Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Quinn for her presentation. Why has this proposal been placed before us at such short notice? For example, if we were to avail of the option of seeking a reasoned opinion, we would have to deal with the matter tomorrow in the Dáil and the Seanad, which would place a strain on us. Even though, in terms of the scale of the problem of poverty throughout Europe, only a small pot of money is involved, it is important that we fully consider what is being proposed.

I recall the intervention stocks and butter vouchers provided in the 1980s. I recall also the mantra of the European Union at the time that one should not interfere with the market. However, the reason there were intervention stocks was there had been interference in the market. In this case, the position is different. In some ways, the European Social Fund is laudable. As we all pay into it, we would only be getting back a little of what we put in. I do not know whether what Ireland would receive would equate to what it has contributed to the fund in recent years.

This proposal is from the European Commission, the same body which is part of the troika which is demanding that we do the devil and all to cut social welfare rates and ensure people do in fact live in poverty. The budgets for this year and last year were the consequence of some of its diktats. Also, the European Central Bank is charging us high interest rates. According to EUROSTAT figures, there are 120 million people in Europe at risk of poverty. If during the seven years of the programme the calculation was made pro rata, Ireland would only receive €2 million per annum, which is buttons in comparison to what we are paying in interest charges to the European Central Bank.

It might be more, we do not know because we do not have the figures. It is a matter for negotiation but I cannot see the other European countries agreeing that Ireland would get a bigger share of a small pot, given that they have not been very supportive of our calls to the convention to date.

The most recent figures from the Survey of Income and Living Conditions, SILC, is that approximately 16% are at risk of poverty in Ireland. That percentage figure nearly equates to the number on the live register but also people who are in low paid work, which is some 660,000. When one divides €2 million by the number of people, some 660,000, it amounts to the price of a packet of EasiSingles at €2.90 each. Even though it might seem attractive it is not attractive in view of these figures.

We are discussing whether there is an element of subsidiarity. I believe this is in conflict with subsidiarity. The EU through this decision would be determining how this money would be spent in Ireland but there is an element of compulsion in that whatever grant is given, Ireland would have to trump up at least 15%, as stated in the presentation. Again the final part will not be known. Not only will it not be known for a while, but Ireland will have no role because of hosting the EU Presidency and acting in a neutral position. We will not be able to influence whether that is 15%, 5% or another figure.

My concern is that we do not have a say once we have rubber stamped this. My inkling would be that we call a halt until we have a full discussion and can see the full implications of the grant. The intervention stock benefited people on and off over time and this money might benefit people who are at risk of poverty, homeless people and people in absolute distress, but it is so small that it will not make a major change in their life. We need to look at this in a different way. I hope Ms Quinn will be able to answer some of the questions.

If we go ahead with this, the likelihood is that this will form the basis of future EU interventions in national states in terms of the European Social Fund. I do not think the intention was for the European Social Fund to be set in this way. I think the original concept was that it would grant aid or give Government specific moneys for specific projects but the Government was not tied to deliver in the way that it has now been formatted.