Cohesion Funds (Hansard, 22 April 1993)

§ 2. Sir Teddy Taylor
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact on jobs in Northern Ireland of the proposed distribution of EC cohesion funding.

§ The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates)
The United Kingdom and, therefore, Northern Ireland does not qualify for assistance from the cohesion fund agreed at Maastricht. However, the retention of objective 1 status, as agreed at Edinburgh, for the next round of funding will ensure that Northern Ireland continues to benefit substantially from the three structural funds that are the main instruments for strengthening cohesion throughout the Community.
The allocation of the structural funds is currently under negotiation and it will be some months before decisions will be made. It is therefore not possible at this stage to quantify the impact on jobs.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Does it not seem desperately unfair to the people of Northern Ireland that the EC proposes to provide about £1,000 million over six years for the Republic of Ireland and not one penny for Northern Ireland? Does the Minister accept that employers in ports and other transport institutions in Northern Ireland cannot see the logic of a Conservative Government's giving their cash to provide jobs in the Republic of Ireland when the only effect will be to destroy jobs in Northern Ireland?

§ Mr. Mates
On the contrary, any money that comes into the island tends to help the already fast-moving experience of co-operation between north and south in trade and business and in the general flow of goods across the border. It is not true to suggest, as my hon. Friend does, that not one penny of funds is coming to Northern Ireland. Many millions of pounds are coming into Northern Ireland, but under arrangements other than the cohesion fund, which is available to only four members of the Community.

§ Mr Hume
Does the Minister agree that, as the cohesion fund was set up under his Government's presidency, the exclusion of Northern Ireland constitutes extreme neglect? As Northern Ireland is an objective 1 region, which means that it has been designated as one of the poorest regions in the European Community, as the cohesion fund is specifically for transport and the environment, and as Northern Ireland has the same offshore problems involving transport and the environment as the Republic of Ireland, does the Minister not think that we should have been treated exactly the same and does he think that he can correct that serious neglect on the part of whoever represented the Government when the fund was set up?

§ Mr. Mates
The hon. Gentleman suffers under the misapprehension that the cohesion fund is available to the poorer regions of the Community, whereas in fact it is available only to the poorer countries. There are other funds available to poor regions, and objective 1 status, which the Government won at Edinburgh last November, is a considerable improvement. For as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, it has to take the gains and losses of that membership.

§ Mr. Hunter
With regard to developments that have an impact on jobs in Northern Ireland, is my hon. Friend in a position to give us further details about the training centres and the market testing of those centres? Presumably those would have a positive impact on jobs in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Mates
It is too early for me to be able to give my hon. Friend any details about that. We have not yet heard what funds will be provided in this round, but as a result of the previous funds available from the Community many, many jobs were created in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Stott
The Minister will be aware that the European Community has financed many cross-border initiatives by using the cohesion fund and objective 1 status funds. Does he agree with me and with Dr. Quigley, the chairman of the Ulster Bank, that the present definition of "cross-border" is too narrow? The relevant geographical area in the south has usually been considered to include only the counties contiguous with the north. Should not the term "cross-border" be redefined to embrace the totality of economic relationships within the island, and should not the EC regard the island economy as a whole as the relevant entity and direct its attention to the needs of that economic area?

§ Mr. Mates
I fully agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and we are working hard to increase co-operation. I have made some proposals to my colleagues in the Government of the Republic that when we go to Brussels to seek to improve some of the arrangements we should go together and speak for the whole island. I very much hope that they will respond to those proposals.

§ Rev. William McCrea
Is not the Minister really saying to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government advise that we would be far better as part of one united Ireland rather than as part of the United Kingdom? They always try to equate or link us with the Irish Republic. For example, a few days ago when we were pleading for more money for potato farmers and money was available in the 497 south of Ireland, they said, "Ah, but if you were all one you would get the money." Surely that is skulduggery at the highest level.

§ Mr. Mates
I think "skulduggery" might be a bit of poetic licence. The hon. Gentleman is looking at this one fund in isolation. If it is looked at in isolation, it has to be said that the Republic gains more than we in the United Kingdom gain, because we are not eligible for it. The hon. Gentleman should look at all the other advantages that membership of the United Kingdom conveys on Northern Ireland. The totality of the advantages should be put together and then put to the majority in Northern Ireland for them to decide how they want to live.