Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020924.10.2-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to take a few moments to confirm what I said earlier and provide some more detailed answers. I would also like to thank the speakers who have clearly understood what I meant earlier, particularly Mr Pittella who pointed out just now that the Member States have some responsibilities. But, to be very honest, Mr Watts must have misunderstood: the Commission is not shirking its responsibilities. I myself am greatly concerned, Mr Watts, by the underspending. I must simply reiterate that my work is based on estimates which are compiled by the Member States.
Lastly, I would like to point out that, with regard to all these problems, and I am coming to my conclusion, Mr President, the Commission is not shirking its responsibilities. I am trying to favour transparency, to explain the truth and to be proactive in terms of transparency, as I have just said, as well as in terms of simplification, as this is the purpose of the meeting on 5 October with the ministers. I would also like to emphasise how the useful role played by the Structural Funds in improving governance on the ground, in the regions and in each country which is in need of them, including the oldest countries of the Union. In the area of partnerships, assessments, discipline and planning, the role they fulfil is that of a lever. I would like to convince you of their importance. The Structural Funds do not just represent money, they also represent real progress in terms of public administration, governance and, ultimately, democracy.
There are some details that I must give to you, or confirm for you, which have been in evidence for three years, in other words, since I took up this position. For example, the Member States gave priority, at the beginning of this programming period, not to new programmes and to new projects, but to old programmes and to old projects which should have been completed. They therefore concentrated their efforts on winding up old programmes and they took longer to prepare the new programmes. This is one reason.
A new method of certification was also introduced, which caused some problems. We should also mention the new payment system. All sorts of rules were adopted in Berlin or after Berlin, which I am obliged to introduce. I would also add that many Member States – and Mrs Fiebiger mentioned the crisis and the lack of growth earlier – must cope with relative budgetary difficulties. I would point out that we are not funding the programmes 100%. There is an additionality rule whereby the Member States must provide part of the funding and some of them probably found it necessary to stretch their budgetary expenditure further.
These are some of the details that you will find in the report and the communication that Mrs Schreyer and myself have given you.
With regard to the RALs, once again, I think that it is usual to have approximately two years of programming since this is in line with the N+2 rule – so that makes about seven years of programming and two additional years in total. What would be unusual is for us to continue to support, through the RALs, very old programmes. That is why my work seeks, as a matter of priority, as I said to you at the beginning, to withdraw the RALs from the old programmes, which has almost been achieved. I would also warn you against drawing an assessment of the situation from one moment to the next. When you look at the RALs, at the beginning of the year for example, you do not gain an accurate picture because, although almost 99% of expenditure was committed in April, the payments can be made up to the end of the year. Therefore, at the beginning of the year, it looks as if the RALs are substantial. That is how the figure of 100 billion may have been arrived at. As I am speaking to you today, namely 24 September, the RALs for the old and new programmes amount to approximately 50 billion, which is an accurate reflection of these two years of programming.
Mrs Schroedter, whom I would like to thank, moreover, for the work that she has done – and I am thinking, in particular, of her excellent report on the second progress report on cohesion – emphasised the issue of sustainable development. Mrs Schroedter, rest assured that I am keeping a very close eye on ensuring that the Structural Funds are implemented as per the regulation and in accordance with European directives on the environment. For all sorts of political and personal reasons, I am working to ensure that the Member States, both present and future, use the Structural Funds in the appropriate manner, with respect for sustainable development. That is why for example, Mrs Schroedter, I decided to propose, with regard to the consequences of the floods, that, in the future regional policy that I shall submit to you at the end of 2003, whilst consolidating what we have already done under these programmes, the prevention of natural risks is virtually a compulsory priority in all the regional programmes.
The N+2 rule is strict, but it is useful. Once again, as for natural disasters, I have placed the emphasis on prevention. Last November, I wrote to all the Prime Ministers, as did Mrs Schreyer. Since prevention still costs less than restoration, we hope that this will enable us to reduce the risk, Mr Pittella, of appropriations being wasted. At the end of the year, since it is the first meeting, the risks of wasting money under the N+2 rule will be very low. The risks will probably be higher next year, because, since the programmes were signed in 2001, the effects will be felt in 2003 under the N+2 rule.
As far as the floods are concerned, Mrs Fiebeger, you urged us to act quickly. To be very honest – and many German and Austrian leaders pointed this out to us – rarely has the Commission reacted quite so quickly to current events. It took us less than four weeks to propose a flexible budgetary instrument, with Mrs Schreyer’s leadership. A few days later, I proposed the rules and arrangements for this fund to the Commission. The ball is in the European Parliament’s court. Last night, the Council held a trialogue meeting. I hope that we will be in a position, before the end of the year, before winter, in other words to grant the appropriations which are expected so that restoration, repair and even prevention work can begin.
Regarding the social dialogue, I listened carefully to the questions which have been put to us. They concern, in the main, Heading 3, and Mrs Schreyer or Mrs Diamantopolou will answer them later."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples