Vol. 454 No. 3
»
Díospóireachtaí
»
Aimsigh díospóireacht
»
Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 13 Jun 1995
»
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fourth E...
32 Mr. R. Burke asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that the Fourth European Poverty Programme has been held up in the Council of Ministers for over one year and that no funding has been forthcoming from this source for Irish anti-poverty projects since last June; and the action, if any, the Government proposes to take in this regard. [9306/95]
143 Mr. R. Burke asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that as the Fourth European Poverty Programme has been held up in the Council of Ministers for almost one year there has been no funding from this source for Irish anti-poverty projects since June 1994; and the action, if any, he intends to take in this regard. [10013/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 32 and 143 together.
As the Deputy is probably aware, proposals for a Fourth EU Poverty Programme to combat social exclusion came up for decision at the Social Affairs Council meeting in April 1994. The Commission had proposed a doubling of the budget to 121 million ECUs. This proposal for a Fourth Poverty Programme, which requires unanimity, has, however, been blocked by Germany. The German Government objected not only to the timing of the new programme and to the doubling of the budget but also raised objections in principle to the proposal.
The Commission's proposal for a Fourth Poverty Programme is on the agenda again at the Social Affairs Council on 29 June 1995. If it is not possible to secure unanimity on this issue, then Ireland will be looking for some form of mechanism whereby member states will be able to work together in the European Union to keep poverty and social exclusion on the agenda and to allocate the funding already provided in the EU budget.
For its own part, the Government is keeping poverty and social exclusion to the forefront on the national agenda following the recent Government decision to develop an anti-poverty strategy which will involve Government Departments drawing up specific plans to target poverty in Irish society. I will be urging that this action at national level should be matched by ongoing actions at European Union level to ensure a continued emphasis on the need for concerted approaches aimed at reducing levels of poverty and disadvantage.
The failure to agree a new poverty programme does not affect the three Irish projects funded under the Third Poverty Programme. Continued funding for the work of the projects has been made available under my Department's community development programme and from other sources.
Does the Minister agree that 121 million ECU is a substantial sum? The people to whom I have spoken about this matter would like to see him make more robust efforts at European level to secure agreement on this matter. Can the Minister give us an assurance that agreement will be reached at the council meeting to be held at the end of this month?
The global figure to be provided by the European Union is 121 million ECU, only a proportion of which will be provided to Ireland. In addition——
I already know that as I have been to Europe several times. Ireland will be entitled to receive a substantial proportion of the 121 million ECU provided the Minister makes our case. There is no evidence that he will do this. While his efforts at European level are feeble, he is good at giving lectures here.
Is the Deputy finished?
We are awaiting the Minister's reply.
The 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union contains an agreement on social policy which was signed by all member states with the exception of the United Kingdom. This agreement further widened the scope for social action and established the combating of social exclusion as a goal for the Union while easing the decision-making rules for future initiatives in the social policy area. The Third Poverty Programme was a further development designed mainly around a smaller number of large scale projects. There are three Irish projects under the programme, all of which are currently being funded by my Department.
The Government is doing everything that is humanly possible to try to overcome the objections by the German Government to the Fourth Poverty Programme. The German Government has fundamental objections to it and the programme cannot proceed without unanimity. It is on the agenda at the Social Affairs Council at the end of this month when we will make every effort to ensure it is carried through.
It was first placed on the agenda more than a year ago when the Deputy was a member of the Government. I am sure he knows precisely what the obstacles are and how difficult it will be to overcome them. I have made it clear that if we fail to overcome them on 29 June — the Fourth Poverty Programme is supported by every member state except Germany which remains adamant in its opposition — we will still be insisting that action be taken at European level to ensure that the issues of poverty and social exclusion remain on the European agenda and that the money provided is spent. I emphasise that we are not waiting for action to be taken at European level on this issue. The Government is taking its own initiatives in this area at home.
Will the Minister indicate whether he or his officials had meetings with his counterpart in Germany to ensure the obstacles are removed? Obviously unless the necessary homework is done before the Council of Ministers' meeting it is unlikely agreement will be reached. Does it not, therefore, behove the Minister and his officials to engage in protracted negotiations to ensure these obstacles are removed so that this country benefits to the tune to which it is entitled?
The German Government objects to this programme. First, it expressed concern about the increase in the budget — doubling it to 121 million ECUs — for the poverty programme. It also objects in principle to the idea of a European anti-poverty programme — this objection was made in the initial stages in April 1994 — claiming that the Commission does not have competence in this area. No other member state objects in principle to the proposal although there are varying opinions on the size of the budget. There is implacable opposition to this programme. My Department, the Taoiseach's Department and the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Enterprise and Employment have made strenuous efforts, making contact directly with the German Chancellor on this issue, but to no avail. All other member states are pressing to have this programme put into effect but the Germans are adamant they do not want it. It is logical to see what we can do on 29 June to have this measure adopted and, if not, ensure an alternative is put in place so that exclusion and poverty remain on the agenda and that the money the European Union has already provided for this matter is spent in a proper way.
Is it the Minister's intention in the interim to have a bilateral meeting with his counterpart in Germany to try to remove the obstacles?
We have been in constant contact not only with my counterpart but with Chancellor Kohl on the issue and Germany persists in its refusal to accept this programme. If the Deputy has a magic wand to overcome that objection, which has resisted pressure from all member states, he has much to answer for because Fianna Fáil should have dealt with it when it was in power up to December of last year.
