Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-162"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020924.10.2-162"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I would like to say to Mr Puerta and to Mrs Jensen that I very much appreciate, as do all my colleagues, their thanks for our work to provide an objective explanation, particularly by means of the communication on budgetary implementation that Mrs Schreyer has just presented to you. As you can imagine, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was out of a concern for transparency that I launched this new debate and it was out of the same concern that I appeared before the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and before the Committee on Budgets. On 17 July, the Committee on Budgets clarified the situation regarding management.
In the communication, we strived – and Mrs Jensen has just touched upon this – to realistically identify the causes of the under-implementation for 2000-2001 and the risks for 2002, and to explain the measures taken to rectify the backlog. Simplification is another area on which we are about to set to work. I proposed to all the Ministers, in the presence of the chairs of the parliamentary committees concerned, to begin working on this issue on 7 October, and we provided a working document for immediate simplification within the framework of the Berlin regulation and by using or seeking out all the possible ways to enable simplification. I hope you will agree that making a policy even more simple after 2006 is a different matter altogether.
That is why, having carried out all this work to explain the situation, I do not agree with the term ‘negligence’ that Mr Seppänen used earlier. If there had been negligence on the part of the Commission regarding the RALs, the extent of which I recognise since I mentioned this, how can you explain the fact, Mr Seppänen, that the results are so different from one country to another? I said and I repeat that almost all of the RALs are a problem for four countries out of fifteen and I would hope that we expose where the responsibilities really lie. I would like you to avoid using unfair terms to describe the Commission’s work.
As for the 2003 budget, I am certain that the ceiling of the financial perspectives will not be exceeded. I would therefore like to say to Mr Puerta, in an attempt to reassure him, that we did not believe it would now be necessary to go above this ceiling. The Member States’ requests will, without doubt, be higher than the appropriations provided by the Commission under the 2000-2006 Structural Funds, but we can learn lessons from the past. In our communication, we analysed the problems which arose and we are therefore taking a slightly more cautious approach. It is likely that we will be up to speed – with 27 to 30 billion payments per year – in 2004. Until then, we shall remain slightly below the 25 billion that is required.
There is a risk that the needs for 2003 will be higher for two lines. The first line is the completion of the 1994-1999 programmes. This year, the Member States are taking their time in forwarding their requests for final payment. It is likely therefore that we will have underspending in 2002 and an increased need in 2003, which should however be able to be covered by carrying sums over. The second line which may require additional appropriations is the Cohesion Fund. After two years of underspending in 2002 and 2001, the measures taken to speed up the programmes’ closure are bearing fruit. It is likely that more than 3 billion will be paid this year and if that is the case, the 2.5 billion that we requested in 2003 could turn out to be insufficient. My personal view is that, if Parliament wished to increase this allocation by 500 million, this would not present a problem.
Lastly, Mr Virrankoski, Mrs Jensen herself and Mr Puerta mentioned the extremely strict rule that is known as N+2. It is true that this rule enforces discipline and good management. It was designed to do exactly that and was approved by Parliament. But it also creates a gap: N+2 leaves two years between commitment and payment. That is why the RALs are probably going to rise. It also takes two years of programming in order to reach EUR 60 billion. To be honest, when you see the quality of the projects concerned, the nature of this significant investment, two years of programming do not seem excessive. I think that the N+2 discipline is certainly preferable to carrying over all the cancellations at the end of the period, which is what we should have done as part of the previous programming for 1994-1999.
These are the points that I wanted to clarify, Mr President, at the beginning of this discussion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples