Vol. 413 No. 9
1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach whether he specifically raised the question of increased EC Structural Funds being made available for the financing of the proposed Dublin light rail public transport system with President Jacques Delors at his meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, 19 November 1991; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
As I indicated in my speech to the House last week, I focused in this meeting on the major issues likely to arise at next week's EC Summit in Maastricht, including the broad basis of the operation of the Structural Funds, rather than on any of the countless projects which are or might be eligible for aid from those funds. The Deputy will, of course, be aware that the whole question of a light rail system is within the remit of a working group which have yet to report to the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications.
I thank the Taoiseach for having agreed to take this question. I hope the precedent has been well noted in quarters where it matters. In respect of his discussion on the broad basis of the application of the Structural Funds, would the Taoiseach say whether the question of changing the ratio of support for such public transport infrastructural type facilities was discussed in general rather than its specific application to the Dubin light rail project?
Yes, the question of flexibility in the use of the funds and in the intervention rates was discussed in a general way.
Following the deliberations of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications and other groups examining this matter, may I take it that, as a result of the Taoiseach's discussion with President Delors, an application for assistance by way of Structural Funds' financing to Brussels will meet a different response in terms of the percentage ratio of support than might prevail currently? Would the Taoiseach be optimistic about such an application receiving a higher rate of intervention than currently anticipated?
I would not like to identify any one particular project as being likely to get more or less. The emphasis in my discussion with President Delors — and I should say he was very sympathetic — was to the effect that we need greater flexibility of scope in the use of the funds, in other words, the sorts of projects that can be covered and, second, that we would press very hard for flexibility in what they call the intervention rates, namely, the percentage which the Community will contribute. I would be optimistic that, in the new tranche of Structural Funds — this would not apply to the existing funds — from 1993 onwards there will be greater flexibility under both those headings.
I presume the Taoiseach, as a Dubliner, will be making a passionate plea — for the reasons of this intervention anyway, I am making that presumption — for consideration to any application that might be made?
Regrettably, the Taoiseach is not a public transport user.
A Dubliner, yes but, as Head of the Government, I have to look at the whole country——
The Taoiseach should not forget about Cork.
——with a totally unbiased eye and treat all the children of the nation equally, as it were.
Some people see it differently.
Some more equal than others.
I am calling Question No. 2.
On that score I was a bit mystified by statements made by the leader of Deputy Quinn's party in that he seemed to criticise me for seeking greater flexibility in intervention rates. Perhaps I did not take him up correctly but he seemed to be indicating that we should not be seeking greater flexibility in intervention rates.
The leader of my party was concerned about the apparent confusion perhaps being wrongly transmitted across the airways from Brussels.
