House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Feb 1993

Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : Even if the Minister is not prepared to say exactly what the representations should be from the United Kingdom, will he at least concede the principle that in the case of Scotland, Wales or the northern region of England, where a clear majority voted against the Government, representatives will reflect the political majority and not just be nominees from the Government's ranks?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall refer to that point in a minute.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : May I be allowed to answer the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin).

I am trying to establish that there is no obligation whatever on the United Kingdom Government, or indeed on any other Government, to fulfil what is set out in the amendment, that is that all members should automatically be elected members of a local authority. Not only is there no obligation to that but no member state that has so far made its nominations to the Committee of the Regions has done so. Two countries have made their nominations, and not one of them has so far nominated only elected local government people.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : The Minister tells the Committee that only Greece and the Netherlands have made a nomination. On 2 December, the Bundestag agreed to allocate at least three seats of its delegation to local authorities, all others to go to the Lander, therefore all elected representatives from Germany. The Danish Government have now made their nominations by agreement with the Association of Local and County Authorities and the city of Copenhagen, with four each of the counties and the municipalities and one of the city of Copenhagen. In Luxembourg, all nominees are to be elected members of local authorities. What is the position?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am simply telling the Committee that, so far, two member states have nominated-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is telling me that the Lander will have certain nominations in respect of the Committee of the Regions. Is the hon. Gentleman aware who they will nominate? Perhaps he had better wait. Let us wait and see whom they nominate. It is perfectly within the bounds of possibility

Column 519

that a Land in the Federal Republic might decide to send one of their Ministers to the Committee of the Regions or to nominate someone else. The statement that I have made to the Committee remains the case.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Garel-Jones : No, I am not going to give way. Two member states have nominated their members to the Committee of the Regions, and those member states have not nominated exclusively democratically elected people. That is a statement of fact.

Mr. George Robertson : That is all slightly disingenuous. We know that the Minister is dancing on a fine point. The United Kingdom is in the process of ratifying the treaty and is the second to last country to do so. Clearly, no one will make final decisions about the nominees and the individuals who will sit on a committee which has not yet been established under a treaty which has not yet been ratified or implemented.

The Minister should address the point that EC countries, other than the two which he has mentioned, have clearly set out the principle which they will follow when they make their nominations. Why is the Minister dodging the issue by concentrating on two countries and not on the other three countries which I mentioned earlier?

Mr. Garel-Jones : Let me spell it out in capital letters. I am not prepared to commit Her Majesty's Government to a guarantee that the 24 members appointed to the Committee of the Regions will be elected local government councillors. Is that clear enough for the hon. Member for Hamilton. Does he understand it?

Mr. Jenkin : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend but I will give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : The democratic principle underpinning the nominations of people to the Committee of the Regions is critical to all of us so we want proportionality and elected accountability. The Minister said that he will not commit the Government to ensuring that all the United Kingdom nominees will be local councillors. Will a proportion of the nominees be local councillors?

Mr. Garel-Jones : The Government will listen carefully to representations from political parties, local government and other regional interests in the United Kingdom before coming to their decision. We will listen carefully and constructively. The point which I am trying to make in the debate--which is a fair one--is that we do not want to tie ourselves to having only locally-elected councillors, as the amendment seeks to do. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware of the defects which such a system could impart to Britain's representatives on what may turn out to be an important Community institution in the future.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : My right hon. Friend is right to say that one cannot specify who will be on the committee. After all, the regional development fund has been going since 1973, and experience has shown that

Column 520

it is important to get people with some expertise, whether they are politicians or engineers. We must get people who know about road transport and shipping so that we can tie together the whole regional planning infrastructure.

Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend makes an important point and it is one of the many considerations which the Government will have to take into account when they consider the matter.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Garel-Jones : I want to make a little more progress. I intervened early because I want to listen to the whole debate for a good reason : I expect that a number of hon. Members from different regions in the United Kingdom who represent different interests in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will make important points. The Government intend to listen carefully to those points.

It is not wise for the Committee to accept the amendment. I do not accept that the amendment will lead the Committee to produce a system of nomination which will do adequate justice to the interests of all the regions in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Radice : Does the Minister think that the majority of members on the Committee of the Regions should be elected local government representatives?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I think that I have already answered that question.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : As one who represents a rural area, I hope that, for example, the President of the National Farmers Union will be a welcome member of the regional committee.

Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government must listen to such representations. I give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and then I must bring my remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Salmond : It is reasonable for the Minister to say that he is not happy with the amendment. However, it is unreasonable for him not to give the Committee an indication of the Government's thinking on who should be nominated. It will be surprising if the Committee makes progress on this part of the Bill before the Minister gives us some illustration of that point.

Mr. Garel-Jones : As I have said, I expect the debate to run for some time. I intend to listen to most, if not all, of the debate and to hear the points which undoubtedly hon. Labour Members will make. Two considerations underlie the debate : first, I am not convinced that it will be wise to commit the United Kingdom to nominating only elected councillors to the Committee of the Regions and, secondly, the proposed distribution of numbers will not have escaped the notice of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.

There will be strong competing claims on a proportional basis, and a substantial number of the committee members should go to England. Most English hon. Members accept that there must be--and it is right that there should be--some sort of weighting towards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is also a matter for careful consideration. I have detained the Committee for long enough, and I will now allow hon. Members to make their speeches.

Column 521

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : I have followed the debate with great interest. Perhaps we should start by asking ourselves what function the Committee of the Regions will play. What part will the committee play in the structure and development of the treaty? As the Minister and others have said, the implication and assumption is that the role of the Committee of the Regions will be an important buttress of the decentralising tendency.

One claim is that the treaty represents a fundamental arrest of the movement towards the centralising process subsidiarity and the development of alternative pillars to the inter-governmental processes. On top of that, it is considered that the Committee of the Regions is a practical gesture, if not a symbol, in favour of decentralisation.

The trouble with the treaty is that its structure is so inherently unstable that it can be interpreted in two contradictory ways. The measures can be interpreted as acting as a decentralising force and therefore arresting what previously seemed to be the development towards a centralised Europe. Evidence which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs received from many expert witnesses shows that the treaty is equally capable of being interpreted as a centralising force.

The role of the treaty in not only monetary union, but the other institutions being created will result in a more centralised union or centralised European federal state, rather than a decentralised union. In that context, the Committee of the Regions would have a different function and have a different connotation.

Earlier, I think that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) made the point that, if the role of the Committee of the Regions is developed, the committee could become part of a triad--the Commission, the European union, and the Committee of the Regions--acting jointly to erode, subvert or go round national Governments, national Parliaments and the European Council. There is no doubt that the Commission had a different structure at heart in many of its preparatory documents which led to the Maastricht treaty. The Commission did not get its way, and we should be thankful for that.

The gist and drive behind the Commissioners' ideas of what Maastricht should eventually lead to was a concept of a centralised executive Commission working in close harmony with the European Parliament but at the same time breaking what it saw as the obstacle to a federal European union structure--national Parliaments and national Governments represented by the European Council. If the Maastricht route also makes possible that alternative strategy, we must certainly ask ourselves about the function and role of the Committee of the Regions.

My fundamental objection to the treaty is not that one can be altogether dogmatic about where Maastricht will lead us but that it is capable of taking us to a different destination from the one which is often presented to us by the Government. They suggest that it is leading us to a stage at which we shall have arrested the ever more powerful centralising tendency of the European union and European Community.

Column 522

6 pm

Mr. Hoon : I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Maastricht treaty. He has his view, and I have a rather different one. However, I should be interested to know where he sees any evidence in chapter 4, which establishes the Committee of the Regions, for the centralising tendency to which he refers.

Mr. Rowlands : My hon. Friend is correct : it is neutral. That is my point. The question is not so much what is written into the provisions--I shall make the point later that the provisions which establish the Committee of the Regions are rather scrappy--as what is the fundamental drift, structural aim and objective of not only Maastricht but the review conference in 1996. Is it to take further the new bridgeheads which have been established? After 1996, will the alternative scenario be developed and created? I do not suggest that it will happen, but one must interpret a perfectly neutral article and decide which way Maastricht is leading us.

Mr. Shore : My hon. Friend's argument is a persuasive one. We can all recall the vision of a Europe of the regions, as distinct from a Europe of nation states, of which some people on the European continent and especially in the Commission have always been in favour. But in the context of regional policy, surely the point is that a double process is taking place. One is the transfer of regional policy decision-making and funds to the European Commission. That is a centralising process. The other is the phasing out, control and diminution of national regional policy. It is, indeed, a transfer of power and a centralising process.

