| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 530
European affairs in the past two years would never have known that the M25 was financed by the regional development fund.I must make a plea for a contribution from the Committee of the Regions. As soon as it sits, I should like it to study the construction of a southern counties expressway, made up of a route from Dover, along the south coast to Southampton. What better way is there to spend money? The expressway could also upgrade the A34 to Oxford and then turn eastwards, to Aylesbury and the east coast ports. One would stress to the committee that the expressway would be of motorway standard, and would provide an alternative to the M25. The concept is designed to cater for the ever-growing European dimension of trade within the Communiy.
If we are a trading nation, we cannot ignore Europe. I cannot think that any hon. Member supposes that we could go back to being an island, trading only with ourselves and once in a while with America. Most hon. Members are politically wise and they must know that we cannot stay in isolation. A famous Labour Member said some years ago that we will be an island--I think that he is still saying it--and that we will trade where we can. He did not say "if" we can, and he did not dismiss all those people in Europe who are looking to us as trading partners. He did not say, "Let us throw them all out with the bath water." He said, "We will trade where we can."
When the members of the committee are studying what they wish to improve on the periphery of Europe, they will obviously look at trading matters. It is no use setting up a motorway, a seaport an airport or any great transport infrastructure if industry is not put at the end of the road. That will be one of the biggest problems. They may even think of Wales or Scotland for these industrial estates.
If one could only get beyond the idea of having three Labour councillors, three Conservative councillors, and perhaps poor old Bloggs who went to the other place some years ago, and think of the opportunities--
Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hill : Certainly not to him. [Interruption.] I am not giving way to any of them. Everyone can speak this evening. I do not want to be critical of some of my colleagues, but they have more or less had their 10-minute speeches already. They have been interrupting each other or interrupting sympathisers across the Chamber. I will not aid and abet them in this deceit, because, as you rightly said, Mr. Lofthouse, everyone can speak in this debate for 10 or 15 minutes, if he or she wishes.
I am waiting anxiously to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on regional development. Certainly, no one here knows the slightest thing about how the original regional development fund was started. I am waiting to hear some really good information. I have tried to say very little, because so many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hill : There is a quavering voice at the back of me, but I am not going to give way. The poor quavering old chap must sit back in his seat and wait until he catches your eye, Mr. Lofthouse. I feel that we are getting to the heart of the argument now. I admire the amendments that have been put down
Column 531
--not that I shall vote for them, of course- -because they have just one theme and they say exactly the same thing over and over again : let us see how we can pack the Committee of the Regions with our cronies. Ours will not be Tory cronies--they will be Tory experts.Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : How refreshing it has been to hear the real voice of the Tory party. It was certainly amusing. Unfortunately, I did not understand one word of what the hon. Gentleman was getting at, and I do not think that the Minister did either, because I noticed that he was keeping his head very low during the hon. Member's speech.
This debate is naturally of interest to us in Northern Ireland, as one of the regions in the European Community. The Maastricht agreement is something that, as I said on Second Reading, we in the Ulster Unionist party oppose, because, at the end of the day, it is a treaty for the union of Europe, basically moving away from a Europe of sovereign states co- operating into a Europe of European regions. It is a shift in that direction. That is the real thrust of the Maastricht agreement : slowly, step by step, to undermine the sovereignty of the 12 nations and establish in their place the regions.
6.45 pm
I do not agree with that, but, if it is taking place and if it is to happen, I have to come down in favour of the Committee of the Regions. To that extent, and with that qualification, I support the proposal for such a committee.
We in Northern Ireland have been very badly governed since 1972. We have never had a representative elected in Northern Ireland governing us ; it has always been an elected representative from England, and perhaps once or twice from Scotland. We therefore have little say in our own affairs, and certainly in the European Community we have no voice other than through the three Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. In Brussels, the Northern Ireland Office is hardly ever heard ; it is not represented by Ministers in the Council of Ministers on fisheries, agriculture or any of the other important issues that affect us in Northern Ireland.
