House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Feb 1993

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : This is an interesting opportunity to speak on the Committee of the Regions as we consider the Maastricht treaty. I am speaking to amendments which have been tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats. We make strong arguments in support of the Committee of the Regions and seek to expound our view on how the committee should develop.

It is important, first, that I put on record my principled stance that for a Scottish Nationalist or Welsh Nationalist or, indeed, Liberal Democrat, the Committee of the Regions will never be a substitute for the right of our nations to be represented independently within the European Community, with full access to the Council of Ministers and the Commission, where so many of the key decisions are taken.

As a member of the Scottish National party, I believe that we should have full independent representation within the Community. Having said that, we must talk clearly about a Committee of the Regions which will not regard Scotland or Wales as regions but deal with the regions of Wales and Scotland. That is what we seek in examining how the membership of the committee should be founded. Some people say that the proposed Committee of the Regions should have merely a consultative role, and therefore dismiss some aspects of it. I have always believed that consultation is important in the political process. Others have said that the Committee of the Regions will take on a lobbying role. The hon. Member for Ashfield

Column 1038

(Mr. Hoon) said that the structural funds had already been altered. Therefore, the lobbying aspect of structural funds and various objectives have perhaps already been decided.

However, I have no doubt that ultimately the Committee of the Regions will play a substantial role in the allocation of the structural funds. I agree with the Minister of State that the committee will ultimately accrue to itself additional powers. I share his optimism that the committee has a great deal of potential. If Europe is not over-centralised or over- bureaucratic but has real meaning for people in every corner of the European Community--in the most far-flung island in the north of Scotland or a Greek island in the Aegean sea--people will have a sense of involvement. The Committee of the Regions has the potential to be meaningful to all of us. The institutions of Europe will change in the next 10 years. I find it depressing to listen to some of the loyal imperialists and backwoodsmen and women on the Conservative Benches who seem afraid of change. Europe offers us a facility for change which is challenging and exciting. We should not take it too easily but we should be prepared to rise to the opportunity and ensure that our people play their full role.

We shall definitely see Europe expand in the next few years. In expanding Europe, we must ensure that the voices of all people are heard. It is possible that Norway, Austria and other countries will join our Community. As the insitutions evolve and develop, we must all be there to argue that the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the Parliament and the Committee of the Regions accrue to themselves additional powers but at the same time decentralise those powers. When we consider the Committee of the Regions as it is contained in the treaty, one argument worries hon. Members on these Benches and, I know, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). We are worried about the distribution of the 24 seats which have been allocated to the United Kingdom. If we considered Scotland as a nation equal to Denmark, we could argue that it should have nine seats. If we considered Wales as equivalent to the Republic of Ireland, it, too, should have nine seats on the Committee of the Regions. If we considered Northern Ireland as the equivalent of Luxembourg, it should have six seats. That neatly adds up to 24 seats. The Minister might like to start an "independence for England" movement so that it can also have adequate representatives for the regions of England.

I make a serious point. The south-west and north-west of England are different and have regional variations ; people who live there also have the right to be represented. But the 24 seats will have to be allocated for the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. There will be severe difficulty in allocating the seats. I make no secret of the fact that I believe that Scotland should have a minimum of eight seats. That would reflect the Scottish seats in the European Parliament and would make it possible to take account of the geographical variations.

Earlier today, in an exchange on the Floor of the House, I referred to the importance of objective 1 for the highlands and islands of Scotland, and asked where the boundaries will be drawn. Will Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Highland regional council or other boundaries be used? The highlands and islands have different economic and social needs from, for example, the central belt of Scotland, where what is left of our industry certainly creates specific needs. The borders of Scotland

Column 1039

have different needs again. They are all different regions. The north-east of Scotland has a particular interest in the offshore oil and gas industry. In deciding how to allocate the seats, it will be important to take account of the geographic and economic needs of different regions.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be sacrificed to the needs of Greater London. Greater London seems to have its full share of people who are prepared to argue their case elsewhere. I remind the Minister that the Secretary of State for Scotland said on 23 November 1992 that he would bid extremely high for seats for Scotland on the Committee of the Regions. I hope that that will ultimately be reflected in the allocation.

Another issue is the mechanism for appointing, nominating or electing the representatives on the Committee of the Regions. We have made it clear in our amendments that we would prefer direct elections. We believe that that is the fairest way. Direct elections would give a credibility and authority to our representatives on the Committee. I suspect that the Government will not accept the idea of direct elections. Perhaps that reflects the view of the Member of the European Parliament for Lothians, David Martin. He said that direct elections to the Committee of the Regions could give people ideas beyond their responsibilities, but that is not a proper attitude. I would prefer representatives from throughout the United Kingdom to be directly elected and accountable for their areas.

One of the difficulties is that the Government have not been able to come up with a principled outline of where they stand on the mechanism. The research paper from the House of Commons Library makes it clear that other countries have taken a principled outline, although they may not yet have settled the details of how they will make appointments.

In considering the mechanism for appointment and nomination of representatives to the Committee of the Regions, we should take account of geography, and there must be a geographical balance. Scottish representatives from the islands will identify with people from other islands elsewhere in the Community. Representatives from the central belt of Scotland will identify with other Community countries that have industrial interests. They will not solely argue the corner for Scotland, but will argue the case in specific spheres of policy which clearly relate to the geography of our communities. 5.30 pm

Secondly, there must be an element of proportionality. Four parties operate in the political spheres of Wales and Scotland, and members of those parties all stand for election to this Parliament, the European Parliament and to district and regional authorities. Much to my regret, we do not have proportional representation within the United Kingdom--or to be technically correct, within Great Britain--which would be extremely desirable.

When the Government produce any mechanism for deciding representation on the Committee of the Regions, they must take account of the proportion of votes cast for each political party at an election. In one of our amendments, we have attempted to link that proportionality to the European election which is due to take place next year. If we are not going to have direct elections to the Committee of the Regions, the votes cast at that election will be the most recent test of public opinion. I suggest that there must be an element of proportionality to reflect that.

Column 1040

We must take a separate account of votes cast in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland--where they already have proportional representation for European elections--and in England.

Scottish nationalists are not prepared to accept the idea that there should be any quango-type appointments by the Secretary of State, whereby he can select the people whom he thinks would represent his interests as opposed to those of the people of Scotland.

On the amendment which stands in the name of the Official Opposition, I can understand why they look to local government as an appropriate body to represent us on the Committee of the Regions. My understanding, however, is that anyone who serves on that committee will have to commit themselves to a minimum of 140 days per year, and perhaps more. A substantial number of days is involved--even under the alternative suggestions--and I therefore believe that the people chosen to be on the committee--

Mr. Wilkinson : Quangos.

Mrs. Ewing : If Conservative backwoodsmen would be quiet, they might hear some information. It is difficult to speak against the background of rowdyism from the anti-Europeans across the Floor. The importance that we attach to the Committee of the Regions will be demonstrated by the first people chosen to serve on it. They must not be part-timers, or people who are expected to represent their constituents in the local ward or local government while also having to take themselves off to Brussels and Strasbourg. They must be given full authority by being genuine representatives on the committee. I think that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will agree that no one fought the last district or general elections in Scotland with any commitment in their manifestos that they would seek nomination to the Committee of the Regions if they were elected. European issues did not come into the last local government elections.

While there is an important role for local authorities on the committee, I do not necessarily think it correct that we should consider local authority representatives alone.

Mr. George Robertson : The hon. Lady has an argument, although she used so-called information from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which as we now know is not always reliable, when she mentioned the work load that might be involved. Will she watch what she says as she develops her case? The amendment tabled in her name and that of her hon. Friends from the Scottish National party, which has been selected in the provisional selection for today, seeks to amend the Opposition amendment, but will leave in place the principle that members will be elected local government representatives. If she is arguing against that, she may have to reformulate the amendment that she and her colleagues have tabled and intend to press to a Division.

Mrs. Ewing : I would be interested to know whether the hon. Member for Hamilton accepts our amendment. We have tried to build an element of proportionality into it, recognising that we have four political parties in Scotland and that the political views of people in Scotland should be taken into account. If George Bolton can say that 630,000

Column 1041

people voting for the Scottish National party at the last election cannot be ignored, I do not think the hon. Member for Hamilton can challenge them too seriously on that matter.

I understand the Government's difficulties in trying to reach a democratic mechanism for the nomination, appointment or election of people to the Committee of the Regions. Through our amendment, we seek to link representation to proportionality and to public opinion in Scotland and the future of the committee, tying it in with the changes in institutions that will occur. I hope that, in his response, the Minister of State will fully recognise that those are key principles which cannot be ignored.

I have strong reservations about the Opposition amendment, because it links solely to local government. The Committee of the Regions goes well beyond that, and I hope that the Government will take that into account.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mo n) : If a week is a long time in politics, the last three weeks appear to have been an absolute eternity. I can tell the Minister of State that we have used the time wisely because we have studied carefully his remarks on 4 February when formulating our response on the Committee of the Regions, cohesion funds and the way in which structural funds should operate, especially from our prospective in Wales.

I wish to speak to the amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru. We have also tabled joint amendments with the Scottish National party.

As the Committee appreciates, the Committee of the Regions will be established by article 198a of the Maastricht treaty, where it is described as an "advisory" body to be set up in recognition of the fact that the regions of Europe have an important role to play in the way in which the European Community evolves.

It is important to stress that, in recent years, the role of the regions has been enhanced greatly outwith the formal Community institutions. The German la"nder, for example, already have a strong, but informal presence in Brussels. They have established offices there and are lobbying hard for Community funds for their regions, but there is no formal way in which they can participate in decision making. They are also lobbying hard for the Community institutions to be changed to reflect the growing importance of regional thinking in Europe.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I should like to ask a question for information, not for partisan purposes. Does he agree that Wales--it may also be true of Scotland--already co- operates with other European regions, in particular Catalonia and a region in France? That co-operation is proving productive. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that shows that it is difficult for any of us to anticipate what will come of the Committee of the Regions? It may turn out to be a body of some influence.

Mr. Jones : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information, because it demonstrates that there is a growing recognition that Wales, as a nation, as well as other European regions and nations, has a joint role to play in evolving the Community. I should like to remind the Minister, however, that the regions that currently have a relationship with Wales all have an elected form of government at regional level. The current democratic

Column 1042

deficit prevalent in Wales needs to be addressed, even though we have to approach the question of the Committee of the Regions from a different perspective.

The word "regionalism", in common with "federalism", is much misunderstood and much maligned in Europe. I have no problem with the word "regionalism", because, in relation to Wales, it means the historic nations and regions of Europe. It is important to put on record the fact that use of the word "regionalism" does not in any way compromise the right of Wales to be regarded as a nation in its own right. When considering the Committee of the Regions, we must also recognise that the only way in which the democratic deficit in Wales can be overcome is by establishing a Welsh parliament. We need to look at the words of the Maastricht treaty, which say that it is designed to create

"an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" ;

but it also states that it is designed

"to bring decision making in certain areas and competences to below the level of the nation state."

It is designed to bring decision making closer to the people but that presupposes that a mechanism exists to make that happen. Such a mechanism is not available to the people of Wales.

In time, the two-way process of looking at government from a European level and a local level will erode the centralising force that is prevalent in the British system of government, where competences that were dealt with by local government until recently, for example, health, education and housing, have been transferred to the centre. We must get away from the idea that sovereignty is rigid. It is something to be shared where different decisions are taken at different levels, for different purposes at different times. That philosophy distinguishes my colleagues from some of the Conservative Benches.

Sir Teddy Taylor : In case Wales gets carried away by the prospect that the hon. Gentleman is offering, does he at least accept that the Committee of the Regions will have no power to do anything but talk, and that it will have no budget? Is there not a danger that the hon. Gentleman might get carried away with the potential of that committee when it is simply a kind of talking shop, exactly the same as that which existed in the Soviet Union?

Mr. Jones : The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, because the Committee of the Regions is an advisory body and, if it remains so, it will be nothing but a talking shop. I have sought to stress, however, that there is a growing recognition among those who are members of that committee that there is a valuable and growing role for the historic nations and regions of Europe in the decision-making process of the Community. It is the potential of that committee in which I am interested. It may be an advisory body now, but it has enormous potential.

5.45 pm

Let us remember that, five years ago, none of the European historic nations and regions had any influence or any role. Today, the German la"nder, the Catalans, the Basques and many other nations have offices in Brussels, and they are lobbying hard for their people. The establishment of the Committee of the Regions recognises their growing role. We want Wales to play its part in that process. My party and I may be optimistic, but we have a view about how Europe should develop. We want, eventually,

Column 1043

a second chamber in Europe to represent the regions and historic nations--a bicameral system--which will introduce the checks and balances that are necessary in any democratic system. Many believe--including many Conservative Members--that the Maastricht treaty is a centralising document. They believe that it will transfer power to an unelected and unaccountable Commission.

