Vol. 441 No. 7
2 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Finance when final agreement will be reached between the EU Commission and the Government on the community support framework for expenditure from 1994 to 1999; and the way in which these programmes differ from those set out in the National Development Plan, 1994-1999.
8 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Finance when the Government will finalise the details of the community support framework for the 1994-1999 Structural Funds allocation to Ireland with the EU Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
10 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Finance if he intends to meet with representatives of the ESRI to discuss their views on the National Development Plan, 1994-1999.
14 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Finance the latest position regarding negotiations with the European Commission regarding EU funding for the National Development Plan, 1994-1999; the further plans, if any, he has to meet Commission officials; when he expects negotiations to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
27 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Finance if he intends to publish a revised National Plan in view of developments in recent months including the recent ESRI report.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 8, 10, 14 and 27 together.
Discussions are underway currently with the European Commission with a view to agreeing the Community Support Framework, which will set out the broad national and sectoral strategies for the use of EU Structural Funds. The discussions are proceeding satisfactorily and we have reached agreement with the Commission on the substantive issues. The actual detailed drafting of the Community Support Framework and the process of approving it at community level could take up to two months.
There is no question of publishing a revised National Development Plan. The national authorities decide their development strategy and on the basis of this put forward their proposals for expenditure in the structural area, including the use of the Structural Funds and domestic resources, in the development plan. The plan is then discussed with the European Commission and on foot of those discussions the Community Support Framework is agreed. Following adoption of the Community Support Framework, the operational programmes are approved. These set out in more detail the objectives and measures for each of the main sectors. The programmes are the legal basis for the commitment of EU aid.
As was already explained to the Dáil, the Irish side in negotiations has made it clear that the National Development Plan represents a set of strategies and priorities carefully chosen by the Government and that we would want to see the basic shape of the plan reflected in the Community Support Framework. It was for this reason that the Government decided that the total expenditure provisions in the plan should be adjusted on a pro-rata basis to take account of the shortfall in EU aid. I do not intend to get involved in commenting on the details of the discussions or on the arrangements for meetings with Commission officials. This would be neither helpful nor appropriate. I can say, however, that the agreement on the substantive points reached with the Commission means that the CSF will reflect the broad shape of the plan and that all the key elements will be included and I am happy with the success of the negotiations. The Community Support Framework when agreed will be published.
I assume that the reference to ESRI in the questions refers to the chapter of the ESRI's "Economic Perspective for the Medium Term" dealing with the National Development Plan. Since the plan was published a wide range of views have been expressed on the plan by economists and others in the various conferences, newspaper articles, etc., on the subject. The ESRI report draws on work undertaken for the European Commission and its conclusions, for example, its strong emphasis on the importance of human resources, provided a valuable input into the discussions between Commission and Irish officials. Others of its recommendations will be considered in the detailed work on programmes and project selection. Its views have been discussed at official level but there are no plans for a meeting at ministerial level to discuss the report.
Do I take it from the Minister's reply that the reason it will take two months to publish what is now agreed with the Commission is that it will safely bring the Government beyond 9 June, the day of the European and local elections, before the bad news emerges? I regret the vague nature of the Minister's reply. If £800 million is cut off a plan, money that the Government thought was available, it must mean some substantial adjustments to the plan. The Minister referred to pro-rata adjustments. Where precisely will the axe fall? Will it fall on Tallaght Hospital, the light rail system for Dublin, the human resources project or the turf burning electricity station? Will the Minister come clean, given all the past failings on this issue, and say where the axe will fall?
The news from Brussels is very good. The negotiations have gone extremely well and the priorities which we have set out in the National Plan will be reflected in the CSF as published. We are not anxious to delay the publication of the CSF because it is very good news for Irish people. A substantial investment programme will be undertaken with EU funding, Exchequer funding and with funding from the private sector and State companies. This investment programme will total over £19 billion. Deputy Yates will appreciate however, that one or two minor technical details remain to be ironed out and the Commission's processes involve the CSF being agreed by the other countries and finally translated into all the languages. We understand that process will take approximately two months.
The adjustments that the Government has made will be made up, hopefully, at the mid-term review on a pro-rata basis. The shape of the priorities we have set between investment in direct job creation, in productive infrastructure and in the education, training and skills of our people, and in targeting unemployment black spots will be reflected in the CSF as published. I am pleased that our negotiations have been so successful and I look forward to the publication of the CSF.
Perhaps I could put the question more simply to the Minister of State. Unless she is to do an exercise in the miracle of the loaves and fishes, it is simply not possible to make £7.2 stretch to £8 billion. Will she outline where the shortfall of funding will arise or will it be the case, as the Taoiseach inferred yesterday in the House, that the taxpayers' will have to make up the shortfall, which is equivalent to restoring the I per cent income levy, to pay for this Government's vanity?
Deputy Yates will appreciate that we have the most optimistic economic forecasts.
I know about the Government's optimism. That is what has it in such trouble.
Since the Government took office 15 months ago we have seen a major upturn in the economy and we have the highest growth rate in Europe. Last year, there was an improvement of 16,000 in non-agricultural employment. The outlook is extremely good and there will be no question of any——
A Cheann Comhairle, you will have to assist me. I am not getting answers to my questions.
The Chair has no control over that, Deputy.
——increased taxation. We expect the £19 billion investment programme to be a major boost to our economic growth and activity and to increase our economic potential.
The point was made in the ESRI report — I do not know whether Deputy Yates has had an opportunity to read it——
I read a summary of it.
——that if an investment makes sense from the point of view of the European taxpayer and if it provides an economic return, it also makes economic sense for us to invest in those projects. We have made pro-rata adjustments at this stage. Some of the projects will take a little longer to achieve but if they make economic sense today they will continue to make economic sense after 1999. We have also asked Government Departments and all agencies — a point underlined in the ESRI report — to exercise the greatest possible care in project evaluation and selection to ensure we obtain the best possible value for public money and to ensure that each ECU and each pound of taxpayers' money that we spend goes as far as possible.
Nobody should look on this as free money because it will pass our way but once. It is important that maximum benefit be derived from this expenditure. The money should be spent in such a way as to contribute to our long term economic growth and job performance. The Department of Finance is revising the guidelines on public expenditure evaluation and project selection to ensure we get maximum value for the money. We will also look on a yearly basis at additional moneys we can use to top up what we get from Brussels. We were able to do that this year. If the projects make economic sense to the European taxpayer they will do so at home.
The Tallaght hospital will go ahead. I visited the area recently and it is under construction. We are getting EU funding for all the major projects identified in the plan. I am happy that Tallaght hospital and the light rail project will go ahead.
The time available to us for dealing with Priority Questions is now exhausted. If Question No. 4 is replied to quickly I will hear it.
