Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-17-Speech-1-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000117.5.1-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my great interest in listening carefully to the comments, occasional criticisms and suggestions that some of you have just made in your speeches with reference to Mrs Schroedter’s report. Everyone understands, Mrs Schroedter, ladies and gentlemen, the reasons and the time limits involved – and I shall come back to this point presently – and whatever the time limits or delays, since we are discussing this report right now, as the representative for the Commission, I consider that the report has been issued at an opportune moment with regard to the guidelines for 2000-2006 as it is now that we are starting the new regional programming.
Finally, and in order to respond to the concerns which you have expressed in this House, particularly yourself, Mrs Schroedter, in these guidelines we recall the importance and the definition of integrated strategies, for development or redevelopment, which, of all the priorities, offer the maximum opportunity to synergy, to the measures undertaken and to the establishment of a decentralised partnership. You expressed some concern about what might look like a lack of reference to this partnership, yet there is a clear reference to it on page 5 of the guidelines. However, I do wish to mention – since you have asked me to do so – that, as far as I am concerned, this partnership – and I spent long enough as a regional administrator within my own country to be able to say this most sincerely – is a tool, one used to involve local brainpower, be it in the public sector, in the form of elected representatives, the social and educational sectors, associations, or in the private sector; a decentralised partnership, and let me mention in this connection, in response to Mrs Angelilli, the territorial pacts, which are one of the means available to this decentralised partnership.
These are the reasons why the guidelines are presented according to thematic priorities, since they must be taken into consideration, under each of the objectives, to different extents in accordance with the specific situations of each of the Member States and regions.
I should now like to respond briefly to a few of the comments you have made, ladies and gentlemen, and firstly on procedure. It is true that consultation with Parliament has only come about at a late date. Let me remind you that when the guidelines were adopted by the Commission, in the form of a draft in February 1999, in line with a new procedure intended to make it easier to present comments on this text, my predecessor, Mrs Wulf-Mathies, presented them to Parliament immediately. Due to the elections to the European Parliament taking place around this time, however, Parliament was not able to undertake its examination of these guidelines until after the text had been definitively adopted, in July 1999.
Here in this Chamber, ladies and gentlemen, among you, I wish to assure you that in the negotiations for the programmes which are only just beginning – Mr Hatzidakis asked me a question about this – as far as Member States are concerned, your observations will certainly be taken into consideration. And let me assure you, furthermore, that when the Commission adopts the guidelines with what we call the mid-term review in mind, in line with the regulations, then the point of view of this House, as expressed in this report, will also be taken into account.
Now to the form. On the subject of the role of the guidelines, Mrs Schroedter, you pointed out that this is the context in which guidelines on a number of European objectives, often very precise ones, should be provided. I shall not list them all, but they include implementing intersectoral policies, increasing efficiency in the use of public funds, assisting the various partners in drawing up regional or national programming together, etc. The Commission takes note of these, but several of these guidelines or these questions are related more to other documents, such as the Guide to the Reform of the Structural Funds or the methodological working document.
Drawing to a close, I should like to focus on a number of challenges which you reiterated, Mrs Schroedter. I am thinking, for example, of the idea that these guidelines are not specific enough in their recommendations. This claim that your report makes must be seen in the context of last spring’s negotiations. The Commission kept to the actual text of Article 10 of the Structural Funds regulations, which stipulates that the aim of these guidelines is to provide Member States with broad, indicative guidelines on relevant and agreed Community policies. I actually quoted the text itself, in quotation marks. Moreover, the guidelines may not substitute for the programming or the
assessments which must be the tool used to specify priorities and the effectiveness of these programmes.
You then mentioned, Mrs Schroedter, the section of the guidelines relating to urban and rural development, pointing out that urban development was not sufficiently taken into consideration. I find the opposite the case. I wish to confirm the great importance the Commission attaches, and shall attach, to the urban dimension of our cohesion policy. Indeed, I had occasion recently to say as much to all the ministers responsible for urban policy at a meeting in Tampere.
As regards rural development, which a number of you brought up, particularly Mrs Redondo Jiménez, the guidelines are in line with the twofold objective mentioned by your rapporteur: a strong agricultural sector linked with increased competitiveness in rural areas, but also protection of the environment and Europe’s rural heritage. It must, however, be stressed that the guidelines under discussion are related only to the Structural Funds, whose Objectives 1 and 2 specifically adopt the diversification of rural society as a priority. And indeed, on the subject of the balance of rural society, let us not forget that there is also the new rural development policy cofinanced by the EAGGF Guarantee Section, aimed at promoting reform in European agriculture and supporting the multifunctional aspect of agriculture. At this stage, I would simply like to say that I would like to see it integrated into the programming for Objective 2 rural areas, in the way that the EAGGF Guidance Section is for Objective 1 regions. In any event, I appreciate the vigilance of your Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in this matter.
Before concluding, I should like to tell Mr Savary that we are going to have a special debate tomorrow on the consequences of the storms which have struck France, Austria and Germany, in particular, in the last few weeks, and at the same time we shall once again be discussing, together with my fellow Commissioner, Mrs de Palacio, what lessons we might draw in the matter of the oil spillage which has also affected the coasts of France. I shall therefore reserve the right, if you permit, sir, to give you my own opinion, which, to a great extent, matches your own recommendation regarding what action we might take to combat the oil spillage using Objective 2. I shall remind you that the Commission is going to be approving the Objective 2 zoning plans for France, Sweden, Austria and Luxembourg tomorrow. We shall then have an appropriate tool for working, particularly in the majority of the regions affected by the storms. Indeed, this is my reason for paying a personal visit the day after tomorrow to two of the French departments which have been severely disabled by the storms.
In conclusion, with thanks for your understanding, Mr President, I should like to thank you, Mrs Schroedter, for the quality of your work and that of the committee, and to tell you that I am very pleased, apart from a few differences in our assessments of the role of the guidelines. We have discussed this and I have attempted to clarify my point of view. I am very pleased with the level of support offered by your House to the Commission in establishing these guidelines, which have been submitted to the Member States for information when establishing their own programmes. This can only reinforce the concept based on a number of elements of good practice drawn from our experience of the current 1994-1999 programmes. I feel this augurs well for effective cooperation between our two institutions, at this time when programming for the period 2000-2006 is being undertaken, good joint working practice, which is, Mr Hatzidakis, backed up by something I am very attentive to: observance of the code of conduct which links our two institutions.
Mrs Schroedter, you quite rightly pointed out that while it is chiefly up to the Member States and the regions to define their own priorities in development matters, European Union cofinancing of the programmes requires, and is the justification for, a situation where Community priorities as debated and approved in this House should also be taken into account in order to promote this Community aspect of economic and social cohesion which many of you forcefully pointed out.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I should like in a moment to return to the role and structure of the guidelines before mentioning the principal comments and criticisms that you, Mrs Schroedter, and the various Members of this House, have made.
Regarding the role and structure of these guidelines, Mr Hatzidakis, Mrs Schroedter and Mrs McCarthy mentioned that the purpose of these guidelines is to assist national and regional authorities in preparing their programming strategy for each of Structural Fund Objectives 1, 2 and 3 as well as their links with the Cohesion Funds. This means putting forward the Commission’s priorities, based on past experience in implementing the programmes, as well as current Community policies relating to structural operations. The objective is that these priorities should contribute to the better use, to the optimum and efficient use, as some of you have wished, of Community involvement, including, Mr Bradbourn, using, if necessary, the performance reserve which is specifically intended to encourage the optimum and efficient use of European public monies. When I speak of optimum utilisation, I am referring both to the national and regional levels. And so, Mr Seppänen, I shall also mention at this point, speaking of the national level, the link with the Cohesion Fund. This is the purpose of these guidelines.
Regarding their content, as you know, ladies and gentlemen of this House, they are focused on three strategic priorities that your rapporteur pointed out very clearly but, at the same time, very passionately, as I understood her presentation just now. The first priority is to improve the competitiveness of regional economies in order to create, in all sectors, but especially in the private sector, as Mr Berend said, the maximum number of serious, worthwhile and permanent jobs, the competitiveness of regional economies, all regional economies, and in particular, Mr Evans, that of Wales, but not only of Wales. And, because there are a number of you who have just pointed out what appeared to you to be an omission, let me also add the regional economies of the European regions handicapped by their distance from the centre, be they remote regions, island regions or, of course, the most remote regions which are, naturally, the most distant.
Perhaps I may inform Mr Ribeiro e Castro, who asked me about this, that, as I wrote to the presidents of each of these most remote regions, the Commission did indeed request an extension of several weeks before publishing its anticipated report. Concerning the most remote regions, it was only quite belatedly that we received the memorandums from the various governments, but this is not necessarily an excuse, just an explanation. We must therefore take these memorandums into consideration and produce an extremely thorough piece of work. I myself took part in a meeting of the most remote regions on 23 November and, within the College, we considered that we would need several more weeks before being able to produce a report that dealt appropriately with the extremely serious problems and lived up to the expectations of these most remote regions. I would thank you for your understanding in this matter. So that is the first priority, the competitiveness of regional economies.
The second priority, which several of you have stressed, Mr Puerta in particular, but there were others, not that I am mentioning them in any order of priority, is the strengthening of social cohesion and of employment, particularly by raising the profile of human resources far more so than in the past.
Ladies and gentlemen, we now have a European Union where the disparities between countries are observed to be less great, proving the effectiveness and worth of the Cohesion Fund, but where, at the same time, in relation to unemployment – as you wrote, Mrs Schroedter – an increasing gap exists between the 15 or 20 richest regions and the 15 or 20 poorest or most disadvantaged regions. This is a situation which is, as it should be, unjustifiable and intolerable. As far as I am concerned – taking into account my own concept of the construction of Europe and regional development policy in particular – this is a situation which I find unacceptable and I have every intention, as far as possible, with your support, of dedicating all the appropriations for which I am responsible to this improved social, human and territorial cohesion, particularly in order to prevent what I once called in this House a two-speed Europe, a Europe of wealthy districts but, at the same time, a Europe of impoverished areas.
The third objective is urban and rural development, within the scope of a balanced territorial policy. In fact, the guidelines take two horizontal principles into account. The first is rural development, and let me say, Mrs Schroedter, that I am including in rural development the matter of sustainable transport, an issue I have been involved in personally for a long time. I particularly remember the time when I was Minister for the Environment in my own country. The second principle is that of equal opportunities, particularly for men and women, as well as the European strategy for employment and the context of economic and monetary Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples