---

EU Funding

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those regions in which areas entitled to bid only for Objective 3 structural fund programmes are represented on programme monitoring and regional committees. [36257]

Ms Keeble: Programme monitoring committees only operate in Objective 2 areas, so do not include representatives from areas only entitled to bid for Objective 3 funds. Objective 3 is a national programme and operates across England (excluding Objective 1 areas). It is managed by a national committee. Nine regional committees oversee the delivery of the regional Objective 3 programmes. They are: north west, north east, Yorkshire and the Humber, west midlands, east midlands, south west, east of England, south east and London.

In three regions, north west, west midlands and east of England, the partners have agreed that in the interests of coherence and integration both Objective 2 and 3 programmes should be managed by a single monitoring committee.

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that areas entitled to bid only for Objective 3 structural fund programmes are represented on programme monitoring and regional committees. [36258]

Ms Keeble: Most Objective 3 funding is allocated to Government offices who work with partners to deliver the programme in line with regional priorities. Regional committees for Objective 3 oversee the delivery of the programmes.

The Government have provided guidance to regions on the composition of each regional committee to ensure that they reflect regional interests in terms of sectoral and geographic coverage.

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list, for each region for the years 1993 to 1999 the percentage split of (a) Objective 2 structural fund programmes between

14 Feb 2002 : Column 551W

European regional development fund and European social fund projects and (b) Objective 3 structural fund programmes between ERDF and ESF projects. [36259]

Ms Keeble: The table gives the information requested for the Objective 2 structural funds programmes by region for the 1994–99 programme round. There are currently no separate figures available for 1993, which formed part of

14 Feb 2002 : Column 552W

the 1989–93 programme round; the data for Thanet (SE Region) are not broken down by year because funds were allocated in a single tranche for each of the two programme rounds—1994–96 and 1997–99.

Objective 3 structural fund programmes are 100 per cent. ESF since ERDF formed no part of these programmes.

Structural funds allocations for England 1994–99£000 (current exchange rate)

Regional programme	ERDF structural funds	ESF structural funds	Total structural funds ERDF and ESF	Structural funds ERDF (%)	Structural funds ESF (%)
East Midlands
1994	686	4,309	4,995	13.74	86.26
1995	1,023	3,146	4,169	24.55	75.45
1996	29,366	3,288	32,654	89.93	10.07
1997	16,931	2,075	19,006	89.08	10.92
1998	17,733	7,620	25,354	69.94	30.06
1999	18,033	8,101	26,134	69.00	31.00
Total	83,773	28,539	112,312	74.59	25.41
	Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire
1994	1,585	18,740	20,325	7.80	92.20
1995	7,407	13,410	20,817	35.58	64.42
1996	136,062	33,000	169,062	80.48	19.52
1997	8	12,880	12,888	0.06	99.94
1998	592	25,025	25,617	2.31	97.69
1999	194,444	35,697	230,141	84.49	15.51
Total	340,098	138,753	478,850	71.02	28.98
West Cumbria
1994	0	310	310	0.00	100.00
1995	673	740	1,413	47.62	52.38
1996	10,772	1,780	12,552	85.82	14.18
1997	1,481	792	2,273	65.17	34.83
1998	10,367	792	11,158	92.91	7.09
1999	4,364	945	5,308	82.20	17.80
Total	27,656	5,358	33,014	83.77	16.23
London
1994	127	2,120	2,247	5.66	94.34
1995	1,385	3,140	4,525	30.60	69.40
1996	32,254	4,770	37,024	87.12	12.88
1997	44	2,984	3,028	1.45	98.55
1998	28,270	7,005	35,275	80.14	19.86
1999	18,876	5,578	24,454	77.19	22.81
Total	80,955	25,597	106,552	75.98	24.02
North East
1994	4,801	9,660	14,461	33.20	66.80
1995	17,555	11,650	29,205	60.11	39.89
1996	114,130	26,740	140,870	81.02	18.98
1997	1,601	7,096	8,698	18.41	81.59
1998	6,270	24,633	30,903	20.29	79.71
1999	172,536	29,855	202,391	85.25	14.75
Total	316,893	109,634	426,527	74.30	25.70
Plymouth
1994	889	780	1,669	53.26	46.74
1995	1,759	1,220	2,979	59.05	40.95
1996	10,593	1,410	12,003	88.25	11.75
1997	5,804	1,391	7,196	80.66	19.34
1998	7,739	1,855	9,594	80.66	19.34
1999	11,606	1,393	12,999	89.29	10.71
Total	38,390	8,049	46,439	82.67	17.33
Thanet (SE)
1994	4,795	1,130	5,925	80.93	19.07
1995	0	0	0	0.00	0.00
1996	0	0	0	0.00	0.00
1997	11,436	2,528	13,964	81.90	18.10
1998	0	0	0	0.00	0.00
1999	0	0	0	0.00	0.00
Total	16,231	3,658	19,889	81.61	18.39
Yorkshire and the Humber
1994	2,233	10,410	12,643	17.66	82.34
1995	13,810	7,430	21,240	65.02	34.98
1996	124,311	16,270	140,581	88.43	11.57
1997	758	4,029	4,787	15.84	84.16
1998	9,735	20,511	30,246	32.19	67.81
1999	180,781	44,081	224,862	80.40	19.60
Total	331,628	102,730	434,358	76.35	23.65
West Midlands
1994	3,507	15,490	18,997	18.46	81.54
1995	12,624	17,440	30,064	41.99	58.01
1996	157,918	27,450	185,368	85.19	14.81
1997	3,596	11,263	14,860	24.20	75.80
1998	89,041	31,670	120,711	73.76	26.24
1999	113,222	30,468	143,689	78.80	21.20
Total	379,908	133,781	513,689	73.96	26.04

