We had a wide-ranging debate in the Seanad this evening and last Wednesday on the new arrangements applicable to EC Structural Funds. I would like to commend Senators for their contributions to the debate which reveal a worthy concern that Ireland should maximise the opportunities which the enlarged funds will present and also, if I may say so, a grasp of the details of the new arrangements and their implications which cuts across some of the accusations which are the substance of the motion before the Seanad. Bearing this in mind, I shall confine my remarks on the actual arrangements to a very brief summary of the main features and then deal with the main points made in the debate.
The EC regulations which will apply include a framework regulation adopted in June last and a set of four implementing regulations which have only been agreed at Council level in the last few weeks. A new set of procedures for the operation of the Structural Funds is envisaged. The use of the funds is to be planned on a multi-annual basis. The first stage is for each region to draw up a development plan. Since Ireland is one region for Structural Fund purposes, this development plan will be at national level and it is likely to cover the period 1989-1993. It will set out our priorities for expenditure in the areas which can be assisted by the Structural Fund resources. The EC Commission will consider this plan and determine the extent to which it is willing to provide assistance from the Structural Funds. This will be set out in what is to be called the Community Support Framework.
The final stage is the programmes which will set out in detail how the objectives set out in the plan will be implemented. These will be submitted by the national authorities and will have to be approved by the Commission. The administrative arrangements which have been adopted for the preparation and co-ordination of the sub-regional programmes are as follows:
(1) A committee of Minister and departmental secretaries, chaired by the Taoiseach, will have responsibility for overseeing the implementation of new Structural Fund arrangements.
(2) Seven working groups are preparing the operational programme for each of seven sub-regions designated by the Government. These groups are representative of the relevant Government Departments, assisted as appropriate by the relevant State bodies, together with the management of all county councils and county borough corporations in the sub-region. The EC Commission may also be involved but have not yet nominated their representatives. I might say that in drawing up these programmes the working groups are drawing upon and building upon the excellent work which has been carried out at local level over the years by local authorities, regional development organisations and other bodies. They are also considering, where relevant, Border and cross-Border requirements of their areas in relation to the programmes.
(3) The working groups are being assisted in the task of preparing the operational programmes by advisory groups which comprise nominees of all the main representative bodies with an interest in development — CII, CIF, Chambers of Commerce, one to represent all in the sub-region, ICTU, FUE, IFA, ICMSA, ICOS and Macra na Feirme — as well as the county councils, county borough corporations, borough corporations and urban district councils over 15,000 population in the sub-region which are represented by the chairperson in each case.
These advisory groups will have an opportunity to comment on the programmes as they are being prepared by the working groups. They will also accept submissions from interested persons and groups and, on the basis of such submissions and their own thinking, will make recommendations to the working group on the content of the programmes. Any groups wishing to make submissions can send them to the Department of Finance, Merrion Street, for transmission to the appropriate group. There will be scope for feedback from the sub-national programmes to the national development plan and the national programmes and vice versa.
The Government gave careful consideration to the composition of these groups in order to ensure the widest representation possible of local authority councillors and interest groups while maintaining the groups at a workable size. Under the arrangements adopted the chairpersons of no fewer than 43 local authorities are directly represented on the advisory groups. This figure includes a number who are also Senators.
It will be evident from these arrangements that locally elected representatives can participate fully in the preparation of the programmes. Apart from the direct involvement of council chairpersons in the advisory groups, other local representatives have an opportunity to influence the preparation of programmes by making their own submissions to the groups. They are also in a position to influence their councils' submissions and to convey their views to the relevant city or county manager as appropriate.
The operational programmes will have to be consistent with each other and also with the national plan. To ensure this, final responsibility for the content of the plan and the various programmes will rest with the Government. I would like to stress that the need to ensure consistency is the main reason why the Government have had to assume this role although, clearly, Government intervention would be necessary if programmes submitted were unrealistic or did not tackle the important issues. Given the membership of the groups preparing the programmes, it is not envisged that such problems will arise.
