A4-0126/97

Resolution on development problems and structural interventions in the United Kingdom in the period 1994-1999 (C4-0055/96, C4-0056/96, C4-0057/96, C4-0058/96, C4-0022/97, C4-0134/97)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission Decisions of 29 July 1994 on the adoption of the Single Programming Documents for Community structural assistance in the regions Merseyside, Northern Ireland and Highlands and Islands concerned by Objective 1 in the United Kingdom ((OJ L 250, 26.9.1994, p. 48.)) (C4-0055/96, C4-0056/96, C4-0057/96) and to these Single Programming Documents,

- having regard to the Commission Decisions of 16 December 1994 on the adoption of the Single Programming Documents for Community structural assistance in the regions concerned by Objective 2 in the United Kingdom ((OJ L 382, 31.12.1994, p. 69.)) (C4-0058/96, C4- 0022/97) and to these Single Programming Documents,

- having regard to the Single Programming Documents for Objective 5b regions in the United Kingdom (C4-0134/97),

- having regard to the aims of European regional policy in Article 130a of the EC Treaty, the guidelines of the European structural funds and the priorities contained therein,

- having regard to the reform of the structural funds in 1988 and 1993 and the principles of concentration, additionality, programming and partnership, and of equality of opportunity and environmental protection contained therein,

- having regard to the papers presented by the Commission to the informal meetings of Ministers responsible for regional policies and spatial planning in Venice (May 1996) and in Ballyconnell (November 1996): 'Effectiveness, Control and Simplification and Structural Funds: Creating More Jobs¨,

- having regard to the Seventh annual report on the structual funds 1995 (COM(96)0502 - C4-0020/97) and the First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion 1996,

- having regard to the guidelines for the implementation of measures in industrial areas in decline (Objective 2) in the second programme planning period 1997-1999,

- having regard to its resolutions of 14 February 1996 on the second planning period of assistance under Objective 2 (1997-1999) ((OJ C 65, 4.3.1996, p. 88.)), of 28 March 1996 on the allocation of reserve for Community initiatives (URBAN, Interreg II C, Employment-Inclusion, ADAPT) ((OJ C 117, 22.4.1996, pp. 70 and 75.)) and of 28 November 1996 on the communication from the Commission on Community structural assistance and employment ((OJ C 380, 16.12.1996, p. 90.)),

- having regard to the visit of a delegation of the Committee on Regional Policy to Derbyshire in November 1995 and to the hearings conducted by the rapporteur as well as the evidence submitted from regions across the UK eligible areas,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A4-0126/97),

A. whereas the evidence of growing disparities between the richest and poorest regions in the EU can also be seen in the UK where only two (out of eleven) regions are above the EU average GDP,

B. whereas the European Commission's Cohesion report demonstrates the need for regional aid in order to prevent further polarisation between the richest and poorest regions,

C. whereas the need to create greater economic and social cohesion across the EU in the context of a single European market and the potential for a single currency has meant that structural measures have been important in reducing disparities between the richest and poorest regions,

D. whereas the UK in the period 1994-1999 extended both its geographical coverage and financial allocation of Structural Fund support under objective 1, 2 and 5b and Community Initiatives; whereas the UK has the largest coverage for objective 2 areas, covering 30.9% of the UK population; whereas Merseyside, since qualifying for objective 1 support in 1994, has recorded a further reduction in GDP,

E. whereas the provision of Structural Fund aid for regional measures (objectives 1, 2 and 5b) and for non-regional measures (objective 3) has played a major role in contributing to economic and social cohesion in the UK and provided a clear expression of European solidarity,

F. whereas structural assistance for UK objective 1 regions amounts to ECU 2360 m, for UK objective 2 regions ECU 4580 m, for UK objective 5b regions ECU 2012 m, for UK objective 3 ECU 1501 m (1994-1996) and ECU 1655 m (1997-1999), and for UK objective 4 ECU 244 m (1997-1999),

G. whereas national unemployment statistics fail to illustrate the lack of sustainable job creation, the trend in the UK to create low paid part-time jobs, and underplay 'real¨ hidden unemployment in declining regions,

H. whereas low levels of GDP and low productivity in the UK, zero or low growth in industrial regions, as cited in the ¨Cohesion Report', weaken the competitiveness of UK regions,

I. whereas aid under the ERDF provides support for business investment and infrastructure, support for SMEs and support for technology and productive investments,

J. whereas aid under the ESF provides support for training, re-training, vocational guidance and strengthening the capacity and skills of the workforce,

K. whereas the UK, from 1994-1996, has not taken up any funds to date on objective 4 for the readaptation of workers' skills with regard to technological change and industrial restructuring, whereas the UK, from 1997-1999, has agreed to allocate ECU 244 m,

L. whereas the structural funds have had a major impact on employment in the UK where according to the European Commission 240,000 jobs were created or maintained between 1989 and 1993 and Community Initiatives have been an important and additional source of assistance for managing acute industrial and economic and social change in particular sectors,

M. whereas EU support to UK regions has increased over the 1989-1999 period while central government support has fallen dramatically, creating a matching funding crisis in some regions,

N. whereas the government's ad-hoc and unstructured approach to regional development hampers effective co-ordination with the EU's strategic, programmed approach to regional development,

O. whereas the declining industrial regions characterised by a sharp decline in manufacturing related employment and pockets of high unemployment and persistent acute structural problems require measures for sustainable economic development and for the long term competitiveness of these regions,

P. whereas the existence of an independent secretariat in Scotland has improved both the quality and performance of programmes,

Q. whereas the current government imposed without consulation the Regional Challenge concept from 1994-1999, leading to the centralization of ERDF allocation decisions through government Ministers and undermining of the partnership at local level,

R. whereas the government and Commission have so far failed to provide an evaluation of the Regional Challenge Schemes, in order to assess the "value- added¨ to the region,

S. whereas at the Dublin Summit the current government refused to participate in the Territorial Local and Regional Employment Pacts,

T. whereas the financial performance and spending profile of some UK regions is inadequate,

U. whereas through the process of top slicing ERDF and ESF and the undemocratic and unaccountable composition of some PMCs, the government has sought to give preference to its own government schemes in the regions,

1. Welcomes the positive contribution that the European structural funds have made in the UK to economic and social cohesion, to the regeneration of the poorest regions and to job creation, but recognizes an increase in economic and employment disparities within and between the regions of the UK;

2. Welcomes the important role that the structural funds have played in encouraging new partnerships, approaches to and innovations in regional policy;

3. Considers that, by establishing appropriate priorities, European structural funding contributes to the economic development of eligible regions through job creation measures, supporting business infrastructure, especially in the case of SMUs, and the social inclusion of those threatened with social exclusion;

4. Notes the need to address problems associated with administrative and financial procedures in order to improve the efficiency and financial performance of the funds and calls on the Commission and UK government to investigate administrative best practice and introduce improved procedures;

5. Regards the delays in agreeing the Single Programme Documents for all objectives and the subsequent delays in starting programmes to have hindered the effective operation of the funds;

6. Regards the delays in making payments, particularly under ESF, to be unjustified and calls on the Commission and the UK government to develop more efficient payment mechanisms and to ensure that payments are made on schedule from the European Commission and the national government to the financial beneficiaries;

7. Notes that underspends in programmes should be avoided and recommends the UK government and the Commission introduce greater flexibility in order to allow for an improved uptake of funds available;

8. Recognizes that the funds are too complex and this acts as a disincentive to small organisations and small projects, and proposes that the funds be simplified by introducing a clearer applications process, clearer and more transparent methods for the selection and assessment of projects, and clearer eligibility guidelines at the outset;

9. Regards the problems of debt relating to late payments, particularly for small organisations and the voluntary sector, to be unacceptable and calls on the Commission to consider a system of advance global grants or the creation of Intermediary Funding Bodies (IFBs) to alleviate the problem;

10. Proposes that more qualitative evaluation of structural fund support and its impact be introduced at all levels of monitoring and evaluation through the active and substantive participation of the partners, for example, the social partners, in order to evaluate objectively the effectiveness of structural funding and to quantify the real impact of assistance;

11. Suggests that Community Initiatives be examined with a view to rationalising and making them more closely integrated and streamlined with objectives 1, 2 and 5b programmes and more clearly and narrowly focused; and to maintain those that are innovative and streamline those that duplicate projects;

12. Acknowledges the importance of partnerships to the effective functioning of the funds, but regrets the absence of the social and economic partners on the Monitoring Committees and decision making bodies, and calls on the European Commission to spell out more precisely the nature and role of the partners and for the UK government to implement social partnership to the full;

13. Recognizes the important role played by local authorities in partnerships, and regrets the decline in the representation of local authorities in favour of non-accountable bodies (quangos) and calls on the UK government to strengthen the role of local authorities and to allow elected members to sit on Monitoring Committees, in order to enhance the democratic accountability of the funds;

14. Welcomes the greater role given to the partners in regional planning and acknowledges the important impact that structural fund planning has had on UK regions, but encourages the Commission and the government to involve a wider range of partners in future planning and calls on the government to consider the establishment of regional development agencies in order to introduce more effective planning;

15. Calls on the Commission also to take into consideration local partners' wishes in the negotiation of programme priorities and measures; notes that where transport schemes add value to community economic development and aid job creation through opening up industrial sites, they should be eligible for sliding ratios of grant support according to their significance;

16. Regrets the introduction of the top-slicing of ERDF monies for the ¨Regional Challenge' competitive bidding system and calls on the government and Commission to urgently provide an evaluation and discontinue the scheme if value added is not proven;

17. Regrets the UK's decision not to participate in objective 4 funding for the readaptation of workers to industrial change and urges the government to avoid underspends at the end of 1999;

18. Regrets that the public has very little knowledge of structural fund aided projects and calls on the Commission, national and regional partners to improve publicity and information about projects in an accessible way so that citizens can visibly recognize the benefits of EU regional policy;

19. Notes that annual programmes for ESF present many problems in continuity and recommends that the Commission considers the introduction of a more flexible approach of multi-annual funding and genuine advance payments;

20. Notes the lack of continuity and coherence between the different funds and recommends that the Commission considers mechanisms for improving their integration, including the option of developing one fund for each eligible region; recommends, at a minimum, that the separate regimes and diverse operational administration of ERDF and ESF should be revised, to include the introduction of multi-annual programmes for ESF in order to increase complementarity;

21. Calls on the Commission to examine the selection criteria for future structural fund aid by taking into account industrial change, GDP and the relationship between falling unemployment rates and non-sustainable employment in low-paid part-time sectors, to develop mechanisms for providing for greater concentration of the funds in the future and to provide transitional funding and action for sustainable job creation for those industrial regions which continue to experience low growth and high unemployment;

22. Recognizes that the full impact of the funds on economic and social cohesion can be undermined if match-funding is either inadequate or inappropriately targeted; recommends that the Commission consider the greater involvement of the private sector as future match-funders; recommends that the UK government target more efficiently match-funding by ensuring that potential national and local sources of regional expenditure are designed to complement structural fund aid more effectively;

23. Welcomes the priority on sustainable development, and calls on the Commission to recommend that the conducting of Environmental Impact Assessments be a condition of approvals and an integral part of ongoing evaluation of programmes;

24. Recognizes the positive participation in structural fund programmes by all regions in the UK in contributing expertise and know-how to uphold principles of social and economic cohesion both within the UK and the wider European Union;

25. Welcomes the efforts in the current Department of Environment (DoE) review of administrative procedures to decentralise to local level, but regrets its occurrence at such a late stage in the EU programmes and regrets the total lack of consultation of partners and government offices in the regions in drawing up the guidelines, and is concerned that the additional administrative burden this will create without adequate resourcing at local level could lead to greater delays and underspend;

26. Proposes that the government undertake a full consultation and thorough review of DoE procedures before their implementation;

27. Regrets the under-utilisation of technical assistance funds in some regions and urges programme secretariats to use them to improve the performance and efficiency of the programmes, to replicate models of best practice and to use them as a technical support to encourage high quality innovative projects;

28. Urges the Government Offices in the regions to consider setting up independent secretariats in the English regions;

29. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the government of the United Kingdom.