Mr. Denzil Davies : It will severely limit our powers.

Mr. Jones : I accept that the right hon. Gentleman and others believe that it will severely limit the ability of member states to decide their economic policy. I know that they fear the creation of an independent European central bank. However, the opponents of the treaty had to recognise on 4 February that the powers in that treaty are subject to a number of qualifications. The Community is well aware of the danger of it concentrating wealth and power in the core cities of Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt and the like.

It is important to recognise that the treaty is subject to checks and balances. I accept that a certain amount of power will be transferred to the centre, but it is also transferred back to the regions and that makes us confident that the Maastricht treaty is, on balance, absolutely correct.

Mr. Denzil Davies : I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He and I would agree that we need devolution of power within the United Kingdom. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can now explain why he is so keen to centralise that power even further away when the argument has always been that we should go for decentralisation of power and devolution.

Mr. Jones : The right hon. Gentleman should note that the difference is that his concept of sovereignty belongs to the 19th century. It is totally outdated and has been shown to be ineffective. Within the European Community, we now have democratic systems that recognise that decisions may be taken at different levels for different purposes.

Sovereignty is not embodied in one place for ever--if it shifts in one way, it can shift in another. I accept that, in certain circumstances, power has been transferred to the centre, but there must also be a corresponding transfer of power back to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman should note that the Maastricht treaty is a good case for transferring that power back to those people, and that is why he should support it. The treaty refers to a

"Committee consisting of representatives of regional and local bodies".

it is absolutely clear that the choice of those words was deliberate. The original concept of membership should be that nominations or the committee's composition should not be in the hands of central Government but in the hands of regional and local bodies. The problem in the United Kingdom is that there are no regional bodies from which to choose members. The danger is that, although some may be elected local authority representatives--the Minister said that was a possibility--the remainder could be nominated and unelected.

I listened carefully to the Minister of State in the opening exchanges in this debate, and he kept his options open. That was good of him.

Column 1044

Mr. Donald Anderson : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government will face a personnel problem in Wales, because the pool of Conservatives from which they can draw has been so reduced by the number of quango appointments that there will be no one left to go to Brussels?

Mr. Jones : The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He will recall the exchanges with the Secretary of State for Wales on that very point in Welsh questions four or five weeks ago.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I left the options open precisely because they are open. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will give their ideas, because we are genuinely seeking to obtain the views of all shades of opinion in the Committee before beginning to consider how to proceed.

Mr. Jones : I am grateful to the Minister for reiterating the point that he made during our deliberations on 4 February. I remind the Committee of his precise words :

"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."

Answering an intervention later, he said :

"There is a case for a mix--a case that I hope that the Committee will address."--[ Official Report , 4 February 1993 ; Vol. 218, cols. 517, 530.]

I hope that means that the Minister is prepared to consider a method of selecting members that includes some local authority representatives-- though he was adamant that they would not all be local government representatives. So far, that is all to which the Minister has committed the Government.

We will not support any Government move to allow the selection of committee members to be in the gift of the Secretary of State for Wales. That would be totally unacceptable. The Secretary of State already wields considerable powers of patronage in appointing Government supporters to numerous quangos in Wales.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : My hon. Friend touches on a most important point. The issue at stake is not who goes but who chooses. I was interested in an exchange between my hon. Friend and Labour's Front- Bench spokesman. A Labour amendment would provide exclusively for local government representatives, but it does not touch the issue of who chooses them. I was unable to detect from the response from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) whether he supports our amendment to Labour's amendment, which would guarantee in Scotland at least a representative selection of local councillors on the committee. Is my hon. Friend any clearer as to Labour's position?

Mr. Jones : No, I am not. However, I am sure that Labour will have an opportunity to make it clear whether our amendment is acceptable.

Mr. George Robertson : As there will be no opportunity for a member of this Front Bench to re-enter the debate--to do so, given the number of right hon. and hon. Members who want to speak, would be against the general will of the Committee--I may say that our amendment was constructed with some care, to establish the principle that the pool from which the Committee of the Regions would be drawn will comprise local government representatives. It flies in the face of that principle for

Column 1045

Parliament then to lay down precisely who those individuals will be. Let the local authority representatives themselves make up their own minds.

