INTRODUCTION
27. We chose the title
of this Report with the intention of drawing to wider attention
that roughly one third of the EC Budget is devoted to the Structural
Funds and the Cohesion Fund and that, despite their somewhat opaque
titles, these funds raise issues that deserve serious consideration
now. The policies adopted to reduce disparities between the Member
States of the EU and between their regions and, we would add,
between their smaller local communities, must be made as effective
and efficient as possible. We wish to promote and contribute
to a debate on the policies and practices required so that the
costs to be borne are distributed, after open political decision,
acceptably and equitably.
28. This Part of the
Report contains the Opinion of the Committee on the major issues
encountered during the enquiry set against the evidence which
led us to form our opinion. For each major topic, before stating
our Opinion, which is set out in bold type, relevant evidence
is summarised and impressions formed on our field visits are set
out.
29. Our Report is not
intended to be comprehensive. We have concentrated on the major
issues of how responsibility for cohesion is shared between the
EU and the various tiers of government within Member States; the
principles guiding the application of the Structural Funds and
the Cohesion Fund; the achievement of the policies in terms of
increased cohesion; lessons to be learned from experience in the
administration of the funds; and the future of the funds.
30. We are not so rash
as to claim expertise in all the administrative complexities of
the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and the details of
their application across fifteen Member States. However, we think
that our enquiry has given us an insight into some of the strategic
issues that arise. We now put forward what are intended to be
constructive thoughts on the way ahead for the funds in a period
which is expected to be shaped by EMU, by enlargement of the EU
and by new arrangements for financing the Community after 1999.
Opinion: introductory matters:
cohesion-who pays?
31. Economic and
social development has to be paid for: investments in physical
and human resources are not always easily affordable and market
forces alone do not meet the needs of cohesion to the extent that
is called for in the democratic societies of the EU. But we know,
too, that the lack of economic and social opportunities has financial
and social penalties. There are obvious costs to the wider society
of high unemployment and areas of concentrated multiple deprivation.
Equally, there are wider benefits from increasing cohesion: the
Commission estimate that around 30 to 40 per cent of all EU funding
expended in the poorest Member States returns to the richer countries
in the form of the purchase of equipment or expertise (Q 501).
Greater cohesion is paid for, to some extent, but to a lesser
extent than is at first apparent, by the net donors; but lack
of cohesion, too, is paid for, not only in terms of the poorer
quality of life of the disadvantaged but in terms of market opportunities
as well as the income transfer payments which national governments
make in order to make the situation tolerable.
