This is a hoary chestnut with you, is it not, Mr McMahon? Let us be clear about this money that it is being suggested is not being spent. That is not true. The overall allocation for Structural Fund objectives, including Objectives 3 and 4, that was to be devoted to human resource development was all decided in Edinburgh. The regional objectives - the mix of priorities that Member States would wish to see funded - are a matter for the Member States. The outcome of the negotiations with the Member States in formulating their plans decides how the money is eventually spent. There is a reduction in the relative share of Structural Fund money devoted to human resources. In some cases there is an increase in what the Member States sought. In other cases I have been able to negotiate that they should make more use in increasing the spending on human resource development because of the use of the deflator over the next few years.

But you must remember that the 1994 budget for Structural Funds spent, as agreed here in the House, was a provisional budget. It was always clearly understood and stated here that we could not finally decide exactly how much would eventually be spent until the negotiations with the Member States on their national regional plans had taken place. That is the reason why there is less needed now as a consequence of the negotiations that took place. What you have now reflects the outcome of the negotiations and is not a low level of commitment in comparison to the resources that were programmed. That is important. It reflects the priorities of the Member States as reflected in their national and regional plans, particularly insofar as Objective 1 is concerned.

In real terms - this is very important, Mr McMahon - there is much more money going to the Social Fund than during the previous programming period. It is important to make that clear. There is no money being lost. True, you had allocated more, until such time as the negotiations of the plans were concluded. But there is nothing being lost. More is being spent on human resource development.

Insofar as Objective 4 is concerned, the United Kingdom has not sent in a CSF in support of Objective 4 spending. But this does not mean that flexibility is being extended to any Member State opting out. That is not being contemplated. True, Objective 4 - no plans submitted, so far. But each Member State must, over the period of six years, develop actions under Objective 4.

The CSF for Objective 3 for 1994 - 1996 leaves room insofar as the United Kingdom is concerned for the production of a CSF on Objective 4. The money has been held back to accommodate that. It is my intention over the six-year period, in accordance with the agreement that we had here on the whole regulation, that every single Member State will apply its Objective 4 allocation over the six-year period up to the amount of money that we agreed. It has not happened yet with one Member State but certainly it is my intention that it should happen.