| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that it is customary not to use a name in this House, but to refer to a constituency or to a ministerial title.
Miss Emma Nicholson: The Minister stated that nearly £23 million had been approved and more than 60 offer letters issued for European regional redevelopment funding alone. I am sorry to say that that was incorrect. When he wrote the letter, the £23 million represented the 192 projects that were awaiting offer letters. Indeed,60 offer letters had been received from 192 projects, but55 are still waiting for offer letters. The tourism budget is on hold until the end of 1996 as a result of the huge demand for the money. It is sad that the Government's incompetence is causing that astonishing shortage in funding.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): While in no way arguing that there are not delays--indeed there are, and we should streamline the procedures--I should point out to thehon. Lady that someone came to see me a fortnight ago about a delay in an application. When I looked into the matter, I found that the proposal had been submitted late. When I went back, I was told that those involved had met the deadline. Does she accept that not all the fault lies with the Government, as she is obviously trying to suggest?
Miss Nicholson: I am happy to accept that comment.I do not know what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in my constituency--where I have problems with the Leader II project--everything that I said, alas, has been valid and accurate. I took the Leader II team from Holsworthy to see the Minister, but it made no difference at all.
The hon. Gentleman, whose work on the common fisheries policy is well known, might like to think about the money that is wasted by Whitehall on the fisheries investment programme, which should come back on track. Although Ministers were forced to take us back into the scheme to buy off a few Euro-rebels, it is sad that we still have not had money for any of those projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be sad to know that the money is available, but not for those who need it. It is such a small, sensible and well-targeted programme, and he will agree that it could make all the difference to fishing ports in the south-west which are struggling against the onslaught of competition.
I cannot imagine why the Government would not fund the project--they are guilty of typical penny-pinching that would make Scrooge blanche. It is avarice, and the Government are putting the tidiness of their accounts before the survival of vibrant and energetic rural fishing communities. I believe that that is a very important point that the hon. Gentleman will respect and honour. I cannot comment on his constituency, but I know from my constituency's problems that his comments are not correct.
Once a form goes through the Government office for the south-west, it wends its way through Whitehall. The gap between the approval of a project and the receipt
of a letter could go into "Alice in Wonderland". Many Departments are involved. I have referred to the Department of Heritage, and there are cases in which three other Departments have been asked to comment. The result of such an interdepartmental spat will be that an application will go from Department to Department and--perhaps after about nine months, if one is lucky--an offer letter will be sent.
I have dealt with many of these funding issues, and I speak from the heart on behalf of my constituents. The misery is that by the time a letter is sent, the official start date for the project has gone. That is the real result of the Government's action. If a project is worthy ofEU funding, it must be a real project and not make-believe. If those involved want a project to start, they either have to expect a delay--that is happening, tragically, in my constituency--or find some money to cover the appallingly long interim period.
The problem in my constituency and most other areas of the south-west--although west Devon and Cornwall are particularly affected--is that people cannot find that sort of cash anywhere, and that is why EU regional funding is critical for our future. We know that we need outside help--even if the Government do not--to overcome recent economic disadvantages. In many areas farming, agriculture and food production, processing and distribution are the primary economic engines. In my area, however, we have grade 3 or grade 4 land. One cannot make much money from culm measures, even if a fraction of the funding is provided by the Department of the Environment. The situation is tough--there are only two fields of grade 2 land in my entire constituency, for example--so the south-west will always require assistance.
What has happened to the European money that has been pledged to us--some £200 million for 1994 to 1999? Instead of funding hundreds of projects across the south-west, it is tucked away in the Government's bank accounts, earning a healthy rate of interest for the Chancellor. We believe that the Treasury has been sitting on at least £43 million-worth of European funds in transit from Brussels to Britain's most disadvantaged areas. By last autumn, a mere £6 million had reached the intended areas. When the remainder is finally wrested out of Whitehall--if we manage that--I am certain that it will not be inclusive of interest. In other words, the delays have not just inconvenienced the south-west, but short-changed us.
Every time Europe offers the south-west a hand up, the Government knock us down. When the south-west's fishing ports stood to benefit from the European structure investment programme, Ministers withdrew. When Robin Teverson, a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, successfully persuaded the Commission to include the Penzance to London railway line in plans for a high-speed network, he did so despite the opposition of Conservative Members of the European Parliament. Sadly, the Government have made it clear that they will continue to oppose the plan in the Council of Ministers. No wonder people in the south-west have lost all faith in the Government's ability or desire to help them.
Mr. Harris:
The hon. Lady is going too far. She is now criticising the Government she wanted to join at the end of last year.
Miss Nicholson:
Far from it. I can provide my former Conservative colleague with letters saying that I--as an
I am aware that it is imperative that I allow the Minister some time to reply, as I have put a number of questions to him. I despair, however, and I do not believe that the penny-pinching will be affected by the debate today. Good will, common sense and decisive action for the south-west are certainly too much to ask for from the Government.
When Robin Teverson sent his report to those consulted during its creation and to those affected by the delays, he received a sackful of replies, not one of which dismissed it as political propaganda. In fact, they all said that, if anything, the outlook was even darker than he had painted. All but one, that is. The response from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside stood out. From his vantage point, the outlook for the south-west was rosy, although I do not suppose that he has seen any of our recent water bills. Perhaps he did not listen at the meetings held in the past few years with thePrime Minister, which produced nothing. He found nothing to criticise, and proposed no remedial action at all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford):
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) says that she is an ambassador for the south-west. If she really is an ambassador for the south-west, it is going to continue to sink. She has voiced a number of misconceptions, which I shall try to correct in the short time available.
The European programmes are a success and are combining well with our programmes such as the single regeneration budget, challenge fund, English partnerships and rural challenge. The hon. Lady has not shown a notable interest in European programmes until now;I certainly have had no correspondence with her. Her interest, if belated, is nonetheless welcome because it gives me an opportunity to correct misconceptions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |