House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Feb 1993

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In my original point of order that I raised on Monday this week, when the Committee and, I am sure, the country were very appreciative of your decision concerning an opportunity to debate the effect on ratification of the treaty of amendment 27 being carried, I asked you about a further debate on the substance of amendment 27 and the social protocol. You were good enough to say on Monday :

"We are some way off a vote on amendment No. 27, and other developments may occur at any time, but at this juncture I am minded to take seriously the need for a further debate before the Committee votes on that amendment."-- [ Official Report , 22 February 1993 ; Vol. 219, c. 685.]

Since then, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has submitted amendment No. 443, in support of which I shall be appending this afternoon the names of Opposition Front-Bench Members. That is clearly related to the subject of the social protocol, the

Column 1026

debate on which has come and gone. I seek your guidance, Mr. Morris, since amendment No. 443 does not appear in today's provisional selection of amendments, on what your intention might be on that amendment, the subject in general, and therefore the position of the Committee in relation to fresh amendments on the subject the legal implications of which we discussed on Monday.

The Chairman : As the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated, developments are always occurring. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that on Monday I left open the possibility of a further debate on amendment No. 27. As I said then, other developments may occur at any time and I am not therefore prepared to announce my decision now--although, of course, I shall make the Committee aware of my decision in good time. Equally, amendment No. 443, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is under my consideration. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issues raised are very complex and there is no immediate need for a decision. My concern now is not to be over-hasty ; a little delay will, I think, be wise.

Several Hon. Members rose--

The Chairman : There can be nothing further to that point of order.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As you are the senior occupant of the Chair during the Committee's proceedings, may I put a point of order to you? Several comments have been made--you may have heard them--regarding our progress, or lack of progress, in the Committee stage. Some of those comments come from abroad. Will you take the opportunity to confirm that it is entirely up to the Committee debating the Bill to decide on progress and that we shall certainly not be influenced in any way by people abroad, however high or senior their positions may be? That applies to Chancellor Kohl--and to anyone else, for that matter.

The Chairman : My job is to ensure that there is a full and fair debate and I am satisfied that we are making adequate progress against that yardstick.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I much appreciate your comments about considering matters in a measured way and examining things carefully over a period, especially since a new and important amendment has been tabled. May I therefore suggest it would be a good idea to adjourn the Committee until next week, to give you the necessary time?

The Chairman : I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind concern for my well-being, but at the moment I am pretty fit and able to make decisions--when they are appropriate.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am sure that you heartened the Committee by saying that you wanted to ensure that there was always full and fair debate, but you will be aware that closures have often been moved in the Committee which have prevented Ministers from replying to important points raised by Back Benchers. I should not wish to impinge on your jurisdiction in any way, but will you do your best to ensure that such abuse of the Committee does not happen?

Column 1027

The Chairman : The Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman's plea--although I must say that I do not accept his premise.

Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I appreciate what you said about the need to consider amendment No. 443 further, but would it be possible to give the Committee any idea when a decision on that important matter may be conveyed to us?

The Chairman : In good time.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : Not many people take three weeks to deliver a speech and I shall endeavour to keep my remarks as short as I can. At the end of the debate on Thursday 4 February, which is recorded in column 576 of the Official Report for that day, we were discussing whether those representing local authorities should be appointed to take all the United Kingdom's places on the Committee of the Regions.

The Minister of State argued that, because certain other countries had nominated individuals not directly elected from local or regional authorities, the United Kingdom was free to follow suit. He suggested that Greece and the Netherlands were good examples of countries whose nominated representatives on the Committee of the Regions were not chosen exclusively from directly elected local government representatives. The Minister had emphasised the Government's view earlier :

"I do not think that it is necessary that there be an obligation on any Government to ensure that all the nominees are from local government."-- [ Official Report, 4 February 1993 ; Vol. 218, c. 515.]

It is necessary to look in more detail at the people actually appointed in Greece and the Netherlands. I am a little concerned that the Minister's advisers in the Foreign Office may have let him down--although I cannot imagine how that could have happened. It appears that a slightly more detailed examination of those who have been nominated from Greece and the Netherlands might present a picture rather different from that suggested by the Minister. 4.45 pm

Every Netherlands representative is from a local authority. Within the Dutch system of local government, councils and their executive bodies are chaired by Government-appointed Queen's commissioners, known as Burgemeesters. Seven of those Queen's commissioners have been chosen, with five members of Dutch local and provincial authorities. As the Queen's commissioners are effectively the mayors of councils in the Netherlands, they are entirely accountable to elected bodies. They are clearly therefore part of the local government system and would be recognised as such if their equivalents had been nominated in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) : I do not want to sound nit-picking, but the point thaI was trying to establish--the hon. Gentleman may agree with me--is that the seven Queen's commissioners are not elected.

