklow, which are part of its natural hinterland. That is bad for both. One of the regions, namely the mid-west, has a development authority — SFADCo — while the rest of the regions have no such authority and are simply ad hoc regions with no administrative structure to deliver the goods.
Second there is not sufficient involvement of the business community. A member representing the Commission at an address in Cork recently stated that the involvement of the private sector — by which he meant trade unions including private business — was fundamental to the acceptability of the plans and that the advisory capacity in which these people are working is not good enough so far as maximising our aid is concerned.
At governmental level there is confusion. There is an unholy trinity of responsibility — Minister Geoghegan-Quinn with some responsibility, Minister Flynn with new responsibility and Minister Reynolds with primary responsibility. I do not think that division is sensible. While I would not go along with all the criticisms levelled against the Department of Finance by Deputy Quinn, it is important that somebody should have clear and accountable responsibility for this area.
I am very glad that I have been afforded the opportunity to make this contribution, thanks to Deputy Quinn. My last point is that there is a danger, because of the accent on local authorities, that this will be another project related plan for the economy. We do not need another shopping list of projects. We need current and capital expenditure to be examined to see what makes our economy grow rather than another list of projects drawn up by engineers. I hope this plan does not have an overdominance of engineering considerations but has much more emphasis on the software of the economy and what actually makes people invest and prosper.
I want to assure Deputy Quinn and Deputy Bruton that there is no confusion on this side of the House as to how we are proceeding in this regard. If there is any confusion, it is in the minds of members of other parties. We have no intention of shooting ourselves in the foot, and I can assure the House we will maximise the funds we hope to get out of Brussels.
The EC Regulations which have been agreed at Council level envisage a new set of procedures for the operation of the Structural Funds. I hope what I am about to say will help to enlighten Deputy Quinn, although maybe I will not assuage his fears. He is entitled to his own views on this but I hope what I have to say will go some way towards doing away with some of the confusion that exists.
The use of the funds is to be planned on a multi-annual basis. The first stage is for each region to draw up a development plan. Since Ireland is one region for Structural Funds purposes, this development plan will be at national level. It is likely to cover the period 1989-1993. It will set out our priorities for expenditure in the areas which can be assisted by the Structural Funds' resources. The EC Commission will consider this plan and determine the extent to which it is willing to provide assistance from the Structural Funds. This will be set out in what is to be called a Community Support Framework.
The final stage is the programmes, which will set out in detail how the objectives set out in the plan will be implemented. These will be submitted by the national authorities and will have to be approved by the Commission.
The administrative arrangements which have been adopted for the preparation and co-ordination of the sub-regional programmes are as follows. First, a Committee of Ministers and departmental secretaries, chaired by the Taoiseach, will have responsibility for overseeing the implementation of new structural fund arrangements.
Second, a working group representative of the relevant Government Departments, assisted as appropriate by the relevant State bodies, together with the management of all county councils and county borough corporations in the subregion and the EC Commission will be responsible for the preparation of the operational programme for each of the subregions. Third, each working group will prepare their operational programme in close liaison with a separate advisory group for the subregion which will be composed of all the main representative bodies with an interest in development — CII, CIF, chambers of commerce, one to represent all in the subregion, ICTU, FUE, IFA, ICMSA, ICOS and Macra na Feirme — as well as the county councils, county borough corporations, borough corporations and urban district councils over 15,000 population in the subregion which will be represented by the chairman in each case. These advisory groups will accept submissions from interested persons and groups and, on the basis of such submissions and their own thinking, will make recommendations to the working group on the content of the programmes. They will also have an opportunity to comment on the programmes as they are being prepared by the working groups.
Final responsibility for the content of these programmes will rest with the Government in order to ensure consistency between them and they will be submitted to Brussels by my Department. There will be scope for feed-back from the subnational programmes to the national development plan and the national programmes and vice versa.
The chairpersons and secretariat of the working groups are being provided by my Department. Deputy Quinn raised a question about three members of the Army. Those three members will be acting as secretaries to the working groups, and they are very efficient people and well qualified to act in that capacity. It is expected that the advisory groups will select their own chairpersons.
It will be evident from these arrangements that locally elected representatives will be fully involved in the preparation of the programmes. Apart from the direct participation in the advisory groups by the various local authority chairmen I have mentioned, other local representatives will have an opportunity to influence the preparation of programmes by making their own submissions to the groups. They are also in a position to convey their views to the relevant city or county manager as appropriate.
I would also like to draw Deputies' attention to the time constraints under which these programmes are being prepared. It is intended that the national development plan will be submitted to the Commission as early as possible in 1989 and by 31 March 1989 at the latest — which is the date specified in the relevant EC Regulation. The EC Commission will complete the Community Support Framework, which will set out the extent to which the Commission is willing to provide assistance from Structural Funds in respect of the national development plan, within six months of receipt of the plan, though it is to be hoped that less time will be needed. It is hoped that the operational programmes can be submitted at the same time as, or as soon as possible after, the National Development Plan.
This is the first time that local interests will be directly involved in preparing programmes to be assisted by the EC Structural Funds. Indeed, it is the first time that Ireland has involved itself in subnational programmes. These innovations should produce worthwhile benefits. The involvement of local interests will not only give people a voice in the formulation of the programme for their region, but should also generate a momentum of enthusiasm and enterprise which are essential ingredients in the development process.
Deputy Quinn mentioned the intervention rate. The maximum intervention rate is 75 per cent. He seems to suggest that unless the Government put up a lot more money we will not get the higher funds. He seems to ignore the fact that private sector money as well as local community money can be very heavily involved. The rate of intervention is not set where there are revenue bearing projects, and it is open to the Commission to decide on the basis of each project what the intervention rate will be.
I had discussions with senior officials from Brussels yesterday and I have to say quite honestly that I do not share the real concerns Deputy Quinn espoused here this evening. There is regular to-ing and fro-ing between the officials from my Department and the officials in Brussels and there is a special liaison committee set up between the Commission and the Irish Government to ensure that everything goes smoothly and that we are in a position to maximise the funds. I do not have the terms of reference mentioned in front of me but I will look at them when I go back. I hope what I have said will go some way to alleviate the fears expressed here this evening.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 December 1988.