Investment in the Border Regions

6.  Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan): To ask the Taoiseach if, having regard to the fact that the Border regions are among the most deprived in the country and are unable to obtain an equitable share of inward investment, he is satisfied that Interreg and other cross-Border fundings such as the International Fund for Ireland and Peace and Reconciliation funding are actually being spent as additional funding in the Border regions rather than in substitution for funds which should be spent by Governments; and if he will make a statement.

10. Andrew Boylan (Cavan-Monaghan): To ask the Taoiseach whether he considers that, in view of the fact that both Northern Ireland and the Border counties have suffered in economic terms over the last thirty years, the Government should now redirect promotional and catch-up funding to enable the economic deficit to be reversed; if he will endeavour to ensure that the Government of the United Kingdom will also engage in such an exercise; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Seymour Crawford welcomed the Taoiseach and the delegates to County Cavan. Referring to the INTERREG, IFI and Peace and Reconciliation Fund funding he mentioned the doubt about Ireland's retention of objective 1 status and considered that unless the money spent was additional to that spent by the State it would not have the desired beneficial effect. An example of the uneven spread of funds was the lower level of increase in expenditure on national and county roads in Cavan and Monaghan.

Mr Andrew Boylan welcomed the Taoiseach and delegates to County Cavan. He considered that the best guarantee the Taoiseach could give for the economic life of region was to ensure it retained objective 1 status. He thanked the Taoiseach for his address to the Body and considered that peace could be copperfastened with an economic uplift.

The Taoiseach pointed out that the Department of Finance wass jointly responsible with the Northern Ireland Office for the delivery of the Peace and Reconciliation Fund. Much of the programme under the Fund was distributed by the intermediary funding bodies, independently of Government. The INTERREG Programme focused on the development of the linkages and co-operation of a large proportion of the applications which were cross-Border in nature, addressing disadvantage and trying to assist reconciliation and cross-Border co-operation. There were measures under each programme which were not funded under other programmes and that precluded substitution: funding had to be additional. The monitoring committee kept the matter is under constant review to ensure that all spending was additional, and if there were examples to the contrary he would like to know about them.

Since the last meeting of the Body the mid-term review of the programme had resulted in an additional ECU 100 million approved by the EU. It was estimated that the Border region would account for £1.3 billion of expenditure under the Community Support Framework - approximately 15 per cent of the expenditure. For the period 2000-6, under the proposals issued on 18 March that objective 1 status would not be open to Ireland as in the past because it had exceeded the benchmark figure of 75 per cent of European GDP. It had been agreed that objective 1 status would be available for a transitional period between 2000-6. His Government in negotiating would have to make a decision on how it coulddraw down the maximum, and would do its utmost to help the regions that needed it most, including the Border area.