A number of Senators have referred to deadlines for the preparation of the plan and programmes for the submission of proposals for consideration. The 31 March 1989 is the date specified in the relvant EC regulation for submission of the plan. Strictly speaking, the operational programmes do not have to be submitted at the same time as the plan. There are, however, compelling practical reasons for having the plan and programmes prepared and submitted simultaneously. These arise from the need for co-ordination already mentioned, but more particularly from the need to ensure that there is continuity in the receipt of Structural Funds assistance. Ireland does not have an array of ongoing programmes receiving EC Structural Funds aid. Continuity of funding would, therefore, be jeopardised if the Commission took the full six month period allowed to them for this purpose to agree the Community's support framework and there was also a delay in submitting programmes.
The chairpersons and secretariat of the working group have been provided by the Department of Finance. The advisory groups are also being provided with a secretary but they are to select their own chairpersons. This process has been completed in all but one of them. It was necessary to second some staff to the Department of Finance from other parts of the Civil Service to enable all the secretaries required to be provided. This arose because spare staff resources were not otherwise available. I might add that the main role of the secretaries is to provide a secretarial service to the groups, a task which is well within the competence of all of them.
Questions have been raised concerning the geographical boundaries of the seven sub-national programmes areas adopted. I should emphasise that decisions on these, and indeed the other arrangements adopted, were taken by the Government only after the fullest consideration of all the issues involved as well as having secured the agreement of the social partners to the arrangements through the Central Review Committee of the Programme for National Recovery. The boundaries are settled with a view to grouping together counties or parts of counties having regard to geography, population, previous administrative divisions, common concerns and economic structures.
I should stress that these sub-national areas were defined simply for the purposes of preparing operational programmes for submission to the Community Structural Funds. They do not have other administrative implications. Louth, for example, continues to be treated as a Border county and will benefit from any special programmes for Border areas while Longford will continue to be regarded as a less-developed county for the purposes of schemes in which it has hitherto been included. Similarly, in the case of the Dublin sub-region the fear that is has been cut off from a large part of its hinterland is without foundation. The co-ordination process mentioned will ensure that the programmes will fit with the objectives of the national plan and with each other.
In reply to a number of specific questions posed during the debate, the position is as follows: The Government have responsibility for co-ordinating the preparation of the national development plan. The Department of Finance will handle the administrative aspects of this process. They will also be responsible for overseeing the utilisation of any EC funding provided. The working groups will be considering the question of how the implementation of the sub-national operational programme will be supervised and monitored and will be including recommendations on this issue in their proposals.
Reference was made to invitations issued to select bodies asking for their views. I have not been able to trace the issue of invitations to any select bodies. The consultants engaged on the Dublin project did send a questionnaire to relevant Government Departments and State agencies but I think it would not be appropriate to refer to these bodies as select in the present context.
Some speakers have sought clarification of the role of the Minister for the Environment in relation to the new Structural Funds arrangements. In his speech in the Dáil on 24 November and in responding to parliamentary questions on 6 December, the Taoiseach indicated that he was giving the Minister for the Environment responsibility for planning and co-ordinating of the provision of physical infrastructure in the context of preparing the economy to compete in the more competitive circumstances of the Single Market. The Minister will be expected to take an overview of the situation, ensure the comprehensive nature of our approach and identify and eliminate any duplication of facilities or the omission of basic requirements in particular areas.
It will be his responsibility to see that the changes which are necessary take place without administrative delays as rapidly as possible and that developments in the different sectors are consistent with each other. As indicated by the Taoiseach, the Minister's functions will relate to the physical infrastructure of the country which will occupy a very important and central part in our development effort.
The Minister for Finance retains overall responsibility for the preparation of the national plan and the sub-national programmes. This makes sense because European Community funds must be matched to the appropriate extent by expenditure from public funds here, though, of course, there will be a role for private funding as well. The role of Minister of State for European Affairs remains unchanged.
I would also like to comment on the suggestion that there has been excessive secrecy in relation to the new arrangements and the preparation of programmes. I find this suggestion difficult to understand. The new arrangements which have been adopted governing the provision of EC Structural Funds assistance have been widely publicised by Ministers in addresses in different parts of the country over the past couple of months. There have also been questions in the Dáil and an Adjournment debate there on the arrangements held on 1 December last. As I have mentioned already, the quality of the debate on the matter here in the Seanad over the last two weeks and the knowledge shown by speakers of the arrangements adopted by the Government also suggest the proposition that there has been excessive secrecy is groundless.
The administrative machinery set up, together with the opportunity being afforded for any interested party to make written submissions in connection with the preparation of operational programmes, will ensure very wide consultation with interested parties. There are over 260 standing members of the working groups and the advisory groups who are directly involved in the process of preparing the programmes. Among these are county managers who have indicated that they will be keeping members of their councils informed of developments. I am sure reasonable people would agree that the overall effect of these arrangements must be to produce the most open approach to the preparation of these sub-national programmes which is practically possible.
Concern has been expressed that Ireland will fail to maximise the opportunities presented by the enlarged Structural Funds. This has arisen because of doubts about our ability to meet the additionality requirement laid down in the EC regulations governing the funds due to the continuing requirement to cut back on public expenditure. The level of EC assistance — called the intervention rate — which will be forthcoming for individual projects has also been mentioned in this context. Again, however, there is no sound basis for these concerns.
Additionality refers to the requirement that additional EC Structural Funds will result in at least corresponding additional national expenditure. The text of the regulations as agreed requires that public expenditure on Structural Fund investment should at least be maintained, with the EC contribution being used to add to the overall volume. From the point of view of the Public Capital Programme, we do not foresee any difficulties in meeting this requirement. Allocations for the Public Capital Programme for 1989 and subsequent years will be set at a level sufficient to ensure that all the Structural Fund assistance available can be taken up. In addition private sector, local and Community funds will, in certain circumstances, be eligible for matching funds from Brussels. The Government also received commitments in the course of the negotiations on the new arrangements that aid from the Structural Funds for the least developed regions, among which all of Ireland is included, will be doubled by 1992.
With regard to intervention rates, the maximum has been increased to 75 per cent with a minimum to 50 per cent except for revenue generating projects. Given the commitments that have been received in relation to the increased Structural Funds aid to be made available for Ireland as an Objective I region, it is evident that there will be a substantial increase in the rate of intervention.
Suggestions that the allocation of funds to the various sub-regions will in the end be taken by the Government on the basis of political considerations reveals some misunderstanding as to how the process will operate. The national plan and operational programmes prepared by the Government and the working groups will, as I have explained, set out the proposals for economic and social development throughout the country. The extent to which Structural Funds are to be provided by the Commission will be a matter for negotiation within the Community Support Framework. These negotiations will determine types of development measures which the Community will support and the extent of that support.
Some speakers have called for the introduction of a statutory entitlement for local authorities in relation to information on the content of programmes and for a statutory role in relation to implementation of the programmes. The contemplation of such measures would be premature at this stage. The whole process on which we are engaged is very much at an experimental stage both from the point of view of Brussels and in relation to the arrangements in this country. I am sure, however, that the practical steps which have been taken and are envisaged for keeping local authority members informed — I refer of course to the participation by councillors in the advisory groups and the involvement of county managers in the working groups — will ensure that all reasonable information needs will be met.
I would not accept that there has been an inordinate delay in getting the machinery for preparing plans and programmes off the ground. Much emphasis has been placed on the fact that the framework regulation was adopted in Brussels in June. There has, however, been no mention that the implementing regulations which will govern the provision of Structural Funds have only just been cleared by the Council. Recent discussions with the Commission indicate that they still have not worked out many of the details of how the new arrangements will operate. I am sure Senators will agree that the fact that the working groups and the advisory group have commenced their operations in a situation where all the requirements to be met have not been fully clarified is an indication of the urgency the Government attach to this task and a measure of the alacrity with which they have responded to the situation.
It should be abundantly clear to any fair-minded person from this brief resumé of the facts that suggestions that the views of elected representatives are either being ignored or are not adequately provided for are totally without foundation. The Government have gone much further in this area than is necessary under EC regulations. They have done this deliberately, in line with the stance on consultations and involvement which they are pursuing at national level, with a view to ensuring that local knowledge and experience is drawn on and utilised to the full. I have also rebutted the unfounded allegations of secrecy and in the process have sought to cast additional light on aspects of the new arrangements on which Senators required clarification.
With the arrangements now fully in place for the preparation of our sub-national programmes, I hope that public representatives generally will suspend further criticism of them and give the new processes an opportunity to function. I am sure that, in due course, they will be proved to be effective and that they will produce results which are commensurate with the high expectations the projected increase in Structural Funds has engendered.
I hope that outlines the situation in detail and I take this opportunity to wish all Senators a very happy Christmas.