John Bruton
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the parliamentary delegations from abroad he has met in Ireland since June 1998. [24518/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Official Engagements.
John Bruton
Ceist:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings of the Ministers and Secretaries Group since July 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24520/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the nature of his discussions with the President of the EU Commission when he visited Ireland recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24614/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he specifically raised the issue of the abolition of the duty free sales industry with the President of the EU Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24619/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings he will hold in Ireland before the December 1998 meeting of the European Council in Vienna. [24654/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24661/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 19 November 1998 with the President of the EU Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer. [24814/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the issues he will raise with the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Mr. Viktor Klima, when he meets him on 27 November 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24815/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 9, inclusive, together.
I had a very useful meeting with Mr. Jacques Santer, President of the European Commission, on Thursday, 19 November. We discussed a number of issues, including the Agenda 2000 negotiations. I took the opportunity to stress once again Ireland's commitment to work constructively towards meeting the March deadline for agreement on the Agenda 2000 package. He gave me a very useful assessment of the negotiations so far and offered his impression of the prospects for progress at Vienna and the attainment of the March deadline. I also took the opportunity to outline the background to the Government's decision to apply to EUROSTAT for approval of the regionalisation proposals.
In relation to CAP reform, I stressed to the President that while we accept the need for reform, the proposals in respect of the beef and milk sectors — which together account for 4 per cent of Irish GDP — will have a disproportionately negative affect on Ireland's economy compared with any other member state.
I also raised with the President the Commission's report on own resources. I mentioned that the co-financing proposals in their current form were unacceptable to Ireland. President Santer stressed that the Commission had brought forward options only and had not made recommendations.
In relation to employment guidelines, I indicated that Ireland would have no difficulties with the new employment guidelines which were likely to be approved at Vienna. President Santer indicated that the general strategy agreed at Luxembourg in December last would be endorsed with some amendments and that he looked forward to seeing a constructive interaction between the various national action plans at Vienna.
On Northern Ireland, I emphasised our view that the peace programme contained vital elements which must be retained in any successor programme. As a programme unique to Northern Ireland and the Border counties, it provided very visible evidence of EU support. It reached groups and communities which have not directly benefited from other forms of Structural Funding and its cross-Border and cross community approach was a key element in its success.
On the issue of duty free sales, I briefed the President on Ireland's position and our proposed approach to reopening the issue. I know Chancellor Schroeder of Germany has indicated a positive view towards re-examining this matter at EU level and I propose to continue to seek his support and that of other heads of state or Government to make this happen.
In preparation for the Vienna European Council, I will meet Austrian Federal Chancellor, Viktor Klima, on 27 November. The Ministers and Secretaries General Group on EU Policy will meet on Thursday, 26 November for the third time since July this year. It will also meet on 8 December to focus on the issues to be discussed at Vienna.
As I pointed out in the House last week, the agenda and proposals coming forward for the Vienna European Council are not yet set and, accordingly, the positions to be adopted by Ireland are not yet finalised. As I indicated, it is likely that one of the main items to be discussed at the Council will be Structural and Cohesion Funds and the CAP. I will discuss these matters with Federal Chancellor Klima.
On the question of institutional reform, I will once again stress that the Amsterdam Treaty should be implemented before embarking on any ambitious new reform process. I look forward to the outcome of the consideration by the General Affairs Council of its reform and the issue of the concentration of Councils, and of the ECOFIN considerations of the question of external representation. I met a parliamentary delegation from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in Dublin on 17 June.
Will the Taoiseach indicate the progress being made on Agenda 2000? Does he believe the March deadline will be reached so far as deciding on the future financing of the Union is concerned?
In regard to Objective One status, a matter he discussed with the President of the European Commission, does he have authoritative county GDP per head statistics available to him? By virtue of the Revenue Commissioners' access to such information, these take into account the income per resident in each county and would be a more authoritative indication of the relative prosperity of a county than the CSO figures which were published recently, which relate to output in the county regardless of the residence of the people participating in that output.
Will the Taoiseach consider asking the Revenue Commissioners, who have county income figures available to them, to make those available to the Government for the purposes of establishing which county has what income proportionate to other counties?
On Agenda 2000, from the meetings I have had recently, and following the meeting in Porschach last month and from what the President of the Commission, Jacques Santer, said last week, it is hoped that some progress will be made at the Vienna Council next month.
The view, which I share, is that if some progress is not made in Vienna, we overburden the German presidency in trying to achieve sufficient momentum by March. The view of the President is that would not be possible if we have not at least laid down and agreed some firm ground rules at the December meeting. There are no proposals for that meeting yet but I will meet Chancellor Klima later this week and I will know more then.
It is still the view of the Commission, our view and the German Chancellor's view that we must reach the March deadline for the reason I stated before. It will allow the Parliament and the Commission to deal with these matters in April. Otherwise we will be in the period of the European elections and the ensuing gap before the establishment of a new Parliament and the end of the Commission's period. The view is, and again we share it, that it would then roll into 2000 creating major difficulties.
The only figures which I have available to me are those from the CSO as the Deputy knows from what the Minister Deputy Brennan said yesterday. I cannot say what figures are available within the Revenue Commissioners; that would be more appropriate for a question to the Minister for Finance.
The Taoiseach is responsible for statistics for the Government as a whole. Any statistics available in any Government organ should be available to him as the Minister responsible for statistics. If it is the case that the Revenue Commissioners have income per capita figures for each county, because they have the addresses of the people living there who pay tax there, they should be able to make them available to the Government to establish the income per head of each county on the basis of tax paid.
Will the Taoiseach ask that such statistics be published so that we can see the income of comparative counties? Will he not agree that if we are to divide the country we must do it in a fashion which is transparently fair or else it will leave a bitterness which would be entirely unproductive? Any statistics available, such as those from the Revenue Commissioners, should be sought and published so that people know the basis for the selections of counties which the Government has made.
I am responsible for the information available from the Central Statistics Office. If there are other figures available the Deputy can table questions.
The operation of this process, and the mechanism used by the European Commission in all these decisions, is based on GDP. That is the benchmark which will be used in terms of Objective One status for all of the countries.
The Taoiseach has indicated that the March deadline is critical in the settling off on Agenda 2000. Why, then, did the Government, which had a document since 21 July this year which did include the proposal to consider Counties Clare and Kerry, according to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, not submit the proposal prior to the August recess? Is there any truth in the allegations made by a number of senior political correspondents over the weekend that the Government decided to defer making a submission to EUROSTAT on this matter until after the Cork by-election and as a consequence valuable time was lost?
No. There is no truth in that. The Cabinet spent a long time considering the best way to do this. The simple thing to do was to do nothing and leave the end position for 2006.
The Government had the proposal on 21 July.
There was a presentation by the Department of Finance by June or July which indicated that Counties Clare and Kerry should be included. That is correct. The preparation and the Cabinet's finalisation of the various options which were put to it did not take place until recently.
The Taoiseach indicated that the March deadline for Agenda 2000 should be met. I have no problem with that. He also said it is in order to facilitate the other institutions of the European Union to address the proposals. What arrangements are being made to enable this House to address the Government's input into the different aspects of Agenda 2000, given the Government's extreme reluctance to give any information to this House in advance of its decision on the regionalisation debacle?
Will the Taoiseach give the House an assurance that he will be more co-operative in presenting this House and the committees of this House with information on the studies being carried out and the options open to the Government, so that this House is relevant to decision making at European level?
Does he accept that the Government has made a total mess of the regionalisation issue? The statistics which he published yesterday were based on CSO extractions which the CSO subsequently denied as having any validity. Would he agree that whatever the benchmark being used by the European Union with regard to measuring our prosperity, at the very least we would expect the Government to base its plans on what it knows to be the facts? The facts are that the GDP does not reflect on a county by county basis or on a national basis the real picture with regard to the prosperity of this country.
Is the Taoiseach aware that multinational profits are counted as part of GDP although they do not stay in the country? At the same time, European Union funding which goes to the farming community by way of headage payments is not counted in the GDP calculations, although it remains here — unless it is sent to an offshore account — and is spent in the regions where it is paid. There is no reality to the figures on which the Government is basing its national plan.
I draw Members' attention to the fact that Parliamentary Question No. 15 deals with some of the questions being asked at the moment.
We will not reach that today.
