Vol. 501 No. 2
5 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Finance the progress of EU approval of Ireland's proposal for the designation of the 13 west and midland counties of Objective One status; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5553/99]
We received a letter from EUROSTAT on Tuesday, 22 February, on our application to EUROSTAT for regionalisation. I regret to say the response from EUROSTAT is negative.
This, however, is not the end of the matter. Despite meetings which have taken place with EUROSTAT and the supply of a great deal of information, several aspects of EUROSTAT's response seem to us to be either unclear or to be based on some misapprehension. Clarification is clearly needed as a matter of urgency. Accordingly, a reply by the Director General of the Central Statistics Office dealing with the issues raised by EUROSTAT was sent to EUROSTAT yesterday and an urgent meeting with EUROSTAT at the highest level is being sought to further progress the issue.
The Government remains fully committed to regionalisation in line with the application submitted to EUROSTAT.
Will the Minister confirm that a formal application was made to EUROSTAT? Will he agree to put the application in the Library for the perusal of Members of the House? Will he make the reply he received from EUROSTAT available to Members of the House immediately?
Deputy Deenihan has not had a larger audience since the days when he stood in Croke Park.
I hope we are all playing for the same team.
Most of us are, although I do not know about the Deputy's friends sitting to his right.
The Government made an application to EUROSTAT, as was announced at the time. Negotiations have been ongoing between the Central Statistics Office, the Department of Finance and EUROSTAT in the intervening period. This week we received a letter from EUROSTAT which was negative in response and in tone. We replied to EUROSTAT yesterday and, as I said in an interview this morning, I regard this as part of the ongoing negotiations on this matter.
It remains the objective of this Government to secure regionalisation for the country. While this matter was debated at length some time ago, the Minister and Secretaries Group, which meets regularly, asked the Department of Finance to prepare a document on the possibility of regionalisation. That work was done between March and June. That document was then submitted to the Ministers and secretaries group and, with the agreement of the group, it was included in the memorandum for Government which decided, after much deliberation, that an appli cation would be made to Europe for sub-regionalisation of the country. The reasons given at the time are as valid now as they were then and the situation has not changed. We intend to pursue this matter with the utmost intensity in the coming weeks.
The Minister did not reply to all my questions and I hope he does so in his next response. Is it the Government's intention to pursue the present application with Europe and to ask questions based on the present application, or does the Government intend to reformulate the present application and to put forward a new application? Will Kerry and Clare be included in that new application?
Deputy Deenihan asked earlier about the application. When negotiations are completed all these documents will come into the public domain, but it is the understanding that during negotiations briefing and background documents are not made available, though they will become available in time. In the reply that we sent to EUROSTAT on foot of the letter received from that body, the Irish position remains as it was. Our application seeks to grant 15 counties Objective One status and it is on that basis we have replied to EUROSTAT. We will continue to press for that because, as was explained at the time, that region qualifies in all aspects for Objective One status.
I find it somewhat disingenuous for EUROSTAT, a statistical agency, in replying to us, to enter into matters which my officials and I feel is outside its remit. Other countries have succeeded in retaining Objective One status for regions they have put forward whose average GDP is 74.8 and 74.9 per cent; mirabile dictu, they came just beneath the threshold.
My view is not shared by the Labour Party or Democratic Left, but most Members of Deputy Deenihan's party share the view—
What about the Deputies behind the Minister?
The Minister should answer the question.
—that sub-regionalisation is the best approach for Ireland. It is in the overall national interest that the Irish approach would be to retain a region in transition and a region in Objective One. The Government has replied and the application remains the same. That will continue to be the Irish position from which we will negotiate.
Will the Minister confirm that one of the reasons our application was rejected was that we have no proper recognised regional structures? Does that correspond with the position of Commissioner Wulf-Mathies when she expressed concern last autumn about the regional structures in Ireland? There is no devolution of power or decentralisation. Does the Minister agree that this is one of the reasons EUROSTAT is taking this attitude towards our application? We have no regional policy, and one of today's newspaper headlines stated—
Brevity, please. I would prefer if the Deputy did not quote from the newspapers. There are nine Deputies offering.
Our regional policy has been described as being in flitters.
Deputy Deenihan raised what another Commissioner said some months ago, but this is supposed to be a purely statistical exercise. That is EUROSTAT's remit. Furthermore, under the principles of subsidiarity, it is a matter for the member state in question to designate regions and to provide for administrative structures consistent with the member state's legal and institutional framework. Deputy Deenihan is correct in that there is a reference in the reply from EUROSTAT to the proposed regional structures, but the Irish Government's approach to the new regional structures was innovative and welcomed by the Irish Association of Regional Authorities, which issued a press release when the Government made its decision in February and welcomed the transfer of powers to the new regional authorities, further welcoming what was envisaged in those new authorities and the transfer of powers thereto. Therefore, in our reply to EUROSTAT we pointed out inconsistencies, misapprehensions and a lack of clarity of thought in some parts of its letter. We also sought a meeting at the highest level with EUROSTAT, and officials from my Department and the Central Statistics Office hope to meet with EUROSTAT in the coming week.
Given that we now have indications as to the total amount of funding that will be available under the Structural Funds, does the Minister agree that the additional maximum of £20 million a year which we hope to extract by means of this scheme he has devised is not sufficient? Does he agree that the price will be paid – and is being paid – by farmers, among others? They will see the results of a distinctly more hostile attitude towards Ireland that is due in part to the plan the Minister has proposed to Brussels. My understanding was that the Government had asked EUROSTAT for an opinion, but that an application has been made. Is that correct?
Yes.
Do I understand from the Minister's response that he intends to stand or fall on the application as made?
I am sure Members from Galway, Sligo, Westmeath, Offaly and Kerry are delighted with the Labour Party's approach to this matter, which is to oppose regionalisation not just for 15 or 13 counties, but for all counties. The consistent position espoused on behalf of the Labour Party and Democratic Left is that regionalisation should not be considered. As I pointed out in earlier debates on this matter—
On a point of order, there is no longer such a party as Democratic Left. The Minister is living in the past.
They passed on more or less the same as the Workers' Party and Sinn Féin. They disappeared.
Rationalisation.
Like the way the ACC and TSB are to go off into the air. I thank Deputy Noonan for reminding me of that point. The Government is formulating its position after considerable thought. The easy thing to do would have been to accept things as they were, to do nothing about it and to leave the whole country as a region in transition. That would have been the easiest political thing to do, but it would have been the wrong thing to do in the national interest. Having considered the matter on foot of the report presented to the Ministers and secretaries' group last summer after considerable research by officials of my Department and others, it was shown quite clearly that there was both a short and long-term advantage to Ireland in pursuing the sub-regionalisation idea. That is why the Government made its decision; it was the correct one then and it is correct now to pursue it. It may not be true of parts of Dublin, but on the western seaboard, from Donegal to Kerry, people are dependent on agriculture, tourism and fishing—
Do not forget west Cork.
I have not been allowed to forget west Cork ever since Deputy Sheehan came here. He is the most outstanding representative ever to come from the Schull area.
Sub-regionalisation for Ireland is still the correct approach for the short, medium and long-terms. We should have an Objective One region. Deputy McDowell has not agreed with this position, nor has the Labour Party, However, I doubt if Deputies Michael Higgins, Penrose, Moynihan-Cronin and Gallagher agree with the Deputy. He has opposed this from day one and that has been his consistent position on behalf of the Labour Party.
With respect, the Minister has engaged in political banter but has not attempted to answer my question. I asked whether we are talking about an extra £20 million per year and, if so, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, would not be in trouble this week.
That matter does not arise under the question. I remind Deputy McDowell that ten Members are offering.
I appreciate that.
I wish to facilitate them because they have been waiting on this question. The Deputy's question is not related to the question before the House.
I asked about the answer to which the Minister aspires to get by means of the plan report. Given that his Department has considered the matter, it is reasonable to ask about it.
The Deputy was here in the autumn when the issue of regionalisation was considered. During that debate the Taoiseach, others Ministers and I outlined the reasons for pursuing the sub-regionalisation approach. They were not solely because of the extra quantum of money that could be gained. That was only one of the reasons to pursue the sub-regionalisation approach. Other issues such as State aids, the additional amount of money, the phasing out at the ending of 2006 and what was likely to happen afterwards were also considered. When all the views were put to the Ministers and secretaries group and considered by the Government it was obvious to us, and agreed by most Members, that it was in the national interest to have sub-regionalisation for Ireland. That has been the basis of the Irish position and continues to be so.
Will the Minister acknowledge one of the major problems was the Irish application was almost late, and that Wales and Cornwall, which had submitted their applications 18 months earlier, had been told everything was in order. In October-November on the occasion of our visit to Brussels, our application had not been submitted and we had no idea how many counties would be included. We are still dithering with our application and with the man from south Kerry. How much support has the Irish application received from Commissioner Pádraig Flynn? How many contacts or meetings has the Minister had with him? Has Commissioner Flynn's support for the Irish application been modified or tempered in any way by virtue of the ongoing row with his former colleagues in Government? Does the Minister propose to enlist the support of Commissioner Flynn?
I was in the House for the debate on the EU Commissioner. Commission Flynn is a bigger man than the Deputy makes him out to be, in all respects.
Is he in our corner?
He certainly is. Whatever differences Commissioner Flynn may have with Members he has been 110 per cent behind the Irish proposal and has done more than anyone else in Europe to further the Irish cause. We replied to EUROSTAT last evening. Today I wrote to Commissioner Yves-Thibault De Silguy, the Commissioner responsible for EUROSTAT, enclosing a copy of our reply to EUROSTAT. I have written also to Commissioner Flynn to brief him on the latest news from the Commission. Commissioner Flynn has done everything in his power to further the Irish cause and will continue to do so.
What about the time lag?
Will the Minister accept Ireland's application for Objective One status is in a terrible mess? Last November, I visited Brussels with the Border regionalisation authority to meet Commissioner Wulf-Mathies. She assured me, in the presence of that deputation, that the necklace of counties surrounding the six northern counties, which comprise the Border region, was well qualified as a region and within 75 per cent of GDP and that an application could not be refused. Given that goodwill from a senior Commissioner in Brussels what went wrong that our application has been thrown out and the six Border counties which need to keep up with the improvements, are now in a wilderness due to incompetence on the part of the Government in dealing with what was an important issue?
Last October when in Brussels there was absolutely no indication from Commissioner Flynn, Commissioner Wulf-Mathies or EUROSTAT that the Government had any intention of applying for Objective One status while Wales, Devon, Cornwall, the Highlands and Islands and other regions had already applied for several years, all the work had been done and they were virtually accepted. The decision to apply appears to have been a snap one at the eleventh hour. We are now approaching the twelfth hour and have to resubmit our application. Will the Minister agree our credibility has been damaged as a result of the way the Government dealt with our application from the beginning?
I do not agree with what the Deputy has said. The country was sub-regionalised following careful deliberation going back to the debate in the autumn. I do not agree the decision to submit the Irish application in 1998 was connected to the difficulties with the Commission. I regard the reply from EUROSTAT as part of the ongoing negotiations on Agenda 2000. This matter will be resolved one way or the other. It may be resolved in the context of the overall scheme of things. There is considerable pressure from the German Presidency to have the Agenda 2000 proposals concluded by the end of its presidency. A meeting will take place tomorrow between the heads of State. A meeting of the heads of State will also take place at the end of March, when all these matters will be considered. The question of sub-regionalising the country has been around for some time. The Government decided on an application for sub-regionalisation for the reasons outlined earlier and last autumn and they are as good now as then and we will continue to pursue it.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government made a formal application to EUROSTAT for 15 counties? Will he clarify that one of the reasons for the negative reply from EUROSTAT was the inclusion of Kerry and Clare? Will he agree that had only the three regions been submitted some, if not all, of the problems raised would not have arisen? If we receive a further negative reply after the additional information is submitted to EUROSTAT, will the Government give a commitment to submit an application for the three eligible regions and not to continue its current "sellotape" approach?
The Minister is intent on getting this through and perhaps he could say whether his first decision was to apply on behalf of 13 counties. Our record in EU negotiations has been good until recently. Does the Minister accept that this debacle, which was solely to keep Deputy Healy-Rae on board, has done us enormous damage not just on this issue but also on urban and rural renewal and CAP? The delivery on those issues has been poor of late. Can the Minister give a commitment to the House that negotiations with Deputy Healy-Rae will stop and the Government will adopt a proper regional approach acceptable to EUROSTAT and Brussels, so that the Border, west, and midlands regions, for which he originally intended to apply, do not lose out? We depend on the Minister and he is with us but unfortunately he was overruled by the Taoiseach, purely for political expediency.
The local radio stations will be busy tonight. I will clear up the question about Kerry and Clare, which I endeavoured to do last autumn but it fell on deaf ears – unfortunately, if a lie is repeated often enough it is believed. The move to sub-regionalise the country was set in train by the Ministers and secretaries group in March 1998. The group was asked to look at a range of questions on whether a sub-regionalised application for Ireland would be in the long-term interests of the country, and to assemble relevant information. That information was compiled in June and the record shows it included Kerry and Clare as part of the western region. I have repeated this on more than one occasion. I did not find a representation from anyone, either on this side of the House, the other side or the Independent benches, about the inclusion of Kerry or Clare until the autumn of last year, well after the Ministers and secretaries group had included those counties as part of the new western seaboard region.
That is not what Deputy Healy-Rae says.
I have said this but I know no one inside or outside the House has been listening. I am just stating the facts, which I stated last year also. Deputy Naughten asked whether the letter from EUROSTAT stated that the proposal would be accepted if Kerry and Clare were left out. It refers to those counties but it is not the kernel of the letter.
Will the Minister publish it?
The counties are mentioned, as are various other matters, but the letter does not state that if Kerry and Clare were left out and a new application submitted it would succeed, if that is what the Deputy is trying to infer. Many other issues are raised and there is a reference to those counties but not in the context which the Deputy and others outside the House anticipated.
In what context, then?
The Deputy will get on Midlands Radio also now. The context is part of the negotiations between Ireland and Europe on sub-regionalisation. Nor can it be divorced from the questions raised by Deputy Crawford, which have nothing to do with any Member of the House but relate to Irish success in recent years and begrudgery from other member states, who applied pressure on the Commission about taxation, CAP, inward investment, etc. I regard all these matters as part of the ongoing flux of negotiations which will come to finality later this year.
A poker session.
Did the Government make a formal application for all 15 counties?
Yes.
I do not begrudge Objective One status to all 15 counties if they are successful, but if there was a landbridge across the Shannon estuary Limerick would also be included, because it would be part of the western seaboard. We almost feel a form of apartheid is applied against us.
On radio this morning the Minister said the EUROSTAT letter did not refer to Kerry and Clare but he said in the House that there was a reference. I am glad he has clarified that point, and if he compares what he said on radio to what he said here he will find it is different. Was he influenced by today's newspaper report that a senior official of EUROSTAT, Mr. Franchet, said Kerry and Clare were part of the difficulty? Is he more correct than the Minister was?
Will the Minister publish or place in the Oireachtas Library the correspondence received from EUROSTAT on this matter and the Government submission? I appeal to him to look at the broader picture, including the reform of CAP and the Structural Funds negotiations. Does he believe that in pursuing a lame duck case, as in his approach to EUROSTAT, he is damaging the national interest in other areas?
The letter refers to Kerry and Clare but the objections are not based on the inclusion of those counties in the new western seaboard region. In response to Deputy Creed, during negotiations it is not the practice to publish correspondence of any kind and I will stand by that practice. In due course all correspondence will be published, including the references.