I well remember from my 10 years in the European Parliament, most of which I served as a member of the European regional committee, that it was one of the more useful committees in the Parliament, within which the regions had a voice. I remember that there was a lady called Beatta Brookes who certainly spoke up for Wales. It is perhaps not popular to mention her on this side of the Committee-- [Interruption.] I am certainly not going to embarrass the other side of the Committee.
Certainly, the European regional committee was one of the more influential committees in the European Parliament. Because of the weakness of the Northern Ireland Office, it was possible for the elected Members of the European Parliament to correct the mistakes which the Northern Ireland Office was making. I will give an example.
A scheme was devised under the European regional development programme for cross-border tourist projects for the border regions. That was a good idea on both the Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland sides of the border. When the proposed map of the areas of tourism was produced to the regional committee of the European
Column 532
Parliament, Donegal was naturally recommended, and Sligo and Leitrim as very good tourist areas on the southern side of the border. And what did the Northern Ireland Office recommend for our side? It recommended Crossmaglen and South Armagh--for tourist projects. That was a mistake, Mr. Lofthouse, as you will recognise. When the scheme came before the regional committee of the European Parliament, I got my Communist colleagues, my Labour colleagues from Wales, my Social Democrat, Conservative and Christian Democrat colleagues to support me in an amendment to change the boundaries. We finally got the mountains of Mourne and Newcastle included as principal tourist areas near the border. I managed to slip in part of my own constituency as well while I was at it.That was accepted, and we immediately became the first places in Northern Ireland to benefit from this scheme. We got a £1 million tourist project in the village of Millisle. This shows how an elected representative from an area can influence the regional development policy to help his own region.
That is why I welcome this proposal in principle. If we are to have a Europe of the regions, which we are moving towards--although, as I say, I am not very happy with that drift in European political thinking--I believe that the European Committee for the Regions is a good idea, and the people on it should be locally elected representatives of the regions.
I do not accept what the Minister has told the Committee this afternoon-- that only two countries have so far decided the basis of their representation on the committee. If he looks into it more carefully, or is advised better by his officials, I think that he will find that most of the countries are coming down in favour of locally elected representatives on the committee.
Mr. Garel-Jones : Of course, three member states, as mentioned by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), have indicated how they intend, broadly speaking, to appoint their members. I am simply making the point, which I believe to be a fair one, that two member states have so far not gone entirely down that road.
There is a case for a mix--a case that I hope the Committee will address. I am open-minded about this matter. The Government have not made any decisions. However, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider his own part of the kingdom and make his own judgment about the number of people who might be available, as that is an important aspect of the matter. He should consider whether the election of a representative--or two, or whatever number might be allocated--would be the proper route. I am genuinely interested in hearing the right hon. Gentleman's views.
Mr. Taylor : I am glad to detect a shift of emphasis in what the Minister has said. In his opening speech, he said that only two nations had made recommendations about their representatives on the Committee of the Regions. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that there were a further three. I note that the Minister no longer rejects what the Opposition spokesman has suggested.
Our own research paper mentions one of those three. It says : "Denmark-- number of seats, nine.
Column 533
The Danish Government has now made its nominations by agreement with the Association of Local and County Authorities and the city of Copenhagen : four seats to counties and municipalities, and one to the city of Copenhagen."So, in Denmark, the representatives are being selected in co-operation with the locally elected authorities. I could quote what is happening in the other countries, and I stand by my contention that most countries are clearly going for locally elected representatives on the Committee of the Regions.
Mr. Garel-Jones : The only point that I am seeking to establish is that it would not be against the spirit or the letter of the treaty not to have locally elected representatives. Clearly, that is one of the options available to us, but the Government have not made any decision. We shall listen carefully to the points that are made. The reason for my rejection of the Opposition's amendment is that it seeks to establish that all members of the Committee of the Regions must be locally elected councillors. That is not necessarily the answer.
Mr. Taylor : The Minister is right to say that he is under no obligation to appoint locally elected representatives to the new Committee of the Regions. The other 11 countries of the European Communities will concentrate on having elected representatives from the regions, and that is what we would prefer for the United Kingdom.
I gave as an example my experience in the European Parliament, on whose regional committee I was able to exercise influence when the Northern Ireland Office had failed to do so. I fear that, if it is left to the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office to send representatives to this committee, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will not have a truly representative voice. That is bound to be so in the case of Wales, which has an Englishman as Secretary of State.
Mr. Salmond : But there is a grave weakness even in the terms of the amendment. It uses the words
"shall be drawn from elected local government representatives." If it is left to the Government to choose the elected local representatives, they will still have the whip hand and the power of discretion. They will be able to select any local representatives who are amenable.
Mr. Taylor : Fortunately, they will not find any Conservative elected representatives in Northern Ireland. That will not be a major problem for us. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
Rev. Ian Paisley : There are Tory councillors, and they could well be chosen. Indeed, three of them could be picked.
Mr. Taylor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, most of those Conservatives have announced that they will join the Ulster Unionist party. The Tory candidate in the constituency of Belfast, East at the last general election has said that he intends to stand as an Ulster Unionist candidate in the forthcoming local elections.
Rev. Martin Smyth : I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend is making. Does he agree that, in the case of Northern Ireland, Ministers are appointing tame people who will do their bidding rather than represent the wishes of the people--especially when councils suggest people?
Column 534
Mr. Taylor : This is a common problem throughout Northern Ireland, and the more one listens to this debate the more one realises that it is shared in Wales and in Scotland. More and more quangos and other such bodies are being created in our parts of the United Kingdom. We are getting placemen rather than people who are truly representative of the local community.
The Minister asked whether I would like to have on this Committee an elected representative from Northern Ireland. The answer is yes. There is in Northern Ireland an association of local authorities. I should like to see on the Committee of the Regions some representation through that body. There should be at least two members from Northern Ireland.
Mr. Taylor : Two will be sufficient. If Scotland gets one, we shall take two.
I should like to refer to the cohesion fund, as I am very concerned about it.
Mrs. Dunwoody : The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, earlier in the day, the Minister was very cruel in referring to conspiracies on the Back Benches. As the Minister is now on the Opposition Front Bench, can we take it that there is a conspiracy there?
Mr. Taylor : I have already mentioned the transfer of several Conservatives to the Ulster Unionist party. I am glad that the Minister is moving closer to us.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I was simply doing my best to ascertain what had been arranged with my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. Collusion rages on all sides.
Mr. Taylor : I know that the Minister is an authority on collusion.
The cohesion fund is a matter of great concern throughout the United Kingdom. This is not a Northern Ireland issue. The regional fund was quite properly intended to assist the regions in greatest need. We heard, for example, about Mid Glamorgan. That is the sort of region that should qualify under the European regional development fund. But there are similar regions throughout the 12 countries of the European Communities.
The problem with the cohension fund is that it is not related to regions at all, that it is related to states--and to four states only. Although the whole emphasis of the Maastricht agreement is on giving more power to the regions and on the creation of a European union of the regions, it contains a contradiction, in that it creates a cohesion fund for four states only. That will damage the interests of some regions in states that are poorer than the four that are to benefit.
The Minister will have to explain more carefully the reason for this additional cohesion fund. Will it be able to do anything that the existing European development fund cannot do, or does not have the facilities to do? It seems to me that the European regional development fund is quite adequate. Indeed, it is better formulated to assist the really needy regions. It seems to me that the cohesion fund is simply a means of allocating money, through another institution, to discriminate in favour of four nations and to damage the interests of more needy regions.