We might, with my help.
That was a very gentle reminder.
Members can put forward their views on Agenda 2000 at any time they wish. However, I remind the Deputy there have been a number of discussions here on the matter since last March when the proposals were first outlined. There has been a debate on the CAP and several Ministers have answered questions on various aspects of the Commission's paper which was presented on 18 March. However, we can have another debate.
I also remind the Deputy that no country has put forward its negotiating position to any extent and member states are unlikely to do so until the Vienna Summit, which will be the first opportunity for people to enter into the area of negotiating positions. That will be an interesting exercise in terms of how much they are prepared to move. However, I am ready to set down our position. Our position on agriculture and the Structural and Cohesion Funds is already in the public domain — we just have not put down some of negotiating arguments, which would be very unwise. As I said earlier, I hope the March deadline is met because it would be better in terms of planning and organisation.
I know Members wish to keep playing around with the figures. However, the reality is that Objective One status for all regions of all countries — the position of other countries was well signposted in Monday's newspapers — is based on GDP per region and nothing else. Of course, there are problems with this. Westmeath, for example, is wealthier than Paris because all teachers are paid from Athlone, which is very interesting. That is why the figures are taken on a regional rather than county basis.
I have not seen any of it.
Does that make Deputy O'Rourke a Parisian?
Kerry is well within the limit. It has a dramatically low GDP although everyone here swore on their lives last week that it was way over the limit if it was taken on its own.
However, I believe all this is meaningless. What is meaningful is to take the figures on a regional basis, which is how it has been done. As the Minister of State said yesterday and I have said several times, the CSO believes that the figures in these discussions stand up on a regional basis. The discussions are commencing next week and every other country is using the same basis to calculate its figures.
We could have taken the alternative view, which is to close down the funding in 2006 and walk away from resources which every other country will get. I think some Members are saying we should do that, but they are not very coherent in the way they say it.
If, as the Taoiseach says, the matter should be taken on a regional basis in order to be fair, how does he justify departing from regional boundaries for two counties and not for others?
It is justified on the basis that the people who prepared this made a good case, which was later strongly supported by the Government, that it should be the western seaboard, which is a peripheral area.
Excluding Limerick.
They believed that was a good case to make when they saw what happened in west Wales and the Welsh valleys and when Lisbon was taken out of the Portuguese regions. That case will stand up on that basis and I think it was an excellent idea.
Is the Taoiseach seriously suggesting to the House that Mizen Head is not on the western seaboard? If he is using the western seaboard as his basis, how can he justify excluding west Cork? On what basis can he exclude the county with the largest coastline, the most peninsular land and the southernmost and westernmost points in the country? How can he justify including every part of the western seaboard except west Cork?
It is very simple. When we asked about taking parts of counties — such as some of the poorest places in Ireland which I am honoured to represent — in isolation we were told we could not. That has been followed through all this year and no country has been allowed to so do.
Will the Taoiseach agree he has repeatedly stated that the March deadline is critical? Will he also agree that it is in the interest of a loose coalition of net contributor countries that the March deadline is not met and that, therefore, countries such as Ireland which are net recipients for the time being have a vested interest in ensuring the March deadline is met?
Will he agree the Government has been negligent in not making its submission to EUROSTAT earlier, for whatever reason? I will not speculate on that although my views are on the record. This is in contrast to Portugal and the United Kingdom, the two countries he has just cited. Why has the submission been made so late? Has the Government attempted to construct a political alliance among the net beneficiary countries to ensure a positive result in Vienna, bearing in mind the March deadline?
It will be proved that our submission is not late.
We will wait and see.
It is rather like the argument I had to listen to in 1989 when people said we would get only 50 per cent of the resources.
That was when the Taoiseach signed away duty free sales.
He got it wrong.
The Deputy is wrong about that also.
The Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, signed it away.
I know the Deputy did not want Clare to be included.
Yes, I did. I put it into the Western Development Commission and the Taoiseach had to include it.
It is a pity the Deputy did not set it up.
I did but the Taoiseach prevaricated.
The Deputy is another Jackie Healy-Rae.
The Taoiseach should stick to the question.
He is in waffler mode.
The Taoiseach must be allowed to continue.
We are in plenty of time for the discussions. Deputy Quinn is right that it is clearly in our interest to get an early decision — there will be horrendous difficulties for us if it drifts on.
Between 18 March and the August holidays I visited all the countries concerned — and not only the smaller ones — to build a consensus view, as the Deputy said. I also visited a number of countries such as France which, although they are large, have a similar view to ours on the Common Agricultural Policy. I have spoken at length on a number of occasions to our Spanish and Portuguese colleagues, who are very much our allies in this regard.
In regard to a debate on Agenda 2000, the Taoiseach indicated that a number of the issues have already been addressed. A number of the issues were addressed in reply to parliamentary questions which is not a debate, as the Ceann Comhairle would be very quick to point out.
In addition, the discussions which have taken place have not been based on documentation presented by the Government on its views on the options. I am not talking about the Government having to pin itself down to a particular option but at least outlining to Members what the options are as far as it is concerned so that Members can have some input into the Government's thinking. Will the Taoiseach put in place a systematic process to examine the options faced by the country on Agenda 2000 between now and March, so that the House can have some relevance in that debate rather than being faced again with the situation which occurred on the regionalisation issue?
There seems to be some level of avoidance or incomprehension in regard to my question on the issue of GDP versus the reality of poverty and wealth in this country. The Taoiseach acknowledges that the GDP figures being used by EUROSTAT do not reflect reality in terms of the spread of wealth, disadvantage and poverty. In view of that, will the Taoiseach be using other statistics and criteria to develop the national plan? If so, why will he not come clean and inform us of that? In regard to regions, the Taoiseach indicated there was justification for Kerry to be included because of the county figures produced by the CSO but denied the validity of those figures——
I did not say that.
It sounded like that to me. The Taoiseach stated that the statistics published yesterday revealed it was correct to include Kerry——
Some Members want to argue the position that suits them and ignore others. Taking the figures on a county basis is not reliable.
The Taoiseach is doing the very thing he accuses others of doing.
Does the Taoiseach accept that GDP figures are not reliable in terms of planning for the future? If so, does he intend to use real figures on income and wealth throughout Ireland as against GDP? If so, why are we presenting an artificial two region strategy to Europe in order to apparently grab the last penny from it? How does the Taoiseach expect money to flow into this country post-2006 when Commissioner Wulf-Mathies has stated there is no guarantee there will be money for anyone post-2006?
Deputy De Rossa is determined to keep this debate going. Objective One status is being sought on a regional basis. The CSO must present the figures to EUROSTAT on a regional basis, as determined by GDP, in line with at least ten other member states which receive money in this way. The CSO believes that when one considers the issue on a county, parish or rural basis, the figures are diluted and are not as accurate as they might be. When we take a national opinion poll, the sample involves 1,500 people throughout the country——
The polls are taken by Independent Newspapers — payback time.
Apparently 84 per cent of people like the Taoiseach.
Polls are taken by newspapers all over the country. If one considers a parish such as Abbeyfeale, for the purpose of the sample two voters there might vote for Democratic Left and one could hardly interpret that to mean that 100 per cent of people in Limerick would vote for Democratic Left.
They will not have the opportunity to do so for much longer.
One cannot compare an opinion poll with a national survey.
Opinion polls are taken on the same basis as national surveys. Surveys do not cover every area or household——
What is the sample used?
A small marketing statistical sample is taken and figures are arrived at on that basis.
That is not true.
It is true.
The Taoiseach is misleading the House.
I am not misleading the House. I will answer questions on statistics later. A national survey does not take account of all available figures.
The Taoiseach correctly pointed to the fact that a national opinion poll is carried out on a sample of 1,500 people. The labour force and household surveys are carried out using a sample of 49,000 people and are in no way as random or unreliable as a national opinion poll.
A national opinion poll is accurate within 2 per cent.
The opinion poll taken in the Cork South-Central by-election was not.
I have yet to see the survey figures being accurate within a 2 per cent limit.
The Taoiseach is contradicting himself.
(Interruptions.)
Does Deputy Quinn really believe County Louth is the richest county in the country?
It is according to GDP figures.
It has the highest figure because the location of Coca Cola there affects the figures. The second part of Deputy De Rossa's question was relevant. When the national plan, which will take account of areas that are included and excluded for the purpose of regionalisation, is being prepared, all available information and data will be taken into account to ensure that areas in need will be catered for. It behoves us to put together as good, complete and constructive a national plan as possible as we have done on two previous occasions. In regard to areas of rural and urban disadvantage, which may or may not be included for the purposes of Objective One funding, we should endeavour to provide for any difficulties in those areas. Approximately 98 per cent of the funding for the plan will come from the Exchequer and we should attempt to identify areas which are disadvantaged or require direct assistance from the State.
I will allow Deputies one brief supplementary question.
I have a brief supplementary question on duty free sales. When the Taoiseach met with President Santer, did he specifically request the Commission to re-enter this issue on the ECOFIN agenda? If so, did President Santer give the Taoiseach an undertaking that he would request Commissioner Monti, who has responsibility for that area of ECOFIN, to re-enter it on the agenda?
Neither President Santer nor Commissioner Monti would make such a decision. As ECOFIN made a clear decision in this regard, it will not re-enter the matter on its agenda. However, the Germans have informed the Commission that they will do so. President Santer reminded me it would be necessary for all member states to be in favour of such a move.
I wish to yield to Deputy Sheehan.
I intended to call on Deputy Sheehan after Deputy De Rossa.
Will the Ceann Comhairle allow Deputy Sheehan to go first and then call me after Deputy De Rossa?
The Chair decides the order in which Members will be called.
I am requesting that the Chair call on Deputy Sheehan first.
I call on Deputy De Rossa.
The Taoiseach was correct when he said I wished to keep this debate going as I believe the Government has made the wrong decision. Will the Taoiseach indicate how he intends to redress the disadvantage which unemployed people will be at in non-Objective One areas or Objective One in transition areas, which will only be able to offer a maximum 20 per cent capital aid to attract jobs to their area as compared with the other 15 counties which will be able to offer up to 57 per cent? Does the Taoiseach accept that is one of the crucial disadvantages these 11 counties, urban and rural, will be at?
I believe in regionalisation and the attainment of a balance in this country which would allow economic development to spread around. If we did not opt for regionalisation, all counties would be at the 20 per cent level. There are parts of the country which are still peripheral, which are losing population and where schools are practically closing down. This is a chance to give such areas a fair crack at the whip with very good reason.
I am glad the Taoiseach has finally admitted on the record——
It is not in order for the Deputy to make a statement.
The Deputy changed the IDA grant structure to favour the west.
Who advised the Taoiseach that he should comply with county units in defining areas for Objective One status? Is he aware that in the severely disadvantaged areas recognised in Europe for the past 20 years, the 12 western counties comprised the three peninsular areas and the congested areas of west Cork with Kerry? Given that the Cork-Kerry region was recognised in Brussels for the past 15 years as a tourism and industrial development region, why is the Taoiseach now creating a completely new region? Why is what was right in Brussels for the past 20 years wrong today according to the Taoiseach's views?
Commissioner Wulf-Mathies made it absolutely clear from the outset that whatever about her views on regionalisation, something on which she has strong views, splitting counties or including areas of counties was not possible. In terms of dealing with the difficulties perceived by the Deputy, we need to put our energies into the development of a national plan to deal with areas of marginalisation or peripherality. I have already said that 98 per cent of expenditure in the national plan will come from the Exchequer. Funding for social programmes, in which I know Deputy Sheehan is genuinely interested, effectively comes from Europe. In this context I do not think it will create any difficulties for the Deputy.
The 2 per cent is so important the Government split the country.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Why are we in such a state of chassis that the figures released yesterday, which prove that counties Carlow, Kilkenny, Wexford and Wicklow could easily be included, can be refuted by the Taoiseach and the Chief Whip as of no benefit or credibility? What are we supposed to make of figures which will be released in future? Are they based on subjective judgments or does it prove there are lies and statistics?
That is what they are.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Surely there must be some credibility. Will the Taoiseach ensure that figures which are released mean something?
This is about seeking to ensure part of the country is kept within Objective One status after 2006. The Commission expressed opposition to regionalisation based on subsidy shopping or creative geography. This required a relatively modest approach. We have been criticised for taking an over-modest approach by including too many counties, but the area had to be contiguous and based on our need to put a case together. We also took into account what the Commission had accepted on the precedent effect of the recent changes in Wales and Cornwall where decisions were grounded on peripherality. We had to put forward a coherent proposal which did not involve major changes and which had a reasonable opportunity of gaining EUROSTAT and Commission approval. I cannot say our application will be successful, but if we tried to include areas all over the country the application for regionalisation would have no hope. The Commissioner expressed her views clearly at the meeting in Cork and said that if our application seemed to be based on creative geography or subsidy shopping it would get no hearing.
She also told the Taoiseach we would receive no money after 2006.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The figures released yesterday prove that four counties are much worse off than Clare and Kerry. If we have any value on figures, why are those figures being discounted? The issue of counties being accepted or otherwise has nothing to do with this. Based on the figures released yesterday the people in counties Carlow and Kilkenny presume they should be included. How can the Taoiseach answer this issue?
I could stay here all day arguing the issue and the basis on which GDP is measured. The registration office for motor vehicles is located in my constituency and because, for example, the Garda registers all vehicles there, the constituency of Dublin Central is credited even though the cars are in every constituency in the country except mine. Should we accept the figures released yesterday given their basis? The CSO said it is not in a position to compile accurate estimates for counties and smaller areas because the underlying data are not sufficiently robust or are not available at this level. It also said that the regional structure, the one on which it built and compiled its figures over the years, is reliable. The CSO is an independent organisation and we have taken what it said into account and based our submission to EUROSTAT on that information.
What did the CSO use in compiling figures for Kerry and Clare?
What figures were used to make a decision on Clare and Kerry?
I ask the Taoiseach for more information concerning his statement that Commissioner Wulf-Mathies suggested county boundaries could not be breached. Did she not say that an island of territory in a county or a county that was an island of territory and which was not physically connected to an Objective One status area could not be included? I put it to the Taoiseach that in drawing a new region, as is done in the region which includes the west of Ireland and counties Clare and Kerry, the Commissioner did not say the map of the new region could not include areas in Cork which bounded and were contiguous to the included area? Was the Government advised that it was not feasible to have a patchwork but that regions could be included as long as the areas were contiguous? If that is the case, on what basis does the Taoiseach justify excluding west Cork?
I have already answered that question. The Deputy is aware that my meeting with the Commissioner was well publicised in the paper, although it was private, as were the minutes of the meeting. The question of including blackspots was raised at all the early discussions the Minister for Finance had with the Commission.
I am not talking about blackspots but rather contiguous areas. If part of a county is contiguous to the area being included it can be included, but this was not done.
The question of including parts of counties was also raised. The Deputy can table questions to the Minister for Finance on this matter if he wishes. The Minister for Finance tried this approach at all the early meetings but it was rejected. In the early meetings attempts to keep Ireland in Objective One status after 2006 was rejected and may still be. We will be making an effort to ensure we do not hit sudden death in 2006, something other countries are also doing.
I am interested to hear the Taoiseach comment on the Minister for Finance as I understand he said at a Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party meeting that counties Kerry and Clare could not be included in Objective One status.
He never said that.
It was in the newspapers.
For its own good reasons the Government has created a new western region stretching from Donegal to Kerry. The House passed the Western Development Commission Bill which will establish a commission as an agency of Government for administration and funding purposes in the western region. Will the Taoiseach explain why it is proposed that Kerry, being part of the new western region for Objective One purposes, will not be included in the remit of the Western Development Commission, which is the Government agency for administration and funding in the western region? Why is County Kerry being left out?
Criteria for inclusion under the remit of the Western Development Commission are not the same as for seeking Objective One status.
The Western Development Commission deals with the development of the west. The west according to the Taoiseach's new criteria stretches from Donegal to Kerry. The Western Development Commission includes County Clare. Why is it not proposed to include County Kerry?
It is not the west. The issue is that the western seaboard is a peripheral area. It comprises contiguous regions and is argued on that basis.
Correct.
That is not the same as providing resources within the Western Commission.
County Kerry is now included as part of the west and it is being left out of the Western Development Commission. That is ludicrous.
We must conclude questions to the Taoiseach and come to questions nominated for priority.