Vol. 472 No. 2
2 Dr. O'Hanlon asked the Taoiseach the implications, if any, for ADM of the decision of the European Parliament Budget Committee to reduce the peace and reconciliation funding from £125 million to £47 million; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19113/96]
As part of the ongoing procedure in relation to the 1997 EU budget, the European Parliament's committee on budgets on 9 October voted on a recommendation to the Parliament to reduce commitment appropriations for the Peace and Reconciliation Programme by 100 MECU.
On 21 October the committee on budgets put forward a further proposal to include 100 MECU for the peace programme in a special reserve in the 1997 draft budget for priorities of the European Union. The European Parliament adopted this approach on 24 October. On 19 November the Council of Ministers agreed to restore the money for the peace programme to the appropriate budget line. This is part of the ongoing procedure in respect of the 1997 EU budget.
I am confident that full funding for the Peace and Reconciliation Programme will be provided. There are, accordingly, no implications for ADM.
Can the Minister of State assure us that the funding will be restored to the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation? As he pointed out, the funding was transferred to a reserve fund and may go to coal or textiles through RECAR or RETEX. Did the delay in implementing the programme, which was drawn to his attention on numerous occasions by Members on this side, influence the decision taken by the budget committee?
Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, who supports regional policy and the peace initiative, indicated on 9 October in Brussels that the money would be restored to the fund. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, also gave a reassurance on this matter in reply to an Adjournment matter raised by Deputies Dermot Ahern and O'Hanlon on 10 October. The consultation process carried out by the Commission and the two administrations has emphasised the need to combat social exclusion to achieve all the objectives of the Peace and Reconciliation Programme. The Government has been at pains to ensure that, following consultation, schemes in the Border area receive the main part of their remit. I believe the money will be forthcoming.
Is the Minister of State aware this issue must be voted on again by the budget committee and by the Parliament? Given that a Labour member not only voted in favour of the £78 million being taken out of the programme but defended that decision on radio, what measures are the Government parties taking to ensure Irish MEPs from the Government side vote in favour of the money being restored? The Fine Gael MEP did not participate in the budget committee. What steps are the Government parties taking to ensure that their members in the European Parliament vote in favour of restoring the money to the fund?
Under Article 203 of the European Union Treaty, the European Parliament has the final say over non-compulsory expenditure and this fund comes within that definition. The European Parliament has always supported the peace programme, which was evident at the Parliament's first reading of the budget on 22 October. There may have been a blip——
There was more than a blip, a sum of £78 million for Border regions is involved.
Deputy O'Hanlon and his colleagues opposite have been exercising their minds to try to undermine confidence in the programme.
We do not have to do that.
It was MEPs from the Labour and Fine Gael parties who were involved.
They should not adopt that attitude.
The chairman of the budget committee of the European Parliament, Mr. Samland, is quoted as saying the Irish side did not push hard enough in this respect and as a result the committee slashed £78 million from next year's budget. It was not Members from this side of the House who undermined confidence in the programme. Members from the Government side did not use the EU Presidency to ensure this fund was not slashed. Now that we are back on the right track and that the MEP from the Labour Party has been brought on line, what steps have been taken by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, to rap on the knuckles those involved and to ensure they do the right thing on behalf of the Border counties?
My position is to argue for the continuation of the Peace and Reconciliation Programme and I will continue to do that.
Does the Minister of State not believe we are doing that?
A major contributing factor to the perception about slowness of expenditure is the extent to which implementation of the various measures has been devolved to the intermediary funding bodies and the particular emphasis on actions to combat social exclusion. Many of the initial submissions were not properly focused and guidance had to be given to address that problem. Members opposite are saying that Structural Funds allocated to build advance factories in Border areas should be used in that way. As I pointed out at the outset, they are the people who negotiated the terms of this programme and when the application for Structural Funding was being made, the IDA, the body charged with responsibility for advance factories, did not make a requisition for funding for advance factories in Border areas. Far from it, it pulled back from that area.