I should like from the Minister a response to my earlier interjection about the Edinburgh decisions. The
Column 535
Government deserve some praise for the way in which they secured an agreement on the budget. That agreement should be contrasted with the claims of some countries and, of course, of M. Delors himself. The compromise was reasonable in the circumstances. But there is a matter in respect of which I have not seen the figures and would like an explanation. When we are agreeing on the raised ceiling of the European budget, how will the cohesion fund fare?What is the separate figure for the entire cohesion fund? When the Minister answered my earlier intervention he included the funding for the European regional development fund in the cohesion fund. We need to know the amount of the cohesion fund on its own. How much is to be allocated to the four sovereign states that are to benefit from it? 7 pm
The cohesion fund is a mistake. We should stick to the European regional development fund and help the needier regions in the Community. The cohesion fund presents a further problem for us in the United Kingdom. Some members of the Committee have spoken as though the cohesion fund would benefit the United Kingdom. They do not seem to realise that the United Kingdom will not receive one penny from the cohesion fund. The United Kingdom is fully excluded from the benefits of the cohesion fund.
However, one way in which we are not excluded from it is that we shall be one of its main financiers. The United Kingdom and Germany will have to provide most of the money for the European cohesion fund.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. Due to Britain's abatement, the Federal Republic of Germany and France are the main contributors to the cohesion fund. The Federal Republic contributes, I think, 30 per cent. and the French about 20 per cent. The rest of the money comes from the other richer countries, and Britain contributes 5 per cent. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was not quite correct.
Mr. Taylor : Yes, but our European partners consider the abatement a temporary arrangement. As the Minister well knows, they are trying to get it removed.
Mr. Garel-Jones : It will last until the end of this century, and even then can be changed only by unanimity.
Mr. Taylor : That was not the view of those who attended the European Council. Some of them were arguing to have it changed at once. That is the problem--the abatement is being challenged.
Mr. Garel-Jones : The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some countries wanted the system changed, but it can be changed only by unanimity--it will need our assent--and cannot even come up for discussion until the end of the century.
Mr. Taylor : As the Minister has said, the problem of financing the cohesion fund rests mainly with France, Germany and the United Kingdom-- even with our abatement. The position will be worse if the abatement disappears.
Mr. Jenkin : Is it not absolutely obvious that our European partners, which are desperate for us to ratify the
Column 536
treaty, are hardly likely to commit the grievous political error of clobbering us by taking away our abatement? When they have obtained their treaty, it may be a different story.Mr. Taylor : I fully understand that. The Minister understands collusion, and I think that he will understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. In Europe, things are done step by step. I think that the Minister said that the cohesion fund was part of a deal.
Mr. Taylor : Yes, a bargain. We bargained with four countries that they, and they alone, would receive money from the cohesion fund as long as they took certain actions.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall not intervene in the right hon. Gentleman's speech again, I promise. The arrangements made at Edinburgh-- which constituted a deal--set the financing of the European Community until 1999. The British abatement will not be discussed again until 1999, and can be altered only by unanimity.
Mr. Taylor : That does not change the main thrust of my argument. Even the Minister has confirmed that Germany, France and the United Kingdom will be the three main financiers of the cohesion fund. That must mean that we will have to find funds from our own national budget, which will probably lead to an increase in value added tax in the United Kingdom, in order to help finance the cohesion fund so that money can be given to the four other countries.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : The right hon. Gentleman may recall that, at the Edinburgh summit, special provisions relating to the eastern part of Germany were made to the cohesion fund. Those provisions were not well publicised, but I think that the figure was about 18 billion ecu--it may have been £18 billion, I am not sure. It was a substantial sum, which was kept very much under wraps. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Germans are making a contribution is offset by that additional amount? Bearing in mind the formula for the qualification for the cohesion fund--which is, I think, 90 per cent. of the average of the gross national product of the Community--how is Germany to make any contribution at all?
