HC Deb 02 April 1998 vol 309 cc1411-2
18. Sir Teddy Taylor

What assessment she has made of the impact on United Kingdom industry of the changes in European Union structural funds being proposed by the Commission. [35991]

Mrs. Roche

The Commission's proposals for the structural funds and for other structural and cohesion policies for the years 2000 to 2006 were published on 18 March.

The Commission has not published its detailed financial plans for individual member states. In any event, structural funds are designed for the purpose of regional regeneration. It will be difficult to assess the specific impact of any changes on industry.

Sir Teddy Taylor

In thanking the Minister—[Interruption.]

I had an important question on Question 17, which I was unable to ask.

Does the Minister accept that, as the average family in Britain—[Interruption.] This is not funny—[Interruption.] It is not. Does the Minister accept that, as the average family in Britain—whether poor or rich; whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat—is paying £5 a week at present towards our net contribution to the EEC, if these changes go ahead, on top of the changes in regional funding, which are damaging to Scotland and many other places, we will have to pay even more? Will she try hard to ensure that the travel-to-work criteria are changed, so that pockets of unemployment in particular areas are not disregarded for grant purposes? Will she accept that the cost of the EEC to jobs and to people in Britain is excessive?

Mrs. Roche

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, travel-to-work areas are a matter for state aid and assisted area status, not structural funds. He will be glad to hear that we are concerned, as are all member states, to contain the overall costs of structural funds, and that is what we aim to do with the reforms. However, we are disappointed with the draft regulations that have been published by the Commission. Our aim is to have an outcome that is affordable, durable, simpler and more efficient. We are working very hard indeed for an outcome that is fair to the United Kingdom and all its regions.

Mr. McCabe

Is not it true that our negotiations have already secured transitional arrangements until 2004? Does my hon. Friend agree that we should treat with scepticism the views of anyone who still believes, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does, that joining the Community was a great disaster, and that the Referendum party could really zoom and be very significant indeed?

Mrs. Roche

I agree with my hon. Friend. Our case on transitional periods has already met with some success, but we also want to ensure that those transitional periods are the same length as for objective 1, and we are working hard to achieve that. The Government recognise that our future lies in Europe, our trade is done there, and it is important to the British public and British businesses that we say that and say it loudly.

Miss McIntosh

Will the Minister assure the House today that, in the regional regeneration of which she spoke, rural areas will not lose out to urban areas, particularly in an area such as Yorkshire and Humberside where South Yorkshire is clearly more densely populated than North Yorkshire, but North Yorkshire also deserves a fair whack of the money?

Mrs. Roche

I well understand the hon. Lady's interest and experience in these matters. We are working hard with everyone and we have also had extensive discussions with local authorities. We want the United Kingdom to be represented by a united voice. We want outcomes which lead to flexibility, but also to a proper balance between urban and rural areas. That is essential.