Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.3.2-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my report is really a combination of four separate reports. From this point of view I should like to thank Commissioner Schreyer for attending. I hope that, through her, the managers responsible more specifically for the administration of the Structural Funds, both in the Commission and in the Member States, will be made aware of the content of our report and of our conclusions, since this matter concerns the Structural Funds, which, as we know, are generally managed by the Member States directly.
So, to the four distinct reports: one report on the principle of additionality, one report on the development of industrial sites, a third report from the Court of Auditors on the European Social Fund and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section) – Measures to assist the employment of young persons, and a fourth report on the International Fund for Ireland and the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. Regarding this last report, I should particularly like to thank the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism for its contribution. Our Committee took on board all the amendments they presented.
Although these four subjects are quite distinct, the same sort of comments can be made about them all, and these are of three types. Firstly, the major criticisms which may be levelled at the Commission with regard to the administrative procedures which the Court of Auditors, like us, considers too time-consuming and too complex and which occasionally hinder the smooth running of projects. It must be said that the same criticisms are also made of Member States. There is never sufficient monitoring once projects are underway, either at grass roots or from Brussels. The same lack of resources and staffing is continually remarked upon – other speakers have raised it on other points – even despite the frequent comments by the Court of Auditors on the subject.
The Commission is currently engaged in a radical reform of its organisation and is asking for additional resources. I hope that Parliament, which has always believed in the myth of the zero growth of officials despite the multiplication in their duties, will accept the Commission’s proposals and objectives and will also step up its monitoring tasks and its role. Obviously, this will cause some overlapping of funding, since funding is not sufficiently well monitored, and hence the poor use of European appropriations. The final criticism that may be made concerns the delays in payments, a recurrent problem which the Commission does not appear to be capable of resolving or putting a stop to.
Secondly, a major criticism that I would like us to emphasise in our dealing with the Member States is the poor use of appropriations, often due to a lack of cooperation between the Member States and the Commission, and the reluctance of the Member States to make better use of the funds. Too often they are treated as donations, funds to be substituted for national funds. In some instances, the Member States attach little importance to the principle of additionality which stipulates that this is cofinancing which must be complemented by national financing. They seem to think the funds cover 100% of the financing, which is clearly not in line with the reasoning behind the Structural Funds and their use. The Member States should not forget that these are public funds and, as such, the concern of all the citizens of Europe. They should hence be used with even more care than national funds.
In order to remedy such inefficiencies, a new regulation was adopted in June 1999, which I hope will enable us to make progress. When it uncovers inefficiencies we would urge the Commission to use all the means available to it, such as the suspension of payments, and if there is sufficient justification we shall be right behind the Commission in this.
Finally, I think the Commission itself should pay more attention to the eligibility criteria before authorising funds to be released. This would prevent the funding of projects that were not viable and the ‘rag-bag’ projects that are often seen in the Member States. That concludes my comments. Thank you, Mr President, for the extra few seconds you allowed me."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples