13 INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND
(a)
(26034)
13572/04
COM(04) 632
(b)
(26035)
13573/04
COM(04) 633
+ ADD 1
|
Draft Council Regulation concerning Community financial contributions to
the International Fund for Ireland (2005-2006
Commission report on the International Fund for Ireland pursuant to Article
6 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2236/2002
Annex to the report
|
| Legal base | (a) Article 308 EC; consultation; unanimity
(b) Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2236/2002; — ; —
|
| Documents originated | 13 October 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
21 October 2004 |
| Department | Northern Ireland Office
|
| Basis of consideration |
(a) Minister's letter of 30 November and EM of 1 December 2004
(b) EM of 1 December 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report |
None; but see (26033) 13572/04: HC 42-xxxvi (2003-04), para 22 (10 November 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| (a) 26 November 2004
(b) No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (Both) Cleared
|
The International Fund for Ireland
13.1 In 1986, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic
of Ireland made an Agreement to set up the International Fund
for Ireland (IFI). The IFI's principal objectives are to promote
economic and social advance and to encourage contact, dialogue
and reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout
Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement provided that the Fund was
to give priority to:
- the stimulation of private sector investment;
- projects of benefit to people in both parts of
Ireland;
- projects to improve the quality and conditions
of life for people in areas facing serious economic and social
problems; and
- projects for industrial training and work experience
overseas.
About 75% of the IFI's resources are for distribution
in Northern Ireland.
13.2 The IFI is directed by a board of six people
representing the communities in Northern Ireland and the border
counties of the Republic of Ireland. The European Community (EC)
and donor countries (the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia)
take part in Board meetings as observers.
13.3 Since 1986, the IFI has received about €712
million. The USA has made the largest contribution (59%); the
EC has contributed about 40% and the rest has come from Canada,
Australia and New Zealand. The IFI has given financial support
to over 5300 projects for the regeneration of deprived areas,
community capacity-building and economic development.
13.4 In 2002, the Council adopted a Regulation authorising
an annual contribution from the EC to the IFI of €15 million
a year for 2003 and 2004.[34]
Article 6 of the Regulation requires the Commission to make a
report in 2004 on the results of the activities of the IFI and
the need for continuing contributions to it.
The PEACE programme
13.5 The EC's contribution to the IFI is in addition
to the financial support which Northern Ireland and the border
area of the Republic of Ireland receive from the Community's Structural
Funds under the PEACE programme. On 10 November we scrutinised
a draft Regulation to extend the PEACE programme until the end
of 2006.[35]
Legal background
13.6 Article 2 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community (the EC Treaty) specifies economic and social cohesion
and solidarity among Member States as part of the task of the
Community.
13.7 Article 308 of the EC Treaty provides that,
if action by the Community to attain, in the course of the operation
of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community,
and the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council
make take the appropriate measures, acting by unanimity after
consulting the European Parliament.
The documents
13.8 Document (b) is the Commission's report on the
results of the IFI's activities and on the need for continuing
contributions to it (see paragraph 13.4 above). It surveys the
Fund's activities; lists projects which have received aid; assesses
the impact of the IFI's activities; and assesses cooperation and
coordination between the IFI and the PEACE programme.
13.9 The Commission notes that the IFI assists much
the same categories of people as the PEACE programme. Where projects
can be funded by both the IFI and the PEACE programme, the IFI's
policy is to provide the "first money on the table".
Compared to the EC, the IFI processes applications for grant quickly
and is more flexible. The IFI Regulations provide that EC's contributions
should be used in such a way as to complement the activities financed
by the Structural Funds and especially the PEACE programme. The
Commission says that there is already close cooperation between
itself and the IFI and that both are considering how coordination
can be improved further (for example, through sharing information
about applications and exchanging data on the monitoring of projects).
The Commission also notes that the board of the IFI has commissioned
a strategic review of the Fund's activities.
13.10 The Commission concludes that:
"The European Union's long standing support
for peace in Northern Ireland has been best illustrated by its
commitment to the IFI since 1989 and the PEACE programme since
1995. This commitment recognises the long-term nature of the peace
process' objectives, which have been widely supported over the
years by the European Parliament, Council and Commission.
"The political and social situation of the
region remains fragile and the continuing level of violence and
division calls on the EU to sustain its efforts to promote peace
and reconciliation in this part of the European Union…
"The priorities set by both IFI and EC Programmes
complement each other and this high potential for synergies needs
to be further harnessed. In particular, while the IFI targets
mainly economically disadvantaged areas, the PEACE Programme targets
a list of areas, groups and sectors identified as 'most affected
by the conflict'. Similarly, the cross-community and/or cross-border
dimension(s) could become explicit selection criteria for all
IFI programmes, as they are now for all PEACE priorities.
"The ongoing strategic review of the IFI's
activities augurs well for a 'repositioning' in favour of community-based
activities with a strong reconciliation dimension. Although the
methods and the financial scale of the IFI and EC Programmes remain
quite different, it is expected that the ongoing strategic review
will allow the IFI, together with its donors, to make progress
along those lines."[36]
13.11 The Commission states its belief that the EC
should continue to make financial contributions to the IFI after
2004.
13.12 Document (a) is a draft Regulation to authorise
an EC contribution of €15 million a year to the IFI in 2005
and 2006.
The Government's view
13.13 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at the Northern Ireland Office (Mr Ian Pearson) tells us that:
"There is wide acceptance, both on the island
of Ireland and in the donor countries, that the Fund has made
a major impact in assisting economic regeneration and in fostering
reconciliation through cross-community and cross-border contact
and dialogue."
The Government welcomes the confirmation in document
(a) that the IFI has made a positive contribution. It also welcomes
the draft Regulation for the extension of the Community's financial
contribution to the Fund for a further two years.
The Minister' letter of 30 November
13.14 The Minister's letter apologises for the delay
in providing his Explanatory Memoranda on the documents, and for
the Government's participation in the adoption of the new Regulation
(document (a)) at the Council on 26 November, before we had been
able to scrutinise it.
13.15 The Minister says:
"I am told by officials that there are two
reasons for the delay. In the first instance there was a communication
breakdown between the Cabinet Office and the NIO, where the Cabinet
Office's original request for an EM issued on 20 October was sent
to a member of staff in the NIO who had left the Department. It
was only discovered after some time had elapsed. Second, as you
will appreciate, the NIO only leads on one area of Community legislation
and this relates to the International Fund for Ireland. We do
not therefore have the continuity of experience or familiarity
within the NIO about the scrutiny process and as a result, no
one in the department recognised the implications of the approaching
ECOFIN discussion [on 26 November].
"I hope that you will appreciate why the
Government decided not to withhold agreement to this measure to
await scrutiny clearance, as the proposal by the Commission to
renew its support for a two-year period will enable it [the IFI]
to continue its important work.
"While I recognise that this is not a satisfactory
position to be writing about, I have asked officials to ensure
that there will be no repetition of such delays in the future.
I have also asked that appropriate NIO staff be given the necessary
training on EU matters and processes."
Conclusion
13.16 We note the Commission's positive report
on the activities of the International Fund for Ireland and we
welcome the Regulation extending the Community's financial contribution
to the Fund for a further two years.
13.17 The Government breached the scrutiny reserve
resolution by taking part in the adoption of the Regulation at
the Council meeting on 26 November. That is a serious matter.
We are, however, grateful for the Minister's explanation of the
reasons and we are glad that he has already taken action to avoid
similar breaches by his Department in future.
13.18 There are no questions we need put to the
Minister about documents (a) and (b) and we are content to clear
both of them from scrutiny.
34 Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No. 2236/2002, OJ No.
L 341, 17.12. 2002, p.6. Back
35
See headnote. Back
36
Page 11 of the annex to document (b). Back
| 