Mr. Hoon : I accept that they are not elected, but clearly they are representatives of local authorities. That is the pont that I sought to establish.

Similarly, the Greek representatives are eight elected members of Greek local authorities and four regional administrators known as nomarchs. To be fair to the

Column 1028

Minister of State, I must admit that those four people are Government appointees, but they are in effect responsible for regional administration in Greece, so they have responsibilities that we would identify with local government.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope that he will recognise that in a sense he is speaking against the amendment tabled by his hon. Friend, which clearly refers to "elected local government representatives".

Mr. Hoon : I am speaking to the Minister of State's assertion that he can justify the appointment of the Government's friends from the health authorities, the regional arts boards and the Welsh Office and Scottish Office, instead of local government representatives. The argument that I seek to advance is that the representatives appointed by the Netherlands and Greece are in fact people who represent local government as we understand it. That could not be said of representatives from the Welsh Office or the Scottish Office. Perhaps the argument could be readily resolved. The Minister has made it clear that he sees no obligation for the Government to appoint directly elected people from local authorities to take all the relevant places for the United Kingdom. Will he make it equally clear that he does not intend to appoint people with no connection with local government? That would satisfy many Opposition Members that he was concerned to reflect the interests of local authorities in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Does not the critical difference, which the Minister has failed to recognise, depend on who chose those people in Holland and Greece? Is not the critical question whether they were chosen by central Government or chosen to reflect the choice of local authorities?

Mr. Hoon : Certainly I believe that the Minister's choice of countries to justify his assertion has been somewhat selective. Decisions already taken in Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Spain and Luxembourg make it clear that only elected members of local or regional authorities will be included in those countries' delegations to the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the Minister's arguments against choosing directly elected representatives of local authorities was that he estimated that it would take them one or two days a week fully to discharge their responsibilities and that that would be inconsistent with their responsibilities to local authorities? It would be interesting to know how the Minister reconciles that argument with the expressed desire of the Secretary of State for Wales to represent Wales and therefore to spend two days a week away from Whitehall.

Mr. Hoon : I am grateful for the hon. Member's observation, because that is a point that was canvassed in the earlier part of this debate some three weeks ago. It certainly strikes me as inconsistent that the Government could make a point in relation to the time that it would involve when members of the Government are indicating their interest in these positions.

Much of the confusion might be resolved by looking carefully at the role and functions of the Committee of the

Column 1029

Regions. In this debate, it is being considered along with structural funding. Some hon. Members have tended to suggest that the sole responsibility of the Committee of the Regions would be the distribution of European funds, but its real purpose is to involve new and different levels of government in the framing of European legislation and policy. So in addition to the European Parliament and national governments and parliaments, the idea of the Committee of the Regions is to permit local and regional government across the Community to have its say in the framing of new European legislation. It may appear to right hon. and hon. Members particularly appropriate, given the responsibility of local and regional authorities for the implementation and enforcement of large parts of the European Community's legislation.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : The hon. Member has just made a very important point on local and regional interests, which do not tally entirely with elected representatives. Indeed, a wide spectrum of interests could well be represented in the Committee of the Regions. In addition, the problem with just taking elected representatives is how they are selected. The Western Isles might be represented by a Strathclyde-elected member, which might not go down too well. One can see the complications. A balance must be achieved and the proposals in the amendment do not strike that balance.

Mr. Hoon : I said "authorities", not "interests". I specifically used the word "authorities" to try to prevent the question asked by the hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that we are looking at a different approach to European legislation. The idea is to allow those who are ultimately responsible for the enforcement of the legislation some say in its final shape, so that when they come to enforcement they can, in the light of their practical experience, say that a particular idea is good or bad.

Unfortunately, article 198 does not spell out the specific areas of competence of the Committee of the Regions--it is necessary to look elsewhere--but as well as matters affecting regional policy, legislation in public health, education, culture, consumer protection and trans-European networks will be referred to the Committee of the Regions for a formal opinion. It is an opinion that must be given before the Council of Ministers can consider any draft legislation. In other areas, although there is no obligation to consult, the Council may consult the Committee of the Regions, and in addition the Committee of the Regions can, if it considers it appropriate, decide to deliver a formal opinion on its own initiative--under article 198c--in cases where it considers such action appropriate. It seems likely that the Committee of the Regions will use that power extensively as its own competence develops.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : Is it not also possible that this Committee of the Regions might turn out to be one more way in which the European Community will be able to bypass the House? Article 130 says that, when the European Community wants specifically to extend its activities outside the funds, without reference back to the main framework, it will be able to do so by the unanimous decision of various bodies, including this committee. It is

Column 1030

a way in which the Community can end up saying that it has authority to act in a particular way while leaving the House entirely out of it.

Mr. Hoon : With great respect, I believe that the hon. Member sees dangers where none exists. The Committee of the Regions is invited to give an opinion on legislation. What it has, therefore, is a delaying power similar to the delaying power presently enjoyed by the European Parliament. It can refuse to give an opinion and thus delay the process of legislation, but it cannot force the Council of Ministers to take a positive decision. That seems appropriate. The point that I am trying to make is that the Committee of the Regions will allow the European Community a greater spectrum of opinion by permitting people--who are, I hope, elected from local or regional government--to indicate the sorts of difficulty that they have in considering new proposals for European legislation, in order that those new proposals fully take account of their needs and concerns. It seems a wholly welcome and sensible development.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Before the hon. Member gets carried away too far with the great power of this new body, will he accept that the power of delay, which he has stressed as a great democratic development, is subject to the Commission, under article 198c, having the power to say that the maximum delay is four weeks? Will he agree that it is a load of codswallop and that what we are doing is creating something of which the Soviet Union and eastern Europe were full--useless workers' organisations with nothing to do but spend money on themselves and express opinions which can be wholly disregarded?

Mr. Hoon : I was not exaggerating the committee's powers. Indeed, I went out of my way to say how limited those powers were, but I wonder whether the local authorities in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would share his opinion. They very often have to enforce European legislation and they might welcome the opportunity of having a direct say in how the legislation develops. That is really all that the Committee of the Regions is designed to achieve and it seems to me an entirely sensible and not at all dangerous development. I am astonished at the difficulties that certain hon. Members see in relation to this proposal.

The reason why I have stressed the functions of the Committee of the Regions is that, in the Maastricht treaty, article 198a states that its members

"shall be completely independent in the performance of their duties".

That makes it clear to me that membership of the committee would not be compatible with membership of a national Government. It should be possible for the Minister of State to be as categorical as he was in relation to local authorities in saying that the Government have no plans to nominate Ministers or, perhaps more signifi-cantly, their substitutes.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under protocol 16, there is a requirement for the new Committee of the Regions to share a common organisational structure with the Economic and Social Committee? The Economic and Social Committee has nine areas or functions with which it is concerned and which do not coincide with the functions, as we understand it, of the Committee of the Regions. Furthermore, the arguments

Column 1031

that he has just adduced, and in line with point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that the nation state itself and its own status are at risk, are those directed to a Committee of the Regions which would, on his own argument, be independent and so form the nucleus of a new unitary state in Europe. In other words, does he accept that he is moving in the direction of acquiescing in the unitary vision of the European Community as it is being constructed?

Mr. Hoon : With great respect, I honestly feel that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is found in the terms of his question. By referring to the Economic and Social Committee, he is pointing out the way in which the European Community has a variety of sources of information about legislation, of which the Economic and Social Committee is one. It is possible for the Economic and Social Committee, representing business and the trade unions, for example, to put forward its point of view, and it does so within the areas of responsibility that it has to reflect those particular concerns. Similarly, the European Parliament has directly elected Members of the European Parliament to reflect the views of their constituents. In exactly the same way, the Committee of the Regions will be able to reflect that degree of administration in each member state which we would think of as local authorities. As I see it, it is a way of decentralising decision making, not creating a unitary state. There will be a series of different institutions, each capable of giving an opinion on new European legislation, which will surely add to the quality of the legislation--something with which we should all be concerned.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a bit much for Conservative Members, who have consistently supported a Government who have been suppressing the national rights of nations within the United Kingdom, to whinge about the national rights of this Parliament being eroded? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Committee of the Regions is a way of enhancing the rights of regions and small nations within member states, such as the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hoon : I agree entirely with that. That is why I found it surprising that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) saw the committee as a means of centralising the decision-making process of the European Community rather than the reverse.