Mr. Taylor : The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of eastern Germany's special position, which I had totally forgotten. It helps to undercut the argument of the Minister when we realise that Germany may be making a major contribution, but some of it will come back to eastern Germany.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I have now checked, and the figures are even better than those that I gave the right hon. Gentleman earlier. He started by saying that Britain and Germany were paying for the cohesion fund. That is not correct. Germany and France are paying substantially more than the United Kingdom, as is Italy. Although I do not have the figures to hand, I would not be surprised if other countries were doing so as well. We are paying 5 per cent. of the cohesion fund.
Mr. Taylor : The United Kingdom is one of the main financiers of the European Community budget, of which the cohesion fund will be a part.
Column 537
Mr. Garel-Jones : We can discuss the budget under other groups of amendments, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that his original point was entirely inaccurate.
Mr. Taylor : No, it was not. The Minister is confirming it. He is saying that France, Germany and the United Kingdom--and he has just added Italy--are some of the main contributors to the cohesion fund.
Mr. Garel-Jones : The right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks, as Hansard will show, by saying that the United Kingdom and Germany financed the cohesion fund--they were the biggest contributors. I see that hon. Members are assenting to that proposition. From memory, I was able to say that Germany paid 30 per cent., France 20 per cent. and the United Kingdom- -because of its abatement--only 5 per cent. I have now been told by my advisors that Italy contributes substantially more than the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the budget, that is another matter, but it is important to nail the fact that he commenced by saying that the United Kingdom and Germany were the biggest contributors to the cohesion fund. That is not correct.
Mr. Taylor : It will be once the abatement disappears, and the thrust in Europe is to get the abatement removed, which will happen step by step. The thrust in Europe is to remove, in time, the British abatement which was negotiated by Mrs. Thatcher.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I do not think that the Committee should allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with that. It was agreed at Edinburgh that the British abatement should remain unchanged. It will come up for discussion at the end of the century. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will say that, at the end of the century, it will be changed. However, it is fixed until the end of the century--a substantial achievement by the Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman must produce better arguments to underpin what he is trying to say than those that he is presently giving the Committee.
Mr. Taylor : The Minister thinks that six years is a long time, but the arrangements will not necessarily last for six years. Those who follow the debate in Europe will know that most European nations are actively campaigning for the abatement to be withdrawn. They will not wait for six years. They may have agreed to that as part of the deal at Edinburgh to which the Minister referred, but once the Maastricht treaty is ratified, they will not hold back six years. The thrust to get rid of the abatement will increase and gain momentum.
Mr. Jenkin : The question is not whether we change the budget in 1999 but what budget there is, because the current budget provisions run out in 1999. It may be true that we cannot approve a new budget except by unanimity, but it will start with a blank sheet of paper.
Mr. Taylor : I intend to pursue the hon. Gentleman's point about the budget. The cohesion fund is only part of the overall European Community budget and the United Kingdom is one of the main contributors to that budget. Germany contributes even more. As expenditure increases on agriculture, the European regional development fund and the new cohesion fund, it will place a greater burden
Column 538
on United Kingdom taxpayers. Our Government will have to find additional funds to help finance the European community.Mr. Barry Legg (Milton Keynes, South-West) : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the financial perspective issued at the Edinburgh summit showed that the cohesion fund spending up to 1999 would amount to some 15 billion ecu? The Minister has told us that Britain will contribute 5 per cent. of that, so the United Kingdom will contribute £750 million into the cohesion fund and we will never get a single penny of it back.
Mr. Taylor : The hon. Gentleman put that in very straightforward terms. We will have to contribute £125 million a year for the next six years.
The money going into the cohesion fund and towards the increased expenditure of the European Community, which will increase further because of the cohesion fund, will mean that the Treasury will have to find more funds in forthcoming years--£125 million simply as our contribution to the cohesion fund. That must mean additional taxes in the United Kingdom. I suspect that it will mean an increase in VAT throughout the United Kingdom to help finance the increased budget requirements of the European Community.