Mr. Rowlands : My right hon. Friend raises some fundamental central points. One of the sadnesses is that we have been forced to debate a huge portmanteau of amendments on regional and cohesion funds and the appointment of a separate institution, a Committee of the Regions. If one is to devise a process of convergence which will lead to monetary union by any other method than the monetarist one--which is in my view at the heart of the treaty--the development of regional and cohesion funds is vital. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said in an earlier debate, very large funds are necessary to develop any form of cohesion within a meaningful time scale.

The very nature of accumulating such huge funds is itself a centralising process. Funds of that size will have to be administered, organised and distributed from the centre. If one is to achieve convergence and monetary union by the socially and economically acceptable route of redistributing large funds, a European Government is necessary to do it.

It is a perfectly reasonable proposition, but nevertheless the Government pretend that it is not one which is presented to us in the Maastricht treaty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, such a scenario might be proposed in 1996. We are entitled to ask whether the Committee of the Regions will be part and parcel of a genuine process of decentralisation, of the arresting process which others claim is socially acceptable and of the creation of subsidiarity and the intergovernmental pillars of the

Column 523

treaty. Or is it possible that the other route of a Europe of the regions and a growingly centralised European executive will be pursued?

I am exercising a neutral view, but it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the processes that are likely to flow from Maastricht. It is as reasonable as the Government's interpretation. They suggest that the Maastricht treaty is essentially a decentralising measure.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central) : Does my hon. Friend agree that a reasonable definition of subsidiarity does not conflict with the paradox which is apparently laid before us? A reasonable definition is that government should occur at the lowest level at which it can be effective. On some matters, it can be effective only at a transnational level. Examples include a single currency and environmental legislation. Other forms of government can be far more effective at a much lower level. So that apparent paradox is not in fact contradictory.

Mr. Rowlands : No, I do not believe it is. My hon. Friend rightly says that subsidiarity is a two-way process. Just as much as it could be a decentralising process, it could be the confirmation of a large movement of power from local or decentralised structures to the centre.

I do not wish to dwell on subsidiarity, Mr. Lofthouse, because we shall have a separate debate on it. I draw the attention of the Committee to the voluminous evidence on subsidiarity which we took in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I warn any of my hon. Friends or any hon. Members who think that they have cast-iron guarantees about the success of subsidiarity --I have been as diligent as possible in going through the evidence--not to buy a simplistic view of it or its potential effectiveness.

My proposition is simple. It is possible to interpret the potential role of a future Committee of the Regions in the context of a rather different European structure from that which is presented to us by Ministers and some of those who want to pretend that Maastricht does not contain at least the potential for centralisation and a larger European executive.

The Maastricht treaty could be a first step on the road to a Europe of the regions. The irony about that for me as a Welshman is that, if the House and the British people decided that they wanted to turn Westminster into a glorified Lander, that might be their decision. We would then have a most powerful and overwhelming case to establish our own La"nd, in the form of an elected assembly for Wales. I believe that we have a case for such an assembly now, but as Maastricht could lead towards the transformation of Westminster into a glorified La"nd, I cannot see why I should come to Westminster. I should do far better trying to represent my communities in a Welsh elected assembly.

I have been a keen supporter of a Welsh elected assembly. Regional assemblies are the alternative scenario for future constitutional development. Not one Minister or Member of Parliament who campaigns for the treaty claims that that is the destination to which Maastricht might eventually lead. If they were honest and accepted that that was a perfectly acceptable option, I as a Welshman could happily accept the joy and privilege of

Column 524

representing my communities in a Welsh elected assembly. Its powers and responsibilities would be on a par with a glorified Westminster La"nd.

Is that the way in which the Government and the British people want to go? They have not to date expressed their views in those terms, but the potential is there, offered by Maastricht, and with that potential comes the possibility of a major new powerful European executive.

That is why the members of nationalist parties in this Parliament have embraced the concept of Europe and have been voting with the Government on most of the treaty. They believe that the potential exists here to achieve their goal. I think I see some of them indicating assent at that. That scenario has not been presented to us. In other words, they are voting for a model even though the Government are pretending that the model does not exist or is not potentially possible under the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : The hon. Gentleman will agree that the cohesion funds are designed to reduce disparities between the levels of development of various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured areas, including rural areas. Does he accept that all areas of this country, whether or not represented by those with separatist tendencies, are already losing out in the EC in vital and fundamental industries such as textiles and paper and board, whereas countries such as Portugal and Spain are obtaining huge additional funds from the Community, resulting in our losing jobs in Scotland, Wales and virtually every region of the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that that is just a sample of what is likely to happen if we ratify Maastricht?