Mr. Jones : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. The question remains who will choose the representatives. Unless the hon. Gentleman can clarify that, we will be no nearer to understanding Labour's position on the amendment to its amendment.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central) : Can the hon. Gentleman reassure me that his opposition to the Secretary of State for Wales choosing the representatives would be just as strong if the right hon. Gentleman selected a member of the hon. Gentleman's own party--perhaps someone who has been elevated to membership of another place?

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Whoever the Secretary of State chooses, if that selection is in his gift, it will be no good to us. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many former Labour Members have been elevated to another place in recent years.

It is important that the choice of representatives reflects the political diversity of Wales. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) emphasised how crucial that is. Nothing would be worse that for the Secretary of State to nominate individuals from one political party or tradition, or from one part of Wales, that did not reflect its political diversity and the challenges that face various parts of it.

I make it clear to the Minister that we would not support a system whereby the choice of representatives is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales. Those chosen must reflect the political diversity of Wales. We made an interesting suggestion to the Minister of State--that those chosen must be answerable in some way to the people of Wales.

We put an interesting proposal to the Minister--a forum in Wales. I put this to the Minister as an interesting idea.

Mrs. Gorman : Another one.

Mr. Jones : I agree with the hon. Lady. Currently, the Welsh Grand Committee is nothing more than a talking shop. We want to make it something more, which is why we suggested to the Minister that the Welsh Grand Committee be revamped.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthy Tydfil and Rhymney) : The hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of this, although I accept the principles that he is trying to establish. However, I remind him that the United Kingdom will have 24 members on the Committee of the Regions, of which between two and four will be elected or selected from Wales. It will at best have four members from Wales, and does not deserve quite the degree of constitutional import that the hon. Gentleman attaches to it.

Mr. Jones : I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and the fact that he believes that Wales should have as few as two representatives.

Mr. Rowlands : No, I said that at worst--

Column 1046

Mr. Jones : Yes, that is the point that the hon. Gentleman made. I totally reject that argument. We believe that the Committee of the Regions will be an important body once it develops, and we must get it right from the beginning. Those selected to represent Wales and various parts of Wales should be answerable to the people of Wales in some form. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that point. Like me, he knows that we are answerable to the electorate of Wales at every election. All Members of the European Parliament and local authority members are similarly answerable. What is wrong with asking members of the Committee of the Regions to be answerable in the same way?

We are saying that there should be a revamped Welsh Grant Committee, to which could be added MEPs and local authority representatives, and that the Committee of the Regions would have to account to that body for the way in which it represented Wales. Otherwise, once selected, its members would be answerable to no one but themselves. 6 pm

Wales should have a least four members on the Committee. We are not prepared to countenance fewer than that, as our amendment makes clear. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said that, given the position of Ireland and other countries, we should be entitled to nine. We accept that we are not in the same position now, but we feel that we are entitled to at least four members. I hope that the Labour party will support us in that regard.

Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central) : I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's argument. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) argued that there should be eight members representing Scotland, one for every European seat. I understand that there are also four European seats in Wales. The extension of that argument would lead to the establishment of 81 British seats on the Committee, which, surely, is nonsense. I am as anxious as my Scottish and Welsh colleagues for adequate Scottish and Welsh representation, but it is important to recognise that, on the basis of that argument, the English regions will also require adequate representation.

Mr. Jones : The hon. Gentleman must understand that, in a United Kingdom context, Wales will have no more than four representatives. Ireland and Denmark, for instance, are independent countries and entitled to a specific number of members. The hon. Gentleman is right : in a United Kingdom context, the ridiculous position that he has described would indeed result. That is why we are now asking for seats.

Finally, let me deal with structural funding. The Commission has announced that it is prepared to grant financial support to pilot schemes to promote combined transport initiatives. I hope that the Minister of State will examine that. We in Wales are very conscious of the need to ensure that structural funding is applied in a way that will reduce Wales's peripherality in the context of the Community. The support announced by the Commission would enable, for example, the undertaking of feasibility studies for the upgrading and possible electrification of the two main railway lines in Wales--the north Wales and south Wales lines. I hope that the Government will seek funds for those schemes.

Column 1047

Another important initiative is the Interreg initiative, which aims to promote inter-regional cross-border co- operation. The first Interreg scheme, introduced in 1991, approved 31 programmes, including links between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and between Kent and the coast of France. According to our information, further funds would be available after December 1993, as it seems likely that an Interreg 2 will be negotiated during the next year, alongside the renegotiation of the structural funds. One of the areas currently being considered for development under a possible Interreg 2 is the central corridor--and the southern corridor--linking Ireland and Wales. We ask the Government to throw their weight behind that plan, which would be of immense long-term benefit to the economies of north-west and south- west Wales. As I have said, it would also reduce our peripherality in the context of the Community.

I have detained the Committee too long. I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I have given way several times to my hon. Friends. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the contributions made by Scottish National and Plaid Cymru party Members, which I hope have themselves been positive.

Mrs. Gorman : It was very kind of you to call me, Mr. Lofthouse. I have sat through all 13 sittings of the Committee so far, and I have written eight little speechlets ; now, at last, I have an opportunity to speak up--as much as anything, to speak up for the way in which the amendments affect my constituents in Billericay. That is what concerns me.

Many people have expressed grave concern about the social chapter ; others have expressed concern about the central bank. However, these amendments-- which deal with the social cohesion strategy in the Maastricht treaty--will also have grave consequences for my constituents if they are passed. When I was selected and subsequently elected as a Member of Parliament, my constituents made two things clear to me. First, they want a reduction in bureaucracy and Government intervention. They want fewer layers of government : we do not want county councils, let alone the latest proposal for a Committee of the Regions. All Opposition Members seem to be fighting for a share of the action in that regard. Secondly, we in Billericay do not want more taxes and waste of public funds--we want less. I sometimes think that Members of Parliament--especially those who occupy the elevated lower Benches--have no idea where the money comes from : money that Members of Parliament themselves decide is to be spent. We all know that the European Community gets through £42 billion a year--or possibly £45 billion--in its budget, of which we contribute about £5 billion and get back £2.8 billion. In any event, we make a substantial net contribution. We contribute about £50 million every working week.

That is the kind of money that we were wasting in the 1970s when we had all those nationalised industries. We complained then that it was beyond our ability to sustain that waste, and we got rid of it : we turned it around. Now, we give as much money to the Community. If we proceed with the cohesion fund, and give the extra money for which Mr. Delors is calling, we shall end up spending four times this amount by 1999.

Column 1048

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the Committee of the net contribution that we make. Is not that the equivalent of about 100 national health service hospitals?

Mrs. Gorman : It certainly is. I dare say that it is also the equivalent of half a dozen channel tunnels.

My constituents want to know where the money is coming from for this wonderful idea of redistributing finance in the form of cohesion funds. I will tell them where it is coming from : it is coming from their back pockets. We draw our pay cheques, and benefit to some extent from the tax structure in this country ; but loads of people out there are struggling to find the money to placate the VAT man and the income tax inspector. They must find the money to keep their businesses going--and here we are, blindly planning a vast new enterprise that will supply everyone, throughout the Community, with their wants at our expense.

Mr. Randall : I entirely support the hon. Lady's views about waste, but might not her opinions on regional policy be coloured by the fact that she represents a seat in the south-east? In such areas as Hull, which I represent, there is terrific deprivation and a desperate need for a regional policy. We need cohesion funds. Are we not bound to disagree? Until the recession, the south-east was one of the most opulent parts of the country, while other parts were very poor in comparison.

Mrs. Gorman : The hon. Gentleman's constituency was probably doing very nicely before we entered the European Community and gave away all our fishing rights. The Community was responsible for that. The amendments deal largely with economic and social cohesion. The wording in the treaty of European union is :

"In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between levels of development of the various regions".

What that means is transferring money from the better-off parts of Europe, which at present just about include this country, to the southern parts.

We all know that one cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poorer-- Abraham Lincoln taught us that--yet that is what this policy is about. Shall we benefit from this wonderful cohesion fund? No, we shall not, because one must have a per capita income of 90 per cent. or less of the average of the Community as a whole. So all these other regions which are champing at the bit to get this money will benefit from it while we as a country will be forking out that kind of money. As has been said by my hon. Friends, time and again, we shall pay the other European countries for their factories--the noose that will hang our domestic industry.

Mr. Wilkinson : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an extremely distinguished and important speech, for giving way. May I point out to her that Portugal, which was hitherto one of the poorest countries in the Community, has had a rate of growth of more than 4 per cent. a year for the past three years, while we have had a negative rate of growth. In other words, we have seen our unemployment rise and their employment increase, at our expense. From the point of view of the British taxpayer, that is not responsible.

Mrs. Gorman : I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and he will be pleased to know that our own

Next Section

Home Page