| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 33
Nottinghamshire were among the most vigorous in seeking the early release of that money. I believe that quite significant sums will go to Nottinghamshire and will benefit the coalfield communities in those areas, which will probably return more Conservative Members at the next election.Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire) : In welcoming today's announcement, which is long overdue for the people of
mid-Staffordshire and elsewhere in Staffordshire who desperately need the money to regenerate the local economy, I must ask the Secretary of State to confirm that, as a result of the announcement, there will be no reduction in the general level of Government expenditure in 1992-93 and 1993-94.
Mr. Lilley : I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's remarks. Far from there being a reduction in Government expenditure, because of the transitional arrangements necessary to accommodate the expenditure delayed from this year and deferred and passed over into next year, there will be slightly higher spending than would otherwise have been the case, because we will accommodate that expenditure which has unfortunately been delayed by the withholding of the money until now.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : Would the Secretary of State confirm that the money which will come to St. Helens, as the last two coal mines have closed in the past five years, will come as quickly as possible, as we have many thousands of people who need to be put in work and who formerly worked for the coal mining industry ?
Mr. Lilley : I shall certainly do all that I can to bring that about.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Is not the Secretary of State telling the House rather a lot of porkies today ?
Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that we will not have that word. It escaped my notice last week. I had to look it up in the dictionary, but now that I know what it means, the hon. Member should please withdraw it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : In so far as you and the House know what I mean, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could proceed.
Is not the truth to be found in the leaked Heseltine letter ? It says :
"We cannot afford such an own goal in areas which are politically important to us."
West Cumbria was important to the Government. That is why they have caved in.
Mr. Lilley : I do not comment on leaked drafts, but I will comment on Cumbria. I can understand the insecurity that the hon. Gentleman feels. This measure will be welcomed in the coal mining areas in that part of the world. They will note that little pressure has been exerted by Labour Members to achieve it. It has been achieved by a Conservative Government, and they will be pleased with it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Since this money is coal-related and, in a sense, pollution-related, will the Government consider with local authorities what could be done in the situation that now arises in Scotland where there is serious evidence from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that a massive ozone hole--
Column 34
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a bit wide of the statement.
Mr. Dalyell : No, it is precisely on this matter.
Mr. Speaker : Try and get it in order.
Mr. Dalyell : It is precisely on the point. It is
pollution-related. The Scots are now faced, so we are told on page 1 of our national newspaper, The Scotsman, with-- [Laughter.] It is not funny to have 300,000 skin cancer-related cases. That is the possibility. The evidence from NASA is no laughing matter whatsoever. I am asking a serious question. Will Government Departments consider this alarming-- [Interruption.] If cancer is a laughing matter
Mr. Speaker : Order. The whole House knows that the hon. Member has a great interest in this serious matter. It would probably be better raised in the Adjournment debate which I have offered the hon. Member, because he would then get a fuller reply.
Mr. Dalyell : I would ask simply for an acknowledgement of the concern of the Department of Trade and Industry in this ozone-hole-related matter.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the Secretary of State confirm that the distribution of these funds will involve the Scottish Office and mining communities in Scotland? If that is the case, will he impress upon Scottish Office Ministers the need for parity of treatment in the distribution of RECHAR funds and RENAVAL programme funds? Many people in my constituency are deeply unhappy and disappointed with the performance of the Scottish Office in respect of the RENAVAL programme. I hope that mining communities in Scotland are treated better and more humanely than my constituency in respect of the RENAVAL programme.
Mr. Lilley : I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this settlement applies equally to funds flowing through the Scottish Office to Scottish constituencies and local authorities. If he is asking for parity of treatment in the flow of funds from the Community, of course that will exist. On the flow of funds from the taxpayer, there is more generous treatment in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman wishes it to be reduced, perhaps he will spell that out a little more clearly.
Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) : Surely the Secretary of State should be apologising to the people of south Wales for the scandalous way in which he has blocked all that money--perhaps as much as £30 million--while thousands of jobs have been lost in my constituency and in other mining communities in south Wales. How much money will now come to us, and what will the total be?
Mr. Lilley : The message seems to have been lost in the post as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned. We have not been blocking this measure ; it has been blocked by the Community. That block has now ended, and everybody is satisfied by that. Significant and substantial funds will flow to south Wales coal mining areas via my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Lilley : That will depend on the amounts specifically agreed on specific projects by the Community,
Column 35
but we will be acting to try to get agreement at the earliest possible stage and for the money to flow through accordingly.Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : The success of the RECHAR initiative was brought about because local authorities argued with the Commission that some special treatment should be given to the areas in question. The fact that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment was present until a few moments ago demonstrates the need for local authorities and the Coalfield Communities Campaign people to be involved in immediate talks.
Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Coalfield Communities Campaign people will be included in talks about the distribution of RECHAR and the fact that there are further resources to be obtained? It is because of Labour-controlled authorities that we have got this far. Can we have further support for the initiative, with the co-operation of local authorities, in distributing the funds and requests for further funds to help rundown coalfield community areas?
Mr. Lilley : I can assure the hon. Gentleman that local authorities will continue to play their part on the committees that oversee the programmes.
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) : The Secretary of State talks about victory, but is it not true that today we have seen a victory of all the scale and dimension of Dunkirk? Does the Secretary of State remember Churchill's words, that victories are not composed of evacuations and withdrawals? Rather than talking about having moved the Commission, will he apologise to people in my community in Harthill and Shotts, and people throughout Lanarkshire, who have been devastated by coal closures and hit by steel closures for 18 months but have been refused urban aid? Will he apologise for the fact that, for 18 months, the money has been prevented from being distributed to them and he is going to them now only by virtue of the fact that he has withdrawn and the Commission has won? Will he join me and the people of Harthill, Shotts and Lanarkshire in sending our congratulations and those of the whole House to Commissioner Bruce Millan on the fight that he has fought?
Mr. Lilley : The hon. and learned Member--
Mr. Lilley : Well, philosophical-- [Hon. Members :-- "Withdraw."] I withdraw that slur on the hon. Gentleman's character. The hon. and philosophical Member has misheard if he thinks that I have talked about victory. I have assiduously refrained from such talk, so obviously people have drawn their own conclusions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner that the money can flow through to areas which have been deprived of it the better we will all be pleased. That is what we all want.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : I am neither learned nor gallant, as you know, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not true that Cumnock and Doon Valley, which will receive a substantial amount from the RECHAR fund
Column 36
for the west of Scotland, and which now has an unemployment level above 20 per cent., has had its money delayed entirely as a result of the intransigence of the British Government in coming into line with other Governments in Europe, who were happy to accept the rules? It still worries me that the Secretary of State said earlier that "some guidance" about applications would be issued later. In Cumnock and Doon Valley, the local authority, the enterprise trust and other groups have already put a detailed, comprehensive scheme to the Scottish Office. Can I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that there will be no delay whatever in considering the scheme, so that people do not have to wait any longer than they have already waited?Mr. Lilley : I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Any guidance will be issued only to those who need it because they have not already learned how to make such applications. We want to encourage the widest range of organisations to put forward projects so that we get the best choice of schemes to which we can allocate the money.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : I thought that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) had a point of order. [Interruption.] We have not yet reached that stage. I believe that Ms. Quin wishes to ask a question on the statement.
Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : The Secretary of State used the statement to announce changes to the way that European funds that are not connected with the additionality dispute with the European Commission would be administered in future. He mentioned the increased competition for funds that he was hoping to establish. Can he assure us that those areas that do not win competitions will not be abandoned, and that the criteria by which areas are judged to be eligible for European funds will be based on need, not simply skill in filling in applications or succeeding in certain competitions? Can the Secretary of State assure us that the measures set out in his announcement will not weaken the role of local authorities in European funding? He said that he wishes to widen the composition of the programme committees to urban development corporations and others. Can he assure us that this will not simply be a way to put his own nominees on committees rather than having elected local representatives who know the needs of their own communities? As the Secretary of State has given way to the European Commission on the main substance of the additionality dispute, will he take the opportunity, as my hon. Friends have asked him to do, to make a public apology to Commissioner Millan for the way that his integrity has been impugned over the past year? Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends referred to the timing of this decision and of the Government's climbdown. Surely the electorate would be wiser to trust the Labour party, which has campaigned for the release of these funds all along under the terms that Commissioner Millan wanted and which were of direct benefit to the areas concerned, and to realise that the Government have proved themselves untrustworthy in this matter.
Mr. Lilley : I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no change in the eligibility rules for areas, projects and
Column 37
programmes, which are essentially Communitywide. We are trying to encourage more organisations to apply within those rules for funds. I can assure her that there is no question of removing from the committees that organise these funds existing local authority members and other members.As to an apology, I think it best just to express the delight of the House that the money has been released, and the hope that it will move speedily to the areas where it is required to help those who are afflicted by coal- mining rundown.
The hon. Lady concluded by referring to the Labour party having campaigned for this money. That is what it has conspicuously failed to do. It sought to make a party political point out of this. It refused ever to make representations to the Commission on behalf of the coal-mining areas and it has shown a two-faced response to the good news that the money is being released. That good news is the message of the day, and that is the response that we shall see on the ground in the areas that we all care for.
Column 38
Points of Order
4.27 pm
Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. Before I take points of order, may I say that there are two three-hour debates, which are timed, and a further debate of an hour and a half, in which many other hon. Members wish to participate, so I hope that points of order are on matters with which I can deal?
Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have the Government made a request for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about the National Audit Office report, which shows that the taxpayer forked out over £2 billion too much for the disastrous water privatisation, and that the then Secretary of State for the Environment made secret £2 million payments to companies handling privatisation?
Mr. Speaker : I have had no such request, but I understand that the Public Accounts Committee may look at this matter.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions on the statement, an allegedly leaked letter was prayed in aid in support of an argument. My concern is that the Labour health spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has clearly, we all now know, organised industrial espionage and theft so as to get the information used
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : What about Waldegrave's PPS?
Several Hon. Members : Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker : Order. Let me deal with this, please. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) must not make such an allegation against an hon. Member. He should withdraw the word "theft".
Mr. Hughes : On your instruction, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "theft". The point that I am making is that somebody close to the hon. Member for Livingston is plainly implicated in this. Should not the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how he comes by these documents so regularly? Is it not an abuse of the House that the hon. Gentleman comes to the Opposition Despatch Box and uses that information, and uses it deliberately to mislead?
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must not say such things. He has now been in the House for the duration of a full Parliament. Will he please put himself in order, and withdraw that last comment?
Mr. Hughes : I shall change it to "inadvertently to mislead".
Mr. Speaker : That is almost as bad. In any case, I think that the whole House would deprecate the use of leaked information, whatever its source.
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker--the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). May I seek your advice? That was at least the third occasion on which I have heard the hon.--well--Gentleman name an
Column 39
Opposition Member on a point of order. You pointed out to him, Mr. Speaker, that it would be normal courtesy, and decent of him, to inform the hon. Member concerned before naming him. I realise that we are in the middle of the lead-up to a general election, but for the hon. Member for Harrow, West to keep on doing this contravenes all the protocols and courtesies of the House.Mr. Speaker : I hope very much that at all times, but especially just before a general election, hon. Members will adhere to the conventions of the House, which are of long standing and enable our business to proceed in good order.
Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which has nothing to do with the preceding points of order. As the Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of the House, Mr. Speaker, will you ask him to speed up the publication of the National Audit Office report on the accident and emergency service--especially in view of the fact that the position at the Worcester royal infirmary has now become so bad that two doctors are reported to have resigned in protest?
Mr. Speaker : I shall need to look into that matter. I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about it.
Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : On a very short point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I revert to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said earlier? A leak, as I understand it, is generally accidental. What should we call information that is not given accidentally- -information that is given deliberately to the House?
Mr. Speaker : It is not for me to say. As I have said, I deprecate the use of such information on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief, but I regard this as important. I am addressing you in your role as Chairman
Column 40
of the Speaker's Conference--which, as you know, deals with electoral matters--rather than in your role as Speaker.It probably escaped your notice, but, at the weekend, a very senior member of the Scottish National party suggested in Scotland that no one over the age of 35 should be allowed to vote in the forthcoming general election in that country. That would not affect me ; I should still be able to vote. What would your attitude be, however, if such an outrageous suggestion were submitted to you on behalf of the SNP--if it were proposed that all the old -age pensioners in Scotland, and all other people over 35, should be disfranchised?
Mr. Speaker : As it happens, that piece of information did escape me. Last weekend, I paid a visit to Ulster--which I thoroughly enjoyed--so I do not know about the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised ; but he said "if the suggestion were submitted", and it has not been so submitted.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a Scottish nationalist over the age of 35, may I assure you that there has been no such suggestion? The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) should not believe everything that he reads in certain newspapers.
Mr. Speaker : Perhaps the kindest thing that I can say is, perhaps that was another leak.
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that your visit to Northern Ireland was widely welcomed? All parties in the House were represented at your reception, and we wish you and your good lady well. Let me remind you that you are the only Speaker who, as yet, has not thrown me out of the House : I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker : I thank the hon. Gentleman--but I think that we had now better move on.
Column 41
European Economic Area
[Relevant documents : Fourth report from the Trade and Industry Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 347 of Session 1989-90) on trade with EFTA and the Government reply contained in the Committee's third special report (House of Commons Paper No. 666 of Session 1989-90).]
4.34 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury) : I beg to move, That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th December 1991, relating to the draft Agreement on the establishment of a European Economic Area ; and supports the Government's view that the Agreement should be entered into by the Community and its Member States subject to agreement on amendments to the draft necessary to deal with incompatibilities between the draft and the Treaty of Rome identified by the Court of Justice in its Opinion 1/91.
The creation of the european economic area is a major step forward for the Community. It will bring significant economic gains to British industry and British consumers. The Government very much welcome this major agreement and look forward to signature within the next few weeks.
What we shall be signing is the most ambitious and wide-ranging agreement entered into by the Community. It will extend the main principles of the single market to the seven European Free Trade Association--EFTA-- countries. I remind the House that those are Austria, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. A single market of 19 west European Countries stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean will be created. It will cover the "four freedoms"--free movement of goods, capital, services and people. It will also cover related matters, ranging from agriculture to co-operation in research and development.
This debate is particularly timely. Last Friday, the Commission and EFTA negotiators made a declaration that the EEA negotiations had been successfully concluded. The next step will be formal initialling of a text by the negotiators this week. We expect the final text to be ready for signature by member states and the EFTA countries next month, allowing their Parliaments to ratify by the end of the year. The declaration by the negotiators was made in the light of agreement last week on amendments necessary to meet the concerns about the EEA expressed by the Court of Justice. Those amendments affected the competition and institutional provisions of the EEA--I will describe the new version of those provisions in some detail later.
I know that it is not ideal to debate the agreement when we do not have a text before us. I hope that the full explanatory memorandum that I submitted will go some way towards making good the absence of a text.
It might help if I first describe the contents of the agreement and the benefits that the Government believe that it will bring to the United Kingdom and to the Community. I will then describe the institutions of the EEA, referring briefly to some of the amendments that were agreed last week to deal with the problems arising from the opinion of the Court of Justice on the agreement.
The first and perhaps the best known of the four freedoms is free movement of goods. When the United Kingdom left EFTA to join the Community in 1973, the
Column 42
Community established free trade agreements with the remaining EFTA members. Under these free trade agreements, there is already tariff-free trade between the Community and EFTA in industrial goods and processed agricultural products. The EEA improves free movement of goods in a number of important respects.There will be common technical regulations. The community and EFTA already work together in creating common European standards, but each side maintains its own technical regulations for purposes such as health and the environment. Those different regulations amount to a significant barrier to trade, as the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recognised in its report.
The Community and EFTA technical regulations have much the same objectives, but they achieve those objectives by different means. Under the agreement, EFTA will adapt to follow the methods used in community measures.
Manufacturers in the EEA will therefore have to follow only one set of regulations instead of a possible eight sets now. A major barrier to trade with the EFTA countries will be eliminated.
The agreement also eliminates other important non-tariff barriers to trade. Perhaps the most significant of those are the prohibition of discriminatory taxation on goods, the application within EFTA of rules on open public procurement based on Community legislation and the adoption of common rules on intellectual property. Those provisions will tackle some of the main potential types of discrimination against exporting companies. In addition, customs procedures and rules of origin are to be streamlined. That will make the task of the exporter of goods simpler and cheaper.
With those measures on the free movement of goods, the EEA will improve significantly the ability of exporters to trade throughout the 19 countries of the Community and EFTA. There will be a significant advance on existing free trade agreements. British companies will have greater export opportunities, and British consumers will benefit from lower prices and more choice. For a market to be truly open, it must have rules that ensure fair competition. One of the most important parts of the agreement is that on competition and state aid. The EFTA countries will take on competition and state aid rules based on those of the Community. Those will include rules on restrictive practices and monopoly abuse. In addition, the EC merger regulations will cover the Community and EFTA.
The competition and state aid rules will be enforced by the Commission and a new independent EFTA surveillance authority with powers based on those of the Commission, with appeals going to the European Court of first instance or the EFTA court.
The adoption of similar rules by the Community and EFTA, which will be enforced by two independent authorities, will be a crucial element of the EEA. The conditions for competition throughout the 19 countries will be substantially improved. That will obviously benefit consumers. It will also help companies, which will no longer have to face a wide range of substantially different rules, and the agreement will lead to an open and competitive market throughout western Europe.
Unlike goods, services are not covered in the existing free trade agreements between the Community and EFTA. The agreement will lead to the free movement of services. The rules on services will be based on article 59 of the
Column 43
treaty of Rome and the related secondary legislation. So the agreement will eliminate restrictions on the freedom to provide services within the EEA by nationals of the Community and EFTA who are established within the EEA. The services covered include transport, telecommunications, audio-visual services and financial services.That freedom to provide services throughout the area is a major achievement. It will create new opportunities for businesses in which Britain, in particular, has traditionally been strong. That is so especially in financial services, where the EEA will adopt rules based on Community legislation on insurance, banking and securities. For example, British banks will enjoy a single "passport" to carry out business throughout the area.
The agreement also goes beyond the existing free trade agreements in providing for the free movement of capital. There is already comparatively free movement of capital between the Community and EFTA. The main advantage in enshrining the current practice in rules based on Community law will be that most restrictions by EFTA on inward investment will be lifted.
The fourth and final freedom provided for by the agreement is the free movement of persons. The agreement creates the right of EC and EFTA nationals to work throughout the EEA.
An essential element of the free movement of persons is the right of establishment, which will apply within the extended European area.
| Next Section
| Home Page |