Mr. Rowlands : I was coming to that very subject, which is the potential--or perhaps the lack of it--resulting from the role of the Committee of the Regions. What are we buying? We are told that, at least to start with, the committee will be potentially an important expression of the voice of the regions--in the case of the area I represent, the national regions.

I have searched studiously through the treaty, because the article with which we are dealing does not specify the duties of the Committee of the Regions. We are told that its duties are given in the treaty, but it is difficult to work out what they will be. For example, the committee could play an invaluable role if, as some witnesses who gave evidence before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs suggested, it will be the champion voice for greater structural, regional and cohesion funds to be directed to poorer regions and nations on the periphery of the new European union. If that were to be the function of the Committee of the Regions, I could support it, but it is difficult to discover a meaningful definition of the powers, responsibilities and duties that it will have. I would be happier if the treaty spelled out its role, albeit consultative. After all, we are speaking only of an advisory body. We may argue about who should be on it, but we would feel happier if the treaty showed a clearly defined role for it, perhaps saying that it must be advised on all issues relating to the cohesion fund, the structural fund and various other funds in a way that might lead to a redistribution of wealth in the Community.

We need such a body, because our only voice in Brussels now is the Secretary of State for Wales, and by any standard, his has been a poor voice, which has delivered remarkably little in terms of regional and

Column 525

structural support to the communities that I represent. He has even failed to make sure that we are a part of the operation. I remind the Committee that no part of the areas I represent will get a penny from the cohesion fund.

6.15 pm

It has been suggested that, as good socialists, we should support the poorest. Mid Glamorgan's GDP is only 70 per cent. of the average of that of the United Kingdom. By any calculation of GDP per capita--by any formula ; most formulae are fixed to deliver the results that are wanted--whether purchasing power, parity or rates of exchange, Mid Glamorgan and the communities I represent qualify as much as Spain, Greece and, I am sorry to say, Ireland. But there is no suggestion that cohesion fund money should come to my communities.

The Minister talked about targeting. We are talking about a poorly targeted cohesion fund, because it has been crudely decided that the money shall go to four of the Twelve. The funds will not go to regions, areas or communities in the Community. They will go to four member states, irrespective of whether there are in those states areas much wealthier than any of the communities I represent.

Mr John D. Taylor : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Maastricht is inconsistent and contradicts itself, in that, although it stresses the importance of regions, the cohesion fund dismisses entirely the importance of regions and sticks strictly to the importance of national states?

Mr. Rowlands : That is the point that I am making. The Minister agreed, frankly, that what had occurred was a bargain. It was a fix. It was a way to achieve the support of four of the Twelve--for a variety of other developments within the concept of Maastricht--and was therefore a way to buy support. The cohesion fund is not based on any rigorous assessment of need.

We talk much about cohesion and convergence. My community is at present suffering not from convergence but from divergence, even within the United Kingdom economy. As I say, Mid Glamorgan has only 70 per cent. of the United Kingdom's average GDP. That has come about as a result of Conservative policies. That position has not been addressed or redressed by the Secretary of State for Wales campaigning for the redistribution of funds in the EC on behalf of communities such as mine, which, by any criteria, qualify for cohesion and other types of regional funding.

Mr. Marlow : I take fully the hon. Gentleman's point that the money is targeted purely at four countries--Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal. It is not targeted where the need exists or to rural areas but to those four countries. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Commission wants to manage the fund itself, in alliance with those four countries. So effectively the Commission wants the money not to overcome the problems of poverty in parts of the Community ; it wants four client states that will agree in future with its agenda.

Mr. Rowlands : I would not push the conspiratorial view that far, although I believe that a deal, a fix, has occurred. It was an arrangement.

We are told that the cohesion fund is a special new fund to be devoted to those four countries, and a formula has been devised to make the arrangement look rational. That means that we must direct our attention next to the

Column 526

structural fund because that is where the larger proportion of the money lies. Hence, on behalf of a community with a GDP per capita in the band of the four cohesion fund countries, I do just that and turn to the structural fund.

On doing so, I discover that the first objective, relating to the largest part of the fund--it was about four fifths of the total ; I am having difficulty working out whether Edinburgh shifted the proportion somewhat-- names the only qualifying community in the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland.

Mid Glamorgans's GDP is lower than that of Northern Ireland. It is saddening when one hears the self-deluding statements of the Secretary of State for Wales telling us that our economy has been transformed. The transformation of the south Wales economy has meant that Mid Glamorgan, in GDP terms, is in a lower state, I am sorry to say in the presence of Northern Ireland Members, than that of Northern Ireland. That is the marvellous miracle of transformation that the Secretary of State and his predecessor have wrought with his valleys initiative. That is the truth about our economy currently, and we still do not qualify for objective 1 funding. Not only are we outside cohesion funding ; we are also outside objective 1 funding.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : Our constituencies share much the same problem, so I have a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend is saying, but he will accept, I am sure, that one of the reasons that our areas are so poor and deprived is that they have been choked off from European funds under the present system. This Government have not fulfilled their commitment under present arrangements ; that is why, with Commissioner Millan, the problem of additionality reared its head and there was a major conflict between the Commissioner and the present Government.

When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I found that Welsh local authorities like Llanelli, Merthyr, Rhymney Valley and Blaenau Gwent approached members of the European Parliament to go direct to the Commission because this Government were blocking European funds.

Mr. Rowlands : My hon. Friend expresses the frustration of so many communities under Rechar and all the other arrangements. We fought hard to get some scraps out of the system for communities and societies which, as I have demonstrated, by any objective criteria, sadly qualify.

Mr. Shore : My hon. Friend is making a very important point. The plain truth is that ever since the two categories, 1 and 2, were introduced three or four years ago, the effect on the United Kingdom has been disastrous. We received less money in 1991, the last complete year available, than we did in 1986. Meanwhile, the regional fund has trebled.

Mr. Rowlands : That is the point, and it is the ultimate condemnation of a Government who have failed to fight for us, and of the categories--it is a bit of both, I think. The Government could have fought for different categorisation of our communities. There is no reason why an objective 1 category should not cover communities like mine, because by any GDP per capita figure they ought to be part of it but are not. That is part of the funding under the structural fund.

Column 527

The voice of the United Kingdom in Brussels, the voice we had, that of the Secretary of State, has been sorely inadequate and has failed us completely in fighting for the proper redistribution of funds to achieve development and growth and to achieve a breakthrough in growth, to break through the cycle of deprivation and the cycle of disappointing achievement which is so much of the character and nature of the communities I represent.

I ask myself, do I go back to Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and say that there is an alternative called the Committee of the Regions with sufficient power and voice to be able to redress the balance in Europe? I fear that I cannot. I am worried and concerned that it will be a sop rather than an effective alternative regional voice within the structures of the new Europe of the European union.

I hope that I am wrong, because we desperately need a much more effective and radical voice speaking for the communities I represent, not only at Westminster, in the form of an alternative Government, and a change of heart, but also in Brussels and Europe from where we now know that some of these funds should be coming to break our cycle of deprivation but are not reaching us. That is our case. My concern is that we are not over-sold--not sold something which turns out to be another talking shop.

The Minister talked about subtlety of the appointments. There has been nothing subtle about the appointments made by the Secretary of State for Wales. Time and time again, he has appointed Conservative party chairpersons of one kind or another into a host of positions, wholly unrepresentative, even reaching to the heart of our health service, bringing services out of the Community, and now they are utterly unrepresentative of the spirit, feelings and wishes of the people of Wales.

It is little wonder that we treat these appointments with great scepticism, and demand a more rigorous and statutory basis for these appointments, because we shall be left by the Secretary of State with a group of yes- persons of the character we have seen in the quangos that have been established in the past 10 years in Wales, fixed and filled with overtly party political appointments.

While I support the drift and the principle of the amendments that have been moved to prevent that, I ask the Committee seriously to consider whether the character and nature of this committee is, in the longer term, the route we wish to pursue.

Mr. Hill : It is an interesting but not, so far, a constructive debate. We have been talking around the regional fund but most Members have so far been discussing how to pack the Committee of the Regions with some of their friends. I put it no higher than that because this argument often comes up when a new institution is formed. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party on European matters and I were probably the only two hon. Members here who were members of the European regional policy committee in Brussels in 1973. These well displayed arguments, beautifully formed, with high indignation--"I am not going to get anything out of it"--are the sort of thing we have gone through time after time. The question is whether the regional development fund has become better over the past few years. We are talking about a period of 20 years.

I remember clearly, as I am sure does the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), that

Column 528

we realised at the time that the regional development fund, which was under-funded, did practically nothing. A regional fund for which every application has to be dealt with from central Governments would be very undemocratic. That had to be. In those days, when only Germany and the United Kingdom, perhaps, had the money to fund the development fund, we were delighted to find that we got 1,200 million ecu for a year. That lasted for one year. Then it went down to 450 million ecu. That is the way the fund can go. When one talks about a strategic fund which has to fulfil the expectations of everyone from the United Kingdom right down to Greece, Spain and Portugal, one realises that this is not a very sensible approach.

Much of the idea in this case, too, is that the money will be targeted on the four poorest countries. We have always had this argument with regional development, about where the money should go. There was even a study at one time, which I took up myself, about the bridges and tunnels from Denmark to Sweden. We could have spent the whole of the regional development fund for many years on that, but the idea of this fund is that one does what the Committee of the Regions declares is essential ; one starts from there.

In the days that I am talking about there was no representation of the type envisaged in article 130b. There was no representation on that scale, although there were the heads of regional development. My old chum Christopher Chataway was a Minister at the time and every application had to go through his Department. The Committee of the Regions is the start of a bit of democracy, but we do not seem to want to recognise that or to congratulate the Prime Minister. The committee will have 24 representatives from the United Kingdom, who will be taken from all classes. I am not talking about politicians, as the average politician is a poor administrator--local councils are a good example of that and are poorly administered--and one cannot give them all the seats on the committee.

6.30 pm

When the committee is working, each region will have to put its case through its representatives. The committee will not be like the old closed shop. The only difficulty that I can envisage is that the committee has to submit a report to the European Parliament once in every three years. That time scale is too long.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) : The hon. Gentleman used the words "representatives of the regions", but does he accept that they cannot be true representatives of their locality if they are appointed by national Government rather than by local or regional government? The Minister responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the system in Germany. The La"nder can appoint people who are not representatives in the La"nder, but the important thing is that, rather than the German Government, La"nder will do the appointing. That is crucial and no Conservative Member has dealt with that issue.

Mr. Hill : I do not know where that argument is going. The committee must be formed and each national Government will have its own way of submitting names. The mere fact that Germany or any other country--Greece, for example--has a different system is not at issue. Our system will be plain. We want people with great

Column 529

expertise and we do not want a lot of time servers or a mass of people who have been on local councils for 50 years. We certainly do not want a lot of Back Benchers, who are only in the European argument to knock it to the ground.

Mr. Randall : Many Opposition Members are concerned because we believe that the Government do not have a regional policy. The Committee of the Regions will be able to do what it likes--the scope of its responsibility is open. If people on the committee represent their regions, they will want to change regional policy. Since the Government do not want that to happen, they will put their Tory cronies in to block the whole system. That would be negative and would make the committee ineffective.

Mr. Hill : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to refute that later. The hon. Gentleman mentioned "Tory cronies." There are socialist cronies, too.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I apologise to the Committee for not having said in my remarks that I hoped that Members would deal in their contributions with membership of the committee. It is probable that the Committee of the Regions will have a plenary meeting, but we estimate that about two days work each week will be required from those nominated to represent the United Kingdom. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that an elected councillor might find two days each week rather burdensome. The two countries which have nominated representatives have not chosen to nominate only elected councillors. That is another argument in favour of not doing so.

Mr. Hill : The main argument is to get rid of political points. My next remarks will probably raise more hackles on the Opposition Benches.

Advisers from the European investment bank will have to deal with the regional development fund and it would not be a bad idea to appoint someone who knows the banking industry. The same argument applies to practically everything that the committee will do. It will not want any time servers, and from what my right hon. Friend has said I am sure that it will not get them.

There has always been an argument about peripherals. We have always had to plough more money in, and transborder money was always bespoken. Everyone, whether from Wales, Scotland, Ireland or anywhere else, was always at risk because they were not getting a sufficient slice of the cake. That is an odd way to approach the matter. The committee is just beginning. One will find that because of the quality of the people appointed to the Committee-- people from throughout the United Kingdom--they will be approachable. They will not say, "You're only a Welshman--I'm not going to have anything to do with you because you have nothing to do with my region." When the committee is in place, 24 people will be working as a team to highlight some of the problems of the regions.

I have long thought that the regional development fund did not get enough publicity for the fact that it provided millions of ecus to build the M25. Much of the funding came from the fund, but no one seemed to know about it. It was assumed that it was taxpayers' money-- [Hon. Members :-- "It was."] I suppose that in a roundabout way it was. However, people who have become interested in

Next Section

Home Page