Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-17-Speech-5-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000317.5.5-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am going to refer to a subject that none of the previous speakers has discussed. I am referring to the report by the Court of Auditors on the principle of additionality. This is a report that was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 9 March.
This report contains a very interesting section – section 62 – that discusses privatisation. Over the past few years, various European Union governments have enthusiastically embarked on a policy of privatisation placing the heritage which previously belonged to the community in very few hands. In Spain, for example, over the last four years, public companies have been privatised to the tune of 4 billion, with a B for Barcelona or Brussels. These public companies have passed into the hands of private individuals.
Mr Liikanen is an expert in accounting, and knows that privatisation is a form of public disinvestment and, specifically, that it can be a form of regional disinvestment. If, for example, an airline providing regional services was privatised, regional disinvestment could occur, and we would thus be infringing the principle of additionality.
The Court of Auditors has referred to this, saying that Member States are aware that spending decreases as a result of privatisation and it is in their interests to reduce it. Taking into account the importance of the categories of spending affected, telecommunications, energy, etc., this simple operation can substantially modify the final result.
And we also have the response by the Commission, which must be very recent, and which Commissioner Liikanen, as a member of the College, must remember perfectly. The Commission replies here with a system that we call the Olendorf method, a method of language-learning that consists of the teacher asking the student “Have you got my uncle's underpants?” and the student replying “No, but I have my grandmother's glasses”. And the response given to us by the Commission in section 62 is very short. It says: "Although the private sector sometimes invests in sectors that are traditionally considered public, it would be incredibly difficult to increase the verification of additionality in private investments, as this would imply the collection and examination of the accounts of a number of private companies which would not be obliged to provide the corresponding information to the national authorities or to the Commission”. That is, the Commission is replying using the Olendorf method. We have here Commissioner Liikanen who knows the subject very well, and perhaps he could give us a more specific response, as I believe that this considerably affects the core of additionality.
The second issue is that the Berlin financial forecasts anticipated a substantial reduction in the Structural Funds. This year we have EUR 29 430 million. In the year 2006 we will have a nominal figure of EUR 26 600 million, that is to say, a reduction of 14% over seven years. Taking into account inflation, I can calculate that there is a reduction of 20%. That is, from now until 2006, the Structural Funds will lose over 20% compared with the current figure, which means that it will be very difficult to meet the needs we are meeting today and, as we have heard, there are still many problems in many Community regions.
There is a further problem, which should also not be hidden from the Commission or the members of this House: we are talking about the impending enlargement of the European Union with thirteen new Member States, most of which have a far lower average income than that of the poorest regions of the Community and there are no plans to fulfil cohesion policies with regard to these candidate Member States. I know that the Commission will not be able to give me a reply on this question, but I am drawing the attention of the House and the Commissioner to the problem that this will cause with regard to Community cohesion policies."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples