Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-17-Speech-5-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000317.5.5-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the purpose of the Structural Funds is to target the poorest and most run-down areas of the European Union, those in greatest need of development, with extra money to help them begin to rebuild the economy, create jobs and regenerate poorer communities. Additionality is meant to ensure that happens and to prevent governments from using EU funding to replace their own aid as this would defeat the object. But in many regions and nations that is what happens at the moment and I can illustrate the problem using the example of Wales. The granting of EU Objective 1 status to West Wales and the Valleys last year was an acknowledgement of the poverty in two-thirds of the country. EUR 1.2 billion of European funding used effectively could provide exactly the additional help that is intended. But if we look at the government budget to Wales, in practice there will be no more government spending next year with Objective 1 than there is this year before Objective 1.
The National Assembly budget which comes from the Treasury remains the same so that in the first fifteen months, at least, of the new programme period there are no additional resources at all. The money will be taken from other budgets in the National Assembly, such as health and education. Therefore central government expenditure is reduced.
Under the Structural Funds, areas of greatest need are identified and selected on regional criteria. Yet when the Commission looks at additionality it is dealt with on a Member State level. This is a clear contradiction. The rules as they stand allow this to happen. Member States are not legally required to demonstrate additionality at the regional or programme level. I agree with the statement made by Commissioner Barnier in a written reply to me when he said that the spirit of additionality rather than the letter of the law on the matter is an important consideration.
We need the revision of the system and a central part of that is looking at additionality internally in the Member States at the programme level as well as at the Member State level. Mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that Member States respect the principle and the spirit of additionality so that funds are targeted and spent effectively. So we are asking in this question, Commissioner, for confirmation that this will be done and I look forward to the vote on this debate in April."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples