Tony Killeen
Ceist:66 Mr. Killeen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the progress, if any, he has made in relation to the Poverty IV Programme. [18561/96]
Written Answers. - European Anti-Poverty Programmes.
Donal Moynihan
Ceist:96 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Social Welfare the action, if any, he intends to take in response to the recent European Court of Justice decision concerning the right of the European Commission to provide funding for anti-poverty projects; and the action, if any, he proposes to take to ensure that much-needed European funding is available to Irish anti-poverty projects. [18568/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 66 and 96 together.
As the Deputies are aware, a proposal for a fourth EU Poverty Programme to combat social exclusion, with requires unanimity, has been blocked by Germany and the UK. To date, all efforts by the Commission and other member states, including personal interventions by myself, have not succeeded in changing the opposition to this particular proposal.
Indeed, as one Deputy referred to in his question, the UK Government applied to the European Court for an order annulling the decisions setting up European Commission grant schemes for anti-poverty projects. The German Government has also joined in this action. As the House is aware, the court has, in an interim ruling, instructed the Commission to make no expenditure commitments in advance of the final conclusion of the case. While the Commission can still process applications, it cannot make decisions on them. This leaves applicant groups in a limbo situation. As far as I am concerned, this serves to highlight the need for action at the Intergovernmental Conference to give a clear competence to the Union in these matters.
In the European Union as it stands I see two serious imbalances. First, a mismatch between on the one hand, the impressive and wholly laudable statement of social objectives set out both at Article 2 of the Treaty and in the chapter on social policy, and on the other hand, the extent of Community action to give effect to these. We are all only too familiar with the saga of how a range of fairly humble spending initiatives at EU level have failed to be implemented due to the weakness of Article 235 as a Treaty base. Even within the limited social policy powers available to the Union, one could further criticise the fact that most activities relate to the protection of workers in relation to employment, rather than to their rights as citizens in relation to their social needs.
The second imbalance that strikes me is between the strong legal and financial instruments available for economic policy and those for dealing with poverty, unemployment and the labour market. The EU community can accept social cohesion as a necessary goal between regions, but not, apparently, between social classes or between individuals.
My overall aim during the Irish Presidency is to mainstreanm what might be called a `social exclusion mindset' which will help shape the discussions on the next phase of the Essen process, at the Dublin summit; and to materially influence the conclusions of the summit and ensuing policy in the Union.
Furthermore, as Deputies will be aware, the Government will seek a treaty change in relation to the fight against social exclusion as part of the Intergovernmental Conference. The purpose of this is to ensure that the European Union will be better able to combat poverty in the future. If we are successful, two things may happen. First the competence of the EU to engage in anti-poverty programmes will be clearer so that such actions will have a specific legal basis. Second, this would permit more significant European poverty initiatives in the future.