Mr. Ian Taylor : Will the right hon. Gentleman please put his argument in context? He should remember that, despite the abatement we already have, the total controlled expenditure of the United Kingdom Government next year is £244.5 billion, so the sums of money that he mentions are not as critical to the overall budget as he makes out--and indeed many of us think they are going to a rather good cause.
Mr. John D. Taylor : That is an extremely interesting argument from a Conservative Member. He suggests that £150 million here or there is not terribly important to the national budget of the United Kingdom at a time when we are embarrassed by our public borrowing requirement. I fear for the future of the nation if the Conservative party thinks in that way. Now is the time to control public expenditure and not to dismiss £150 million here or there as if it were of no consequence.
Mr. Ian Taylor : The right hon. Gentleman cannot abuse my argument in that way. I said that that was a controlled total, so by definition it is controlled and the money is allocated within it. I was attempting to show the proportionality.
Mr. John D. Taylor : Proportionality is control, and I hope that the Government will stand over those controls in the forthcoming year as they prepare their budget. If it is controlled, the Government will have to decrease expenditure here in the United Kingdom in order to find extra funding to allocate to Europe.
I suspect that we will have increased taxes and VAT in the United Kingdom because of the increased budget of the European Community, partly because of the new cohesion fund. It hurts us in Northern Ireland to think that VAT may be increased to pay for the new cohesion fund which will to to Greece, Spain, Portugal--and, of course, our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland.
Sir Russell Johnston : As far as I can see, the right hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence whatsoever that the measure will result in VAT and tax increases. He should
Column 539
also note the second point raised by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor)--that the money was going to a good cause. Is he not at all interested in benefiting the poorer areas of the Community? If he is not, other people might not be interested in helping him with his problems.Mr. Taylor : It all depends on what one understands by a good cause. I believe that the more needy regions of the United Kingdom would be a good cause. However, instead of getting money from the European Community for the regions within the United Kingdom that need support, the Government have decided, as part of a deal, to use the Minister's words, to give it to four particular nations. We are being asked to help finance that.
Finance has to be found somewhere. It comes from taxes, and no Conservative Member can run away from the fact that the cohesion fund and the increased budget requirements of the European Community will mean that extra money will have to be found in the United Kingdom to help finance those four beneficiaries of the cohesion fund. That will lead to increased taxes throughout the United Kingdom, and I suspect that VAT will also increase. It will be resented throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom that we are being asked to increase taxation to help finance four countries which in some respect are much better off than some of the regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
7.15 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley : The Committee is getting more and more interesting because rules are coming into operation as our debate proceeds. Earlier today, the Minister would not let me intervene in his speech. I thought that that was what Committee work was all about--not for making Second Reading speeches but for the Minister to help us to understand what he was doing. He said that he would not let me get in because I was going to make a speech. He then allowed all and sundry to get in, but I was not allowed to intervene because I was going to make a speech. I know that the Minister is anxious to explain now. He may lower his glasses almost to the tip of his nose and smile with the bedside manner of an old village doctor telling his patient that all is well, that heaven is in front of him and he will escape purgatory, but those are the facts.
Even the Chairman told us at the beginning of the debate that he would be absolutely fair to all sections of the United Kingdom. I have attended all the debates except one and only now am I able to speak. The other night when I tried to speak, the Minister contrived to close the debate ; now he is about to tell us how much he loves Northern Ireland and how much he hates me.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I think that the hon. Gentleman understood the point that I was making. An hon. Member representing Northern Ireland has said on a point of order that Northern Ireland Members had a particular interest in the debate, and as they wished to return to the Province later in the day were keen to get in quickly. The only point that I was seeking to make to the hon. Gentleman in all friendliness was that I did not want to take up the Committee's time in such a way as to cause inconvenience to hon. Members such as himself.
Rev. Ian Paisley : I find it strange that the Minister is now dividing the House into the nations which make up
| Next Section
| Home Page |