5 pm

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the requirement under article 198a that members "shall be competely independent in the performance of their duties"

creates an ambiguity about their status within the member states? The European Court of Justice might ultimately interfere with that and lay down guidelines on how appointments should be made, for example, preventing direct Government appointees as we automatically assume.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) : Why?

Mr. Jenkin : If my hon. Friend is suggesting that he can give me an assurance about the future behaviour of the European Court, he is a wiser man than anyone else.

Column 1032

Mr. Hoon : The answer is that the European Court of Justice will interpret the treaty. It will start with the terms of the treaty and then give effect to it, which is why I quoted from that section. In the event of a member state being tempted to appoint to the Committee of the Regions someone who was not independent, it might lead to a challenge such as the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned, but only on the basis that the individual was not independent, say, of Government. If the Secretary of State for Wales continues in his ambition to be a member of the committee, that might be challenged on the basis of his lack of independence.

Similarly, it might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that there is talk in Greece of challenging the four appointees to whom I referred earlier, simply on the basis that they are

Government-nominated administrators of the regions and therefore perhaps not as independent as they might be. Once again, that demonstrates the difficulty which the Minister of State has had with the advice and the information that he is given.

On funding, it appears that we have not concentrated sufficiently in the debate on the cohesion and the structural funds, specifically as they apply to the United Kingdom. By tending to concentrate on the Committee of the Regions, we have perhaps overlooked the important role played by the European Community in the redistribution of funds from the richer to the poorer areas of the Community.

I was disappointed that in earlier contributions some hon. Members appeared to challenge the very basis of the structural funds, arguing against any redistribution of wealth within the Community from richer to poorer nations and from richer to poorer regions. The justification for the redistribution is altruistic and ethical, but it is also economic and political. If the European Community is to develop and grow, and continue as a community, it must offer a consistent and coherent set of standards across the whole of its geographical area. It must aim as a priority to reduce regional disparities.

Moreover, if the more developed northern countries are to continue to have markets for their manufactured goods, they need to encourage and foster growth in the less-developed south of Europe.

Mr. Wilkinson : Why should it not be the priority of Her Majesty's Government to maximise the wealth of this country and this nation, through the structural funds and everything else? Is not it irresponsible to our electorate to export jobs to southern Europe and create industries to compete with our own in Portugal, Spain, Greece and so on?

Mr. Hoon : I sought to develop that argument. It is not simply a question of redistributing wealth within the United Kingdom, which I hope the hon. Member for Ruislip-North (Mr. Wilkinson) supports, as his question suggests, but equally of redistributing wealth across the Community. Redistribution is not just an ethical priority ; it benefits industry in countries like the United Kingdom. Unless countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece develop the wealth that we take for granted, their people will not be in a position to consume the manufactured goods that our industries want to produce. So there is a benefit to the United Kingdom, to its people and to its industry in allowing the European Community to develop consistently across its territory.

Column 1033

The point that I want to make about the structural funds arises in article 123. There will be a change in the way in which the funds will operate as a result of the Maastricht treaty. Article 123 will facilitate workers' adaptation

"to industrial changes and to changes in production systems, in particular through vocational training and retraining."

That is a welcome development since it will allow local authorities to provide proper education and training for those hardest hit by the recession.

There will be few changes in objective 2 status, although it appears that the Commission is likely to permit greater flexibility in determining eligibility criteria. Objective 3 will be redefined to permit assistance to the long-term unemployed for the occupational integration of young people in particular. There will be a new objective 4, responding directly to the new and changed role of the European social fund regarding workers affected by industrial change throughout the Community. So there is a significant development for the European Commission in making funds available directly to assist those hardest hit by the recession.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the effectiveness so far of funding in the regions has been largely impeded by Her Majesty's Government because there is no regional policy and because of the failure to provide matching funds?

Mr. Hoon : My hon. Friend anticipates my next point.

Notwithstanding the availability of funds from the European Community, and a revision of the schemes available, the United Kingdom Government have demonstrated their marked reluctance to match the efforts of the Community.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : I hope that I have got the hon. Gentleman right. The hon. Gentleman talks about objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4, and says that the Commission will do this, that and the other. How can that be the case? We have not even ratified the treaty yet.

