Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-19-Speech-3-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010919.7.3-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, like Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, I also listened very carefully to the observations made during the debate, which will be of no great surprise to you. Personally, I myself had hoped, at this stage, at the very start of the debate, for a great deal of frankness, criticisms, as I said earlier, and suggestions.
Mr Korakas, you also called for more confidence and regionalisation. I agree. I will make proposals in the new 2004 agenda for increased simplification and regionalisation, but, for me, the limit is to not permit the unravelling or the dismantling of this Cohesion policy which is one of the great and one of the strongest Community policies at the heart of European solidarity.
Mr Berend, like others, has made a criticism, which I accept or at least understand, on the current criteria for per capita GDP. I am open to this type of criticism. But I would like to say that up to this point the criterion seemed the most fair and the most objective to me. It is accepted by all Member States. We have reliable statistics from the instruments we have been supplied with. And before this is changed, we should think hard so as to be as fair and as objective as we are with this criterion of per capita GDP.
Mrs Darras, let me make it clear that when the time is right, I will put forward a regional and cohesion policy that will involve all EU countries. Naturally, we shall concentrate, as we have today, on the poorest regions and countries, for this is the true meaning of cohesion, created so that we can opt out of such a scheme when we are successful. I am not at all of the opinion that I should create a policy that would ignore other regions that have fewer difficulties but have specific projects and problems all the same, sometimes areas where there is much poverty. I will therefore, when the time is right, propose a policy that will involve, with different degrees of intensity depending on the level of development, all regions in Europe and all countries in Europe, while endeavouring – I am responding here to Mr. Lage – to treat all of these regions even-handedly, in particular so as to avoid, Mr Lage, the mechanical effect that I myself raised in the cohesion report and the statistical effect that could, if applied without due care and attention, penalise regions currently within the EU.
All the same, if you would allow me, I would like to say that I was disappointed by the remarks made by Mr Simpson earlier. I think they are particularly unfair. In a different way, Mr Izquierdo Collado has also shown a degree of impatience. With this in mind, I would ask each one of you, however, to be fair to the Commission. Since Mr Simpson wanted us to hark back to the past, by citing the name of a woman for whom I have a great deal of respect and friendship, my predecessor Mrs Wulf-Matthis, I would like to remind you of the timetable of the previous debate on the Berlin agenda. The forum that opened the debate for the Berlin agenda took place in 1996 for a 1999 European Council meeting opening the 2000-2006 agenda. Three years beforehand! If I had worked to the same timetable, it is not in January 2001 that I would have set the date for the start of the debate, it would be in two years time, in 2003.
You cannot seriously be telling me today that the Commission is not aggressive enough, that you are waiting for us to make proposals. We are opening this debate two years early without taboos, without waiting for enlargement to have taken place. Once more, therefore, I would ask you to be fair with the Commission, and, when the time is right, after I have listened to you, listened to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the regions themselves and the Member States, you can count on me to show how bold I can be, how aggressive I can be if I have to, and to make tough proposals. But do not ask me today to conclude a debate that has only just started, two years in advance in relation to normal procedures. I have shown transparency. I have shown openness with the European Parliament. And I find it quite unfair that you have come here today to reproach me.
Having said this, I would like to say to President Hatzidakis, to Mrs Schroedter, to Mr Duin, to Mr Gasòliba i Böhm and to Mr Markov, who have, if I have understood them correctly, insisted more in their speeches on current management, that I agree with many of their remarks, to their calls for better take-up, the respect of commitments, the concern for true partnership in the regions. And I am, with the Directorate-General team, extremely concerned to ensure that the words found in the regulations – partnership, good take-up, rigour, parity, as well as others –become reality.
In a few days time I shall appear, President Hatzidakis, before your Committee to tell you where we stand on 1994-1999 and on the subject of take-up that I hope is now finalised for the previous period, where there were still funds that were not used before 1994, and also to raise the alarm on the implementation of commitments and the first take-up of appropriations in the current period. I will make a very clear and very objective point to the Committee on Regional Policy.
Mr Markov has once again raised the issue of border regions. I recognise, Mr Markov, that the response we gave with Mr Verheugen is not entirely satisfactory in relation to the problems of border regions, but once more in this particular case, do not ask me today for more than I can give, for we work within a framework of which you are well aware, which you have approved, which is the Berlin framework. I have my own financial framework, which I cannot deviate from. I shall use all the margins of flexibility and manoeuvre possible, but I am, until 2006, obliged to work within the Berlin framework, and I cannot deviate from this.
Mr Pohjamo, and others, brought up the subject of the financing of enlargement. Mr Pohjamo, I have to tell you that it is not for the Commission to make decisions on this matter. It is for the Council, the Council of Heads of State and Government in 2006, based on the proposals we make, and whilst we are on this subject I would like to say, as I could have said later to Mr Nogueira Román, Mr Walter, Mr Mastorakis and Mr Pittella, who talked about the aims and values of the EU as set out in this cohesion policy, I would like to say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that in 2006 we will only make the right financial decisions if we first have a true and worthwhile political debate and if, naturally, within the framework of this debate and after this debate, the Commission, playing its proper role, puts forward proposals that are courageous and strong willed. You can count on myself, Mrs Diamantopoulou and Mr Fischler to put forward the positions and proposals that will follow whilst adapting and reforming cohesion policy. But allow me to tell you that in order to succeed with this challenge in 2004 or 2005, I need true political debate beforehand. I need you to provide the proof right here, in your countries and in talking to people about the usefulness of this regional policy, the need for it, its effects. If we do not provide this proof, then we should fear the ultimate financial decisions when they are made. I would invite you, therefore, in your political groups, amongst yourselves, between countries and regions, to participate in this debate, to react to the initial course led by the Commission and to make proposals yourselves.
Mrs Raschhofer, you said we need to make reforms. I do not know if we have understood each other, but the debate is taking place for that reason and I am hoping that it will pave the way for reforms. In your speech, you used a word that I cannot ignore, because we must be very careful with the words we use. You talked about fraud. Personally, I am extremely strict. I am also ruthless on this question of rigour in the management of Structural Funds. There are probably errors. There are probably delays. There are often irregularities. But I have not observed in the reports from the Court of Auditors and the Parliament’s own Committee on Budgets and Committee on Budgetary Control, that they have revealed many cases of fraud in relation to the management of Structural Funds. As for errors, delays or irregularities, we will progressively reduce these by taking the attitude I have just pointed out.
Mr Jarzembowski has himself also started to participate in this debate, which I thank him for. So that there is no misunderstanding, when I mentioned the territorial dimension of the future policy, you will also see, Mr Jarzembowski, that in the cohesion report, I pointed out the title ‘Unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory’ This is perhaps an idea that we can incorporate into the new and future Objective II policy, if there is still an Objective II policy, as I hope there is, that rather than creating a bit of bureaucracy, a bit of zoning, we should decentralise this policy using several European priorities we shall choose together. For each of these priorities, there could be a financial instrument in service, several financial instruments for the various major objectives that you have hoped and prayed for: assisting regions that have long-lasting natural handicaps, assisting urban policy, assisting cross-border cooperation. These are a few examples of territorial objectives. We can also find thematic goals such as the information society."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples