House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Oct 1991

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Having said that the coal and steel industries are not special cases, does the Minister intend during his speech to explain the rights and wrongs of Commissioner Bruce Millan's charges on additionality? Commissioner Millan has outlined what seems to us to be a watertight case by the Commission which hits areas of the coal fields, particularly those well served by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, extremely hard.

Column 258

Mr. Leigh : I had not intended to deal with that tonight, but I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question now. We regret that Commissioner Millan has not released those moneys. Our position is absolutely clear and there can be no doubt that the moneys are genuinely additional. They are taken into account in setting public expenditure totals and the British Government remain convinced that decisions of this type should be taken at a national, rather than at a Commission, level. I strongly suspect that any Government would take the same view.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : Is it not a fact that what Commissioner Millan is recommending will not assist the British Treasury? In other words, he has available millions of pounds in funds for contingencies such as exist in my constituency, which had 30,000 miners 10 years ago and now has none, where bus deregulation has ruined the transport system and where cuts in local government spending are hitting local services. Millan is taking such issues on board, but the Government are stopping the process. It is additional money for areas such as that. It is money provided by someone else. Stepping in is not Millan or Europe but the British Government.

Mr. Leigh : It is not the Government who are stopping the release of the money ; it is Commissioner Millan. This country pays considerably more in structural funds than it receives in return. We have made our position absolutely clear : the moneys that we receive from Europe for the RECHAR fund are genuinely additional--and it is, after all, our money. We give Europe the money in the first place ; it does not come from Commissioner Millan. I am very sorry that the commissioner seeks to spite the noses of his socialist friends, and I very much hope that he will release the money soon.

Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) : Is the Minister aware that all the other countries in the Community have satisfied the strictures laid down by the Commission, and that all the money has been allocated? Are all the other countries out of step with our Government? Does the Minister agree that it is wrong for the money to be buried in the Treasury after being allocated? The coal-mining areas need that money, and they should get it quickly. It is time for the Government to relent.

Mr. Leigh : The hon. Gentleman is right : the coal-mining areas do need the money. What a pity that Commissioner Millan has not released it. The Department of the Environment, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry have shown themselves to be very flexible in this regard. We had a very constructive meeting with Commissioner Millan in April and the Department of the Environment has introduced a new top-slicing arrangement that should have satisfied the commissioner.

The fact is that Commissioner Millan cannot insist on the Government's being treated like a county council and county council's being treated like a Government. It is for this Government to decide the total of public expenditure, and as long as we remain in office that is exactly what we shall do.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the Minister confirm that he holds the same view in relation to the RENAVAL programme funds? That programme is extremely important to my constituency and the constituency of Glasgow, Govan, both of which have

Column 259

suffered from a terrible decline in their traditional industries. Does the Minister disagree with Commissioner Millan about that money?

Mr. Leigh : Exactly the same argument applies to RENAVAL as applies to RECHAR. Our position is absolutely clear : the moneys are genuinely additional. We take account of them in setting the totality of public expenditure. I very much hope, for the sake of Commissioner Millan's former friends, that he will release the money.

We are determined and consistent about this ; we are not going to give way. We have already proved ourselves to be very willing to compromise. We have introduced top-slicing through the Department of the Environment. That is that. It is now up to Commissioner Millan to release the money. I hope that he reads Hansard. He will gain nothing by stalling. Let the whole House know that only one person is preventing the coal-mining and shipbuilding areas from receiving the money--Commissioner Millan.

Ms. Joyce Quin : (Gateshead, East) : The Minister has said that the Government are absolutely clear about their position. In that case, will he comment on the widely reported differences of view between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury on the one hand, and the Department of the Environment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices on the other?

Mr. Leigh : The whole House knows that it is constitutionally impossible for Ministers to disagree, and that they therefore never do so.

Interesting though RECHAR and RENAVAL matters are, they are not strictly relevant to the debate, so I shall now proceed with my speech, although I have been happy to give way to hon. Members and to try to answer their questions.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Leigh : I shall be happy to give way later, but this is a short debate, and I have already given way four or five times.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way for the moment.

Mr. Leigh : I am sorry that Opposition Members do not want to hear about our plans for the restructuring of the coal and steel communities.

The coal and steel industries are not special cases in the sense that they were in 1952 when the Coal and Steel Community was established. Industry itself recognises that and has argued for a smooth transition from the conditions of the ECSC treaty to a complete assimilation into the EEC treaty. We believe, as do the industries themselves, that the time has come when coal and steel should be treated like other industries.

Of course, there is a need for proper transitional arrangements, whether the treaty is terminated early or is allowed to run its course until 2002. We must make a start now to work out what these should be. This is not something that can be put on the back burner. The coal and steel regime must be brought up to date. The burdens that the present regime imposes on business must be

Column 260

reduced. In order to do that, the provisions of the ECSC treaty need to be examined in detail so that we can see how the objective of orderly assimilation to the EEC regime can best be achieved.

Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd) : The Minister is right to say that the situation has changed dramatically since the initial agreement was drawn up. Nevertheless, we are on to an extremely important point in terms of European energy policy. Due to the decline of the coal industries in Europe, we look to the ECSC to provide us with an overall European framework for dealing with the problems of pollution, employment and the regeneration of the coalfields. Does the Minister agree that the ECSC provides us with a very good basis for doing just that?

Mr. Leigh : We are proposing an orderly rundown of the ECSC so that we can take up some of the hon. Gentleman's points and put the coal and steel industries into exactly the same position as our other industries.

There are schemes such as ISERBS--the Iron and Steel Employees Readaptation Benefits Scheme--that helps steel workers who are made redundant. British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has received £60 million from the Government. There are also the mechanisms of the European social fund, the European Investment Bank and the European regional development fund, all of which are available to take up the slack as the old treaty is run down. This treaty was created in 1952 when very different conditions appertained. It was probably necessary to adopt a much more interventionist approach. Those conditions have changed completely. We believe, as do the Commission and every other country in Europe, that the coal and steel industries can be treated in the same way as other industries. It is not right that they should be seen as special cases.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : As the Minister has been attacked viciously by a lot of silly Members of Parliament in all parts of the House, would it not be appropriate at this stage to let him know that at least there will be delight in Southend-on-Sea and, I am sure, in many other Conservative constituencies that we have in him a Minister who is prepared to stand firm on a vital issue concerning democratic sovereignty? Does he appreciate that if he caved in to the outrageous proposals of the Labour party he would be falling for a straight trick, whereby the Commission is trying to seize a share of public expenditure so that the bureaucrats in Brussels can decide where cash is spent in Britain instead of our democratically elected Government? Is the Minister aware that the Department of Trade and Industry has done a fantastic job, that he has got to stand firm, and that if he caved in it would lead to a denial of democracy?

Mr. Leigh : My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual robust fashion.

I welcome the Commission document, not because the Government agree with everything in it but because it is a useful starting point for discussion. It identifies the main issues and sets out the principal options.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : The Minister should explain the Government's attitude to the ECSC reserves. A substantial sum is held in reserve. The Commission appears to wish that sum in the reserve fund to be maintained, even after the expiration of the treaty. What is the Government's view? From a perusal of the

Column 261

documents, I cannot tell whether the Government agree with the Commission, nor can I tell from the Minister's remarks whether he agrees with Lord Hesketh whose letter appears to show a great deal more enthusiasm for the continuation of sectoral aid than the hon. Gentleman's speech has done so far.

Mr. Leigh : I shall come to the issue of reserves and the levy. We believe that the reserves which have been built up as a result of the levy being imposed and which amount to about half a billion pounds should be used until the termination of the treaty to help the coal and steel communities. What happens after 2002 is for the then Government to decide. There are other European mechanisms, such as the European Investment Bank, that could be used to fill the gap left by the levy.

The levy is paid by all manufacturers of products covered by the treaty. The levies are assessed annually by the Commission based on the average value of the products concerned. Why, in 1991, should the coal and steel industries alone be obliged to make such payments? The levy is discriminatory. It applies to no other industries. It therefore puts coal and steel producers--and their customers--at a competitive disadvantage. It is no more and no less than a tax on production. It is the one and only current example of a Community tax. The Government believe that the time has come to abolish this tax. There are, anyway, sufficient reserves to meet all anticipated expenditure between now and the termination date.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : As my hon. Friend knows, my constituency does not qualify for any of these moneys because South Derbyshire has successfully moved away from the old coal industry and replaced it with much more successful modern industries. However, I wish to press home the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister. The system of levying a tax on the producers of these products has helped to put the European coal and steel industry at a serious worldwide competitive disadvantage. The system has not helped the industry ; it has helped to destroy it.

Mr. Leigh : My hon. Friend is right. In this day and age it is old fashioned to levy a tax on the production of industry. Why should we put our industry at a competitive disadvantage?

As the debate proceeds I should like to know whether the Labour party is still in favour of the levy. I do not know as it is not not entirely clear from its amendment. If the Labour party is in favour of a levy, it is in favour of discriminating against the coal and steel industries and of continuing a system that is out of date and a throwback to the Attlee Government. If that is the Labour party's policy, it puts in a different light the modern image that the party tried to convey at its conference.

Is the Labour party in favour of imposing a direct levy on the coal and steel industries? When the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) speaks for her party she must answer that question because it is of immense concern to the industry. The industry wants the levy abolished for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Almost everybody wants the levy to be abolished. The only people who want to retain the levy are in the Labour party. Why is that?

Column 262

Dr. Kim Howells : Nonsense.

Mr. Leigh : It is the truth.

The treaty's consultative committee, which has representatives from trade unions, also wants to see the levy phased out. The industry, the Commission and the Government want the levy to be phased out. Only one party in Europe apparently wants to retain the old fashioned levy, a throwback to post-war years, and that is the new modern Labour party.

The reserve fund has been built up from the levies paid by coal and steel producers over the years. As I have said, it now amounts to some 750 million ecus--or over half a billion pounds. In the Government's view, these reserves should be run down during the remaining lifetime of the treaty. We recognise that, particularly in the coal sector, restructuring and readaptation support will continue to be needed. This would be an excellent use of the ECSC reserves. By using the reserves to meet current expenditure needs, we can reduce and then get rid of the levy.

The European Investment Bank is the Community's principal lending instrument, and could certainly undertake the kind of financing activities that have in the past been carried out by the ECSC. Consequently, there would be no need for a reserve fund as a guarantee for the Commission's lending activities.

The Commission paper recognises that ECSC provisions for the regulation of production and capacity, including interventionist measures to deal with a situation of "manifest crisis", have largely outlived their usefulness. The Government agree with and support the Commission's advocacy of a less interventionist approach. The existing requirement for pre-notification of investment plans is out of step with the current market. It is not clear from the amendment whether the Labour party supports pre-notification of investment plans. How extraordinary it is that, in theory, the industry is still required to give pre-notification of investment plans. If that is what the Labour party supports, it is totally out of tune with industrial best practice.

The requirement should be abolished, except where a company is applying for an ECSC loan. The Commission's studies and forecasts of the steel industry should be abolished or scaled down. We agree with the Commission that the rules governing the way in which prices are calculated and published are ineffective and should be abolished ; they have no place in the marketplace of 1991.

There are significant differences between the ECSC and the EEC regimes on competition policy. Procedures for handling ECSC competition cases should be brought into line with those followed under the EEC treaty. National authorities should be consulted, as under EEC rules, and there should be greater transparency of Commission decisions.

We should like the tight control of state aid under the treaty to be maintained. Discussions are under way on a multilateral steel consensus and our aim is to achieve an agreement that imposes the greatest possible discipline.

The Commission's communication argues that the treaty has acquired invaluable experience in promoting social measures. We recognise the value that this aspect of ECSC activity has had in the past. However, not only have these measures been funded from the levy, but the vast readjustments during the 1980s have reduced their necessity.

Column 263

Unlike the EEC regime, the ECSC makes no provision for a common commercial policy. The Commission's proposal to bring the ECSC regime in line with the EC regime seems entirely logical.

Mr. Michael Welsh (Doncaster, North) : I should like to ask the Minister for advice. All members of the EC can borrow on the open market. Is it suggested that nationalised industries will be allowed to borrow on the open market?

Mr. Leigh : British Steel is no longer a nationalised industry, and nor will be British Coal after we have won the next election. That disposes of that point.

Finally, under the treaty of Rome, only the Council can enact specific rules--

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : When my hon. Friend said "finally" I realised that this would be my last chance to intervene. Can he say how much the European Coal and Steel Community has cost British taxpayers since it was set up?

Mr. Leigh : I do not have a figure for that, but I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend. However, if he did not hear what I said earlier, I can tell him that enormous reserves of £500 million have been built up and that the levy is imposed directly on all producers. That is anachronistic and should be abolished as soon as possible. Under the treaty of Rome, only the Council can enact specific rules, so there is negotiation and consultation with member states. That is not so under the ECSC treaty, which confers wide rule-making and executive powers on the Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is an expert in these matters, will know that under the treaty the Commission is known as the high authority.

The Commission may seek to retain those powers. That would raise wider issues of competence that we and other member states would need to consider most carefully. Such issues will have to be addressed before the treaty is terminated in 2023 or earlier.

The treaty has served us well in the past, but in a number of important respects it has outlived its usefulness. The coal and steel industries can no longer lay claim to the special treatment that was appropriate in the 1950s, and they recognise that.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : If the Government win the vote, that one is out of the way. What is the Minister prepared to do about the moneys that are available under RECHAR? Will he convince the Treasury that it should take its grubby hands off those moneys and let them serve their purpose?

Mr. Leigh : I think that I have answered five questions on that subject and have made our position clear. We give more money in structural funds than we receive in return. It is our money. The Government will decide how the money is spent, and that is that.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Will my hon. Friend make it clear that one reason why we resist these proposals is that we do not want economic and monetary union? Implicit in these proposals and in the papers which were presented to the Select Committee on European Legislation and which are before the House is the suggestion that, to facilitate economic and monetary union, we should go down the route proposed by the

Column 264

Commission. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that we will not go down the route of economic and monetary union in the terms currently proposed?

Mr. Leigh : I leave those weighty matters to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although I might want to pontificate on such points, perhaps I had better leave them to my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood) : I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that Conservative Members bitterly resent the activities of Commissioner Millan in preventing the release of moneys to our constituencies under the RECHAR programme because of the bogus accusation that the Government are not already assisting the coal communities with specific funds.

Mr. Leigh : My hon. Friend is right. During the past 12 years, the Government have invested more in the coal industry than all other Governments put together since 1945. The Government have invested £100,000 every hour of every working day in the modernisation of the British coal industry. Since the end of the miners' strike, the productivity of the industry has soared by more than 100 per cent. British Coal recently achieved an impressive weekly output of well over 5 tonnes per man shift.

The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) talks about closing pits. The Labour Government closed more pits than we have closed, and the Labour party should respond to the point. British Coal has a bright and successful future under a Conservative Government. It will provide the coal that the market needs.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : The Minister is talking about a great revival. Would he like to comment on the Rothschild report which his Government funded and which talks about 47 pit closure problems for British Coal and coal-mining communities in the United Kingdom?

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. That may be an interesting question, but it is irrelevant to the treaty.

Mr. Leigh : Our aim is to have an orderly and smooth transition to the EEC regime. Industry's interests can best be met by early termination of the treaty or by a less interventionist application of its provisions and a reduction in the burdens that it imposes on business. That is always our aim in the Department of Trade and Industry.

11.2 pm

Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : I beg to move, to leave out from second "Community" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :

"believes that the European Coal and Steel Community should be allowed to run its course and that between now and the expiry date of 2002 ways of incorporating industrial, social and regional elements of the ECSC treaty into the EC treaties should be fully examined." I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the ECSC treaty. It is good that, for once, the House is able to debate a European matter at an early stage, offering--we hope--a chance for hon. Members to have their voices heard in the decision- making process. None the less, I believe that the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry has brought forward this subject for debate is far from satisfactory. We have a take note motion in front of

Column 265

us. Usually, such motions are fairly neutral and pass without a vote. We expected that to happen tonight, but the motion is far from neutral. It is expressed in the language of Tory party dogma, and right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment so that our views are clearly spelt out.

We believe that, once again, the Government are isolated in the European Community on this issue, because no other country favours an early winding up of the ECSC treaty in the way that the British Government do. Indeed, the only Government ally I could find was, not surprisingly, their spokesperson in the European Commission, Sir Leon Brittan, who tried to persuade his Commission colleagues to back him but singularly failed to do so.

The Government's position is as outlined by the Minister : they do not like the ECSC treaty because it is interventionist and includes elements of industrial policy as well as social and regional measures which, as we know, are financed by the ECSC levy. We like the idea of the treaty because of the way in which it favours the promotion, the modernisation and even the expansion of the coal and steel sectors and the way in which it provides help with, for example, research. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) did not mention the fact that ECSC financial support can be given for research and for industrial modernisation, and therefore that the levy is not simply a tax that provides no benefit to the industry ; it can be used by the industry for very valuable projects.

Mrs. Currie : May I put to the hon. Lady the fact that if the industry, much of which, of course, is privately owned--many of the companies involved are private companies and always have been--did not have to pay the levy, it could finance its own research and might pick rather better winners than any Government might.

Ms. Quin : If the hon. Lady looks at the record, she will see that many worthwhile projects, as well as collaborative work done across Europe, have been supported by the levy. She should recognise the role that a public and private partnership can play in the operation of the ECSC treaty. In the future, between now and the expiry of the treaty, the money can continue to be used wisely for the future of the industry.

It is possible, of course, under article 58 of the ECSC treaty, to produce measures to manage the industry during the period of so-called manifest crisis. Many of us here tonight will remember that article 58 was used in the early 1980s during the prolonged steel crisis. Those measures resulted in a system of quotas under which production was shared out among EC member countries. It was a very painful period, especially in the United Kingdom where the Government seemed hell bent on seeing the industry contract to a dramatic extent. If the Government had been left to their own devices, the situation would have been even worse in Britain, and the social and regional consequences would have been even more severe, if that can be imagined, without the redundancy payments, the financial assistance for retraining and the finance for new industry starting up in regions that were affected by the crisis.

Column 266

It is true that in the ECSC treaty coal and steel are treated as a special case. We all understand the historical reasons why that is so. However, I wish that it had been possible for other industrial sectors to receive some similar treatment. The shipbuilding sector, for example, had a painful contraction and run-down. Merchant shipbuilding in this country has practically disappeared. EC money was not available there for new investment, for modernisation or for research, which have been possible in the case of coal and steel. I understand that the Government take the view that the manifest crisis measures are no longer necessary and will never be applied in the future. However, I believe that if the Government agree with the report by their consultants, to which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have referred, there will be a severe manifest crisis in the coal industry. I hope that that does not come about, but it may be unwise to remove those parts of the ECSC treaty which provide for co-operation in a period of manifest crisis.

Cases such as shipbuilding and other sectors, which were not able to be approached in that manner, show that there may be a good reason why some of the ECSC provisions should be examined closely in the period between now and the expiry of the treaty in 2002 to see whether they can be extended to other sectors and what elements of the treaty could be incorporated into the EC treaty, and to see what could be done to help certain industrial sectors in the future. The ECSC also contains important social measures. Some of the ideas in the ECSC treaty foreshadow later developments in the European Community such as the European social charter. When I listen to Ministers, I sometimes get the impression that they feel that the European social charter is simply an unwelcome addition to the European Community's main activity, which should be simply to create a large common market. However, the ECSC treaty shows us clearly that those social and regional concerns were part of the European process from the beginning.

Although the Government may find it unfashionable or unpleasant to swallow those ideas, many of us think that those ideas are sensible. There is, for example, the fact that Government and industry should work together to create the conditions for long-term industrial prosperity, and that they should work together to resolve social and regional problems created by economic and industrial change, and by the need for modernisation.

We should look beyond the United Kingdom to the former East Germany and the countries of eastern Europe, all of which are hoping for a closer association with the European Community in future. Has the Minister considered that it might be possible to use ECSC provisions as a way of helping the painful economic transition in eastern Europe ? We know that eastern Europe has an old coal and steel sector, and we know also that great environmental problems have been created in the area. The former communist regimes of eastern Europe were probably the least environmentally friendly that the world has ever known. It is unfortunate that until now the British Government have been one of the least generous Administrations in their attitude towards change in eastern Europe. Surely we should examine the treaty to ascertain how eastern European countries can be helped between now and its expiry, and in what way some of its provisions can be continued thereafter.

Column 267

Measures to help regions are an important aspect of the treaty. The low-interest soft loans that have been available from the ECSC to coal and steel areas have been extremely useful, and could provide a good precedent for other sectors of industry. I am not surprised, however, that the Minister said little in support of EC regional measures. As a member of the No Turning Back group, I presume that he supported its pamphlet that poured scorn on European regional policy and declared that it served no useful purpose. It seems to me that without the stimulus of the ECSC or the work of European regional commissioners such as Commissioner Millan, regional policy would have disappeared entirely from the Government's agenda. It has almost disappeared, and perhaps it was the existence of regional commitments at European level that forced the Government to respond to some of the issues that otherwise they would have ignored.

Mr. Gerald Howarth : I think that we are all concerned to ensure that within the United Kingdom there is fair distribution and help to the regions that are less advantaged than others. The point that underlies this EEC nonsense is that we contribute £2,000 million and get back £440 million, or thereabouts. It is the British taxpayers' money, not EEC money, that is being recycled by the EEC. Many of us find that offensive.

Ms. Quin : The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The EC regional funds are governed by an agreement that the moneys should be used in the designated regions. It is our contention that the moneys are not being used in those regions because they are not providing additional benefit. The Treasury is regarding the funds as a convenient source of national money and is not allowing the funding of the extra economic activity that was the purpose of the regional funds.

Mr. Cash : Is the hon. Lady aware that in Germany massive funds are being made available to the coal and steel industries, in addition to the moneys that are available under the ECSC? These funds are blatantly contradictory to the competition rules that apply within the Community as a whole and they should be discontinued. With these arrangements in place, British coal and steel workers are placed at a considerable disadvantage. I understand that the hon. Lady wants to help those workers rather than to do them the disservice that she does with the arguments that she advances.

Ms. Quin : Differing levels of state aids within the Community concern me greatly. I am even more concerned that the British Government have unilaterally cut support in the hope that other countries will follow them. That was an unrealistic approach and it would have been far better to argue for the harmonisation of state aids and more even treatment.

In considering regional help from Brussels to coal and steel areas we should draw attention to the Government's appalling record, especially in regard to the RECHAR scheme. I am not surprised that money is in jeopardy, given the Government's failure to give assurances that it will be used to provide benefit to the designated regions. I am disappointed that, despite the disagreements in Government circles, the Minister could not give us any assurances on that point tonight. I am also worried that RECHAR could be the tip of the iceberg. The Government are not applying European rules properly

Column 268

through their misuse of European money. How long will it be before the Commission decides to widen the argument to the rest of the European structural funds? If that happened, it would be dangerous for this country.

The Minister said that the money was additional, but that does not make sense when we consider that during the period when European regional funds almost doubled, regional preferential assistance to British regions was cut by more than 60 per cent. Despite the existence of those extra funds, the amount of money entering the United Kingdom regions has declined dramatically during this Government's period of office.

With regard to RECHAR and the other EC regional funds, we will continue to highlight how the Government have denied to some of our most hard-pressed areas the assistance that they could have used to promote their long-term economic and industrial well-being. Our position in respect of the ECSC is close to the majority of European countries and to the Commission--the treaty should be allowed to run its course and we should use the intervening period thoroughly to examine what aspects of the ECSC treaty can be incorporated into the EC treaty itself.

Dr. Godman : Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's apparent objective of early termination of the treaty is extremely provocative ? The Minister does not have a cat in hell's chance of achieving that so-called objective in the Council meeting.

Ms. Quin : I do not agree with the Government's view, but it seems to be tactically very unwise to use an issue like this, where there is absolutely no chance of success, simply to create antagonism among other EC member countries for no useful purpose.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Does the hon. Lady accept the simple statement that it is not the Government who are denying funds to necessary industries, rather Commissioner Millan is responsible ? [Interruption.] That is true. He is using blackmail by saying, "Give up the right to decide how our money is spent or else you won't get it." In the interests of democracy, will the hon. Lady accept that it is Brussels that is saying no, not the Government ?

Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is "blackmail" a parliamentary word ?

Madam Deputy Speaker : In the context that it was used, it is perfectly acceptable to me.

Ms. Quin : The point made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is not justifiable and it is not true. Commissioner Millan is trying only to get the British Government to respect the agreement into which they have already entered--that the money would be additional. The Government agreed to that and signed the agreement, but they are not respecting it. That is what the argument is all about. If the hon. Member for Southend, East is right, it is inexplicable that virtually all the coalfield areas support Commissioner Millan. If the hon. Gentleman is right, they would be supporting him. The fact that they are not doing so is very significant.

Mr. Cash : Does not the hon. Lady believe that she should be putting pressure on Commissioner Millan-- [Interruption.]

Column 269

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Only one debate at a time, please.

Mr. Cash : Does the hon. Lady believe that, in line with my earlier point, she should be putting pressure on our friend, Commissioner Millan, to make sure that there is a level playing field as respect state aids provided by other countries in the coal-steel regime? It is precisely because that is not being done that makes our position that much worse, and that of the workers whom she is supposed to represent, as I do.

Ms. Quin : The matter of state aids goes far wider, as the hon. Gentleman knows, than the ECSC treaty. The matter comes within the remit of Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, not Commissioner Millan. I have referred many times to the discrepancies in levels of state aid within the European Community and used them as a reason for a far more supportive approach for industry by the Conservative Government. I recently wrote an article about that, and I should be delighted to show it to the hon. Gentleman if he is at all interested.

Mr. Favell : Is the hon. Lady able to say what the administrative cost is of the Europeans churning the money in that way? Conservative Members believe it to be the most enormous white elephant, and it has been for years and years. Did the Labour party do its arithmetic before it opposed the motion?

Next Section

Home Page