14 Feb 2002 : Column 553W

Concessionary Travel Schemes

Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2002, Official Report, column 838W, how many local authorities have exercised their discretionary powers to provide concessionary travel to children (a) under 16 and (b) 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education. [34976]

Ms Keeble: My Department has recently carried out a survey about concessionary travel in England that covers these matters. The returns are being analysed at present and the results will be published in due course.

Air Passenger Rights

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which UK airlines and airports have signed up to the European Airline and Airports Commitments on Air Passenger Rights. [37365]

Mr. Jamieson: 10 UK airlines have signed up to the Airline Passenger Service Commitment. They are Air 2000; Airtours International; bmi British Midland; Britannia Airways; British Airways; British European Airways; JMC Airlines; KLM(UK); Monarch Airlines; Virgin Atlantic Airways.

20 UK airports have signed up to the Airport Passenger Service Commitment. They are Aberdeen; Belfast international; Birmingham international; Bournemouth; Bristol international; Cardiff international; East Midlands; Edinburgh; Exeter International; Glasgow; Humberside;

14 Feb 2002 : Column 554W

Leeds Bradford; Liverpool; London Gatwick; London Heathrow; London Luton; London Stansted; Manchester; Norwich international; Southampton.

The launch of the Voluntary Commitments on Passenger Rights is good news for European air travellers. Air passengers have a right to expect the highest standards of customer care from the time at which they arrive at the airport to the point at which they reach their destinations. Responding to these expectations is a key component of a commercially successful aviation industry and the UK signatories have signalled that this is a matter that they treat very seriously.

Railtrack

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what organisation will represent passengers on the board of the not-for-profit company to run the functions of Railtrack; and if he has offered anyone for that position. [35328]

Mr. Spellar: My right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) of 23 October 2001, Official Report, columns 195–97W, made it clear that passenger groups could be members of a company limited by guarantee (CLG). It is for the team developing a bid based on the concept of a CLG to make a proposal to the administrator, including proposals for the membership of the proposed company.

14 Feb 2002 : Column 555W

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people he has approached to serve on the board of the not-for-profit company to run the functions of Railtrack. [35329]

Mr. Spellar: None. It is for the team developing a bid based on the concept of a company limited by guarantee to make a proposal to the administrator, including a proposal for the management of the proposed company.

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy that the not-for-profit limited company proposed for Railtrack will be 100 per cent. privately owned; and what option the Government will retain to buy back the company. [34039]

Mr. Spellar: A company limited by guarantee (CLG) is a private company without shareholders. A CLG would be accountable to its members. We do not expect that there would be an option to buy back the company.

---