Mr. Hoon : If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I will explain. A revision of the structural funds is to commence on 1 January 1994. Since the European Commission correctly anticipates that the new rules under Maastricht will not be in place by the relevant time, it is producing a new system for 1 January 1994, to last for six years, without the treaty having been ratified. That is why the comments about the Committee of the Regions earlier in the debate were misplaced, because the committee will not have the opportunity to make specific comments about the review of the new arrangements for structural funding until the next but one review of the system. Therefore, the changes are being made under the existing rules rather than under what is likely. Obviously the Commission is taking into account the terms of the treaty as it frames the new programmes. What is in considerable doubt is the extent to which the United Kingdom Government are willing to match the funds available from the European Community. Bruce Millan, the Regional Policy Commissioner, has indicated that Britain is at risk of losing up to £1 billion in European Community financial assistance to our most depressed regions because the Government are not prepared to

Column 1034

authorise the relevant matching funds. Not a penny of the £1 billion available for 1992 and 1993 had been spent by the end of last year. That means that in total a package of about £2.5 billion of public expenditure has to be committed in the next 10 months. If the money is not committed in the next 10 months, there is a clear risk that it will be lost to the United Kingdom and will go to other European countries.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) : My hon. Friend is making an important point. Obviously, we all want more public expenditure. How does he equate the need for extra public expenditure with the other parts of the treaty which say that we must reduce our public expenditure to 3 per cent. in terms of financing?

Mr. Hoon : I always understood that my right hon. Friend was sympathetic to the responsibility of the Government to use their economic ability to generate employment. I am concentrating on those parts of the treaty and, indeed, the review of the structural funds which allow Governments in the European Community, in partnership with the Community itself, to redistribute the wealth of the Community in a way which I hope my right hon. Friend would support.

Mr. Davies : Perhaps my hon. Friend misunderstood my question. I certainly was not against more British Government public expenditure to match any European expenditure ; I was merely pointing out that in another part of the treaty we are supposed to cut our public expenditure to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent. of gross national product. That seems to be a basic contradiction.

Mr. Hoon : The best way of dealing with my right hon. Friend's point is probably to wait until we get to the part of the debate which deals with that specific subject. Obviously, we are considering the whole package. We are not simply concentrating on bits here and there and pointing out apparent inconsistencies : we are seeking the whole package. The whole package presupposes a commitment by the United Kingdom Government and other Governments in the European Community to play their part in relieving the regions of the chronic poverty and unemployment from which they suffer at present.

Mr. Ian Taylor : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being generous enough to give way to me a second time.

The answer to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is that the Community's budget is set for the next seven years. Therefore, what the Community does in terms of internal adjustment to the budget obviously represents a series of political judgments. It does not change the national commitment to reduce overall Government expenditure to the 3 per cent. ceiling over a period.

The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) is interested in trying to create jobs through structural expenditure. Does he recognise the constructive role which the European investment bank can have in juxtaposition with private capital? That is precisely what was agreed at the Edinburgh summit. The role of the European investment bank, in attracting private capital rather than putting a burden on taxpayers, is one to which the hon. Gentleman should pay tribute and which he should recognise.

Mr. Hoon : I agree with that entirely. I have no disagreement with the hon. Gentleman in making that point. However, what I disagree and have difficulty with is

Column 1035

the attitude of the United Kingdom Government towards local authorities. The United Kingdom Government have consistently blocked the ability of local authorities to match the funds available from the European Community. In the past, that has led to the European Commission freezing the sums available under the RECHAR scheme for mining areas. That row should have been resolved last year, but it appears that the Government are still not allowing local authorities to play their full part in the process.

The Association of Metropolitan Authorities wrote to the European Commission complaining about the attitude of the United Kingdom Government towards additionality. The Regional Policy Commissioner replied :

"I am indeed concerned by the accumulating evidence that there are difficulties in funding resource cover, which put at risk the take-up of E.R.D.F. grants and thus the implementation of the agreed programme."

There is a concern in the European Commission that the United Kingdom will not receive the funding for which it is eligible. Local authorities have experienced considerable problems in securing European funding--not problems with the European Commission but with their own Government as a result of bureaucratic delays in Whitehall. Local authorities complain about complicated systems of administration of those funds in Whitehall, about central Government interfering in the regional programmes and insisting on prior vetting of certain payments and about not being allowed to make matching cover available in order to secure funds. They have made a series of comments on the sort of difficulties from which they suffer. Beyond anything else, local authorities are saying that the Government's system of allocating public expenditure makes it extraordinarily difficult for them to plan in advance to secure appropriate funding. The reality of that, for which the Government are responsible, is that the United Kingdom is missing out on money which it would otherwise receive from the European Community. That is ironic, considering that this debate has featured a number of Conservative Members complaining bitterly about the amount of European funding going to the poorest nations and regions of the European Community. If Conservative Members directed some of their complaints to those on the Government Front Bench, it might be a somewhat more accurate complaint to make. If the United Kingdom is missing out on money which would otherwise be available from the European Community, it might be more sensible for Conservative Members to complain to Ministers, instead of complaining about the money going to the poorest countries in the Community.