I am satisfied the intermediary bodies are funded by way of global grants on foot of legal agreements. Yesterday, Deputy Bertie Ahern complained that legal agreements were not being sought before grants were made, but it is being sought. The present forecast is that all the funding will be committed by the end of 1997 and I am confident that will happen.
What steps will the Taoiseach and Tánaiste take to ensure that members of their parties vote with the Fianna Fáil Party in support of the measure at the next budgetary committee? Is the Minister of State aware that ADM is responsible for allocating £18.7 million and that until 16 October 1996 only £1.57 million of that money had been allocated? Could the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste or the Government not advise ADM to make more progress with this money before it is lost for the spurious excuses which have already been made?
I have been in touch with all the groups which deal with the peace and reconciliation programme. I have attempted to make matters move more quickly by, as I said on a previous occasion, providing a single application form for funding. In addition, housing all these agencies in or near one building will also progress the matter. However, the various sections have forecast that all the money will be allocated by the end of 1997, which would be a major achievement.
May I ask one further question?
I want to conclude this matter. Deputy McDaid may ask a very brief and relevant question.
There are seven subprogrammes dealing with——
The Deputy must ask a question, not make statements.
The Minister of State is aware there are seven subprogrammes dealing with this matter, yet only half of one subprogramme is run by the county councils where there are public representatives. The others are run by bodies which have no public representatives. That half subprogramme is the only one which has reached its quota and used up its money. Does that not indicate public representatives should deal with such a large amount of money so that the job can be done properly?
Do not say we set it up because we did not.
This consultation took place between the previous Government and the Commission.
No.
Part of the agreement was reached at the insistence of the EU Commission which wanted bodies such as ADM to administer these programmes. This is being done at the request of the Commission. Other countries in addition to the EU supply money to this peace initiative, they also wanted reassurances which they got by giving bodies such as ADM and the Combat Poverty Agency the opportunity to tackle social exclusion, which is the aim of the programme.
The Opposition Deputies want the application of Structural Funds to create an economic miracle for the Border area. When the Deputy's party was making an application for Structural Funds on a national level there was no mention in the IDA programme of advance factories for the Border area. It arose only when somebody in Strabane, or another town north of the Border, slipped through the net and got an advance factory. Suddenly, every public representative south of the Border started screaming for funds to build new factories.
As I said on a previous occasion, every time I visit county councils in Monaghan, Cavan, Donegal or any other northern area, I never hear the whinging and complaints I hear from Border Deputies. Members of local authorities there, whether they are Deputies or not, are willing to get on with it and I praise them for that.
Does the Minister of State not think that Border Deputies are justified in being seriously concerned when the money is not being allocated and when we see £78 million being taken out of the fund, which is supported by Members on the other side of the House? The Minister of State said he had spoken to all the groups about the provision of funding. To which groups did he speak and what did he tell them?
I have been in Deputy O'Hanlon's constituency on many occasions and I have spoken to all the officials there. I have also spoken to all the development officers in groups such as ADM and the Combat Poverty Agency. I announced allocations of funds in Donegal.
The Minister of State would not give me those answers in this House but waited to announce them in Donegal.
I have met everyone I needed to meet in that area. An interdepartmental committee analysed all the initiatives and presented its findings in a report which Deputies received.
There is nobody from the Border area on the committee.
There is an office in Monaghan. They are not elected representatives but that was not my choice. That choice was made by the Commission and the countries supplying the money.
What action was taken by the Taoiseach to ensure this money is restored to the fund? The Minister of State described Border Deputies as whingers. Perhaps the reason it is a forgotten zone is that there is no Border representative at the Cabinet table.
Or even a junior Minister.
We will now move to the next question.
Will the Minister of State tell us what representations the Taoiseach made in regard to the restoration of the money?
We have had all this before, it is quite repetitive.
The Minister for Finance has been in touch with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies and I think everything is in order.