The Minister is telling us what is in it, why will he not publish it?
The reports by the newspapers' Brussels correspondents give a good indication of what is in the letter but I will not publish it formally.
Perhaps there is more in it than the Minister is telling us.
What about freedom of information?
Judging by what has happened in the House recently, it has reached that stage that if one whistled at someone on the other side of the street one would be accused of cavorting with them. If one reads the newspapers one would have a good idea what is in the letter.
I agree with Deputy Creed that this was part of a bigger picture, namely the overall negotiations on Agenda 2000, which incorporates everything mentioned. I regard this as part of the normal negotiating process.
Does the Minister agree the correct approach for the Government to have taken at the outset would have been to make a submission to the European Union for Objective One status for every severely disadvantaged area throughout the country in addition to the Border counties? If that approach had been adopted, the solution to this problem would have been tailor-made. When Ireland submitted its disadvantaged areas plan to the European Union, it was readily accepted and there was no stipulation about county units. Why were the criteria laid down for the creation of disadvantaged areas not adopted by the Government when making its submission for Objective One status? Who stated that the submission should be based on a system of county units?
I am the only Deputy in the House who represents an area called Hungry Hill. I also represent three peninsular areas which are so disad vantaged that you would find it difficult to raise a snipe there.
There is no fodder available.
I am amazed the Minister managed to include all of the territory represented by Deputy Healy-Rae in the original submission to the EU because the only thing separating our constituencies – which are made up of the same terrain – is the tunnel.
The Deputy should remember that his colleagues wish to table questions.
County Cork makes up one eighth of the total area of the country. For that reason alone, disadvantaged areas in north-west and south-west Cork should be added to Kerry to make a complete unit. The solution is that simple.
Considering the way he has handled this situation and that each time he is asked a question he replies by means of a sneering remark about whether Deputies will appear on Midland Radio, etc., does the Minister intend to leave the Chamber, get on a plane and travel to Brussels to resolve this mess? I want a "yes" or "no" answer.
The Minister stated that negotiations are continuing. From his original reply and my own experience, I understand that EUROSTAT is a statistical agency charged with supplying facts and figures. What negotiations can he have with a body, the sole purpose of which is to provide such information? Is EUROSTAT's argument based on facts and figures or on the fact that our application in respect of 15 counties will bring us above the allowed limits?
I agree with the concept of regionalisation, even though I represent a Dublin constituency. It is in everyone's interests that other parts of the country should develop so that people will not be choking up the streets of our cities. Are we concerned with negotiations with EUROSTAT or are we discussing negotiations on facts and figures?
Given that the total envelope for Structural and Cohesion Funds will have to be agreed by 25 March, does the Minister agree that we are rapidly running out of time? Will he become involved in negotiations taking place during the next four weeks? This matter rests on the Minister's shoulders and he will be blamed if our application fails.
The question of how we came to decide the composition of the new western seaboard region was discussed in the Dáil last autumn. At that stage, Deputy Sheehan made a great case for south-west Cork but when the Government considered the matter it decided to proceed on the county basis.
Deputy Belton inquired about my future air travel arrangements. We have replied to EUROSTAT and my officials and those of the Central Statistics Office will meet its representatives in the coming week.
So the Minister will not go to Brussels.
I have written to Commissioner de Silguy and I will monitor the situation during the coming weeks. If necessary, I will travel to Brussels.
Deputy Barrett raised an important point. EUROSTAT is the statistical agency and one would have expected that in the letter sent to us it would have referred to the legitimate questions raised by the Deputy. However, as far as I recall, the letter did not contain one reference to any figures and it is a discursive text.
In reply to Deputy Deenihan's question, I must inform him that the German Presidency hopes to conclude negotiations on these matters in March.
As it is now 3.45 p.m. I must proceed to take priority questions to the Minister for Defence in accordance with an order of the Dáil of Tuesday last.