5.15 pm

Mrs. Gorman : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the structural funds, which will handle £23 billion, will have a terrible job keeping track of that money? For example, is he aware of the latest scandal in Greece, where they have fiddled £45 million of taxpayers' money by exaggerating their harvest, another fiddle in Rome where they have fiddled £22.7 million for cooking the statistics on durum wheat, another scandal about oil in Calabria and so on? Given those vast sums of money, how will we keep track of the fact that people--never mind our regions-- will be fiddling like mad?

Column 1036

Mr. Hoon : I might be somewhat more persuaded by the hon. Lady's intervention and her examples if she had paid regard to what I said about the difficulties of local authorities in the United Kingdom securing European funding. That is the point that I am making. It is no good complaining about what is going on elsewhere in Greece or Portugal when the Government--whom from time to time the hon. Lady supports--are not making their best contribution in terms of getting funding from the European Community.

Mr. Macdonald : Might not the difficulties be somewhat eased after the ratification of the treaty? I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed that article 130b permits each national Government to pursue policies of economic and social cohesion through their national policies as well as in their contributions to the Community. After the treaty is ratified, there will be a constraint on the British Government to pursue regional policies and ones which improve the prospects of local authorities and make it possible for local authorities to challenge them in the European Court if they fail to live up to the treaty's obligations.

Mr. Hoon : That is right, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance in that respect. Essentially, I am demonstrating that we could have a much simpler system if the United Kingdom Government allowed local authorities to carry through the decisions which they have already made with the European Commission in terms of funding specific projects. Local authorities have already agreed with Brussels the projects that I am describing where the money has not been spent. Unfortunately, because of the complexities of the system in Whitehall, authorisation has not always been received, so many local authorities are simply waiting for authorisation from Whitehall to go ahead with schemes that they have already agreed with Brussels.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : I am listening with great care to the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech, which undoubtedly reflects his experience in the European Parliament. Would not he be correct in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) by saying that the reports of the Court of Auditors say repeatedly and with great emphasis that fraud occurs in all member states?

Mr. Hoon : I am grateful for that observation.

Mr. Wilkinson : The hon. Gentleman takes Whitehall to task for not authorising, if I have his figures right, some £2.5 billion of British public expenditure in order to have the benefit of £1 billion from Brussels. Is it not the case that, of that £1 billion from Brussels, only about £200 or £300 million constitutes British money which went to Brussels in the first place? Therefore, it would be bad arithmetic and logic that, to get back £200 or £300 million of our own money, we would have to expend £2.5 billion which it is not necessary to expend at a time of economic stringency.

Mr. Hoon : The hon. Gentleman and I have a different perspective on whose money belongs to whom. The money which the European Community distributes is money which it is responsible for collecting directly. It is part of the system of the European Community. Clearly, it is possible to break that down and say which countries give

Column 1037

which amount of money, but that is simply the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has in coming to terms with the obligations that we have had as a member of the European Community since the beginning of 1973. The world has moved on.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hoon : I give way for one last time. I am trying to finish.

Mr. Shepherd : Will the hon. Gentleman return to the point made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)? The treaty contends that we should depress public expenditure to meet certain criteria, while he advocates an increase in public expenditure. How does he reconcile those two arguments?

Mr. Hoon : I thought that I had said how I proposed to deal with that question. It is much more sensible to do it on that basis. I began this speech some three weeks ago by complaining about the attitude of the United Kingdom Government to local authorities and their elected members in the context of appointments to the Committee of the Regions. The Minister of State poured scorn on those criticisms. I have concluded my speech tonight by demonstrating the practical attitude of the Government to local authorities, which have sought strenuously to secure funds from the European Community but have been consistently blocked in those efforts by our Government. That is a matter of great regret, but it is a practical demonstration of the Government's attitude to local authorities.

Next Section

Home Page